text:
In the early 70's, Robert Doornick began hang gliding and introduced the sport to the East Coast. He also helped make it safer and spread the word about it to tens of thousands of people. In this last part of his exciting story, Robert describes some insights into how a hang glider pilot thinks and sees and also how a hang glider flies.
An open field, road or other hard surfaces were like a frying pan that absorbed and reflected the heat of the sun, creating rising hot air thermals that could be used as makeshift elevators as you calculated their location and angular course then penetrated them to leverage their upward path. Trees on the other had represented the cooler areas, but when flying over the steep inclines of mountains, those trees provided a gliding path for the distant wind to make its way up the face of that mountain, supplying the pilot with yet another rising—lifting—current of air.
As you carefully evaluated the smoothness of the land below, or its occasional bumps and crevices, so would you be able to anticipate how these land masses would affect the behavior of the wind, its clean and beneficial rise up towards the top of the mountain, its possible turbulence or a mix of both. Be it smooth air or turbulence, these elements would be amplified by the speed of the wind with the usual mathematical equation (as the wind speed doubles, its impact on objects and surfaces it encounters —including your hang glider—quadruples. Understanding such principles would become a most humbling experience; helping the savvy hang glider pilot to know where, when and why to fly. Thus, standing atop a mountain on a beautiful sunny day with a pleasant breeze caressing your face could indeed be a misleading impression, unless one was able to properly "read" the terrain below and the meteorological conditions. As such; cloud formations, land forms, behavior of tree leaves and other important factors became your map to what was happening in the otherwise invisible space before you.
Most importantly, and with the simple study of aerodynamics; I learned how an aircraft wing functions and maintains flight in mid-air. Air is not going only under the wing. The leading edge is cambered, so that the air splits in two layers both over and under the wing, with the two layers eventually catching up to each other at the rear of the wing—the trailing edge. Because of the curvature of the upper wing surface, the upper half of flowing air has more distance to travel and—through simple compression forces—those air molecules go faster to catch up to the more slowly traveling air molecules passing on the less resistant and more direct path of the lower half of the wing. In this process, a curvature is created over the wing's top, with a void underneath. Aerodynamically, a suction effect is created. So the air passing over the top is in truth "lifting" the wing, rather than air underneath pushing the wing up.
When the air molecules on top meet the air molecules at the bottom, they rejoin and continue their former speed. This is true whether an engine is pushing the wing or gravity is doing it, always with each wing having a lift over drag ratio, which is how many feet of descent for every forward foot to get the lift. This is why planes always take off and land into the wind.


text:
Jean Feinberg, Artist's Statement:
"My work is abstract and non-objective, characterized by a sparse sense of geometry and a lush, rich, and complex color. The language of abstraction is a flexible and suggestive language with the ability to evoke a range of associations, and non-specific emotional or meditative responses, free from specific references or imagery.
Though the term constructions may best describe what I do, I consider the works more related to painting than sculpture because of the frontal orientation meant to be seen on the wall, and the importance of color and color relationships. My interest in the intersection between painting and object, with work that calls attention to its physicality, has been an ongoing characteristic of my work throughout my painting life.
In the current work, the salvaged wood is often origin and/or counterpoint to the color interventions, which stand clearly defined in opaque, matte, and uninflected paint application. Color notations or the use of found color in the form of paint chips or colored papers have become a foundational part of my working process despite the fact that the decisions about color are intuitive.
Landscape, light and weather, place and incidental moment, joy and wonder in color and color mixing/seeing are my ongoing inspiration."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Duties of the Seller:
Under Section 8 there is no implied condition that the goods exist, the reason being that where the goods perish at the time of the contract the contract is void. If the existence of the goods were an implied condition, then the section would read that where the goods perished at the time of the contract the contract would be voidable. Under S. 8 there is no implied condition that the goods exist at the time of the contract because where goods perish at the time of the contract getting entered into, the contract is voidable.
Under Section 14 of Cap 31 the seller has a duty to pass a good title and under the Act, there is an implied condition that the seller shall pass a good title to the buyer. The seller has a right to sell the goods either he has the title or has authority to sell the goods. The seller is in effect under an obligation to pass a good title to the buyer. A good title is a title without any encumbrances.
In a contract of sale there is an implied condition under 14 (a) that in the case of sale he has a right to sell the goods and in the case of an agreement to sell he will have such a right at the time when property is to pass. This requirement does not require that the seller to be the owner, only that he has authority to sell. 14(a)
If there is a breach of a condition, the innocent party has a right to repudiate a contract or if he doesn't choose to repudiate, he has a right to claim for damages (i.e. he will be treating it as breach of a warranty) in the sale of goods the innocent party is allowed to recover monies paid if there is failure to transfer ownership. If seller has no authority then he should not receive your money and you can receive your money back
Read Section 14 (b) and (c) Cap 31
When parties to a sale of goods contract enter into that contract there are certain expectations from both parties. The seller has duties to perform and so does the buyer. These obligations unless discharged, neither can say that they have met the obligations of the contract.
Section 28 – 38 of SALE OF GOODS ACT
The seller has the duty to deliver the goods; in S. 3(1) the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in the goods for a money consideration. Transfer of property is not the same as delivering the goods. In effect if the seller does not have the property in the goods or has no authority to sell, then there is total failure of consideration and if he has paid, the money must be returned but the seller still has a duty to deliver the goods and the buyer has a corresponding duty to accept delivery of the goods in accordance with the terms of the contract. One of the very confusing sections, is Section 29
S. 29. Payment and delivery concurrent condition. To talk of concurrent creates an idea of mutual lack of trust between the parties. S. 29 talks of an impossible method of performing a contract namely concurrent. It also talks of comparables.
S. 30(1) Whether it is for the buyer to take possession of the goods or for the seller to send them to the buyer is
Rules as to delivery. Delivery is at the place of the business of the seller but it can be agreed different. This is a facilitative law and the parties set the pace. Where the seller is to send the goods to the buyer but no time for sending the goods is fixed, the seller is bound to send those goods within reasonable time.
One of the basic problems is that when one places an order for drinks, there is nervous tension as to whether the proceedings are going to move as per the clock. If the drinks are not there by 10a.m, on the 24th December there is anxiety, to put the parties at ease so 10 O'clock on the 24th of December has been held to be an unreasonable hour to deliver drinks for Christmas. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances. When the law talks about reasonableness, they bring in facts that are difficult to measure. One needs to study case law.
4. The third rule of delivery is that where at the time of the contract the goods are not with the possession but in the possession of a 3rd party, the seller does not discharge his obligations to deliver the goods by informing the buyer that the goods are with a 3rd party and that the 3rd party will deliver the goods, this does not discharge the obligations because the duty to deliver the goods is with the seller. An uncertainty is created if when the buyer goes to collect the goods from the seller and complications arise and the buyer is caught unawares that there was an un-payment that the goods must be paid for before delivery can be effected. Delivery is not affected until the 3rd party has informed the buyer that they are holding the goods that were sold to the buyer by the seller. This rule changes the volume of goods to bailment in that the 3rd party is now holding the goods as an agent of the seller. It has to be bailment free of any encumbrances.
There are other rules that tie on the duties of the seller to deliver.
- There has to be a demand from the buyer to the seller to deliver the goods where the time for delivery is not specified. The seller tenders delivery of those goods and the tendering of the goods has to be made at a reasonable hour. Where the seller tenders delivery of drinks for Boxing Day at 11. Am that has been held to be unreasonable. People don't ordinarily start anything until noon on Boxing Day and therefore it is not reasonable to deliver drinks at 11 am on boxing days.
How can we apply Section 19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act Cap 31?
- Expenses and other incidentals of putting the goods in a deliverable state are on the seller unless the contract provides otherwise.
Section 8 and Section 9
S. 9 presupposes that the timing of the passing of property is unknown which is not known as Section 19 and 20 talk of determination of the parties as to when the property is to pass.
Section 31. The duties of the seller to deliver the right quantities of the agreed upon goods.
The buyer may reject the goods if the quantities are not what he ordered. The seller has an undertaking that he will deliver the right quantities of goods as agreed in the contract but should the buyer accept the delivered quantity, then he must pay for the goods at the agreed upon price.
Where the seller delivers goods, which are short of the quantities agreed upon, in both cases higher quantities or lower quantities, he has a right to reject the goods. Similarly where the seller supplies a lesser amount of the goods the buyer still has the right to reject the entire lot but should he accept the lesser quantities he has to pay for the less quantities at the contractual price.
Where the seller delivers mixed goods and some of those goods comply with the contractual terms and others don't meet the contractual agreement, then the buyer has a right to reject all of it or he has also the right to accept those goods that meet the contractual description and reject the ones that don't. He also has the right to accept the total mixed and if he does, then he must pay at the contractual price.
Section 31 (3) has become contentious you remember the case of the 10 cows in calf? Revisit it and think of whether they were mixed goods and what the buyer should have done in this case. If you were the judge what would you decide?
Section 31 (3) we are saying that property has not passed since property only passes when goods are of a given description. Can the buyer and the seller under facilitative law have the option to keep the mixed goods?
Section 32: (1) Unless otherwise agreed the buyer of goods is not bound to accept delivery thereof by instalments.
In this section, you have a contract for the Sale of Goods and once the contract has been entered, its delivery is by instalments and payment is also by instalments.
When sale is by instalments, it is up to the court to determine how to treat a breach of contract. It is usually a unitary contract but performance is by instalments.
Can you rescind a contract where some instalment does not meet the contractual standard? In a situation where one party has performed its obligation, breach of a condition is treated as a warranty and the contract cannot be repudiated. Sale by instalments is a unitary contract where performance is by instalment in which case once the buyer has dealt with the first instalment, he cannot repudiate the contract if one of the other instalments does not meet the standard.
2 possible scenarios – a unitary contract performed by instalments and where each instalment is a contract in its own right.
Section 35. Buyers right of examining the goods
(1) "Where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract."
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound, on request, to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract."
Two questions arise
(i) It is a one key section which goes out to protect the consumer and it is the most direct section in terms of ameliorating the principle of 'Caveat Emptor'.
(ii) The second problem is at whose risk do the goods remain while the buyer is examining them? Who would bear the risk if there was a fire for example?
Section 35 is a useless section in that it presupposes a certain amount of knowledge in the buyer to identify and detect defects in the goods. The law of contract took both parties to be at par in the product knowledge but the sale of goods is asserting that the seller and buyer are not at par.
The critical issue in Section 35 is in keeping in trying to protect the consumer in a market where technology has advanced so much while the consumer is still the way he was in the 1900s. Section 35 deals with simple tangible goods which are not capable of complicated physical condition and the buyer can identify most of the defects. Modern technology has now ruled out the buyer examining good and noticing any tangible defects. Consequently the consumer protection Sections need a total overhaul whereby an independent body can examine goods and certify fitness in respect of when they are to be bought and when they are to be consumed.
The consumer accepts that in light of technology, they have to tell them about the goods. In the wake of technology, the consumer is worse of than he was in 1920. There is nothing you can discover as a consumer from the manufacturer and the government is doing nothing to protect the consumer. The consumer is at risk.
Section 36. Acceptance
"The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them or when the goods have been delivered to him, and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
When he intimates to the seller his acceptance of the goods or after a lapse of reasonable time he intimates to the seller that the goods are okay when they have been delivered to him.
In accordance with Section 35, if you have not examined the goods, you have not accepted them. No property passes until the goods have been examined to ascertain that they conform with the contract.


text:
a Rafflecopter giveaway
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Giveaway for an E-book of Masquerade by Cambria Hebert
a Rafflecopter giveaway
11 comments:
Okay all is well! I am entered!ReplyDelete
yay I entered :) hmm New Years resolution... To get more comfortable with blogging and I'll set a goal of 1,000 followers for next year :O I have no idea if I'll really get that but why not go big :)thanks for the giveaway :)ReplyDelete
My New Year's Resolution is to start a singing career. I love singing, but I've always been too shy to do something about it. So, here's to bravery in 2012!!ReplyDelete
Heidi - Thank you girl! Happy New Year!:DReplyDelete
Christie - Thanks for entering and I have no doubt you'll make it to 1,000 in no time ;D
Alexis - Follow your dreams girlie and don't let a little shyness get in the way. You can do it! Thanks for entering ;D
hhmmm..... my New Year's resolution.... to be more mindful of daily life - to feel the Joy that I choose.ReplyDelete
Thank you, Cheles Bells, for hosting this Giveaway!
Choose Joy!
My New Year's resolution is to read more books :)ReplyDelete
hehe thanks Cheles! I want to win i want to win pick me me me :-P Love ya heheReplyDelete
My New years resolution is to work on my blog so that it becomes a book review blog ^^ReplyDelete
Thanks for the great giveaway!
Thanks, guys! Those are great resolutions! Wishing you a blessed and wonderful 2012!ReplyDelete
Thank you for stopping by our blog! We don't participate in blog tags, and this is an award-free blog; but we do love making new bookish friends. Happy Reading!


text:
September 21, 2007, TD Blog Interview with Randall Larsen
Colonel Randall Larsen, USAF (Ret) is the Founding Director of The Institute for Homeland Security, the National Security Advisor to the Center for Biosecurity, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and the co-host of Public Radio's Homeland Security: Inside and Out. He previously served as the Chairman of the Department of Military Strategy and Operations at the National War College. Colonel Larsen served for 32 years in both the Army and Air Force. He served as a 19-year old Cobra pilot in the 101st Airborne Division in 1968-69 and flew 400 combat missions in Vietnam. He also served as military attaché at the US Embassy in Bangkok, the chief of legislative liaison at the US Transportation Command, and the commander of America's fleet of VIP aircraft at Andrews AFB MD. He is the author of Our Own Worst Enemy: Asking the Right Questions About Security to Protect You, Your Family, and America. On September 11, 2007, I had the privilege of interviewing Col. Larsen. What follows are my interview notes, corrected as appropriate by Col. Larsen.
The Talking Dog: As I find you in New York on September 11, 2007, where were you on September 11, 2001?
Randall Larsen: I was the director of the Institute for Homeland Security in Arlington, Virginia, and was in the office, about 3 miles South West of the Pentagon. Colleagues in the office told me an airplane had struck the World Trade Center. I assumed it was a small plane. When I walked into the conference room to look at the large plasma screen television I saw a large plane hit one of the twin towers. I asked, "Is that a replay?" They said, "No." Look, the other tower is burning." I had begun studying homeland security issues in 1994; at that moment I saw United 175 hit the tower, I knew that the time had finally come.
However, my most frightening moment was actually not 9-11 itself. I was doing a "pre-interview" with the ABC program "20-20", when Howard Rosenberg, one of the producers, said "Tommy Thompson, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has just announced a confirmed case of inhalation anthrax in Florida. At that moment, I was more frightened than I was during any of my 400 missions flown in Viet Nam... I didn't know whether the casualties were going to be in the thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands, or worse... For me, anthrax was the more emotional and disturbing event, for me, than 9-11 itself.
The Talking Dog: You devote a section of your book to discussing the post 9-11 anthrax attacks, or "Amerithrax" as you termed it, which our law enforcement officials have never solved. While the government focused its efforts on an apparent scapegoat (your book doesn't identify him; I'll just call him "Dr. H.") reminiscent of the late Richard Jewell, it seems you have presented a wealth of compelling evidence linking these attacks to a far more likely and not unexpected source... the 9-11 plotters themselves. As far as you can tell, why isn't this more widely known? Also, if you would, talk about how you smuggled a vial of a bacillus into a White House meeting with the Vice-President, and after that, to the extent not classified, what if anything was done vis a vis security measures.
Randall Larsen: The FBI got far off course. The press actually missed the real story, as I saw it, with "the person of interest", insofar as that "Dr. H" had spent two years working in a bio-safe level 4 facility-- working with some of the most dangerous pathogens in the world-- with a bogus resume!
I travel all over the country giving speeches on homeland security. I just talked to the top 340 Senior Executive Service employees of the EPA, and asked them, using state of the art instant voting equipment, how many of them were aware that Mohammad Atta's roommate had cutaneous anthrax... not one of the 340 knew.
Five times a year, I brief top officers of the government and military, and only 1 or 2, if that, ever know! When you take all of the facts I have presented, I'm not suggesting that there would be no reasonable doubt possible, but the anthrax case and 9-11 case were the largest investigation in history! And yet, the FBI has turned up nothing on the anthrax case-- because they went in the wrong direction.
And had one young field agent not faxed that memo about Atta's roomate to my colleague Tom Inglesby, we wouldn't have known either! But you add this to the Robb-Silverman Commission's findings, that Al Qaeda was in the early stages of experimentation with these kind of bio-agents-- and you can see how they could have made at least a small quantity.
This, by the way, is the test tube I showed to the Vice President. It contains a harmless bacillis globigii, though this would be far more anthrax than was contained in the envelope sent to Daschle. I did, indeed, bring this vial into the White House, and showed it to the Vice President in answer to his question "what does bio-weapon look like"? The whole point is that you cannot alter the security procedure to catch this.
Later on, I brought this to the CIA... and while waiting to enter, I made sure the guard (holding the machine gun) saw it as I moved it from one pocket into another. I made sure that it was seen... and the fact is, it doesn't look like a weapon.
On September 20th, when the Secret Service searched my brief case prior to meeting with the VP, one compartment had an N-95 mask (similar to a surgical mask) and the test tube. The agent asked why I was carrying a mask. He asked the wrong question. He should have asked about the test tube. That story has become the metaphor for the entire book. Too many people are asking the wrong questions.
My friend Bill Patrick, who used to work in the offensive germ warfare programs during the Cold War... likes to go into Congressional hearings with a rose sprayer! He has even sprayed the bacillus (it is non-toxic, though frankly, not a good idea, as the particles can nonetheless be inhaled).
The Talking Dog: Also on the subject of the anthrax attacks, I recall how, in October 2001, the office manager of a law firm I was then working in (in strategically meaningless White Plains, NY-- the job I took after my previous office across the street from the WTC was displaced) donned rubber gloves and a surgical mask, to open mail... as you point out, the threat of a bio-attack could occur anywhere, and in 2001, the delivery vehicles were U.S. Postal Service trucks... unlike a spectacular 9-11 attack, or even a nuclear attack, which would likely be targeted at visible media, political or business centers. Why has so remarkably little been done, or even publicly discussed, in the area of preventing (or more importantly, preparing for and mitigating the damage from) bio-attacks, given just how much fear (if not outright paranoia) the anthrax attacks caused in the wake of 9-11 (and that, an attack that caused deaths in the single-digits, when you point out that an effective bio-attack that we are poorly prepared for might kill thousands, or worse)? Does this come down to the one dirty word "politics", or perhaps worse, that there is just less money to be made for what you have termed "the homeland security industrial complex", or is something else going on?
Randall Larsen: One of the points I made about Cantor Fitzgerald is that the only thing that would have been worse than having lost so many of their colleagues that day would have been for them to have lost so many colleagues and then to have had to stand in the unemployment line!
As to the anthrax issue, by late November 2001, audiences I was encountering around the country outside of New York or Washington reacted to 9-11 as if it were a movie. The whole thing was surreal to them. Now, one of the points I try to make is that in the great scheme of things, compared to the vast population of the United States, the ultimate human cost-- as horrible as nearly 3,000 lives lost is-- is relatively small. But the economic impact was huge and devastating. And the same is especially the case with bio-weapons.
At the moment, we have no plan for anthrax, let alone other pathogens. That we are not ready is not just Randy Larsen's opinion... Dr. D.A. Henderson, former Dean of the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health says that we are not prepared. And anthrax is the easiest and most likely pathogen we'd have to deal with!
We have serious problems with a pandemic flu "plan". I was at a conference where we were talking to business executives and the chief of a public health service in a major city-- I won't name the city-- said he would order 90% of the people to stay at home. That would be turning a crisis into a catastrophe! I noted that there were 400 people in the room... while we don't like to think about it, if we had a similar pattern to the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic-- the worst ever recorded-- around a quarter of the 400 in the room would get the flu, and it would take around a month to recover 2 or 3 would, unfortunately, die of it. The pandemic would be disruptive, but not near as much as the gross overreaction of directing 90 percent of the people to stray at home... this is what I mean by "our own worst enemy." We could do far more damage to our economy than either Mother Nature or the terrorists.
The most likely bio- event is some kind of a flu pandemic, but the threat of a bio-terrorism attack becomes more likely every year. But, if we take measures such as telling everyone to stay home, think of a flu pandemic with the economic impact of the example I give in the book: a blizzard that lasts for 3 or 4 months!
The Talking Dog: Let's follow that theme in the area of preventing terrorists from threatening us with nuclear weapons. I take it I have phrased the issue correctly-- the issue is not so much a terrorist actually detonating such a weapon in an American city, but a terrorist group with such a weapon in its possession could detonate it anywhere in the world, and pretty much achieve its ends by blackmail without delivering it. And yet, everytime I see Chuck Schumer open his mouth (I pick on him because he's my own senator!), it's invariably harping about inadequacies of port security, which as you point out, is "the last one minute and ten meters", i.e., trying to detect a nuclear weapon that had already reached New York harbor would probably be a little late-- the priority has to be preventing terrorist groups from acquiring fissionable material in the first place. Part of this is sound-bite politics-- one can always say "more should be done" to inspect container cargo... but some very sensible programs,-- such as the Nunn-Lugar program to acquire and dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, which has not only been cost-effective security-wise, but has even helped provide material to power our own nuclear power plants-- languish underfunded or worse. As with bio-weapons, let me again ask if this comes down to the one dirty word "politics", or that there is just less money to be made for what you have termed "the homeland security industrial complex" (say, manufacturers of radiological detectors have pull on the Hill)... or is something else going on?
Randall Larsen: Well, as with bio-terrorism, the answer to who is in charge of preventing terrorists from getting fissionable material to make nuclear weapons is... no one. By the way-- the budget for the Nunn-Lugar program is being cut again! The entire program's annual cost is what we spend every 4 days in Iraq!
The Robb-Silbermann Commission's report has put it succinctly: in the nuclear and bio-terror areas, we are simply not prepared. The solutions and approaches we need are bipartisan... I take great pride in the fact that many tell me "Randy, we can't figure out if you're a Republican or a Democrat!"
Case in point: most people have no idea how easy it is these days to manufacture one Hiroshima size and type bomb. And it doesn't have to go off in New York City either-- a detonation of such a weapon by a terrorist group anywhere in the world would change the world forever.
Bio-terrorism, by contrast, is harder to understand. Nuclear weapons are hard enough. But as to bio-weapons, think about the fact that the United Nations inspectors actually found bio-weapons and faciilities in Iraq in 1995! If the UN team in 2003 had said, as if it were even possible, that they could find absolutely no evidence of bio-weapons in Iraq... the fact is, just two weeks later, Iraq would have been able to produce them again, if the facililties were maintained. Of course politically this was very hard to sell to the public as a reason to go to war-- so nuclear weapons, of which there was much less eivdnece-- were a much easier sell to the public! But in fact, privately, many in the Bush Administration were much more worried about bio-weapons, though they knew it would be harder politically to justify the war.
At this point, our approaches to nuclear-terror and bio-terror seem to have both backwards.
One example cited is that it is feared that one way to bring such weapons in here from abroad is via private airplanes, or general aviation, as there is somewhat relaxed security in this area; so a priority becomes stepping up general aviation security. This will work fine as long as terrorists are willing to follow the new rules!
In the end, you can be very intelligent, but without sufficient effective knowledge, you will go in circles. One of the big failings of our nation and its homeland security approach currently is in the area of education... in 1900, there was no discipline called international relations, but our great universities created it. In 1950, there was no such thing as security studies... but again, our top universities took it on. Indeed, the great strategies of the Cold War, came from our top universities. And so we need a similar approach to homeland security, and yet at the moment the field has been left to community colleges... But they are not training strategic policy thinkers, they are training first responders. Some universities, of course, insist that they are doing it-- but they prove my point! They are studying new gadgets-- technology is driving the policy, which is the exact opposite of what has to happen. At the moment, no major university is doing this (besides Texas A&M and its Bush School). Dr. Dave McIntyre of Texas A&M understands strategy... he has a new Masters and Ph.D. program up and running training strategic thinkers, and not just first responders.
Because the big picture perspective is lacking, many otherwise competent officials just don't get it. I recall taking 28 Members of the House Homeland Security Committee on a retreat to the Wye River resort for two days. We spent one day on nuclear issues and one day on bio-terror issues; and it seemed to me we were getting somewhere. The primary focus of the bio day was to convince them that the biotechnical revolution has made it impossible to prevent a bio attack. The focus of our defensive efforts must be on rapid detection, response and recovery. However, when they returned to Capitol Hill, they went back to their pre-conceived approaches, and wrote up a summary called "preventing nuclear and bio-terror attacks!"
In my view, this lack of education, at the graduate school level, is a huge contributor to the "ready fire aim" approach to homeland security we see in Congress. Another contributing factor, of course, is our culture of sound-bite politics. Another factor is our "homeland security industrial complex" with an incentive to sell the most expensive gadgets available. Of course, such factors militate against something as simple or effective as the Nunn-Lugar program! Just something more to tell us how smart Ike was in telling us to beware of such a military industrial complex.
The Talking Dog: You indicate that you are non-partisan, and most of your positions are certainly that; indeed, I am not sure whether, or to what extent, I agree with you or not, for example, on your view that publishing-- not merely leaking, but publicly disseminating-- classified data should be a crime for the publisher (calling Robert Novak!), particularly given how abusive the current Administration has been of classifying information that will embarrass it, rather than necessarily as a "security" matter, or that we need "new rules" beyond law enforcement or military engagement to combat terrorism. That said, my question is that you have nonetheless singled out two officials for rather harsh treatment in your book (and on this, I wholly agree with you), Karl Rove draws your ire for blocking appointment of a highly qualified and critically important security official solely on political grounds, and more significantly perhaps, former Attorney General John Ashcroft for apparently misleading the 9-11 Commission on the extent that former Deputy A.G. Jamie Gorelick was responsible for erecting "the wall" between law enforcement and intelligence gathering that he found so convenient to blame for the pre-9-11 intelligence failures (conveniently omitting his own role in upholding "the wall"). I take it that you noted them because these particular officials happen to be in office at the relevant time... or do you have a further comment on why their actions are particularly egregious, and what lessons can we draw vis a vis future public officials and their conduct?
Randall Larsen: I certainly do take on Democrats-- I took on the current Speaker of the House first! But yes, Ashcroft has a laser pointer aimed at his head! His testimony, and distortion of the facts, has fueled endless right-wing diatribes against an honorable public servant, Jamie Gorelick. 9-11 Commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean summed it up best regarding Ashcroft: his testimony was misleading.
In the same day, I often listen to both NPR and Rush Limbaugh. I like to stay up-to-date on both sides of debates. I recall one instance where a 14 year old girl called in to Rush and asked about how Democrats could protect us from anything given how clueless they are, and the usual you'd expect...
Rush responded with "the wall" that Jamie Gorelick built:. Well, I have liberal friends and Republican friends... but it makes me mad when radical Republicans harp on "the wall" that they contend was constructed by Ms. Gorelick, when, if anything, she helped lower it! And yet, I hear this continually as a right wing talking point, besmirching an outstanding public servant.
The Talking Dog: With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the government accomplished one of the biggest bureaucratic reapportionments in decades, incorporating a number of services, like the Coast Guard, the Immigration Service, and FEMA that were in a variety of different agencies and structures (INS in Justice, USCG in Transportation, FEMA... somewhere) in one place, that at least seemed to make sense. On the whole, has this exercise, in your view, by and large been a success, or has it mostly played out as political musical chairs, and key functions (such as public health, disaster coordination, preventing nuclear proliferation/bioterror etc.) are still largely not that well organized? Do you have any suggestions for improvement in this area of organizing the bureaucracy... or is this "asking the wrong question"?
Randall Larsen: No, it's certainly the right question... best phrased as "Has the Department of Homeland Security made our nation and its people more secure?" and the answer to that is a resounding "No".
The method of secrecy about how this government has operated and how it created things like the Department of Homeland Security is troubling. I talked to both Senator Hart and Senator Rudman, who studied homeland security for three years, and they made a number of recommendations, the first 50 of which were unanimous-- regardless of party. Their first recommednation was not to make the department too large! One priority iwas to try to take back security of our borders, such as with the border patrol, customs and immigration services... but don't do what they did- bring in 26 different agencies each with its own system for everything! What happened? The people in the White House who created this didn't talk to the Hart-Rudman people... or seemingly anyone!
I happen to like our current Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, a great deal. I meet him every 6 weeks or so... he has a very good big picture sense. Indeed, he wrote much of the recent immigration bill... a bill that ideological opponents like John Kyl and Ted Kennedy could both support (although a vocal minority eventually killed that bill). I wrote a recent op ed, where I pointed out that we have two very good officials-- Secretary Chertoff and Kip Holly, head of the Transportation Security Agency...
But the problem is, their agency is unmanageable... and it's not them, no one can run it. It is a disaster. There are 5 times as many political appointees than the Defense Department, in an agency only 1/5 the size! There are an incredible number of contractors-- my book points to an example of one unit with 122 people and only 3 government employees! A contractor's main job is to keep the contract!
So,... DHS is a disaster. I gave the agency a D+ in terms of value provided to us as taxpayers... in my own career, I never graded on a curve but Chertoff gets a C on a curve, because there are so many things that are beyond his control—and I am not talking about al Qaeda.
And Congress itself presents a huge problem-- with 88 separate committees and subcommittees of oversight over this area. The 9-11 Commission recommended that Congress itself needed to be reorganized... but it isn't happening.
The Talking Dog: You suggest that someone in the government be in charge of, on a full-time basis, respectively, preventing and mitigating bio-terror attacks, and preventing nuclear terror attacks. Given the troubled history our government has had with "czars" in the past, be they "energy czar", "war on drugs czar" or more recently "intelligence czar", could you explain why you think this would be more successful approach than, say, placing these specific portfolios in existing officials (such as, for example, making these the only two duties of the Homeland Security Secretary, and devolving the rest of his or her portfolio to other agencies, just to throw one out there)?
Randall Larsen: That's a very good question. Certainly, our "czar system" is all wrong. I recall our former Drug Czar William Bennett saying that he couldn't get an assisstant secretary of defense to get him on his calendar... if the czar has no money to appropriate or control, the assistant secretary has no time! A bureaucrat's concerns are who can promote me, fire me, or give me money... it's not a czar!
A more likely model for this is our new National Intelligence Director: he can, at least in theory and by design, hire and fire people and he controls an intelligence budget-- supposedly ahead of OMB controlling it.
Richard Falkenrath, now New York City's man in charge of counter-terror, has said that as to bio-defense, the issue is far too complex to have one person in charge. This is like telling Ike that Operation Overlord at D-Day was too complicated to have one man in charge! This is just not the case.
It is absolutely critical that someone of real authority is in charge of the bio-security issue and bio-terror threat... especially given the revolution in bio-technology. My editor suggested I remove this story-- and I'm sorry I did. When I was a small boy growing up on a farm in Indiana, I was having difficulty understanding he concept of God. My father picked up a kernel of corn and said, "Those folks up at Purdue could make something that looks just like this. They could probably even make something that tastes like this, but if they put it in the ground, it wouldn't grow. Only God can do that."
That story worked in the mid 1950s, but not today. A team of scientists at the State University of New York at Stony Brook created a virus in a test tube from non-living material that can grow and multiply-- the polio virus. It took three years to make the first virus, but after they figured out the process, it only took two weeks to make the next one. Most people outside the field of biology have no clue about the amazing revolution that is taking place. It will have great benefits to the human race, but it also has a very dark side.
Bio security is now so frightening that the hacker problem could kill us all-- a malevolent grad student or two could develop a virus that could literally threaten the human race. There are so many issues out there on this...
We have two people in charge of our national missile defense... but bio-security has no one.
As to your examples (such as reducing the Secretary of Homeland Security to just this portfolio)... there are any number of ways to get there. But the people in charge need the authority, the responsibility and the accountability... money is part of the authority, and as an effective military commander, I always had the authority I needed to get my job done.
As to possible models, the White House isn't so good... it's not set up for operations. The current Director of National Intelligence model may well be the best way to go.
The Talking Dog: Before I forget to ask, your book highlights the simple fact that whether because the federal government is just not logistically going to be able to help that much in a real emergency, when push comes to shove, "if it's going to be it's up to me", and that much or most of our preparedness for worst-case terrorist attacks (or for that matter, hurricanes, blackouts and other periodic occurrences that require some kind of emergency response), can and should be done locally, or more likely still, on our own, such as keeping comfortable shoes and a ready supply of water in your office (having hiked home from the events of 9-11 and the 2003 blackout, I fully concur), or keeping a couple of days supply of water and non-perishable food and some medical supplies at home... and a plan to either evacuate, or "shelter in place". What would you give as the three or four most critical suggestions you would make to people to prepare themselves and their families, now, before a crisis, for the likeliest disaster (terrorist or otherwise) scenarios? Same question, for say, a small business looking to protect itself and its employees from the likeliest emergencies?
Randall Larsen: For you and your family, issue number 1-- number 1-- is prescription medication. A plastic baggy with 4 or 5 or however many pill bottles, including bottles with the prescriptions visible. Also, e-mail copies of the prescriptions to relatives, or xerox them and store them with relatives or somewhere besides yourself. My mother in Pueblo, CO has my banking data, will medical power of attorney and investment account data. The chance of a simultaneous disaster in both Virginia and Colorado is extraordinarily remote.
I don't believe in stockpiling food; my rule of 2 applies-- you can go 2 minutes of breathing without oxygen, 2 hours without shelter in harsh climates, 2 days without water, 2 weeks without food... keeping a supply of water is important-- the N-95 mask is very, very important (you can get a box of 20 for around $19.95 in Home Depot). A Rand Corporation study noted that if we have a SARS outbreak here, the mask will be widely used-- mostly to prevent contagion from people coughing, by the way. Dr. Eric Toner, chief of the bio-team of the Center for Bio Security has said that his family will be wearing N-95 masks in the event of any outbreaks.
Number 2, is to understand a few rules... in a hurricane, run from water, but hide from wind; get out of a storm surge, but shelter in place for high winds... this will reduce clogged roadways in the event of such a storm, during which people are trapped outside. Also- keep comfort items in your emergency stores... cookies for the kids, and I keep a bottle of scotch!
As to small businessess (the big guys already have their plans in place), go to www.prep4disaster.com-- a free website that I and collegues have developed for small businesses, that cuts through a lot of excess; Homeland Security has a lot of web pages, but some are good, some bad... we give the Readers Digest version of what's out there, and what you need to know.
The Talking Dog: You point out that one of the most asked "wrong questions" (or, as I prefer, "stupid questions") is "how can we win the war on terror", the answer of course, being that that's a stupid question-- terror is just a method of warfare that has always been around, always will, and can no more be "won" than a "war on hurricanes", and the real question is "how can we prevent and/or mitigate and/or prepare ourselves for potentially catastrophic attacks from state and/or non-state actors and possibly move the decimal point over to the left (rather than the right) in terms of potential casualties (on this, your book notes a hero of 9-11, the late Rick Rescorla, who with this staff, three of whom died as well, may well have singlehandedly prevented the 9-11 death toll from doubling by evacuating over 2700 employees of Morgan Stanley from the South WTC Tower even as announcements were made to stay put... because he prepared and drilled for just such an event, and Morgan Stanley, at least, was prepared to protect its people, and of course, the pasengers and crew of Flight 93, who probably saved hundreds if not thousands of lives by overpowering the highjackers.) The problem with this is "it doesn't sound good in 15 second sound-bites"... I could just picture John Kerry being excoriated had he answered such a question in the 2004 presidential debates or on the campaign trail, or indeed, if any of the current candidates tried to answer it in such a way. Do you envision a solution to this mess-- really the inability even to have a rational public debate about this, where we have a poisoned political climate and a lazy press corps, with everyone out to nail any candidate as "soft on terror" for not giving a stock "tough sounding" answer?
Randall Larsen: Certainly, political courage is always at a premium. But I have heard Joe Lieberman, for example, publicly say that "we cannot win the war on terror". I might have heard John McCain say it as well. It is an absurd phrase-- it is like a war on blitzkrieg, or as I heard it even better, a war on kamikazes-- simply a type of warfare.
As an aside about McCain and courage... I spent a year in a war-- I have great respect for courage-- what I did didn't take that much courage-- you're running, shooting, or being shot at and shooting back-- whereas McCain was seriously injured in the Hanoi Hilton, and refused to be sent home when they offered it to him ahead of others... that kind of courage is off the chart. Of course, supporting the Iraq war was not good for his campaign, but he believes in it (rightly or wrongly, but sincerely) as in the best interest of the country, and believes that it is more important to support what he believes in, even if it will ultimately cost him politically. I don't know if I agree or not on Iraq, but I will just say that we need more politicians who put courage before their own political advancement. Remember what happened to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence... the courage it took for them to do that?
At this point, an awful lot of people don't realize right now that we could lose this "war on terror"... there are things that coulod happen that could change the United States forever. People don't like to look at this... and its certainly especially hard if you're running for office.
The Talking Dog: Indeed, your book notes that the terrorist threat should be kept in perspective... while 3,000 have died from terrorist attacks, far more have died from auto accidents or medical mistakes, for example, and yet, the same degree of fear or concern isn't there... but given how politically powerful the "fear card" has been so far... how do you see putting this in perspective in a reasoned public debate?
Randall Larsen: Let me put this in personal perspective. I recall the first time the nation was placed on "orange alert". I was traveling out in Illinois-- staying at a Holiday Inn in Mt. Vernon, IL, really in the middle of nowhere. CBS called me to appear on its Early Show, and they sent out a satellite truck. Hanna Storm asked me how I was reacting to the orange alert ,given that my own 19 year old daughter was back I Washington, DC, which I acknowledged was the likeliest terrorist target. I asked her to repeat the question with about 40 seconds to go in the interview.
I said that I worry about drunk drivers, ordinary criminals and street thugs, 19 year old boys, and then terrorists, and in that order... perhaps we should add the threat of bio-terror specifically, but that list reflects the perspective we should have.
I'm optimistic that if we ask the right questions and demand the appropriate policies to respond to those questions, and place the right priorities in taking the right actions to prevent or limit the impact of nuclear and bio-terror, I am convinced that we can keep the threat below that of drunk drivers and others. If we do not have the right priorities, ask the right questions and take the right steps, the threat will grow ever greater and greater.
The ultimate goal, as the scholars of the Cold War phrased it, is containment. Keeping terrorism in its appropriate place on our list of worries.
The Talking Dog: Your book gives a number of examples of "posse-ing up", to wit, using existing resources, such as well-trained, organized volunteers, at minimal government cost, to expand governmental capabilities to respond to emergencies... can you give one or two of what you think are really good examples of this, and since "if it's going to be, it's up to me", what steps individuals can take to help make this sort of thing a reality in their own communities?
Randall Larsen: From the book, I rather liked the example of Lockheed Martin and its employee's participation in distributing the antibiotic "push-packs. It's win-win-- not only are they helping the community, but the volunteers get themselves vaccinated and treated first.
As Diane Lapson said in the book, she wishes she was better prepared for 9-11-- or any other emergency. .
What I suggest, first and foremost, for you and your family is to get CPR and First Aid training-- anyone over 12. Even things like the Heimlich Manuever and basic CPR methods are now different... you need the latest, most effective training. And remember "911" will always be a local call; first responders will invariably be from the local community.
The Talking Dog: Is there anything else I should have asked you but didn't, or anything else that you believe that the public needs to know on these critically important subjects?
Randall Larsen: I think the quote I gave you earlier sums it up-- if we ask the right questions and establish the right priorities, then we can keep the terrorist threat in its proper place in the list of worries-- behind drunk drivers, crime, and natural disasters... and then terrorists. If we follow that stragegy, then I think we can contain the threat. We cannot let it rise to number 1. Given the advances in 21st century technology, that would be, to put it mildly, bad. But I am optimistic that we will be able to keep terrorism in its proper place in our list of worries, and to be prepared for the coming challenges.
The Talking Dog: On behalf of all of my readers, I thank Col. Larsen for that thorough and enlightening interview, and commend interested readers to take a look at Our Own Worst Enemy: Asking the Right Questions About Security to Protect You, Your Family, and America.
I really thought this was an interesting interview... and it emphasized my belief that terrorism is not our biggest threat... on a day to day basis... that being said I have to point out that Larsen's statement that "I often listen to both NPR and Rush Limbaugh" as though they were opposite sides of the coin is naive. NPR after years of public financing from a republican congress and administration is no longer (if it ever was) on the opposite side of the rightwing like Limbaugh. NPR has centered itself right of center, Limbaugh is on the far right. If Larsen wants to view the left wing for a different perspective I would suggest "air america"... that being said I also want to point out that air america is intelligent radio... something the likes of Limbaugh can never achieve.
Posted by hcgorman at September 21, 2007 9:57 PM
Thank you, Dog.
Posted by The Heretik at September 22, 2007 11:58 PM
I've really enjoyed your other interviews, but I'm not sure what to make of this one - either Col. Larsen isn't well informed about the "Amerithrax" case, or he is deliberatey spreading misinformation about it.
First of all, according to the FBI, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Mohamed Atta or any of his accomplices ever had any contact with anthrax.
As for the "sub-cutenious anthrax" Atta's roommate supposedly had, according to the CDC's expert on anthrax, whatever the man's problem might have been, it almost certainly was NOT anthrax. (Think about, unless that guy was walking through a room knee deep in anthrax spores, it's highly unlikely that his lower leg would've been infected with the disease, to the exclusion of the rest of his body.)
Of the 7 "anthrax letters" that were mailed, 5 were mailed on 9/18/01, so it doesn't seem likely that Atta dropped them in the mail on his way to the airport, now does it?
And I don't know what "evidence" Col. Larsen is refering to when he claims al qaida was experiminting with bio agents, but we now know that all the news reports claming "anyone with a year of high school biology could make weaponized anthrax in a basement lab", were exactly what they sounded like - pure crap!
In fact, it turns out that only a few labs could make stuff of Amerithrax quality. And to top it all off, that particular strain originally came from the US government! Did Col. Larsen explain how al qaida might've got their hands on it? (I bet he didn't.)
Another thing I don't understand, is why Col. Larsen finds anthrax to be more terrifying than the 400 combat missions he flew - it's not communicable and is very easy to treat, so it certainly isn't a "doomsday weapon". (Personally, if I wanted to use a bio agent to cause the maximum amount of fear and hysteria, with the minimum amount of casualties, I'd choose anthrax - kinda like if I wanted cause the maximum amount of "shock and awe", with the minimum amount of actual damage and casualties, I'd crash an airplane into an unoccupied wing of the Pentagon - but that's just me being the devious SOB that I am.)
Posted by rummy at September 23, 2007 2:04 AM
Rummy, Rummy, Rummy...
The September 18th date proves that it couldn't be the 9-11 highjacker plot, because they were all dead? Then wtf did we have a "war on terror" for the last 6 years for... it is inconceivable that the plotters could have had at least one more confederate around to mail some anthrax? Plllllease.
Mr. Larsen himself acknowledges that the issue is not whether this version is "proven"... it clearly isn't. The issue is that this entire strand seems not to have been followed up as a matter of the FBI's misdirected sleuthing... and it's not as if the FBI ever solved this one (I suppose O.J. can take some time from looking for his wife's killer to look for the anthrax perp[s]).
The FBI has about the same credibility on the anthrax case it does on the Wen Ho Li and Richard Jewell cases... in short, spare us.
Posted by the talking dog at September 23, 2007 8:28 PM
I spent a whole hour writing a response, but was blocked from posting due to "questionable content".
Since it contained no expletives, I have no idea what the problem is. But If you don't want me to post on your site, just say so.
Posted by rummy at September 23, 2007 11:59 PM
Automatic filtering, Rummy; I had to use the word "sleuthing" myself because the-- what the i stands for in FBI-- word I wanted contained three random letters the filter doesn't like. [You'd not have gotten this far if we didn't want you posting...!]
Posted by the talking dog at September 24, 2007 8:23 AM
A lot of interesting stuff.
I have a specific issue about anthrax and also biowarfare.
First, in general biowarfare is hard to use. You have to have a lot of people packed together, generally. Disseminating germs or spores over a large area is apparently not easy; the volume needed is small, but delivering tiny amounts to a lot of people is difficult.
Second, anthrax specifically is responsive to antibiotics. By and large penicillin works. (If there were a resistant MRSA-type anthrax strain, resistant to all known antibiotics, that would be bad. Whether there is, I have no idea; no one has said that there is.) The reason why the anthrax death rate used to be so high apparently was that it's hard to diagnose in early stages, and incurable in later stages, and for a long time it was a very rare disease which was seldom diagnosed in time.
My general conclusion is that anthrax is a genuine threat, but a much lower-level, less terrifying threat than it's been made out to be. Nothing like a nuclear bomb or even a dirty bomb.
Anthrax also is a limited battlefield weapon since it needs a couple days to take effect. You need lead time.
I've sometimes wondered whether anthrax weaponizing isn't a boondoggle prooted by scare stories. The only advantage anthrax seems to have is that it's spores are very, very durable and long-lived.
My information is from the standard medical books, at a medical school bookstore ca. 2001: Mandell (2 vols.: definitive) and "Current Diagnosis and Treatment: Infectious Disease").
Posted by John Emerson at September 24, 2007 3:17 PM
The bureau claims to have tested personal effects, cars and the dwellings of Atta and the other hijackers, and didn't find a single trace of anthrax.
Considering how carelessly these guys treated evidence linking themselves to the 9/11 plot, it seems extremely unlikely that that they wouldn't have left behind a single trace of anthrax, had they been involved with it in any way (especially if one of them had actually been infected with it).
But just for the sake of argument, let's pretend they were involved with Amerithrax. And while we're at it, we'll also pretend the Colonel's right, and al qaida actually developed it's own weaponized form of anthrax. (I'm not going to speculate on how or where or even who actually weaponized it, because I'm not writing a book here, so let's just assume it was done by Atta et al in their spare time.) Now, it's been reported that Mohamed Atta supposedly tried to buy a crop duster, and it's been postulated that he wanted to use that airplane to spread anthrax spores. But when Atta wasn't able to get the plane, the next best plan he could come up with was to put the spores into envelopes and mail it to his intended victims?
Come on, Dog... you called some of my OJ comments "Silliness" - well, I believe that term applies equally well to the idea that al qaida went to all the trouble of developing weaponized anthrax, used it to kill a grand total of 5 americans, never took credit for the achievement, and then never ever used it again - especially after we invaded Afganistan and were killing AQ operatives like flies!
I don't mean to bust your chops, but whatever the FBI might be trying to cover up in the Amerithrax investagation, it almost certainly is NOT an al qaida connection! (Not that I believe everything the bureau says, but it does have at least SOME credbility - when asked to find evidence tying UBL to 9/11, the bureau said there wasn't any... and apparently maintains that position to this day. It would've been far easier politically to just make something up, no?)
If you want to openly debate what the FBI is really covering up, ok. But don't mock me for not buying into the absurd idea that the bureau is covering for al qaida. (Or the even more absurd idea that the feds turned away from AQ by mistake - as with President Bush's failure to take immediate action on 9/11, there is a limit to what can be explained away by incompetance or even sheer stupidity!)
Posted by rummy at September 25, 2007 4:57 PM
Fair points, all, Rummy... however, the FBI certainly does have institutional incentives to cover for what has been by and large a fruitless endeavor in the anthrax area. Also, it had a role in failing to string together large swathes of evidence of the 9-11 plot before 9-11 (in part, Ashcroft blames "the wall" that he himself kept erect... I'd love to blame Ashcroft, but he was just one inept figure among many), all the more reason to be skeptical of the FBI's treatment of this subject.
The point of this discussion is as much just to throw it out there and see where it goes as it is to see if the theories hold water. You, and John E., have certainly called into question a lot of aspects of an AQ/'thrax connection that, I admit, make the ultimate connection between the two seem somewhat unlikely...
But to quote... well, Rummy... the abence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. It is certainly plausible-- hell, I'll concede more likely than not-- that the strands tying Qaeda/Atta and anthrax would have led nowhere...
Col. Larsen's point-- which I think is well-taken-- is that there is strong evidence that the FBI simply decided they had their scapegoat (an unfortunate MO of the Bureau; see Li, Wen Ho; Jewll, Richard) and simply didn't follow those potential strands to their appropriate dead ends, but rather, chose to simply tell us they were dead ends and not even worth following up... And given the rather negligible likelihood that Saddam had RBS (really bad sh*t) that were used to justify a bloody war, I daresay there was at least more than enough there to have at least conducted a more thorough inquiry into those possibilities.
(Also, please note the use of the term "silly" by me in comments here isn't meant as mockingly as it elsewhere might; it conveys an expression of a certain degree of amusement on my part.)
That said, I'm not even sure Col. Larsen himself is fully convinced of this particular connection... I think he is trying to say that, however lucky we may have been in the past, the ability of terrorists potentially to quickly "re-load" and repeat a successful bio-attack over and over again makes this among the most troubling threats-- even if we are lucky that thus far the casualty counts are comparatively low, when you count the economic disruption and lifestyle changes-- and yes, sheer terror-- such attacks would generate. Again, all the more reason why it would have been more comforting had the FBI been more open-minded, and clearly made sure this angle really was a dead-end (something neither Col. Larsen nor I are convinced that it did.)
Posted by the talking dog at September 25, 2007 10:28 PM
Hmm ...
Great interview! At least he admits DHS is an ineffective $$$ black hole.
Hard for me to judge Larsen since anyone who can walk into the White House, with or without a vial and mask, is far above my pay grade. He does seem to realize politicians are only interested in be elected and the revolving door.
Aw shucks ... Hello People!
Fear is the weapon of mass destruction and distraction.
While we run around like scared chickens, the buggars are dismantling the country right before our eyes. Who ya gonna vote for ... not wasting my time ... there is nobody to vote for ... the parties are all the same and the same agenda moves forward at the speed of a freight train.
Honestly there is not much hope unless Americans turn off the tube and educated themselves.
No matter, do not worry about Granny ... hidden down south in the green hills.
Be of Joy, love your kids and partners and most of all ... pet a cat or dog ... I vote for cats.
Posted by Granny at October 3, 2007 12:52 AM
There is a great deal of evidence that Atta associates encountered anthrax. Marwan al Shehhi had anthrax infection days before 9/11. The FBI is aware of this, and the encounter is confirmable (will be happy to relay the specifics to the FBI AGAIN). A physician who had encountered anthrax infection diagnosed al Shehhi's infection. al Shehhi's cohorts refused to allow him to seek immediate treatment. I am told that al qaeda may have vaccinated those who were to work with anthrax, but it is obvious that anyone with active anthrax infection, whether vaccinated or not, should seek immediate treatment.
The United States, under President Clinton, made serious efforts to arrest the leaders of the al qaeda cells responsible for mounting attacks with anthrax, to prevent subsequent attacks. They did not succeed.
Some anthrax letters were mailed. Several were delivered. Not all were mailed in two waves.
This is not rehashed information, it is ignored information.
CUTANEOUS, not subcutaneous anthrax is caused by spores entering the site of a wound, sore or abrasion on the body. It does not necessarily occur on a particular limb, although lymph glands between the site of lesion and the trunk of the body do swell with progression of the illness.
Ingested forms of the illness generally present with a facial rash like smallpox, but the rash generally occurs on the arms and face and there is bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract with anemia and cramping, body aches, etc.
Colonel Larsen is absolutely correct.
Al qaeda got the seed spores from whatever source....it was often sent through the mails and there were several good sources in the US private sector. Al qaeda attacked various citizens in the United States with bioweapons strains of bacteriae and rickettsiae for a number of years. I am quite certain they have employed sarin, tabun, VX, hydrogen cyanide, and solanine/nicotine in attacks on citizens in the US......not many, but some.
Posted by Annie at October 8, 2007 8:41 PM


text:
Sign up to get the latest deals, updates, and more!
We strive to constantly improve our customer service and provide quality equipment with impeccable facilities.
Electric Tan provides UV tanning powered by the industries leader in tanning equipment, Ergoline.
For our spray tan enthusiasts, Electric Tan offers VersaSpa booths at our Airline, Calallen and Saratoga salon locations and Norvell Hand-Held Spray Tans at our Portland and Saratoga salon locations.
We have four salons located in Corpus Christi, Portland and Calallen areas! All packages and memberships purchased are available to use at any location.
We love our customers, so feel free to visit us at any one of our salon locations!


text:
Be the Best Parent for Them!
Today only, get this Amazon bestseller for just .99. Regularly priced
at .99. Read on your PC, Mac, smart phone, tablet or Kindle device.
In this book you're about to discover how to be the best parent for your amazing and lovable brats.
It is said that when a child is born they have an infinite level of potential. The moment you hold them to your arms at birth is the moment they can be absolutely anything. Then the child rearing process, raising them, feeding them, and teaching them to understand the world around them.
You are their teacher, their best friend, their confidant, and the person they will go to for help, advice, and love for the rest of their lives. It's an amazing feeling to be a parent with many pitfalls on the way as well as twice as many smiles.
But….how do you do it?!
In my book I lay it all out. There's a huge difference between being your child's friend and being your child's parent. Sometimes it isn't easy and any parent will tell you it's hard to tell them no or to discipline them. In my book I give out all the facts you'll need to be the best you can be for them that will give them the best chance at being successful.
Here Is A Preview Of What You'll Learn…
- The importance of Good Parenting
- The Basic Needs
- Show them the Love!
- How to Be a Good Disciplinarian
- Adapting your Parenting Based on your Child's Development
- Being a Good Role Model
- And much, much more!
Download your copy today!
Take action today and download this book for a limited time discount of only


text:
Few things are as essential to the health of a local church than the right kind of preaching and teaching. As proper nutrition is essential to physical health, so the right kind of teaching is essential to the health of God's people in the local church.
And yet, the matter of biblical teaching is far more serious than the matter of one's personal diet. You can eat Doritos and drink Dr. Pepper in moderation and be perfectly in bounds of the wisdom of Scripture, but you'll never find God giving freedom to His people to enjoy and embrace the spiritual junk food of fat-filled, sugar soaked teaching and preaching. Rather, He commands them to expect much better from those who teach them.
As a result, I'd like to spend a few posts reminding all of us of the kind of teaching and preaching we should expect at Shepherd's Community Church. What kind of teaching do we need?
The question is answered for us very clearly in a letter of the Apostle Paul to a church-planter named Titus, a man who had been commissioned to bring young, unsettled, and vulnerable churches on the island of Crete to spiritual health and vitality. Specifically, the question is answered for us in Titus 2:15, where Paul commands Titus:
"Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you" (Titus 2:15 ESV).
In the context of the letter as a whole, what Paul is calling Titus to do is to build up the church under his leadership by serving them a steady diet of strong, Gospel-rooted teaching; what today is often referred to as 'Gospel-centered' teaching.
And herein we see the kind of teaching that we need to grow spiritually as a church. Specifically, we see three characteristics to desire in the teaching we are giving and receiving at SCC. We'll look at the first characteristic today.
So, first of all, to put it simply…
We need Gospel-centered teaching.
When Paul says in Titus 2:15, "These things speak and exhort and reprove…" he is talking about the things he has already covered, particularly in Titus 2:2-14. And what has he said in those verses? Basically, he has commanded Titus to teach his church to live in such a way that brings glory and honor to Jesus (vv. 2-10) in light of what he has done to save us from our sins (vv. 11-14).
Bringing health to the local church requires teaching, but not just any kind of teaching, and not teaching on just any topic. Rather, leading a local church into spiritual health requires teaching that emphasizes the importance of living in such a way that brings glory and honor to Jesus – in light of the greatness of what he has done to save us from our sins. This is what you could call "Gospel-centered teaching."
Gospel centered teaching is specific in its content and does two things. First, it grounds the Christian life in the riches of what God has done for us in Christ. That is, it magnifies the grace of God despite of and in the face of our sin. These things unpack what is often referred to as the "indicatives" of the Gospel; all that God has done for His people in Christ.
But secondly, truly Gospel-centered teaching calls people to a kind of living that shows Christ to be glorious. That is, it magnifies the power and intention of God's grace to break us from the chains of our sin and enable us by His grace to live godly lives; what are often referred to as the "imperatives" of the Gospel. True Gospel-centered teaching proclaims as Bryan Chappell puts it, "grace despite sin" and "obedience through grace."
Paul proclaims both of those things here in Titus 2:2-14 – though in reverse order. In 2:11-14 he emphasizes the grace of God despite our sin ("for the grace of God has appeared…"; i.e. the embodiment of God's grace has appeared in the person of Jesus) – and in verses 2:2-10 he emphasizes the need to live lives of self-control and obedience as a response to God's grace in Christ. Both "grace despite sin" and "obedience through grace" are equally emphasized by the Apostle.
Teaching that neglects one of these things or the other, presents a Gospel that J.I. Packer says is not "fully dressed." He writes, "Our preaching and teaching of the Gospel…must include teaching the godly manner of living that accords with the sound doctrines of the Gospel." (Packer, Grounded in the Gospel, p. 100)
In Titus 2, Paul is offering to Titus a pattern of teaching that he wants Titus to follow in his own ministry, and then in 2:15 basically says, "Just keep stressing these things! Keep on proclaiming God's grace despite our sin, along with God's grace to overcome our sin – distinguishing the indicatives of the Gospel from the imperatives of the Gospel – but also rooting the imperatives of the Gospel in the indicatives of the Gospel." In other words, "Keep showing how God's commands that teach us to live self-controlled and godly lives flow out of the grace God has given us in Christ."
One of the main reasons this is so important, is because people desperately need to see that the commands of God are not the means to get right with God, but rather are the natural responses to receiving the grace of God that is in Christ.
Counterfeit Christianities say, "I obey God, therefore he accepts me." Biblical Christianity says, "God has accepted me, therefore I obey him." When you strip the commands of God away from the saving work of God in Christ, those commands quickly start to seem arbitrary and pointless (which they would be apart from the Gospel). However, when you begin to see the commands of God in light of the saving work of God in Christ – those commands become the sweet expressions of grace from a gracious and loving God who wants what is best for us and is committed to our eternal good; who is not out to squelch our joy, but to increase it for eternity.
I love to listen to teachers and to learn from other brothers and sisters who love to ground the commands of God in the saving work of God in Jesus, because, what I find that happens in listening to these brothers and sisters is that my love for God and my sensitivity to what displeases him increases. Why does this happen? Because they are pointing me to the grace of God in Christ – which alone has the power to change my heart. So, as they point me to Christ and his saving work, I find my heart being changed, along with my attitude toward God's commands, and I find a renewed and increasing love for God driving out my love of sin.
So, focusing on the Gospel and the implications of the Gospel upon my life shows me that obedience is a very good thing, and not a bad, burdensome, or boring thing.
In light of what God has done for me in Christ, it makes sense why he calls me to love him with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love my neighbor as myself. In light of the Gospel, it makes sense why God calls me to run from temptation and to pursue purity of heart and mind. It makes sense why God calls me to make war against sin and to live a self-controlled, upright, and godly life in this age while I wait for Jesus to return. When I see that the intention of God's grace is not merely to free me from the penalty of my sins, but also the power of sin over my life, then I can understand why God calls me to live out that freedom in my day to day life, and it makes me want that freedom all the more.
And that's why giving adequate focus to the Gospel and its implications upon our lives is such an important thing to the health of our church. If we focus merely on the grace of God despite our sins – we could easily become a really loose and licentious group of people who love our sins and who make sin look more attractive than the One who died to save us from it. But then, if we focus merely on the grace of God to overcome our sins, we could fall off the other side and become a group of proud, legalistic and self-righteous religious people who make it seem like grace is not really needed to be right with God. And falling off either side would be really sad and tragic.
But teaching that gives adequate focus not merely to the greatness of God's grace despite our sin and God's grace to overcome our sin – but to the practice of rooting God's grace to overcome our sin in the amazing grace of God despite our sin – protects us from falling off either side of that boat.
And we have God's promises that if this kind of teaching is unleashed in our church; we'll see God save sinners and change lives for his glory. We'll see our own hearts changed and new affections growing within them. We'll see our kids saved and transformed into hard-following disciples of Jesus. We'll see disciples made. We'll see leaders raised up. We'll see missionaries and pastors and teachers raised up from within our ranks. We'll see people pursuing holiness and loving one another. If we remain committed to this kind of teaching, we'll see a real, New Testament, Christ-loving and Gospel-centered church built right here – and God will get the glory!
We need teaching that focuses on the Gospel and its implications for our lives. That's the first thing we see here. We'll consider the second thing next time.


text:
Paros Bath Towel Set - White Wash
Our new Paros towel collection is woven from sustainably sourced cotton, making it better for those who grow it, the farmland it grows on, and the cotton industry as a whole. Not only does that mean less impact on the environment, but it also makes for a beautifully soft and highly absorbent towel. Classic, simple styling, furnished with hand-knotted fringes inspired by holidays in the Greek Islands, destined to become a new Aura Home classic. By choosing a Paros towel, you can feel comfortable that you are making a great choice for you, your family and the environment. See full description
Bath Towel Set includes 2 x bath towels, 2 x hand towels, 2 x face washers and 1 x bath mat
Paros Bath Towel Set - White Wash
- Pure Sustainable Cotton
- Hand knotted 6cm fringe on 2 sides
- Reversible to the same design
- Set inc: 2 bath towels, 2 hand towels, 2 face washers, 1 bath mat
Wash separately before first use. Wash dark colours separately. Warm gentle machine wash. 40 maximum temperature. Avoid oxidzing or chlorine-based bleaching agents. Avoid excessive use of fabric softeners and detergents containing optical brighteners. Do not iron or dry clean. Warm tumble dry.
Free shipping over $150 and flat rate shipping of $9.95 for orders under $150. (excludes furniture)
Orders received before 1pm weekdays will be dispatched on the same day. Excepting weekends, all orders usually ship within 24 hours of payment. (excluding large furniture)
Please note that during peak sale periods orders may take longer than usual to dispatch.
• Melbourne: 1-3 business days after dispatch
• Sydney, Adelaide & Canberra: 2-3 business days after dispatch
• Brisbane, Hobart: 3-4 business days after dispatch
• Perth & Darwin: 5-6 business days after dispatch
Please allow up to 10 business days for rural deliveries. Note: Since estimated delivery times cannot be guaranteed, we suggest allowing up to 10 business days after dispatch for all deliveries.
Express shipping - Flat rate shipping of $19.95. (Australia only - Excludes large furniture*)
Australian Express orders received before 11am weekdays will be dispatched on the same day. Excepting weekends, all orders usually ship within 24 hours of payment.
Metro: Next business day delivery after dispatch.
Regional: 1-2 business days after dispatch as per Australia Post website.
Please note that during peak Sale periods your parcels may take longer than usual to dispatch.
For large furniture orders please contact email@example.com or on 1300 304 269 to arrange delivery for you. We offer either free pick up from our Malvern Store or Moorabbin Warehouse or door to door delivery. We can supply you with a freight quote as prices vary according to location and size of furniture. We are unable to freight large furniture items to WA and NT or internationally.
Please note we are unable to ship Rugs, Hall Runners, Furniture, Lighting or Ceramics outside of Australia.
Flat-rate international Shipping is $25 and is currently available to Brunei, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States and Vietnam.
For shipping to different countries, please contact us directly at email@example.com.
Approximately 6-10 business day delivery to metropolitan areas of major cities, however we suggest allowing up to 28 business days after dispatch for all international deliveries. Excludes time in customs if applicable and may be subject to delay due to causes outside of Australia Post's control.
Purchase with the utmost peace of mind. All AURA products purchased from aurahome.com.au are sold with a 30 day, money-back guarantee. If your item(s) prove to be unsuitable for any reason, please contact us within 30 days to organise a return and refund inline with our returns policy.


text:
Vendée Globe 2012-2013
Taking place every four years and seen as the "Everest of the Seas", the Vendée Globe is the only unassisted non-stop round the world race. The solo sailors set off on their IMOCA 60 foot monohull boats from Les Sables d'Olonne in France for 28,000-miles and the most extreme of challenges.
As either individual consultants or in the capacity of the agency, Fretté Rogerson has provided media relations support to the the Vendée Globe event organisation since 2004 and for competitors since the 1996 edition.
For the 2012-3 edition Fretté Rogerson PR handled the media relations for both France and International. The agency organised and managed the press office both in Les Sables d'Olonne and Paris. We provided a 24/7 media service throughout the duration of the race as well as communications consultancy in the build up.
America's Cup
The America's Cup is considered to be the world's most important sailing competition and one of the leading sports events in terms of media impact. The event dates back to 1851, making it the world's oldest sporting trophy; on average it takes place every three to four years.
As either individual consultants or in the capacity of the agency, Fretté Rogerson has provided media relations support to the America's Cup event organisation, participating teams and sponsors since 1992.
Haute Route
The Haute Route events are prestigious cycling road races taking place over 7 days, organised by professionals for amateur cyclists. In all races, Haute Route participants, grouped in teams, travel more than 750 km across the favourite playground of cyclists from around the world: the Alps, the Dolomites, the the Pyrenees and now the Rockies.
We were assigned to manage the international press relations and media services with special focus on France, Britain, Spain and key non-EU territories such as USA, Canada, Australia and Brazil. The agency organises press trips, manages the on and off site press office during the events and provides the service in multiple languages (English, French and Spanish).
Sunset+Vine is one of the most important sports production and distribution companies in the UK and around the World. Fretté Rogerson PR heads up and provides full international news distribution service for major clients including the 35th America's Cup, the Longines Global Champions Tour and Global Champions League, the Abu Dhabi Desert Rally and the Volvo Ocean Race, Cowes Week, Royal Henley Regatta, Abu Dhabi Desert Rally, Longines Global Champions Tour, Extreme Sailing Series, …
We are the personal link with the TV channels from around the world and work to bring the local news story to the widest audience possible.
France Handball 2017
The 25th World Championship will be held in France from the 11-29th January 2017 in eight different regions within France.
The mission of the agency: International and national press relations in the build up to the championships globally. We coordinate and provide an international and French press officer for each of the 8 host venue media centres.
The Tour de France
Present on the Tour since 2001. Each year the agency accompanies various Official Partners and cycling teams. Missions of agency: Media coverage of sponsors, advertising caravans, cycling teams... Creation of special operations to bring out the marks, crisis communication, digital communication.
24 Hours Du Mans
24 Hours Le Mans is an endurance race and the real testing ground for titans. Here, the agency oversaw mainstream press and public relations throughout 2012-13.
Sponsor of the French America's Cup Team, Groupama Team France, Norauto is a leading French car servicing centre group with over 9,000 employees in 576 centres across 9 countries. Fretté Rogerson handles the international press relations for their sponsorship activity in sailing. We communicate in 5 languages and organise press trips and media activity to leverage the sponsorship.
UTMB® Mont Blanc
The UTMB® Mont Blanc is the world's leading trail running event set up in 2003. The iconic event attracts huge interest and comprises 7 events with entry hotly fought over through a series of qualifications. The UTMB, which attracted 722 runners for the first event in 2003, today with over 25,000 applications, limits entries to 10,000 requiting a carefully masterminded registration process.
Fretté Rogerson PR is looking after all aspects of international press relations activation for this event, managing the press centre and press trips, starting in 2019 and continuing on an ongoing annual basis.
INEO 1:59 Challenge
The INEOS 1:59 Challenge was Eliud Kipchoge's second attempt to make sporting history by becoming the first person ever to run a marathon distance (26 miles/42.2km) in under two hours. Kipchoge successfully broke the barrier on Saturday 12th October in The Prater in Vienna, Austria, running the distance in 1 hour, 59 minutes and 40 seconds.
As the international news team for Sunset+Vine, Fretté Rogerson PR delivered a full news distribution service for the event, managing all VNR and individual interview alerts in 5 languages across the key territories, providing complete news production and distribution on site, resulting in 11,180 hits on 1081 channels across 296 markets.


text:
It's no surprise that the body goes through a ton of changes through pregnancy and postpartum recovery, especially if you choose to breastfeed during the first year of being a mom. I've been aware that adrenal fatigue is a real possibility as a new mom, but I didn't really know what that meant or what I could do about it. In all of the doctor visits that I've had as a new mom, I have yet to get a very clear answer of what the typical postpartum body looks like from a hormone balance standpoint. (Spoiler alert: before you read through this whole thing, I'll go ahead and tell you that I do not have adrenal fatigue.)
I ask a lot of my body as a mom and as a runner. First, I grew a human with my body for nine months, and now, I'm keeping that little human alive through breastfeeding. All through this time, I have maintained running and increased my intensity as I train for various races. While breastfeeding and running definitely require a lot of energy from my body, sleep deprivation seems to be the icing on the cake. My little one was waking up to 10 times a night (my rule is to stop counting when you reach double digits), and she is still waking at least once a night now that she is nine months old.
I'm a working mom, so I was burning the candle from every possible direction leading up to the Boston Marathon. (Cadence got colds from daycare and that is partly why she was such a terrible sleeper between 3-6 months of age. Poor baby!) I was able to PR at Boston, but I relaxed my goal by about 10 minutes when I realized how thin my reserves had become. After Boston, I went to the doctor for a general physical, as suggested by my husband. At that visit, I learned that I had a hernia, and you can read all about that fun little detour here. I got my results from the general practitioner and learned that my TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) levels were high. The report sent to me by my doctor suggested that I get retested in a month.
Trying not to be too disturbed by these results (what is happening to my body!?!?), I went for a re-test about a month later, and I learned that my TSH levels are still on the high-ish side, but all of my other hormones are in the right range. My thyroid is producing the correct levels of TPO antibody, Free T3, Free T4, Thyroglobulin Ab, and Cortisol. This is important because all of the hormones in the body act on a feedback system, and one abnormal hormone level could create a cascade effect on other hormone levels.
Adrenal Basics:
While I learned that my hormone levels are in a safe zone, I decided to refresh my memory on the endocrine system and understand more about adrenal fatigue and thyroid dysfunction (I have a background in biomedical engineering, but I did not picture myself being the subject of this jargon when I was studying it ten years ago!). Cortisol is produced by the pituitary gland, and a high level could indicate the signs of adrenal fatigue. The pituitary gland produces adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) when a stressor is perceived by the brain, and this chemical in turn causes the release of cortisol and adrenaline. Cortisol is good when the fight or flight response is necessary, but it is tough on the body when it is in a constant elevated state.
Constant stress can signal the adrenal glands to overproduce adrenaline, cortisol, and other stress hormones. The adrenal glands, which are the front line in the stress reaction, can then become depleted. Once the adrenal glands are tapped, it can lead to impairment in the thyroid gland, as hormone regulation is one big feedback loop. There are a lot of symptoms that can indicate that the adrenal glands are overproducing hormones, some of which include a suppressed immune system, fatigue, unrelaxed sleep, depression, and anxiety.
A few things that I am doing to stay healthy:
I didn't have any of the above symptoms when I was tested, so I was fairly confident that I did not have adrenal fatigue. That being said, I do not want to get adrenal fatigue, so I made a few changes which also happen to make me a happier, healthier person in the process.
- My first test result came back just about the time of my hernia surgery, so I had a mandatory resting period while I recovered. As much as I hate to admit it, this was probably a really good thing for me, as I tend to go all out, all of the time. Ben Greenfield advises to avoid excessive exercise, which is hard to do when you are training for your first 100 mile race. 😉
- I have also focused on eating more nutritious foods. I eat a lot of food, especially with training and breastfeeding, but I really try to cut out the processed foods and eat a lot of organic, healthy stuff (although I have a weakness for candy bars at night).
- I also have made an effort to get to bed earl(ier) every night. This is so hard for me because I really can't get much done around the house or unwind until Cadence goes to bed. That little baby has a ton of energy, and we are busy playing until right before bedtime!
- Recently, my massage therapist introduced me to doTERRA essential oils. I'm still learning about them, but I did find an interesting journal article that found that inhaling the scent of lavender for 4 weeks can prevent stress, anxiety, and depression after childbirth. I love the smell of lavender, so this was an easy addition to my retinue of healthy adrenal actions.
- Finally, this research study in the British Journal of Midwifery found that the release of the hormones prolactin and oxytocin during breastfeeding have an inhibitory effect on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which is activated at times of stress, and can reduce the incidence of postpartum depression. I think this just shows how much our God loves us! He not only gave us the capability to nurse our little ones for healthy growth, he also made the act protective for the mommas who might so desperately need a little tlc themselves! This infographic is another really neat little snapshot of just how beneficial breastfeeding is to both momma and baby.
I hope my little walk down discovery lane can be of help to another new mom out there who may be feeling a little worn down. Take care of yourself and be aware of your body! I think as runners, we are acutely aware of our bodies, but we are also the first to tough out the hard times and push through when we might need to re-evaluate and rest.
Have you had any experiences with adrenal fatigue?
What do you do to relax and reduce stress?


text:
This weekend: "Africa United" at Sunset Fair tonight. NO Government House screening on Saturday, because of rock concert. But on SUNDAY we'll be showing "Barefoot Dream" = the Korean movie about soccer that was filmed in Timor-Leste. Now that's a MUST SEE! We are loving our soccer this weekend! And BOTH FILMS are in TETUM with English subtitles.
In "A Barefoot Dream", Coach Kim Won-Kang is a former soccer player who failed to manage his business - post soccer career. After his business goes under, Kim Won-Kang travels to the small country of Timor-Leste to coach a youth soccer team. The Timor-Leste youth soccer team has been in existence for only one year but will go on to win two international youth soccer events with the help of Coach Kim Shin-Hwan. Based on true story of former soccer player Won Kwang who went on to coach a youth soccer team in East Timor. Filming began November 2009 in East Timor, then moved to South Korea, and finished shooting on January 28th, 2010 in Hiroshima, Japan.