text: Site Disclaimer We operate our provider referral service to assist patients in selecting providers who are employed by members of Prime Healthcare ("Prime"). There are no charges to the providers or you for this service. While Prime does not make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information contained on this website, we endeavor to make your search results reflect all providers meeting the criteria you designate for your search. Your final selection of a provider should be based on your needs and preferences. If a provider leaves Prime, we will no longer include the provider in our referral service. Any reliance on any information provided by the website, others appearing on the website, and/or other visitors to the website is solely at the user's risk. The use of and information on this website is not intended to create any provider-patient relationship. That relationship only occurs when you and your chosen provider mutually agree to establish such relationship. Your access and use of this website, and any page or function contained herein, is subject to the following terms and conditions and all applicable state and federal laws. If you do not agree to be bound by these terms and conditions, promptly exit this website. Your continued use of this website indicates your agreement and acceptance to the following terms and conditions. All material on this website are copyrighted by Prime as owner and operator of Prime Healthcare, and its subsidiaries and affiliates, or by the original creator of that material. It is protected by the copyright laws of the United States of America. You may not download, copy, reproduce, redistribute, republish, publicly display, post, or transmit material on this website unless expressly permitted by Prime. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THIS SITE IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND THAT THE SITE AND ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED ON OR PROVIDED THROUGH THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. PRIME MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ABOUT THE USE OF THIS SITE OR THE MATERIALS IN IT, AND DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ACCURACY OR QUALITY, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. PRIME ALSO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE TO, OR VIRUSES THAT MAY INFECT, YOUR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT OR OTHER PROPERTY AS YOU ACCESS OR BROWSE THE SITE. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL PRIME BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FEES, FINES OR PENALTIES, LOSS OF REVENUE OR BUSINESS OR LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING IN ANY WAY TO YOUR USE OF THIS SITE, AND/OR CONTENT OR INFORMATION PROVIDED ON OR THROUGH THIS SITE. Any communication or material you transmit to the website by electronic mail or otherwise that does not contain personal health information, including data, questions, comments, suggestions, or the like, is, and may be treated as, non-confidential and nonproprietary. You acknowledge that you are responsible for all information you send to the website. You may not post or transmit any information that is illegal, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, ethnically or racially offensive or discriminatory, profane, infringes the copyright or other intellectual property right of any third party, invades the privacy of another person or any other information or materials that constitute a crime, gives rise to a civil action or otherwise violate any law or confidentiality agreement. By using the provider referral service, you certify that you have received these disclosures.


text:
Ellis arrives at camp seeking championship
JUPITER, Fla. -- With Mark Ellis' arrival on Monday, the Cardinals officially have all 39 players from their 40-man roster in camp a day before the club is scheduled to hold its first full-squad workout. Manager Mike Matheny will address the group as a whole before that workout takes place on Tuesday.
After making stops in Oakland, Colorado and Los Angeles over an 11-year Major League career, Ellis enters the National League Central mix -- and Florida's Grapefruit League -- for the first time. He also comes knowing that little is guaranteed to him, aside from what he sees as a strong chance to chase a World Championship.
Ellis, who was on the Dodgers' NL Championship Series team that lost to St. Louis last October, has never played in the World Series.
"It would mean a lot," Ellis said. "That's why I'm here. You look at the opportunities presented in front of you, and I thought this was my best chance. You can't predict who is going to have a great season, who is going to have a good team, but you can narrow it down to teams that you think are going to have the best chance."
The Cardinals have been open about their desire to give Kolten Wong regular opportunities at second base, though manager Mike Matheny prefers to consider everything a competition right now. That means that Ellis can still make a push for playing time.
"I want Mark to come out and just do his thing, get ready the way he knows how, and [we'll] tell Kolten that there is going to be an opportunity for you to go out and compete also," Matheny said. "We've talked relentlessly with this staff that, 'Let's not commit to what we think it has to look like.' Let's let these guys go play this game and it'll make it obvious for itself. There are going to be opportunities for Kolten, and there are going to be opportunities for Mark as well."
Ellis packed only one glove in his bag of gear, though that does not mean he will necessarily play only one position. While the bulk of his spring work will come at second base -- a position at which Ellis has made 1,263 Major League starts -- the Cardinals will also consider getting him some groundballs at short and third.
Ellis has not played either of those positions regularly since ascending to the Majors.
"It's been a while since I've played some other positions, but it's something I feel I can do," Ellis said. "Wherever they want me to be is where I'm going to be. I don't care where it is. I just want to be out on the field helping this team win ballgames."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
10 units
3000 level
Course handbook
This course will survey U.S. politics and international relations, with special attention to the interplay between domestic and international issues. It will cover the institutions and processes of U.S. politics with a primary focus on foreign relations. Some of the major 20th century events in U.S. relations with the rest of the world will be used as examples, with special attention to their causes and their social and political impact. The enduring contradictions between ideals and power will be emphasized in the examination of covert action and other policies. Whether extant understandings in political science are challenged by the dynamics of U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy after the September 2001 attacks will also be discussed.
The 20th century has been called the American Century and some have predicted that the 21st century will be the Second American Century. It is true that the U.S. was centrally involved in major events such as the two world wars, the global depression of the 1930s, the creation of major international organizations after World War II, the Cold War (including the Korean and Vietnam conflicts), and the subsequent era of globalization attributed by some to a Washington consensus. Contrary to the predictions of many in the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. influence does not seem to be declining. Understanding why the U.S. behaves the way it does in relations with other states is therefore important for most countries in the world. It is also important for understanding the functioning of the international system as a whole.
Lectures and readings will examine prominent concepts and theories that have been developed to explain why the U.S. political system operates as it does and why the U.S. behaves the way it does internationally. Frameworks, concepts, and theories are the basic components of political science, and students will learn about some of the most interesting and powerful explanations of U.S. politics and foreign policy decision making. Students should develop a firm grasp of both fact and theory in this module.
Not currently offered.
This Course was last offered in Semester 1 - 2019.
Learning outcomes
On successful completion of the course students will be able to:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the basic institutional structure of the U.S. political system, with special focus on the federal executive and legislative institutions.
2. Demonstrate an understanding of how the political culture of the U.S. population has been characterized and how it differs from that of other developed democracies.
3. Demonstrate an understanding of how the patterns and recurring themes in U.S. domestic politics, especially regarding elections and interest groups.
4. Demonstrate an understanding of the connections between domestic politics and foreign policy in the United States.
5. Use a range of concepts and theoretical frameworks to analyze and explain major events of domestic politics and foreign policy, especially since 1945.
6. Critically analyse existing concepts and debates in political science about U.S. politics and foreign policy, such as the ability of voters to make meaningful choices, the role of the mass media, agenda setting dynamics in representative democracy, and the relative power of the federal executive.
The topics in this course include but are not limited to the following:
- Introduction to US Politics and International Relations
- The structure and culture of the American Political System
- The Presidency I (Presidential power and leadership)
- The Presidency II (Presidential management in the Executive branch)
- The Limits of Presidential Power: Presidential failures from Wilson to Clinton
- The Bureaucracy I (State Department)
- The Bureaucracy II (Military and Intelligence communities)
- Democracy within the beltway (elite politics, checks and balances)
- Democracy beyond the beltway (mass politics, public opinion)
- Communications Media, Civil Society, and Foreign Policy
- Decision Making and Policy Outcomes
- Who Sets the U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda?
- Conclusions and Review
Students must have successfully completed POLI1010 or POLI1020. This course has similarities to POLI2190. If you have successfully completed POLI2190 you cannot enrol in this course.
Assessment items
Presentation: In-class presentations
Written Assignment: Essays / Written Assignments


text:
Ricotta Cheese with Grape Molasses and few more breakfast...
(Lorlu Pekmez - Black Sea Region)
Mix the fresh ricotta cheese with grape molasses. Spread the mixture on the slice of freshly baked Turkish bread. It is great breakfast especially on cold winter mornings.
Murtağa (Van - East Anatolia Region)
3 tbsp butter
1/3 cup flour, all purpose
2 eggs, scrambled
Melt the butter in a small pan. Add the flour. Cook until the colour turns to a light golden shade while stirring at medium-low heat. Then pour the scrambled eggs all over it, stir without breaking it.
You can serve the Murtaga with honey or jam as a breakfast with Turkish Tea.
Black Olive-Feta Cheese-Tomato - (Zeytin-Peynir-Domates-Aegean Region)
Slice the tomato. Spread mashed garlic* with salt all over them. Place them in a serving dish. Cut the feta cheese in cubes and some Turkish black olive around them. Drizzle some extra virgin olive oil, sprinkle some oregano and Turkish crushed red pepper all over them. Serve this delicious combination as a breakfast or as a supper treat or an appetizer:)
*If you serve the dish for breakfast, skip the garlic:)
Labels: Breakfast


text:
Spelling mistakes, poor grammar and inconsistencies in marketing material can ruin even the sharpest image. Future Perfect's specialist proofreading service can help you to avoid nasty slip-ups.
Future Perfect assesses text for grammar, spelling, syntax, consistency and meaning – and does not check it just for spelling, as would a conventional proofreader.
Future Perfect can assess the consistency and quality of your communications and offer practical advice, to enable you to project a totally consistent, high-quality message.
Future Perfect can raise the communications skills of you and your team, with practical English language and grammar coaching, training, seminars and workshops.
Not sure about the right way to spell a word – or how to phrase a particular sentence? Check our hints and tips to find out how to avoid common English grammar and language mistakes.
Want to see exactly how we can improve your communications? We will assess a Web page or brochure – free.


text:
Dr. Grumpy: "Hi, this is Dr. Grumpy. Did Mrs. Stroke, in room 843, do anything funny on the cardiac monitor overnight?"
Al: "Excuse me? Are you a family member of the patient?"
Dr. Grumpy: "No, I'm her attending physician, and I was wondering if she had any more cardiac arrythmias."
Al: "I can't tell you that. We have privacy laws."
Dr. Grumpy: "I'm her freaking doctor! You have the phone ID right there! You can see I'm calling from the 8th floor nurses station!"
Al: "Look, whoever you are, I just started here..."
Dr. Grumpy: "No kidding."
Al: "...and in school we learned about the importance of patient privacy laws and... HEY! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!!!"
(long pause, whispers at the other end)
(new voice comes on the line) "This is Cheryl, the telemetry supervisor."
Dr. Grumpy: "Oh, thank God. It's Grumpy."
Cheryl: "I'm terribly sorry. You know how the new ones are. Her cardiac telemetry was normal."
Dr. Grumpy: "Thank you for getting on the phone."
Cheryl: "Anytime."


text:
Welcome to the Business and Finance Web site. The organizations that report to the Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance are committeed to providing you with our deep professional expertise and servant leader focus. Our organization is better today than yesterday, and will be better tomorrow than today with your help and feedback. Our leaders come to work to inspire people to do the things that inspire them.
The staff of Business and Finance supports the Mission and Vision of the Flint Campus. More specifically and personal to our organization:
- VISION: "the why": We believe that an education at UM-Flint can enhance the lives of students, families, and ultimately the Flint community. This is "the Michigan Difference" and will result in transformational growth for all.
- MISSION: "the how": Our mission is to make that vision a reality through "Serving the Blue, Serving U".
- GOAL: "the what": Delivery of the deep expertise in our various areas of specialty; servicing many as the provider of choice and employer of choice...and to do so with a "warranty"...we strive to make it right, or at a minimum, understandable.
If you share this set of beliefs, join us in making the Michigan Difference a reality. In Business and Finance it's more than a career, it's a calling.
Departments/Areas within Business and Finance
Auxiliary and Recreation Services
- Environment, Health and Safety
- Facilities and Operations
- Financial Services and Budget
- Information Technology Services
- Northbank Center
- University Human Resources
- Procurement and Contracts
- Public Safety
- Staff Council
Faculty Advisory Committees
- Administrative Services Advisory Committee
- Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Budget & Strategic Planning


text:
2018 - 19 Lecturer - Pool Faculty (Family & Consumer Sciences)
Job description
Experience Requirement: Teaching experience preferred.
Usual Duties: Lecturer-Pool faculty are term positions hired to teach one to four courses per semester. Course requirements may include a combination of teaching on-campus classes at The Woodlands Center, classes at the main campus in Huntsville, and online classes, depending on the needs of the academic department. Lecturer-Pool faculty hiring is based upon student demand, on a semester-by-semester basis. Sam Houston State University will accept applications from qualified applicants on a continual basis.
Degree Requirements: Requires a minimum of master's degree in related field for lower level course offerings.
Other Requirements for the Position: This posting is for the Fall 2018, Spring 2019 and Summer 2019 semesters.


text:
For those of us who've found ourselves working in theater," playwright Julie Marie Myatt says, "theater is how we try to make a difference in the world. It's how we engage the issues that confront us in our lives, and if we do our job right, we take those issues and present them to society in a way that allows people to engage those questions in new ways. That was certainly my goal with Jenny Sutter."
Next weekend, Sebastopol's Sonoma County Repertory Theater presents the California premiere of Myatt's powerful drama Welcome Home, Jenny Sutter, first performed last year as part of Ashland's Oregon Shakespeare Festival. After a five-month run in Oregon, the play, with its original cast intact, moved to Washington, D.C., for a limited run at the Kennedy Center. About a wounded Iraq solider and mother of two who fears returning home to her children after losing her leg in battle, Jenny Sutter has incited significant dialogue among its audiences, many of whom are veterans.
Myatt, who lives in Los Feliz, Calif., is an award-winning writer with a string of plays tackling hard subjects, from homelessness (My Wandering Boy) to the Cambodian sex trade (Boats on a River) to the battle over abortion rights (Someday). Her work has been staged at some of America's most esteemed theaters, including Minneapolis' Guthrie Theater, Costa Mesa's South Coast Repertory, L.A.'s Cornerstone Theatre Company and the Humana Festival in Kentucky. Her vision is at once intimate in focus and grand in scope, evidenced by Jenny Sutter's primary setting in Slab City, a real-life transient "city" formed at a decommissioned military base near the Salton Sea.
Within the Wild West, tent-and-camper culture of Slab City, Jenny Sutter, freshly discharged from the military, finds herself clashing and connecting with the local misfits and dropouts as she confronts her own darkest demons, desperately grasping for the courage and sanity to finally make her way home again. Just after the play's premiere in Oregon, I interviewed Myatt over breakfast, where the author was clearly energized by the initial responses to the piece.
"My dad was a Marine," she says, sipping a cup of coffee. "He served two tours in Vietnam, so I grew up in a military atmosphere—and I grew up not talking about the war. Life goes on, that was the official family position on war. After Vietnam, my dad stayed in the military. He retired a two star general. So the military has always been a big part of my life, though I haven't written about it until now."
"What took you so long?" I ask.
"I don't know," she laughs. "To tell the truth, when I started writing this play, I hadn't even thought about it as being about the military. I just thought I was writing from the perspective of someone who is, personally, very much against this stupid, never-ending war in Iraq. As someone who grew up with respect for the people who serve in the military, I feel like the troops are the real victims here. I think this war is different from Vietnam, because there was a draft then, and everyone in the country had family members, brothers and cousins and fathers and boyfriends that were going. The effects of the war were taking place in all of our homes. So in some ways it's easier to feel distant from this war now because, unless you happen to know someone who's over there, it's just this thing that's happening that we have no control over."
"As you wrote the play," I ask, "did you find yourself wrestling with how much of your own politics to put into the script?"
"I feel like my wrestling is the play," she says. "The image of a wounded veteran is, all on its own, a highly political statement. It begs the question, 'Is this war worth it?' That's why I wrote the opening scene the way I did, with Jenny waking up the last day of her military service, and getting dressed around her missing leg. I feel like the audience sitting there watching Jenny change clothes is an important moment. It's saying, 'Here. Take a look. This is what war is.'"
"How has writing this play changed your view of the world," I ask. "And has it changed your view of war?"
"Well," Myatt laughs, "I've suddenly become very interested in war, more than ever before. I think about war a lot—what it says about a country, what it does to the people who have to live with the effects of war on a daily basis. For most of us, we can't fathom it; we've not experienced that kind of trauma. We have had trauma in other ways in our life, but you know, seeing someone blown up in front of you is a whole different problem."
"The setting of Slab City is such an interesting location," I say. "I assume you've been there?"
"Absolutely," she says. "It's a really fascinating place, this whole transient culture that has been built up out there. There are a lot of veterans out there, by the way. If I wanted to, I could write plays about the people of Slab City forever. I'm really attracted to that, the idea of people living on the fringes."
"And it's there on the fringes that Jenny finds what she needs to begin her healing," I point out. "What are you saying with that?"
"In a way, all of these characters she meets are stuck in their own grief, they are all really stuck," she says. "My point is that all of these people, they are just as damaged as Jenny Sutter, but they still all want to help her, they're all trying to tell her, 'Look, go home. Just, go home.' Because she can go home. She has a home. They don't have anywhere to go."
The ending of the play leaves questions hanging, questions about what Jenny will do next. Nothing is neatly wrapped up, and Myatt says that was a very definite decision on her part, to end the play with uncertainty.
"I think that's where we are as a country," she says. "The process of dealing with all of this aftermath has only just begun. For me, the greatest tragedy is that these people, these young Americans, are sent off to do this very hard thing, and then they are brought home and just dumped back into their old lives as if nothing has happened. A lot of them feel that no one cares—and I think that that in most cases, they are right. Or maybe we care, but we just don't know what to do with that caring. We don't know how to start the conversation, we don't know ho to ask these people what they need.
"For me that's what this play is about," Myatt concludes. "What do we do now? Should we just bake a cake and say welcome home, fill-in-the-blank, or is there something more we can do?"
'Welcome Back, Jenny Sutter' runs March 20&–April 19 at the Sonoma County Repertory Theater. $18&–$23; Thursday is pay what you can and veterans get in free. 104 N. Main St., Sebastopol. 707.823.0177.
Museums and gallery notes.
Reviews of new book releases.
Reviews and previews of new plays, operas and symphony performances.
Reviews and previews of new dance performances and events.


text:
HORIZONS has created a niche over the past 20 years, exploring culturally rich, far flung and gorgeous regions still undiscovered by the more familiar tourist itineraries. With a maximum of 6 people, our trips bring you to places and introduce you to people you might never meet on your own. Our small groups allow for luxurious boutique accommodations – gems of great charm and character that continually draw "wows". Almost all of our trips visit one or more fabulous UNESCO World Heritage Sites! From a small beginning 2 decades ago with one trip in Oaxaca, Mexico....we now have programs encompassing South America, Southeast Asia, Morocco and Southern Africa. Over the years we have had a gradual "tilt" in the types of destinations we've been going to – a reflection of our strong desire to nurture experiences in parts of the world that may be somewhat foreign to us. Our concern in the 21st Century is to increase our recognition that we are citizens of the world and to become more familiar with the many fascinating people and cultures that inhabit our now fragile planet. We hope you will join us in our small-group travel adventures!
Jane Sinauer Founder & Director, Horizons


text:
Isaiah 9 New Living Translation (NLT)
Hope in the Messiah
9 [a]Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory.
2 [b]The people who walk in darkness
6 For a child is born to us,
The Lord's Anger against Israel
8 The Lord has spoken out against Jacob;
11 But the Lord will bring Rezin's enemies against Israel
13 For after all this punishment, the people will still not repent.
18 This wickedness is like a brushfire.
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.
You'll get this book and many others when you join Bible Gateway Plus. Learn more
Starting your free trial of Bible Gateway Plus is easy. You're already logged in with your Bible Gateway account. The next step is to choose a monthly or yearly subscription, and then enter your payment information. Your credit card won't be charged until the trial period is over. You can cancel anytime during the trial period.
Click the button below to continue.
You've already claimed your free trial of Bible Gateway Plus. To subscribe at our regular subscription rate, click the button below.
It looks like you're already subscribed to Bible Gateway Plus! To manage your subscription, visit your Bible Gateway account settings.
Upgrade, and get the most out of your new account. An integrated digital Bible study library - including complete notes from the NIV Study Bible and the NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition - is just a step away! Try it free for 30 days.
Three easy steps to start your free trial subscription to Bible Gateway Plus.


text:
XML::Pastor::ComplexType - Ancestor of all complex classes generated by XML::Pastor
This class descends from XML::Pastor::Type. All your generated complex classes descend from this class.
First, you need to generate your classes using XML::Pastor. See the documentation of XML::Pastor for more examples of this. XML::Pastor will then generate classes corresponding to the global elements and type definitions (complex and simple) in your W3C schema.
use XML::Pastor;
my $pastor = XML::Pastor->new();
# Generate MULTIPLE modules, one module for each class, and put them under destination.
mode =>'offline',
style => 'multiple',
And somewhere in an other place of the code ... (Assuming a global XML element 'country' existed in you schema and hence been generated by Pastor).
my $country = MyApp::Data::country->from_xml_file('/some/path/to/country.xml'); # retrieve from a file
$country = MyApp::Data::country->from_xml_url('http://some/url/to/country.xml'); # or from a URL
$country = MyApp::Data::country->from_xml_fh($fh); # or from a file handle
$country = MyApp::Data::country->from_xml_dom($dom); # or from DOM (a XML::LibXML::Node or XML::LibXML::Document)
# or from an XML string
$country = MyApp::Data::country->from_xml_string(<<'EOF');
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<country code="FR" name="France">
<city code="PAR" name="Paris"/>
<city code="LYO" name="Lyon"/>
# or if you don't know if you have a file, URL, FH, or string
$country = MyApp::Data::country->from_xml('http://some/url/to/country.xml');
# Now you can manipulate your country object.
print $country->name; # prints "France"
print $country->city->[0]->name; # prints "Paris"
# Let's make some changes
my $class=$country->xml_field_class('city');
my $city = $class->new();
push @{$country->city}, $city;
print $country->city->[2]->name; # prints "Marseille"
# Time to validate our XML
$country->xml_validate(); # This one will DIE on failure
if ($country->is_xml_valid()) { # This one will not die.
print "ok\n";
}else {
print "Validation error : $@\n"; # Note that $@ contains the error message
# Time to write the the object back to XML
$country->to_xml_file('some/path/to/country.xml'); # To a file
$country->to_xml_url('http://some/url/to/country.xml'); # To a URL
$country->to_xml_fh($fh); # To a FILE HANDLE
my $dom=$country->to_xml_dom(); # To a DOM Node (XML::LibXML::Node)
my $dom=$country->to_xml_dom_document(); # To a DOM Document (XML::LibXML::Document)
my $xml=$country->to_xml_string(); # To a string
my $frag=$country->to_xml_fragment(); # Same thing without the <?xml version="1.0?> part
XML::Pastor::ComplexType is an abstract ancestor of all complex classes (including those corresponding to global elements) generated by XML::Pastor which is a Perl code generator from W3C XSD schemas. For an introduction, please refer to the documentation of XML::Pastor.
XML::Pastor::ComplexType defines several methods that serve mainly to achieve the XML binding of generated classes that inherit from it. Yet, this class remains abstract because it is void of meta information related to the W3C schema that is defined for each generated class.
In fact, XML::Pastor::ComplexType contains (actually inherits from XML::Pastor::Type) a class data accessor called "XmlSchemaType()" with the help of Class::Data::Inheritable. This accessor is normally used by many other methods to access the W3C schema meta information related to the class at hand. But at this stage, "XmlSchemaType()" does not contain any information and this is why XML::Pastor::ComplexType remains abstract.
The generated subclasses set "XmlSchemaType()" to information specific to the W3C schema type. It is then used for the XML binding and validation methods.
The generated classes also automatically define accessor methods for the attributes and child elements of the complex type (or element) at hand. (See ACCESSORS for more information).
Notice that you can set any other field in the object that can be used as a hash key. It doesn't have to be a valid XML attribute or child element. You may then access the same field using the usual hash access. You can use this feature to save state information that will not be written back to XML. Just make sure that the names of any such fields do not coincide with the name of an actual attribute or child element. Any such field will be silently ignored when writing to or validating XML. However, note that there won't be any auto-generated accessor for such fields. But you can actually achieve this by using the mk_accessors method from Class::Accessor somewhere else in your code as XML::ComplexType eventually inherits from Class::Accessor.
Generated classes for simple types do not descend from this class. Instead, they descend from XML::Pastor::SimpleType (although both have a common ancestor called XML::Pastor::Type).
WARNING 1 : Normally, you never call the methods defined by XML::Pastor::ComplexType on this class itself. Instead, you call them on your descendant generated classes which inherit all these methods.
WARNING 2 : You should not use the names of these methods for the attributes and child elements within your W3C schemas. If you do, the behavior is undefined! You have been warned! If you follow the naming conventions given by XML::Pastor, you should be OK in any case. See "SUGGESTED NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR XML TYPES, ELEMENTS AND ATTRIBUTES IN W3C SCHEMAS" in XML::Pastor for more info.
XML::Pastor::ComplexType does not define accessors on itself, but the generated classes that correspond to complex types and global elements will have accessors defined for their attributes and child elements. This is done via Class::Accessor.
The accessors will be in the usual Perl form, meaning the name of the accessor will be the same of the attribute or child element. When called without any arguments, the accessor serves as a GETTER, and when called with a single argument it serves as a SETTER.
For attributes and singleton child elements with simple content, the accesors (GET) will return an object of a class that descends eventually from XML::Pastor::SimpleType. This may be a builtin class defined by XML::Pastor::Builtin or a generated class that derives from one if you have defined the type in your W3C schema. When setting a value of an attribute or a child element with simple content, you can either use an object of that same class or otherwise you can just use a SCALAR or a completely different object that stringifies to the desired value. But be warned that the accessor does not change your SCALAR or object into an object of correct class. XML::Pastor is just clever enough to convert those into the desired class on the fly upon validation or storage.
A child element that is a singleton (i.e., the maxOccurs schema property is undefined or '1'), its accessor will return an object of a class that eventually descends from XML::Pastor::ComplexType. This will typically be a generated class that derives from your W3C schema. When setting the value of such a child element, you should use an object of that same class (or one that derives from it). In fact, currently, you may also use a plain hash but this is an experimental feature so don't count on it to work.
For a child element that is not a singleton (i.e. the maxOccurs schema property is greater than '1' or is 'unbounded'), the accessor will return a XML::Pastor::NodeArray object (which is just a blessed array with some overloading functionality) that will contain one item for each child element with the same name in the order that they appear in the XML. Each item will be an object of a class that descends eventually from XML::Pastor::ComplexType or XML::Pastor::SimpleType depending on whether the element has simple or complex content. When setting the value of such a child element with multiplicity, you will have great freedom. The preffered way is to use a XML::Pastor::NodeArray object just as it is returned by the accessor (GETTER). But you don't have to. You can use a plain array instead. Currently, you can even use a single object (without an array) if you know that you will only put one element in there. But this is not such a good way of doing things. Besides, this feature is experimental so it may go away in the future. So try to stick with at least a plain array and you should be fine. The items in the array can even be plain scalars if the child element has simple content (see above for the attribute case).
$bool = $object->is_xml_valid();
OBJECT METHOD, inherited from XML::Pastor::Type. Documented here for completeness.
'is_xml_valid' is similar to "xml_validate" except that it will not die on failure. Instead, it will just return FALSE (0).
The implementation of this method, inherited from XML::Pastor::Type, is very simple. Currently, it just calls "xml_validate" in an eval block and will return FALSE (0) if "xml_validate" dies. Otherwise, it will just return the same value as "xml_validate".
In case of failure, the contents of the special variable
$@ will be left untouched in case you would like to access the error message that resulted from the death of "xml_validate".
There no known bugs at this time, but this doesn't mean there are aren't any. Note that, although some testing was done prior to releasing the module, this should still be considered alpha code. So use it at your own risk.
Note that there may be other bugs or limitations that the author is not aware of.
Ayhan Ulusoy <dev(at)ulusoy(dot)name>
Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Ayhan Ulusoy. All Rights Reserved.
This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
See also XML::Pastor::Type, XML::Pastor::SimpleType, XML::Pastor
And if you are more curious, see XML::Pastor::Type (the ancestor of this class), XML::Pastor::Schema::ComplexType (meta type information from your W3C schema)
And if you are even more curious, see Class::Accessor, Class::Data::Inheritable


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Richard Wolffe, Richard Engel, Sherrod Brown, Martin O'Malley, Eric Bates, John Pike, Josh Gerstein, Robin Wright
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Workers of the world divide?
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Philadelphia.
Leading off tonight: Divide and conquer. Rahm Emanuel famously said you never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and that seems to be the attitude among Republican governors: Do something, you need to do, fix that budget crisis, by doing something you want to do, shrink the power of public employee unions. It's happening from Wisconsin to Indiana to Ohio to Florida to New Jersey. The question tonight, who's going to win this one?
Plus, here's a story right out of "The Manchurian Candidate." "Rolling Stone" magazine reports that the Army, the U.S. Army, used experts in psychological operations—psy-ops—on U.S. senators to brainwash the senators into backing the war in Afghanistan. I thought only North Korea did this stuff.
Also, in Libya today, more and more cities have fallen to anti-government forces, as the noose seems to be tightening around Gadhafi. He's been using mercenaries to kill rebels by the thousands, or hundreds, in fact. One effect, spiking oil prices here in this country. We're going to get the latest from Richard Engel. And he's in Tripoli, or somewhere in Libya. We're not sure.
And what's behind the Obama administration's decision to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act? We're going to nail the politics of that decision.
Finally, it was Rumsfeld versus Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" last night.
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": I think I know why you're here. And let me just deflate the tension right off of the bat. Apology accepted.
MATTHEWS: Well, good for Jon Stewart. It's in the "Sideshow" tonight, but nothing funny about it.
Let's begin with the Republican assault on unions. Senator Sherrod Brown is an Ohio Democrat, and Maryland governor Marty O'Malley is chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.
Gentlemen, it's great to have you on. This is one of the most interesting political fights we've come along in a long time. You have Republican governors in states where they dominate their legislatures—
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. They own those states politically. They're using this unique ability of power, really, to destroy one of their enemies, it seems.
Is that your assessment, Senator Brown?
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Yes, that's—I mean, Governor Kasich won the election in the fall—in a, you know, huge Republican year, won by 2 points, and acts like he has a mandate to go after the union movement.
Collective bargaining, as you know, Chris, is a 75-year-plus tradition in this country. It's a moral question. It's why we have a middle class. It's why people that work with their hands or work with their brains and create something and grow a business or grow or support a public service, teaching, police, fire, health care, Head Start, whatever, that they contribute, and their reasonable adequately rewarded for that. And there's nothing to me more American than that value of working hard and being able to have a middle-class lifestyle as a result.
MATTHEWS: Governor O'Malley, your colleague up there—your Republican colleague, I should point out—up in Wisconsin got a phone call. It's one of those prank calls. They're sometimes very useful to figure out where a guy's coming from, or a woman's coming from, because in this case, he thought that he was talking to one of his benefactors, I think, David Koch, the big conservative money guy.
Let's listen to that conversation because this is probably better than any press conference because he doesn't know he's being listened to by us. Let's listen.
GOV. SCOTT WALKER ®, WISCONSIN: I talk to Kasich every day. You know, John's got to stand firm in Ohio. I think we do the same thing with Rick Scott in Florida. I think Snyder—if he got a little bit more support, probably could do that in Michigan. When you start going down the list, you know, a lot of us—there's a lot of us new governors who got elected to do something big.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're the first domino.
WALKER: Yes. This is our moment.
MATTHEWS: "This is our moment." You know, I was thinking of the movie, Governor O'Malley—I was think of the movie "Goonies," where the kids were going after One-Eyed Willy (ph), and they said, "This is our moment."
MATTHEWS: You know what I'm talking about. "This is our moment"?
GOV. MARTIN O'MALLEY (D), MARYLAND: Oh!
MATTHEWS: What is he talking about, Governor—
O'MALLEY: Oh, I don't know.
MATTHEWS: -- that this is their chance to nail the unions? It sounds like, you know, an astronomic opportunity to nail the other guy and it has nothing to do with the budget.
O'MALLEY: Chris, I'll tell you what else it has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with job creation. I mean, everyone in America, including in places like Wisconsin and Ohio, want their governors to be focused on creating jobs and getting people back to work. And they want us to solve problems. They don't want us to settle old political scores.
This is absolutely crazy. It has nothing to do with what the people who elect us want us to do. I mean, look, we've had to have the difficult conversations in Maryland with our public employees unions, but we brought people to the table to solve the problems. Were people happy? No. But we've got to find a way to move forward.
This is absolutely crazy. These guys apparently want to take advantage of the recession to drag us back to the days of Hoover and Coolidge. This has nothing to do with creating jobs.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at the game that the other side, the other governors, the Republican governors, seem to be playing here, and let's see if it's smart. Here's governor Chris Christie in New Jersey talking about what seems to be a divide-and-conquer campaign on his part—in other words, get that modest resentment that you often get between the private and the public employees, where private employees obviously have less job security, that's the way that it is, looking at public employees, who seem to have more, or do have more, and work in that resentment line.
Here is Christie pushing that line, the governor of New Jersey.
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE ®, NEW JERSEY: And in Wisconsin and Ohio, they've decided there can no longer be two classes of citizens, one that receives rich health and pension benefits, and all of the rest, who are left to pay for them.
MATTHEWS: Indiana governor Mitch Daniels on the same talking points at a Republican dinner in Ohio just last night. He called union members, quote, "the privileged elite," and said public jobs grew while private jobs were lost. Public salaries went up while private sector salaries are shrinking. This is a divide-and-conquer strategy. It's the talking point, Senator Brown. What do you make of it?
BROWN: Well, it takes me to the conservative politicians I hear in Columbus and in Washington, who have benefited from taxpayer-financed health insurance their whole lives, trying to repeal the health care bill and take benefits away from seniors and take benefits away from families with preexisting conditions.
I mean, this election in 2010 was all about the economy. It wasn't about going after teachers and police and firefighters. I had a roundtable today with a nurse, a teacher, a firefighter, a police officer and a couple of others—a couple of other state workers—state workers. And you know, it was interesting because what the teacher said one of the things they bargain over collectively is class size. And the police officer said one of the things that some police departments—some police officers do is bargain over actually having bulletproof vests.
So this is about safety. It's about education. It's not only about their wages, it's about lifting people in this country up. And that's what collective bargaining's done is by creating the middle class for the last eight decades.
MATTHEWS: Yes, that's true, and I agree with you philosophically completely, Governor. But let's look at the facts in Ohio. You got about 1 in 12 of private sector employees organized. You're got a much bigger percentage, maybe two or three times that percentage of public employees. Let me ask you—an opportunity here to talk about what goes on. Is that because industry, the private sector, intimidates employees out of organizing? Because public sector employees tend to organize much more frequently than private sector employees. Why is that the case?
BROWN: That's to me or to the governor?
MATTHEWS: To you, Senator.
BROWN: Yes, well, in part because the huge industrial job loss has been overwhelmingly good-paying union jobs that have been outsourced to China, gone to Mexico, whatever. There have been very sophisticated, very expensive anti-union campaigns aimed at organizers when we try to organize. I think almost all surveys show that many, many, many more people who aren't in unions would like to join, if they get an opportunity to. But the laws don't always work that way in their favor.
And we would have a stronger middle class, we'd have a more affluent society, more people would have pensions, more people would have health care. I don't want to take it away from public sector workers, I want to help private sector workers get those benefits.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's go to Governor O'Malley on that point. There seems to be a disconnect. Every poll is fascinating to me, at least. And I'm fascinated by the fact that the public does believe we have to cut spending but—I think all governors believe in that. But here's the question. They don't—the public generally does not like taking away collective bargaining rights of public employees.
Have the governors of these states we've mentioned, in Indiana, especially in Madison, Wisconsin, the governor out there, Governor—have they overreached politically?
O'MALLEY: I believe that they have. What's more, I believe, Chris, that they're actually—I think their behavior and their desire to kind of sharpen their ideological axe on public employees unions is actually keeping them from solving the problem.
Governors—Democratic governors have actually had to also balance our budget every year. We've all had to cut spending. We've reduced the size of government. But we've done it in a way that focuses on solving the problem, not in a way that tries to punish our political enemies.
So you know, we've asked a lot of our public employees for many of the same concessions they've asked for in Wisconsin, but we're not going after the right of people to associate freely, to join unions if they should so choose, or to have collective bargaining.
And I think that's what you're seeing people reacting against. They want us to solve problems and create jobs, not to try to drag us back to the days of Hoover and Coolidge and do away with unions.
MATTHEWS: Back to Senator Brown. Let's talk politics here, turkey. Are governors like this newcomer out there, Scott Walker—are they working for the big right-wing people like David Koch, out there bankrolling the Federalist Society, out there paying for speech time for Clarence Thomas? These guys have so much money, so much time on their hands, so much influence to peddle, it sounds like they're playing—they're beating the drum for every Republican who wants to make it in this country. That's my hunch.
BROWN: Well, you—yes, well, your hunch is right, I think. Listen to—listen to the tape you just played about his conversations—
MATTHEWS: Yes, who's working for who?
BROWN: -- with all these other governors. yes, and—and I—you know, it's—we've had conservative Republican governors. Five of the six the last six governors' races in Ohio have been won by Republicans. Governor Voinovich, a decent guy. Governor Taft, a decent guy. Not guys that were supported by unions, but they don't have this—this ideological hostility to the union movement.
They weren't particularly friendly to unions, but they didn't believe in putting out of business because I think 80 or 90 percent of the people in this country understand that we have a middle class because we've had 75 years of management sitting down with labor, both sides have to give in the end. Sometimes there's strikes. We've had significantly fewer strikes in Ohio since collective bargaining than we had before collective bargaining in the early '80s. And we have figured this out as a country.
Now they want to dismantle that, and it clearly is an attack on the middle class and an attack on worker rights, collectively or individual worker rights.
O'MALLEY: Chris—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BROWN: And it's just—it really is a moral question, ultimately, Chris.
O'MALLEY: Chris—
MATTHEWS: Well, we've figured out how to get through to Governor Walker in Madison, Wisconsin. You want to make a direct call to him, just call up his secretary and say, Daddy Warbucks is on the line—
MATTHEWS: -- AKA David Koch, and you'll get right through. You don't have to go through the executive assistant. Your last word, Governor O'Malley.
O'MALLEY: Chris, I just wanted to say that, you know, in the public sector/public sector, you have to work with the employees of any corporation in order to improve performance and accomplish meaningful things. And these guys, if they were head of a private corporation, wouldn't last a second. You've got to bring your workers together. You don't attack them and demoralize them. You focus on solving problems and getting things done. That's what we should be doing.
MATTHEWS: OK. Well, let me be the first to say to you, Governor, Happy St. Patrick's Day. It's coming up soon.
O'MALLEY: Thanks. Thanks a lot.
MATTHEWS: Only three weeks off. I know that you'll be playing the—
MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you, Senator Sherrod Brown. Thank you, Governor Martin O'Malley.
Up next: "Rolling Stone" magazine is reporting that the U.S. Army—this is the most amazing story! -- illegally ordered a team of soldiers in Afghanistan to run psychological operations, brainwashing operations, on visiting U.S. senators. They're brainwashing the politicians to back the war effort. The military's been trying to manipulate senators for years by providing troops, doing all this. This is a great magazine break for "Rolling Stone." We're going to get to it, a hot, terrible story.
You're watching HARDBALL, from Philadelphia, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Well, the FBI says it's foiled a possible terror plot here at home. Scary. The former president, George H.—George Walker Bush—
W, Walker Bush—has been a target of this. FBI agents arrested 20-year-old Khalid Aldawsari, a Saudi national. He was arrested in Texas. And agents say he was in the process of buying chemicals that could be used to make a powerful bomb.
Investigators also say they found documents in his home that show he'd been planning an attack for years and was inspired by Osama bin Laden's speeches, as well as e-mails he sent himself, one of which was entitled "targets." It listed the home address of former president George W. Bush in Dallas. Scary, bad stuff.
HARDBALL back after this.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Just month after ending General Stanley McChrystal's military career with a big profile piece, "Rolling Stone" magazine reports another U.S. general in the spotlight. This time, it's Lieutenant General William Caldwell, and the headline reads "Another runaway general." The story details how Caldwell, who's in charge of training Afghan troops, directed soldiers who specialized in so-called psychological operations to prepare background material and advise the general—him—on how to make the case to visiting American dignitaries for more resources and funding for the war effort.
This story names a number of high-profile leaders reportedly subjected to the effort. Catch this, Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, Al Franken, along with Congressman Steve Israel and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joints Chiefs.
Here's Senator Jack Reed reacting to the story about being brainwashed on MSNBC. Let's listen.
SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: I think, first of all, it has to be clearly, I think, evaluated as to what went on. What was the intent? Were there any regulations violated?
If there was, there has to be suitable punishment. I didn't feel any
anything unusual going on. And I think it's a result simply of trying to cast a vast net, talk to lots of people, not just in Kabul, but to go out on the ground.
MATTHEWS: Eric Bates is editor of "Rolling Stone," and John Pike is a military analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org.
Gentlemen, let me start with this, Eric Bates. Thank you. Congratulations on this story. I don't know if magazines are in still ineligible for the Pulitzer Prize, but you ought on win it with this baby. This is astounding. This is North Korea stuff. This is "Manchurian Candidate," the fact that we're using state-of-the-art psy-ops, brainwashing, to go after our own civilian people who are in charge of setting policy is amazing.
Don't they give these generals copies of the Constitution, Eric?
ERIC BATES, EDITOR, "ROLLING STONE": Well, apparently not in this case.
BATES: The general met him more than a dozen times with the leader of this unit, information operations unit.
And—and one of the most striking things about this story is that the unit itself was protesting the order. They were saying, look, we're not allowed to do this. Federal law prohibits us from doing this. Every defense bill has a propaganda rider to it forbidding us to do this. And when they complained, they were ordered to doing it, and then they were investigated and reprimanded. So—
MATTHEWS: And given trumped-up charges, to boot.
BATES: That's right.
So—so, you have a general who was very actively involved. His chief of staff was saying things to this unit like, what do I have to plant in these guys' heads to get them to give us more—more people, clearly trying to rely on their expertise in psychological operations.
MATTHEWS: John Pike, I—I always remember "Manchurian Candidate."
MATTHEWS: I grew up very familiar.
And it's not funny. You think it's funny. I don't think it's funny at all. I grew up with this stuff.
JOHN PIKE, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: I think it's preposterous.
MATTHEWS: Why is it preposterous? Tell me how.
PIKE: Well, you really have to wonder what else it is General Caldwell doesn't understand. I mean, here he has long been an advocate of what he calls strategic communications, that you need to coordinate your public affairs operation, your government relations, and your propaganda against the enemy.
Well, that makes sense, but you have got to have different people doing it. And if he doesn't understand that it would look bad to have his propaganda people talking to senators, you have to wonder, what else is it that he doesn't understand?
MATTHEWS: Well, he didn't think that he'd get caught.
PIKE: Well, you always get caught.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know what?
PIKE: No, I mean, you—you never do anything that you don't --
MATTHEWS: This is—the problem with this is, if you think it through, they have got a guy like a—a guy I may disagree occasionally—occasionally—occasionally, John McCain, on other issues, but he's a true patriot, and Joe Lieberman, another one. All these guys go over there with the idea of taking a little risk to find out what's going to.
They go over there to meet with the generals they respect completely. They meet with as many soldiers as they can. They respect them and honor them completely. They expect to get from them the facts. They expect to get from them the skinny on what's really happening.
Now we find out they have got baseball cards being made up on them studying what their proclivities are. It's like in "Groundhog Day" when Bill Murray is trying to pick up the girl by going after what she said the day before to work her.
Now, I have to tell you, this is really trying to use all the capabilities that we have developed over the years in dealing with the enemy, and perhaps moving them around, against the people who are supposedly setting the policy.
Don't these uniformed guys at the top know they're supposed to take orders from the civilian government, and not manipulate it psychologically?
I want to go back to Eric Bates on this again.
I know it's a rhetorical question. I know the answer. They ought to know.
BATES: They ought to know. And I think that we're seeing something what's similar with the McChrystal case.
In cases, what you're seeing is a disrespect of civilian command. There are there very, very clear federal laws and military policies regarding this. The men themselves who are being ordered to do this were protesting and saying, look, this is not right, this is illegal. And, still, they continued to do it.
I think it bespeaks how desperate they are to try and convince the civilian leadership that what's going on in Afghanistan is a success, when, in fact, I think most of the metrics show the opposite.
MATTHEWS: Well, I think there's a difference in quality here, don't you, between telling jokes about Joe Biden, which is relatively harmless, in effect—in effect—and manipulating politicians who come over to get the facts, where the effect is manipulative and wrong.
Isn't there a difference?
BATES: It's a very slippery slope here.
The—the general had a staff of two dozen people to do public affairs. He has people who are trained to help him spin the lawmakers. And all the lawmakers going over there know they're going to be spun, know they're going to get the story that the general wants them to hear, and he's going to make his case.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BATES: But what he did wrong here was going to a completely different set of people who are trained essentially to be a weapon, to do propaganda against the enemy.
MATTHEWS: Yes, well, brainwashing, brainwashing, the stuff you do when you get a prisoner and interrogate him, the stuff you do when you're trying to screw up the enemy on the other side when you're in battle against him and you want to give him misinformation, right?
BATES: Yes. I think what actually wound up happening, as best we can tell, was pretty innocuous, because the unit itself was resisting this order. So, I think that most of what they did—
MATTHEWS: Thank God.
BATES: -- Was pretty standard background dossiers. I don't think we're going to find that there are a bunch of "Manchurian Candidates" running around in the Senate. But that's not what the issue is.
MATTHEWS: Well—
BATES: The issue is whether—whether the law was broken.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me go to Mr. Pike on that.
I guess the good news here is that we know where John McCain was headed to begin with. We know where Lieberman was headed to begin with. They're both hawks. We know where Al Franken is headed. He's a smart dove, right?
PIKE: Right.
MATTHEWS: So they weren't really manipulated, in effect. There was an attempt to try to move these people around politically. Thank God our politicians are better at politics than the generals are, even their psy-ops people are, probably.
PIKE: Well, no, I think that most these people who went over there, they pretty much knew where they stood on this. They knew the right questions to ask.
The problem, of course, is that, for those of us who are old enough to remember it, in 1968, you had Governor Romney, who was a presidential candidate, coming back from Vietnam and saying that he'd been brainwashed about the Vietnam War.
Now, anybody who doesn't remember that and anybody who doesn't worry about avoiding that kind of perception, I just have to wonder, what else is it that they don't understand?
MATTHEWS: Well, we have had a recent press secretary, a president, who never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis. You have got understand, Mr. Pike, the memory of a lot of people isn't long. Their history knowledge is zero in a lot of cases. Don't be shocked that a lot of people don't know.
I have got my commentary, by the way, already written. I'm glad you brought it up. Or, actually, I'm not glad you brought it up—I thought I could bring it up—that Mitt Romney's father was brainwashed, he said.
I hope Mitt, by the way, takes a shot at the Army for doing to these guys today what was done to—according to his father, to him.
PIKE: That's right. That's right.
MATTHEWS: It would show some loyalty to the old man and his memory.
MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you, Eric Bates. Thank you. It's great to have you on.
You know, Eric, you have done it again, hell of a piece. I mean, your magazine is hot. Thank you very much, Eric Bates, for—and good piece.
And, John Pike, thanks for helping us with the facts here.
Up next: Jon Stewart vs. Don Rumsfeld. I don't know if that's a fair fight. Stick around for the "Sideshow."
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow" tonight.
Last night: Jon Stewart vs. Don Rumsfeld, the topic, Iraq, of course.
Ready, set, go.
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": I think I know why you're here. And let me just deflate the tension right off of the bat.
STEWART: Apology accepted.
STEWART: There was no real momentum for a war in Iraq. We had to focus the country on that.
Would it be fair to consider that, in the effort that it took to sell us this, that we lost our—
DONALD RUMSFELD, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: That's a—that's a—
STEWART: Sell is—
RUMSFELD: A little strong, a little strong.
STEWART: Let me back up. In the effort it took the administration to
RUMSFELD: Present.
RUMSFELD: I'm just trying to help you.
STEWART: Thank you. I appreciate that.
RUMSFELD: I sat down and prepared a list of all the things that could go wrong.
STEWART: The parade of horribles.
RUMSFELD: Exactly. And one of them was, there might not be weapons of mass destruction.
STEWART: That's right.
RUMSFELD: And another one was, it might last six or eight years.
STEWART: Mm-hmm.
RUMSFELD: And other—
STEWART: Did you—did you star those?
RUMSFELD: No.
MATTHEWS: There's something schizoid about Rumsfeld, some separate from reality, human experience, and the way he talks. But there's nothing humorous about the deaths of 100,000 people, about a war based on a bad, baseless argument.
Next: Jon Huntsman being there. Last weekend, the U.S. ambassador to China made a family trip to a McDonald's in Beijing. The hitch? That McDonald's was right by a pro-democracy protest going on at the time. Here's the edited YouTube making the rounds. We have enlarged their subtitles so you can read them.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON (through translator): Hi, Ambassador. What are you doing here?
JON HUNTSMAN, UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO CHINA (through translator):
I'm just here to look around.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON (through translator): So, you want China in chaos, don't you?
HUNTSMAN: Uh? No.
MATTHEWS: Now, the U.S. Embassy stresses that Huntsman's presence was purely coincidental. Chinese censors aren't taking his word for it. They have gone ahead and blocked searches for Huntsman's name on blogging sites.
Time for tonight's "Big Number."
Over the years, John McCain has had a reputation as a reach-across-the-aisle moderate time. Well, time for a checkup on him. "The National Journal" just came out with their ideological rankings based on votes in the Senate. Where does McCain stand? You won't believe this. He's tied with seven other senators at number one, number-one conservative.
Maverick? Not lately. John McCain up to the most conservative voting record in the U.S. Senate, tied for number one—tonight's big, bad number. McCain is no moderate. He's no maverick. He's a right-winger now.
Coming up: Libya's blowing up, with Gadhafi hiring mercenaries to kill his own people. We will get a report from our own Richard Engel, the best in the business. He's on the ground over there.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous, and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms, and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop.
MATTHEWS: We're back. That was, of course, President Obama just yesterday issuing a forceful condemnation on Gadhafi's bloody crackdown on his own people.
By all accounts, the popular revolt in Libya is widening. Rebels are pushing closer to the capital of Tripoli, where Gadhafi has mobilized mercenaries and paramilitary units to defend his main stronghold.
Earlier today, Gadhafi called into a—called into Libya TV and blamed Osama bin Laden and a youth population, he said, that was hooked on hallucinogens for fomenting the rebellion.
For the latest, let's turn to NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who is on the ground over there.
Richard, thank you so much.
Gadhafi seems like he's circled the wagons. Is he playing for time or for a regaining of authority?
RICHARD ENGEL, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: I think he's playing for keeps.
Gadhafi has no intention of losing power. And it seems very clear that he wants to fight until the very end. He's hired mercenaries. We have heard reliable accounts of what those mercenaries have been doing, opening fire on civilian populations wherever they are deployed.
And it seems that Gadhafi is willing to fight to the very end. Today, in his—his speech, his radio address, it was very unusual, to say the least. I have—I have been listening to speeches by Arab leaders in Arabic for, like, the last 15 years or so.
And he didn't sound sane. He was mumbling. He was—there were long pauses. His—his train of thought was very difficult to follow. He didn't just blame al Qaeda for this uprising. He talked about the Unabomber. He talked about the Kurds in Northern Iraq. He talked about India. He mentioned how it was al Qaeda giving hallucinogenic drugs to the protesters in Nescafe, which is an instant coffee mixed with milk.
He said that the Americans were involved because they lied about the connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The—the speech was all over the place, and it didn't sound like it was being spoken by a sane individual.
MATTHEWS: What do you make of the fact that that's matched up with his private communications through Musa Kusa and Bill Burns, the undersecretary, that he is saying the same thing on the phone through his intermediaries that he's blasting over the airwaves?
ENGEL: Well, it shows that he is not potentially in touch with—with the reality on the ground.
He was speaking to a people who are fighting in a village called Zawia, which is about 40 miles west of Tripoli. And he was calling on the people of Zawia to stop fighting, to wake up, to realize that they were being misled by these hallucinogenic drug and al Qaeda and a host of other conspiracies.
It's unclear if he really believes this. Listening to the speech, you could hear him just speaking extemporaneously, turning pages. He didn't appear to be reading from notes, but he kept bumping into the microphone.
And then, after about 30 minutes, he hung up the phone, and there was a long dial tone pause, as the radio presenter didn't seem to know what to do. And then they just pushed a button, and we started hearing cheers and nationalistic songs.
So, I think even people in the state apparatus don't know exactly how
what—what to make of him right now.
MATTHEWS: Does this match up with the president, our president's hesitancy to be too condemnatory? Is President Obama concerned that, if he uses the wrong language, it could trigger a really ballistic attitude by this guy, where he starts killing people with those mercenaries from Sub-Sahara Africa?
ENGEL: I think people here are very worried that he will do that anyway. I don't think they are so concerned that—that President Obama's statements are going to trigger him to do that.
They think that, if they push, the rebels push hard enough against Gadhafi, he could fight back. Gadhafi's regime does have chemical weapons. They're supposedly in fairly poor condition, but he does have them. He has $32 billion in foreign funds, about $1 billion of that in the United States. So, he still does have considerable resources.
I am in Benghazi right now, which is totally in rebel hands. This is a rebel-held city and people here say this is a free Libya, where they have their own broadcasts right now. They have their own messages that they're putting out to the country and they say they will take this movement and bring it to Tripoli.
People here say that President Obama has not been strong enough. They would like to see some sort of direct intervention. They heard his speech and thought he was still talking about a Cairo-style protest movement. This not a Cairo style protest movement. This is an armed rebellion.
MATTHEWS: What—if you got to look at the order of battle on both sides, do the rebels have the force level to compete with the—with Gadhafi's forces at this point?
ENGEL: They don't have—they have numbers. But they don't have the conventional weapons. They don't have the air force. They have some armored vehicles, but no, they don't frankly have the same sort of level of power. They're not that armed.
They've been some defections by the military and I saw personally some
army units handing out heavy weapons, rocket launchers, mortars. But if it
was a straight up battle between Gadhafi's loyalists and the mercenaries
who are holed up in parts of Tripoli, and the rebels, I think it would be a
well, maybe an even fight.
MATTHEWS: Is there any talk of recognition by the United States or any other significant power of the rebel territory as a sovereign power?
ENGEL: Well, official recognition probably not. But unofficial recognition is already taking place.
There was a British warship in Benghazi, not far from the center of the city that was evacuating foreign nationals today, evacuating British nationals. There's a British school in Benghazi. And in order to do that, they were coordinating with rebels. There are Chinese workers who are here. They are also coordinating with the rebels.
The rebels are—have set up in the main—sort of court building here in Benghazi, their own government, judges and lawyers are out on the streets. They were telling people even today to put their seat belts on. They're trying to have a somewhat orderly society.
So, on the ground, they already are getting some recognition from the international community.
MATTHEWS: Great reporting. Thank you so much, as always, Richard Engel.
By the way, he's over there in Benghazi, just told us.
The violence in Libya has shut down half of the country's daily oil production, causing all prices to hit their highest level in more than two years now. It's about $100 a barrel right now. Just look at the jump over the last two months. At the start of January, oil was at $88 a barrel. Yesterday, it hit $100. It's around there, hovering at $96 right now.
Well, is Gadhafi gotten away with bad behavior for decades because he sits on oil?
Journalist Robin Wright has interviewed Gadhafi twice. She's now a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
Robin, thanks for joining us.
You know what I'm focused on—I know the oil issue is hot right now. But I'm focused down the road in U.S. policy. Do we finally have a consistent policy towards that region? Do we want it to join the rest of the world with a push towards something like democracy?
ROBIN WRIGHT, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER: Well, for six decades, both Republicans and Democrats have given lip service to democracy in the values of freedom, but they've done very little about it.
The Obama administration was also slow off the mark in Tunisia. It took really the momentum of the protest in Cairo to galvanize it to get out in front and say it's time for the leadership in Egypt to recognize the will of the people. And it's taken a much greater step in Libya, in talking very bluntly about the outrageous behavior of a leader.
Remember, this was just 10 years ago that the Bush administration was trying to make Libya the example of a country that could be redeemed, that could, by cooperating on weapons of mass destruction, on counterterrorism, could be brought in from the cold for—at that point three decades and could deal again with the international community.
Now, we've officially given up and there's no way that Colonel Gadhafi will ever be embraced by the United States and probably the rest of the world again.
MATTHEWS: Well, it seems like at the very time we're trying to foreswear rotten deals, we look at the oil situation. Saudi Arabia, once again, we're going to rely on them to start pumping at a higher level to make up for the deficit from Libya, right? So, once again, they've got a stranglehold on us.
WRIGHT: Yes. And the oil issue is why Libya is different from both Tunisia and Egypt. There is that issue of it being one of the largest oil producers in the world even though it's population tiny. It's only 6.5 million people, smaller than New York—a fraction of New York City.
And so, Libya—what happens in Libya is critical particularly to our European allies and that's why I think you see President Obama, first of all, being cautious in getting out there and saying Gadhafi has to step down because first of all, there's still some Americans and other foreigners trying to be evacuated from Libya. And secondly, because we want to work closely with the Europeans. They're the ones who have real leverage—by making this country untenable, not viable economically that forces Gadhafi's hand in a way that nothing else does.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I just found out today that their sweet crude, as it's called, is the very kind of oil that they need in Europe because their diesel engines over there, they use much more diesel. Anybody who goes to Europe on a vacation can smell the diesel fuel over there and that's what makes them so reliant on Libya's sweet crude, which is the engine—which is the oil they need for their refineries.
Thank you so much, Robin Wright, as always.
Up next: does President Obama have more to gain or lose—more to lose with his reversal, in his reversal to the Defense of Marriage Act? He's not going to fight for its constitutionality anymore. Let's talk about the politics of DOMA, it's called, and what it means to this president.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: President Obama's approval ratings are not what they were back in 2008, but he's actually gaining in some unexpected places.
Take a look at this: Obama's approval rating is higher than his both total in eight states, which means he's gaining strength. Six of those states here in the Deep South, including the biggest gainer, Mississippi, where 47 percent now approve of the job this president's doing.
He's only got 43 percent of the vote in Mississippi back in '08.
Well, he's gaining down there. He probably still can't carry it.
We'll be right back.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I'm not in favor of gay marriage.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
That was, of course, then-candidate Barack Obama just days before the 201 election. Well, this week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says the president is personally grappling with the issue of same sex marriage personally. Legally, the White House has made it clear already the administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act which says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman under federal law.
So, is this smart political strategy as the president heads towards reelection in 2012, or is it political strategy?
Josh Gerstein writes for Politico and Richard Wolffe is an MSNBC political analyst.
Gentlemen, I have to start with something I find very hard to figure out.
I want Josh Gerstein with this.
You got this interview with Mike Huckabee. Now, I thought Mike Huckabee was crazy. I think his Middle East policy is slightly crazy which is get all the Arabs out of Israel, out of West Bank. But here he is saying if—Mike Huckabee said that this whole decision he's made about marriage between two—the same-sex is a problem for him. He says two thirds of the poverty in this country would be eliminated of the mothers of the children were married to their fathers.
Well, what's that got to do with same-sex marriage? Whether husbands, you know, abandon their wives when they have kids and not being responsible fathers or husbands? What does that got to do with same-sex marriage? Put it together for me in Mike Huckabee's thinking.
JOSH GERSTEIN, POLITICO: Well, my sense is that he's suggesting that the whole phenomenon of same-sex marriage is essentially ripping apart or causing a fraying of the social fabric of the country and that somehow this is behind that phenomenon.
MATTHEWS: You mean, husbands are running away from their wives to marry men because it's now legal?
GERSTEIN: I don't think he's suggesting it quite literally in that way.
MATTHEWS: It sounds like it.
GERSTEIN: That there's a breakdown of moral order. But, obviously, the sequence is off. You know, people having kids out of wedlock started long before same-sex marriage was even on the horizon.
MATTHEWS: Well, they're not—this is what, Richard Wolffe, please help me here. What is the connection? Is this just right wing crazy talk of the culture war that anything you don't like is related under some universal theory to something else you don't like?
Sure, since Moynihan would know there's a problem with breakdown of marriage in inner city and anywhere else. It's a disaster in many cases, emotionally, personally, whatever, in many cases. But to say it has something to do with gay orientation or gay legality or same-sex marriage, what is the connection? Please help me here, Richard.
RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Chris, there isn't a connection. It's hard to say how people wanted to get married to each other encourage divorce somewhere else in the country. It doesn't make any sense. But how it makes sense, you started the segment by saying, what's the political side of this. What Huckabee did was arguably much more political than what the White House is doing—
MATTHEWS: Right.
WOLFFE: -- which is prompted by all these court cases. Huckabee is speaking to that 30 percent of the population that still says that gay marriage, same-sex marriage should not be recognized and that is the hard core Republican—Huckabee, both in these primaries, coming up. So, he may be speaking out of personal belief, but it also—it speaks to the people who got through Iowa last time.
So, if he has an ambition, if he has an audience of FOX, this is what they want to hear. That's politics.
MATTHEWS: That's what I want to get to.
Josh, this gets to his psycho bubble, but here's the question—people tell me that he wants to go into the presidential election for no other reason than to go into Iowa and knock off Mitt Romney, just take him out of the race for sheer delight, even if it means costing him some money. Then you hear the argument that Huckabee wants to make the money, needs the money, says he'll be broke if he does run for president. What's he doing sharpshooting here, going after an issue that's red hot on the far right, if he's not running for president?
GERSTEIN: No, there's no question that he's trying to get as far out there in the far right plank as he can and catch attention, you know, out even beyond some of the statements Newt Gingrich has been making in recent week. I think he probably is headed towards the presidential race and that's what Huckabee is up to.
I would disagree a little bit with what Richard said. I think some people who oppose the defense of—who oppose gay marriage are people that President Obama is going to want vote for him in 2012. They're not all out there on the far right. And the president is gambling that economic issues are essentially going to be more important in 2012 than any of these—
MATTHEWS: Richard, that is the problem for the president. I'm looking at the statistics here. Thirty and under are definitely with same sex, 53 percent. But once you get above 30, the people as a group and as an age group, from 30 all the way to death, I guess, are against it.
WOLFFE: I don't know. The latest polls say 52 percent believe there should be federal recognition of same-sex marriage. That number was reversed, disapproved of it. Just a year ago, these numbers are shifting around to the point where you have Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman—I mean, these are major Republican figures out there who are saying it's acceptable, they support it. So, I don't know that you can say the majority now—the majority opinion is somehow against what the president is saying.
And, by the way, the president hasn't said he's for same-sex marriage.
It's just that he won't go out and defend—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
WOLFFE: -- the Defense of Marriage. That is a nuance position which, frankly, doesn't hold a lot of water. And I would not be surprised to see the president coming out, having grapple with this for a couple more years and say he actually now supports same-sex marriage, too.
MATTHEWS: I think Republicans who want -- 51 percent of them don't want to talk about this. They need the suburbs. They can't do with this. Women especially in the suburbs won't listen to this old stuff. But out in the rural areas, it's golden.
Anyway, Richard Wolffe, thank you. Josh Gerstein, congratulations on the interview with Huckabee.
Coming up: "Let Me Finish" with two words for the general in Afghanistan who reportedly ordered psy-ops, brainwashing of American politicians—civilian control. It's in the Constitution. More on that when we return.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: "Let Me Finish" tonight with this story of stealth and intrigue uncovered by "Rolling Stone." I don't know about you, but it makes me think of the "Manchurian Candidate," that great movie about an American serviceman captured and then brainwashed by the North Koreans, then returned to the United States as an assassin. Well, that's the movie.
In this real-life story just uncovered by "Rolling Stone," it's the American military that's brainwashing our senators. The people in uniform are supposed to be taking their orders from the civilians, but I get it, want to keep a war that's getting unpopular back home, we'll practice the dark hearts (ph) then on the ones coming up to check out the battlefront, give them so much B.S. they'll think victory is right around the corner.
I'm waiting for Mitt Romney to say something about this. His dad, by all evidence a good man, got himself knocked out of the 1968 race for president when he said he'd been brainwashed by the generals in Vietnam. Maybe Mitt ought to stand up now like a good son and say, "Dad may have had something. Let's get to the bottom of this one."
Somehow, I don't think he will. The right wing is so fundamentalist now that it attacks as heresy any breach with the military or with Glenn Beck or with Sarah Palin, any word that carries a hint of independent, gutsy thinking. Can't have any of that, can we?
Oh, by the way, maybe Senators McCain and Lieberman and other visiting VIPs should check their notebooks from their last trip to Kabul.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
More politics ahead with Cenk Uygur.
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.> PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
Duct tape, also known as Duck Tape is a cloth backed pressure sensitive tape which is often coated with polyethylene. Duct tapes main feature is its strong adhesive capacity and its resistance. The construction of different duct tapes varies in the type of backings and adhesives they use. Duct tapes are often silvery grey in colour but can also be other colours and feature printed designs.
Our Duct Tapes Guide offers a more complete overview on the different types available on the market.
Duct tape consists of an outer layer of plastic film, usually polyethylene or LDPE (low-density polyethylene) that provides waterproofing and weather resistance. Some tapes have a vinyl outer coating which is resistant to abrasions. Tapes are also available that are made from transparent materials that make them less visible when applied. This outer layer is bonded onto a middle layer of strong fabric or thin gauze. The fabric forms a mesh which offers both strength and elasticity when used. The fabric layer is then covered on the inner side with a thick layer of strong adhesive that sticks to almost any surface. The different types of duct tape vary according to the fabric fibres that are used. These fabric fibres can be cotton, nylon, fibreglass, rayon or polyester. The most common widths for duct tape are 48 mm and 51 mm
Originally the silver grey coloured duct tape was used to seal joints in heating or air conditioning ducts to make them airtight but it now has multiple uses. Duct tapes are available made from a range of materials with different properties and colours enabling them to be used in many different applications. Duct tape can be used indoors or outdoors and is an essential component in any tool box.
Types of Duct Tape
Gaffer Tape: This is non-reflective and, unlike normal duct tape, can be torn by hand and easily removed without leaving a sticky residue. Gaffer tape is commonly used in the TV and film industries due to its non-reflective properties to temporarily tape cables to the floor or light fixtures to posts. Gaffer tape can also be used in the home for securing cables to a carpet, concrete or wood.
General Purpose Duct Tape: This has a low fabric count, a thin outer polyethylene film and low weight adhesive. This tape is ideal for odd jobs where longevity is not an issue.
Industrial Grade Duct Tape: This is made from a stronger fabric with a tougher outer layer and thicker adhesive. This duct tape is for more heavy-duty use and is ideal for holding down carpets at exhibitions.
Professional Grade Duct Tape: These have a stronger backing material than the industrial duct tape for added strength, durability and adhesion. These tapes are often used by contractors and construction workers.


text:
Looking at photos of the demonstrations in Chicago reminds me a little of the Democratic National Convention in 1968. During that steamy summer, Chicago exploded as protesters gathered there to show solidarity against the war in Vietnam.
Once again, we the people are pissed off about our money being spent on wars abroad instead of people in need both here and abroad. Many of us see this as a gathering of warmongers. Veterans marched to return their medals and people by the tens of thousands supported them.
While news outlets were describing the "hundreds" who came out to protests, we see pictures of tens of thousands filling the streets.
We see photos of unruly crowds, just as we did in 1968, but we also see people who are peaceful, who want nothing more than to express their thoughts in a land that boasts freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
I have been to many demonstrations in my time. I wish I could be in Chicago today.
In 1968, we were told we couldn't leave Vietnam because the Communists would overrun South Vietnam and then all the neighboring countries and then go on to conquer the world, known as the "Domino Theory." It was "fight 'em there or fight 'em here." Today that same argument is being used to keep us in Afghanistan for 11 years and counting. Terrorists will come and kill us in our sleep.
Well, the Commies didn't show up on our shores, and if we stop meddling with the governments of the Middle East, the terrorists will have no reason to come after us.
War is a very profitable endeavor when it's not your country that's being shot up or bombed back to the stone age.
The most important difference between our most recent wars and the war in Vietnam is the lack of information Americans today receive about what's really happening. Correspondents in Afghanistan have to fight to get any stories on the evening news. Reporters are "embedded" rather than allowed to go in search of the truth.
During the Vietnam war, we saw the horrors every night on the news. We watched as American soldiers torched villages where they suspected Vietcong soldiers were hiding. We saw a man executed by a gunshot to the head, we saw children lit afire with napalm. We saw our own gravely wounded soldiers loaded up into helicopters.
We aren't allowed to see that now, because if we did, we would demand this slaughter in our name be stopped immediately. This war isn't as unpopular at home as the Vietnam war was because we're not seeing the destruction being wrought in our name. That's how NATO wants it, and that's why we have to stop it.
Average Americans aren't being asked to contribute anything to the war effort except our sons and daughters, who may be deployed three, four or five times before they are too broken to be deployed again, unless, of course, they die.
Like Vietnam, it isn't the wealthy whose children are going to fight. During Vietnam, the wealthy could buy spots for their children in the National Guard after they had run out their college deferments. Back then, the Guard didn't deploy overseas; we had the draft to fill the ranks of the regular military services. But the draft is so unpopular politically we now recruit poor kids out of high school and promise them a college education when they get back — if they get back.
In Vietnam, the majority of draftees were from the working class. The wealthier you were, the better your chances for avoiding the draft, either through college deferments or medical deferments (I'm thinking of Rush Limbaugh's anal cysts). It's no coincidence that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the chicken hawks never served in the military (well, George's daddy got him into the National Guard, where we all know his record of not showing up).
Meanwhile, military contractors are lining their pockets with billions of our tax dollars. The rich are getting richer while the rest of us are getting screwed.
Is it any wonder Americans are crowding into the streets of Chicago to protest?


text:
Get on-demand Q&A homework help from verified tutors
Access over 20 million homework documents through the notebank
Read 1000s of rich book guides covering popular titles
Include details on what you need help with, your budget, and how much time you have.
We recommend tutors that are perfect for your question. You choose the one you want to work with.
Message tutors through Studypool's chat feature. Only pay at the end. Satisfaction guaranteed.


text:
Family picture.
Lincoln leaves January 4th to the MTC. Mckinley loves coloring on his giant list of things he needs to bring.
Christmas Eve we had dinner at Brandon's parents' house.
I got to talk to Amy on the phone for a few minutes while we were over there. Mostly I just wanted Mckinley to talk to her, which she did. It was pretty cool.
Mckinley on Christmas morning all ready for Church.
At least we got a smile out of Mckinley this time. :)
Mckinley did pretty well opening presents. She had to make sure she set down each piece of wrapping paper on the ground before ripping off more.
Mckinley was following Bryn around everywhere (as usual) with these little computers.
A rare picture of just the two of us.
My mom had a gift that she bought for Mckinley for Christmas before she left for China. It was this adorable pink marshmallow coat!! Mckinley loved it and wouldn't let us take it off of her.