text:
INDIANAPOLIS — The NCAA is demanding everyone in college sports play by the same book.
Those who deviate from it and flaunt the rules will soon be paying a steeper price.
On Tuesday, the NCAA's board of directors passed a package of sweeping changes that will hold coaches more accountable for rule-breaking offenses and threaten rogue programs with longer postseason bans and fines that could cost millions of dollars.
Coaches say it's about time.
"Throughout history, the only way to keep civilization and to keep things in order is to have very strong rules and enforce them," said Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer, who won two national titles at Florida. "There's no other way. Clear rules with very firm and swift — it has to be a little bit more swift — punishment."
The NCAA believes they have fixed the problem of swift justice, too, by approving an increase in the number of infractions committee voting members, from 10 up to 24.
The plan is to split the full committee into smaller panels, all of which could hear cases and allow as many as 10 meetings to take place annually instead of the five that have traditionally been held.
The board overwhelmingly supported all pieces of the legislation and voted unanimously to approve it, though it was unclear if all 13 board members participated in an unusual conference call.
Typically, members attend the Indianapolis meetings in person. But when it became clear that Superstorm Sandy could have a significant impact on travel plans, the members who were not yet in Indy were told to stay home.
Oregon State President Ed Ray, the NCAA executive committee chairman, told The Associated Press it was the first time in his 5½-year tenure the board met on the phone.
But after debating these measures since August 2011, the board was not going let a storm, or anything else, derail the reform movement.
"We have sought all along to remove the 'risk-reward' analysis that has tempted people — often because of the financial pressures to win at all costs — to break the rules in the hopes that either they won't be caught or that the consequences won't be very harsh if they do get caught," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement posted on the governing body's web site.
So the board started by trying to strip cheaters of two of the biggest benefits — money and prestige.
Violators found to be in "serious breach of conduct" with aggravating circumstances could face penalties similar to those imposed on Penn State earlier this year following the Jerry Sandusky scandal — a four-year postseason ban and a $60 million fine.
Head coaches will find themselves under more scrutiny, too.
If any member of the coaching staff commits a serious infraction, the head coach must prove he or she was unaware it occurred or face a suspension ranging from 10 percent of the season to one full season. Some don't believe it is that much to ask.
"Being an assistant for so long, I still think like an assistant coach," Indiana football coach Kevin Wilson said. "I think it's my responsibility, and I like to educate our staff on what to do and that you know what those guys are doing and that you make sure our guys are doing things properly."
Committee members couldn't agree more.
"Everyone I've talked to tells me that if there's anything that coaches are, it is control freaks," Ray said. "They not only know what's going on in their program, they know everything that's going on in their program — and if they don't, they should."
Tuesday's decision is the latest chapter to update and toughen NCAA enforcement policies and procedures.
It started in August 2011 when Emmert asked dozens of school presidents and chancellors to attend a retreat during one of the most scandalous years in college sports.
Afterward, Emmert and Ray among others called on school leaders to get tougher on the most egregious rule-breakers.
The current two-tier penalty structure, for major and secondary infractions, is being scrapped for a four-level stepladder — severe breach of conduct, significant breach of conduct, breach of conduct and incidental issues. Punishment could also be impacted by charges of aggravating circumstances, or intentional violations, and mitigating circumstances that could help a school with its case.
NCAA officials believe it will help allocate more staff to the most serious cases.
But critics worry this may be just another round of tough talk and little action.
"It sounds nice in theory but until I see a big-time coach like (John) Calipari or somebody get suspended for a year, I will not believe this will do anything," said David Ridpath, an Ohio University professor and past president of the NCAA watchdog The Drake Group. "I think there a lot of loopholes in there when you start reading it."
If the policies don't clean up college sports, the NCAA could tweak the legislation, too.
"We'll continue to evaluate it and if we recognize something is not working in the right area, that's a step we will rectify," NCAA director of enforcement Chris Strobel said.
Infractions that occur after the meeting but are not resolved before Aug. 1. 2013, will be subject to the new sanctions. Schools currently under investigation, such as Miami, also could be hit with the new penalties if their cases are not resolved before Aug. 1.
Emmert has backed every legislative piece of the reform movement.
Last fall, the governing body passed a measure calling for tougher eligibility requirements on incoming freshmen and junior college transfers; another that tied academic performance to postseason eligibility; a third that give schools flexibility to offer multiyear scholarships or stick with the standard one-year scholarships (it withstood an override attempt); and a fourth that allowed student-athletes to collect stipends of up to $2,000.
The stipend plan was shelved, though Emmert wants to put it in place. That is unlikely to happen before the board's January meeting. Another committee is trying to shrink the NCAA's massive rule book, but no formal proposal is anticipated before January.
The board is already looking toward next year's reforms. A formal proposal to shrink the massive rule book also is expected to be heard in January, and it agreed to put off any legislation for the 2013-14 academic year until after other reforms are passed.
But on Tuesday, the NCAA rewrote the book by putting a greater emphasis on the role coaches will play moving forward.
"We delegate responsibility to our head coaches, and presidents delegate to athletic directors, just like companies delegate to different levels of management," Kansas State athletic director John Currie said. "Ultimately the leader is accountable."


text:
Free shipping on orders over $80 in the US.
The taste of rich chocolate and luscious berries accompanied by a smooth and creamy finish. Inspired by the decadence of Black Forest Cake and offered without the guilt. Serve it iced this summer. Piquant chocolate flavor with lovely cherry and cream notes.
Sign up for the latest news, special offers and tea of the Month!
By clicking enter you are verifying that you are old enough to consume alcohol.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Behind An Eye for An Eye
Revenge, Hate and History
Three years ago I was scheduled to speak at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The speech was announced in this brochure and also on the Internet. But then the Museum canceled it.
For the next forty-five minutes, I'll say here what I'd planned to say at the Holocaust Museum, and then, just as I'd have done at the Museum, I'll stay here as long as you'd like, answering questions. The audience at the Museum would have been historians, mostly, and I'd have said something like …
Thank you. Thank you for inviting me, thank you for listening to me. What I'm going to talk about happened fifty years ago. And for fifty years, no one, no historian, no one at all has spoken about it in public anywhere in the world. Not until now.
Now myself, I'm not an historian, I'm a reporter. And what I write is the raw material of history, something that historians will — I hope — someday make some sense of. I go places. I watch events. I listen to people. And then I tell stories. And I'll start by telling one now. A true story about a teenage girl.
Blonde hair, brown eyes, very pretty. In high school she's doing the flying rings, trapeze, acting in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. She's one of the title characters. She comes home. She's skipping through the streets singing, "On the Good Ship Lollipop …" Not exactly. She's really singing [in accented English], "On the Good Ship Lollipop …" Because she's a Polish girl, and she's in Bedzin, Poland, in the 1930s. Her name is Lola Potok.
And when she's 18 years old, the Nazis invade. Lola is put on a train to the town of Oswiecim — we know it as Auschwitz. Her baby, one year old, is ripped from her arms; she never sees the baby again. She isn't sent to the cyanide chamber, but her mother is. Her mother is killed, her brother and sister, nieces and nephews are killed. Fourteen people.
(You know, I wasn't going to say this at the Holocaust Museum, but in this particular room I know there are people who don't believe there were cyanide chambers at Auschwitz. I believe, and Lola believes, there were cyanide chambers at Auschwitz.)
Her mother was killed. Her brother and sister, nieces and nephews were killed. Fourteen people. The one brother at Auschwitz who's still alive stands on the gallows and says in Yiddish, "Nem nekumah! Take revenge!" Then he's hanged.
In January 1945, Lola escapes. She weighs sixty-six pounds. Her eyes are hollow. Her hair is this short. Her back has been broken. Her hand is mangled. She's wearing two left shoes. All the people she loves are dead, or she thinks so, and she is just bursting with hate. She wants to release that hate, to spew it onto the Germans. One of her childhood friends is in the Polish government, and Lola goes to him and tells him, "I want revenge."
And two months later the war is still going on, and Lola is now in Germany, the part occupied by the Russians and administered by the Poles. Lola's in an olive-colored uniform. On her jacket are brass buttons. On her collar, what the GIs call scrambled eggs. On her shoulders are stars. On her hip is a Luger. Lola is working for the Polish government, she is the commandant of a prison for Germans, and she is attempting to take revenge for the Holocaust.
Now, Lola is a Jewish girl. She's studied the Torah, and the Torah says, "You shall not take revenge." Lola knows that. She's disobeying that. But is there any of us here who'd condemn her? Any of us who can't understand her? I can understand her, and I can have rachmanis, compassion, for her.
I met Lola Potok. It was in April 1986. I'm living in Hollywood. I'm a writer, and I have a meeting at Paramount. And the secretary there, she's reading something I wrote about the Billionaire Boys Club. She tells me, "I like it. It reminds me of my family."
I say, "The Billionaire Boys Club? Your family?" Secretary says, "Yes, all those murders. My mother, Lola, was at Auschwitz." I say, "Oh." Secretary says, "And after that, my mother commanded a prison full of Nazis." I say, "What? She commanded …" I say, "Do you know there's a movie there?" I say, "You should tell Lynda," Lynda is the producer, the secretary's boss, but the secretary tells me, "I know there's a movie. I won't tell Lynda. I want to produce it myself!"
There's a saying in Hollywood: a producer is someone, anyone, who knows a writer. I'm a writer, the secretary knows me, and therefore she's a producer. We're in business together. The deal is, I'll write a magazine article on Lola, her mother, and the secretary will make a movie from it.
Cut. A few days later. Hollywood, the Moustache Cafe. I'm having spinach crepe. I'm having dinner with Lola. An elegant woman. Coral lipstick, black eyeliner, like on a femme fatale. Speaks five languages fluently. She's sixty-six years old. And Lola starts telling me her story.
At the end of World War II, she tells me, she commanded a prison in Gleiwitz, Germany. She says the inmates were German soldiers. But she says some were Nazis, even SS, pretending to be German soldiers, and Lola was looking for them. Looking for Höss and Hössler, the commandants at Auschwitz. Looking for Mengele, the man who once said to her mother, "Go left, you die"; who said to Lola, "Go right, you live." And if Lola ever found him, she didn't know what she'd do. But she'd do it.
And Lola tells me: One day in her prison she found a Gestapo man. Fat, forty years old. Under his arm was a tattoo. It said A or B. It was his blood type. Everyone in the Gestapo had it. Lola freaked out. She started screaming, "Du schmutziges Schwein! Du verfluchtes Schwein! Du … How many Jews did you kill?" She slapped him. The man was down on the floor. He was hugging her boots, saying, "Gnade! Gnade! Have mercy on me!," and Lola was kicking him and kicking …
This story of Lola's: Is there anyone here who likes it? I didn't like it. I didn't want to write it. I thought it was ugly. Lola didn't like it. She told me her mother, if she were alive, wouldn't like it. Her mother used to read to her from the Torah and tell her, "You mustn't hate. It only hurts you. It corrodes your soul."
And Lola said that after some months in Gleiwitz, she remembered this. She was in the prison one day. And there was a Jewish guard there. His face was red. His teeth were bare. There was spit on his teeth. Ugly, ugly. The man had a whip. He was screaming in Polish, "You son of a whore." He was whipping a German prisoner. Lola said, "Stop." Lola said, "Why are you whipping him?" The man said, "Well, the Germans did it to me!" Lola said, "And now you hate them?" The man said, "I despise them!" Lola said, "Well, if you despise them, why do you want to be like them?" Because to Lola, to Lola, this man, this Jew, he looked, talked, acted just like the Nazis she'd known at Auschwitz.
At that time, Lola didn't care about the Germans, the German prisoners. They could have dropped dead for all she cared. But she told me she cared about the Jewish guard. For years the Nazis had called him a pig, a dog, and if now he'd truly become a beast, then who had won, the Jew or the Nazis? So according to Lola, she called all the guards to her office and said to them that from now on, we'll treat the Germans like human beings. And from then on, Lola told me, that's what she did.
Writing Lola's Story
Now, this story I liked. If it was true, this was a story worth telling. I had this dream: maybe the Serbs and Croats will read it, the Irish Catholics and Protestants will read it, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Israelis and Palestinians … Maybe they'll read it, and maybe they'll learn, as Lola did, that to hate your neighbors may or may not destroy them, but it does destroy yourself. And maybe these people will stop their revenge, stop their genocide.
We Jews always say of the Holocaust, "Never again. Never again will people hurt us simply because we are Jews." But Lola was apparently saying, "Yes, and never again will I hurt a German simply because he's a German." Fifty years ago, Lola was apparently saying, "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me." This story I wanted very much to write. So …
I start interviewing Lola. At the Inn of the Seventh Ray in Los Angeles. At a Jewish cemetery in New Jersey. On the Champs Elysées in Paris. I interview Lola on and off for two-and-a-half years. Her memories just pour out, and she also introduces me to a dozen other people, all Jews: people who knew her in Gleiwitz, prison guards in Gleiwitz, even the man who appointed her the commandant in Gleiwitz.
I write a twenty-page article on Lola's revenge and Lola's redemption. Lola reads it and likes it. The story runs in California magazine. Lola, at her own expense, comes to Washington to promote it on National Public Radio. The story is sold internationally, and it's reprinted in Best Magazine Articles, 1988. We have movie offers. Bette Midler and Suzanne Somers want to play the Lola part.
And then I write a book proposal. I write, "It's Lola's redemption, not Lola's revenge, that this book's about." I'll go to Germany. I'll find some prisoners maybe. I'll go to Poland. I'll find some more guards, maybe. I'll write a book. The title will be Lola. And in August 1988, the publisher Henry Holt in New York City says, "Okay! We want it!" Good news, and I phone it to Lola.
And Lola on the telephone says, "Listen, John, I don't want you to write it." I say, "Lola? Lola, this is the first time you've told that to me." I say, "Lola, we signed a contract." We had signed one. Lola had written, "I grant you the exclusive right to write and to publish a book about my life."
That night I go to Lola's apartment in Hollywood. Anyone here ever been in an encounter group? Remember your first night? Everyone shouting and screaming. You're just sitting there stupefied. You're thinking, "What is going on?" Well, I'm in Lola's condo. Lola is saying, "Lookit, John. I don't like the way you write. You write like a reporter. If you start writing this book, I will stop you. I will stop you!"
Lola's daughter is there. She's saying, "John, give it up. I'm begging you to give it up. John! Give it up!" Another daughter of Lola's is there. She's a lawyer, and she says, "John! You're going to have instantaneous and very expensive litigation!" Lola's saying, "I'll go to court." The daughter's saying, "John, I want you to sign this release. John! Sign the release!" The other daughter's saying, "John! Just leave us! Just go!" Lola's saying, "John! Get out of our lives!"
I leave. I telephone Lola but she doesn't answer. I write her, but she sends the letters back, unopened, inscribed "refused."
And not just Lola. Lola's second-in-command at the prison in Gleiwitz was Moshe, also a Jew. He won't talk to me. His wife on the telephone says, "We don't give you the permission to write this." I say, "I … You …" That's what I say, "I … You … One doesn't need permission!" I have permission, from the Constitution of the United States. Moshe's wife hangs up.
And then there is Jadzia, also a Jew, she was one of Lola's guards in Gleiwitz. Jadzia says on the telephone, "I was never in Gleiwitz!" Then she says, "Yes, I was in Gleiwitz, but I'll never talk about it!" And then she talks for an hour saying, "I don't know nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing! Nothing!"
People won't talk to me. People tell other people, "Don't talk to John Sack." People talk to me, and they lie to me. People say they'll sue me, they'll destroy me, they'll kill me. One man takes my driver's license, writes down my address, and says, "If you write about me, I will call the Israeli Mafia."
Here's some advice. Never tell a reporter, "You'd better not write this." I have a contract with Henry Holt. I've made a promise to Henry Holt. I keep my promises.
Doing the Research
In April 1989, I fly to Germany. I go to this castle, this concrete castle, high on a hill above the Rhine. It's the German Federal Archives, and they've got forty thousand statements there by Germans who lived in what now is Poland during World War II. The statements of course are in German, in German script, and I find five statements from Germans who were in Lola's prison.
I go to another place in Germany: a great medieval hall, with banners on the stone walls. It's a reunion of a thousand people from Gleiwitz. They're drinking beer. They're eating sausages and sauerkraut. They're laughing and singing, "Ein prosit, ein prosit …" And I'm like a little flower girl. You know, the girl who goes from table to table selling roses? I'm going around asking, "Uh, excuse me. Anyone here who was in prison in Gleiwitz?" Yeah, I am a party pooper. I admit it. But eventually I find five of Lola's prisoners.
I take the train to Gleiwitz. Now it's Gliwice, Poland. And going through Communist East Berlin, I'm arrested, taken off the train, and locked up in a little room because with me I have a copy of the book Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus den Gebieten östlich der Oder-Neisse ["The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse," published in the 1950s by the Bonn government]. Hours later I'm let out and I get to Gleiwitz/ Gliwice at four in the morning. It's a city of two hundred thousand people, almost none of whom speak English. I don't speak Polish, but I find three of Lola's guards. They remember her well.
It's 1989, Poland is still Communist, but I get into Lola's prison, into the prisoners' cells. I tell them, "Djien dobre. Good morning." I see the prison records. Remember when, according to Lola, she went to the Polish government and said, "I want revenge"? Well, I find her application, in her own handwriting. She wrote, "I want to cooperate against our German oppressors." I find the official document appointing her commandant in Gleiwitz.
After that, I go to Germany eleven more times, to Poland three more times, to France, Austria, Israel, Canada, and all around the United States. Through interpreters I talk to two hundred people in Polish and Russian, Danish and Swedish, German and Dutch, French and Spanish, Yiddish and Hebrew. I left out English. I get three hundred hours of tape-recorded interviews, and I see thousands of documents.
And what do I learn? Well: Lola was telling the truth. She was the commandant in Gleiwitz. And she was taking revenge. She slapped the Germans around. And just as she said, she stopped. I remember one day in 1989, I'm having lunch with one of her guards at the Hotel Leszny. We're eating wienerschnitzel. And out of the blue the man says, "You know, Lola stopped. She told us, 'Stop!' She said, 'We're going to show the Germans we're not like them.'"
The Facts Come Out
So Lola was telling the truth. But, she wasn't telling the whole truth. Lola had told me the people in her prison were German soldiers. And yes, twenty of them were German soldiers, men who worked as painters, carpenters, and such. But there were a thousand other prisoners there, and they were German civilians: German men, German women, German children.
One prisoner was a fourteen-year-old boy. He had been out in Gleiwitz wearing his boy scout pants. A man cried out, "You're wearing black pants! You're a fascist!," and he chased the boy and tackled him at the Church of Saint Peter and Paul, and then took him to Lola's prison. Now, the boy was completely innocent. So were most of the people in Lola's prison. They weren't Gestapo. They weren't SS. They weren't even Nazis. Out of a thousand prisoners, just twenty were ever even accused of it.
But the Germans in Lola's prison were slapped and whipped. And I'm so sorry to have to say it, but they were also tortured. The boy scout: the guards poured gasoline on his curly black hair and set it on fire. The boy went insane. The men: they were beaten with a Totschläger, a "beater-to-death." It's a long steel spring with a big lead ball at the end. You use it like a racketball racket. Your arm, your wrist, the spring: they deliver a triple hit to a German's face.
Lola didn't tell me, but the Germans in her prison were dying. I found their death certificates in Gleiwitz city hall. One of Lola's guards told me, "Yeah, the Germans would die." He told me, "I'd put the bodies in a horse-drawn cart. I'd cover them with potato peels so no one would see. I'd ride to the outskirts and, after I threw the potato peels out, I'd take the Germans to the Catholic cemetery. To the mass grave."
We all know about Auschwitz. But I have to tell you, the Germans in Lola's prison were worse off than Lola had been at Auschwitz. Lola at Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured night after night. She herself told me: "Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz.
One woman I talked with wasn't even German. She was Polish. In 1945 she was twenty years old: a tall, blonde, beautiful medical student. The guards at Lola's prison pulled off her clothes and told her, "Let's do it!" They beat her and beat her, night after night, until she was black and blue. One morning, she came back to her cell and fell on the floor, sobbing. Her cellmate asked her, "What, what is that blue thing you're wearing? Oh, oh, it's your skin."
And ten feet away was Lola's office. Lola in her brass, braid, and stars. I once asked her, "Lola, where did you get that uniform?," and Lola said, "Well, the Russians must've given it to me." That wasn't the whole truth either.
Lola was in the Polish secret police. Its name was the Office of State Security, in Polish the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego. The Germans called it the Polish Gestapo. One of its missions was to round up Nazi suspects. But for all practical purposes, if you were a German, you were a Nazi suspect. So the mission was to round up Germans, imprison them, interrogate them, and if they confess, prosecute them.
In the Office of State Security, the lower ranks were Polish Catholics, but most of the leaders were Polish Jews. The chief of the Office in Warsaw was a Jew. (When I was in Poland he wasn't alive, but I met some of his family.) The department directors, all or almost all of them, were Jews.
In Silesia, the province where Lola was commandant, the director of the Office of State Security was a Jew. I met him in Copenhagen, a little bald-headed man. The director of prisons was also a Jew. I met his whole family in Tel Aviv. The secretary of state security was a Jew. I met him time and again at his home in New Jersey. And in the Office of State Security in Silesia in February 1945, of the officers — not the enlisted men, not the guards, but the lieutenants, captains and such — one-fourth were Catholics, and three-fourths were Jews.
Solomon Morel
I interviewed twenty-four of them. And I learned that the Office of State Security ran 227 prisons for German civilians like Lola's. It also ran 1,255 concentration camps, and I interviewed four of the commandants. They were also Jews. One was Lola's boy friend, a man who'd lost in the Holocaust his mother, his father, all his brothers (he had no sisters), all his uncles and aunts, and all but one of his cousins. I hope that, like me, you can all have compassion for Solomon Morel.
But one night in February, 1945, Solomon went to his concentration camp in the city of Swietochlowice. He went into the Germans' barracks, and said, "My name is Captain Morel. I am a Jew. I was at Auschwitz. I swore I would take revenge on you Nazis." They weren't Nazis, but Solomon said, "Now! Everyone! Sing the Horst Wessel song!" That was a Nazi anthem. No one wanted to sing it. One boy, fourteen years old, didn't even know it.
Solomon had a club. He said, "Sing it!" Some people began, "Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen …" "Sing it! Sing it, I say!" They started singing, "Clear the streets for the brown battalions. Clear the street for the Storm Section men." Solomon had all this hate inside him, and he released it. He picked up a wooden stool and he started beating the Germans to death. For this one camp, I found the death certificates for 1,583 Germans.
Death Toll
In other camps and other prisons, thousands of German civilians died. German men, women, children, babies. At one camp there was a barracks for fifty babies. They were in cribs, but the camp doctor, Dr. Cedrowski — he was a Jew who had been in Auschwitz — he didn't heat the barracks, and he didn't give the babies milk. He gave them only some soup, and forty-eight of the fifty babies died.
All in all, sixty to eighty thousand Germans died. Some were killed by Jews, some by Catholics, and many by typhus, dysentery, and starvation, but sixty to eighty thousand died in the custody of the Office of State Security. Now, someone, a German, once told me that this was another holocaust. Well, I'm sure it seemed like a holocaust to the Germans.
But let's not forget: sixty thousand is one percent of the number of Jews who died in the capital-H Holocaust. Jews didn't do what the Germans did. We didn't plot to exterminate the German people. We didn't mobilize all the Jews and the Jewish state. (There was no Jewish state.) We didn't send the Germans systematically to cyanide chambers.
But let's also remember that sixty to eighty thousand civilians is more than the Germans lost at Dresden, and more than, or just as many as, the Japanese lost at Hiroshima, the Americans at Pearl Harbor, the British in the Battle of Britain, or the Jews at Belsen or Buchenwald.
All this was covered up for nearly fifty years. Jews who were involved didn't talk about it. For example, the chief of police in occupied Breslau, Germany, in 1945, who was Jewish, later wrote a book about the Holocaust. And in telling about his time as chief of police in Breslau, all he says is, "We moved westward to Breslau and … from there … to Prague." That's it. And Jewish reporters who knew didn't write about it. There's a working reporter right now in New York City who was in Poland right after World War II. He told me, "Whatever, whatever the Germans tell you, believe me, it's true." But he himself, he never wrote about it.
The truth was covered up, and was still being covered up. In 1989, I went to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel's central Holocaust center. As you may know, they have fifty million documents there about the Holocaust. I ask them, "Well, what do you have on the Office of State Security?" They have nothing. I ask them, "What do you have on the Jews in the Office of State Security?" Nothing. I say, "Well, there were Jewish commandants, Jewish directors, Jewish …" The chairman of Yad Vashem responds, "It sounds rather imaginary," and the director of archives says to me, "Imm-possible! Impossible!"
Denial, denial. I know that denial is a very human thing. But historically I don't think it's a Jewish thing. When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob committed sins, we Jews didn't deny it. Yes, Abraham, the father of our people, sinned. God told him to go to Israel, instead he went to Egypt, and we admitted it in the Book of Genesis. Judah (the word "Jew" comes from Judah) made love to a prostitute. We admitted it in Genesis. Moses, even Moses sinned, and God didn't let him into the Promised Land. We admitted that in Deuteronomy. Solomon — good, wise, old King Solomon — did evil. He "worshipped idols." We didn't cover it up. We admitted it in the Book of Kings.
It seems to me that that's the Jewish tradition. How can we say to other people — to Germans, to Serbs, to Hutus — "What you're doing is wrong," if we ourselves do it and cover it up? I wish it were someone else who was here today. Abraham Foxman. Elie Wiesel. I wish he or she would simply say yes, some Jews, some Jews, did evil in 1945. But when the Jewish establishment didn't say it, then I had to say it.
I'm a reporter. That's what reporters do. Someone kills sixty thousand people, we report it. If we don't report it, it might become common, or more common, than it already is. But also I'm a Jew, and the Torah says (Leviticus 5:1), that if someone does evil, and if I know it and don't report it, then I am guilty too.
So I start writing this book. The title now won't be Lola. It'll be An Eye for an Eye. And on the third page I write, "I hope that An Eye for an Eye is something more than the story of Jewish revenge: that it's the story of Jewish redemption." I write about Jews taking revenge, yes. But that is one tenth of An Eye for an Eye. Mostly I write …
I write about Zlata, Moshe, Mania, and Pola. They were Jews who refused to look at, much less work at Lola's prison. I write about Ada, who visited the prison once, just once, and then fled to Israel. I write about Shlomo, who was in the Office of State Security and, at the risk of his life, told people in it, "You must stop doing this."
I write about Lola. I write that in Gleiwitz she finally remembered how a Jew should act and, at the risk of her life, she got bread, her own bread from her own home, and smuggled it to the German prisoners. Now this isn't something that Lola told me. No, the prison guards told me. They said that if Lola had been caught, she'd have gone to prison herself.
And I write that at Yom Kippur, 1945, Lola — again at the risk of her life — escaped from Gleiwitz, just as she had escaped some months earlier from Auschwitz, and came to the United States. Almost all the Jews in the Office of State Security escaped, at the risk of their lives, in September, October, and November 1945. And I write that too. They crept through the woods into Germany, or climbed the pass into Italy. They did what the SS never did: they deserted, they defected.
I was crying while I was writing this. My advance from Henry Holt was $25,000, and for three years I was writing An Eye for an Eye. In September 1991 I finally finished it, wrapped it up, and mailed it to Henry Holt in New York. And I told myself: "Okay. I've done it. That's the end of the cover-up."
No. Because then the people at Henry Holt say, "We don't want it." They don't say it's wrong. They know it's right. They just say, "We don't want to publish it. Keep the twenty-five thousand." Okay. My agent and I send the manuscript to other publishers: to Harper's, to Scribner's — you name it, we sent it — to two dozen other publishers.
And let me tell you. The letters we get from these people, they're practically blurbs. The publishers say: "well-written," "extremely well-written," "chilling," "compelling," "disturbing," "dismaying," "shocking," "startling," "astonishing," "mesmerizing," "extraordinary," "I was riveted," "I was bowled over," "I love it!" And the publishers all reject it. The letter from St. Martin's Press says, "I am always moved by Holocaust books, but I'd have trouble distinguishing this book … from other books … in this vast area of literature."
Okay. My agent and I agree that if we can't sell a book, we'll try magazines. One of the chapters is on Solomon Morel. Remember? The man who lost his mother, father, all his siblings, uncles, and aunts in the Holocaust. The man who had so much hate for the Germans, he had to disgorge it, who commanded a concentration camp at Swietochlowice, and beat Germans to death.
Solomon is still alive. He's wanted by Interpol for crimes against humanity. Interpol has an international warrant out for his arrest. But he's fled to Israel. He's taking refuge in Tel Aviv, and no one in America — no newspaper, magazine or television network — has ever reported it.
So we send the chapter on Solomon Morel to Esquire magazine. I've been a contributing editor there, a war correspondent in Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia. Esquire says, "No." We send it to GQ magazine. GQ says, "Yes!" The editor says it's the most important story in GQ's history. He even tells that to an editor of Esquire at a bar in Greenwich Village. He tells him, "Ha, ha! You don't have it! We do!"
For six weeks GQ is fact-checking. They don't find a single error. They send me the galley proofs, the page proofs, and on Wednesday the presses will roll. And then the telephone rings at my home in the Rocky Mountains. The editor of GQ says, "John, this isn't a happy phone call. We aren't going to run it." He tells me to keep the $15,000 and to sell the story somewhere else.
So once again my agent and I are making calls, sending faxes, passing out the GQ page proofs. Harper's magazine says no. Rolling Stone says no and "I'm sure you'll understand." Mother Jones, that great exposé magazine ("Extra! Extra! Cigarettes are bad for you!") doesn't even call back. The New Yorker (which has published ten pieces by me) refuses even to look at it.
The Attacks Begin
But finally, finally, in March 1993, the story of Solomon Morel is published in the Village Voice. And in November, An Eye for an Eye is published by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins. So, thank God, now it's all over. I can relax now. Not.
Because one day later there's a telephone call to Basic Books. It's from the executive director of the World Jewish Congress. He says he wants an immediate retraction, and if he doesn't get it he'll call a major press conference tomorrow. He says he'll denounce me, Basic Books, and HarperCollins, and say, "They are all anti-Semites." Well, we don't retract, and the World Jewish Congress doesn't denounce. But …
Then the reviews come out. And the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.
Please! Much of An Eye for an Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland. And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism."
Much of An Eye for an Eye was corroborated by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses I hadn't found. It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound."
But in the United States, one review was entitled "False Witness." Another was headed "The Big Lie, Continued."
The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing docudrama," and told readers that Lola Potok was not the commandant of the prison in Gleiwitz. Well, Lola herself had told me, "I was the commandant," and thirty-five other people, including the current commandant, including the current director of prisons, said yes, Lola was the commandant. I have the document that says, "We appoint Citizen Lola Potok Commandant," and I have a document signed by Lola Potok, Commandant. But still the Forward said, "The unlikelihood is overwhelming but Sack … seems … oblivious." As I read this, I felt I was being lectured by Chico Marx. Remember? "Who you gonna believe? Your own two eyes or me?" I wrote a letter to the Forward. Over the last seven years, I've had to write, at last count, about 1,500 letters about An Eye for an Eye. And all those letters, added up, are twice as long as the book is.
Maybe you're wondering. What sort of a crazy man am I? Why don't I just say the hell with it? Why do I carry on?
I'll tell you. There are eighty-five thousand books about the Holocaust. And none of them, if you ask me, has an honest answer to the question, "How could the Germans do it?" How could the Germans — the people who gave us Beethoven, the Ninth Symphony, the Ode to Joy, "Alle Menschen werden Brüder, All men will be brothers" — perpetrate the Holocaust?
This mystery, we've got to solve it. We've got to, or we'll keep on having genocides in Cambodia, Bosnia, Zaire. Well, what I report in An Eye for an Eye is that Lola has solved it. The Jews from the Office of State Security have solved it. Because in their agony, their despair, their insanity, if you will, they felt they became like the Germans — the Nazis — themselves.
Wages of Hatred
And if I had been there, I'd have become one too, and now I understand why. Lola, like a lot of Jews, understandably, were full of hate in 1945. They were volcanoes of red-hot hate. They thought if they joined the Office of State Security, and spit out their hate at the Germans, then they'd be rid of it.
No. It doesn't work that way. Let's say I'm in love with someone. I don't tell myself, "Uh, oh. I've got inside of me one, two pounds of love, so if I love her and love her, then I'll use all of my love up, and I'll be all out of love." No. We all understand that love is a paradoxical thing, that the more we send out, the more we've got.
So why don't we understand that about hate? If we hate, and if we act on that hate, then we hate even more later on. If we spit out a drop of hate, what happens? Well, we stimulate the saliva glands, and we produce a drop and a quarter of it. If we spit that out, we produce a drop and a half, then two drops, three, a teaspoon, tablespoon, a Mount Saint Helens. The more we send out, the more we've got, until we are perpetual-motion machines, sending out hate and hate until we've created a holocaust.
You don't have to be a German to become like that. You can be a Serb, a Hutu, a Jew. You can be an American. We were the ones in the Philippines. We were the ones in Vietnam. We were the ones in Washington, DC, for ten thousand years the home of the Anacostia Indians. They had one of their camp grounds at what now is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
We all have it in us to become like Nazis. Hate, as Lola discovered, hate is a muscle, and if we want to be monsters all we have to do is exercise it. To hate the Germans, to hate the Arabs, to hate the Jews. Hate. The more we exercise it, the bigger it gets, just as if every day we curl forty pounds, far from being worn out, in time we are curling fifty, sixty pounds. We become the Mr. Universe of Hate. We all can be hate-full people, hateful people. We can destroy the people we hate, maybe, but we surely destroy ourselves.
That's what the Jews in the Office of State Security have taught us. That's what I tried to write, what I did write, in An Eye for an Eye. The very first words are the dedication. I'd like to read them: "For all who died and for all who because of this story might live."
That's what I'd planned to say at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Questions from the Audience
Question: I'm very much moved by your presentation. I wish to commend you for your courage. Did you mention that Solomon Morel was also the commander at Jaworzno? At Jaworzno, there were young people, young boys — fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen — Poles, Germans, and Lithuanians — and other ethnics were tortured and murdered there. There is now a group of Jaworzno, and also Swietochlowice, survivors (as they use the term), who are getting together, Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, whoever.
John Sack: Morel was at Jaworzno afterwards. Jaworzno was a camp for Poles. By that time they were putting Poles in the camp, rather than —
Q: There were Germans there also.
JS: There were? Thank you.
Q: What would you recommend on the hate train that we're on here in the United States and the hate laws that are being promulgated?
JS: Well, I don't think that we're on a hate train. I'm writing an article for Esquire magazine about the revisionists and in the three conferences that I've been to, and certainly at this conference, I have not seen hate manifested. I don't see people who feel hate. Even people who are called neo-Nazis, like Ernst Zündel, who is not a hate-filled man.
Q: No, I mean in the United States, we're seeing hate laws, thought police, politically correct speech, people are winding up … as many have here, for that matter …
JS: Well, of course I'm for free speech, and even if what Fred Töben said was hateful — and it wasn't — and even if what Germar was saying was hateful — and it certainly wasn't — and what Ernst was saying and what Faurisson was saying was hateful — and none of it was — even if it was, it should be allowed, of course, and I'm glad it's allowed in the United States.
Q: What has Lola's reaction been to the book?
JS: Lola actually called me right before the book came out. We had a nice talk. We chatted. I sent her the book. It took her about half a year to read. Her only comment on it was that I had made a mistake, that she was first in Germany and then she came to Paris and there she met her husband and she went back to Germany and got married, and I had it the other way around. That was her only comment. She's now living in Australia and I understand she has Alzheimer's disease.
Q: Would I be correct in assuming that these people should be brought to justice, given a fair trial, and hanged? After all, we're still prosecuting seventy-five-year-old German corporals.
JS: Well, I wish we wouldn't. I think it's too late for anybody to be brought to justice. But I think there should be a trial of Solomon Morel, if for no other reason than to bring out the facts. I would hate to see him go to jail, and as a matter of fact most of his prisoners at Swietochlowice, his former prisoners do not want to see him go to jail, but they want the facts to come out. They would like him just to apologize.
Q: Both the German government and the Polish government are wishy-washy on this. They aren't really seeking to have Solomon Morel extradited from Israel.
JS: That's true. The German government had a prosecution of him going and that just fell by the wayside, disappeared, and the Polish government was very strange. They could have accused him of murder. There were witnesses that saw him commit murder. They just accused him of brutality and other things that expired under the statute of limitations in 1965.
Q: Not only that, but Solomon Morel, living in Israel, is collecting a pension from the Polish government and the "Polish" government is not Polish. The Polish government is a Communist government, and most of them, not all, are Jewish — they call themselves "former Communists." So, the "Polish" government is not Polish, and we heard about what's happening in Germany a little while ago. So, what chance is there of catching this monster and exposing him to the world?
[Voice] Kidnap him like the Israelis did Eichmann.
JS: I suppose that would be one answer. As I understand it Solomon Morel cannot collect his pension unless he's in Poland — that's why he wanted to stay there — I don't know whether that may have changed.
Q: Has Solomon Morel said anything?
JS: Solomon Morel, people keep going up to his door every couple of weeks. Once they camped in front of his door for a couple of days, and his daughter comes to the door and says that he doesn't want to give interviews and says that he's writing a book about all of this. That's just what they say. I don't know if it's true.
Q: You say that you believe in the gas chambers. Have you gotten far enough into it that you could produce any evidence that you could present here tonight?
JS: Do I have any evidence here tonight about the existence of gas chambers? No. I accept that people of good faith, honest people, can really look at the evidence and feel that there's not enough evidence that there were gas chambers. I hope that you accept that other people can look at the evidence and conclude that there is enough evidence, and that's my conclusion. I don't think that anybody who disagrees is a "neo-Nazi" or an "anti-Semite" or a hate-filled person. I think that you just happen to have a different opinion from me.
Q: Can you talk about your own experience being discriminated against and called an "anti-Semite," and yet you're a Jew. These reviews and articles were obviously libelling you.
JS: On the Charlie Rose show I was called an "anti-Semite" and a "neo-Nazi" by Deborah Lipstadt. [laughter and applause] I called her up after that and reminded her that I'd read her book, and I sent her a nice note about it and told her what I was trying to do in my book, and I said "How could you have said that about me?" She said "You are worse than a 'Holocaust denier,'" and I said "Deborah, I'm worse than a 'Holocaust denier'?" and she said "You are worse than a 'Holocaust denier.'" I said "Could you explain why?," and she said "No. I have a faculty meeting," [laughter] and that's the last I talked to her. It doesn't scare me. It doesn't hurt me. It amuses me.
Q: Are there any Jewish organizations, major Jewish organizations which would permit our principal speakers to speak in front of them?
JS: Not only that, are there any major Jewish organizations that would permit me to speak in front of them? [laughter and applause] So far, none, and believe me I've asked. I asked Hillel at UCLA. I certainly asked the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and no, so far, none.
Q: You refer to Nazis as a model for hate. As a German-American I consider the model for hate to be the Jewish Bolshevik regime that killed anywhere from thirty to sixty-six million people. I've just become aware of that by reading Solzhenitsyn's three books and I'm wondering if you have read these books?
JS: I haven't, but you know, when you talk about the Jewish Bolshevik regime be aware that just because, if most of the Bolsheviks, I don't know, were Jews, please be aware that most of the Jews weren't Bolsheviks, and never were.
About the author
John Sack is one of America's most eminent literary journalists. His reporting over more than half a century, from North and South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, has appeared in such periodicals as Harper's, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker. He has been a war correspondent in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, as well as CBS News bureau chief in Spain. He is the author of nine non-fiction books, including M, Lieutenant Calley: His Story, and Company C, as well as An Eye for an Eye (available from the IHR). The founding editor of Esquire magazine has compared his writing to that of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernst Hemingway. For more about Sack and his career, see his Web site: http://www.johnsack.com.
This essay, slightly edited, was presented on May 29, 2000, at the 13th IHR conference. For more about his travails with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, see "Suppressing the Story of Genocide Against Germans," in the Sept.-Oct. 1997 Journal. "Inside the Bunker," a lengthy article by Sack based on his participation at the 13th IHR Conference, appeared in the February 2001 issue of Esquire.
Author: | John Sack |
Title: | Behind An Eye for an Eye: revenge, hate, and history |
Source: | The Journal for Historical Review |
Date: | January/February 2001 |
Issue: | Volume 20 number 1 |
Location: | page 9 |
Attribution: | "Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA." |
Please send a copy of all reprints to the Editor. |


text:
Are you a private landlord?
The listing is no longer available.
The Waterloo Flat
Waterloo Road, London, United Kingdom
Answer the following questions: one of our operators will contact you as soon as possible
Are you looking for a home or are you a homeowner?
This website uses cookies that are necessary for its operation and useful for the purposes illustrated in the Cookie Privacy. By closing this banner, scrolling through this page or clicking on any other element on the website, you consent to the use of cookies. Please see our Cookie Privacy and our Privacy Policy.
Rent now
Customer service
Rent a listing


text:
Darkroom/Resources/HP Scanjet G4010
Does it work[edit]
Not really, it leaves a 10-20mm stripe of light and black vertically pretty much at the middle of the scan area. Sometimes it hangs too, causing some scanning software to crash. The USB cable that came with it was kinda broken but changing it didn't fix anything.
I recommend using it with xsane on any recent version of Linux. It works out of the box and is able to cope with the errors from the scanner (until the thing totally refuses to scan).
What does it scan[edit]
Flatbed things, 35mm
Where does it live[edit]
Currently on top of the black help in the darkroom.
What belongs to the scanner[edit]
- Scanner!
- AC/DC adapter (labeled)
- USB cable
- Built in 35mm loader
- Replacement loaders for 35mm, slides, medium format
The built in loader is white, it's built in, you'll know what I mean when see it. This particular loader I found to be about 2-4mm too skinny, so I took a Dremel to it. That was a dumb idea and it's kind of crap tastic now.
I ordered a replacement loader from a site that said should work, words from HP apparently. When I got the loader, loaders actually, they're totally not specifically made for the G4010, but it lines up right, it just might work. Haven't tested.
Should work with Sane under Linux.


text:
Near the end of Con Air, opposition leader Cyrus Grissom lets the cops into the bone yard in order to take out the first and last squad cars, creating "an airtight cage filled with lots and lots of dead people". 13 Assassins takes that simple premise and multiplies it exponentially. By the end, the narrow corridor looks like Watchmen's New York City. Severed heads, mutilated horses and rivers of blood coarse their way through the narrow streets. Chaos is disorganized and pointless. Every displaced platelet shed here is a brutalized keepsake of a forgotten age where men lived and died by codes of honor larger than themselves. The Samurai wouldn't have it any other way.
Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki) is the Caligula of his time and place. A vicious and arrogant second in command to his older brother the Shogun, he rapes and murders for sport, abusing his untouchable status and hiding behind his royal escort headed by the duty-bound Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura). Under the law, Lord Naritsugu is untouchable; so, a scorned and disenfranchised public official circumvents the natural order and hires an aging Samurai named Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho) to assassinate the spoiled tyrant. He chose wisely. Shinzaemon, once a trusted friend of Hanbei's, has spent his life learning the sword and praying for an honorable death. This plot is his chance.
Calling in old favors and shelling out money, the hardened idealist soon constructs a formidable team of scrappy youngsters, determined twenty-somethings and a few old men eager to kick one last ass. Numbering twelve, they plan to ambush the Lord and seventy of his guards during their travels to a scheduled state visit, but Hanbei has his ear to the ground and senses his old buddy might be up to something. He pleads with Shinzaemon to stand down, but neither man has any inkling to budge, two seasoned warriors keenly aware the other will never surrender.
Failure's not an option for the twelve assassins, and they take every precaution en route to the ambush. That means traveling through the leech-infested woods. There, they meet a hunter who's been tied up and left for dead by his boss as punishment for getting a little too familiar with his wife. They cut him down, and he agrees to lead them through the underbrush, provided they give him food and periodic compliments. All thirteen assassins are now in place as the group descends on a local village and outfits it with bombs and booby traps in preparation for the final battle each is sure will end in his death.
In a way, that self-assured, cocky embrace of death is what makes 13 Assassins so mesmerizing. The goal isn't survival; it's the fight itself. To protect your own interests is to betray the larger mission, regardless of what side you happen to be on. Hanbei may be shielding a real son of a bitch, but he's vowed to trade his life in service of the Shogun. At times, he even seethes at the thought of Lord Naritsugu gaining more power, but what's a Samurai to do when he's taken an oath? That's not to say he should be considered a hero or that the split between good and evil isn't clearly defined, but the film does make an effort to gray the black and white subject matter. Some of the assassins are fighting for money, others out of an obligation not to the cause but to Shinzaemon himself.
The foretold death comes not in waves but in one violent and riveting push for honor. Like the final charge in Glory, each assassin plunges into enemy steel and embraces his preordained fate. I wish I could tell you all perished in highlight reel fashion, but 13 Assassins is too honest for that. Hanbei's men, now numbering 200, are too resourceful and strong for that. In war, not every main character is slaughtered by the strongest opponent, nor is he always given one last moment to say his goodbyes.
With thirteen assassins plus more than a few imperative main characters on the other side, it's sometimes difficult to keep everyone straight and get a full sketch of backstories and motivations. At a little over two hours, there's simply not enough time, especially since much of the early focus is devoted to vilifying Lord Naritsugu. By the end though, these minor qualms are hidden beneath that airtight caged filled with lots and lots of dead people.
13 Assassins isn't a film for the weak-stomached nor the faint of heart, but it is a whole lot more than just carnage. The Samurai wouldn't have it any other way and neither would I.
Mack Rawden is the Editor-In-Chief of CinemaBlend. He first started working at the publication as a writer back in 2007 and has held various jobs at the site in the time since including Managing Editor, Pop Culture Editor and Staff Writer. He now splits his time between working on CinemaBlend's user experience, helping to plan the site's editorial direction and writing passionate articles about niche entertainment topics he's into. He graduated from Indiana University with a degree in English (go Hoosiers!) and has been interviewed and quoted in a variety of publications including Digiday. Enthusiastic about Clue, case-of-the-week mysteries, a great wrestling promo and cookies at Disney World. Less enthusiastic about the pricing structure of cable, loud noises and Tuesdays.
Most Popular
By Mike Reyes
By Mike Reyes
By Nick Venable
By Mike Reyes
By Nick Venable


text:
Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. |
has no intention, nor is it going to take any action whatsoever, to threaten the life of the author of The Satanic Verses or anybody associated with his work, nor will it encourage or assist anybody to do so. Accordingly, the government dissociates itself from any reward that has been offered in this regard and does not support it.
Pronouncing this statement a momentous change in Iranian policy, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook responded: "These assurances should make possible a much more constructive relationship between the United Kingdom—and I believe the European Union—[and] Iran, and the opening of a new chapter in our relations." He went on to announce the UK's resumption of full diplomatic relations with Teheran, broken since 1989.
The British foreign minister was hardly the only one to construe the Iranian statement as a decisive retreat from the February 1989 edict, signed by Ayatollah Khomeini, that condemned to death "the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses ... and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content." Amid the general jubilation, Rushdie himself, who has spent the last ten years in semi-seclusion, was particularly euphoric. "It's a breakthrough and it's over. ... There is no longer any threat from the Iranian regime. The fatwa will be left to wither on the vine." Best of all, Rushdie added, "It seems this has been done in Iran with consensus. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to it."
Is this true?
The statement by the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, had three carefully crafted components. First, Teheran would not attempt to kill Rushdie or others connected with The Satanic Verses. Second, Iran would not encourage others to do so. Third, Iran dissociated itself from the reward of up to $2.5 million that had been offered by the 15th Khordad Foundation for Rushdie's murder.
As it happens, far from being a "breakthrough," not a single one of these assertions said anything new. For years now, Teheran has informed the United Kingdom and other European states that it has no intention of carrying out the sentence passed by Ayatollah Khomeini. Already in June 1989, just days after Khomeini himself died, an unofficial Iranian spokesman in London announced that while the death threat would not formally be withdrawn, Teheran was "prepared to let the matter drop." Several months later, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati made this position formal when he suggested that West European governments "don't need to connect the question of Salman Rushdie to political relations between Iran and those countries."
The Iranians have repeated this formulation time and again over the ensuing years. In perhaps the strongest such reiteration, an official of the foreign ministry declared in December 1997 that the Rushdie edict was "a purely religious matter, with which the Iranian government has nothing to do." The government of Germany was proud to claim this statement as one proof of the alleged benefits of its "critical dialogue" with Iran.
Similarly with the second point—encouraging others to kill Rushdie—and similarly again with the third point concerning a financial reward. From both, the Iranian government has conspicuously taken its distance. Thus, in May 1997, to cite but one example, Iran's ambassador to Hungary clearly stated that "Iranian leaders have never said or suggested that someone should kill" Rushdie. And when, in February 1997, the 15th Khordad Foundation announced that it would raise its prize from $2 million to $2.5 million, President Hashemi-Rafsanjani went out of his way to respond that "this foundation is a nongovernmental foundation and its decisions are not related to government policies."
If Kharrazi's statement merely recapitulated longstanding Iranian policy, of greater note was what it did not say. Kharrazi neither repudiated the 1989 edict nor limited its scope; he neither took issue with it nor even contested its validity as the basis of government policy. He only gave assurances that the Iranian authorities would not carry it out.
The fact is that, whatever Teheran's diplomats might say, among the Iranian elite there is near-unanimous agreement that the edict against Rushdie is a permanent sentence, one which both constitutes government policy and at the same time is beyond the competence of government to affect.
The brand of Islam practiced in Iran distinguishes between two types of religious pronouncements, a fatwa and a hukm. The former remains valid only during the lifetime of the religious authority who issues it; the latter continues in effect beyond his death. Despite the Western habit of referring to the edict against Rushdie as a fatwa, Iranian spokesmen have universally regarded it as a hukm. Thus, Ayatollah Abdallah Javadi-Amoli in February 1997: "This is not a fatwa which died with the death of the religious leader who issued it. . . . It is a hukm which is permanent and it will stay in place until it is carried out."
There seems to be no dissent among Iranian political leaders that they are powerless to repeal this "unchangeable religious decree" (to quote the deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's foreign-affairs committee). Only Khomeini could have taken such a step, and he specifically refused to do so. According to the Iranian media, Khomeini admonished his successors before his death never to retreat from the hukm, no matter what the pressure: "It should not be permitted for this edict to become a diplomatic issue subject to negotiations." Artfully-worded statements to Western leaders notwithstanding, his heirs have faithfully followed his instructions.
Kharrazi's own understanding of the matter does not differ in the least. Not only did he acknowledge on September 24 that he was saying nothing new, he underlined the point a week later: "We did not adopt a new position with regard to the apostate Salman Rushdie, and our position remains the same as that which has been repeatedly stated by the Islamic Republic of Iran's officials." His words were echoed by an endless series of comments by Iranian politicians, theologians, and news analysts. One newspaper editorialized that "the issue of Rushdie will end only with killing him and all the elements associated with the publishing of the book." A leading ayatollah declared that executing Rushdie remains a duty incumbent on all Muslims "until the day of resurrection." In parliament, 150 of the 270 members signed an open letter stressing the edict's utter irrevocability. The Association of Hezbollah University Students announced it would add a billion rials ($333,000) to the reward for Rushdie's assassin, theological students and clerics in the holy city of Qom pledged a month's salary as an additional bounty, and a small village in northern Iran sweetened the pot by offering his executioner ten carpets, 5,400 square yards of agricultural land, and a house with a garden.
In short, the threat to Salman Rushdie is as great as it ever was. Indeed, it may be even greater now that he and others have convinced themselves it has ceased to exist. For just as there is no reason to think anything in Iranian policy has changed, there is no reason to believe Kharrazi's assurances. There have been many previous such assurances, and they have hardly prevented attempts on Rushdie's life, including, as he himself revealed in 1997, on the part of Iranian government agents.
Nor are Iranian agents the only potential threat. Fundamentalist Muslims around the world hold Ayatollah Khomeini in uniquely high regard; for them, the death sentence against Rushdie remains a shining legacy, far beyond the control of apparatchiks in Teheran. As the Iranian media emphasized, the edict "is not confined to Iranians alone"; "every committed and free Muslim feels obliged to defend it." Ayatollah Hasan Sane'i, head of the 15th Khordad Foundation, has gone still further: the reward, he has said, "will be paid when the edict is carried out by anybody, Muslim, or non-Muslim, or even Salman Rushdie's bodyguards."
In his voluble reaction to Kharrazi's statement, Rushdie may actually have exacerbated Muslim feelings against him. Gratuitously retracting a statement he had made in 1990 affirming his own Islamic faith, he insulted his enemies ("dinosaurs [who] represent absolutely nothing"), called The Satanic Verses "an important part of my work," and predicted that "the whole issue will now very rapidly fade into the past." To quote the warning of an Iranian newspaper, this very optimism on the part of Rushdie and his supporters "may even pave the way for a speedier execution of the sentence against him."
The plain truth is that neither Foreign Minister Kharrazi nor, by extension, President Mohammed Khatami clearly speaks with authority for the government of Iran. Time and again, it has become apparent that this president, however "moderate" his own views—and even that is a matter of degree—is not the ultimate power in Teheran. That belongs to the person who now fills Khomeini's position as Iran's spiritual leader—namely, Ali Hoseyni Khamene'i, a politician who has steadily supported the edict and whose hardline followers retained decisive control of Iran's ultimate decision-making body in elections held in late October.
Which only raises the question, why did Kharrazi's statement have so apparently electrifying an effect on Britain and other Western governments? The answer is that governments have the ability, when they wish, to turn non-news into news, and in this case, for reasons of its own, London clearly wanted to do just that. As the Associated Press correctly surmised, "Kharrazi and Cook sought to portray the move as something new and significant as a way to improve ties that have remained strained over the [Rushdie] issue."
And why this push to improve ties? Here, one can hardly do better than to quote Salman Rushdie himself in 1997: "When it's Danish feta cheese or Irish halal beef against the European Convention on Human Rights, don't expect free expression to win." The lure of the Iranian market, however small, is a mighty one. Rushdie has been an impediment to European governments wishing to enter that market. Now, in collusion with Teheran itself, they have found a way to brush the impediment aside.
The Europeans are not alone. Like their British counterparts, American policy-makers, too, have allowed their desire for oil contracts and oil pipelines to cloud the nasty reality, which is that repression, terrorism, and territorial aggressiveness continue to be hallmarks of the Iranian regime, augmented lately by the push to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In early 1998, the U.S. State Department's annual report on terrorism noted correctly that even under President Khatami, no change had occurred in Iran's pattern of violent conduct, and concluded that Iran remains the world's principal state sponsor of terrorism. Higher-ranking State Department officials would have none of this, and simply brushed the report aside. Similarly, the fact that Iran's missile program has accelerated under Khatami has not been permitted to affect the Clinton administration's push for rapprochement with the Islamic Republic.
Just as Rushdie's delusions place him in greater danger, so do parallel delusions among American policymakers place us, and the world, in greater danger. The sanctions on Iran have been our functional equivalent of bodyguards: passive, open-ended, inconvenient, even annoying, but, under the circumstances, better than nothing at all, and better than any alternative that is likely to be pursued. Just so, Iran's missiles and weapons of mass destruction are the functional equivalents of lurking assassins. Swooning over President Khatami's improved tone, or Foreign Minister Kharrazi's cautious equivocations, will no more protect us from those threats than Salman Rushdie is likely to be protected by his giddy insistence that Ayatollah Khomeini's edict is no more.


text:
Botswana is home to one of the world's great natural phenomena: the tranquil Okavango Delta, a 15,000-sq.-km (5,850-sq.-mile) inland flood plain that fans out in the northwestern corner of the country, creating a paradise of palms, papyrus, and crystal-clear channels and deep lagoons. Set in a massive sea of desert sand, this fragile wonderland of waterways, islands, and forests is an oasis for wildlife drawn to its life-giving waters from the surrounding thirstlands. Here, the evening air is filled with the sounds of birds calling, frogs trilling, and antelope rustling in the reeds. Wildebeest, hartebeest, buffalo, and zebra roam the islands; elephants wade across channels guarded by hippos and crocs; and predators rule the night.
But it is not only animals and birds that are attracted to this huge, verdant oasis. Because the area is so sensitive, the Botswana government operates a policy of low-volume, high-income tourism, making southern Africa's premier wilderness destination a pricey destination -- but this doesn't stop people from flocking to the limited beds in one of the world's most game-rich and unspoiled wilderness areas. To service these visitors, a number of safari companies have been established in and around the delta, particularly in the Moremi Game Reserve, in the northeastern sector. Because it is both expensive and complicated to travel independently in Botswana (huge distances are involved, and the road network is poor) and almost impossible in the delta itself, visitors are advised to contact one of these companies to arrange their trip. Most offer full-package holidays that cover the delta and surrounds and will organize everything for you, including flights, transfers, accommodations, and game-viewing.
Bear in mind that if you do a whistle-stop visit, flying in one night and out the next day, you will be disappointed. The delta has its own unique moods and rhythms and a varying landscape: To experience these, you should plan to spend 3 nights here, preferably 4.
But there is more to Botswana than the delta. To the northeast lies Chobe National Park, a 12,000-sq.-km (4,680-sq.-mile) home to some 100,000 elephants. To the southeast is the Kalahari Desert and its spectacular Makgadikgadi and Nxai pans, where the space is so vast that, it is said, you can hear the stars sing. Most safari companies include the Chobe area on their itineraries, and some venture south into the endless horizons of the Kalahari pans.
Like so many of Africa's wilderness areas, the delta is under threat. A shortage of good grazing on adjacent lands makes the lush grass in the delta a standing temptation to stock farmers, especially in times of drought. The demands of Botswana's diamond-mining industry and the ever-expanding town of Maun (principal jumping-off point for the delta), both thirsty for water, pose an ongoing threat to the delta's precious liquid reserves, as does the proposed dam at Popa Falls, Namibia. So if you want to experience the untamed Africa of our ancestors, unadulterated by development, make a trip to Botswana a high priority.


text:
2011-03-10 Seedlings Show Livescribe in the Classroom Show 110
Thanks to the Edtechtalk elves for getting the server back running! Seedlings talks about livescribe in the classroom
Join us as we chat with Mary McCrackin from Lesley University and Jen Bogard, South Berwick Elementary School, and their topic Revision on the Run! You will hear how Jen is using the Livescribe pens in her classroom. The chat room rocks with great links as well.
cheryloakes50 -> trying this out |
bobsprankle -> hi mary! |
bobsprankle -> can you hear us? |
mcmackin -> Could you try again? |
cheryloakes50 -> herer |
mcmackin -> I have my volume turned up but don't hear anything yet. |
cheryloakes50 -> Hello Charlene!!! |
cheryloakes50 -> Hi Peggy, Hi Deb |
PeggyG -> Hi everyone! Audio is coming through great! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> yea Peggy |
cheryloakes50 -> Thank goodness! server was down to begin with . Thanks to the edtechtalk elves |
cheryloakes50 -> Hello debbarrows |
PeggyG -> it's always a "surprise" to know where we will find the audio :-) |
bobsprankle -> hi deb!!!! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Hey Deb! |
cheryloakes50 -> hello connect2jamie, welcome |
connect2jamie -> Hi all! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Hello Connect2jamie |
debbarrows -> HI everyone - still working on audio. |
PeggyG -> those elves are so magical! |
cheryloakes50 -> We have a great show with guests who use LIVESCRIBE |
PeggyG -> Hi connect2jamie and debbarrows |
cheryloakes50 -> Welcome Mary and Jen |
connect2jamie -> Hi Peggy! and everyone! Love seedlings night! |
PeggyG -> me too!! |
cheryloakes50 -> Thanks Jamie. |
PeggyG -> Hi Mary! I used to live in Amherst, MA where I got my Masters and Ed.D. :-) |
cheryloakes50 -> I love this revision on the run!!!! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Hey Deb Glad to see you here |
cheryloakes50 -> Hey Deb, how many computers are you going to login on tonight?? |
Debbarrows2 -> Got to love Windows |
Debbarrows2 -> Cheryl do you have one |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> :) |
PeggyG -> would love to have a "prize" tonight of a Livescribe pen!!! :-) |
bobsprankle -> hi peggy! |
cheryloakes50 -> I have a Livescribe Pen, I will bring tomorrow |
Debbarrows2 -> We can show it tomorrow at the training. |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Yes Prize! |
cheryloakes50 -> Sure thing Deb |
PeggyG -> they are fabulous for creating MathCasts! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Is tomorrow your training in Wells Deb?? |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Wish I could come |
cheryloakes50 -> Oh, yes math casts with the pen |
cheryloakes50 -> Hi Charlene!!! Welcome |
bobsprankle -> hi charlene!!!!! |
Debbarrows2 -> Great - thanks for bringing it. I have an idea and want to try it. |
cheryloakes50 -> Yes, I love the sketches you can collect |
cheryloakes50 -> Great Deb. |
Debbarrows2 -> Yes Alice, you can stop in... |
PeggyG -> the pens are really incredible! wish I had one!! |
cstanley -> I've heard about the LiveScribe Pen, but that's about the extent of it. It sounds like an exciting tool. |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> I wish I could Deb, but it's not going to happen :( |
Debbarrows2 -> I never wanted to go back and edit - wish I had the pen in school. |
PeggyG -> Hi cstanley!! |
Debbarrows2 -> I realize that you probably couldn't Alice. |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Do you have to use special paper? |
cheryloakes50 -> http://www.livescribe.com/en-us/ |
cstanley -> Hi, Peggy. You know, it was Bob and Seedlings that got me started attending all these wonderful PD opportunities. |
cheryloakes50 -> Carol, you are a great cheerleader |
bobsprankle -> hi Carol!!!! |
cstanley -> You guys are a great team! |
PeggyG -> Seedlings is always a great show!! |
cstanley -> Wow! I'm not sure I can write a 3-page story.:) |
charlene -> Hi! First time here.....I have a Livescribe Pen for classroom use but none of my kids are really interested in using it. I teach 6-7-8 year old people...what am I doing wrong? |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> @charlene Great question! We'll ask! |
cheryloakes50 -> Great question Charlene! Have you shared it with them on the Promethean board? So they can see the playback? |
cstanley -> There is so much emphasis on persuasive writing and formal writing-prompt structure in our school that there is really very little time for narrative writing. |
connect2jamie -> Duh...wondered why I still didn't have any audio--I was on mute! Long day... |
cstanley -> Lots of student stories are going unheard - at least in school. It's a waste. |
cheryloakes50 -> glad you found that out jamie :-) |
connect2jamie -> :) |
charlene -> Didn't know I could use it w/ Promethan! There's sound? I can't find it and I'm not on mute! |
cstanley -> I have found that PhotoStory 3 is a very effective tool for just that reason. |
PeggyG -> This is a link to the Mathcasts page that talkes about creating Mathcasts with the Livescribe pen http://math247.pbworks.com/w/page/20517573/Mathcasts+-+Pencasts+-+LiveSc... |
connect2jamie -> @charlene click on the little speaker icon at top right that says EdTechTalk A |
cheryloakes50 -> Charlene, look on the right side of page |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> @Charlene Look fo the little mic above on the right |
cheryloakes50 -> Thanks Peggy |
cstanley -> Modeling is key! |
PeggyG -> this is great advice!! modeling! |
connect2jamie -> @charlene did you find the audio? |
PeggyG -> sometimes the kids are just shy about talking on a microphone and may need some "play" time to get used to it. |
charlene -> Nope. I'm trying everything that makes sense. the speaker didn't do it. I can keep reading & go to bit by bit tomorrow. |
cheryloakes50 -> click on the real player speaker,please try that |
PeggyG -> I'll bet this really encourages them to be willing to revise and edit :-) |
Debbarrows2 -> @Charlene - are you on a Mac or PC? |
cheryloakes50 -> the itunes speaker did not work for me tonight |
Debbarrows2 -> I had trouble on the Mac |
PeggyG -> I'm listening in itunes on my Mac |
cheryloakes50 -> Thanks Deb, no itunes on mac for me, Peggy, that is good you have it on itunes. |
cstanley -> @Charlene - you do have to have RealAudio player downloaded in order to use that icon. It's a quick download - but be careful to uncheck items you don't want with the download. |
PeggyG -> that authentic audience makes such a difference! |
connect2jamie -> I'm using itunes on my pc too. |
PeggyG -> what a great example Bob! |
cheryloakes50 -> thanks for all the help, what a great audience, participatory culture. |
bobsprankle -> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Case-for-Play/126382 |
charlene -> PC.....Oh man! I feel like my inability to hear is taking over your show! Can't fond real player speaker. Keep going...I'll just read! |
PeggyG -> love that thought about kids playing "teacher"! That's what started me on my path to becoming a teacher! :-) |
cstanley -> @Charlene -under EdTechTalk A in the right-hand panel top, it's the blue icon with the play triangle. Are you not seeing that? |
PeggyG -> Charlene-maybe you should try a different browser?? everything might magically start to work |
connect2jamie -> @peggy me too! I used to turn all my books at home into "textbooks" and torture...ahem...I mean TEACH the little girl next door! LOL |
PeggyG -> me too! |
PeggyG -> Bob you always ask the greatest questions!!! :-) |
cstanley -> I have computer club on Thursdays afternoons. The late bus comes around 4:00pm, and I have to badger the kids to quit open applications and log off. They don't want to go. |
PeggyG -> awesome cstanley!!! A teacher's dream! |
bobsprankle -> <blush> thanks peggy :) |
connect2jamie -> @carol isn't that a good feeling when they don't want to go! |
charlene -> I have tried all 3 icons & nothing. I will try a different browser. Wish me luck! Bye for now! |
bobsprankle -> good luck charlene |
cheryloakes50 -> good luck, charlene |
PeggyG -> crossing my fingers for charlene! |
cstanley -> Sometimes I'm really tired by Thursday afternoons, but the kids in club are so eager, I muster the energy. |
PeggyG -> the kids are great with the flipcams! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Flipcams were made for kids! |
cstanley -> It would be great for modeling if Jen could make some videos of the kids using the technology - videos to model for teachers. |
connect2jamie -> I'm using flipcams w/ 3rd graders in the library tomorrow. Should be fun! |
cheryloakes50 -> Yes, for sure, flip cams make it so instant |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> @connect2jamie what's your project? |
PeggyG -> it would be great! |
connect2jamie -> Some of our GT kids wrote plays about the solar system, and we're filming them. |
cstanley -> I recently viewed a video of a collaborative story being written in a Google doc - the teacher used Camtasia to record the whole process of the document being edited. It was quite a good idea, I thought. |
Debbarrows2 -> I love that you called it a "Celebration" |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Sounds fun! |
PeggyG -> that is a very good idea! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Me too Deb! |
PeggyG -> do you have a link for that video @cstanley? would love to see it |
cheryloakes50 -> http://www.livescribe.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/LDApp.woa/wa/MLSOverviewPag... This is from our high school english teacher english class. |
PeggyG -> Does Jen have a website with any of these examples available for us to see? |
cheryloakes50 -> English teacher has a student take notes in class, then publishes for her students |
bobsprankle -> http://mail.msad35.net/~jbogard/ |
bobsprankle -> http://3bogard.blogspot.com/ |
PeggyG -> oh thank you!!! |
cstanley -> will search for it, Peggy. |
PeggyG -> I'm sharing these links on our Mini-geekfest this coming week! Love these examples! |
cheryloakes50 -> Peggy, what is a mini geek fest? |
PeggyG -> that is a monthly Elluminate show I do with a colleague in AZ--kind of like a mini-smackdown :-) sharing great web 2.0 resources and tools for classroom use |
cheryloakes50 -> OH, what a great idea! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Wow Peggy Cool idea! |
PeggyG -> it's always lots of fun! everyone in the session can share if they want to--very informal and spontaneous but I always come prepared with lots of favorites in case others don't take the mic |
connect2jamie -> A mini geek fest! Love it! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Very fun! |
cheryloakes50 -> Hi leeannep! welcome |
connect2jamie -> Thanks for the links above. Helps me to visualizehow the pen is used in class/how it works a little bit better |
Debbarrows2 -> LOL Alice |
PeggyG -> aren't they great links!! a picture is worth a thousand words :-) |
connect2jamie -> interesting point, Alice. |
PeggyG -> random thoughts from doodling :-) |
connect2jamie -> Might turn out like RSAnimate! |
cheryloakes50 -> yes rsaanimate |
Debbarrows2 -> Anyone have one they can try it with |
connect2jamie -> I'm a big doodler. |
cheryloakes50 -> Hi shelia, we are live |
Sheila -> Hi there! |
connect2jamie -> Hi Sheila! |
PeggyG -> hi Sheila!!! so excited to see you! are you back from Belize? |
cstanley -> I remember reading that doodling accesses some part of the brain when you are taking notes that helps you retain the information better. |
Sheila -> Yes, back from launch and Belize! :) |
cheryloakes50 -> Did you have a great time? |
PeggyG -> I don't doodle but I take lots of notes because just writing things down helps me to stay focused and remember things better even if I never look at them again |
PeggyG -> Fantastic Sheila!!! |
Sheila -> Absolutely! Launch was emotional and Belize I shared with a teacher from my school! |
cstanley -> @Peggy, now I try to type them into my Google Doc that I have open during the webinars - great placed to record links as well. |
connect2jamie -> I do find that I do better if I take notes by hand in meetings, etc. I don't remember things as well if I'm on a computer. Probably my age & early training. |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> Me too peggy. I almost write the conversation but then don't look at it later |
PeggyG -> I do the same thing @cstanley but I usually use Evernote |
cstanley -> I heard you guys raving about Evernote,but I haven't had time to investigate it. |
cheryloakes50 -> I am starting to share with my HS juniors. |
cheryloakes50 -> evernote that is |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> i <3 evernote! |
PeggyG -> it is a fantastic tool! all of the links are clickable in it and you can include video, images and much more |
PeggyG -> and I can access the notes from my iphone or any computer anywhere |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> I take pictures of whiteboards and store it |
connect2jamie -> I really need to explore evernote. Haven't used it. |
Sheila -> Guess I need to too! |
PeggyG -> love the thought of creating movies on imovie from the pen |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> can use online, phone, and app |
Debbarrows2 -> she gets a free registration doesn't she if she is presenting |
cstanley -> I should put in for PD time and see if I can get my district to send me up to your conference. |
PeggyG -> we are your witnesses!! |
PeggyG -> I hope you'll stream that session!!! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> @cstanley http://www.actem.org |
bobsprankle -> will def. podcast it |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> SEEDlings does a Geek of the Week lunch! :) |
PeggyG -> powerful statement about Livescribes and IWBs |
cheryloakes50 -> http://www.livescribe.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/LDApp.woa/wa/MLSOverviewPag... |
PeggyG -> fantastic Bob! |
cstanley -> @Alice - it would be like coming home - well, it would be -literally. |
PeggyG -> I remember the Geek of the Week live stream last year :-) |
cheryloakes50 -> thanks Peggy, we try and stream that each year! |
alicebarr (SEEDlings) -> @cstanley Yup and best time of the year |
PeggyG -> Have you seen this? new Livescribe K-12 Blog from Tim Fahlberg (Mathcasts) http://www.livescribek12.com/ |
PeggyG -> LivescribeK12 has a twitter site too :-) |
connect2jamie -> @peggy Wow! I can't wait to look over that math site. Looks interesting. |
PeggyG -> that blog is about all kinds of uses for the pen in education but I learned about it from Tim Fahlberg :-) |
PeggyG -> what an amazing tool!!! these examples are so motivating! |
PeggyG -> woo hoo!! geek of the week time! |
cheryloakes50 -> Yes, |
leeannep -> so sad i've missed most of this - tech problems at this end - I can only get into chat |
bobsprankle -> http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-add-narration-to-powerpoint-p... |
PeggyG -> so sorry leeannep! hopefully you'll be able to listen to the recording later |
connect2jamie -> I'm sorry you've had problems w/ audio @leeannep! |
bobsprankle -> http://livewithlivescribe.edublogs.org/ |
PeggyG -> great link!! |
bobsprankle -> http://www.pics4learning.com/ |
leeannep -> my tech guy at new school is on it. Hope to participate live next time |
alice barr -> Ok back |
cstanley -> Welcome back, Alice. |
alice barr -> thanks |
cheryloakes50 -> http://bookbuilder.cast.org/ |
Debbarrows2 -> Pics4learning loves to have teachers upload pictures too |
cstanley -> I have a ton of photos I could share. |
PeggyG -> the citation feature is really valuable! |
alice barr -> http://hccweb2.org/web2/ |
PeggyG -> I'll bet there are a lot of people doing the 365 group photos could add pictures to this site |
cheryloakes50 -> I have some photos at pics for learning |
leeannep -> pics4learning will go viral at my school |
alice barr -> sign in as guest |
PeggyG -> pics4learning should be an easy site to get unblocked if you have issues with that in your school |
PeggyG -> that is such a cool site Alice! |
connect2jamie -> Love this week's geeks of the week! |
PeggyG -> great use for Moodle! |
cstanley -> I understand the app is only $5.00 |
bobsprankle -> http://www.zite.com/ |
PeggyG -> wow! how exciting! need to check that out online since I don't have an iPad yet |
cstanley -> Are you really-Cheryl and Alice? Really????? |
cheryloakes50 -> I am ordering mine online |
cheryloakes50 -> in my sleeping bag |
cstanley -> I heard there should not be as long lines since Walmart, Best Buy and others are carrying the product. |
connect2jamie -> :-) |
cstanley -> Very funny, Cheryl. |
PeggyG -> wonder if Zite works on an iphone? |
Debbarrows2 -> I've tried the other store last time and no... |
cstanley -> I would get it at Best Buy and get points. |
PeggyG -> very wise Cheryl! |
Debbarrows2 -> I tried stores in ME, NH NY! when the first ones come out |
Debbarrows2 -> The thrill is in the chase go to the Apple Store |
PeggyG -> so true Deb! |
cstanley -> really? Wow! That's in[icredible. |
Debbarrows2 -> I bet BB won't have them |
Debbarrows2 -> Yep |
Debbarrows2 -> I kept calling and calling and getting no... |
PeggyG -> Steve Jobs is brilliant! |
Debbarrows2 -> MAll |
Sheila -> Go to the store! |
Debbarrows2 -> I'll wait in line with you on my way home |
cstanley -> I have $75 dollars in points - but I may go for a LiveScribe instead of an iPad. There are rumors that my school might - might, I stress - be getting some iPads for us. |
Sheila -> Adventure and challenge all in one |
Debbarrows2 -> You could start spreading the word that BB doesn't have them. |
PeggyG -> camp out Alice! |
alice barr -> :) |
alice barr -> I just cannot decide! |
cstanley -> [I It's pelting, pouring rain here in CT. Are you guys having snow or rain? |
Sheila -> nothing yet |
alice barr -> I guess if I don't get one tomorrow I'll just come home and order it |
PeggyG -> I think it's worth taking a chance Alice |
Debbarrows2 -> This has been great - can't wait to try it tomorrow |
alice barr -> Ok Peggy you are wise! I'm going with your advice |
Sheila -> (Get one before Cheryl! ;) ) |
PeggyG -> what a fabulous show Jen and Mary!! Thank you so much for sharing your tips and passion about the pen! |
connect2jamie -> Thanks all! Great links and info tonight! |
cstanley -> [iThanks, everyone. |
PeggyG -> thanks all!! |
Sheila -> Thank you all! Will catch the beginning on the podcast! |
bobsprankle -> Thanks all! |
PeggyG -> bye Sheila! Can't wait to hear your stories! |
Sheila -> Alice should! |
connect2jamie -> Good night! |
Sheila -> Night all! |
- Log in to post comments
Just starting Livescribe
Hello, I loved this podcast and am sharing with a few of our Livescribe users or those directly interested in this product. Thanks so much for the practical and detailed narration of its use and successes.
A fifth grade teacher in our district and myself used a set of 6 pens with her class. Here students formed 6 groups, each having a pen. They were assigned a different content area in which they were to each create and narrate a review question or problem in a given topic/chapter ( fractions, challenge spelling words, science vocabulary, social studies chapter fact, etc). They developed their questions and practiced narrating them. Then they each used a Livescribe sticky note to transcribe their question while narrating it.
The sticky notes were posted under the appropriate subject headings the teacher listed on the classroom white board. After each pen was downloaded to the teacher's Livescribe desktop, it was placed under the content column on the white board tray. Students could use the pens to playback any stick note as a review for the content topic questions. The teacher could also run the review questions from her desktop for the class on the digital projector. She and her students loved the pens and have used them through the last few months of school...and will continue in the fall.
- Log in to post comments


text:
3 random things first:
1. Billy got me the coolest bday present. They are called StickyGrams and they allow you to make fridge magnets out of your Instagram photos. Since I am beyond addicted to Instagram (HUNGRYRUNNERGIRL) I was a little too excited about this present.
2. The toy of the day is the lamb. It hasn't left her sight yet.
3. I think we should all start buying Easter candy so I don't feel so alone because I am already searching for my favorite Easter candy.
I read THIS article from Competitor and it is perfect so I wanted to share their main points and what I did during injuries to recover mentally! (I don't know what is happening in the below picture but it looks like we are injured so just go with it.)
'An injury is the runner's ultimate test in mental toughness; don't let an injury leave you wallowing. Get through it and let it prove just how tough you are.'
1. 'Venting Frustration' This was something I probably spent a little too much time on when I was injured with my femur stress fractures (um… I think I made my mom take me to Yogurtland 20 times and each time I vented to her like it was my job). I think it is important to allow yourself a few days to be sad and to talk and vent to other people before you can move on. It is normal to feel upset and frustrated when you are injured but it is your choice how long you allow yourself to mope. You can choose to be sad and angry or to do everything in your power to recover quickly and come back a stronger runner.
2. 'Getting Proactive' After I let myself mope for a while I decided I was going to do something about my situation. I was going to swim my heart out (in attempt to keep up my cardiovascular fitness). I really got into working my core and upper body (maybe I should try doing that again) and I did EVERY little thing that my physical therapist told me to do. I also spent the time that I wasn't running to focus on other passions and hobbies that I don't normally have the time to do when I am running a lot. "Down time from running while injured is an opportunity to address other weaknesses that, once improved, will ultimately make you a better runner."
3. 'In The Short Term' This one is HUGE in mental recovery. When my doctor first told me I would not be running for about 3 months because of my stress fracture I thought I was going to pass out. THREE MONTHS! How in the world could I go that long without a sweaty run?! Instead of thinking about three months I decided to just take one day at a time. Try thinking that you just have to cross train today and take it day by day rather than thinking about having to survive working out on the elliptical for the next three months.
4. 'Looking Long Term' It is so easy to get reinjured after coming back from an injury if you try to get back into running too quickly. Take the time that you are injured to come up with a plan to get you back to your old self safely. Read everything you can, talk to other runners, ask your doctor and play it safe for when you DO get to run again.
5. 'Come Back Stronger' Be a bouncy ball!!! You have the choice to bounce back from your injury or be a rock and hit the ground and stay there. I talk more about my bouncy ball theory HERE:) When you get injured you can decide to come back a stronger runner or let the injury defeat you. I spent time reading about my favorite runners that went through crazy injuries (and it is their job to run) and how they came back stronger and SMARTER after their injury. I am pretty sure that almost every runner that has been running for a considerable amount of time has had an injury, it is kind of part of the game but it is up to you how you handle the injury!
How did you mentally recover from any injuries that you have had? Was your injury pretty mentally hard on you?
What are some lessons that you learned from past injuries?
Ever had a Ghirardelli square? Favorite kind?
-Milk chocolate with carmel in the middle.
How often do you get on Instagram? Instagram fan?
-I can't tell you because I am embarrassed about how often I check the gram.


text:
FREE SHIPPING on all full graphic kits (valid on regular price kits for EU and US/CAN)
Free Shipping Kits EU/US/CAN
4.7 / 5 customer rating
Not what you are
looking for?
Is this not your model? Don't worry, we can convert any kit to any bike, even if we don't always have the product images to match!
This graphic kit fits the KTM 390 Duke, KTM 250 Duke, KTM 200 Duke and KTM 125 Duke from years 2011-2016 and 2017-2020. Choose your bike model in the dropdown menu.
MotoProWorks offers graphic-kits and decals for motocross, enduro, sport, adventure and Supermoto.
Pick your favorite design from hundreds of high quality kits or have us design your own! All our full graphic kits are printed on High-tac, high grade aggressive vinyl combined with glossy or matte laminate from leading manufacturers to ensure your ride looks great.
Production and printing is done 100% in-house with the latest technology including our flatbed cutter for maximum precision. MotoProWorks is officially licensed to print decals and graphic kits for the KTM and Husqvarna brands (KTM SportMotorcycle GmbH and Husqvarna Motorcycles GmbH respectively.)