text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Copyright© 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS Sunday, July 11, 2004
Guests: Senator Pat Roberts, (R-Kan.) Chairman, Intelligence Committee
Senator Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.) Vice Chairman, Intelligence Committee
David Broder, The Washington Post
Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times
William F. Buckley, Editor Emeritus, National Review
Jack Germond, Baltimore Sun
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News
This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with:
(Sundays: (202)885-4200)
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: a devastating report on prewar intelligence on Iraq.
SEN. PAT ROBERTS, (R-KS): In the end, what the president and the Congress used to send the country to war was information that was provided by the intelligence community and that information was flawed.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: How could the CIA be so wrong? Did the Bush administration intentionally exaggerate the data? With us: the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas and Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.
Then it's Kerry-Edwards vs. Bush-Cheney. Insights and analysis from David Broder of The Washington Post, Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times, William F. Buckley Jr. of the National Review and veteran political reporter Jack Germond.
But first: The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says the following. "Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate ... either overstated, or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting."
And here with us to discuss that report, Chairman Pat Roberts, Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller. Welcome both.
SEN. ROBERTS: OK. Thanks, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Chairman Roberts, let me start with you. Having read this report, bottom line, did this country go to war in Iraq based on bogus information?
SEN. ROBERTS: I don't know about bogus information. It was flawed intelligence. And so consequently--and not only with the United States but shared by every other intelligence agency all throughout the world. This was a global intelligence failure. There are extenuating and certainly mitigating circumstances as to how this assumption train got started, but in interviewing over 200 analysts and working very hard with Senator Rockefeller and our excellent staff for over a year, we have determined beyond I think any reasonable fact that the intelligence was flawed.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back to October 10, 2002, Senator Rockefeller, and this is what you said on the floor of the Senate. "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to American now. ... he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups ...
Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational."
And then you voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. Were you duped?
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER, (D-WV): I hate to put it in those terms, but I was wrong. And I've said for a long time now that if I know now what I did not know then, I would have voted against it. I think there were two things. I think there was the question that the intelligence was flawed, profoundly flawed on all subjects, not just the weapons of mass destruction but the terrorist threat, the relationship between Saddam Hussein and perhaps 9/11, something which the vice president is still talking about, but also the fact that the highest level of the administration, they were talking so much, so constantly about the threat to the nation, grave and growing, mushroom clouds. This is moving to the homeland, the president said, just about a month before the vote. I mean, in a sense, they were exaggerating intelligence. They were ahead of the intelligence they were getting or they weren't paying attention to the intelligence they were getting and going beyond it to try to convince the American people that war was the way to go.
MR. RUSSERT: Should Congress have asked more challenging questions of the CIA?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yes, Congress should have done that, and we're looking at ways to improve our own oversight because I think 9/11 was an enormous wake-up call, not only to, you know, the intelligence committee but to the entire world.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: But the point was that the National Intelligence Estimate, which was really the 100-page sort of analysis, we in the Senate Intelligence Committee had to ask for it from the CIA. We received that only a few days before we actually voted, and that was where all these conclusive judgments or, you know, what we thought was a fairly shoddy product was put forward. So there was virtually no time between the receiving of the final national intelligence report and the vote.
MR. RUSSERT: There is no more important decision for a president than to bring a nation to war, as you well know, Senator Roberts. And Paul Wolfowitz, one of the primary architects of the war in Iraq, had this to say: "We settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction...there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself...is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did."
If there are no weapons of mass destruction and the link of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda is murky, at least in terms of the operational sense, then it leaves the third: to help the Iraqis and Saddam's criminal behavior. Do you agree with Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz it was not reason enough to go to war?
SEN. ROBERTS: Well, that was then. This is now. I know I stood on a gravesite at Hillah in Iraq and looked at 18,000 bodies being unearthed, you know, one at a time; 500,000 were dead. I think we're probably in better shape. I know the people in Iraq are in better shape, if we can achieve the stability, which is a very tough challenge over there. But I don't think anybody in terms of threat to regional stability, to Israel, the possibility of reconstituting--he did have the capability of the weapons of mass destruction. I think we're better off without Saddam there.
Now, on the WMD side, no, the intelligence was flawed. On the terrorism side, that was probably a pretty good report that we got. We were worried about a safe haven for the terrorists that were coming in from Afghanistan, and they did provide a safe haven. Don't forget there was the production of ricin up in the northwest part of Iraq. In charge of links to terrorism, yes, they had contacts. Mr. Zarqawi, Abu Zarqawi was in the country. Operational? No, still murky, so we really don't know about that.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, if you went to the Senate in October of 2002...
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...and said, "We're not sure about weapons of mass destruction and the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda operation is murky, but he is a bad guy and there are mass graves, we have to go to war," would you have voted for war?
SEN. ROBERTS: I don't know if I would have or not. I think the whole premise would have changed, I think the whole debate would have changed, and I think that the response would have changed in terms of any kind of military plans. Very difficult to look in the rear-view mirror, 20/20 hindsight and say what you would have done under those circumstances. Jay has indicated he wouldn't have voted for it. Jay has also indicated that there probably wouldn't have been the votes to go to war. I think if we went back to the no-fly zones and the resolutions by the U.N. and an awful lot of talk, I doubt if the votes would have been there.
MR. RUSSERT: The vote was 77-to-23. What do you think the vote would have been...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I don't know. I can't do the math. But if you take the WMD and then the weapons of mass destruction, say there was no underlying intelligence that sufficiently supported it, if you take the al-Qaeda/Saddam Hussein supposed relationship, the 9/11-Saddam Hussein supposed relationship, the underlying intelligence clearly didn't support that, there was nothing left except, as Pat has indicated, humanitarian reasons. Would the American people have put up with the United States sending now 1,000 people to their deaths and 3,000 to 4,000 wounded? And our soldiers doing the most
incredible, magnificent job in a war, did we put them properly in that war? Did the president of the United States put them properly in that war? I think that's a hard case to make.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, you said that probably votes would not be there, so...
SEN. ROBERTS: Well, I think under the circumstances when you vote and you believe that there's an imminent threat to our national security, and we had people saying that the aluminum tubes were, you know--that they would be used for a centrifuge to reconstitute the nuclear capability, when you have a report that the UAVs posed a hazard with biological weaponry to the United States...
MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles.
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes. And then when you have the mobile lab, say, controversy, why yes, why you vote that way. But again, that's, say, hindsight. Don't forget, he did represent a threat to the regional stability. Don't forget that he did have missiles that went over 150 kilometers, so he's threatening Israel. Don't forget that he did work with the Palestinian terrorists and was paying ransom--not ransom. He was paying a reward to all these terrorists. So I guess the question could have been: If he posed an imminent
threat to the future of Israel, would we have helped? I don't know that.
But I think that if you say, "How would you have voted then?" well, it begs the question now we're there and we have to make this work, and that's why both Jay and I are really concentrating on phase two of the report and then also on reform. Week after next, we start the reform hearings.
MR. RUSSERT: I want to get to that. But the fact is the primary rationale given to the American people was that Saddam Hussein was a threat, with biological and chemical, and reconstituting a nuclear program. The hardest question ever to answer to the 882 families who lost loved ones...
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...or the 5,395 injured or killed...
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ..."Why was our son or daughter sent to Iraq under false intelligence information?"
SEN. ROBERTS: Well, that is the thing that, you know, all of us on the Intelligence Committee live with and that's why we've worked so hard to produce this report, why I've said let the chips, you know, fall where they may and let's make the appropriate changes and let's do it very quickly, because in a dangerous world, if you're going to have a policy of pre-emption, whether it be North Korea or whether it be whatever threat we face, not only that but the threat to the homeland right now in regards to a terrorist attack, well, we have to get it right.
I do quarrel a little bit with Jay in terms of his interpretation of the administration. Many people in the administration made very declarative and assertive comments like the mushroom cloud. Why would Condi Rice say that? Well, if, in fact, you did have the capability of producing the weapons of mass destruction or they were there and you had a person like A.Q. Khan, that becomes sort of a Grand Central Station for a terrorist group to latch onto a nuclear weapon and then certainly could use it in any part of the world. I think that's why she said that. Well, obviously she got the intelligence, she made
the statement, the intelligence was flawed.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, they were connecting Saddam to nuclear development and mushroom cloud before the apprehension...
SEN. ROBERTS: Starting in 1991 after the first Gulf War they found that he had a greater capability than they thought, and then that kept going with U.N. inspectors and it wasn't until the U.N. inspectors left that everybody assumed he would be reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction. That assumption was wrong because we had no collection, no human intelligence in Iraq to tell us otherwise.
MR. RUSSERT: Here's the concern: In December of 2002 there was a briefing in the Oval Office, and here's how Bob Woodward describes it in his book "Plan of Attack." "George Tenet, the director, and [Deputy Director] McLaughlin went to the Oval Office. The meeting was for presenting the case on WMD. ... When McLaughlin concluded, there was a look on the president's face of, `What's this?' and then a brief moment of silence. `Nice try,' Bush said. `I don't think this is quite--it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.' [White House chief of staff Andrew] Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop. ... Bush turned to Tenet. `I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?' From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet, threw his arms in the air. `It's a slam-dunk case.' It was unusual for Tenet to be so certain. From McLaughlin's presentation, Card was worried there might be no `There, there.'"
This is December of 2002. The president having doubts about the quality of the intelligence information on Iraq. What turned the corner? How did he become so emphatic and convinced during the first three months leading up to the war in 2003?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I think that was a substantive discussion of intelligence issues in that meeting. My own feeling, Tim, is that--and I've felt this a long time--is that there had been a predisposition on the part of the president and his team of some of the people who surrounded him, some of the people who wrote Clinton in January of 1998 when he was president, said, look, the time for diplomacy is over. The time for military action to do regime change has come in Iraq. And I think that there was a predisposition. The day after 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld was in the White House thinking about what are we going to do about Iraq? And I think Iraq was on their mind. I think the president wanted to be a wartime president. I don't think he wanted to go to war. But I think he wanted to be a wartime president. He saw this as something we had to do. Afghanistan was fine and that was important and
then--but Iraq is what he wanted, and that's what he got.
MR. RUSSERT: He...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: And in the meantime, we have created, therefore, the lowest standing of the United States in our history around the world. More people training--trained and being trained for probably a generation or so to come to hate us and to try to hurt us abroad and here in the homeland. It's not a proud record.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator Roberts, December of 2002 the president expressing doubts about the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and yet three months later we were at war. How do you explain that?
SEN. ROBERTS: Well, we have a situation where the DCI, George Tenet--and it's very easy to go back and pick out a certain statement. Of course, his most famous one is "slam dunk." There isn't any slam dunk in intelligence. You don't bat, you know, 1,000 percent. I mean, you're lucky if you bat, you know, 500 percent.
The information that was provided to the president and to the Congress that led to the same kind of assertive comments that the same critics are now blaming the president for was flawed. What he said is what he got, and what he got was wrong, and I think he was right to challenge it at the time. George Tenet stood up and said, "It's a slam dunk case." It was not a slam dunk case.
This thing started clear back in 1991, as I've indicated, with the discovery that he was farther ahead with his nuclear weaponry than we thought before. He was involved in a war with Iran. He was involved, obviously, in the invasion in Kuwait. And then, as I said, every global intelligence agency figured out, "Well, it's an assumption train." They thought he would reconstitute the weapons and he didn't.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Rockefeller, there is a couple sentences in the report that I want to share with you because this was voted on unanimously by nine Republicans, eight Democrats. Political pressure--"The Committee was not presented with any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so."
Does that put to rest at whole discussion of whether or not the administration had a predisposition or pressured analysts?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: In no way does it put that to rest. Pat Roberts and I both understand that this was the great fight in our committee about the report. And I voted for the report in spite of that with which I did not agree, that is the subject of pressure. I think there was a lot of pressure.
There are various ways of doing pressure. What we focused on in the report was, you know, if we interviewed an analyst and we're putting pressure on that analyst, did any of them complain that our staff was putting pressure on them. The answer is, "No, they didn't." But there are all kinds of other pressures. Mr. Kerr, who is deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, did a study on this and came out with the view that there was a lot of pressure. George Tenet himself was visited by analysts who complained of being pressured, and he used the phrase, "if you want to relieve the pressure," thus
justifying the fact that there was pressure on these folks, "then don't tell them anything if there isn't new information." But most importantly, the ombudsman of the CIA, whose job it is to listen to people's complaints said that in his 32 years of work in the CIA, he had never seen so much hammering, i.e. pressure, on the intelligence community.
Plus the fact that all during this time in advance of the intelligence that he was getting, the president and his top administrators--the top folks--you know, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.--they were putting out these hair-raising, paralyzing, horrifying statements about what was going to happen, was about to come back to the homeland, the mushroom cloud. This is pressure, folks. This is pressure.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Roberts, let me show you some of the things, that--first the vice president. This is what he said in August of 2002:
(Videotape, August 26, 2002):
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And then the president on October 7 in Cincinnati followed up with this:
(Videotape, October 7, 2002):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Mushroom cloud. The vice president saying there is no doubt. Isn't that taking the data and bringing it to the next level in order to mobilize the American people to support a war?
SEN. ROBERTS: Oh, I know a senator who said that our children should not be smallpoxed. I know several senators who have made the same kind of statements on the floor of the Senate. I didn't, by the way. That doesn't mean that I didn't believe it, but there again what the president got was that kind of intelligence that was flawed and that's what he has stated. And I think he more than anyone now understands that we have to fix the intelligence community so that we get a better intelligence product.
I want to go back to this pressure business. We had over 200 analysts. We asked them very specifically at my orders to ask "Was your product, was your work intimidated or manipulated or coerced, either politically or otherwise?" Answer? "No." Now, in the committee, there are two different ideas of pressure. As Jay has indicated, one involves repetitive questioning. On the repetitive questioning, in regards to the terrorism section, which is a pretty good section, they came out with a pretty good product. On the WMD section, there was not repetitive questioning and we got into Curveball and we got into aluminum tubes and we got into UAVs and we got into mobile labs and all of that, and it was a lousy product. Now, I hope to heck that there was pressure by the policy-maker asking tough questions of every analyst, "Are you sure?" This was post-9/11. This was, "We can't be risk averts. We have to lean forward." I don't think that's pressure.
Now, in terms of the IG and the ombudsman, I've talked to both and I said, "Give me names of people that you have talked to." One of the individuals, and I won't get into this, said, "Well, I heard it in the cafeteria."
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you...
SEN. ROBERTS: And also bottom line in terms of those statements, they indicated, "Was there any real pressure to change the product?" Answer? "No."
MR. RUSSERT: ...mentioned Curveball. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations in February and talked about the evidence that he had seen about Saddam having trucks and railroad cars to be used to disperse biological-chemical weapons. Secretary Powell then came on this program in May and said, "It turned out the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases deliberately misleading."
SEN. ROBERTS: He's right.
MR. RUSSERT: And you talked about Curveball. Curveball was the son of Ahmad Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile's friend who came forward and said, "I'm a high-school--number one in my class. I know all about this." He was a fraud. And in the report, this is what the e-mail from the deputy chief of the CIA's Iraqi task force had to say. "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about."
SEN. ROBERTS: OK. That's an isolated memo that we obviously now know is absolutely incorrect. Curveball really provided 98 percent of the assessment as to whether or not the Iraqis had a biological weapon. Yet, the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, knew of his background. He has a very troubled background. Secondly, he was a single source that we did not have access to. And on the basis of that came the statement in the WMD section that Iraq had a biological capability. That's the kind of
flaw in intelligence, and I think--I won't say willful, but the DIA should have shared that information with the CIA and the CIA should have gone from there.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent out before the United Nations and the world based on...
SEN. ROBERTS: I know. It was wrong.
MR. RUSSERT: ...that information.
SEN. ROBERTS: You couldn't be more upset or frustrated than both Jay and I. And let me tell you something else. Curveball and all of that information that is in our report, much of it is redacted. I can't really tell you some of the more specific details that would make your eyebrows even raise higher.
MR. RUSSERT: With all this being said, the second phase of your investigation as to whether or not the Bush administration deliberately altered, massaged the data, the intelligence in order to mislead the American people. Why shouldn't the American people have the benefit of your report before the November election?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Well, let's forget the election for a moment, and I know that sounds like a frivolous thing to say, but it needs to be made very clear here that--two things. Number one, I think, is the fact that Pat Roberts and I worked very closely together with a lot of pressure from people from both of our membership, colleagues.
SEN. ROBERTS: Yeah, we felt pressured.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah, we felt pressure to, you know, not do--put out this report that we did. Nevertheless, we were, in fact, under committee rules, and it was my hope from the very beginning—and we did not prevail because we are in the minority on the committee and in the Senate--to take up this whole question of what the administration said, what the administration did during this entire time. We actually only did prewar intelligence. That's all we did. The whole subject of what was the administration's role, what influence did they bring upon the American people, what pressure did they
or did they not bring was never really gone into.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not, Senator?
SEN. ROBERTS: We agreed that our first mission was to get the report done that we, you know, had to do. I thought it could be done in six months. We hit a little bit of a rocky path at first. There were some politics involved and all of that. And then I said we ought to be able to do this in six months. Well, then it became nine months and then it became a year. Every member had their say. We had to work with the CIA, and as a result, our staffers had to go back thousands and thousands and thousands of pages to get it right. We are doing...
MR. RUSSERT: Was there any political--was there any political pressure from the White House not to do the second part...
SEN. ROBERTS: None. None.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of the investigation until after the election?
SEN. ROBERTS: None. And they didn't even know about the second part of the--and now this thing has morphed into a change as to whether or not the administration has magnified or has changed it or has manipulated it. The whole key was the use of intelligence. And so consequently that is ongoing right now, as I speak, by our staff, as well as a--other priority goal which is to get at the reform measures that we must do on a very careful and deliberate basis. But even as I'm speaking our staff is working on
phase two and we will get it done.
MR. RUSSERT: Before the election?
SEN. ROBERTS: I don't know if we can get it done before the election. It is more important to get it right. Understand, too, that it is going to an independent commission after we get our work done. So we haven't heard the end of this by any means.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yeah. I absolutely agree with Pat Roberts that doing it right is more important than meeting the "election deadline." I've always felt that. I mean, there's enormous feeling about that out in the country. But we--our job is to do our work correctly. The report that we put out is the most extensive, most analytical report of the intelligence community that's been out, I think even including the Church report. It's respected. But we did not do the handling of intelligence, the use of intelligence, the
misuse of intelligence. None of that did we do. Pat said that starting as of this very day--well, I'm sorry, we've done a little bit of work on Douglas...
SEN. ROBERTS: No, no, no. We've been working on this since February, Jay.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: A little bit of work on Douglas Feith. But the work we...
SEN. ROBERTS: We...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Let me finish. The work...
SEN. ROBERTS: I know, but we tried to have him up, and you won't have him up.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No, I've asked you to have him up again. He's been up once. Let's not get into that.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, the Defense Department has written a letter saying that you unfairly charged him with unlawful conduct when there is none.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Well, let's find out if there is. I mean, there's always the question whether or not that he was running a secret intelligence operation that bypassed the entire intelligence community, and the law says you've got to inform the intelligence community of anything that you're doing. Was he doing it or not? I don't know.
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, the next president of the United States, the re-elected George Bush or newly elected John Kerry, is going to have to stand before this country and this world and say, "North Korea poses this threat, Iran poses this threat, and we have to do this. And I can assure you, I have the very best intelligence to document what I just told you, my fellow Americans and citizens of the world." How comfortable are you that the next president will be able to do that?
SEN. ROBERTS: Since the NIA of 2002, I think that the CIA has done a great deal. John McLaughlin has tried to indicate that. But I also think, with due respect to the folks that think otherwise in the CIA, that we have a culture problem and somewhat of a self-denial and that has to be fixed, and that's why these reform hearings are so terribly important. But this is an ongoing effort. I think at that particular time if you know--right now today we are under threat in the homeland from a possible terrorist attack, and we know that this information is the highest it's been ever since 9/11, and we're working overtime, all of us, FBI, DIA, CIA, all of the 15 intelligence agencies, we're doing the very best we can. I certainly hope and pray that we will have the very best intelligence.
MR. RUSSERT: Will we have a new director?
SEN. ROBERTS: I certainly hope so.
MR. RUSSERT: By when?
SEN. ROBERTS: I hope the administration will send somebody up. There's four or five people that, I think, have been talked about. It'll have to be an extraordinary nominee. If that's the case, we will go full time into the hearings to get him or her confirmed.
MR. RUSSERT: Will there be a new director soon?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I agree with Pat Roberts. There should be. You cannot leave in an acting director for six or seven months while you wait for the next inauguration, regardless of who's elected. We cannot take that chance, as this country. There are four or five people out there in this country who are so good, who know intelligence so well, who are so respected by both sides of the aisle that the president should put forward one of those names and do it now, let that person be confirmed, and then whoever is re-elected or elected president, they will continue to use that person. That's the standard.
MR. RUSSERT: Is Porter Goss one of those names?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I'm not getting into names.
MR. RUSSERT: The chairman of the House Intelligence...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I don't think that anybody who should be up for consideration should have a political background.
MR. RUSSERT: And he does.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that?
SEN. ROBERTS: I don't know of anybody in Washington that doesn't have a political background of some sort. But there's been a statement made by those on Jay's side that he is too partisan. I don't happen to share that view. But there are a number of people who have an extraordinary background that the president could send up and that we could get confirmed.
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued, gentlemen. We thank you for the report and thank you for sharing your views with the American people this morning.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Thank you, Tim.
SEN. ROBERTS: Thank you, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Coming up next, with us the founder of the National Review, William F. Buckley, has a new book, "Miles Gone By," and Jack Germond, who has just published "Fat Man Fed Up: How American Politics Went Bad." They'll be joined by David Broder of The Washington Post and Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times. Our political roundtable is next right here, coming up on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. RUSSERT: It's Kerry-Edwards vs. Bush-Cheney. Our roundtable is next, after this brief station break.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Welcome all. William F. Buckley Jr., welcome to MEET THE PRESS. Your new book "Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography."
MR. WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: And after 49 years retiring as the head of the National Review but still writing a column. Let me talk presidential politics...
MR. RUSSERT: ...with someone who's observed it for a long time. Here's the latest Time magazine poll, John Kerry 47, George Bush 45, Ralph Nader, 3.5. And then this question: "Who do you trust more to lead the country?" George Bush 46, John Kerry 46. How do you see the race playing out over the next couple of months?
MR. BUCKLEY: Well, 47 percent are wrong. Is that correct? In other words, your job is to get them up to speed.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you see Bush being re-elected?
MR. BUCKLEY: Well, anything can happen is the safest way to answer that. I don't think that Bush has done anything disqualifying him. He had a lousy intelligence system, manifestly, but nobody thinks that he acted capriciously. I think if we all had been told exactly what he was told, it's pretty logical that we would have proceeded to do what he did. So who should we be mad at? You mentioned a moment ago he--leading people to their death. That's true, those things happen. If you send the fireman to a particular conflagration, and if that's not the building that, in fact, is in danger, people will get hurt. But I don't think the parents of soldiers on that mission, A, are entitled to feel that nothing has been accomplished. The deposition of Saddam is a sordid historical/moral event. And two, that it was done carelessly.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the debate, David Broder, and we see those numbers; Iraq very much on people's minds. And, obviously, Bill Buckley's view is one that the president's people feel very strongly that Saddam is gone, and that's a big historic event. And if the president was misled on intelligence data, he did what he thought he should do based on the information he was given.
MR. DAVID BRODER: The institutional failure began before George Bush became president. It happened critically on his watch, and that will weigh in the balance. But I think it's less important politically than what happens now in Iraq. If that situation stabilizes, if the interim government turns out to be legitimate in the eyes of Iraqis, if the fighting and the casualties decline, then I think President Bush has a good chance to be re-elected.
If it goes in the other direction, I don't think it will matter much about this debate about who was at fault on the intelligence. Everybody knows now that the intelligence failed. Our system failed. That's a fact of life which everybody has to accept. But what is not yet a fact of life is what the consequences are in Iraq. Those consequences will have more to do with this election, I suspect, than anything that happens in the campaign itself.
MR. RUSSERT: The other big event of the week: John Kerry chose John Edwards as his running mate. Time magazine asked, "Who would make a better president, John Edwards or Dick Cheney?" Forty-seven, Edwards; Dick Cheney, 38. Upon the selection of Mr. Edwards, there was a chorus among Republicans, Jack Germond. Let's watch speaker Dennis Hastert.
(Videotape, Wednesday):
REP. DENNIS HASTERT, (R-IL): I thought it was an interesting choice yesterday when John Kerry picked John Edwards--you know, another pretty face to go on that ballot.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And then Bill Frist, the majority leader in the Senate, chimed in.
(Videotape, Tuesday):
SEN. BILL FRIST, (R-TN): From an experience level, there's going to be a lot of the on-the-job training, potentially, if he were to ever serve as vice president. And those are the words of John Kerry, in terms of an experience level.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And the president himself in North Carolina.
(Videotape, Wednesday):
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: If I could try another Edwards question, how does he stack up against Dick Cheney?
PRES. BUSH: Dick Cheney can be president. Next?
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And that brought about this response from the Democratic candidate, John Kerry.
(Videotape, Wednesday):
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D-MA): But I'll tell you what he was right about. He was right that Dick Cheney was ready to take over on day one, and he did, and he has been ever since, folks. And that's what we got to change.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Here it is, July, Jack Germond, and the vice presidential discussion about Dick Cheney vs. John Edwards is front and center. It's probably not fair to ask you about another pretty face, but go ahead.
MR. GERMOND: I mean, this is typical of the kind of nonsense we talk about in presidential campaigns these days. I mean, the fact is John Edwards is certainly as prepared as George W. Bush was four years ago and Ronald Reagan was and Jimmy Carter was, a lot of people. We're not talking about things that have any meaning for voters. That's why they don't vote because we don't talk about the things they care about. They don't care about this stuff. This is, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Forget it."
MR. RUSSERT: Ron Brownstein, we have had the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee on weapons of mass destruction and you heard that discussion. The selection of John Edwards and juxtaposed against the performance of Dick Cheney. Where are we in this campaign?
MR. BROWNSTEIN: First of all, Tim, I should take a cue from Ronald Reagan and reassure my colleagues here that throughout this roundtable I will not hold their youth and inexperience against them. Look, I think that the Senate Intelligence Committee report does frame what I believe is the central issue in this campaign. And I differ a little with Bill Buckley because I don't think that all Americans agree that any president would have made this decision based on this information. I think that goes to the crux of the choice that they face.
I think I agree with David, that events in Iraq and more broadly in the war on terror are the central driving issue in this campaign for most Americans. The question is: Has President Bush's response made us safer or has it created unanticipated problems? I think that is the pivot of this election. Obviously the economy is going to matter to a lot of voters. Values issues which they spent a lot of time talking about in the last week are going to matter to a lot of voters especially in some of the swing states in the Midwest with the undecided voters that are remaining, but in the end, I do believe this is more than anything else a referendum on President Bush's performance and his decision to invade Iraq I think overshadows everything else he has done for most voters, pro or con.
MR. GERMOND: Look, let me add the question that John Kerry asked about Vietnam 30 years ago is applicable now. If you want your kid, if you have a kid that age to be killed in Iraq for what we're doing there and what we did there, if this is such a great war, such a holy cause, a patriotic cause, why isn't the president sending his daughters there? Why aren't we seeing people rushing to go there? It's ridiculous.
MR. BUCKLEY: I don't think that's a fair question, Jack, because...
MR. GERMOND: All is fair in this game. Believe me.
MR. BUCKLEY: ...there are casualties in every situation. You can identify a human being who loss his life on this situation or that situation and say, "Well, now, should the firefighters have been sent there given the fact that the blaze was so trivial?" and the answer can be yes, yes. It can be no. I think it may be correct that Bush will be judged on the basis of, "Do we want this guy another four years because this is the record he's piled up?" But even if they vote negatively on the question that phrased, it's not in my judgment a retroactive condemnation of what he did.
MR. RUSSERT: Jack Germond, in your book "Fat Man Fed Up: How American Politics Went Bad," you talk about the Republican Party and you write this: "Those who hold moderate views on social questions are barred from the [Republican] party's national ticket. ... Moderate Republicans, in fact, are a vanish breed in Congress and not likely to be replenished." And yet, as Ron mentioned, the battleground states, Midwest states, Independent voters, who are the Republicans presenting in prime-time television at their convention? New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights; Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights. Is your theory wrong?
MR. GERMOND: All they're trying to do is paper over the ideology, the dogma of the Republican Party. Giuliani and those issues doesn't represent--they're still going to have a platform that says you can't appoint justices who are not anti-abortion.
MR. RUSSERT: But let me get Bill Buckley in here because he's, in effect, the father of the conservative movement in America. What do you think of having Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain as the faces of the Republican Party during this convention?
MR. BUCKLEY: I think it's inevitable given the fact that they are as young as Mr. Bernstein and extremely effective. I think that the ultimate strategic loss to the Republican Party of failing to act on the gay marriage amendment and sticking to their grounds on the matter of what constitutes a marriage conventionally understood would be a serious mistake. But all the cultural organs are in this direction.
They're very hard to slow down. I don't know whether Jack would encourage a move to authorize bestiality. I'm sure he wouldn't as a matter of personal reaction. But whether he would find that the Constitution, in fact, permits it becomes an open question.
MR. GERMOND: Because if it's OK with the Constitution, it's OK with me.
MR. BROWNSTEIN: Jack's point is right more broadly. I think the cultural issues have become the glue that holds together these two coalitions. I mean, if you look--the hardest thing to imagine is a Democratic nominee who is pro-life or a Republican nominee who is pro-choice. There are lots of other ways in which you can sin against the party orthodox even. On these cultural issues it really is the glue that defines these two coalitions. The best single predictor of how someone votes is not their income. It's how often they go to church. And it really is these social issues that I think are the hardest place to deviate from the party line on either side.
MR. RUSSERT: And Calvin Trillin has a poem in The Nation magazine this week, David, saying this is not truth in packaging, that if you have Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani up before the Republican convention, who do not agree with the platform of that party, it's in effect suggesting to the American people the party is something that it's not.
MR. BRODER: Buckley will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the conservatives mind who speaks at the convention as long as the line of succession is clear that it will be another conservative. And that's why Cheney is locked into this ticket.
MR. BROWNSTEIN: True.
MR. BRODER: But the poll that you said...
MR. RUSSERT: You're absolutely convinced that Dick Cheney will be the vice...
MR. BRODER: Absolutely. And--but the interesting...
MR. RUSSERT: So all this talk of Colin Powell, John McCain...
MR. BRODER: Won't happen, for exactly that reason. But the poll that you cited is interesting in terms of what it measures about what's happened to Dick Cheney's reputation during the last four years. Four years ago when he was chosen, there was broad acceptance among Democrats and Republicans alike: This is a serious, grown-up person who is fully qualified to be president of the United States, and we'd be comfortable seeing him if that should happen. Cheney now has defined himself out of that role, and he is seen as the most partisan, hard-line, ideological part of the Republican Party, and that's a significant change.
MR. GERMOND: Yeah, there's a certain irony of the fact that the vice presidential problem this year is not Kerry's in choosing John Edwards. It is the president's in having Dick Cheney, and irrevocably.
MR. BROWNSTEIN: I agree. That poll last week was much more about Cheney than Edwards. When Edwards was selected, half the country said they did not know him well enough to have an opinion about him. The fact that more are saying they think he's prepared to be vice president is really more of a reflection of the problems that Cheney has run into than of Edwards' potential strength.
MR. RUSSERT: You want to rise to his defense?
MR. BUCKLEY: Well, is this because Cheney is especially identified with the war movement, in your judgment, or is it little mannerisms of his that creep in, like his certitude on the matter of the WMD?
MR. BROWNSTEIN: I agree with David. I think he's become a polari--he's become some of the most po--perhaps the most polarizing figure in a polarizing time in a polarizing administration. I mean, he is probably as popular--he is not as popular among Republicans as the president is, but he's very popular among Republicans and an almost inverse way among Democrats. He really has defined that by camp--by sticking, especially as you suggest, with his positions on WMD and al-Qaeda as the evidence moves in the other direction.
MR. BUCKLEY: Like Nixon vice president before he was caught cheating. I mean, he had that polarizing effect, didn't he?
MR. BROWNSTEIN: It's part of the job sometimes.
MR. RUSSERT: We're going to take a quick break and come back with a lot more of our Roundtable, right after this.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Let's talk about the mind-set of the American voter. Mr. Buckley, back in 1965 you ran for mayor of New York and you were on MEET THE PRESS and you talked about the American voter. Let's watch and listen:
(Videotape, October 17, 1965):
MR. GABE PRESSMAN (NBC News): Mr. Buckley, you once called Harry Truman the nation's most conspicuous vulgarian. You said of General Eisenhower that when he touches a subject, every ray of light, every breath of air is choked out. Of the Kennedy administration, I quote you: "There are not enough psychiatrists in the country to cure this crazy administration." And you've called President Johnson "Uncle Corn Pone." In view of your opinions of the last four presidents of the United States...
MR. BUCKLEY: Well, actually, I didn't say that about Kennedy. I don't know who did. I've said the other three, though.
MR. PRESSMAN: Right.
MR. BUCKLEY: I'd be glad to elaborate on them.
MR. PRESSMAN: Well, in view of your opinions of three of the last four presidents then, what do you think of the American voter?
MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think the American voter is often--often has intuitions which are better than those of their own presidents. That is to say, I think that presidents tend to--during the recent period, tend to have drawn more strength from the voters than the voters from their presidents. As Franklin Adams once said, "I think the average American is a little bit above average," and under the circumstances, I rejoice over the influence of the people over their elected leaders since, by and large, I think that they show more wisdom than their leaders or than their intellectuals. I've often been quoted as saying I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: You stand by that?
MR. BUCKLEY: Hear, hear, hear. I was precocious back then. No, I think the solid good judgment of the people is more than a mere piety, and I think that that good judgment, for instance, eased out Howard Dean, in his own gentle by firm way, and we'll have some sort of sense of it, in my judgment, two months from now, three months from now.
MR. RUSSERT: Jack Germond, you have written in your book that after 50 years as a newspaper reporter you're fed up and dismayed that the American politics has gone sour. But the American people have the right to vote or not vote.
MR. GERMOND: But if we have a situation where the campaign is waged over trivial issues that don't have anything to do with anyone's life, it is less surprising that people don't vote, and I blame not just the politicians. I blame the voters.
MR. BUCKLEY: But you have to mention the trivial issues, Jack.
MR. GERMOND: And--I will mention the trivial issues. And I am blaming the press and television in particular for the kind of job we do in covering the story. And I'll give you a specific. A few weeks ago we were arguing about whether John Kerry had thrown away his medals or the ribbons. Who cares? Thirty years ago he was ahead...
MR. BROWNSTEIN: But overall do you think this year is ultimately going to be decided on trivial issues? I mean, this is a year that the public seems very engaged in real choices...
MR. GERMOND: I hope...
MR. BROWNSTEIN: ...whether on the economy or the war.
MR. GERMOND: I hope that's the case. I hope it isn't because of John Kerry's size in the debate, for example. We'll see.
MR. RUSSERT: Let the debate begin on the war in Iraq, the economy and a lot of other issues. William F. Buckley, "Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography"; Jack Germond, "Fat Man Fed Up: How American Politics Went Bad." We thank you all.
We'll be right back.
MR. RUSSERT: Start your day tomorrow on "Today" with Katie and Matt, then the "NBC Nightly News" with Tom Brokaw. That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.
© 2013 NBCNews.com Reprints


text:
Presence detection
Highly accurate, even for detecting the smallest or fastest objects: our sensors and precision switches.
Distance measurement
Whether long or more exact than "a hair's breadth": sensors and encoders by Baumer measure all distances highly accurately.
Angle measurement / rotary encoders
Measured data recording for rotary motion from the market leader for add-on encoders: Decades of competence will pay off for you!
Process instrumentation
"Reliable and precise" Our measuring technology solutions for temperature, pressure, fill level, force, strain or conductivity are highly accurate.
The comprehensive and practical accessories range from Baumer simplifies installation and commissioning.
Identification and image processing
Solving complex image processing applications in a short amount of time - with industrial cameras and vision sensors from Baumer the first step towards a successful solution has already been made.
Product Innovations
Take a look and learn more about our new products. From world premier to innovation

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Updated with the new text, please let me know if this works or has problems, but it should work more for firefox now. (I Hope)
I could not fix the interface spacing issue, but I do have an alternative please let me know if it seems good enough to use. Sample is at
Test Text Page and let me know on the wall if it should be changed.
Message board is now searchable by poster, please let me know other areas to focus on.
Power outage, but we now have an updated web page and hope to go live with new features soon, so add what you want the most.
First of several updates happening in the next two monthes, a search for message feature is planned and some background stuff to help people register and run faster.
I have SOME free time recently and I am wondering what would you like to improve or add to the site. Post your comments on the wall.
No promises, but I will see what I can do.


text:
The end credits of the "Batman Begins" sequel include a farewell note to Ledger, who died in January from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs; and to special-effects technician Conway Wickliffe, who was killed last September in a stunt-car accident.
"In memory of our friends Heath Ledger & Conway Wickliffe," reads the tribute included in the credits, which went up Thursday on the Warner Bros. publicity Web site.
Ledger plays the villainous Joker in "The Dark Knight," who begins a reign of terror on Gotham City that pits him against conflicted hero Batman (Christian Bale).
Arriving in theaters July 18, the movie reteams Bale with director Christopher Nolan and returning co-stars Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman. Joining the cast are Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
Beginning months before Ledger's death, his frenetic performance and demented-clown makeup have been a cornerstone of the marketing campaign for the film.
"I needed a phenomenal actor, but he also had to be someone unafraid of taking on such an iconic role," Nolan says in the production notes for "The Dark Knight." 'Heath created something entirely original. It's stunning, it's captivating. ... It's going to blow people away."


text:
MTV worries me… part 4; Making Street Harassment 'Sexy'
Whilst writing my (ever multiplying… gosh, I'm easily perturbed, aint I?) blog posts about music videos, I've started to notice another little trend. This time, however, it's not content of the videos that's getting to me but the lyrics of the songs, instead. (more…)By: Sarah Barnes, 15.12.2009 | Comments (6)
Tagged: 3OH!3, Cat Calling, Get Sexy, Hollaback, Katy Perry, Music Videos, putting women in their place, Reclaim The Night, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Starstrukk, Sugababes, Take Back The Night, Wolf Whistling


text:
Tasmanian bushfire disaster/
WICEN Tasmania (South), assisted by other trained southern region radio amateurs, are providing 24 hour support for firefighting activities as several fires continue to burn.
At least 100 properties have been destroyed and thousands of people are left stranded. Towns on the devastated Tasman Peninsula in the state's south-east are cut off and only accessible via sea.
WICEN Tasmania (South) Secretary, Roger Nichols VK7ARN said teams of two radio operators for the Incident Management Team based at Tasmania Fire Service Cambridge, are concerned primarily with two of the major fires.
Significant property loss has already occurred, especially in the Tasman Peninsula fire. There are 60 fire units in the field on these fires, being almost half of 130 currently actively deployed across Tasmania.
He said, "Radio operator needs and deployments are under constant review as the situation develops. The Tasmania Fire Service 80MHz network is being used, involving standard procedures and Prowords."
Roger VK7ARN said 18 radio amateurs recently attended an introductory training course run by the Tasmania Fire Service in preparation for such an eventuality, though the size and scope of the current operations is way beyond previous activations.
He said radio operator teams normally include at least one operator with previous fire experience and training. It may be that more amateur resources will be required, at least to assist with log keeping and message recording.
These may include deployments to other control points closer to the firegrounds.
Overnight a massive sea rescue operation moved more than 1,000 people trapped by the Tasman Peninsula fires to safety in Hobart, 50 kilometres away. Thousands of people, including 700 tourists at historic Port Arthur, remain stranded.


text:
wim1959 wrote:The day before temperatures about the same.
1,16 inch rain.
9,1 Mi sight
More wind. Wind gust 17 MPH (Erin, I suppose)
The day after cooler, no rain, sight 9,9 mi, some more wind but not much.
wim1959 wrote:I capped that picture from a meteorological site myself and photobucketed it for own use.
truthseeker wrote:Apparently a lot of space was available in the WTC around 2000.
Here is just a simple google search guys. For what its worth.
http://www.showcase.com/New-York/World- ... e-for-Rent
Your FOIL request asked for the following DOB records:
"Copies of inspections and certifications records issued by the New York City Department of Buildings, pertaining to construction projects performed at the World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 between January 2000 and January 2002."
"Permits or certifications provided by the NYC Department of Buildings regarding elevator modernization/renovation work performed at the former World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 during the 1990s and 2000s."
According to the Department's Building Information System ("BIS"), there was a complaint registered on January 11, 2001 at 1 World Trade Center, but the Department did not inspect in view of a lack of jurisdiction. Nor are there records of the Department having inspected 1 World Trade Center during the time period in question for any other reason. There are no records of complaints filed or inspections conducted at 2 World Trade Center for the period requested.
The Department of Buildings records show no violations issued during that period, so there would be no certification records.
BIS shows no elevator records for the time period in question.
nonhocapito wrote:Q_prime wrote:I had visited one of WTC tower where the guide fully detailed the construction process...
Welcome, Q_prime. If you don't mind I'll ask you the same thing I ask anyone who says they have been on the towers (if you remember the experience in sufficient detail). Not that it means much, but you never know. First off, in what year and month? How was security in the building? Did you notice activity in the lobby and during the ascent? Did it look like a "busy at work" edifice? How did you rise to the top, did you have to change elevator?
Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
Supporters and opponents packed a House committee room Tuesday
The state's top health chief cautioned Tuesday that lawmakers should slow down in considering the "Family, Faith and Freedom Protection Act" that would tighten regulations on abortion clinics and ensure a doctor is present for the entire procedure.
Supporters and opponents packed a House committee room, sitting on opposite sides, wearing blue shirts in support of the bill and pink in opposition while outside opponents held a rally against the bill, chanting "Shame."
Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Aldona Wos said she agrees with parts of House Bill 695, such as allowing additional medical professionals in addition to doctors and nurses to object to assisting in an abortion for moral reasons and more education for mothers.
"Other parts are far more complex and are in need of further clarity prior to passage of this bill," she said.
The bill, originating in the House as a ban on foreign law in family court, additionally calls for making abortion clinic standards similar to ambulatory operating centers. It would also require that doctors be present during the operating procedure or the administration of abortion drugs. Senate leaders made the change to the bill late last week just before the July Fourth holiday. They have been roundly criticized for making last-minute changes with little public notice.
The legislation has split members of the local delegation. In the Senate, it was supported by Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-New Hanover, but opposed by Sen. Bill Rabon, R-Brunswick.
In the House, Rep. Susi Hamilton of New Hanover opposes the bill. But Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick, called it a "medical safety issue" and supports the legislation. "We need to address it right now," he said. "Everybody almost, particularly the doctors there on behalf of the bill, said they are nowhere near the standards of regular surgery centers."
Rep. Chris Millis, R-Pender, said in a recent newsletter that he will support the legislation that he sees as critical to protecting "one's faith and freedom while protecting a founding element of this great nation – the family."
Rep. Rick Catlin, R-New Hanover, said he learned a lot in Tuesday's committee hearing on the bill. Catlin said he would support the legislation "if it's clarified to be a doable and reasonable public health protection measure."
Rep. Ted Davis, R-New Hanover, said he hasn't seen the bill yet and so did not have an opinion and was waiting on further discussions to come out from negotiations with House members, the governor and the secretary of health and human services.
"I'm waiting for all that to happen to find out what it is we're dealing with," Davis said.
Though an unusual move, Davis said it's his understanding the House will send the Senate a response to the bill and "wait for them to respond to that."
"I know one thing we're trying to do is the House is not doing this in the same procedure that the Senate has," he said.
Wos said a better immediate solution than the legislation would be to dedicate additional resources to more frequent inspections of abortion clinics and to review existing state regulations. She said 10 full-time staff members are currently assigned to inspecting all medical facilities, including abortion clinics.
She encouraged lawmakers to "spend more time studying these issues and how North Carolina can best improve the health and safety for everyone."
Sponsors of the bill agreed that they would address some of the concerns raised by Wos and her staff, specifically citing any need for clarification of the language in the bill.
Still, Rep. Ruth Samuelson, R-Mecklenburg, said she hopes the bill reaches the House floor and makes its way to the governor. But the bill's fate is uncertain.
Responding to criticism that the bill was rushed through the Senate, the House leadership chose to hold a public hearing on the bill even though its typical route would have been straight to the floor for a concurrence vote. No vote was taken in committee.
The House has already blessed some components of the bill. But it has not taken up the more controversial aspects such as tightening the certification standards of abortion clinics and requiring that doctors be present through the entire procedure.
"Our goal is the health and safety of the women in these clinics," Samuelson said. "It is not our goal to shut down every clinic in North Carolina.… What we want to do is make them safer."
But on Monday, Gov. Pat McCrory said he's concerned some provisions appear to restrict abortion access. And Wos, who serves under the governor, further drove home the administration's uneasiness with the legislation on Tuesday.
"As the governor said yesterday in his press conference, we need to ask serious questions about our regulations," Wos said, adding that the questions policymakers should focus on are whether they are "reasonable, being enforced and sound."
This report includes material from the Associated Press and The News & Observer of Raleigh.
Metro desk: 343-2389
On Twitter: @StarNewsMolly


text:
Investors tracking technical indicators on shares of Waste Management (WM) may be focusing in on the 20-Day Bollinger Bands signal. After a recent check, we have noted that the current reading is Hold. This short-term indicator may be used to help spot oversold and overbought conditions. The direction of the signal is presently Rising. Tracking another signal, we can see that the 10-day moving average Hilo channel reading is currently Buy. This indicator calculates the moving average based on highs/lows rather than the closing price. The direction of this signal has been spotted as reading Strengthening.
Investors may be trying to decide if it is the right time to enter the equity market. Stocks have been performing well of late, and investors may be eager to catch the next potential move higher. When looking to put money into the stock market, investors might be working hard to create a strategy and choose specific stocks to add to the portfolio. Building a strategy can be tough, but sticking to a strategy can be even tougher. Sticking to the game plan when markets are in flux can greatly improve the investor's chances of succeeding in the market.
Waste Management (WM) currently has a standard deviation of +1.51. Standard deviation is defined as a measure of the dispersion from the mean in regards to a data set. When dealing with financial instruments, the standard deviation is applied to the annual rate of return to help measure the volatility of a particular investment. Watching the standard deviation may help investors see if a stock is primed for a major move. The stock's current pivot is 116.92. The pivot point is typically used as a trend indicator. The pivot is the average of the close, low, and high of the prior trading period.
Waste Management (WM)) currently has a 6 month MA of 109.02. Investors may use moving averages for different reasons. Some may use the moving average as a primary trading tool, while others may use it as a back-up. Investors may be watching when the stock price crosses a certain moving average and then closes on the other side. These moving average crossovers may be used to help identify momentum shifts, or possible entry/exit points. A cross below a certain moving average may signal the beginning of a downward move. On the other end, a cross above a moving average may indicatet a possible uptrend. Investors may be focused on multiple time periods when studying moving averages. Zooming out a bit further, we have noted that the 9 month moving average is currently 103.66.
Investors may be tracking the average range on shares of Waste Management (WM). The stock currently has a 9 day average range of 2.17. This a moving average of trading ranges over a 9 day time frame. With this value, higher numbers tend to occur at market bottoms while lower values may be spotted during extended sideways periods. Looking at the 9 day relative strength reading, we can see that the value is currently 54.17%. This technical momentum indicator compares the size of recent gains to recent losses helping to identify possible overbought and oversold conditions.
The opinion signal for the current session is 100% Buy for Waste Management. Investors may also be watching the strength and direction of the opinion signals. The opinion direction is presently Average. This is a measurement over the last three trading sessions that gives an indication of whether the latest recent price movement is following the signal. A Buy or Sell signal with a "Strongest" direction indicates that the signal is gaining strength. The opinion strength signal is presently reading Maximum. This is a longer-term measure verse the historical strength.
Investors are constantly trying to gain any little advantage when it comes to the stock market. Setting realistic goals and staying disciplined when trying to attain those goals can have a positive impact on an investor's psyche and portfolio performance. Making a couple of badly timed trades can have a drastic effect on the mindset of the investor or trader. Sometimes, investors will have a few missteps that generally include buying when the market is too high, selling when the market is low, or being on the sidelines during a major charge higher. Staying disciplined can help the average investor avoid common pitfalls to help keep the focus in the right direction. When inevitable mistakes are made, investors will have the opportunity to learn from those mistakes and get back on the road to recovery.
Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.


text:
First, I have a few disclosures regarding the Left Coast Libations book by Ted Munat and Michael Lazar.
- I was sent this copy of the book by the authors in return for a potential review on this website.
- I know the authors fairly well.
- Many of the contributors are friends, acquaintances, or coworkers.
- I was a contributor to the original Left Coast Libations booklet.
After reading that, you're probably thinking, "Why should I read this review at all? He's not impartial and probably pissed off that he wasn't included in the book."
Well, it turns out I was slightly included, at least in the introduction.
Next I'd like to thank Paul Clarke…Blair Reynolds, and Erik Ellestad. All of these fine folks were contributors to the original LCL, but were sadly not included in the version before you, as we elected to go exclusively with professional bartenders (Blair and Erik, by the way, have since become professional bartenders in a transparent attempt to gain inclusion in this book. If you see either of them, do not tell them where I am or how to get ahold of me).
And further thanks to Mr. Ellestad and Ms. Riggins for acting as my (unpaid) consultants in hatching a list of Bay Area and Los Angeles bartenders. If you are a bartender in either of those areas and feel slighted not to be included, you really need to take it up with those two. Thanks again Erik and Marleigh!
Hm. Maybe I should be pissed off.
Damn, if Ted and Michael weren't such nice guys, I totally would be.
But, anyway, getting back to why you should read this review.
Really, you shouldn't. You'll be wasting time reading this review when you could be reading the book. The review won't be as funny as the book, it won't have any cocktail recipes, and I'm nowhere near the photographer that Jenn Farrington is. Heck, this "review" doesn't even have any pictures.
But, maybe you're still reading…
The book, to me, captures a moment in time, about 2 years ago, when West Coast cocktail culture was on a bit of a roll. Bars and restaurants were popping up left and right with quality cocktail programs, the bartender was the new rock star, and the liquor industry hadn't quite bought into the scene.
Everyone in this book, and quite a few others, were doing what they thought was something new. Re-inventing, or rediscovering, the cocktail for a very interested and enthusiastic audience.
It really is kind of awesome that Michael, Ted and Scott took the time and effort to put out this labor of love dedicated to the people and cocktails that were inspiring them.
On the other hand, the moment seems to have passed, and the book feels a bit dated.
The economic downturn has taken a bit of steam from restaurant owners' willingness to front ambitious cocktail programs. The DIY spirit of many was pissed on by the San Francisco ABC, who began enforcing a prohibition era law which essentially made house made infusions and liqueurs illegal. A lot of the bartenders in this book have moved on to more lucrative careers as Spirits "Brand Ambassadors". And speaking of liquor brands, it seems the big boys have finally realized there might be some money in this whole "craft cocktail" renaissance, or whatever you call it, and they are now spending big bucks to gain the ears of whomever they decide at the moment could influence the public: bloggers, bartenders, etc.
I read through the book and the first thing I tried to do was find a recipe I could make.
First I discarded recipes that would require a ridiculous amount of prep work.
Then, I discarded recipes which called for St. Germain Elderflower Liqueur, a.k.a. Bartender's Ketchup.
Then, out went any recipes calling for "molecular gastronomy" ingredients like Maltose and Xanthan Gum.
At that point, I felt like I was left with some recipes which could stand the test of time, maybe didn't even call for specific brands.
The list was pretty small.
Therein lies the book's biggest flaw.
As a home cocktail maker, I hate having to spend money or invest a bunch of time, just to try one cocktail. I mean, what if I don't even like it? Then I'm stuck with a lifetime supply of St. Germain or a pint of Saffron Sharbat.
To me, the bubble's done popped, and it's time to get back to the basics of what brings people into a bar.
Maybe there are a few people who are interested in your cocktail sorbet or smoked ice, but it really isn't novelty that fills seats and keeps people coming back. Well, maybe, if you are Grant Achatz, Tony Conigliaro, or just have a huge expense account and don't care about losses… But, think about it, there is only one El Bulli and only one Alinea, most of the rest of Molecular Gastronomy is poor imitation.
Reading Left Coast Libations, I feel like I've been there, I've made liqueurs, bitters, infusions. I've done that, I've experimented with making cocktails with obscure liqueurs and spirits. What really is next?
Experimentation like this is cool, but it's not where I am at, and I'm not sure it is a way forward for bartending, except at a few special venues.
At the moment, I find people, technique, and service to be more interesting than recipes.
I guess that is the other part I found most disappointing about the book. The jokey bartender profiles, while initially amusing, don't really tell you much about the people behind the drinks. After working in this industry for a bit, I can tell you that the most interesting thing about bars are the people who work in them. I have met few boring bartenders. Yet I didn't really feel like I got a picture of anyone whose recipes were used in the book, other than the authors. Even more telling, while the drinks are lovingly photographed, they don't have pictures of the bartenders who made them and barely any photos of the venues where they work.
What does that leave you with?
Drink porn and quite a few recipes you will never make at home.
Have I burned all my bridges yet? Let me try again, to blow up the remaining few.
My real advice: Use the book as a travel guide.
Get out of the house. Don't even bother trying to make these recipes at home. Instead, travel out to a local, or distant, craft cocktail establishment. Visit the wonderful bartenders there and say "Hi". Get to know them. Ask for whatever drink on the bar's menu catches your fancy. Or ask for whatever is catching their fancy at the moment.
Then write your own book.
And, if you're on the other side of the bar, consider this my challenge to you, to move beyond the novelty, culinarily inspired cocktail, and deliver something that will have some meaning and staying power for the future.
You've done that. What's next?


text:
Previous Month Fort Baker History Tour Next Month
Lodge Activities
Home»Calendar»May 2018»Week 19»05/13/2018»Fort Baker History Tour
- From June 27th, 2010, every Sunday, Saturday
Fort Baker History Tour
Cavallo Point/Fort Baker Walking Tour - Our experienced guide will lead you on an enlightening walk, touring the historic buildings of Cavallo Point and Fort Baker. Meet in the Reception Building 601 at 1 pm. Complimentary for Lodge guests.


text:
Glitter Details
✦ Opaque
✦ Custom Mix
✦ Solvent Resistant
✦ 5 Gram Jar – .12 Ounce
✦ 10 Gram Jar – .25 Ounce
✦ Fine Glitter Powder .008"
✦ Satin Matte Finish - No Sparkle
Glitter Description
Sour Apple is a beautiful hand mixed blend of 3 different fine glitter powder colors; Electric Blue, Electric Green, Celery.
Made from precision-cut Polyester film particles coated with polyurethane including colorants. Materials used for this glitter does not contain any aluminum which will give each glitter particle a beautiful shine, and Intense color, but very little to NO Sparkle. High quality glitter Made in the USA!
This glitter is Solvent Resistant and can be placed directly into nail lacquer, gel, acrylic, and other solvents without the color bleeding or glitter particles melting.
Sour Apple
- Availability: In Stock
- $4.95


text:
So far i have shaped one bolster plus done the file work down the tang. reason only one is done is cos i wanted to do the file work
The Tools
My baby vice can rotate 360 degrees, and is perfect for what i need. i toped it up to stop it scratching everything
my files, one is now dead unfortunately it snapped and just missed my head...
i did quite a bit more work after these were taken. literally a hell of a lot ones fully shaped just needs cleaning up.
the blade is Aus8 steel heat treated to 59rc
got cocobolo scales and black fibre spacing material.
thats the summary of whats been done so far,
and today
yes i know you can see my legs in the pictures, i was still in my shorts when i did the filework this morningskippydm wrote:My fingers are soooo sore its crazy, i got virtually all the filework done (just a tiny little bit that i am going to do once the bolster is shaped)
theres a few pictures of it, i did a little more shaping after the pictures were taken... btw hope you like them cos it was Fecking hard to take any sort of decent photo
what i would say is the best picture I could get 8)
i am going to try take it up to a mirror finish on tang to show it off properly 8)


text:
About NIJ
What's New
All Topics A-Z
Contact Us
Text size:
Print this page
E-mail this page
To obtain comments from interested parties, NIJ posts drafts of standards and guides and requests for information for technical information.
View any drafts open for comment.
NIJ has a number of ongoing efforts to develop new and update existing standards.
This standard establishes minimum requirements and test methods for duty holsters designed to provide law enforcement personnel with the ability to securely carry, easily deploy and resecure their duty weapon. This is a new standard developed at the request of law enforcement officers to address the gun-retention capability of duty holsters. The standard defines two classifications of holsters based on the style of retention — manual or automatic.
This standard specifies the minimum performance requirements and testing methods for hand-held metal detectors used by law enforcement, corrections and security for the detection of metallic weapons or contraband carried on a person and/or concealed by a nonmetal object. The standard is being revised based on research performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Law Enforcement Standards Office.
This standard specifies the minimum performance requirements and testing methods for active walk-through metal detectors used by law enforcement, corrections and security for the detection of metallic weapons or contraband carried on a person and/or concealed by a nonmetal object. The standard is being revised based on research performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Law Enforcement Standards.
NIJ is developing a performance standard for vehicular digital multimedia evidence recording systems (VDMERS) used by law enforcement officers for recording events occurring in and around an enclosed law enforcement vehicle. The standard was written by a Special Technical Committee of practitioners, forensic video analysts and testing and certification experts. The standard addresses video and audio quality, interoperability, safety of operation, environmental resistance and system security. For information, contact Frances Scott (email@example.com).
NIJ's role within the National ECM Program is to assist the FBI's Technical Requirements Working Group in developing the revised technical requirements document in such a way that it can be used as the basis for a standard. NIJ may subsequently establish a Special Technical Committee of practitioners, scientists, researchers and subject matter experts to develop the ECM standard if requested by participating agencies.
NIJ is in the process of revising the Law Enforcement CBRN Protective Ensemble Standard based on discussions with the manufacturing community, technical experts and practitioners. NIJ reconvened the Special Technical Committee that developed the first version of the standard, and the committee has identified modifications to be made. Once changes to the draft standard are complete, a public review and comment period will be held, with announcement being published in the Federal Register.
NIJ has begun development of a voluntary standard for license plate reader (LPR) systems used by U.S. law enforcement agencies. The standard is being written by a Special Technical Committee of local, state, and federal law enforcement practitioners having experience in deployment and use of LPR systems, plus technical experts having experience in testing and certification.
The committee has identified three categories of LPR systems that are used by law enforcement agencies:
The committee is gathering information on field deployments and actual system operation to inform development of appropriate performance requirements and test methods. For information, contact Mark Greene (email@example.com).
NIJ is developing a performance standard for digital interview room recording systems (IRRSs) used by U.S. criminal justice practitioners. Such systems are widely used in small and large law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, detention centers, and jails to record and store digital multimedia evidence from interviews with suspects, witnesses, victims, and others. The system may be very simple for a small agency having only one interview room or may be very complex for a large agency having a series of interview rooms that are networked together. Regardless of the complexity of the system, the primary functions are acquisition, storage and dissemination/distribution.
The standard is being developed by a Special Technical Committee of practitioners representing all previously mentioned types of criminal justice agencies using IRRSs. The committee has defined performance requirements and is finalizing test methods for assessing performance. For information, contact Mark Greene (email@example.com).
Next section: Equipment Testing.
National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531


text:
Saturday Sessions: Hosted by Molly Surno of Cinema 16 featuring Five Classic Avant-Garde Films with live accompaniment by FORMA
Saturday, April 16, 2011
3:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Molly Surno of Cinema 16 hosts an afternoon with
the synth trio FORMA, transforming five classic experimental short films
with original, live accompaniment. Drawing from the iconography and romanticism
of Surrealism, this event will feature works by the pioneers of the
avant-garde, including Fernand Leger's Ballet Mecanique (1923), Maya
Deren's At Land (1944), Hans Ritcher's Vormittagsspuk (Ghosts
Before Breakfast) (1928), Shirley Clarke's Dances in the Sun (1953),
and Scott Bartlett's Off/ON (1957).
Molly Surno is a Brooklyn-based artist, curator, and founder and director of Cinema 16, which has been presented in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Austin. The program has been featured in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, Filmmaker Magazine, NYLON, Time Out, Interview, and Vice. Surno's photographs have been exhibited at AIR Gallery, Heist, Capricious, and Brooklyn Botanical Garden, among others. She is currently working on an experimental film and photo series titled "The Glittering World," which examines the Miss Transgender Beauty Pageant in the American Southwest.
In a time when film viewing has been reduced to the tiny screens of our laptops and iPods, often in private settings, Cinema 16, revives the communal viewing experience and modernizes it using contemporary musicians. Named after the New York-based film society, which was founded in 1947, and inspired by Maya Deren's Greenwich Village presentations of experimental films, C/16 draws its format from the silent film era, when live music accompanied black-and-white, 16mm projections. Like vaudeville traditions before it, C/16 takes place in a variety of spaces and combines the worlds of art, film, and music.
Brooklyn-based, minimal synth trio FORMA (Mark Dwinell, Sophie Lam, George Bennett) blends the momentum of krautrock with the drones of early American Minimalist music to create cyclical, mutative soundscapes paired with live drum-machine programming. Working within the technological parameters of late 1970s and early 80s analog synthesizers, FORMA offers a contemporary response to the futuristic visions advanced by the pioneers of modern electronic music.
Saturday Sessions is a program of events designed to introduce wide-ranging directions in performance. The experimental program is structured around collaboration and focuses on engaging MoMA PS1 visitors in a unique, two-hour-long experience. Each session features a different host and will occur every other Saturday of the month in the Third Floor Main Gallery.
**Ticketed Event: As capacity is limited, Saturday Sessions is a ticketed event. Tickets are free with admission and available only on a first-come, first-served basis. Beginning at 1:00 p.m., tickets will be released at the MoMA PS1 Information desk in the main lobby. Guests with tickets are only guaranteed entry from 2:30-3:00 p.m. Admittance to the gallery after the program begins will be based on capacity. Guests will not be admitted to the gallery after 3:15pm.


text:
First, congratulations to the US team for beating the Canadian team. We'll get you back in the Olympics (seriously, that Canadian roster looks stacked with the top line from San Jose and with others).
As with every year on the blog, I try to make an annual thing out of reviewing the resolutions from last year for myself personally, the game, and the blog.
Let's start with that. Did I meet the goals I set out to do last year?
2009 resolutions
Resolution: 3000 subscribers – Thanks to your readership, I have exceeded that and have managed to entertain 5000 bored players at work or school.
Resolution: 1.5 posts per day – Nope, not quite. My responsibilities have increased and I have not been able to fulfill that resolution. I'm working with a great crew that's as diverse as it can get. With Lodur, Thespius and Mimetir, the blog provides a variety of insights.
Still could use that elusive Holy Pally contributor.
Resolution: Top 10 server – Nope, Ner'zhul is a ridiculously competitive server. We're barely breaking into the top 20 overall. According to Guld Ox, we're exactly 10th Alliance side.
Resolution: Avoiding Burnout – Still here and I'm still not close to feeling any burnout. Thank goodness for cheap steam games in keeping me occupied.
Resolution: Raid achievements – Managed to pull off some of them but not as many as I'd like. The focus continues to be on progression. We'll look at some of the other stuff later on.
Resolution: Let things go – Yep, I've learned to keep my distance on topics that I would have commented on in the past. Sometimes, it just isn't worth it.
Resolution: GPA to 2.5 – Nope, holding at around 2.2. I learned that distance education courses and myself just don't agree with each other. I lack the discipline on my own. I need to actually be in a classroom where I can directly ask for clarification on stuff that just doesn't make sense to me.
2010 resolutions
Time to set some goals and tasks for this year.
Resolution: 10000 subscribers – A bit ambitious and it will be double the current amount. It's how I measure the progress of my blog. Page views have remained increased slightly (not in the same ratio). I'm more concerned about being read then I am with just page views.
Resolution: Consistency with NSUI – It's a great blog and a great idea. I just wish I had more time I could devote to it. I blog about different addons and ways to help players when I can. I'll try to start with a consistent update time on a weekly basis.
Resolution: 8000 achievement points – Slowly but surely, I am getting there.
Resolution: Arthas hard mode (25) – That's my ultimate goal.
I'm not quite sure what to do at the moment. I feel rather lost. Undecided about Crim and Communications (or Journalism) is unavailable to me. Maybe I should just finish with a BA and get out of here and start working.
Get the heck out of school would be a great resolution but I won't be able to pull it off this year.
Poll results
Last week, I ran a poll asking if you cleared out all bosses when running heroics. Here are the results:
I resounding 47% of you do go after each and every boss in the instance. The next chunk of players are indifferent and go with the flow. A staunch 16% won't knock out all bosses if they can get away with it. I suspect those might be the players where nothing attractive remains in current heroics or from Triumph badge vendors.
Guest posts
I promised I'd write them and they're on the way. Bear with me. If it takes me a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, I will get them finished.
WoW.com is hiring again
I stepped down from handling Spiritual Guidance to focus on more general work and Raid Rx on wow.com. The site is expanding. A healing priest and a shadow priest have been brought on for twice the priestiness.
Yes, our class is so awesome, we get two columns featured.
They're also looking to expand again. A Resto Druid, a Holy Paladin, an addon specialist, and a lore specialist.
More healers would indeed be awesome. Now they can heal me through the various PTR runs!
Quick application tip: I'm just going to use an example on the blog here when I look over contributors who want to work with me. Don't bite the hand that feeds. If you're applying for a position, don't talk trash about the employer and then apply to them expecting to be successful in your application. I've seen people trash my blog and the work I invest into it on their twitter or their blog and then they get in touch with me asking why I never link to them or highlight their work.
Like, seriously? I didn't realize there were people that dense that were out there. Blogs are google-able. Everything is accessible. Nothing is hidden.
There is a line between constructive critique and being a dumb troll. Dumb trolls don't get very far and they never will because they just don't learn.
In any case, if you're even remotely thinking about applying, just give it a shot. If you read the blog on RSS, you'll notice I insert a quote by Wayne Gretzky:
"I miss 100% of the shots I never take."
So take chances and shoot more. You just might score one. If you're unsure or have any questions, feel free to drop me a line. There are some questions I won't be able to answer but I can try.
It doesn't hurt to know every pop culture reference and cult classic known to man. I was ridiculed for the longest time when I didn't understand the Monty Python and Princess Bride references.
Which by the way, I finally watched. To be honest, I didn't understand much of the humour. Probably a generation gap thing though.


text:
A recent study by Linda Luecken and her colleagues at Duke University
Medical Center in North Carolina provides the first solid evidence of
the physical impact of "role overload" among working mothers--
evidence that the increased demands on working moms often result in
physiological changes associated with ill health.
The study examined 109 women with full-time clerical and customer-service jobs. Some had children at home, some did not. Urine samples were collected over 2 days to measure levels of stress hormones. The women were also asked to rate their jobs and their home lives in terms of these questions: How hectic is the pace? How psychologically demanding is it? How much privacy do you have? How much control do you have over how to spend your time? How much freedom do you have to make decisions?
The results: Employed women with children at home, when compared to employed women with no children at home, have:
Another factor is that working mothers seldom have a chance to "unwind," so they have increased sympathetic nervous system arousal both during and after work. While many husbands may be pitching in more at home, they often finish their assigned tasks and then relax. A working mom is virtually always on call and responsible for managing the details of home. There's always something unexpected to cope with-- spilled milk, lost homework, a sick child, the search for new child care.
Does marriage or social support at home protect working mothers? Apparently not. The presence of a spouse or significant other at home did not buffer the physiological and psychological consequences of stress in working mothers. Higher income, ethnicity, or the number of children at home also did not influence the levels of stress.
Rx: Self-Care Tips
Here are a few suggestions for working moms to help balance the demands of job and home:
Light KC: Stress in Employed Women: A Women's Work Is Never Done If She's a Working Mom. Psychosomatic Medicine 59:360-61, 1997.
Excerpted with permission from the Quarterly Newsletter, Mind/Body Health Newsletter. For subscription information call 1-(800)-222-4745 or visit the Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge website.


text:
Only hotels in 27408 zip code are listed below. Search for cheap and discount hotel rates in Greensboro, NC for your upcoming leisure or conference / group travel. We list the best 27408 hotels and motels so you can review the Greensboro hotel list below to find the perfect lodging. Hotels in Guilford county and area code 336 are also listed.
How should we direct your call?


text:
Welcome Back
Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Log In
Sign Up Now
Upload Your Resume
I would like to recieve a free resume review from TopResume
Choose a File
Don't have an account?
Click here to sign up.
Remember Me
Already have an account?
Click here to log in.
By submitting, you agree to our
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Your resume was uploaded
Complete My Profile
Explore Jobs Near Me
Rafalconbury Jobs
Post a Job
For Employers
Resume Upload
Sign Up
Dedicated Truck Driver | Up to $10,000 Sign-on Bonus | Home Weekly
Apply Now
$43,990.00 -63,190.00/year*
Zanesville , OH
Loading some great jobs for you...
bonus driver trucks trucking
Truck drivers earn up to $0.475 per mile* with a weekly performance pay up to $0.04 per mile, have a predictable work schedule and get home weekly in this Dedicated CDL driver position. Dedicated truckers haul no-touch, multi-stop loads for the world's largest retailer, and travel within 350 miles of Washington Court House, OH. It's all about consistency when you join Schneider's Dedicated division. By pulling freight for one customer, you'll enjoy consistent freight, miles and paychecks. Start your trucking career!Looking to become a truck driver? Learn how here or give us a call today.Eligible CDL Truck Driver Applicants: All Class A CDL holdersTruck Driver Pay & BenefitsFull-time CDL drivers are eligible for:Up to $67,000 per year*$10,000 sign-on bonus for experienced drivers$7,500 sign-on bonus for inexperienced driversUp to $7,000 tuition reimbursement (paid at $200/month) for qualified driversCDL Apprenticeship Training availableMileage and accessorial payPerformance pay up to $0.04 per mile more, paid out weeklyWeekly time at homeFlexible scheduling availablePaid orientationPaid time offMedical, dental and vision insurance plus flexible spending options401(k) savings plan with company match100% no-touch freightMobile communications platform - The latest in-truck technology with paperless logging, GPS navigation, web browsing, text-to-voice features, a color touch screen and a pull-out keypadCompany Facilities- Truck drivers have 24-hour access with free and safe parking, showers, Wi-Fi, laundry facilities and cafeteria services.Credit for Military Experience and Military Apprenticeship programs, plus more military benefitsNo employment contract - we don't lock you in, but you'll want to stay*Based on CDL driver experience and locationTruck Driver QualificationsValid Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL)Live within 125 miles of Washington Court House, OHNight driving is requiredMore Reasons Truckers Choose Schneider DedicatedConsistencyHaul freight for one primary customer and enjoy consistent miles, consistent freight and consistent paychecks. There won't be any unpleasant surprises for you, and your family and friends will love knowing they can count on you to get home when you say you will.FamiliarityHit the road about the same time each week, and it may even feel like home on the road. You'll drive familiar routes, bump familiar docks and develop relationships with familiar people.\"The great thing about being on a Dedicated account is that you get to know your shippers and your receivers. You get a good rapport with them. They know you; you get to know them. They know when you come in. A lot of them will call you by name. To me, that means a lot.\" - Steve CreightonJoin one of the top trucking companies in Ohio. Call 800-###-#### for more information!Schneider uses E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired associates. To learn more about E-Verify, including your rights and responsibilities, please visit www.dhs.gov/E-Verify.
Associated topics: company driving needed, company driving solo, company driving team, company otr, company owner, dedicated regional, dedicated truck driver, dry van otr trucking, flatbed and dry van otr trucking, regional driver
* The salary listed in the header is an estimate based on salary data for similar jobs in the same area. Salary or compensation data found in the job description is accurate.
Launch your career - Upload your resume now!
Loading some great jobs for you...
Sign Up
Remember Me
Sign in
Confirm Password
By submitting, you agree to our
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Sign Up
This email has been taken, please login or use a different email.
Don't have an account?
Enter your email to continue as a guest:
By submitting, you agree to our
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy


text:
Lincoln Public Library announces summer reading Program; "Paws to
Send a link to a friend
[June 03, 2014]
LINCOLN - Summer is almost here and
that means wild times at the Lincoln Public Library with the "Paws
to Read!" Summer Reading Program. Children can sign up to read for
cool prizes, attend engaging story times and art/craft classes and
participate in our exciting Thursday morning events with visiting
performers. All events are free, although advance registration is
required for accurate planning.
Registration for children ages 6 months through 12
years will be June 2 through June 7. If you can't sign up then, come
in as soon as possible to get in on the fun! All reading logs are
due July 26 at the conclusion of the program, and those that have
reached their goal and turned in their logs by that time will be
eligible for a free t-shirt.
The Teen Summer Reading Program will run June 9 – July 19 with
special prize drawings each week, including a grand prize drawing at
the close of the program. Our grand prize winner will enjoy a free
bowling party from Logan Lanes. The library will also be hosting a
"Pimp Your Paws!" Pizza Party for teens on June 27 at 6:00PM. Get
the details and register for this event when you come in to pick up
your first reading log.
[to top of second column]
Don't miss out on the fun---"paws to read" this summer. We
can't wait to see you at the Lincoln Public Library! Please drop
by the Youth Services desk or call us at 732-5732 for answers to
your questions. You can also check out our website at
www.lincolnpubliclibrary.org for more information.
[Text received; MELISSA OXBORROW,
Recent articles
Back to top