text:
This is the sixth of seven pages with the full text of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Kenneth Starr testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
House Majority Counsel's Examination of Kenneth Starr Before the House Judiciary Committee.
HYDE: Mr. Starr, do you want a little break?
STARR: No, Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: OK, we're at the final…
STARR: We're almost at my bedtime.
HYDE: We're past mine, I can assure you. The gentlelady from California.
WATERS: I would like to — I would like to inquire of the Chair what opportunity will we have to clarify what appears to have been conflicting information that we have received here today from our star witness?
HYDE: I would write a letter to Mr. Starr, if I were you.
If I were confused about some of the evidence, I would write a nice letter and I'd say please straighten me out and I bet he'd answer you.
WATERS: I think it's a little deeper than that. It may go to perjury. This man is under oath.
HYDE: Well, he is under oath. Are you charging him with perjury?
WATERS: I would like clarification and after the clarification is made, I can determine whether or not I would make that charge.
HYDE: Ms. Waters, the chair has to control this committee.
We have been at it all day, and I think what you're asking at this late moment is an imposition on the committee, not to mention Mr. Starr, so you would not be recognized for that purpose, but I will recognize Mr. Schippers for 30 minutes.
SCHIPPERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Starr, my name is David Schippers and I'm the chief investigative counsel for the committee. Can you hear me?
STARR: Now I can, thank you.
SCHIPPERS: I will try to be brief as I possibly can. I do have a little bit of territory to cover as you well know.
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: I will begin with some of Mr. Kendall's statements and some of his questions to you.
First of all, do I understand that there is such a thing as a hair trigger — you refer to a hair trigger that would set off an investigation of whether or not there were leaks out of your office?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: That hair trigger can be and often is triggered by a defense attorney sending it something to the judge claiming that there is a leak, is that right?
STARR: It is, yes. It is standard practice for criminal defense lawyers to charge leaks of grand jury information.
Their allies then pick up the charge and suddenly it becomes conventional wisdom that there has in fact, been final adjudication, which is wrong as a matter of law and unfair, just in terms of basic human decency.
These are professional prosecutors. We're talking about —
SCHIPPERS: Thank you, judge.
STARR: Yes, I'm sorry.
SCHIPPERS: Now, do I understand that Mr. Kendall sent 27 of such requests to the judge here claiming leaks?
STARR: Well, he sent a number, and I think he had some 24 exhibits, which, again, I have been reluctant to talk about, because it is in litigation.
I mean the specifics are in litigation as is — as David knows.
SCHIPPERS: Judge, if I were expecting someone to testify before a Congressional committee and I wanted questions to ask him about leaks, all I would have to do is send some letters to the judge and trigger this hair trigger effect, isn't that correct?
STARR: Well with — I don't want to suggest the hair trigger is a nonexistent trigger, but the burden on the defense lawyer is quite modest, and one of the things that we have learned, and I don't — I know this is your time — but I would just say, one of the things that we have learned in this investigation is that a lot of people, including Mr. Kendall talk on background and the like and the sourcing that is then used by the reporter becomes very important.
Someone as responsible as Tim Russert sourced a story in such a way that it looked like it came from us. He was decent and honorable enough to say, no, it didn't come from Starr's office, it, in fact with all due respect, came from the Congress.
Now, you're not under a 6(e) obligation, so you can talk as freely as you would like and indeed, you enjoy speech and debate clause immunity. However, prosecutors are very sensitive especially in this jurisdiction in light of the hair trigger to a reporter who sort of says "sources close to" — well what does that mean? It can mean almost anyone. And I think that one of the things that this litigation will, in fact, show is that becomes an issue ever so quickly, as we saw in the Marion Barry case and as we saw in the Dan Rostenkowski case.
SCHIPPERS: Now judge, Mr. Kendall mentioned massive leaking. I am going to ask you a specific and direct question. As you sit there, do you have any information, evidence, or anything in your possession to indicate that anyone in your office has leaked anything — any 6(e) material?
STARR: Again, it depends on what one means by 6(e) because there are issues…
SCHIPPERS: Within your definition of 6(e)?
STARR: No. Within my understanding — and I think that my understanding is correct — no, I can say here that — that now. But I also think that it's important for this litigation that I talk about, to go forward and let's see what happens. And that litigation is under seal, but there is an orderly process just as the Supreme Court said in the Paula Corbin Jones case. Let's allow that orderly process to go forward.
SCHIPPERS: Fine. Sir you were asked whether you were present during the taping of the 302, the FBI interviews; whether you were present at the grand jury appearances of all these witnesses; whether you were present during the course of interviews and depositions and you answered "no," isn't that correct?
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: But you did have experienced — highly experienced professional agents and prosecutors present at each and every one of those occasions did, you not?
STARR: I did.
SCHIPPERS: And you relied upon the integrity, the honesty and the decency of those agents and investigators, did you not?
STARR: I did and very proudly so.
SCHIPPERS: All right, now, I notice that Mr. — we've heard an awful lot about fairness here, Judge Starr — but I notice that when you sat down this morning, you were given about two inches of documents to review. How long did you have to review those before Mr. Lowell began questioning you?
STARR: Unless Mr. Lowell shipped it over this morning — I left the office at 9:15 to come to the House of Representatives and I had not seen it. If it's waiting on my desk, then I suppose he gave me some notice, but no, in terms of actual notice, I had no notice whatsoever.
SCHIPPERS: You were also given a book filled with some 63 tabs when Mr. Kendall began to question you. When's the first time you saw that book?
STARR: This evening when I came in after having a sandwich.
SCHIPPERS: And the — they, of course, they had — they were in possession of those books before you left to have your sandwich. They didn't give it to you to review, did they?
STARR: No, unless it's sitting on my desk — it's not. They did not, and I'm confident — I have to be careful of what I say because of not having universal facts, but Mr. Schippers, no, I had no advance notice that this was going to be inquired into.
SCHIPPERS: And you were questioned about specific one line — two lines inside of this two-and-a-half inch document, and you had to go and hunt for the answers, didn't you, judge?
STARR: I did.
SCHIPPERS: Now, we have heard over two hours of questioning — almost three hours of questioning, if we include the Democratic members of this committee, and I haven't heard anybody ask you one question about the facts of these cases. So with your permission, judge, I'm going to take a few minutes and get to the facts and the issues that are really before this committee.
First of all, Mr. Conyers in his opening statement made a remark about a recent delivery of four boxes of documents. That delivery was made — what was it? — yesterday or the day before to the Ford Building, was it not Mister — or Judge Starr?
STARR: Yes, I believe it was the day before.
SCHIPPERS: Now, that wasn't your idea to deliver those, was it?
STARR: No, it was not.
SCHIPPERS: It was in answer to a request by Mr. Conyers that you provide additional information, wasn't it?
STARR: Yes, that — well, it was a congressional request. I believe it originated with Congressman Conyers.
SCHIPPERS: And you were just…
STARR: We've had so many requests. We've had individual requests from individual members. I don't mean to complain, but we don't have a congressional office. We're prosecutors and lawyers, so we do the best we can. We've had a virtual flurry of requests for information, but I believe Mr. Con — excuse me — Congressman Conyers was one of the requesters with respect to that information, and we tried to be responsive, yes.
SCHIPPERS: Now, Judge Starr, you have been investigating President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky matter and other matters involving perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and so on, for some seven or eight months, is that correct?
STARR: Yes, I guess now 10 months.
SCHIPPERS: Have you been given any exculpatory evidence by the president, or have you been offered any exculpatory evidence or witnesses by the president in that time?
STARR: I don't believe that we have. I would want to check, and if I have additional information I would provide it to the committee. But as I sit here this evening, I'm not aware of any suggestion that there is exculpatory evidence, other than the discussion we've had here today with respect to what one individual witness may have said.
But no, no witness has come forward to say Monica Lewinsky made it all up. No one has suggested that. No one has suggested — so — I'm sorry to be going on, but the point is…
SCHIPPERS: I think you've answered the question.
STARR: … we stand ready to receive information. But no one has been…
SCHIPPERS: That was my next question: if information were available and were — had been given to you, you would have considered that along with all the other information, is that correct?
STARR: OH, yes, absolutely. And in fact, one of my colleagues reminds me that we specifically asked in the flurry of this investigation — we asked Mr. Kendall by letter, please provide us with any exculpatory information. Mr. Kendall said there was nothing to exculpate or that there was nothing to worry about exculpation
SCHIPPERS: Now, there was a great deal of discussion throughout the day about the difference between your investigation and that of Mr. Jaworski. There was no Independent Counsel Act when Mr. Jaworski was performing his duties, was there?
STARR: That is correct. He had no statute to look to at all.
SCHIPPERS: And your actions as regards referrals to this committee are governed by federal statute, are they not, Judge?
STARR: They are indeed.
SCHIPPERS: And you attempted to the best of your ability to comply with those federal statutes?
STARR: That is correct. And if I could just add — there was no experience under this, happily for the country — under this provision of the statute. So we were sailing in unchartered waters and trying to come to the best professional judgment we could about what Congress intended and wanted in this provision that required us to report to it.
SCHIPPERS: One aside, in the 63 — you had an opportunity — I know you haven't had a reasonable opportunity, but have you had any opportunity to page through Mr. Kendall's 63 tabs?
STARR: Only as he was guiding me, Mr. Schippers.
SCHIPPERS: Well, I have, I have, Judge Starr. And I noted that it is — contains several newspaper articles, several magazine articles, several self-serving letters from the president's counsel, and not one word — not one word — of evidence.
By the way, the other two-incher is equally devoid of evidence.
During your term as independent counsel, sir, and with particular reference to your investigation of the Lewinsky matter and the perjury and the obstruction of justice and other related criminal activity, you were under the guidance and control of the attorney general of the United States, were you not?
STARR: Well, I was certainly under her ultimate supervision in terms of the provisions for removal. But of course, the independent counsel is to be independent of her daily supervision.
SCHIPPERS: I mean that in the sense, that if you were to be involved in anything untoward, unethical, illegal, the attorney general had the absolute ability to fire you for cause, did she not?
STARR: Yes. I mean, the statute is clear that an independent counsel can be removed for good cause.
SCHIPPERS: Now you have been pilloried and vilified in newspapers and magazines and here, unfortunately. Has the attorney general ever indicated that she had any thought of firing you for cause?
STARR: I'm not aware of any expression of any issue at all with respect to good cause. There are, in fairness to the attorney general, because of the flurry of allegations are just constant, there's a process of evaluation on her part.
STARR: But no. And I meet with the attorney general episodically and her senior staff. And there has never been a suggestion that there is good cause to remove me as independent counsel. At least I am not aware of any suggestion.
SCHIPPERS: Well, you have never been…
STARR: I'm sorry.
SCHIPPERS: Has the attorney general ever questioned you about conflicts of interest or anything like that?
STARR: No. The attorney general has not. But the attorney general has a process through the Office of Professional Responsibility otherwise exercising her jurisdiction. But thus far, the issues that have gone to the — that have been acted on, we have been cleared on or else no action has been taken over the years of my stewardship as the independent counsel.
SCHIPPERS: I know all of these specific factors that various people have asked you if you reported to the attorney general when you met her on the 16th of — when was it? — the 15th of January?
STARR: Well, we met with the deputy attorney general — pardon me — on the 15th, and then there was — and again, I did not have these meetings, as it turned out.
SCHIPPERS: No, but there was a litany…
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: … there was a litany of things that you apparently allegedly did not tell the attorney general about?
STARR: OH, yes. Yes, I'm sorry, yes.
SCHIPPERS: But of course, shortly thereafter all of that litany of information became available to the attorney general?
STARR: If it wasn't available to begin with. I mean, part of the quarrel I have had with a number of the suggestions about what I should have told the attorney general is that these were all in the public domain, as I said, in response to questions very early — or earlier in the day, certain things did not occur to me as relevant or germane. It may be that others would say — Gee, isn't it relevant that you were asked by Bob Fiske to consider preparing a amicus brief in the Paula Corbin Jones case.
I didn't view it as — well, it just didn't occur to me.
SCHIPPERS: That's fine. That's fine. But it did become available and no action was taken?
STARR: No. That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: Now, let's get to this January 16th meeting with Monica Lewinsky that so much has been made of.
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: I have been a prosecutor too. And Monica Lewinsky, from my reading, was treated very, very nicely by your agents.
STARR: Thank you.
SCHIPPERS: I hear laughter from the left, but I often hear laughter from the left even when you're testifying, and I didn't really think it was fair to laugh at you when you were testifying either.
STARR: Well, I think that the record of — a fair assessment of the record will show that we wanted her cooperation. And we treated her with dignity and with respect. But we were prosecutors, and we were investigators investigating crime. That's a serious matter. And we made it very clear to her, she is in a serious situation. But we treated her with dignity. We certainly took every step to make sure…
SCHIPPERS: I wonder how many of your accusers have read the log that was kept of every minute of that day.
Now, sir, there was also some question as to why Ms. Lewinsky was not allowed to call Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter had been given to Monica Lewinsky by Vernon Jordan. Isn't that correct?
STARR: That's correct. He…
STARR: And the evidence available to you at that time, phone evidence, indicated that perhaps Mr. Jordan had been in telephonic contact with the president at the time he was getting her that lawyer. Isn't that correct, sir?
STARR: That is correct.
SCHIPPERS: And in an abundance of caution, you didn't want the president to know that Monica Lewinsky was talking to you. Isn't that right?
STARR: That is correct.
SCHIPPERS: And that's a perfectly valid prosecutorial move, isn't it?
STARR: Yes, very traditional, nothing out of the…
SCHIPPERS: As a matter of fact, when later, Ms. Lewinsky decided she didn't want to be represented by Mr. Carter, on that day, isn't that correct?
STARR: Yes, she came to a decision to be represented by Mr. Ginsburg.
SCHIPPERS: And she called Mr. Ginsburg and she talked to Mr. Ginsburg, didn't she?
STARR: Yes, I was just going to say that was in consultation with her family, so I don't know to what extent Ms. Lewinsky was being guided by her parents and especially Dr. Lewinsky.
SCHIPPERS: In any event, she changed lawyers by the one that had been provided to her indirectly by the White House to an independent lawyer from the West Coast. Is that right?
STARR: OH, yes and one who was well known to the family.
SCHIPPERS: And doesn't the evidence demonstrate that, from the 16th on or from that day on when she was unavailable, there was a three-day frenzy at the White House to try to find Monica Lewinsky — by phone, by beeper, and that Mr. Jordan, Mr. Carter, and Miss Currie were in constant efforts to reach Monica Lewinsky? Isn't that a fact?
STARR: I believe that is true.
SCHIPPERS: Does that indicate to you that they were a little bit afraid of what Monica might say?
STARR: I think there was concern.
SCHIPPERS: By the way, when Monica Lewinsky was — I'm not going to say "being held" because I don't want to run into trouble…
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: When Monica Lewinsky was in with your agents…
STARR: Yes. And prosecutors. There were…
SCHIPPERS: She was not questioned about criminal activity, was she?
STARR: No, she was not.
SCHIPPERS: She was not questioned at all about criminal activity until she was represented by counsel?
STARR: That is absolutely right. And that's why not one word in this referral comes from any information that was gleaned or gathered on the strength of January 16th, not one word.
SCHIPPERS: As a matter of fact, the first time Monica Lewinsky testified to the grand jury was some seven months later, right?
STARR: It took a long time and a new set of lawyers, two very distinguished lawyers here in Washington with…
SCHIPPERS: And if she was afraid and if she was disturbed on January 6th, she was sure as heck over it by August 6th, wasn't she?
STARR: Well, she was at least — yes, she seemed to be.
But I am very fearful of saying anything about state of mind, especially in light of a comment I have heard with respect — but in any event…
SCHIPPERS: You have before you, Judge Starr, the first two- incher, the one that Mr. Lowell gave you?
Would you turn to tab 35, please?
There are a whole series of remarks on page 35, and I think there was 356 — the page number. That's where table 35 begins.
The first bullet — do you have it, Judge?
STARR: I do.
SCHIPPERS: The first bullet says Monica Lewinsky testified before the grand jury that, quote, "no one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my silence."
Is that right?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: She also testified, "But nobody told me to tell the truth either." Didn't she?
STARR: Absolutely.
SCHIPPERS: Now, Monica Lewinksy also testified that she had a conversation with the president in the White House or when he — on the phone when she found out that she was on the witness list and the president told her, "You can make an affidavit."
STARR: That is — words to that effect (OFF-MIKE).
SCHIPPERS: The affidavit, of course, would be for the purpose of avoiding testimony. Isn't that correct, Judge Starr?
STARR: Yes. That was correct. That was the…
SCHIPPERS: And in order to accomplish that purpose, both the president and Ms. Lewinsky were fully aware that that affidavit would have to be a lie. Isn't that right?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: And it was the president's suggestion that she make that affidavit? According to her testimony?
STARR: According to her testimony, yes.
SCHIPPERS: We might as well be complete about these tabs when we're going over them. We're going to talk a little bit about fairness, if I may. The president of the United States testified before a grand jury, did he not, Judge Starr?
STARR: Yes, he did.
SCHIPPERS: And he was permitted to testify by videotape or by close-circuit television from the White House, was he not?
STARR: Yes, he was.
SCHIPPERS: How often is a prospective witness before the grand jury permitted to testify from home?
STARR: Very rarely. Usually…
SCHIPPERS: So that was be ex — overly fair to the president by letting him testify there, isn't that right?
STARR: We tried to respect the dignity of the presidency and the president, and we readily agreed to provide this alternative mechanism, at Mr. Kendall's request, to his actual appearance before the grand jury.
SCHIPPERS: And also, the president was permitted to have his attorney sitting with him and to consult with that attorney, isn't that correct?
STARR: Yes, Mr. Kendall, and Ms. Seligman, and the…
SCHIPPERS: How many prospective witnesses before a grand jury are permitted to bring their lawyer into the grand jury room with them?
STARR: None. It is inconsistent…
SCHIPPERS: Except the president.
STARR: It's inconsistent with grand jury practice.
SCHIPPERS: So you — another favor to the president in the interest of fairness, is that correct?
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: The president was permitted to read a statement before he began to testify. How many witnesses in a grand jury are permitted to read a statement of their own?
STARR: Ordinarily…
SCHIPPERS: I'm sorry.
STARR: Ordinarily it's not done. They're there to answer questions that the prosecutors, as the legal advisers to the grand jury, or the grand jurors, themselves, have.
SCHIPPERS: Now the president was originally subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.
STARR: Yes, he was, after he had declined six invitations to testify.
SCHIPPERS: Six invitations, right. And as an accommodation to the president, you and your staff withdrew that subpoena and allowed him to — the courtesy of appearing, quote, "voluntarily"?
STARR: Yes, at Mr. Kendall's request and…
SCHIPPERS: Once again being eminently fair to the president.
STARR: We acceded to his request. We did try and do try to be fair.
SCHIPPERS: Now Judge Starr, when an individual testifies before a grand jury, that individual has three choices: he can tell the truth, one; he can lie, two; or he can assert his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify because his answers might tend to incriminate him; isn't that correct?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: When an individual is questioned in a grand jury, is he permitted to say, "I stand on my statement in lieu of taking the Fifth"?
STARR: No.
SCHIPPERS: But the president was allowed to do that, was he not?
STARR: He was.
SCHIPPERS: So much for the unfairness of the grand jury.
You were also asked by some of the members here — and a great, great move was made — that none of these individuals in the grand jury were subjected to cross examination. And that's true, none of them were.
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: Are you aware of any grand jury proceeding in which the defense is permitted to come in and cross-examine the witnesses before the grand jury?
STARR: Absolutely not.
SCHIPPERS: It's unbelievable, isn't it?
STARR: It is completely outside the contemplation of grand jury practice, because that's not the function of the grand jury. It's to gather information, and to determine whether there's probable cause to believe that a criminal offense may have been committed.
SCHIPPERS: That's right. Now the cross-examination is for the trial, isn't it?
STARR: Yes, absolutely.
SCHIPPERS: Now, we're tugged — if I may change horses a little bit and go to the impeachment proceeding.
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: The Constitution provides that the sole power of impeachment resides in the House of Representatives, isn't that correct?
STARR: That is correct.
SCHIPPERS: And that is in the nature of a grand jury proceeding, which results in a charge, isn't that right?
STARR: That's right.
SCHIPPERS: So there should be no cross-examination at that stage of the proceeding either, should there?
STARR: That's entirely within your prerogative, but to the extent that you're mirroring the grand jury, there is no cross-examination.
SCHIPPERS: Over and above that, Judge Starr, the Constitution further provides that the sole power to try an impeachment resides in the Senate, isn't that correct?
STARR: That is true.
SCHIPPERS: So if this House were to permit cross-examination and to hold a mini-trial here, they would be usurping the constitutional duties of the United States Senate, isn't that correct?
STARR: Well, I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with that because I think…
SCHIPPERS: I hear the moaning from the left again.
STARR: Because I…
HYDE?: Does somebody need an aspirin?
STARR: No, I think there are substantial — I shouldn't be advising the House of Representatives in terms of its prerogatives, but it seems to me that, under the Constitution, you will have extraordinary latitude under whatever rules of the House under which you're operating to determine how to proceed.
But you're quite right. The Constitution contemplates the trial to be in the Senate, and what you're quite rightly saying is if one is saying, "Let's have a trial," you might have the raw power to do it, but it's almost as if, well that doesn't count because the real issue is, is there substantial — or whatever the standard is — that the House of Representatives sees fit to articulate as its operative standard.
SCHIPPERS: Now, judge, let's do some fairness comparing here. Did anybody in the grand jury, while the president was testifying, laugh at him?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: Who?
STARR: Members of the grand jury.
SCHIPPERS: And when was that, Judge Starr? While the president was testifying and telling what he told the grand jurors they were laughing at him, is that right, sir?
STARR: I understand that there were some occasions where one or more grand jurors — at least that is my understanding. But I want to protect the confidentiality of the grand jury process, and deliberative process. even though you have all the transcripts and the like. I would just rely on what the transcripts say.
SCHIPPERS: All right, well when the president was asked questions, he was asked questions one at a time, was he not?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: And they were relatively simple questions and he was permitted to give full and complete answers, isn't that correct?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: He wasn't asked six or eight questions at a time, running over a four or five-minute period, and then given 10 seconds to answer, was he?
STARR: Definitely not.
SCHIPPERS: Now, by the way, did anyone cut off the president when he tried to answer questions?
STARR: No, I don't think there was any episode of when cut off the president, although, may I say, we were operating as well under very strict limitations, and we did want to proceed with additional questions, and the grand jury had questions, but Mr. Kendall did enforce the understanding that we had, which was a four-hour session by the president. And we abided by that, and I don't mean to sound quarrelsome in suggesting that Mr. Kendall was not within his rights. He was.
SCHIPPERS: Now, judge, there's been a lot of talk in the public domain, and on the television and things, that this is — that all the president did was deny sex — deny a sexual relationship with an intern. He went a lot further than that, didn't he? For example, with Mr. Blumenthal.
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: As a matter of fact, before Mr. Blumenthal came in to testify, he was subjected to an elaborate, elaborate lie by the president concerning the relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
STARR: Yes, he was.
SCHIPPERS: If I may: the president told Mr. Blumenthal that Monica made sexual demands upon him, which he rebuffed; that right? And that was not true, was it?
STARR: That was not true.
SCHIPPERS: He also said that Monica Lewinsky threatened to claim an affair, and he wouldn't go along with it; that he had been threatened by Monica Lewinsky. Is that right?
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: Now, this is at a time when the president thought that it was a one-on-one with Monica Lewinsky, didn't he?
STARR: I believe that is what he thought at that time.
SCHIPPERS: And this would have been a perfect answer: She threatened to say I had sex with her. If I didn't do something for her, I didn't do something, therefore everything she is saying is a lie.
STARR: It would be a very good answer.
SCHIPPERS: Now your — it's been suggested that your people used the young lady and betrayed a young lady. Wouldn't that more properly belong to the president of the United States?
SCHIPPERS: Well, I'm not sure I should be the one to pass judgment, but we certainly did not betray Ms. Lewinsky. We were doing our job, and we certainly never took any steps other than to try to vindicate the interest of the criminal law.
HYDE: Mr. Schippers, your time has expired. Do you need additional time?
SCHIPPERS: If I may, and if Judge Starr can stand it?
HYDE: Well…
SCHIPPERS: I will not need a great deal more, Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: All right, I will allow an additional 15 minutes, and maybe you won't use that.
HYDE: Said he, hopefully. Preferably.
STARR: That was off the record. Mr. Kendall tells me I should not do that.
SCHIPPERS: There's been some suggestion, judge, that this was merely a private crime. The United States Constitution provides for three branches of government, does it not? Co-equal branches?
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: And the judiciary is co-equal with the executive?
STARR: Absolutely.
SCHIPPERS: Did I understand you earlier say that lying under oath, perjury, and obstruction of justice strikes at the very heart of the judicial system of the United States?
STARR: Absolutely, and I think every judge would agree with that, that this is absolutely inimical to the judicial functioning. It is inimical to our court system.
SCHIPPERS: And under that, the Constitution of the United States, if the judicial system is destroyed, that is destroying one of the constitutional portions of our government, isn't it?
STARR: No question that from the founding of the republic, the importance of our judiciary as an enforcer of rights and the vindicators of rule of law is absolutely critical.
SCHIPPERS: So when the president of the United States lies under oath — civil or criminal case, grand jury or other — and obstructs justice — civil or criminal, grand jury or other — he is effectively attacking the judicial branch of the United States constitutional government, isn't he?
STARR: That is the way I would view it.
SCHIPPERS: And that president takes the oath that he will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, right?
STARR: Right.
SCHIPPERS: That's not defending, is it?
STARR: No, it's not.
SCHIPPERS: There is a term that has stuck in my brain from these transcripts that I have read, and that is "mission accomplished."
When Webb Hubbell needed help, Vernon Jordan got somebody at Revlon, or the parent company of Revlon, to put him on retainer for no work, right?
STARR: Essentially, no work.
SCHIPPERS: So, Vernon Jordan: "mission accomplished." When Monica was looking for a job, and it became very urgent for her to get a job, Mr. Jordan, again, accomplished his mission.
STARR: Yes, he did.
SCHIPPERS: When Ms. Currie, when they wanted to get rid of the gifts, Ms. Currie went and picked them up, put them under her bed, to keep them from anybody else. Another mission accomplished.
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: By the way, there has been some talk here that Monica said that she recalled that Betty Currie called her and said either the president wants me to pick something up or I understand you have something for me to pick up. Later, Ms. Currie backed off of that and said I'm not sure, maybe Monica called me. In the material that you made available, you and your staff made available to us, there were 302s in which Monica said, I think when Betty called me, she was using her cell phone. Do you recall that Judge Starr?
STARR: I do.
SCHIPPERS: And in that same material that's in your office that both parties were able to review and that we did in fact, review, there are phone records of Ms. Currie, are there not?
STARR: There are.
SCHIPPERS: And there is a phone call from her cell phone to Monica Lewinsky's home on the afternoon of December 28, 1997, isn't there?
STARR: That is correct.
SCHIPPERS: Once again, Monica is right and she has been corroborated.
STARR: That certainly tends to corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's recollection.
SCHIPPERS: By the way, they did find some of the billing records from the Rose Firm in the attic of Vince Foster's home.
STARR: Yes, that is correct.
SCHIPPERS: They weren't under the bed, were they?
STARR: No, they were in the attic.
SCHIPPERS: I'm sorry.
HYDE: She wanted to know if it was OK to laugh.
SCHIPPERS: Sure.
HYDE: He says, yes.
SCHIPPERS: Now, when Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed, Mr. Jordan contacted the president and then got Mrs. Lewinsky an attorney, Mr. Carter, is that right?
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: Another mission accomplished. When Monica did her job search and she signed a false affidavit, the next day she was down in — up in New York trying to get a job, isn't that right?
STARR: I believe it was the next day, yes.
SCHIPPERS: She couldn't get a job because she kind of didn't do a very good job on the interview.
STARR: She did not feel that the interview had gone well and she was not given a job offer and that concerned her and she expressed that concern.
SCHIPPERS: This is when Mr. Jordan called the chairman of the board and got her the job.
STARR: He certainly — yes. He called Mr. Perelman and Mr. Perelman then made a call and she was reinterviewed and she was hired.
SCHIPPERS: So Mr. Jordan at that time knew that the false affidavit had been signed and that he had a job for Monica and he went to see the president of the United States and said, "mission accomplished," didn't he?
STARR: In fairness to Mr. Jordan, he knew the affidavit had been signed. The rest I'm sure would be in some dispute. But yes that is…
SCHIPPERS: He knew the affidavit had been signed.
STARR: Yes.
SCHIPPERS: And he knew that the job had been gotten. He went to the president and said mission accomplished.
STARR: Yes, that is correct.
SCHIPPERS: We don't which he was referring to, whether it was the job or we got the affidavit signed, do we?
STARR: No, I don't think we do know that. We just know he said mission accomplished. I know he felt that he had, you know, engaged in a certain amount — a certain level of effort to secure that job for Ms. Lewinsky at Revlon.
SCHIPPERS: Judge Starr, I only have a few more questions. You are a senior partner in a major law firm — or you were before you took your leave of absence.
STARR: Yes — past-tense.
SCHIPPERS: You are a recognized scholar in constitutional law and in law in general. You have been the solicitor general of the United States, is that correct?
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: Argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
STARR: That's correct.
SCHIPPERS: You have received honorary doctors of law degrees from six universities.
STARR: I think that's right.
SCHIPPERS: You have written numberless articles in various scholarly journals.
STARR: Yes, I've written a number.
SCHIPPERS: You have a completely unblemished career for your entire life as a lawyer, and you are looked upon in the profession as a man of honor, integrity and decency, is that right?
STARR: Well, I would like to think at least once upon a time that was the reputation.
SCHIPPERS: For the past year you have been trashed in the newspapers, on television and with snide, backward remarks to which you could not reply, isn't that right, Judge Starr?
STARR: Well, I have chosen until now not to reply, but I think the code of silence, sometimes in terms of basic fairness gets to come to an end.
SCHIPPERS: And you have been pilloried and excoriated, charged with unbelievable things of which you are incapable of being guilty.
STARR: I cannot imagine me and my colleagues engaging in some of the suggested activities that have been described here, seriously. We simply cannot in conscience, live with one another as professionals — and I laid out in my opening statement the backgrounds of my colleagues, and I have been privileged to serve with two John Marshall award winners, and that's special at the Justice Department. That means there's no better trial lawyer in the Department of Justice recognized in a particular year and I have been privileged to serve with two of them — with public corruption chiefs. These are career civil servants and it's not right and not fair to attack and calumny career civil servants. But for my part, I have learned that it goes with the independent counsel territory.
SCHIPPERS: And the independent counsel job, you didn't seek that, did you?
STARR: Absolutely not.
SCHIPPERS: You were asked to take it, and you tried to leave and your staff begged you to stay a you did stay, is that right?
STARR: All of that is true. I never sought this job. I am reminded about the old song about taking a job…
STARR: … and what you then do with it. It would be indecorous of me to say it. I was asked to — by the special division to take on this responsibility — the three-judge panel, saw fit to ask me to serve. I had been asked by Phil Hyman (ph) who is department attorney general of the United States in January 1994, whether I would be willing to be considered appointed as the Whitewater counsel under Ms. Reno — to be appointed by Janet Reno. Happily for me, she wisely chose Bob Fiske. Unhappily for me, the special division chose me.
SCHIPPERS: You have been given a duty that you did not seek, and you have performed that duty to the best of your ability, is that correct, sir?
STARR: I have certainly tried, and I did not — to do it to the best of my ability, and I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish. As I indicated earlier, the records of convictions obtained, but also, the decisions not to seek an indictment. The decision to issue thorough reports. All of that is part of what we have co-labored together with Mr. Kendall pointing to the number of persons involved in the investigation.
I am proud of those persons. They are my colleagues and they have become my friends. And they've worked very long and very hard under very difficult circumstances and recognizing — and we're big, big boys — and I mean that in a gender neutral way.
So, when we are accused in Arkansas of a political witch hunt, we took it and we did our arguing in court, and we proved to the satisfaction of a fair minded jury with a very distinguished judge that the sitting governor and the president of the first lady's business partners were guilty of serious felonies. And we had been listening month after month to it's a political witch hunt, and that was unfair, but we learned that goes with this territory.
SCHIPPERS: Judge for all that, doing your duty, you have been pilloried and attacked from all sides is that right?
STARR: I would hope not all sides but I guess that's…
SCHIPPERS: Sometimes it seems like all sides.
SCHIPPERS: How long have you been an attorney, Judge Starr?
STARR: Twenty-five years.
SCHIPPERS: Well, I have been an attorney for a almost 40 years. I want to say I am proud to be in the same room with you and your staff.
STARR: Thank you, Mr. Schippers.
HYDE: Thank you. Thank you.
JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: Yes, the gentlelady from Houston.
JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I indicated I had a point of order. This might be more preferable as a point of clarification, and that is, I know it's extremely long into the evening, Mr. Starr, but Mr. Chairman did I understand Mr. Starr to state that we would not expect any referrals on Filegate, Travelgate and Watergate — excuse me…
HYDE: Whitewater.
JACKSON LEE: … Whitewater — it's been many years. As relates to the provision in the Constitution on impeachment; did I hear that? You made a statement, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you wanted to make this statement, Mr. Starr wanted to make the statement, but you did make the statement and I would appreciate it on the charge of our committee, since we do have that responsibility, if I heard correctly.
Mr. Chairman I had, in addition, to add to the record, and a question as to whether or not — because of the shortness of the time of questioning — whether or not Mr. Starr would be able to answer — or he indicated, I believe, to many members, that he would be willing to answer some of our questions by way of written answers. For example, the question I had of his firsthand knowledge of any details in that referral.
But Mr. Chairman — excuse me, excuse my voice; it's late into the evening — and I do want to add a United States versus Berdman (ph), 602 Fed 2nd, 547, Third Circuit, 1979. I'd like to have that as — to have it submitted into the record, which deals with the statement that courts have shared the legal professions disapproval of
HYDE: The gentlelady has had her time now.
JACKSON LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I would like the question of the referral.
HYDE: Do you have a specific request?
JACKSON LEE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like the specific question answered as to the referrals on Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate.
HYDE: OK, Mr. Starr — I know — Mr. Starr, can you answer that?
STARR: I'm sorry. The opening statement spoke to the FBI files and Travel Office matter. I did not comment beyond those two matters.
JACKSON LEE: What did you say on those matters? That's what I asked.
HYDE: Well, if the gentlelady would read the report.
STARR: When I say I didn't comment with respect to the conclusion of such matters, the opening statement speaks for itself, and I think we can, in fact, have that as part of the record.
HYDE: Well, it is part of the official record.
STARR: Yes.
HYDE: Very well.
JACKSON LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: Well, thank you, Judge Starr, for a wonderful day. Thank you.
STARR: Thank you. Thank you.


text:
3030 House - new interior images
Some updated interior photos of the EcoSteel Cabin John 3030 House
A more detailed description of the progress can be seen on the owner's blog. Link, and a photo browser after the jump.
Some updated interior photos of the EcoSteel Cabin John 3030 House
A more detailed description of the progress can be seen on the owner's blog. Link, and a photo browser after the jump.
Posted by lavardera at 6/17/2009 12:28:00 AM
I've been a big fan of this home design since late last year, and after recently moving to Maryland, I decided to take a Sunday drive out to Cabin John today and view the site.
The house is even more impressive and beautiful in person. I would love to build one of these myself at somepoint down the road.
Congrats on a truly beautiful home design.
I'm glad you went out and made a visit. I wish I could drop in as often.
Credit must go to the builder owner for sweating and revising every detail to make it better; and to EcoSteel for sticking their necks out to fab the design with the frame sticking out like this. Its turned out better than I hoped and makes the most of the system building.
It's amazing how the photos don't properly convey the scale; it's a very large home for such a small footprint. I also really love the space efficiencies in the design. The owner will certainly be happy with the final product, I'm sure.ReplyDelete
I know - 30 x 30 is not a big footprint, but how many larger houses have a room that extends 29ft in two directions. Then in the vertical, its boxy and feels tall. The steel frame is also on a giant scale and of course goes all the way to the roof. And the fact that its out of the ground by like 4ft also contributes to the towering feeling.ReplyDelete
Nice variation on the theme, Greg. Steel isn't as forgiving as wood, but it gives your design a 'crisp' quality that IMHO looks great.ReplyDelete
Sorry I'm a little late to the party, but I have been diligently trying to finish this little beauty. I would like to extend an invitation anyone who would like a tour of Greg's design to drop me a note: firstname.lastname@example.com
That is very kind of you John - perhaps we should organize an open house, and I'll come down too.ReplyDelete
Love the house, looks great!ReplyDelete
another great looking house, greg.ReplyDelete
So what's the latest on the 3030? Has it been completed?ReplyDelete
Done! Occupied!
I don't think all the paperwork for the LEED cert has gone in yet. Hoping for 2010.
Also make sure you check out the XHouse2 in my modern house plans - inspired by the 3030 House and designed for regular ol' wood construction:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
eCommerce that sells
everywhere, everytime
We offer a full suite of eCommerce development services in Kuala Lumpur that include strategy, integrations, migrations, and development of results-driven online websites along with support & maintenance for ongoing upgrades.
Key Features
We create beautiful online stores and strategically-led shopping experiences, from creative responsive designs to industry leading e-Commerce management.
Marketing Features
Reach your ideal shopper with content marketing, through SEO, and on social media.


text:
Here is a list of buzzwords, biz speak, and hipster droppings that should be banned from every business meeting forevermore. Does the following sound familiar?
[Client]: "Our Big Data Rock Star ideated a cloud-based, scalable, native programmatic tool set that produced excellent learnings."
[Consultant]: "Well, it sounds like he took it to the next level … efforting 110% to craft a best practices, robust solution you can leverage, and it's clearly out of the box thinking … but maybe you shouldn't try to boil the ocean … it's got a lot of moving parts and I'm not sure it's something you want to take ownership of. … You might be accused of punching the puppy, so the optics are all wrong. We should probably put this in the parking lot."
Sounds pretty stupid, right? If you don't like these phrases strung together, why use them individually? So, without further ado:
Banned Words (in No Particular Order)
We Hacked It – Just say, "Figured it out." Unless you are under investigation by the FBI, NSA, or any of the other 15 national security agencies, you're not a hacker. Not even close.
Paradigm Shift – Do you mean there is a new archetype or an outstandingly clear example of a shift from the original pattern or model of "All things of the same type are representations or copies?" If not, it's just "something new."
Game Changer – is "a person or thing that dramatically changes the course, strategy, character, etc., of something." Did that person or thing dramatically change the business? If not, try "significant," "nontrivial," "interesting," "impactful," "meaningful," or anything else. Let's not "gamify" business.
Disrupt Ourselves – or other people will disrupt us first. I get it! Try "innovation," "transformation," or just simply "change." All are great words to describe another overused but more accurate phrase, "Adapt, or die!"
Hockey Stick – Really? A hockey stick? We are living in the Age of Exponentialism. Everything is changing exponentially every day. We're somewhere on the blade of the hockey stick; we passed the "stick" part about 5,000 years ago. While we're on the subject, stop drawing the curve in the air with your hands when you say it – it drives me crazy!
Out of the Box – Just say, "We have escaped our Luddite boundaries and evolved our thinking beyond the rectangular indications on the org chart." What? You think that sounds stupid? It does sound stupid, but it's 50 times more interesting than "out of the box."
Monetize – I want a $5 premium on my usual $20 fine for using banned words the next time you say "monetize." "How we make money!" "Make bank." "Bring home the bacon." "Cake up." "Chase paper." "Hustle." "Rake it in." "Stack papers." "Bilk the masses out of their hard-earned cash." Anything but "monetize!"
Back by Popular Demand
Learnings – Just stop! I learned, we learned, he/she/it learned – it's the easiest verb to conjugate in the English language. Ugh! BTW, you should stop using "efforting." See the aforementioned "learnings."
Ideate – Really? People who use "ideate" clearly have no idea about the process of ideation. It should cost you $20 every time you get the idea to say it.
Rock Star – Let me be very, very clear: there are no rock stars in any profession other than rock music. Rap stars don't call themselves rock stars. Neither do EDM, country, soul, R&B, jazz, or even folk stars. Why on earth would anyone who doesn't play rock for a living think it's OK to call someone in business a rock star? When you can jump across the stage and land on your knees while playing a Bb7#9 chord, screaming the lyrics (on key) with pyrotechnics exploding all around you in front of 20,000 adoring fans, you're a rock star. If you're great at media buying or human resources … well, you get my point.
Scalable – As opposed to what? We've built a new app that can only run on three devices simultaneously, but we're hopeful. Who says that? Even if it's true, you're going to lie and say it's carrier-grade and bulletproof. Has anyone ever been in a meeting where someone said, "Our technology doesn't scale"? Body shops don't scale; people don't scale; boutiques don't scale; custom donut shops don't scale. Technology scales!
Overheard at a Trade Event
Person: "We're a startup. We're using blockchain to create loyalty programs for the cannabis industry." Me: "Why aren't you just using a database?" Person: "Are you kidding me? Man … blockchain is way cooler." Honestly, you can't make this stuff up. Please stop saying the word "blockchain." Forget you ever heard it. You don't know what it means. You don't know how it works, and most importantly, you have no idea when or why it is an appropriate solution for your use case. That said, if you do know when, why, and how to use it, say it loud and proud!
Person: "Our [fill in the blank] uses AI to blah, blah, blah." Me: "How exactly does it do that?" Person: "Um … it learns by itself." Truly, I'm going to die. No, your project does not use AI the way you are describing it. To someone who knows the state of the art, you sound like a moron. To someone who doesn't know anything about AI, you sound like a Martian. And people who kind of know something about AI will ask you a question you cannot answer, and then you will sound like an even bigger moron.
Unless you know exactly how to describe the AI tools you are using, just use normal English. Words like "automatically" or, if you must, "the computer will" are much better choices than contributing to the ubiquity of buzzword BS. Here's a secret: if you describe how your (fill in the blank) creates value or solves a specific problem, and it really does create value or solve a specific problem, no one – and I mean no one – is going to care how you do it. Said differently, the people you are torturing with buzzwords are going to send engineers and scientists to talk to you about the nuts and bolts of your masterwork, and there is a 100 percent chance that you are going to have to send your engineers and scientists to that meeting – a meeting to which you will contribute very, very little.
Person: "Smartphones will work much better over 5G." Me: "How so?" Person: "Yeah, you know, voice is just an app. It's all about video, and 5G will make the video much sharper with better color. And you know what that's going to do for VR porn?" Me: "Where's Rod Serling when you really need him?"
If 5G is just about better cell service than 4G LTE, there's no reason for it. 5G technology, when fully deployed (which may not be for quite some time), will absolutely change how our world works. Why? Because the use cases for wireless high-bandwidth, low-latency networks are limited only by your imagination. Talk about 5G factories, or 5G hospitals, or 5G C-V2X. Do not talk to me about 5G cell service. There are few, if any, features on your 4G LTE phone that will work better with a 5G network. 5G will allow smartphone manufacturers to add new features (that you have not seen yet), like awesome Augmented Reality or instant audio translation (like Star Trek's universal translator) or identifying you as a pedestrian (via 5G C-V2X) to an oncoming autonomous vehicle. So, please, if you are going to use 5G in a sentence, research the use case first. It will make the world a better place.
Your Assistance, Please
These are just a few of the buzzwords that are driving me crazy. I've published banned word lists before ("learnings," "efforting," and "rock star" are oldies but goodies, I don't think they are ever going away). Now, I am asking for your assistance. Please send me your list of buzzwords or other phrases that should be banned (Form below). I will use an AI system to read your replies and log the responses on a blockchain using 5G, and if that doesn't work, our rock star CTO will use the learnings to effort a new MVP.
Add to the list
If the form is not visible, click here.
Author's note: This is not a sponsored post. I am the author of this article and it expresses my own opinions. I am not, nor is my company, receiving compensation for it.
Disclaimer: By simply attributing this list of banned words to me, you will receive a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable (through multiple tiers) right and license to exercise any and all copyright, trademark, publicity, and database rights that you have in the User Content in any and all formats or media now known or hereafter devised in the future. You are further hereby granted the nonexclusive, irrevocable, and unconditional right and license to describe, relate, broadcast, exhibit, transmit, publish, use, monetize, distribute, and/or exploit your User Content in any such manner as you shall elect, in whole or in part, on the Internet, in print and electronic form, in merchandising, publicity, and advertising, or in any other media now known or hereafter created or devised throughout the universe in perpetuity.


text:
Implement a biodiversity monitoring program in and around protected areas
Context and project description
How effective are conservation and protection measures taken in certain areas in helping maintain biodiversity over the long term in those areas? That is what St. Lawrence Action Plan (SLAP) partners want to find out by implementing a biological diversity monitoring program in and around protected areas. Their objective is also to determine what actions that are needed to improve the situation, as required.
This is a long-term project that includes several stages. The undertaking will be based on inventories of species or groups of species chosen based on their representative value in relation to the main types of habitats found in the areas being studied and in adjacent areas. Those areas will be chosen based on a plan for representative sampling of protected areas along the St. Lawrence, and the inventories will follow standard protocols. This monitoring program will be added to those already implemented in other protected areas along the St. Lawrence (Canadian and Quebec national parks).
An ecological monitoring program for the eight national wildlife areas (NWAs) in Quebec has been developed , including the indicators and survey methodologies to be used. The first part of this program will soon be published on the St. Lawrence Action Plan (SLAP) website. A program for monitoring biodiversity in Quebec is also being developed. It will include indicators, methodologies and survey sites covering the major ecosystem types in Quebec. Joint implementation strategies will set out the measurements to be taken on sites that will benefit both programs, thereby optimizing the use of resources to maximize benefits for both programs. Among the common indicators to be evaluated are the abundance and distribution of invasive exotic species and species at risk.
The second part of the program will be developed during the 2016–2021 phase of SLAP. It will include sampling strategies, thresholds (desired states) for the selected indicators, and selection of survey sites. Once the entire program is implemented, it will be possible to monitor biodiversity in Quebec, which will contribute to effective management of the NWAs and other protected areas in Quebec.
The implementation in the years 2000 of the federal-provincial program to inventory protected areas greatly increased our knowledge of the presence of plants and animals in dozens of protected areas in southern Quebec. The proposed biodiversity monitoring program will therefore use this data as reference points for several of the proposed survey sites.
Participating departments
Government of Canada
- Environment and Climate Change Canada
- Parks Canada
Government of Quebec
- Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs


text:
China is expected to bust into the smart home market to the tune of around $22 billion per year by as soon as 2018, but with product names like LingLong DingDong - I think they're going to have some fun while doing it.
LingLong, the company behind the DingDong, has made an Amazon Echo-like device that costs $118 - and it's capable of playing music, audiobooks, managing schedules, and more - just like the Amazon Echo. In order to wake the device, you'll have to say one of three commands:
- DingDong DingDong
- Xiaowei Xiaowei
- BaiLing BaiLing
LingLong has said that most people are using the DingDong to play music from their library, which spans 3 million songs. LingLong has been working on the DingDong for a while, so it's not a direct knockoff of the Echo, but LingLong's Senior Marketing Manager Charlie Liu did state that Amazon Echo did have an influence in some of their decision-making.


text:
All openings, big and small, get served up on a regular basis by The Dish. Know of a new restaurant or bar that we've missed? Do pass along your sightings.
1) Embarcadero: Today is opening day for the relocated second location of Perry's in the Hotel Griffon, technically now dubbed Perry's on the Embarcadero. It's the same Americana, old school food and drink that you've come to know and love at the other locations, and per the location next door to Ozumo, Shanghai 1930 and such, the bar, located in the center of the space, should play a prominent role, both figuratively and literally. Could be the Balboa Cafe of the FiDi. By our math, it's the year's fourth newcomer to this high-profile stretch of the Embarcadero. 155 Steuart Street, between Mission and Howard, (415) 495-6500; website [EaterWire]
2) Financial District: It's possible that Chill picked the worst weekend of the season to open a froyo/dessert cafe, but we suppose not even froyo purveyors can control the weather. One enthusiastic Yelper has a thorough summary of the place, including flavors (original, custard, black sesame) and prices. Also, free Wifi, FYI. 125 Kearny Street, between Post and Sutter; (415) 433-1233; website [EaterWire]
3) SoMa: As planned, Halloween marked the return of 80s classic Paradise Lounge to the clubland scene. No word on whether or not it retained its prior, um, charm. 1501 Folsom Street, between 11th and 12th; (415) 252-5018; website [EaterWire]
4) Mission/Potrero: Also debuting on Halloween was the Mission Hill Saloon, aka the shuttered Sadie's Flying Elephants. You'll recall it was taken over by the Whiskey Thieves people. Early reports have removals of the pool table and popcorn machine. Eek. 491 Potrero Avenue, between 17th and Mariposa; (415) 551-7988 [EaterWire]
5) Embarcadero: Daily Candy had the details on the opening of the Tcho Beta Store: "The only SF-based chocolate factory, TCHO (which stands for technology and chocolate) combines innovation with a pure and simple recipe for the proprietary bars, now available in a petite outlet adjacent to its waterfront operation." There are four flavors available—"chocolaty, citrus, fruity, and nutty"—and Blue Bottle coffee is there too. But they're not cheap, and the always-frugal Chowhounds are already suspicious. Pier 17, at Green Street; (415) 981-0189 ext. 640; website [DC]


text:
Neurons anticipate body's response to food and water
Complete the form below to unlock access to ALL audio articles.
Using leading-edge technology, neuroscientists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) gained new insight into the brain circuitry that regulates water and food intake.
In their new study, a team of researchers monitored the activity of the neurons that secrete a hormone in response to ingesting food and water. The work published in Neuron demonstrates that a subset of neurons starts to prepare the body for an influx of water in the seconds before drinking begins. These neurons help regulate intake by anticipating the effects of drinking from the "top down," rather than taking cues from the body.
See Also: Imaging the effects of hunger on the brain's response to food cues
"This study supports the view that when we suddenly detect the availability of food or water, our body starts to prepare itself within seconds for the upcoming bout of eating or drinking," said co-corresponding author, Mark Andermann, PhD, Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism at BIDMC. "We predict that deficits in this 'top-down' control could lead to overshoots in eating or drinking, with many negative consequences."
Andermann and colleagues, including co-corresponding author, Bradford B. Lowell, MD, PhD, a Professor of Medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism at BIDMC, recorded the activity of neurons responsible for releasing the anti-diuretic hormone vasopressin in mice. Vasopressin plays a crucial role regulating the body's relative concentration of water versus salt after eating or drinking, which could otherwise dramatically alter the mix.
"It's critical to survival that the body has ways to prevent the water concentration outside of cells from changing," said Lowell. "Anticipating the future consequences of ingesting water helps the body get a head-start on managing water balance. The form of rapid, top-down control of this process that we discovered is one important way of managing it."
Learn More: Research indicates food craving is 'hard-wired' in the brain
In their experiments, Andermann and Lowell watched as the activity of vasopressin-releasing neuron rapidly decreased—within seconds—when water was presented to water-restricted rodents, before they even drank it. In contrast, the sight and smell of food increased the activity in these neurons—again, within seconds—but only following food consumption. That difference in timing suggested that separate neural networks regulate these reactions to water and to food.
"This type of rapid regulation was not known to exist and has only been discovered in the last year for hunger neurons and for vasopressin neurons," said Lowell. "It likely occurs for all forms of homeostatic control. It's interesting to speculate whether there are individuals out there who have abnormalities in this kind of top-down control."
Read Next: Brain mechanism that drives us to eat glucose discovered
"By the same token, we may one day learn that enhancing this top-down control might be a way of regulating meal size without interfering with baseline appetite or with the pleasure of taking the first bite of something delicious," Andermann said, adding their high-tech methodology will allow them to further investigate the neurons directly "upstream" of the vasopressin neurons. "Because we can now monitor and manipulate the activity of specific sets of neurons, we're getting closer to being able to directly test these hypotheses and working toward strategies to improve human health."
Note: Material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center press release
Mandelblat-Cerf Y et al. Bidirectional Anticipation of Future Osmotic Challenges by Vasopressin Neurons. Neuron, Published Online December 15 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.11.021


text:
60 Marc Dr
Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223
Phone: 800.845.5919
Email: [email protected]
We are an innovative converter of pressure sensitive adhesive tape products that span multiple market segments.
With over 40 years of experience in the converting business, we have been leading the way in engineering and converting products that help our customers gain an advantage in their respective market.
© 2023 Cortape Inc.


text:
And what will she risk for acceptance?
In Sunshine, Tennessee, the main event in town is Friday night football, the biggest party of the year is held in a field filled with pickup trucks, and church attendance is mandatory. For Kaycee Jean McCoy, life in Sunshine means dating guys she has no interest in, saying only "yes, ma'am" when the local bigots gossip at her mom's cosmetics salon, and avoiding certain girls at all costs. Girls like Bren Dawson.
Unlike Kaycee, Bren doesn't really conceal who she is. But as the cool, worldly new girl, nobody at school seems to give her any trouble. Maybe there's no harm if Kaycee gets closer to her too, as long as she can keep that part of her life a secret, especially from her family and her best friend. But the more serious things get with Bren, the harder it is to hide from everyone else. Kaycee knows Sunshine has a darker side for people like her, and she's risking everything for the chance to truly be herself.
Available for purchase on Amazon.
"10 Lesbian novels you'll totally love!" — Pride.com
"15 Most Anticipated LGBTQ YAs of 2016" —Barnes and Noble
"A compelling portrait of a small-town teen learning that she doesn't have to choose between loving her roots and loving who she really is."—Booklist
"The tumultuous coming out and secret romance with Bren will resonate with readers, as will the effects on the teen's friendships. The setting is fully realized, establishing a familiar backdrop for the realistic and unsettling bigotry of the town."—School Library Journal
"Readers will relate to both Kaycee's desire for secrecy and Bren's desire for acknowledgement, which provides the novel's most believable tension."—Kirkus
"Dana Elmendorf is a rich, new voice in contemporary fiction. This touching love story takes an earnest look at the courage it takes to love who you love. Adorable, y'all."—Robin Mellom, author of Ditched: A Love Story
"Equal parts sweet and sassy, South of Sunshine explores the struggles and triumphs of self-discovery and first love with a heap of Southern charm."—Jessica Love, co-author of Push Girl


text:
The Joint Opens First of Many Chiropractic Offices in Oklahoma
Affordable and Convenient Chiropractic Concept Now Easing Pain, Tension and Discomfort in Edmond, Oklahoma
EDMOND, Okla. — The days of dealing with chronic back pain, neck pain and migraines will soon be a thing of the past for Edmond, OK.
The Joint Corp. (NASDAQ:JYNT), the leading chiropractic franchise in the United States, announced today that is has opened its first Oklahoma chiropractic office in Edmond.
Conveniently located at 1193 East 2nd Street, The Joint is sure to "adjust" the accessibility and ease of routine chiropractic care for local patients with its no-appointment, no-insurance and no-hassle business model and team of experienced local chiropractic care experts. Passionate chiropractor and Oklahoma native Dr. Matt Dreadfulwater is the operating manager of the new chiropractic clinic in Edmond. Dr. Dreadfulwater also operates four additional Joint Chiropractic locations in the Dallas and Fort Worth markets.
"Chiropractic care is an important aspect of any health and wellness routine. Everyday activities such as sitting at a desk all day or constantly looking down to check our phones take a toll on our bodies, especially our back, shoulders and neck. A key to preventing and managing pain is routine chiropractic adjustments," said Dr. Dreadfulwater. "The Joint removes the hassle of insurance and booking appointments, making it more convenient for patients in Edmond to maintain more a chiropractic care regimen."
The Joint's unique membership model allows patients seeking pain relief and prevention in Edmond to customize ongoing treatment plans or receive preventative care on a weekly basis. Plus, chiropractors across the company's network have secure access to patient files, meaning members can use their membership at any The Joint clinic. Through pain management and ongoing treatment plans, The Joint and its doctors operate with a noble purpose to change the way people live their lives.
From its inception in 1999, The Joint has expanded steadily with a tremendous growth spurt occurring after the brand began franchising in 2006. Today, there are over 400 chiropractic clinics nationwide, and The Joint is continuing to expand its brand into more key markets across the country.
"I know this market like the back of my hand, and when it comes to finding the perfect fit to introduce The Joint to Edmond, we hit the jackpot with Matt," said Kevin Stutz, regional developer for Edmond, who oversees growth of The Joint in the Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas markets. "Our confidence is through the roof and we can't wait to see him change lives in a positive way."
As The Joint continues to expand, the brand is awarding franchise opportunities to qualified individuals who share the company's passion for health and wellness. Ideal franchisees include chiropractors looking to launch a business or supplement their independent practice, multi-concept franchise owners and investors interested in pursuing semi-absentee business ownership.
For more information on The Joint Chiropractic's services, visit: www.thejoint.com.
To learn about franchise opportunities in the booming health and wellness industry with The Joint Chiropractic, visit: www.thejoint.com/franchise.
About The Joint Corp. (NASDAQ: JYNT)
Based in Scottsdale, Arizona, The Joint is an emerging growth company that is reinventing chiropractic care by making quality care convenient and affordable for patients seeking pain relief and ongoing wellness. Its no-appointment policy and convenient hours and locations make care more accessible, and affordable membership plans and packages eliminate the need for insurance. With more than 400 clinics nationwide and over four million patient visits annually, The Joint is a leader in the chiropractic profession. For more information, visit www.thejoint.com, or follow the brand on Twitter, Facebook, You Tube and LinkedIn. For more information about The Joint's franchise opportunities, visit: www.thejoint.com/franchise
Business Structure
This clinic is owned and operated by OKC Chiro 1, LLC. The Joint Corp. is a franchisor of clinics and an operator of clinics in certain states. In California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Washington, The Joint Corp. and its franchisees provide management services to affiliated professional chiropractic offices.
Media Contacts
The Joint Corp.
Molly Hottle
[email protected]
Office: (480) 245-5960 x 202
All Points Public Relations
Sydney Thompson
[email protected]
Office: (847) 897-7494
Leadership claim based on network size. The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material contained on this page are for informational purposes only. The purpose of this post is to promote broad consumer understanding and knowledge of various health topics, including but not limited to the benefits of chiropractic care, exercise and nutrition. It is not intended to provide or be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your chiropractor, physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this page.


text:
Have an Auto Injury? Our Chiropractors in Lone Tree can help!
According to the Insurance Research Council, nearly 1/3 of all claimants injured in motor vehicle accidents (MVA's) seek treatment from doctors of chiropractic. This is an impressive number given that the National Safety Council (NSC) has determined there to be more than 12 million MVA's annually involving more than 20 million vehicles.
The reason people choose integrated rehabilitation and chiropractic care for treatment of injuries sustained in MVA's is simple — multidisciplinary care is exceptional in the treatment of soft tissue injuries of the spine. Since the most common injuries associated with MVA's are sprains and strains of the spinal muscles, ligaments and connective tissues, it's only natural that a combined approach will get the best results!
Research indicates that 57% of persons suffering whiplash injury of the neck will have symptoms 10 years later. It is safe to say that a good proportion of the people reporting in this study had inadequate, incomplete or delayed care. The mechanical component of neck whiplash injuries is often addressed using medicines. These may help the pain or assist with drowsiness, but do not restore normal, healthy mechanical function of the injured joints in the neck, back, shoulders and hips. Skilled manual therapy and rehabilitation are the right solutions for your accident-related injury. Quite simply, we use mechanical therapy for your mechanical problem.
What To Do After an Auto Accident
Schedule An Appointment As Soon As Possible
If you have been involved in a motor vehicle accident, your first step is to schedule an appointment for a thorough history and examination. Often, individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents experience minimal or only transient symptoms for the first few weeks. Untreated, the injuries responsible for these symptoms then become more constant and limit your activity more and more. It's important to not only seek early, appropriate treatment for any injuries you have sustained, but also to document the extent of the injuries. Failure to obtain a timely evaluation and appropriate treatment for injuries you have sustained in a motor vehicle accident may limit your ability to recover fully, and may also complicate your ability to have treatment for injuries reimbursed by the responsible parties.
On Your First Visit We Will:
- Evaluate the extent of the injury or injuries;
- Establish a prognosis for your recovery;
- Determine if you will require referral to another health care specialist;
- Determine your need for advanced imaging studies;
- If appropriate, initiate rehabilitative care to expedite your recovery.
Understanding Medical Expenses
In an auto accident claim the at-fault driver (or their insurance company) is obligated to pay for the insured person's reasonable health care expenses. These expenses are usually not paid when the treatment is provided, but at a later date. Reimbursement of medical expenses is just one part of a single lump sum settlement that is negotiated only after all accident-related injury care is complete.
You can rest assured that you will receive only the highest quality injury care at The Center for Spine, Sport & Physical Medicine. We will use the combined efforts of our clinic's providers to help you recovery as fully and rapidly as possible.
The importance of accurately documenting the nature and severity of your injuries cannot be overemphasized. You deserve trusted, preferred experts in auto injury care to help guide your recovery. It's what we do. We are able to care for you on a Medical Lien basis to ensure that you get the care you deserve when you need it most. That means you don't have to worry about finances to get the highest quality injury care possible.
It is Important to Get Your Injuries Checked Out by an Expert — Call Us Now!
If you or someone you know has been involved in an accident, call (or have them call) our office today. The sooner we can provide you with a thorough history and examination, the sooner you'll be able to receive the mechanical corrections and soft tissue therapies you need, and the faster your injuries will recover. You'll be able to get on with your life! Call us in Lone Tree, CO to schedule your appointment at (303) 290-8342.
Common Injuries and Symptoms
Motor vehicle accidents can result in a number of very diverse and complex injuries and symptoms. This is due to the diversity of factors involved with the each MVA — i.e. vectors of the collision, size of the vehicles involved in collision, preexisting health conditions of victims, age of victims, size and strength of victims, etc.
The following list comprises many of the most commonly sustained injuries and symptoms following MVA's:
- Whiplash
- Headaches and Neck pain
- Back Pain
- Shoulder Pain
- Head Injuries and Associated Symptoms
- Extremity Pain, Numbness, and/or Tingling
We look forward to serving you in achieving the most complete physical recovery possible — no hype; no nonsense. For more information contact the Center for Spine, Sport & Physical Medicine in Lone Tree at (303) 290-8342.


text:
As part of the Perpetual Care Group, we aspire to deliver the highest quality of care and support across our residential services.
Our aim is to make a real and lasting difference to the people we support by achieving positive outcomes and enabling as normal and fulfilling a life as possible.
Putting people first
Our business is about people, people who need hope and deserve a better future. It's about enabling each of the people we support to grow in self-worth and where possible, independence.
Being supportive
Being supportive to the people we care for, their families and each other too, as it's only through sticking together, being honest and passionate that we do this job so well.
Acting with integrity
Taking responsibility, being honest in what we do and what we say, keeping it personal and real.
Striving for excellence
Questioning everything in a positive and constructive way and always striving to improve. By doing so, we can make things better for the individuals we support.
Being positive
Seeing potential, seeing what could be and not limitations. Being creative and trying out new things to find the best solutions that make it happen.


text: Q. You've written about Twitter and using social media to help land job searches. I'm 30-something and am back in the job market, but I have only just signed up for Twitter so I admit to be clueless. Can you suggest an online class or computer program that I can buy to help navigate this new…… Continue reading Twitter Job Search Basic Tools


text:
Modular phones are the latest trend in the smartphone industry but not every company has been successful in making a good modular Smartphone, LG failed miserably with the LG G5 while Moto was quite successful with the Moto Z line up of devices and to refresh that line up for 2017 Moto will soon launch the Moto Z2, Moto Z2 Force and Moto Z2 Play. All three phones just like last year will be modular and come with Moto mods and will also support last year's Moto mods.
Starting off with the Moto Z2 Play, the smartphone sports almost similar design to the last years Moto Z play. Just one exception, the home button this time around is more circular shape than the square. We have already seen this kind of button the mid-range Moto G and G5 Plus.
There is no word about specification of the phone but last year's Moto Z Play had a 5.5-inch FHD display. Processor will be Snapdragon 625 under the hood along with 3GB of RAM. We can safely assume that the Moto Z2 Play will also have at least a full-HD display with Snapdragon 660 under the hood along with 3GB or 4GB of RAM. In a latest development, the Moto Z2 Play is confirmed to boast a 3000mAh non-removable battery. Lenovo has confirmed the battery specification in a tweet
Also Check: Motorola Smartphones with Fringerprint Sensor Below Rs.10000
Moto Z2 also looks quite similar to the Moto Z2 Play with the circular home button. But, the Moto Z2 has a 2.5D curved glass display. From the leaked images we can also see that a front-facing flash is present on the device. The volume buttons along with the power button are placed to the right of the device. The Moto branding has been moved from the bottom of the device to the top as well
The Moto Z2 will supposedly run Snapdragon 835 paired with 4GB of RAM and 32GB of internal storage, although we cannot confirm these specifications we can safely assume the Z2 to house these. There will be a 5.5-inch display up top with a QHD display.
Finally the Moto Z2 Force, the most premium of the lineup is expected to have a dual camera set up at the back of the phone unlike the Moto Z2 or the Z2 Play. It will follow the same design language of the other phones and will be heavier and bulkier.
The dual camera will have an RGB sensor and a Monochrome sensor working in tandem to capture more detail and better colour we have previously seen this on phones by Huawei. The Moto Z2 Force too will have the Snapdragon 835 and will have a shatter proof display. It will have 4GB of RAM underneath and will run Android 7.1.1 nougat out of the box.
All the Moto Z devices were made of glass. All Moto Z2 devices seem to be made of metal. It will be interesting to see how well received they will be by the consumers.
All the Moto Z devices are set to launch somewhere in June. Last year Motorola didn't launch the Moto Z force in India so only time will tell India will receive the Moto Z2 force or not. All the Moto Z2 devices will be priced between $400 to $700.


text:
Welcome to the F-Zero Wiki! To get started with editing, please create an account.
F-Zero Wiki has been upgraded to MediaWiki version 1.39.5. Please report any bugs or erratic behavior to staff.
F-Zero Wiki has been upgraded to MediaWiki version 1.39.5. Please report any bugs or erratic behavior to staff.
Lucy Liberty
From F-Zero Wiki, the F-Zero encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search
|This article is a stub.
You can help the F-Zero Wiki by expanding it.
The newest recruit to the Galaxy Mobile Platoon, Lucy Liberty (ルーシー リバティ, Rūshī Ribati[?]) was the youngest member next to Jack Levin. As a long time fan of the F-Zero races she had quite a bit of knowledge about the machines. In particular she was quite knowledgeable in the mechanics of the machines, due to he fact she was apprenticed by Dr. Clash. She ended up racing after Rick Wheeler rescued her from a gang in Port Town. Though she's sweet and innocent-looking, sometimes it's best to stay out of her way.
Her vehicle is the Elegance Liberty.
|Racer #30
[[Black Shadow]]
|Racer #31
[[Lucy Liberty
Don Genie]]
|Racer #32
[[Terry "Digi-Boy" Getter
Misaki Haruka]]
|Characters of F-Zero


text:
Navy fans against the football team's 2015 move to the Big East conference almost had their wish. Joe Bailey, the conference's former interim commissioner, told the Bloomberg Sports Business Summit late last week that the league — which will have expanded its football presence to California, Idaho, Tennessee and Texas by the time Navy joins — "has commissioned a study to consider alternative names." Bailey didn't give a timetable, but with a study already underway, it seemed a safe bet that by 2015, Navy would not be joining the Big East, but some other newly minted organization with a name…
- Here's why you won't need a remote control to find Air Force football next month
- Michigan State hero to join Air Force … just not for football
- The 'Supe' and the streak: How Caslen helped shape Army football's turnaround
- Navy grad Joe Cardona re-ups with Patriots
- Yes, AFN will carry the World Cup. Here's how to watch
- Want to watch Army-OU football? You might need to pay up
- Kickoff times set for Army-Navy, Navy-Notre Dame rivalry clashes
- Here's the 2018 Army-Navy betting line … set 198 days before kickoff
- Marine veteran Brian Stann back in MMA mix with new Professional Fighters League
- The Golden Knights continue an improbable NHL run. But about that nickname …


text:
Qty : 1
Do you enjoy stylish collars? Allow your adorable dog take joy in wearing such accessories on! Order this incredible leather dog collar with adornments from FDT Artisan. This accessory is designed for those who just are fond of stylish things. In this amazing collar, your four-legged friend will have more stylish look. Your attractive four-legged friend will get the best treatment when wearing this accessory. Full grain natural leather is flexible and totally eco-friendly.
Click on the pictures to see bigger image
Natural leather dog collar with rust resistant adornments for everyday walking
Daily use dog collar made of strong full grain leather
Stylish walking dog collar made of quality natural genuine leather
Key features of this Dog Collar:
Intended use of this Dog Collar:
Sizes available:
Available colors:
Walking comfortable dog collar with corrosion resistant fittings
Please be advised that:
Full grain natural leather was chosen to achieve maximum comfort and safety while wearing. The material is carefully oiled that prevents it from cracking. Among the best features of full grain leather are flexibility, tear-resistance and durability. The layer of leather is rather thick that prevents the tool damage. It helps you to walk even big and tough dog safely. Rounded and smooth edges of the FDT Artisan collar are non-cutting and don't irritate the dog's skin. Besides, full grain natural leather doesn't include any toxic elements being absolutely safe.
Gentle to touch full grain leather dog collar made for your attractive canine
This is how the package looks
Order a present for your dog
* 1-5 business days on average once the order is shipped (not including holidays and weekends)** 3-5 business days on average (not including holidays and weekends)
* 9-20 business days on average (not including holidays and weekends)** 3-7 business days on average (not including holidays and weekends)
You can return all items (except close-outs and custom made products) within 21 days after delivery. Please, contact us before you send item/items back to receive a return/exchange authorization number.
Wait a minute!
You can take this promo code for a realy good deal


text:
This meeting will be more of giving confidence to the TDP party cadre and inviting them to the Chandrababu naidu tour of MahabubNagar District which is scheduled on 23rd of April.Hope this meeting will switch the gears of TDP workers in Achampet Constituency. Similar kind of meetings are happening all over Mahabubnagar district in view of CBN tour.Hope Chandrababu tour will fill the confidence in the TDP cadre of palamuru district which is always a strong hold of TDP which won 9 assembly seats in 2009 General elections under the district leadership of ex minister P Ramulu but could hold on to all the seats in 2014 elections in which few of them Jaipal Yadav , Late Yellareddy joined TRS and Nagam Janardhan Reddy joined BJP.Which left a lot of gap in TDP cadre.
Localite Revanth Reddy will be special Attraction in both achampet meeting and also CBN tour as he is the only leader across the telangana who is quite aggressively taking on Telangana CM KCR got a good hold of T TDP cadre across the Mahabubnagar district and also he was quite impressive in the ZP meetings regularly where he takes on the issues of the district to the ruling party in an aggressive way and also he spoke several times about the adivasis of Munnar and amrabad in several media interactions he will be the one whom the Achampet might own as the leader after Ramulu.
Hope this meeting will be a stoppage for the leaders floating from TDP to TRS.


text:
Fifa Party
Our Fifa parties always create a lot of drama, excitement and fun. We create a mini league where all players play each other once, just like a real league you get 3pts for a win, 1pt for a draw and 0pts for losing, goal difference counts and by the end of our league we will have determined who is the Ultimate Fifa player!! Our leagues can entertain 8, 9, 10 or 11 players. We can complete an 8 or 9 player league in 60 mins, which will allow anytime left over for a choice of Multiplayer games (typically racing and shooting video games). An 11 player league can be played in a minimum of 90 mins. We can set up the league to be either Premier League Derbies or International matches.
Our Fifa parties are especially suited for Junior Football Christmas Parties or end of season celebrations. Booking early is recommended to secure availability at key points of the season, and of course we are sure the team will hope their manager will participate too!
Fifa Birthday Party
There can be only one winner, time and time again we have got to the last round of matches with 3 or 4 potential league winners. Goal difference counts and the winner can choose the prize of their choice from the merchandise we stock. Of course you can always make all participants winners by packing them off with our special bundle packages.


text:
If it had not been for producer Steve Lillywhite, Semisonic's Feeling Strangely Fine and its hit single "Closing Time" would never have seen the light of day. This little-known fact takes on more weight considering that Lillywhite had absolutely nothing to do with the making of this record.
The producer was walking the halls of MCA for meetings when he heard "Closing Time" coming out of one of the offices and inserted his opinion about what a hit it was. Semisonic's album had already been rejected by the label. Lillywhite had saved the day.
That was only the final spin on the roller-coaster ride that was the production of that album and that track.
Producer/engineer Nick Launay, living in Sydney, Australia, at the time, met with the trio—songwriter/vocalist Dan Wilson, drummer Jacob Slichter and bassist John Munson—in Minneapolis in 1998 and instantly bonded with them. "I remember I really liked them and didn't want to leave," Launay recalls. The project was set to begin in six months, but a week prior to Launay's flight to Minnesota, Wilson's pregnant wife gave birth to their daughter prematurely.
Amid the emotional pressure of the situation, "Closing Time," which was never intended as a drinking song but rather was about destiny and the anticipation Wilson felt regarding fatherhood, took on an even larger meaning to the songwriter.
Seedy Underbelly Studio in Minneapolis had already been booked, and as no one knew how it would play out, Launay was told to come anyway.
Launay loved the studio—all wood, oranges and browns, with lampshades instead of overhead lighting. The owner, John Kuker, with whom he became great friends, had stellar equipment, starting with an API desk and lots of vintage microphones, rare guitar amps and, of course, guitars.
Interview with Nick Launay
"I work with a lot of very chaotic, eccentric bands," Launay says. "This band was very organized and planned ahead, but had a very good understanding of what good rock music is and that it has to be spontaneous. I think they had demoed their previous record to death and then gone in to re-create it and realized that doesn't always work very well. They wanted to write the songs in rehearsal and then go in with a record producer who knew how to capture feeling and vibe and excitement and euphoria. I work with Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, and there's no demoing. Half the band has never heard the songs and they're recorded very quickly. We recorded 24 songs in 12 days."
He believes some bands hire him to discipline the chaos, but he suspects Semisonic hired him to create a little.
Launay says that unlike a lot of record producers who are musicians, he came from an engineering background. "I'm all about microphones, I'm all about equipment. I was the geekiest kid imaginable," he says. "I started messing around with tape machines when I was 7 or 8. I just love equipment and sounds.
"The first record I made was with Public Image, called Flowers of Romance, and I worked with Kate Bush when I was 21 years old," he continues. "If you listen to those records, they have really crazy sonic landscape. That's because I was this hyperactive kid at that age who was allowed to use this great recording studio in London and I just went wild.
"So that's where I come from. I did realize early on that I do have a really good sense of songs and songwriting and arrangement, and it's easy for me to hear a song and say to a band, 'This bit is really great and this bit really doesn't do much, and maybe the middle section of the song is a catchier thing and should be the chorus.'"
On "Closing Time" in particular, Launay says, the guitar sound had to be established as soon as the track began.
Classic Tracks: Supertramp's "Give a Little Bit,"
"'Closing Time' has got a great guitar riff, so obviously the guitar sound was very important," he continues. "It was very important that the drums grooved. Jacob is a phenomenal drummer, an incredible timekeeper. Drummers can lean one way or the other as far as groove—be absolutely spot-on like a machine, which is what you might want with dance songs, but with rock music, you might want it to have some swagger or lilt, a more kind of Charlie Watts, Stones kind of feel. Jake was very capable of doing either. On that song, I really wanted it to slow down and speed up and have momentum. If you listen to it, you'll see how the verses are very chill and very relaxed and behind the beat, and on the chorus they're pushing."
The song was recorded to a click—one speed for most of the song, then deliberately sped up 1 bpm for last chorus out. They tracked live, including vocals, on analog tape (Ampex 499) to a Studer A827. It was 1999. They didn't use a DAW.
"We tried to keep everything to 24-track, so sometimes some tracks had two or three different instruments on them," Launay explains. "On 'Closing Time' we did run out, in the end, when we decided to add real strings, so we added a slave reel."
The drums were slightly closed off in the back of the room behind a glass door, but everybody remained together in the room. "They could all see each other and they all had their own headphone mixes," Launay says. "The guitar, bass and drums were all recorded on the same take. There are no overdubs."
For Wilson's vocal, he used a Neumann M49 through a Neve 1081 through a Tube Tech CL1B compressor. He used a Roland Space Echo for effects. He says he believes the original vocals they cut live were the ones they kept.
Detailing the miking of the drums, Launay says they were all through the API Legacy with 550B 4-band EQs, except where indicated: Kick inside was a Beyer 88 through a Neve 1081 pre; kick outside was a Neumann U47; snare top, Shure SM 57 through a Neve 1081; snare bottom a Sennheiser 441; hi-hat, Neumann KM 84; toms x3 AKG 414; ride cymbal, Neumann KM 84; left cymbal, Neumann KM 84; right cymbal, Neumann KM 84; room mic left, a Neumann U 87 (not tube, "compressed to death through a UREI 1176"); room mic right, a Neumann U87 (not tube, "compressed to death through a UREI 1176); distant room mic, Shure SM 57 ("compressed to death through a Shure Level-Loc compressor").
"The snare Jake used on the song was a unique Keplinger made out of an iron sewage pipe," Launay says after making a call to Slichter. "We also deliberately had a row of other snare drums rattling in the same room. Jake remembers there was a Coles 38 ribbon mic dangling just above his head with a sticker on it saying, 'Don't hit this one.'"
Classic Tracks: "I'll Be You," The Replacements
Launay close-miked the bass with a Sennheiser 42 and used a Shure SM7 as the room mic, plus a tube DI, all through the API. He placed two mics on the guitar amps—a Beyer 88 and AKG 414—and one distant mic, a ribbon RCA 77, about three feet away, all through the board.
Later, bassist John Munson also played the piano part on what they recall as a dusty old upright grand piano from the 1900s sitting unused in an antique shop next to the studio.
"We didn't even tune it—great sound, though," Launay says. "Just the right amount of rickety. It was miked with one Neumann tube 67 through UREI 1176 compressors through the API."
They also added a combination of real strings (four violins, a viola and cello), a string patch on a Kurzweil 2000, and some untuned Mellotron samples that Launay recorded in Australia from Midnight Oil's Jim Moginie's real Mellotron. Launay says he recorded many takes and he edited between the takes.
"I've always done a lot of editing. It was probably around the tenth take we chose, and I think the middle section and outro we were going from, apart from the very end when it drops down again, which was from a separate take that was a little more rowdy. We would do a take of the song really chill, and then a take that was really rowdy, and I would chop between them for the different sections. It's basically going from Simon & Garfunkel to The Who."
Jack Joseph Puig mixed the track. "I usually mix my own stuff and was very apprehensive about somebody else mixing what I had done," Launay recalls. "Jack did a really, really great mix."
Interview with Jack Joseph Puig
The album was delivered to MCA and was rejected on the grounds that they could not hear a single. They told Wilson the band needed to go back into the studio to record four more songs.
"The band was beyond disappointed and couldn't believe what was happening to them, having watched other bands being dropped," Launay says. "There were lots of meetings from management, and I got a call from the band, whom I had become very good friends with, and Dan had become convinced that the only solution was to go back in to record four more songs."
Launay refused to do it. He explained to Wilson that it would only result in heartbreak, that the album was great as it stood and "if this record company could not hear that there were three hit singles on this record, they were never going to be able to hear."
Classic Tracks: Yes, "Roundabout" and "I've Seen All Good People,"
It turns out there were three hit singles on the record: the Grammy-nominated "Closing Time," which hit Number 1 on the rock charts; "Secret Smile," Top 30 on the rock charts; and "Singing in My Sleep," Top 40 on the rock charts.
And lo and behold, MCA is in the process of re-releasing Feeling Strangely Fine to celebrate its 20th anniversary. Thanks, Steve Lillywhite.