text:
Defending President Barack Obama against Republican charges that he has not been tough enough on Iran, David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, said on ABC's This Week on March 4 of this year that the president had succeeded in "bringing the entire world together over the last few years with the most withering economic sanctions that have ever been administered against any country." On August 1, both the House and Senate approved even more sanctions, which the president signed into law. Yet barely a month later Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was repeating his call for still tougher, "crippling sanctions" to force Iran to abandon its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
"I will have a very different approach with regard to Iran," including "crippling sanctions that should have been put in place long ago," Romney said in a September 9 interview on Fox News — despite the fact that U.S. intelligence agencies have reported there is no evidence Iran has decided to develop a nuclear weapon. The Tehran regime claims it is developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, including energy production and the making of medical isotopes.
Innocent Victims
Perhaps Mitt Romney should talk to the parents of Milad, an eight-year-old Iranian in Kuhdasht, a town 400 miles southwest of Tehran. The Washington Post recently reported on the 12-hour bus journey to the capital the parents made with their child to purchase Feiba, a U.S.-made medicine needed to control the youngster's severe hemophilia. They were able to obtain only enough for two days.
"I am really worried. My son's life is at risk," said Afsaneh, his mother. In addition to nose bleeds that could be life threatening, there is the possibility that the child could lose the use of his right leg. That would make the sanctions imposed by the United States and allied governments, in Romney's word, truly "crippling."
"This is a blatant hostage-taking of the most vulnerable people by countries which claim they care about human rights," said Ahmad Ghavidel, head of the Iranian Hemophilia Society, which assists about 8,000 patients. One young man in southern Iran died after an accident when the blood-clotting injection he needed was not available, Ghavidel told the Post. "Even a few days of delay can have serious consequences like hemorrhage and disability," he said.
Government officials in Tehran have said international sanctions have had little impact on the country, claiming 97 percent of Iran's medicine is produced domestically. But while the volume of medical imports affected by the embargo may be small as a percentage, health experts say they are having a significant effect on medicines needed for chronic diseases for which there are no effective domestic remedies. And even those medicines that are produced domestically are dependent on imports for the materials used in their manufacture.
Exemptions in Theory
While the sale to Iran of most goods is banned outright under the terms of the international embargo, the export of food and medicine from the United States is not banned. It is subject to the licensing requirements of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. But even those with licenses have trouble making purchases. After going from one European bank to another or resorting to middlemen and unofficial transactions, importers say they are unable to obtain the amount of medicines needed, when they are needed.
"The exemption of medicine from sanctions is only in theory," one importer told the Post. "International banks do not accept Iran's money for fear of facing U.S. punishment." Shortages of kidney dialysis machines and transplant equipment have been reported and are expected to worsen as the sanctions continue to take their toll. But the sick are not the only innocent victims of the sanctions, which are wreaking havoc on businesses in Iran that have nothing to do with the government's nuclear program.
"Western countries have always claimed that they don't want to make trouble for the Iranian people," a member of the Energy Commission at Tehran's Chamber of Commerce told the Wall Street Journal. Yet he described the private sector of the nation's economy as "severely suffering." The web of restrictions and the limited access to capital is affecting a broad range of businesses, making it difficult for entrepreneurs to buy or sell even those goods not covered by sanctions, since they can no longer use normal payment channels. Unemployment in Iran is, by some estimates, triple the official rate of 12 percent, the British journal The Economist reported, and the severe unemployment is accompanied by soaring prices:
On October 1st and 2nd Iran's rial lost more than 25% of its value against the dollar. Since the end of last year it has depreciated by over 80%, most of that in just the past month. Despite subsidies intended to help the poor, prices for staples, such as milk, bread, rice, yogurt and vegetables, have at least doubled since the beginning of the year. Chicken has become so scarce that when scant supplies become available they prompt riots. On October 3rd police in Tehran fired tear-gas at people demonstrating over the rial's collapse. The city's main bazaar closed because of the impossibility of quoting accurate prices.
Blunt Instruments
Despite the frequent protestations by U.S. and Western diplomats that the economic pressure is aimed at the government in Tehran and not intended to cause the suffering of the general population, it is ordinary citizens among the 75 million people of Iran who are paying the price of the dispute between Tehran and the West over Iran's nuclear program. Economic sanctions are blunt instruments for forcing a government into compliance with demands of other nations, and they seldom work. The sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War were tightened over a period of 12 years and neither altered the course of the government in Baghdad nor drove Saddam Hussein from power. On the contrary, they appeared only to solidify his control over a people whose suffering had been intensified by governments hostile to his regime. Shortages of food and medicine were accompanied by disease run rampant, as the government was unable to purchase equipment needed to repair bombed out water and sewer lines. That the United States and its allies were aware of the harm the sanctions inflicted on ordinary Iraqis is well documented. In 1996, when the embargo was five years old, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was questioned by Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes, about the human suffering caused by the sanctions:
Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.
Albright did not dispute the half-million figure cited by Stahl in apparent reference to a report of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. Whatever the number, the fact that the United States and its allies — and the United Nations, as well — were willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arab children to the goal of "regime change" in Iraq was much publicized throughout the Arab world and no doubt did much to inflame anti-American and anti-Western hostility. Years later, when the abuse of prisoners by American military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became an international scandal, columnist Joseph Sobran observed sardonically, "There goes all the good will we built up through years of bombing Arab cities and starving Arab children."
Indifference to Suffering
Militant anti-Americans need not depend on years-old scandals or statements by officials of previous administrations to find evidence of indifference to humanitarian concerns on the part of U.S. policymakers. In an article published in the Washington, D.C., journal The Hill on August 9, U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the top Democrat on its Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Non-proliferation and Trade, called for strict enforcement of the latest sanctions approved by Congress. Calling the legislation "the most significant measure on Iran that Congress has ever passed," Sherman said its goal is to "drive Iran's economy into a crisis and force its leaders to the negotiating table" where Iran must "agree to end [uranium] enrichment and other sensitive nuclear activity."
"Iran needs to import most machines and hi-tech goods, goods and technology needed to make a nation run," Sherman wrote, boasting that "the largest corporations in the world will have to forgo business with Iran or lose all their U.S. government contracts," while "banks will do business in Iran at considerable peril." He acknowledged, if only to dismiss, claims by some critics that the sanctions could spark trade wars between the United States and other nations.
"Critics also argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people," the congressman wrote. "Quite frankly, we need to do just that."
Iraq Redux?
When a dozen years of sanctions and the resulting economic hardship on Iraq failed to achieve their goal, the United States and its coalition partners went to war with that nation over its alleged "weapons of mass destruction." More than 4,000 American lives were lost, a hundred thousand or more Iraqis were killed, and millions were made homeless from the devastation of a war started over weapons that were not there. The war did achieve the U.S. goal of "regime change," however, as the government of Saddam Hussein was replaced by an elected Shiite parliament and president with friendly ties to Saddam's old enemy — the Shiite government of Iran.
Now Democrat Barack Obama appears to be following the same policy toward Iran that Republican George W. Bush followed into a war with Iraq. This time, we are told, it is the possibility of a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran that threatens the peace and stability of the Middle East and the safety and security of the United States and its allies. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has replaced Saddam Hussein as the world's most dangerous leader and his oft-stated hostility toward the state of Israel has given rise to fears of an Iranian attack on the Jewish state once Iran has a nuclear bomb at its disposal.
But Israel is believed to have some 200 to 300 nuclear warheads, and Iran's rulers know that an attack on Israel would mean their own and their nation's destruction. Yet President Obama insisted in his United Nations speech of September 25 that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained." Two days later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the General Assembly why deterrence would not work against Iran as it did against the Soviet Union with its thousands of nuclear weapons.
"There's a great scholar of the Middle East, Professor Bernard Lewis, who put it best," Netanyahu said. "He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it's an inducement."
Yet in that same speech, Netanyahu called for the drawing of a red line, backed by the promise of military action, on Iran's nuclear program to deter Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. But if "the Ayatollahs of Iran" are hell-bent on achieving their own destruction, why would a red line and threats of military reprisals stop them from developing a nuclear bomb? And why would the human suffering and damage to their nation's economy caused by the sanctions prevent them from doing so? North Korea is acknowledged to be among the world's worst economic basket cases, yet that country was able to develop a nuclear weapon over the strenuous objections of "the international community."
Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have made clear their willingness to use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Romney has even promised to prevent the nation from acquiring the "capability" of developing a nuclear weapon, echoing the policy declared by Netanyahu. Yet a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), prepared by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, reported in 2007 that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. An NIE released late last year reported no evidence that Iran had decided to renew its quest for a nuclear weapon. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has acknowledged more than once the absence of such evidence. Asked about Netanyahu's call for a "red line," Panetta told CBS News: "When they make the decision to go ahead and build a nuclear weapon, that, for us, is a red line."
Why the economic war and threats of military action if there is yet no evidence Iran has even decided to build a nuclear weapon? Mitt Romney's two dozen foreign policy advisors include 17 who served in the Bush-Cheney administration that took the nation to war over alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Barack Obama, who spoke out against the Iraq War while a state senator in Illinois, appears to have found military action more to his liking since entering the White House, his Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding. While the Constitution puts the question of war and peace for the United States in the hands of the U.S. Congress, Romney has said he would not need congressional approval for military action against Iran. Obama, with his unauthorized intervention in Libya's civil war last year and his continued bombing of targets and killing of civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, and other Middle East nations, has also demonstrated his determination that the making of war shall be solely the prerogative of the president.
Some may see an opportunity to build the "New World Order" sought by the first President Bush, or the "global democratic revolution" declared by the second, out of the chaos of another Middle East war. But before the American people are called upon to "support our troops" in another ill-conceived war, we might ask this question: "Does it really make moral, political, or practical sense to start another war with a country over what it might do with a weapon it does not have?"
— Photo of President Obama signing a 2010 sanctions bill against Iran: AP Images
This article is an example of the exclusive content that's only available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!


text:
WALTHAM, Mass. – Led by Pedro Acevedo's team-best six hits, three RBI and two runs scored respectively the Rams of Framingham State University (7-7) swept baseball by the finals of 5-0 and 2-1 Saturday afternoon at Yetten Field in a non-conference doubleheader.
Along with Acevedo Chris Cole also had a strong day at the plate for the Rams as he combined for four hits and a run scored. On the hill, Framingham got everything they needed from Matthew DiCato in game one and Ryan Bowen in game two. The two pitchers combined for nine strikeouts and allowed 10 hits and only one run scored respectively.
The Beacons offense which had chances throughout Saturday's doubleheader totaled 11 hits in Saturday's doubleheader. With numerous runners on base the Beacons were unable to drive home key runs throughout both contests, which allowed the Rams to get what they needed to pull out the back-to-back victories.
In the opener, UMass saw sophomore third baseman Jamill Moquette (Boston, Mass.) post two of the Beacons six hits. On the hill righty Daniel Heefner (Tracy, Calif.) went six complete innings and allowed six hits on the day.
Framingham State got on the board in the second inning following an RBI double from Anthony Iafallo. They then tacked on four more runs through the fifth, sixth, and seventh innings to secure the 5-0 victory.
Game two saw the Beacons take an early 1-0 on Matt Consiglio (Southbury, Conn.) RBI single. That lead would hold-up until the top of the fourth when the Rams got two runs across. Despite the two runs pitcher Lucas Ilges (Gloucester, Mass.) was solid for all seven innings as he struckout four batters. Also having a strong showing at the plate was Collin Keefer (Charlotte, N.C.) who went 2-for-4 in the nightcap.
The Beacons return to action on Tuesday when they travel to Fitchburg State University for a 3:30 p.m. non-conference game. The contest will mark the first of five road games that UMass has scheduled for next week.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
There are apparently a number of people all excited about Microsoft now really destroying itself. Well it still remains to be seen. But I think a good indication of where things are headed are college students. Since I have google analytics now on the textbook pagess I can do some experiments. So for example essentially all the traffic from "Irvine" is from UCI students that look at the differential equations book. So I looked at the operating systems usage from Irvine. Here are the results (note that this is a small sample, very unscientific): 72.3% Windows, 10.6% Mac, 10.4% iOS (iPad + iPhone), 3.7% Linux, 3.1% Android. Now given if you watch what people use on campus it seems mostly Mac, I think that gut feeling might be a bit skewed. On the other hand there could be computer labs running that students use and have no choice over the OS. So what conclusions could one draw? Windows is still dominant, by far. Mac is doing better, but actually quite a bit worse than one would expect among college students. Linux is doing a bit better than I would expect, it's where Mac was just a few years ago. The interesting thing is also the iOS vs Android. It seems from the news that Android phones have beat iPhones in terms of marketshare, but here it doesn't look like it. So that would indicate tablets are being used and iPad still beats the android tablets. Interestingly 7.3% of visitors used 320×480 resolution, and that I guess means phone. I can't figure out how to break that down in Google Analytics. By the way, this means 7.3% are reading their textbook on their phone. This number may spike during exams :). Let's test this theory.
I don't know how to draw this graph for Irvine only, so it could be other places as well. But look at this graph for the number of visits from phone-like resolution:
But let's stop that cynical thinking about cheating: There were two exams at UBC (University of British Columbia) for two classes using the differential equations book, but they were on the 14th, and the spike is on the 13th, so the students were studying hard, not cheating. Well maybe studying from a pub so they needed to look at the textbook from a phone, but still.


text:
Metallic topstitching brings a hint of shimmer to this body-sculpting cocktail dress. Highlight its alluring neckline and back with a sleek up-do
- Size small measures approximately 29.5" from shoulder to hem
- Slight stretch
- Formfitting
- True to size, take your normal size
- Model shown is 5'9" (175cm) and wearing US small
Write Your Own Review
Our online shop offers you free delivery on orders over $130.Once you have placed the order(s) at chillipepperglobal.com,we will ship the product(s) you buy out within 3 days and you will receive your item(s) in 10-15 business days.
Return Policy
Please read our return policy carefully to ensure you can proceed with your request as quick as possible.
1 All returns should be sent back to us in their original packaging provided.
2 You have 14 days from receipt of order to request your returns number. You will receive your returns number by email. Unsuitable items must then be returned within 14 days of receiving your returns number.
3 The item(s) you want to return should be returned unworn and in perfect condition,with designer garment tags still attached. Returns that are damaged, soiled or returned without their original labels may not be accepted and may be sent back to the customer.
4 Before your parcel leaves our warehouse, it is fully checked and controlled by our packing team. If you receive an item which is damaged, please contact Customer Care immediately.
5 If your item is faulty (i.e. received damaged or manufacturing fault), we can offer alternatives such as repair or exchanges. For more information, please contact our Customer Care team.
You may also be interested in the following product(s)
HSL69J96-1S8 Herve Leger Kimbraley One-Shoulder Dress Alabaster Combo
Regular Price: $699.00
Special Price $133.00
HLT67C35-R6U Herve Leger Audry Signature Essentials Bandage Dress Dusty Azalia
Regular Price: $599.00
Special Price $116.00
JCK66K79-0F6 Herve Leger Liany Texture Bandage Flare Dress Smoke Combo
Regular Price: $639.00
Special Price $130.00


text:
Let's say you were on stage with Mario and Luigi during a Nintendo event at a digital entertainment fair in Helsinki. You lost the competition. Frustrated, what would you do? Dry hump Mario?
That's what one Finnish gamer did, before going on to jab Luigi in the face. Those poor, poor Mario Bros. They'll never be the same.
Thanks Eemeli!


text:
Travelers are booking flights to the Middle East because it offers something for everybody. History buffs appreciate exploring its 2000 year old Roman ruins and millennia of culture, art and philosophy. Beach lovers will enjoy the balmy beaches of the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Food enthusiast will discover the culinary wonders of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant; while others visit the posh nightclubs of Dubai, Beirut and Tel Aviv.
Booking a flight will take you minutes thanks to a comprehensive one page checkout process. Start the pre-trip fun now by finding and booking your cheap flight to Middle East on Vayama!


text:
22nd St
22nd St
22nd St 5 panel hat is made with a textile from the US.
We source our textiles while both traveling & living on the road. Each pattern has a story and is from a different corner of the world.
One of a kind - limited runs of each design. Each hat is slightly different due to the large patterns. You'll never see another person with the same hat.
Everything in this shop is cut & sewn with love by our small team in Guadalajara, México.
We do not work with sweatshops, everything from the embroidery to the entire sewing process is done by us with love and care. Have a look at our profile to see members of our team.
All hats come in a box unfolded to avoid creasing. There's a tag on the inside of the hat tells the textile's country of origin.
Small hidden pocket under Lower Park tag on inner panel.
Metallic buckle with side opening to tuck away faux leather strap.
The brim is made with faux suede and has a flexible plastic insert for support. The brim can be curved or flat.
FITTING: One size fits all.
CARE: Wash by hand with warm water & let air dry.


text:
Sadamichi Hirasawa poisoned 16 people for the equivalent of a few hundred pounds in cash. Or did he?
by Robert Walsh
Just before closing time at the Teigin Bank in the suburbs of Tokyo, on January 26th, 1948, a nondescript and middle-aged man walked in through the front entrance. He was later identified, possibly incorrectly, as artist Sadamichi Hirasawa, but claimed to be Dr. Jiro Yamaguchi and had a business card to prove it. He left less than an hour later, but what happened between his arrival and departure was to shock the whole Japanese nation and reverberate through the Japanese courts for decades to come.
The man identifying himself as Dr.Yamaguch arrived wearing an armband bearing the label "Metropolitan Office, City Hall of Tokyo," carrying a medical bag over his shoulder. He explained that dysentery had broken out in the area and that he had been sent to vaccinate the bank's staff. Tokyo having been very heavily bombed during the later stages of World War II meant that dysentery (and other diseases) could still pose serious public health problems and, the Japanese being a people usually deferential to and respectful of authority figures, the bank staff both believed and obeyed him implicity. None of them suspected, even slightly, that Dr. Yamaguchi wasn't who he claimed to be.
Most of them would pay for this trust with their lives.
Yamaguchi explained that the vaccine would be in the form of two doses of liquid, to be swallowed one after the other. He administered the doses to 15 staff members and a child of one of the employees and waited for them to take effect. Within minutes, all 16 collapsed on the floor of the bank. Out of the 16 people administered high doses of what prosecutors claimed was potassium cyanide, only four survived. Ten (including the child) died at the scene and another two died later in hospital. Yamaguchi then scooped up only 160,000 yen (worth $1,392/£754/1,000 Euro's), leaving another 180,000 yen untouched in the bank tellers' drawers. He left as quietly and discreetly as he arrived, leaving behind him a scene of utter carnage.
It wasn't until August 21st that a suspect was brought in for interrogation. A painter named Sadamichi Hirasawa fell under suspicion owing to the common Japanese habit of people swapping their business cards. The poisoner had caused two other, much smaller, incidents since the mass killing at the Teigin Bank in January, using the names Dr. Jiro Yamaguchi and Shigeru Matsui. Dr. Jiro Yamaguchi was swiftly proven to be an entirely fake identity, he never existed. Shigeru Matsui, on the other hand, was very much alive. When questioned, he told police he had swapped 593 business cards including one with Hirasawa. Hirasawa had since been identified by two surviving witnesses from the bank.
On being arrested, Hirasawa's home was quickly searched and he was found to be in possession of a large amount of cash that he refused to account for. It has been suggested that this money came, not from the proceeds of mass murder, but from the highly secretive (and equally illegal) market in pornographic artwork that Hirasawa had also been accused of producing and I think he may well have at least dabbled in this lucrative trade. He was swiftly brought in for questioning and spent the next three weeks being questioned all day, every day. He also alleged that the confession he gave, and quickly retracted, was extracted unwillingly and under torture.
At his trial, Hirasawa's lawyers offered a defense of partial insanity based on the fact that Hirasawa admitted to suffering from Korsakoff's Psychosis. Korsakoff's Psychosis is most commonly associated with chronic alcoholism and can severely affect a sufferer's memory and also make them prone to frequent bouts of dishonesty, a plea that cut no ice whatsoever with the court.
Hirasawa was quickly found guilty as charged, the court taking his confession (in accordance with Japanese law at the time) as being a solid piece of evidence in spite of Hirasawa's swift retraction. Until 1949 a confession was always considered solid evidence in a Japanese court, irrespective of how it was obtained. Hirasawa's allegations of having been tortured cut no ice either. He was then sentenced to death by hanging for the murders of the staff at the Teigin Bank. The death sentence was upheld in 1955, Hirasawa's case having taken that long to come up for appeal.
Successive groups of Japanese lawyers filed no less than 18 appeals over the next 32 years, which was how long Hirasawa waited on death row.
Hirasawa as Scapegoat to Protect Japan's Clandestine Unit 731 of the Japanese Imperial Army
There remains a great many doubts over whether or not Hirasawa was really a mass murderer. For starters, there was no conclusive evidence to link him directly to the crime. Out of the 40 or so employees at the bank who witnessed the poisoner arriving and administering his fake medicine, only two could positively identify Hirasawa as the killer, despite their having been at work in the bank when Hirasawa was accused of mass murder.
In fact, his guilt was considered so doubtful that, during his 32 years on death row, no less than 33 successive Minister's of Justice refused to sign his death warrant. Without a death warrant there cannot be an execution, under Japanese law. A couple of hundred other condemned inmates were hanged, but Hirasawa was, for some reason, always overlooked. Even the hardline Minister of Justice, Isaji Tanaka, who became notorious on November 13, 1967 when he signed no less than 23 death warrants in one day, openly refused to sign Hirasawa's, stating resolutely that he doubted Hirasawa's guilt.
The doubts regarding Hirasawa's guilt are many and a mixture of the obvious and the concealed. To start with, why murder 12 people and incapacitate four others for what amounted to petty theft? Petty thieves do not usually resort to mass murder, steal a small amount of money and then leave more than they actually stole just lying around.
Secondly, any confession obtained under torture is notoriously unreliable. If you hurt a suspect often and badly enough while demanding a confession then, eventually, most people will not only confess. They will, in all likelihood, confess to whatever you want them to if they think the confession will stop the torture.
Hirasawa is believed by some to have been used as a fall guy, a pawn sacrificed to protect members of a notoriously evil special unit of the former Imperial Japanese Army. That unit was known as Unit 731 and specialized in the development of Japan's weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical and biological weapons.
"The Asian Auschwitz"
Known as the "Asian Auschwitz," Unit 731 is said to have caused the deaths of at least 250,000 Chinese and it is alleged that large numbers of British, American and Australian POW's were also used for what the Imperial Japanese Army politely referred to as "lethal human experimentation."
The death rate was markedly lower than the Nazi equivalent, but the experiments conducted were every bit as abhorrent. Many members of Unit 731 were later picked up by the Allies, especially the Americans and, rather than being shipped back for trial and punishment, were offered an opportunity to do weapons research for the American military, at the WMD facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, instead of the Japanese.
It is believed by some students of the case that a member of Unit 731, whether acting as a rogue agent or acting in a clandestine field test, may well have been the real poisoner. The evidence for this is that, during the war, it was standard practice for Unit 731 to administer doses of poisons and/or biotoxins to prisoners under the guise of vaccinations. The prisoners were then monitored and the effects of the poison or biotoxin studied. The Teigin Bank poisoner did this, by telling his victims that they were to be protected against dysentery.
The small amount of money actually stolen, and the larger amount left behind, could lead to speculation that the supposed robbery was not a robbery as much as a field test. Also familiar to victims of Unit 731would have been the fact that the victims of the Teigin Bank massacre were given their poison in two doses, as this was a common form of experimentation for Unit 731.
The precise toxin used is also open to question. At Hirasawa's trial the prosecution alleged that he had used potassium cyanide to slaughter his victims. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the symptoms displayed by the victims (including the survivors) resemble much more the effects of hydrogen cyanide. Now some may think that the type of cyanide employed makes no difference, but it definitely does in this case. Unit 731 had long been developing a new and highly lethal toxin named acetone cyanohydrin. Its effects are highly similar to those of hydrogen cyanide poisoning, as the element of acetone cyanohydrin most easily absorbed into the body is hydrogen cyanide. There is absolutely no way that a civilian like Hirasawa could have obtained acetone cyanohydrin, but members (or former members) of Unit 731 would definitely have had access.
Furthermore, the administration of the poison in two separate doses was a well-known hallmark of Unit 731. It would also require great skill (and presumably no small amount of experience) to successfully administer the poison in a manner that wasn't immediately fatal for, if the first victim began dying before all the victims had been successfully poisoned, the alarm would certainly have been raised and perhaps the poisoner could have been apprehended. Sadamichi Hirasawa was a painter, not a chemist or chemical warfare expert. There is absolutely no evidence whatever that he even knew the first thing about poisons and poisoning.
There is also the fact that 33 successive Minister's of Justice failed to authorise Hirasawa's execution. Not even Isaji Tanaka felt able to order that Hirasawa be hanged. Not only is it very strange that so many Ministers, even hardline ones, felt unable to order his death, but many other Japanese convicts were executed while Hirasawa was in the Death House for 32 years.
This also neatly torpedoes one old theory for his continued survival, which was that the Japanese custom is that signing a death warrant means bad luck and thus no Minister of Justice wanted to be unlucky. Also, Hirasawa may have confessed, but he was swift to retract the confession he made on the grounds of alleged torture by his interrogators. Not only that, he had 32 years on death row to either give up the lie or accidentally expose himself as a fraud. He did neither while waiting for his date with the hangman.
Medical tests to examine Hirasawa's brain tissue confirm a level of deterioration that was not down to old age and far more likely to be a severe case of encephalomyelitis. This would tally well with the defense pleading partial insanity.
Hirasawa was officially the longest-serving condemned inmate in the world. He spent much of his time (and he had plenty to spend) on painting and writing his autobiography entitled My Will: The Teikoku Bank Case.
In 1981, a lawyer named Makoto Endo took over leadership of Hirasawa's legal team. He appealed against the sentence in 1985 on the grounds that Japan's Statute of Limitations (Japanese inmates must be executed within 30 years of sentencing) had run out and demanded Hirasawa's release on that basis. He was overruled by the Japanese courts, which rendered an opinion that Hirasawa's death penalty would only have begun when his death warrant was signed. As his death warrant was never actually signed, his capital punishment had not, in the opinion of the Japanese courts, even begun yet.
As the 1980's dragged on, Sadamichi Hirasawa's health began to deteriorate and he became steadily weaker. He finally died of pneumonia, still a condemned mass murderer under sentence of death, on May 10, 1987.


text:
Moose guide Bruce Werba and Era Alaska pilot Dan Sailors set off into the Alaskan tundra to see how the moose population is doing.
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Moose Tracks
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: The Alaskan Iditarod
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Blizzard BBQ
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Tomorrow Island
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: A Good Deed
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: High Winds
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Flight Delays
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Running With Reindeer
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Alaskan Sushi
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: ATM Installation
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Tight Fit
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Freezing Wings
UP NEXTFlying Wild Alaska: Award Winning Sled
Flying Wild Alaska: Surprise Invitation
Ariel Tweto receives a surprise invitation from her cousin to go crabbing on the frozen Bering Sea. Then, Ariel impresses her father on a small task he had assigned to her.
Combat Tech: The Harrier
Capable of taking off and landing in a vertical position, "The Harrier" became important to US military air support. Find out how the U.S. Marine Corps advanced this historical plane.
Flying Wild Alaska: Ariel Takes to the Skies
Ariel Tweto takes advantage of an opportunity with John Ponts to try and apply her new knowledge in the pilot seat.
Combat Tech: The B-29 Plane
Bomber planes have historically transformed warfare, and the B-29 plane was just the right bomber to end the war in China.
Flying Wild Alaska: Rough Patch
Jim Tweto is in route to drop off canisters of fuel for one of his most valued clients but an icy landing strip is standing between him and safety.
Combat Tech: The Kestrel
The Kestrel plane's unique name derived from the Kestrel bird that attacks creators on the ground and hovers. Take a look at this clip to see why this plane is unique.
Flying Wild Alaska: Let the Race Begin
The lady Twetos head to Anchorage to watch the start of the Iditarod race.
Flying Wild Alaska: Ariel Triumphs
Ariel is back in the pilot seat with John Ponts by her side. Watch to see if Ariel has made improvements on her flying skills.
Flying Wild Alaska: The Alaskan Iditarod
The Iditarod is the super bowl of Alaska and the contestants depend on Era Alaska's flying services to transport dogs, food, and much more.
Flying Wild Alaska: High Winds
Era pilot Sarah Fraher battles intense Arctic winds in an effort to safely land her plane after a search and rescue mission.
Flying Wild Alaska: Alaskan Sushi
Ariel Tweto and John Ponts blow off some steam by ice fishing. Watch to see what Ariel puts Ponts up to.
Flying Wild Alaska: ATM Installation
There's money in the sky in Alaska. These Era Alaska deliver the first-ever ATM to the town of Wainwright.
Combat Tech: Bomber Planes
In the midst of battle during World War I, the bomber plane emerges as the "go-to" vehicle for weapons transportation. See how continuous evolution helped to bring down Hitler's army.
Combat Tech: The Bomber Plane Emerges
Moving forward with the times and combat needs, modern technology finally meets the bomber plane in the form of a remote control.
Combat Tech: The Andros F6A
Bomb Disposal Experts are quickly losing lives in a war zone, when the Andros F6A Robot arrives just in time to save them.
Flying Wild Alaska: Freezing Wings
Pilot Ben Pederson finds himself flying in a nasty blizzard, which is beginning to freeze his plane's wings.
Flying Wild Alaska: Blizzard BBQ
In Bethel, the Era Alaska employees decide to make the best of their situation and start a cookout in the middle of an Alaskan blizzard.
Flying Wild Alaska: Arctic Man
Ariel Tweto attends the Arctic Man event in Alaska.


text:
Editor's Note: The following story, written by Rick Kessler for RVBusiness, offers a look at the recently completed Michigan Association of Recreation Vehicles and Campgrounds (MARVAC) show in Novi. Kessler is managing editor for Heritage Media, a chain of 11 newspapers in southeast Michigan, and author of the Gr8LakesCamper blog.
Howell, Mich., residents Glenn and Becky Pietila stepped down out of a Rockwood Roo, an affordable Forest River towable, and turned to give the hybrid camper an extra long second look. The young couple, spending their afternoon at the 48th Annual Detroit Camper & RV Show, were definitely interested in the Roo.
"We have a popup now and we're ready to upgrade," said Glenn.
"Ours is pretty old so we're looking for something a little more convenient, a little more comfortable and a little more reliable," agreed Becky, who, with four kids ranging in age from 3 months to 5 years old, especially favored the towable RV's three foldout beds and generally spacious layout.
So, whether the Pietilas buy their dream trailer or not, the only conclusion one could draw from the traffic and sales activity at the Feb. 5-9 Detroit Camper & RV Show in the Suburban Financial Showplace in Novi — and at other retail shows around the country right now — is that the RV industry's rebound is continuing in early 2014.
More than 20,000 people braved two snow storms to attend the five-day show in suburban Detroit, a significant venue for the industry's annual retail show tour located about 30 minutes northwest of the Motor City. And while the weather kept the sponsoring Michigan Association of Recreation Vehicles and Campgrounds (MARVAC), from breaking last year's records, participating dealers generally seemed pleased.
"It was the most we ever sold at the February show, and it was all products from low-end travel trailers all the way up to our high-end diesel pushers," said Larry Andree, president of A&S RV Center in Auburn Hills, Mich. "The buyers were across all ranges, too, from young people looking to get their first camper to older people looking to upgrade. It was a great crowd and great attitude."
Vicky Rokas of Vicar's Trailer Sales in Taylor, Mich. said her family's RV dealership also enjoyed record sales during the show and across all product line, too.
"You could tell the people had confidence in the economy again," she said. "We had a lot of cash buyers and we had a lot of nice trade-ins come in, so obviously people held on to their RVs for an extra year or two and are now ready to upgrade."
Steve Gubics of National RV Detroit, located in Belleville, Mich. said the Detroit RV show was "the best ever" for his dealership.
"The crowds were great; everybody was looking to move into a new RV," Gubics said.
All of this, of course, is good news not only for participating dealers but for dealers nationwide, and the RV industry as a whole.
As recently reported, RV wholesale shipments finished 2013 on a four-year high note with a total of 321,127 units shipped, a gain of 12.4% over the 2012 year-end total of 285,749 units, according to the Recreation Vehicle industry Association's (RVIA) December survey of RV manufacturers.
This was nearly twice the annual total of 2009 (165,700 units) and marked the fourth consecutive annual increase since the end of the last recession for the RV industry.
Bill Sheffer, director of MARVAC, is predicting a terrific year for both RVers and RV dealerships.
"Dealers who participated in this year's show noted a strong enthusiasm regarding the economy and the high desire among shoppers to buy the latest in RV offerings," he said, adding nearly 10,000 visitors on the Saturday of the show. "All indications are that dealers will be busy this spring and campgrounds will be full this summer."
So, given this evidence, is it safe to say the RV industry is back?
"That's definitely the case," said Gubics. "People have gotten over their fear of the economy. And people are realizing life goes on; they can't postpone things for so long. They're ready to buy the RV of their dreams. People always say they've been wanting to do this so we're going to do it."
Andree of A&S RV Center agreed, saying last year was his dealership's "best year in terms of units sold. In dollar sales, it was our second best year ever because last year we sold more towables than motorized RVs."
Steve Rochette, a "fun consultant" for Westland Camping Center in Westland, who also reported a strong show in the Detroit RV show, said in the last couple of years, people have started buying RVs again, and not always fitting into the buyer category stereotypes.
"Basically, it's run the gamut — we've had older folks buying pop-ups because they're looking to simplify to younger families skipping right ahead to the big bunkhouses," Rochette said.


text:
Gulistan-e-Johar is one of the largest neighborhoods of Karachi. It is located at University Road. It proffers residential and commercial plots of different size to the public. There are different housing schemes within the development as well as numerous apartment projects. It is a well-developed residential area and links to other areas of the city as well. It features all the basic facilities like water, sewerage, gas and electricity. It features all modern amenities like schools, colleges, universities, bakeries, medical facilities, parks, mosques and commercial market. It also features many eateries for take away and dine in purposes.
ilaan.com is the largest real estate portal where you can find plots for sale, apartments for sale, and houses for sale in Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi. We provide you with the most up-to-date information on the availability of properties for sale and properties for rent in the society. Commercial properties for sale are also available through various investment plans. Get the residential and commercial properties for sale that fit your pocket through the best property portal. You can also register to sell a property in Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi. Make the right choices with your hard-earned money and identify the right investment opportunities at ilaan.com.
ilaan.com is the largest property portal that brings you the most filtered and up-to-date information about the houses for sale in ilaan.com and start uploading your properties for sale or rent in . Also, if you are looking to buy a property in , you can register for free and search the one of your choice.You can get yourself registered at


text:
Frowns Imperator At the End of the World Monday 24/09/2012, 21:45
It seems like 10,000 players online is an average number these days. Was it less or more a few years ago?
DerMagus Legend Tequila Sunrise- UR Tuesday 25/09/2012, 15:15
Decreasing. Reasons I'd make out: too many clearly overpowered cards - not in a strategical or tactical way, just "oh, opponent has this and i have no sure block, i lose unless he blunders"; too many counter, counter-counter, counter-counter-counter... basically lots of stuff that gets around X. There was kind of reliablitiy when the game was younger: DR blocked damage unless your opponent had SOA/SOB. This day that is not the case any more... but it did not really add startegic depth or thinking. It mostly upped the random-luck factor (get the right thing? win; get the wrong: don't.). Yes there are still metagame decisions, but those are metagame.
Also, the changed in types of games... let's just say that I doubt they helped making UR more popular or enticed players to play more often... I feel there is a number of unsolved problems that are really not addressed much or at all, that don't make people quit outrigt but by and by sum up to make people not play as much as before.
ghelas Titan E X C A L I B U R Tuesday 25/09/2012, 16:03
UR seems to be doing well lately, and it's easy enough to track. There are sites like Alexa.com which you can use to check how much traffic a website is getting. The site seems to be doing significantly better now than it was during the whole year of 2011.
I think overall UR is starting to really move in the right direction. The UR apps help bring in new players. Even though DTs still need a little bit of work, the CR giveaways have added a new level of excitement to them. In my personal opinion, ELO is overall pretty balanced. It's definitely not as simple as "did I draw the right cards" on most weeks. I was one sad game away from Top 100 last week with a Junta/Vortex deck, so I think that people who believe that ELO is being dominated by a tiny handful of clans are just not getting creative enough.
UM_AaaBattery Moderator URBAN MADNESS Tuesday 25/09/2012, 17:35
I personally find that Urban Rivals keeps getting better.
The ammount of accounts created keeps going up and the ammount of players online usally stays the same.
Tanto89 Titan X. LycurguS .X Wednesday 26/09/2012, 05:55
where did you hear that meme? haha!
The phrase is kinda popular here in Indonesia
Alhalish Veteran URBAN MADNESS Wednesday 26/09/2012, 06:09
Really? I've lived in Indonesia for 16 years and as far as I'm concerned, that is not a meme.
....No, Kaskus doesn't count.
On topic, I think that UR's popularity is decreasing, and I'm not trying to be a Mr. Douchey McNitpick here, but I blame it on the glitches, rich players manipulated card prices, and unfair bannings.
wasteroftime Titan Open Casket Wednesday 26/09/2012, 06:19
will have to agree with that perception i think. Hopefully more cards are released, then old ones are purged out of elo to create an improved system in the future
as for raw numbers.... not always the best indicator unless we look at who these numbers actually are. More traffic due to apps with lots of people not sticking around after having a look wouldnt be good. Lots of people visiting the site, leaving it running in the background but not actually engaged with the game, also not necessarily good.
the forum for sure has been slower that in the past i would say
DeepEnd Guru Limit Break Wednesday 26/09/2012, 08:12
I think more important is how appealing this game is to those who try it out.
If you peek at the user statistics you realize 75% of ranked players are below level 25, and from that one can draw conclusion that there is myriad more under level 20. Way more important factor out of how many start this game is that how many of those will adopt this game as their favored game in some sense (stick to it). Now that number is relatively small - something like one out of twenty or so.
Better for UR is to change the system that 1 out of 10 adopt this game instead of going from 20000 players online to 30000 players online. First one brings in revenue and meaningful community members - later is just people who come, see, dissapoint and leave - creating only server load.
The one and only thing that will ultimately decide if UR will survive on player base ... big or small... is this question :
Is it good game?


text:
You might recall that I've said more than a few times that Channel 7 doesn't have a news image and that's been one of its problems as it has fallen deeply into third place in the local news ratings.
Because the old Andre Agassi commercial that proclaimed "image is everything" is true now more than ever.
Recently, Channel 7 began a new branding campaign – "Good Things Happening" – that established its image as the anti-Channel 2 News, which itself has been copied in recent promos by Channel 4.
"While others think our community is plagued with problems, at Eyewitness News we know Buffalonians are doing good things every day," Channel 7 co-anchor Joanna Pasceri says in the promo.
Near the end of the 30-second spot, co-anchor Keith Radford adds: "It's not about us, but you."
Ouch. Take that Channel 2.
I don't know how successful the upbeat promos will be. After all, this community does have problems that news departments need to address.
But third-place Channel 7 is wise to differentiate itself from a station that has risen to the top by "asking tough questions" and "keeping people in power accountable" because those Channel 2 messages, as well as the slogan "2 on Your Side," are becoming more than a little repetitive and annoying to some viewers who want a less dramatic form of news.
Channel 7 also is making itself an alternative to Channel 4, which seems to be attempting to "borrow" Channel 2's news style to the point Channel 2 is now airing promos directed at Channel 4 as being a copycat.
Some "good things" appear to be happening at Channel 7 under energetic new General Manager Mike Nurse because at least the station is trying to do things differently.
The new morning show with Cole Heath and Tiffany Lundquist will start Aug. 12 with a new, simple title "Good Morning." That's it. Nurse said the name switch was made to separate the newscast from former formats.
"We're trying to show through look, feel and sound that this is something new and fresh and not simply different people at the same old, same old," said Nurse.
"Good Morning" also will have a new look and a second reporter, Rachel Elzufon, who has been working nights, to do features or cover news. She joins meteorologist Mike Randall, Jacqueline Asztalos and Business First's Elizabeth Carey on the morning show. Nurse said a traffic and lifestyles reporter also will be added shortly.
The station also is preparing to premiere what Nurse calls "a new interactive 'storyteller' system … that is essentially a 65-inch iPad that allows us to creatively and interactively show stories." Sounds expensive.
In addition, Nurse reports that weekend sports anchor Shawn Stepner and "AM/Buffalo" host Linda Pellegrino have signed new contracts.
Channel 7 also will remain "the official station" of the Buffalo Bills after renewing its contact with the National Football League team for three years to carry preseason games, a live pregame show, "Buffalo Bills Live," at 11 a.m. Sunday and a wrap-up show, "Buffalo Bills Tonight" at 11:35 p.m. Sunday.
If good things finally happen on the field for the Bills, that will be a bonus for a station that has had as little success as the NFL team in the last decade.
email: email@example.com


text:
The media, in the modern era, are indisputably an instrument of war. This is because winning modern wars is as much dependent on carrying domestic and international public opinion as it is on defeating the enemy on the battlefield. And it remains true regardless of the aspirations of many journalists to give an impartial and balanced assessment of conflict.
The experience of the US military in the post-Cold War world demonstrates that victory on the battlefield is seldom as simple as defeating the enemy by force of arms. From Somalia and Haiti through Kosovo and Afghanistan, success has been defined in political, rather than military, terms.
Today's military commanders stand to gain more than ever before from controlling the media and shaping their output. The laws and conventions of war, however, do not adequately reflect the critical role that the media play in shaping the political outcome of conflicts. International humanitarian law requires that media members are afforded the rights of civilians; the question is whether this is sustainable when the exigencies of warfighting suggest that controlling the media is essential.
It is difficult to generalize about the international media, a heterogeneous entity that includes representatives of numerous organizations with varying political and cultural foundations. But it is nonetheless an incontrovertible fact that the international media as a whole are not a neutral force on the battlefield.
Consider the US-led invasion of Iraq. Of course, the US military was aware of the possibility of bad press when it introduced widespread embedding.
Reporters bring their own perceptions, and the level of access and freedom of reporting entailed in the embedding scheme meant that damaging reports were a real possibility. Indeed, damaging reports eventually occurred, as when The Washington Post quoted Lieutenant General William Wallace as saying that the enemy being fought was "different from the one we war-gamed against."1
Members of the media remain entitled to express their opinions, whether or not they are billeted with US forces. In an era in which the media are less deferential to authority than World War II, and in wars that are less integral to their home societies, journalists have proved capable of fierce criticism, both of individual participants' behavior and of the wider strategic purpose of a conflict.
Consider a later example from the occupation of Iraq, the battle for Fallujah in April-May 2004. Writing after the withdrawal of most coalition forces from downtown Fallujah in favor of indigenous Iraqi units, Ralph Peters offered this assessment of the power of the media in determining military outcomes:
The [US] Marines in Fallujah weren't beaten by the terrorists and insurgents, who were being eliminated effectively and accurately. They were beaten by al-Jazeera. . . . The media [are] often referred to off-handedly as a strategic factor. But we still don't fully appreciate [their] fatal power. . . . In Fallujah, we allowed a bonanza of hundreds of terrorists and insurgents to escape us—despite promising that we would bring them to justice. We stopped because we were worried about what already hostile populations might think of us. The global media disrupted the US and Coalition chains of command. . . . We could have won militarily. Instead, we surrendered politically and called it a success. Our enemies won the information war. We literally didn't know what hit us.2
The Fallujah stalemate demonstrates that the neutral status that the press enjoys in conflicts is far removed from neutrality in any normative sense. The question then becomes whether this is an appropriate circumstance, whether it is sustainable, and what are the likely implications.
The overarching framework of international humanitarian law governing the conduct of belligerents dates to an era before the expansion of international news networks that operate across a range of media and are capable of live battlefield reporting. Early international humanitarian law did not give a great deal of attention to the rights and responsibilities of the media in war. As noted in the Commentary on the first Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions, "International humanitarian law instruments dating from before 1977 do not contain any special provisions relating to journalists or their mission."3
The 1949 Geneva Conventions do, however, address the position of battlefield reporters, at least in terms of the obligations of combatants toward detained correspondents. Journalists are to be afforded all the protection due to combatants, and, while their equipment could be confiscated on capture, they are not legally obliged to respond to interrogation. Sick or wounded correspondents should receive medical treatment and, if detained by belligerents, they should be treated humanely.
With the 1977 protocols to the Conventions, the situation changed somewhat, with signatories agreeing that journalists should be considered as civilians4 when "engaged in dangerous missions in areas of armed conflict," provided that "they take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians."5 To this end, correspondents have an obligation to differentiate themselves from combatants, for example by not wearing military uniforms. As the Commentary on the Protocol states, "On the battlefield a combatant cannot reasonably be asked to spare an individual whom he cannot identify as a journalist."6 As civilians, journalists are entitled by the 1977 Protocol to "enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations" and "shall not be the object of attack."7
The United States, unlike the United Kingdom, has not ratified the 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, but US forces nevertheless have an ingrained tradition of treating the media as noncombatants. In essence this status revolves around the condition established in the Protocol that the media "take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians." For Alexandre Balguy-Gallois, writing in the International Review of the Red Cross, "The media cannot be considered a legitimate target, even if they are being used for propaganda purposes." Nonetheless, he concedes "an evident need for the adoption of a new [legal] instrument, . . . to reaffirm those elements of humanitarian law that apply to journalists and media personnel, . . . [and] to improve existing law and adapt it to the requirements of today."8
By contrast, consider this assessment from the Department of Defense's Office of General Counsel:
Enemy military forces are declared hostile. They may be attacked at will, along with their equipment and stores. Civilians and civilian property that make a direct contribution to the war effort may also be attacked, along with objects whose damage or destruction would produce a military advantage because of their nature, location, purpose, or use. . . .
Civilian media generally are not considered to be lawful military targets, but circumstances may make them so. In both Rwanda and Somalia, for example, civilian radio broadcasts urged the civilian population to commit acts of violence against members of other tribes, in the case of Rwanda, or against UN-authorized forces providing humanitarian assistance, in the case of Somalia. When it is determined that civilian media broadcasts are directly interfering with the accomplishment of a military force's mission, there is no law of war objection to using the minimum necessary force to shut them down. The extent to which force can be used for purely psychological operations purposes, such as shutting down a civilian radio station for the sole purpose of undermining the morale of the civilian population, is an issue that has yet to be addressed authoritatively by the international community.9
The relationship between the media and the military hinges on the extent to which the media's civilian status can be considered compromised by the activities of the armed forces alongside which they operate. At whatever level the media interact with the military during times of conflict, there is always an inherent tension between the ostensible goals of impartial and balanced media reporting and the military objectives of the combatants.
Western militaries have given considerable attention to the means through which they might influence the activities and output of the media. Should they choose to exercise them, the tools at their disposal could include deception, distortion, omission, or obfuscation: the tools of political "spin" adapted to the ends of warfighting. Many Public Affairs officers will bridle at the preceding sentence, but it remains the case that, in some circumstances, the interests of the media in pursuit of a story and the military in pursuit of victory do not coincide.
The balance between public affairs and information operations is a delicate one, as indicated in the relevant US Army Field Manual, <>Public Affairs Tactics, Techniques and Procedures<>. "Information operations," notes the manual, "involve a variety of disciplines and activities [including] information campaigns." Public affairs "support to [information operations] requires . . . synchronization of efforts with other organizations and agencies to ensure themes and messages are consistent and deconflicted." The language in the manual is instructive: public affairs is not seen as an entity in itself, but as a "related activity" of information operations.10
The US military, as the manual demonstrates, is acutely aware of the importance of media portrayal of conflict, and has developed an array of techniques to affect that presentation. Public affairs staffs begin their support of information operations by drafting a Public Affairs Estimate, which includes an assessment of the media presence. The estimate addresses the following questions: "What media representatives and organizations are in the area of operation? Are they radio, television, or print? Are they state-run or independent? What is their political slant? Are they pro- or anti-coalition? Are they receptive to coalition information products such as news releases or other print or electronic products?"11
Lying outright to the media may not, in many circumstances, make much sense, but controlling the flow of information emphatically does, and the purpose of the public affairs staff is precisely that—to control the dissemination of information so as to maximize the military and political advantage to US forces.
Of course, outright lies do have a place on the battlefield. A media-savvy commander will also seek to use the media to directly affect the enemy's plans, as part of a military deception operation. The current US Army field manual on information operations provides further details on the military advantages that can be gained from skillful manipulation of the media. Military deception, it notes, is "a fundamental instrument of military art. Its ultimate goal is to deceive adversaries and others about friendly force dispositions, capabilities, vulnerabilities, and intentions."12 The manual goes on to describe the mechanism through which an enemy can be deceived through the construction of "a plausible, but false, view of the situation, which will lead the deception target into acting in a manner that will accomplish the commander's goal. Once the story is completed, the [Deception Working Group] determines the deception means necessary to portray the events and indicators."13
The manual, perhaps understandably in an unclassified text, does not dwell explicitly on the use of the media as a means of disseminating the deception's story. To be sure, there are also a wide variety of non-media-related means of deceiving opposition forces. But the manual does point to one episode of military deception through the use of the media: the Egyptian crossing of the Suez in 1973, which it offers as an example of "Conditioning an Adversary." The Egyptians, it notes, "used deceptive measures and a broad range of centrally directed and controlled deception events involving political and military activities. These included . . . publishing reports in the press that officers would be allowed leave for the annual hajj pilgrimage."14
Whether for purposes of military deception or more broadly in an effort to control the public and elite perception of a conflict, the US military has a keen interest in influencing how the media perceive the events on the battlefield. During the recent invasion of Iraq, the two main methods by which the US military sought to influence the media were the program of embedding reporters and the strategic-level news presentations given by senior personnel in Qatar and Washington.
Embedding reporters within military units has long been a feature of Western war—reporters accompanied US forces ashore at Normandy, and in the Vietnam War reporters were given unprecedented latitude in accompanying US forces into battle. Embedding in the recent Iraqi invasion was not so different from these earlier conflicts, except that reporters were tied to one unit, rather than being free to roam. But embedding in Iraq was dramatically different from the experience of the press in other recent conflicts involving the United States, particularly Afghanistan post-9/11 and the 1991 liberation of Kuwait. For Walter Cronkite, "The principal advantage [of embedding] is that it is 180 degrees better than the blackout the military enforced during the first Gulf War."15
Embedding in its modern guise provides the military with two key advantages in influencing the output of the embedded media. First, embedding with troops restricts a reporter's view of the battlefield to the view available to the unit he or she is embedded with. The embedding program in the Iraq invasion demonstrated that the media, particularly television news, have a tendency to focus on the drama of the small-scale tactical actions they can see, rather than the broader operational and strategic dimensions of the conflict.
A post-invasion study by Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that embedded reports were "largely anecdotal. [They were] combat-focused, and mostly live and unedited. Much [of the reporting] lacks context but is usually rich in detail. It has all the virtues and vices of reporting only what you can see."16 For Chief of the British General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, embedding produces images that "are no more than snapshots at a particular time and a particular place. Dramatic they may be, but frankly they tell you very little, if anything at all, about the progress of the campaign at a strategic level."17 Clearly this is a mixed blessing for the military, depending on whether it wishes the media to focus on the tactical or strategic dimensions of a conflict at any given time.
What's more, by choosing which units to embed reporters with, the US military enjoys a high degree of control over which part of the battlefield will receive media coverage—particularly since operating independently on the battlefield has become incredibly dangerous. The preparation of the Medina Republican Guard division, to give just one example, took place from the air, with no embedded reporting available. The same is true of all the Special Forces operations in western Iraq, and much of the <>Peshmerga<>-Special Forces operation in the north.
A second advantage of embedding is subtler. When US forces go into combat, the mainstream American media are, in the first instance at least, predisposed to back them. There is a plausible supposition that embedding enhances this tendency, by bringing reporters closer to the soldiers of one side than the other, perhaps to the extent of prompting a subconscious bias in reporting, the product of shared hardships and camaraderie.
For reporters, there is an implicit danger in talking about where "we" go and what "we" have achieved—and this "Stockholm syndrome" is evident even among reporters who aim for the most scrupulous objectivity. For George Wilson, a journalist for the <>National Journal<>, the dangers of subconscious bias were very real: "You were put in a position where you would certainly not be antagonistic to the kids that you were involved with and admired, and you went in, in those conditions, without having the ability like I had in other wars to check things out for myself. So in effect I was putting myself in a position to be a propagandist, which was great for the Pentagon, but not so great for the readers."18
Embedding with units deployed on the battlefield is only one level at which the military can seek to influence the media. During the Iraq invasion, the US military presented a strategic perspective of the battlefield to journalists through daily briefings at the Central Command (CENTCOM) field headquarters in Qatar and at the Pentagon. The British military also held occasional briefings in London, timed to fit the news cycle and minimize the potential for conflicting messages with the other coalition media outlets.
But the strategic-level presentations, as they had in the earlier liberation of Kuwait, received a mixed reception from the media, in marked contrast to the widespread enthusiasm for embedding. Several of the network reporters dispatched to CENTCOM headquarters in Qatar expressed displeasure at the flow of "big picture" information from coalition headquarters. On 27 March 2003, for example, Michael Wolff of New York Magazine drew applause from assembled journalists when he asked the CENTCOM briefer, "Why should we stay? What's the value to us for what we learn at this million-dollar press center?" The immediate answer, from Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, was that reporters should try to gather the "entire mosaic" of information. He emphasized the role of embedded media, who "tell a very important story," but added that the Central Command briefings were an important part of the big picture.19
But the quality and quantity of information provided at the briefings did not always bear out Brooks's comments: very little, for example, is known about critical Special Forces operations, or about coalition battle damage assessments—how many tanks were destroyed by the coalition, what proportion of missiles missed their targets. From this perspective, the focus on embedded reports allowed the military to control the "big picture" portrayal of the war, even if they had limited control of the tactical presentation by embedded reporters. And embedding diverted the media's attention from the relative paucity of information available elsewhere.
Widespread embedding during the invasion of Iraq encouraged the media to focus on the tactical level, the more so given the relative paucity of strategic detail available. This suited the coalition strategy very well. The invasion was conducted with a relatively small force, if anything enhancing the importance of strategic surprise, as exemplified by the uncertainty over the destination of the 4th Infantry Division, the drive through the Karbala gap by the 3d Infantry Division, and the air assault north from Kuwait into the western desert by the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). In other circumstances, the US military will doubtless need to adopt a different media approach.
Post-invasion Iraq provides a good contrast. The protracted insurgency that followed the end of major combat operations in Iraq has presented new challenges for the coalition in seeking to shape the media picture of conditions on the battlefield. Embedding with the military remained an option for some reporters, but—at least until the spate of journalistic kidnappings beginning in April 2004—many reporters preferred to operate independently, often accompanied by their own security advisors.
In many ways, the low-intensity insurgency war currently under way in Iraq is more typical of the semi-permissive environment normally facing war correspondents than was the invasion itself. In Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, and elsewhere, correspondents work in dangerous and uncertain environments. The BBC requires that all staff deploying to such hotspots complete a one-week hostile environment training program. Other media organizations make similar arrangements for their staffs. Controlling the media in these semi-permissive environments presents a different challenge for Western militaries, but one that is critically important, given the centrality of the media in denying, or shaping, the information available to the enemy, and in favorably influencing the domestic and international portrayal of military activities.
The experience of US Marines in Fallujah (April 2004) and in Najaf (August 2004) typifies the problem. Early moves to decisively engage and defeat insurgent groups in the towns were rapidly stymied by media reporting of hardship in the towns and of considerable damage to the urban environment. Political pressure to limit the assault quickly followed, and the Marines subsequently withdrew—in the case of Fallujah, to be replaced by nominal Iraqi authority control, and in Najaf by a negotiated settlement to secure the return of the Imam Ali shrine.
In both examples, the abiding perception is one of strategic defeat for US forces, whatever the tactical success achieved by the Marines. Fallujah remained an insurgent stronghold, and Moqtada al Sadr's "Mahdi Army" withdrew from Najaf in good order. From this Ralph Peters drew the conclusion that the best way to counter adverse media reporting of the sort he perceived around Fallujah in May 2004 is to "speed the kill. . . . We must direct our doctrine, training, equipment, organization, and plans toward winning low-level fights much faster. Before the global media can do what enemy forces cannot do and stop us short. We can still win the big campaigns. But we're apt to lose thereafter, in the dirty end-game fights."20
Peters' approach amounts to conducting military combat without a media presence. He suggests speed as one factor—space is another. Sometimes the sheer remoteness of the battlefield, or the level of risk involved, will serve to limit the presence of the media. The invasion of Afghanistan illustrates the point, with little scope for independents to operate in Taliban-held areas of the country, or in the disputed border regions adjacent to Pakistan. Somalia, Chechnya, Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, the southern Philippines, and Kashmir are other examples of places deemed too risky for deploying reporters by many media organizations. On the whole, however, there will always be some sort of media presence, no matter how difficult the terrain or how rapid the military exploitation of a given scenario. Bold freelancers and local operatives armed with satellite phones ensure that there will usually be a Fallujah byline if the story merits one.
If the media are present, and they are undermining the political-military strategy, it makes sense to control them. If they are behaving in a non-neutral way, it may even seem appropriate to target them. But where are the boundaries of neutrality? Perhaps targeting is lawful if your enemy is using the media to defeat you militarily, for example through a deception operation. But what if he is merely shaping the media reporting of the conflict through his own information operations? Would targeting the media be legitimate in these circumstances, even if the media were not complicit in this strategy? Or what if the media in question have brought their own damaging prejudices to the battlefield, regardless of the ambition of the enemy to control them?
The broad outlines of debate are readily apparent, as illustrated by the opinion from the Pentagon counsel quoted earlier. If the media are behaving impartially, then they are entitled to treatment as civilians. Where they are not, the assessment of the general counsel suggests that they can be targeted militarily. The trick is in making an accurate judgment about their partiality and the motives behind it.
A recent example dates from the Kosovo conflict in 1999, when Allied forces successfully attacked the studios of Radio-TV Serbia, the state broadcaster. General Wesley Clark, then NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, offers this retrospective in his book Waging Modern War:
It was difficult to get political approval for striking the television stations, because strikes on television facilities seemed undemocratic and perhaps illegal. . . . At one point I had secured French permission to attack the Serb television transmitter, as well as American approval, only to have NATO balk when some of the ambassadors questioned whether the target was truly military. . . . I tried to craft a public explanation of the military value of the transmitters, which didn't succeed.21
Approval was eventually forthcoming, however, and the attack on the station's Belgrade headquarters on 23 April resulted in a temporary disruption of broadcasting, and approximately ten staff fatalities. Clearly, the Serbian state-run media were not behaving with scrupulous impartiality in reporting the conflict and, moreover, they were bureaucratically an agent of their government.
The situation is somewhat more complicated where non-state-controlled media are operating. Some such media may aim to be more impartial than others, and where they are behaving in a biased manner, legal opinion may conclude that they can no longer be classed as civilians.
But making a judgment about the impartiality of a broadcaster or newspaper is problematic. Suppose a television channel were showing graphic footage of the civilian casualties caused by your troops, or that they screened interviews with dejected prisoners of war captured by your enemy. In both examples, this footage could have an effect on the perceptions of the war among viewers on both sides of the conflict. While the combatants themselves are prohibited from this sort of activity, the independent media are not legally a party to the conflict. But does that mean that the station can be legitimately targeted? Then there is the question of proportionate response—should you jam their transmissions, discredit them somehow, or counter their message with your own propaganda? Keeping them away from areas of the battlefield where their reporting would be damaging seems sensible enough, but what lengths can one go to in order to achieve that?
Then there is the problem of whether it is enough that the media themselves strive to be impartial, even if the constraints of the battlefield and the deliberate efforts of the combatants are undermining their efforts. If their host combatant is engaged in information operations intended to favorably shape the media message, such that the media's output serves to further the purposes of that belligerent, then there are legitimate questions about the de facto neutrality of the media, even if the media organization attempts to be scrupulously impartial and objective. Can rigorous objectivity realistically be achieved in such circumstances? In the language of the Pentagon's counsel, could such a broadcaster be making "a direct contribution to the war effort," in which case might the provisions of the Geneva Protocols be moot?
As to whether the international media have ever deliberately been violently attacked by Western forces, it is impossible for an outsider to provide a definitive answer, but it seems improbable in most conceivable circumstances. There were several episodes during the invasion of Iraq in which international media were hit by fire from coalition troops. In April 2003, a BBC team led by veteran correspondent John Simpson and traveling south toward Baghdad from Kurdish-controlled territory was hit by a bomb apparently dropped from a coalition aircraft, despite the presence nearby of US Special Forces.22 Earlier in the conflict, the ITN reporter Terry Lloyd was killed in uncertain circumstances while driving in southern Iraq.23 In the most controversial incident, US forces apparently fired on the offices of Al-Jazeera in Baghdad.24
In all three cases, there is no evidence of deliberate forethought. Furthermore, there was little incentive for the coalition to target the media during the invasion, even when they did not appreciate the reporting. Coalition forces were easily achieving their military objectives in Iraq and enjoying a broadly sympathetic press, at least in the United States. Lloyd and Simpson were both well-schooled in the principles of impartial and objective reporting and had chosen to operate as "independents," outside the embedding program, partly in an effort to maximize their autonomy. And even in the case of Al-Jazeera, which was broadcasting material in the Middle East that could readily be construed as damaging to US objectives, the lasting opprobrium consequent on attacking the office easily outweighed the temporary advantage from interrupting Al-Jazeera operations in Baghdad.
Journalists have, however, become targets of one of the combatants in post-invasion Iraq, with a number of reporters having been kidnapped by insurgents, and some later executed. The objective appears to have been to undermine support for the reconstruction process, rather than to neutralize a media inimical to their objectives. In fact, the media in post-invasion Iraq were in some ways working to the advantage of the insurgents by publicizing hostage-taking of Western company employees engaged in the reconstruction effort, and giving exposure to the inability of US forces to subdue parts of the country—notably Fallujah—without recourse to politically unsustainable levels of urban violence.
By late August 2004, according to the International News Safety Institute, 51 media workers had died in Iraq since the start of the conflict 17 months earlier.25 Some of these were killed deliberately by one of the parties to the conflict, some were caught up in the cross-fire, and some were killed in accidents. There is no convincing evidence that coalition forces deliberately targeted any reporters. Nonetheless, the centrality of public opinion, both in the region and among the domestic audience in coalition countries, means that the sorts of tricky legal and ethical issues outlined above are likely to become concrete, rather than hypothetical, questions for military lawyers in the years ahead.
Veteran British war correspondent Martin Bell, quoted in <>The Guardian<> shortly after the bombing of Al-Jazeera's office, expressed his concern that "independent witnessing of war is becoming increasingly dangerous, and this may be the end of it. I have a feeling that independent journalists have become a target because the management of the information war has become a higher priority than ever."26 Bell might be wrong in the sense of journalists being deliberately attacked by Western forces, but in the broader sense of the importance of controlling the media on the battlefield, he is surely correct in suggesting that the importance of information operations makes the job of a war correspondent more difficult and perhaps more dangerous than before.
The conflicts of the last decade have amply demonstrated that the media, ostensibly non-state actors, have become an important party in many international conflicts. In conflicts involving advanced Western militaries, this is accentuated by the evolution and increasing importance of information operations. Winning the media war is crucially important to Western war-planners, and increasingly sophisticated methods for doing so have been developed— albeit with varying results.
And while the means and objectives of waging war have changed dramatically during the last decade, the press itself also has undergone a dramatic transformation. The developments of the last decade scarcely need rehearsing; from 24-hour rolling news stations to the proliferation of on-line current affairs websites and blogs, the news-oriented public has a greater range of sources than ever before, and the military has a commensurately more complex task in winning the information war.
The existing legal framework covering the position of the media during conflict was established before many of these developments. The question now is whether a consensus can be found that systematically addresses the new realities of war-reporting. With reporters increasingly vulnerable under the existing arrangements, perhaps it is time to consider a new humanitarian law specifically addressing the issues raised above.
1. Rick Atkinson, "General: A Longer War Likely," The Washington Post, 28 March 2003, p. A01. For more detail on the background of this episode, see Rick Atkinson, In the Company of Soldiers (London: Little Brown, 2004), pp. 171-75.
2. Ralph Peters, "Kill Faster," New York Post, 20 May 2004.
3. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Part IV: Civilian population. Section III—Treatment of persons in the power of a party to the conflict, Chapter III—Journalists. This Protocol and subsequent references to the Geneva Conventions may be found at http://www.icrc.org.
4. The Geneva conventions define civilians in "Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Part I (1949)." Article 50 defines a civilian as anyone who is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, or of a militia, or an inhabitant of a non-occupied territory who takes up arms on the approach of invading forces, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws of war.
5. Article 79, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). The relevant text in full reads: "1. Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians within the meaning of Article 50. . . . 2. They shall be protected as such under the Conventions and this Protocol, provided that they take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians."
6. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Part IV: Civilian population, Section III, Chapter III—Journalists, Commentary at para 2. This is an interesting point given the proclivity of Special Forces soldiers to wear a hybrid of military and civilian outdoor clothing, and the tendency of some journalists to do likewise.
7. Article 51, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
8. Alexandre Balguy-Gallois, "The Protection of Journalists and News Media Personnel in Armed Conflict," International Review of the Red Cross, March 2004, pp. 37-68.
9. Department of Defense, Office of General Counsel, "An Assessment of International Legal Issues in Information Operations," May 1999, pp. 6-9, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod-io-legal/dod-io-legal.pdf.
10. US Department of the Army, Public Affairs Tactics, Techniques and Procedures, Field Manual 3-61.1 (Washington: GPO, 1 October 2000), ch. 9, "Information Operations," http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-61-1/.
11. Ibid., para 9-18.
12. US Department of the Army, Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, Field Manual 3-13 (FM 100-6) (Washington: GPO, November 2003), para. 4-4.
13. Ibid., para. 4-60.
14. Ibid., box inset.
15. Walter Cronkite, Reuters report, 22 April 2003.
16. Project for Excellence in Journalism, "Embedded Reporters: What Are Americans Getting?" April 2003, http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/war/embed/default.asp.
17. Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, Ministry of Defence Press Conference, London, 28 March 2003.
18. George Wilson, National Journal, interview with PBS, 22 April 2003.
19. US CENTCOM briefing transcript, 27 March 2003, Release No. 03-03-70, http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20030370.txt.
20. Peters.
21. Wesley K. Clark, Waging Modern War (New York: Public Affairs, 2001), p. 251.
22. BBC News, "'Friendly Fire' Hits Kurdish Convoy," 6 April 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921743.stm.
23. "Missing ITN Crew May Have Come Under 'Friendly Fire,'" The Guardian, 23 March 2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,919832,00.html.
24. BBC News, "Al Jazeera 'Hit by Missile,"' 8 April 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2927527.stm.
25. Dominic Timms, "War Toll Rises to 51," The Guardian, 27 August 2004.
26. Ciar Byrne, "Iraq: The Most Dangerous War for Journalists," The Guardian, 9 April


text:
TSPBM necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 162 diseños de 51 diseñadores freelance.
We are a biotechnology company developing cutting-edge products for pharmaceutical companies. Our name, GigaCyte, stands for our unique cellular replication technology.
We want to appeal primarily to the commercial pharmaceutical research community, but also resonate with academics and scientists. We are a technology company, but biological, not high tech; so we need the logo to avoid looking too electronic. The right font will be a critical element of the successful logo (modern simple).
We are looking for a logo to represent our biotech company, GigaCyte.
Here are a few things to think about and examples to follow/not follow:
1. Simple, clean, elegant.
2. We are the next generation of technology. Successful logo may have slightly futuristic feel.
3. We are open as to whether the "C" is capitalized or not
4. Please do not use science-based images like test tubes, etc.
5. Maybe there is a way to portray next generation technology in an icon within the logo
6. The "Giga" and "Cyte" may be two different styles/fonts/sizes
7. Think color palette should be stylish/modern- slate gray, cobalt blue, etc.
8. Please do not use any stock images or clip art in the logo
Thank you in advance for your creativity. This is an urgent project that will be monitored continuously. We will provide feedback and guidance as soon as possible. Further projects for corporate identity and marketing material will follow for the winner of this competition.
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
You will now find easy access to accurate information about Jerry Weaver in Sherwood, OR at USAPeopleSearch.com. It could be an email address or a phone number, whatever the details are that you need for Jerry Weaver, you are sure to find the same on our website. If there's any confusion regarding the first name, you can always browse through our plethora of results. It will be easy to pick out the exact last name Weaver living in Sherwood, and you can then take it further from there.
When it comes to immediate results for Jerry in OR USA People Search is the right way to go. Our website offers significant data under different headings – name/aliases, age, location, and possible relatives, thus making it convenient for you to quickly examine lists of all the people with the last name Weaver. When you identify the exact Jerry Weaver, click through the View Details link for additional details and information.
Filter your search results for Jerry in Sherwood with the assistance of a Search Box. If you know any significant details such as full name, age, or address, make sure to enter the same in order to get access to precise responses. When the correct Jerry Weaver in Sherwood is identified, OR, make sure to read through the Details page for further vital information.
Home |
About Us |
All Products |
People Directory |
Help |
Privacy |
Terms & Conditions |
Contact Us |
Link To Us |
Bookmark Us


text:
PRÉSENTÉ PAR: Discover Puerto Rico
TriBike Transport (TBT) is providing trusted, economical, hassle-free service to your race. Reserve your space today for premium bike transport.
Fully Assembled Bike Transport
The original Fully Assembled Bike Transport service for cyclists and triathletes alike. For an additional fee TBT will take your wheel bag and a gear bag, too!
Pack and Ship Bike Transport
TBT offers Pack and Ship service to athletes living in areas that their trucks just can't get to. You're only responsible for dis-assembling and boxing your bike for outbound shipping and then re-assembly once your bike is returned home. TBT will handle the rest!
Valet Service*
Take the night off and use TBT's optional Valet Service. Whether you shipped your bike with TBT or not –TBT will pick up your bike and bags (bike and run) from transition after your race. Two unique Valet Services to choose from:
Travel light with TBT
For more information and to find a partner shop near you, please visit www.tribiketransport.com.
About TriBike Transport: Founded on the principle of stellar service, since 2004, TriBike Transport (TBT) has provided safe, stress-free and competitively priced round-trip bicycle transportation to triathlon and cycling events. Bicycles are transported fully-assembled, or with our new Pack & Ship Bike Transport service, via TBT's trusted partner shop network and professional drivers, easing the burden on athletes and allowing them to focus fully on their race preparations. For detailed information visit www.tribiketransport.com
*Available at select races
**All fully assembled transports include $1,000 of declared value, with option to purchase additional coverage. P&S transports include option to purchase coverage.


text:
Entire Home
Listings where you have the whole place to yourself.
Private Room
Listings where you have your own room but share some common spaces.
Shared Room
Listings where you'll share your room or your room may be a common space.
3 Rentals ·
More Filter
By signing up, I agree to b&b fusion's Terms and Conditions.
Forgot Password?


text:
"The leads are weak," Jack Lemmon's character, Shelley Levene, tells Alec Baldwin in "Glengarry Glen Ross."
Sales training is great. Many of the hundreds of companies that provide sales training do a great job. Their content is dynamic. Their speakers are inspiring. And their track record is impeccable. Their sales training teaches valuable skills and produces immediate results.
Unfortunately, 30 days after the training, very little behavior has changed.
Sales training only truly changes behavior long term if there is true accountability. The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) says that only 19 percent of people who receive one-time sales training see any kind of sustained performance improvement.
That's really low.
If a Major League Baseball player hit 19 percent of the pitches he saw (batting .190), he wouldn't play in the Majors for long. If a quarterback only completed 19 percent of his passes, he would be moved to another position. If your marketing team only returned 19 percent of the money it spent, the entire team would soon be unemployed.
So why is sales training any different? Do we just tacitly accept that sales training doesn't work long term? Why don't we hold results from sales training to the same standards we hold other important sectors of our business?
I don't write this to upset the sales training world, but rather to make a point: Every company should demand more than 19 percent retention from its sales training! And remember with a 19 percent average retention rate for sales training, there are sales training companies that can brag that their retention rate is higher. However, there are, by statistical necessity those that will be much lower.
Holding Sales Training Accountable
There are several ways to hold sales training accountable and to ensure that your employees are actually doing the things they were taught. That's what it's all about isn't it?
One popular way to demand accountability is with follow-up tests and continued e-learning. Retention happens when it is demanded, and exams demand it.
But the biggest question with sales training isn't "Do my employees remember what they were taught?" The biggest question is, 'Do my employees DO what they are taught?'
The only way to answer that question is to hear them talking to customers.
Call Recording and Scoring
Call recording and scoring is sales training's best friend. It is actual accountability. And it isn't just for call centers.
There are a variety of call recording and call scoring tools on the market today. These tools record and score actual customer interactions with your employees.
You can create customized scorecard or use an industry best practices scorecard already in the system. (Or you can demand that your sales training company does this for you). The scorecard basically measures specific elements of a sales call that are critical to making the sale…things that your sales trainer taught you to do. Each of these elements are scored.
These are things sales trainers stress, but have never been able to measure until now. Higher scores = more sales.
How to Use the Recordings and Scores
Via our call recording and call scoring platform, LogMyCalls, you have access to the recordings 24/7 on a secure online dashboard. Managers can listen to them. The rep that was recorded can listen to them. Sales trainers can listen to them. You can play the calls and review the scores during sales meetings or during individual performance reviews. The calls and the scores are available anytime you want them.
Some of our clients actually use call scores as part of their incentive programs.
You can generate reports based on almost any piece of data you choose. You can compare the scores of two reps against one another. You can compare specific elements of the call. You can see how employees are doing over time, how much they're improving, or what's holding them back. You can even determine exactly what element is keeping them from making the sale.
Call recording and call scoring have introduced measurable accountability and actual analytics into sales training. Whether you use LogMyCalls or some other tool to record and score your calls, isn't the main point. Just use something! Don't settle for 19 percent sales training retention.
And a word to sales training companies who may be reading this: you can provide tools like this as part of your offerings. Don't convince yourself that "your training is different" and everyone will remember it. Record their calls and score them.
McKay Allen is Integrated Content Manager at ContactPoint, which develops marketing technology to capture, analyze, integrate and apply phone-based customer intelligence to enhance marketing and sales.