text:
America loves award shows. The red carpets, the flashbulbs, the afterparty rumours — we're fascinated with the winners and losers alike. But there's something that might leave us a little empty inside. Is it all about beauty? What about brains, inventiveness, and ingenuity? That's why the Webbys are so refreshing. Have you ever seen an article titled "Who Wore It Wrong at the Webbys?" Maybe that's coming, but it's not here yet. The Webby Awards are reserved for the reserved — even the acceptance speeches are constrained to only five words.
So the Webbys isn't the most glamorous award show, but let's breathe a little geeky glory into this nearly two-decade tradition: pour a glass of champagne, spread some goat cheese on a cracker, settle into your well-worn chair, and offer your full attention to the words below. They were carefully crafted by one who poured through TWENTY-SEVEN pages (real paper pages, not Web pages) to extract the most interesting and relevant awards for this very special audience, which includes you. So do something with your hair, OK?
Our condensed ceremony begins with Webby's General Website category. This year's winner in Television was Hulu.com, beating out Crackle, Bloomberg, and WebGeol, among others. This was the only award Hulu.com won, but they doubled the recognition by earning both the official Webby and the People's Voice Webby. Netflix.com did the same, beating out Hulu.com and Crackle by earning both awards in the "Media Streaming" category. Since you can't stream without a device, and you can't buy a device without reading lots of reviews, kudos goes to The Verge for winning the People's Voice Webby for Consumer Electronics. The Verge also won People's Voice in four other non-Web categories, including Podcast, News, and Writing. The official Webby went to Coloud, makers of high-tech headphones.
In Movie & Film, a category for websites that promote, supplement, or review movies, the official Webby went to The Hunger Games Capitol Tour. If you're a Hunger Games fan, you'll understand this; if not, you might get more out of Disney's Wreck-It Ralph, the People's Voice winner. Also take a look at some of the nominees, which include ScreenCrush, The Carp and the Seagull, and the Lincoln Theatrical Website.
Websites, whatev. Shows are where the real fun is, and that's why Webby has an entire award segment for exclusively online entertainment. The Webby for a Comedy Long Form or Series went to Burning Love, a parody of reality TV dating shows. People's Voice in this category went to Bad Lip Reading, a YouTube channel of anonymously produced spoofs. (I wonder who will do the five-word speech for that one.) The Documentary Series winner, taking both awards, was ESPN's 30 for 30. In Drama, the winner was The Beauty Inside, a social film that plays out on Facebook and gives audience members the chances to audition for lead roles. People's Voice went to The Walking Dead: Cold Storage, a four-part web series based on the television show.
Webby recognizes the Experimental & Weird by awarding YouTube show The Last Goodbye with the official award in this category. What is The Last Goodbye, you ask? It's "the inevitable end of a passionate, volatile relationship, told through contemporary pole dance." OK! After watching that weirdness, move your YouTube dial over to The Glitch, the People's Voice winner. I'm not sure what it's about, but it's weird for sure.
The two winners in Entertainment for the Video Channels and Networks portion are in sharp contrast to each other. Pitchfork.tv, an independent music video channel founded by one person and based in Chicago, took the Webby. Crackle.com, a Sony-owned streaming media and online entertainment site, earned People's Voice. This was the only award Crackle.com received this year, but it was nominated in six categories. HuffPost Live took the Webby in the News & Information category, but that's not a big surprise: its founder, Ariana Huffington, is a primary member of the Webby's organizational group, The International Academy of the Digital Arts and Sciences. The People's Voice winner, The Young Turks Network, has no such clout but is obviously a fan favorite.
Well, you've probably finished your goat cheese. If you want more, and there is LOTS more, visit the Webby Awards at www.webbyawards.com.
Find Anne Marie-Yerks on Google+


text:
The following vignettes are excerpts from emails sent by Judith Armatta, an attorney from Oregon monitoring the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, who was the former president of Serbia during most of the recent Balkan wars, and the former president of "rump" Yugoslavia (which consisted of Montenegro and Serbia). The trial is being held at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, The Netherlands. Attorney Armatta is employed to monitor the trial by the Coalition for International Justice (CIJ), a nongovernmental nonprofit, based in Washington, D.C. Attorney Armatta has also composed a series of emails that she sends to her friends and anyone else who is interested in having an insiders perspective on what is happening at the ICTY. She first went to the Balkans in 1997 and has been observing the Milosevic trial since January of 2002.
In these excerpts, Attorney Armatta provides a vivid picture of daily life at the ICTY, including insights into the difficulties of presenting and prosecuting a complex case in an international court. Michael Johnson, former Merrimack County prosecutor, has served at the ICTY, where he became the chief prosecutor in September 2001. He also served as interim deputy chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has now returned to the Hague. New Hampshire attorney Stuart Hurowitz, Director of the Criminal Practice Clinic and Visiting Professor of Law at Franklin Pierce Law Center, and I have worked with Attorney Armatta in connection with the American Bar Associations Central and East European Law Initiative (CEELI).
The United Nations Security Council created the ICTY in 1993 to investigate and prosecute alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards. Separate indictments relating to crimes committed in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia are joined together in the trial.
April 13, 2002. The tribunal sits at the apex of a triangular piece of land called Churchillplein
. It was converted from an insurance building that was probably built in the 1950s, given its complete lack of style or charm. A tall wrought iron fence surrounds it. I enter through the back with my magic "STAFF" pass. This pass is magic because when you show it to uniformed guards (you must), they smile and say good morning and let you pass. After putting my purse and backpack through an x-ray machine and walking through a metal detector, I pull out my magic pass and press it on a designated place, hear a clicking noise which releases the circulating door and walk through. We are now in the basement
. I walk down a long corridor. Off to my left is a common room where the guards sometimes hang out and where smoking is allowed. Then up a flight of stairs to the next door, where I use my magic pass once again to gain entry. This hall takes me past the press rooms (where ICTY staff responsible for public and press information live) to yet another circulating door and another opportunity to use the magic pass. Im now in the lobby, where CIJs office is located
There are three large t.v. monitors in the lobby for videocasting of the trials. This is especially useful when the courtrooms are overcrowded or when I have to stay close to my office. Trials begin at 9 or 9:30. The Milosevic trial is being held in the largest courtroom Courtroom I. Its on the first floor (second in the U.S.) and to get there I once again have to go through a metal detector and put any bag through an x-ray machine. My pass usually gets me through this checkpoint, but occasionally the guards will decide to spice things up and tell me and the press that we need to get visitors passes from the main entrance.
Outside Courtroom I, there is a bank of handheld translation devices. I take one, tune it to channel 4 (the English language channel you can pick French, Albanian, BCS [Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian], too) and plug it into a set of headphones which are inside the viewing area on every chair. The viewing area consists of about five or six rows, about 40 seats per row, though I may be exaggerating. These rows of blue chairs are located behind a wall of bulletproof glass, behind which the trial takes place. Guards stand around the edges and entries, as well as within the courtroom itself. Someone recently described the courtroom as reminiscent of the deck of the Starship Enterprise. Thats about right . . . though without all the controls. The three-judge trial chamber sits on a raised dais behind a long desk. Below them are clerks, legal officers, etc. The prosecution team sits on the right side at an angle, looking at the judges. In the middle, towards the back, is the witness chair. From our seats in the gallery, we see the back of the witness but there are t.v.. monitors on either side of the viewing room, up high, allowing us to see the witnesss face, too. The defense lawyers or in the Milosevic case, the Amici Curiae (friends of the court, appointed to help the court assure that Milosevic, who has chosen to represent himself, gets a fair trial) - sit to the left of the witness seat. Milosevic sits on a raised platform behind a desk on the far left side facing into the middle of the courtroom. Guards sit on either side of him. Everyone gets their own computer monitor, where they can read the transcript of the trial as its being typed.
The judges, attorneys, clerks, and legal officers all wear long black robes with little white pleated collars that look like shirtfronts. One of the Amici wears the wig he wears in the British law courts (with those rolled-up side curls). He looks like a character out of Dickens with his wire framed glasses resting on the tip of his nose. He is impressively smart, as is the lead prosecutor [Geoffrey Nice] also from Britain though he doesnt wear a wig just red socks sometimes which peek out from under his robes.
Everyone assembles in the courtroom, except the judges. When the accused is brought in, the guards pull down the curtains on his side of the room (I dont know why). Once he is seated, the curtains are raised. The gavel is struck two times. The clerk calls out "all rise" in English and French, which we all do or are immediately set on by the ever-vigilant men and women in blue. The court is called into session and were all told to sit down again.
If it is a half-day session, the trial chamber sits from 9 until 1:45, with two 15 minute breaks. If it is a full-day session, it lasts from 9:30 to 1 p.m. (with a half-hour break), an hour and a half for lunch, followed by an afternoon session from 2:30 to 4 or sometimes 4:30 or 5, though Milosevic complains about days that are too long since he has to talk with his "legal advisors," eat, and have a short walk outside as well as be transported back to the detention center, a process which takes about a half-hour.
April 28, 2002. The ICTY is a unique court which has drawn and adapted its rules and procedures from various legal systems. Two of the more overarching ones are the common law system (used in the U.S., Australia, Britain) and the civil law system (used in much of Europe and a number of countries in Latin America). The common law system is adversarial, with lawyers on "opposing" sides, representing the defendant and the prosecution, while the judge manages the trial, keeps everyone in line, rules on legal issues, instructs the jury or decides the case her or himself. In the civil law system, the judge has a more active role in questioning the witnesses, while the prosecutor has a less adversarial, more truth-determining role. This is not the best explanation, but may give those who are unfamiliar with the distinctions some idea. The ICTY is a little like an elephant constructed by committee. Though it also has some of the best of both systems, distinctions are not always readily understood
For example, I was perplexed why some of the witnesses seem unprepared for what they will face in court. One of the prosecutors, a friend, explained to me that the Brits prohibit the prosecutor from "preparing" witnesses before trial. In the U.S., it might be considered malpractice not to. And, Im told, in Australia it is somewhere in between. As a result, witnesses being cross-examined do not confine their answers to "yes" or "no", but often endeavor to explain in great detail what they mean. The presiding judge will occasionally, though not consistently, try to restrict their answers. Interestingly, most of the explanations, while adding to the length of the trial, have worked against Milosevic
Another disadvantage of international courts is language; judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys have different mother tongues. The official languages of the tribunal are English, French (official UN languages) and what is now called "BCS" (Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian). One of the prosecutors is Brazilian (or is it Argentine?), who speaks English but it is clearly not her first language. The phrasing of a question is almost an art in U.S. courtrooms to be understood, to elicit desired answers, to not violate evidentiary rules. The ICTY has much looser evidentiary rules, but whatever question is asked must be translated for the accused and one of the amici curiae in this case, as well as the larger public, press and gallery. Its obvious there have been problems with the Albanian translation. This can have serious implications for the case, where a witness answers a different question than the one put to him/her, for example.
December 15, 2002. This week at the Milosevic trial we heard testimony from the co-founder of Helsinki Watch in the U.S., Jerri Laber, who testified about all their reports they sent and hand-carried to Milosevic, who refused to see Ms. Laber and her colleagues. The accused, who appears to have a limited emotional repertoire which does not include shame and embarrassment, proceeded to lecture Ms. Laber on human rights. He was most concerned about sovereignty and the right of self-determination. He tried repeatedly to engage her in an argument about them, despite Judge Mays persistent admonition that he was supposed to be cross-examining, not making legal arguments.
In one line of questioning, Milosevic challenged the credentials of Human Rights Watch investigators (Helsinki Watch morphed into HRW in the U.S.). Isnt it true, he demanded, that none of them had been trained as judges and, therefore, could not know how to take statements in a legal proceeding in court? Ms. Laber responded that they were trained as investigators, in law school and by HRW. Milosevic protested, "But you know according to laws in your country and other countries that attorneys dont take statements in a proceeding." That was too much for Judge May, who interrupted with "I never heard of such . . ." then turned to the witness and asked, "Do attorneys take statements from witnesses in the United States?" Ms. Laber responded with some satisfaction, "Thats their job!"
The error Milosevic fell into is that judges and lawyers have different roles and responsibilities in different legal systems. In the old Yugoslav system, and many civil law systems, it is the judges job to question witnesses. In the common-law system, which heavily influences ICTY practice and procedure, lawyers do a significant amount of case investigation outside of court, and have primary responsibility for questioning witnesses inside the courtroom. It is one of the basic differences of the two major legal systems. Ironically, if the tribunal followed civil law practice on this point, Milosevic would be denied his "right" to question witnesses directly. His questions would be asked by the judge.
June 2, 2002. Yesterday, on the 63rd day of trial, the lead prosecutor, appropriately named Geoffrey "Nice," finally lost patience with the presiding judges insistence that the Kosovo part of the case be completed by the end of July. When Judge May said it didnt appear to him that the prosecution was making any effort to meet the deadline, Mr. Nice clenched his jaw and replied, "I am inclined to be insulted by that." Judge May, a fellow Brit, urged him not to be. But Nice felt he had a duty to set the record straight on behalf of the prosecution team of lawyers, investigators and case managers, from whose harsher feelings he had been shielding the court (he informed them).
I have a great deal of respect for both men. The job that each must do is daunting and of historical significance as well as having a more immediate impact on the lives of the accused and his victims. Judge and prosecutor approach their tasks seriously and with the highest degree of professionalism. It was unfair of Judge May to suggest the prosecution was ignoring the courts concern for a manageable and expeditious proceeding. They have significantly reduced their case, foregoing dozens of witnesses and submitting most of the survivor testimony in written form.
Trying a head of state differs from trying the direct perpetrator of a crime, the man who pulls the trigger. It also differs from trying a military commander, who may not have pulled the trigger, but may have ordered the soldier to do it or let it go unpunished. The allegations against Milosevic include that he approved a plan to drive people from their homes and their country using terror, property destruction, rape, torture and killing to do it. To prove this, the prosecution must prove enough of the crimes to establish that they were part of a larger pattern, a pattern of events so similar and widespread and coordinated that it is nearly impossible to consider them coincidental. The question is how many killings and deportations, over how broad an area, establish such a pattern. There is no answer. The judges and prosecutor will continue to struggle with that issue.
May 19, 2002. The Milosevic trial has been stumbling along. With himself as the primary interlocutor, it is becoming more and more his show. This is especially true with survivor testimony which is cumulative. It comes in under a special procedure where the prosecutor submits the witness statement in writing, give[s] a five-minute summary and turns it over to the accused to cross-examine for an hour. From the gallery, this makes it look like Milosevics show. Witnesses are frustrated at not being able to tell their story in court, and I am frustrated at not being able to hear it. Milosevic mostly cross-examines on irrelevant topics designed to trip up the witness or make him/her appear as a liar. Sometimes his efforts are ludicrous as he crows, "which is true, what you said then or what you say now?" when theres no significant difference
November 17, 2002. Speaking of Milosevic
he has been out sick for yet another week, though it seems likely to come to an end soon. Ive heard the problem was caused by his Belgrade doc telling him not to take the medication prescribed by The Hague doc, suggesting the folks up here were trying to kill him. [Mirjana Markovic, wife of Milosevic] took to the airwaves and Slobos supporters in Belgrade filed a lawsuit against the Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte and the lead prosecutor in his case, Geoffrey Nice, for attempted murder. Turns out that Milosevics doc misunderstood the meds. Once it was clear to him, he told Slobo to resume taking them . . . and voila, hes improving! I believe it is high-blood-pressure medicine.
February 2, 2003. So far in the Croatia phase of the case, there have been 22 witnesses. Ten of them have testified with protective measures, often in private session. The court goes into private session when the subject matter is likely to reveal the witnesss identity or that of someone else who might be jeopardized. I bring reading material, spend the time outlining reports, watch Milosevic through the bulletproof glass.
The issue of private sessions is a difficult one. It resonates of the star chambers, the old English inquisitorial courts held behind closed doors to prevent public outcry over the unfairness of the proceedings. For this reason, there is a constitutional preference for public trials in the U.S. and some other countries. It is also the preference of the ICTY. At times, however, there would be no trial without the ability to protect the witnesses identities and to close court sessions. This happens when witnesses risk their lives and those of their families to testify. As in Mafia trials and certain war crimes trials, where the accused and their associates feel no compunction about killing a witness to preserve their own power, freedom and wealth. While there is no war in the Balkans any longer, and the names of those in power have changed, it remains a dangerous place. Many war criminals and Mafioso retain power and wealth. Crossing them is dangerous. To do their bidding, there are all those criminals Milosevic let out of prison when hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens refused to fight his wars
A considerable amount of the Vukovar [Croatia] testimony has been held in private session. The majority of witnesses have been Serbs, many of whom were threatened not to testify. The reality of the danger came up rather dramatically in court toward the end of the week, when lead prosecutor Geoffrey Nice announced that they had lost a witness because of threats. The witnesss identity had been protected, which means only a few members of the prosecution team, the court, the two amici and Milosevic knew it. To secure that protected status, the prosecution, in a closed session, told the judges that the witness was not afraid for his or her own safety but for the safety of the witnesss children. Within 24 hours, a threat against the children was made through the witnesss spouse, and the witness declined to testify. The court has ordered an investigation into the leak, which is not the first. Milosevic, of course, vehemently denies anything to do with it, saying his word is better than any rule. The most useful question is who benefits from the leaks?
March 20, 2002. I have been disheartened to hear that some of the Kosovar Albanian witnesses are being treated badly by their fellow citizens on their return from testifying. They have reportedly been shunned for not standing up to Milosevic better, for not "winning," etc. It may come from the unfamiliar court procedure . . . which requires witnesses to keep their testimony within narrow parameters, often being reduced to answering questions "yes" or "no." They dont always get to stand up and say "Jaccuse," though some have essentially done so. I have tremendous respect and admiration for these witnesses. I think theyre all incredibly brave. They have each traveled far from their homes, often this is their first trip out of Kosovo except when they were refugees in Albania or Macedonia. For many, this is also their first appearance in a court of any kind and this is an international court constituted by the United Nations. They have to tell their story in an artificial manner in front of cameras and a full courtroom, stories that make them relive horrible events, events that changed their lives forever. And finally, they have to answer questions put to them by the man who is responsible for their suffering, who was the tyrant who ran their country for 10 years. They all deserve some kind of Purple Heart
maybe a golden heart.
August 30, 2002. Mr. Haxhiavdija was an elderly man, quite thin, ill, but his voice was as powerful as the voice of God, or how I, as a child, imagined it would be. Mr. Hs son came to him one morning during the war and said, "[f]ather, my life has ended." His wife and five children had been killed the night before. The Roma man who was ordered to recover the bodies reported he found 20 in the sons compound. Nineteen were women and children. His son will tell what happened on Monday. Milosevics line of attack was to say the civilians had been killed either in fighting between the KLA and Serbian forces or by NATO bombs. He suggested Mr. H went to Albania because of the fighting and bombing. But Mr. H said no, "they killed my daughter-in-law, five children, 13 in the Vesa house, six women, one who was 80 years old. You have killed people and burnt other family members, 20 in all. You have burnt a daughter who was mentally ill. How would I not want to escape? I would go anywhere to escape. . . ."
Milosevic insisted that the people had been killed by NATO bombs, to which Mr. H thundered, "No!" and described how the children were taken from the basement and massacred, how the house was burned. He said people told him not to go there because they feared he would have a heart attack when he saw the bodies. "My son said it is a sin to see children like that," thirteen of them and a one-month-old and his four-year-old grandchild. "With what kind of human feelings can someone commit a crime of this kind against children, young people, old people?" Though he was crying, his voice remained strong and clear. Judge May asked Milosevic if, in light of the witnesss condition, he had any further questions. "I do. I do," he answered. Then had the gall to say, "War is a crime in itself and it is the innocent who suffer. Is it clear who created the war? You are furious because of the death of your family. Everyone would feel that way. How it came to be a war . . ." Mr. H interrupted, "YOU! You as president. By sending criminals, the most evil criminals to commit crimes against children in the eyes of their mothers."
At the end, Mr. H turned to the court and asked, "May I say something on my own here?" The court has not allowed any witness to say more than a thank you, but Judge May sat quietly as Mr. H addressed the judges: "I would like to thank the Hague Tribunal for the invitation to speak here. Normally I could not be here because of my ill health. But I wanted to make a statement about the crimes committed, the massacres of old people, children, young people . . . " Then he turned to Milosevic, "I would like to ask the accused about your feelings. Do you have any feelings?"
And that was the voice of God. No, Milosevic made no response. Nor can I read anything in his face, which is the mask of the actor or sociopath.
November 24, 2002. The witness against [Milosevic] this week (and the next two, most likely) was the highest-level insider yet to testify. We all know who he is, but his identity is protected, so we call him C-061. We know who he is because of his testimony and by the process of elimination. He has testified openly about all the top leaders in the Serb Autonomous Region of the Krajina in Croatia (later, the Republika Srpska Krajina) in open session except one. But we cant print his name because the trial chamber could hold us in contempt. It is a bit absurd. While there are excellent reasons for protecting the identity of witnesses like the very real possibility of physical harm those who are most likely to harm them are also the ones most likely to know who the witnesses are, through Milosevic or his associates.
In this case, witness C-061 is seated behind a screen and he speaks with voice distortion. Whenever he is about to say something that could reveal his identity, the prosecutor moves for private session. That happens about 15 times every day, often for only a few minutes. It makes for more than usually disjointed testimony. C-061 had 30 meetings with Milosevic, plus about a dozen telephone calls. We dont get to hear about those. C-061, because of his insider position, is also able to identify who is speaking on 52 telephone intercepts which the prosecution is trying to introduce. Mostly these calls are between Milosevic and Karadzic. Weve been lucky to hear a couple, and they are damning. Even so, its hard to understand the translations; they are read very quickly without any indication when the speaker changes. I have great gaps in my notes and am anxiously awaiting the video version from the Bard College website.
December 7, 2002. The Milosevic trial continues. The ten-day-long testimony of protected witness C-061 will end Monday morning with the prosecutions redirect examination. C-061s identity was hidden to protect him and his family, though everyone who knew anything about the wars in the former Yugoslavia knew who he was. As usual, media in the region disclosed his identity though the tribunal could hold them in contempt and fine them. On the tenth day of his testimony, C-061 began with an announcement from his lawyer that he had decided to go public. After hearing his reasons, Judge May said he would henceforth be called by his real name, Milan Babic. The shades were drawn up and the screens removed to reveal a quiet, ordinary-looking man (trained as a dentist). The press who were there not many at that early hour onanother day of expected private sessions rapidly took notes, dropped their headsets and rushed downstairs to file their stories. The question now is whether and when well get to read the transcripts of all those private sessions, including about a dozen of Radovan Karadzics intercepted telephone calls, some with Milosevic. Even without that, Babic has pretty much made the prosecutions case against Milosevic for Croatia. The rest is window dressing.
February 23, 2003. In the old Perry Mason t.v. series, cases were solved and the real murderers discovered in the courtroom. Yesterdays events in Courtroom I of the ICTY were a bit like that.
Dragan Vasiljkovic, a.k.a Captain Dragan, was in his third day of testimony. Hes a rather flamboyant figure, late forties, short and wiry, bowl-cut white hair, relishes describing his exploits, how he returned to Yugoslavia from his adopted state of Australia once arriving by yacht after a four-month cruise, another time flying his own plane, stopping off on his way to Africa (where he was probably a soldier of fortune). On that latter trip, he hung around long enough to hear that Serbs were fighting a resurgence of WWII Ustasha fascists in the Croatian Krajina. When he went to see for himself, the Serb fighters were a bunch of ragtag, undisciplined, unkempt, sometimes drunk men wielding hunting rifles. Having served for six years in the Australian armed forces, he thought he could lend a hand in training and organizing these guys into a real fighting force. With permission from the Krajina Serb authorities, he set up a camp and began his mission. Inevitably, he and his newly trained soldiers also engaged in combat, in one case defeating a much larger and better equipped Croatian force after nearly 24 hours of battle. It was after this that he ordered red berets made for his men as a way of rewarding them. Naturally, the unit became known as the Red Berets and it, and Captain Dragan, achieved a legendary status.
On Captain Dragans first day of testimony, the prosecutor, Dermot Groome, showed a videotape of a celebration of the Red Berets in 1997, which Milosevic attended. It lasted 50 minutes, showed nearly every member of the Serbian Secret Service (SDB), and included a speech by the infamous Franko Simatovic (a.k.a. Frenki) who was chief of special operations for the Serbian Secret Service. In it, Frenki described Red Berets glorious history and its strength (5,000 men fought in Croatia and Bosnia; the Red Berets had 26 training camps there). Awards were given plaques and watches. Milosevic handed them out, smiled, and reviewed the troops. The significant point of the videotape was establishing that this paramilitary group that fought in Croatia and Bosnia on the Serbian side was connected to the Serbian Secret Service hence to Milosevic while Milosvics defense to charges of ethnic cleansing in Croatia and Bosnia is that Serbia, and he as Serbias president, had nothing to do with it. The other remarkable thing about the videotape is that the SDB actually made it filming all its security agents!!
Captain Dragan testified that hed seen the videotape for the first time when he arrived in The Hague, it accurately reflected the 1997 event and he thought it was so good hed asked for a copy. This testimony later proved his undoing
February 23, 2003, the "Kapetane," as Milosevic addressed him in court, followed the orders "from the top," which he said meant either the minister of the interior or the president (Milosevic), and stayed in Belgrade. There he set up the Captain Dragan Fund, capitalizing on his popularity to raise money to support disabled veterans, their wives and children. He proudly turned over all his records to the ICTY all 67,000 applications which showed how, where and when each veteran was injured and under whose command he had been fighting. It wasnt until he was in court and Mr. Dermot Groome, the prosecutor, was leading him through authentication of the records that Vasiljkovic realized the significance of the records for the prosecution. They show that men from Serbia fought in Croatia and Bosnia under Serbian commanders in units connected to Serbia. When the light bulb went off in court, he became a bit defensive and hostile to the prosecutor.
The Serbian, Bosnian, French, and Dutch journalists who watch the trial on a daily basis were thoroughly enjoying Captain Dragans testimony. It was dramatic and damning for Milosevic. Then came cross-examination. How would Milosevic handle it, we all wondered? With the first word out of his mouth, the answer was obvious, he would woo him like a lost lover. "Kapetane," (Captain) he began. Yet Milosevic must have known that the Kapetane had played a role in his overthrow, taking over the Radio Television of Serbia with 170 armed men and a couple anti-tank rocket launchers. But Milosevic is an actor. Whether he harbored hate for Captain Dragan, he would not let it interfere with the days planned performance.
Milosevic helped Vasiljkovic understand that the "top guy" had never wanted to get rid of him he was merely trying to protect him. Babic was the bad guy. "Oh, now I see! That is logical!" the Captain said. From there on, he said everything Milosevic wanted him to say. He hadnt meant that the police, security service and army from Serbia were involved in the Krajina he meant the Krajina police, Krajina security service, Krajina army. The videotape was an intentional exaggeration to impress him as president. Hed talked with Frenki who agreed that his speech had stretched the truth and that the other elements of the videotape showed it was "theater," not reality. This statement, too, would come back to haunt Captain Dragan.
After more than a day of this reunion and love fest, we were all wondering how Mr. Groome was going to deal withthe Captains 180-degree turn. Groome is one of the best trial attorneys at the ICTY, so it was a pleasure to watch. He began by getting the witness to say that he stood by everything hed said in court. Hed been worried, hadnt supported the ICTY, but he was very pleased with his experience. Groome began reading from the transcript and from Vasiljkovics earlier sworn statement to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), as well as an interview he had given the news magazine Vreme in which he categorically says he and his Red Berets were connected with the Serbian security service (SDB).
As the witness grew more agitated, the judges started to get nervous, too. It looked as if the prosecutor was going to impeach his own witness. In common law legal systems, its possible for the party who has called a witness to have that witness declared hostile if he changes his story on the stand in such a way that he is pretty clearly supporting the oppositions case. Tribunal rules dont address the issue and theres been no court ruling on it. This would surely have been a good case for adopting it, but the judges were uncomfortable. Groome said he wasnt asking them to declare the witness hostile at this point, he merely wanted to explore the contradictions in his testimony. The court allowed him to continue against the advice of the amicus who argued that the prosecution had to live with what his witness said.
As Groome continued leading him through the contradictions between what hed said on cross examination and what hed said on direct examination and in his statement to the OTP investigator, Captain Dragan yelled, "Ive been tricked!" "Did you read and sign that statement?" Groome wanted to know. Yes, he had and those were his initials but it wasnt what he said, or what he meant. "Are you saying its a forgery?" "Absolutely it is a misrepresentation, yes!"
What you need to know before I go on is that there is a tribunal rule that once a witness has begun testifying, he or she cannot discuss their testimony with anyone family, friend or prosecutor. The judge routinely reminds every witness of this, sometimes before breaks, always at the end of the day if the testimony will continue.
Groome then asked, "Is Frenki Simatovic a friend of yours?" "Best friend," said Vasiljkovic. "Did you talk to him before coming here to give your testimony?" "Yes, about 15 minutes before I left." "Have you talked to him since coming here?" "Yes," admitted Captain Dragan. "Did you talk to him about your testimony?" For whatever reason, Vasiljkovic decided to fess up and answered yes "but only for 20 seconds," then they talked about going to dinner when he returned. "Did you discuss the videotape of the 1997 ceremony?" "Yes, but not since coming here." Groome reminded him that hed testified he had not seen the videotape before coming to The Hague. Captain Dragan was caught. He tried to explain it away by saying he hadseen parts of the video before, but it sounded lame. Groome merely said, "No more questions, your honors."
Groomes re-examination was not only exceptionally well done, it was vital that he did it. If he had not, those who were trying to undermine the trial would have succeeded in making it appear that Captain Dragan was just a liar, nothing he said could be trusted. It did not quite turn out that way because Groome showed motive and provided a context for the judges to be able to decide when Vasiljkovic was telling the truth and when he was not. At the end of the day, it appeared the SDB had gotten to him whether through threats or bribes and, through his friend Frenki, helped him construct a story that insulated the SDB, and, whether intentionally or not, Milosevic
.Now we know where screenwriters get plots for those grade B thrillers....
Attorney Susan E. Marshall, who obtained permission and edited these email dispatches by attorney Armatta, is an attorney in Hopkinton who works in legal research and administrative rules, and is a member of the New Hampshire Bar Journal Advisory Board. To read attorney Armattas official reports, visit www.cij.org. and to receive the emails of her observations, contact her at email@example.com.
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar
New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: firstname.lastname@example.com
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The busy resort of Totland,
with its lovely beaches, is the most westerly
village on the north coast of the Isle of Wight.
On its outskirts is Headen Warren, which offers stunning views of The Solent, Alum Bay and the Needles.
Not far from here is Alum Bay whose remarkable cliffs vary in hue from yellow and brown through to green, white and many other shades, all created by the action of waves on minerals in the rocks.
The beach is reached via more than 200 steps.
It was here that the world's first wireless station was established in 1897.


text:
Elder William Brewster (≈1566-1644) is my 10th-Great Grandfather on the Crosby side and he is, by far, the most famous ancestor I have discovered.
William Brewster was born in Scrooby, Nottinghamshire, England about 1566. In 1591 he married Mary
Wentworth (1568-1627) and together they had six children: Jonathan, Love, *Patience, Fear, Elizabeth & Wrestling. (Patience is my 9th-Great Grandmother.) In 1620, William and Mary, along with their sons Love and Wrestling, traveled to America aboard the Mayflower. (Edited 2/15/16: There is no proof that Mary's last name was Wentworth.)
During the first decade of the 1600s William founded a Separatist church in England. When the existence of the church was discovered William, and the other parishioners, fled to Amsterdam to avoid prosecution. William was a leader (Elder) of the church and instrumental in the planning for the migration to America. From the time of the arrival of the Mayflower in America (1620) until his death in 1644, William was the leader of the Plymouth Colony.
Currently, I am in the process of "proving" my lineage from William Brewster to the General Society of Mayflower Descendants (GSMD). Presently I have proven the lineage to myself. However, the standards of proof for the GSMD are more stringent.
My lineage from William Brewster:
William Brewster > Patience (Brewster) Prence > Rebecca (Prence) Freeman > Rebecca (Freeman) Perry > Samuel Perry > Moses Perry > Elisha Perry > Sarah (Perry) Landers > Eliza (Landers) Tinkham > Sarah (Tinkham) Crosby > Roy Crosby > Maurice Crosby > Me.
One of the first steps to establishing proof, is to submit a query form to the librarian of the GSMD. The form asks for the names of the applicant's descendants and their spouse. The names are compared against the known Mayflower descendants. This process takes about a week.
While waiting for a response from the GSMD I checked the web site Books We Own and found an owner of the "First Five Generations of Mayflower Descendants" volume that pertains to William Brewster. I submitted a request to have my lineage checked and within a few hours I received a response that confirmed the lineage from William to Moses Perry. So generations 8 though 13 were confirmed.
Previously I submitted two other applications for membership to the GSMD and successfully proved my descent from both Peter Browne and James Chilton. For both of the applications I established proof from myself to Eliza Landers Tinkham (generations 1-5).
One source used on my earlier applications was "Yarmouth Nova Scotia, Genealogies" which was published in 1898 by the Yarmouth Herald. This same source lists the descendants of Moses Perry (my 5th-Great Grandfather) all the way to Eliza Landers Tinkham, which fills the gap and completes my lineage. However, the GSMD does not like to rely too heavily on secondary sources. So further research needs to be done to document Elisha Perry and his daughter Sarah Perry Landers.
I received an email today from the library at the GSMD. Two previous applications were found that follow my lineage from William Brewster through to Elisha Perry. This means that I only need to prove that Sarah Perry Landers (1791-1863) was:
Elisha's daughter and
- The mother of Eliza Landers Tinkham
Proving Item #1 is probably going to be more difficult than Item #2, unless Yarmouth Genealogies is accepted as a stand-alone source. (Pertinent entries shown above)
Deciphered, the entries from the Yarmouth NS Genealogies show that Sarah (born 1791) was the daughter of Elisha and Sarah Perry and that she married Thomas Landers.
As for proving Item #2 (that Sarah was Eliza's mother) there are two sources:
- In the Yarmouth Genealogies: the blue circle shows that Eliza Landers (Daughter of Thomas & Sarah Landers) married Benjamin Tinkham, son of Seth Tinkham 2d.
- Eliza Tinkham's death certificate partially corroborates the information found in the Yarmouth Genealogies.
- Father's name was Thomas Landers
- Mother's name was – - – Perry
- Her husband is listed as Benjamin Tinkham;
- Birthplace for Eliza and her parents was Nova Scotia
The next step will be to send out some queries in search of church records. Churches were the primary keeper of records of marriage, birth (baptism) and death. One of the old GSMD applications passes though Sarah's sister and hopefully a source will be listed for that sister. If so, then I may find the name of the church where records for Sarah exist. Only time will tell.


text:
Judge George Greer moves from the Terri Schiavo case to the divorce wars.
By John Barry, Times Staff Writer
Published January 20, 2008
George Greer, the Pinellas-Pasco circuit judge who presided over the Terri Schiavo case until her death in 2005, has a new assignment. He no longer judges guardianship cases. He judges divorce cases.
His transfer from probate/guardianship court to family court should allow Judge Greer, 65, to serve the next three years in peaceful obscurity before his planned retirement. How many Pinellas County divorce judges make headlines?
Eyebrows raised, he asks, "What's the biggest divorce case coming up?"
Oh, no - not that mean, ugly, nose-busting, eye-gouging, arm-twisting marital smackdown known as Mr. Hulk Hogan vs. Mrs. Hulk Hogan.
The judge smiles.
"I'm told it's mine."
Nothing compares to the literal loss of a life - the end of the five-year Terri Schiavo struggle in Greer's court - but divorce cases are, in their own terrible ways, rife with life and death issues. Will dad ever see his kids again? Will mom survive financially? Will their children suffer the most?
Last Monday morning:
A divorcing couple comes to see Greer. The last remaining dispute is the education of their 10-year-old daughter. She's in the fifth grade in Catholic school. Mom and dad both wish she could stay there through the eighth grade.
But dad says he can't pay for even part of private school. He makes $2,000 a month. He pays $535 for child support, and $600 for rent, plus he owes his lawyer $5,000. He doesn't know what groceries are going to cost because, he explains, he never had to buy groceries when he had a wife.
The issue before Greer is: Should this child lose her school, her teachers, her friends, because her parents no longer love each other?
"This is what happens so often in divorce cases," Greer tells the couple. "The parents barely made ends meet when they were together. After divorce, they have to pay for two households."
Children get stuck with the bill.
He orders the dad to pay an extra $200 a month for the school tuition. Mom offers to front 100 percent of the other costs - school uniforms, pencils, copy books.
- - -
The threats have tapered off. Greer's life is altered, in mostly good ways. But the threats have not been forgotten.
He is a proud grandfather who doesn't dare say publicly even what his grandchildren's names are or where they live.
He is nationally famous, has 20 honors displayed in his chambers, almost all awarded during the Schiavo case. The largest is the 2005 President's Award of Merit from the Florida Bar: "for your unswerving commitment to the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the fundamentals of American democracy."
Robert Butterworth, former state attorney general, now secretary of the Department of Children and Families, says it's easy to get that chopped-liver feeling in Greer's presence.
Butterworth recalls a speech he gave at a Florida Bar conference in Orlando. He was flattered to see Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy sitting in the audience. But suddenly Kennedy got up and marched out of the hall. Watching the doors swing shut behind the justice, Butterworth worried, "Why is he walking out on me?"
Kennedy later apologized. "Don't take it personally," he said. "I heard Judge Greer was outside and I just had to meet him."
Other honors have been named after him. The Clearwater Bar Association created the George W. Greer Judicial Independence Award. In 2007, it gave the award to Judge Crockett Farnell.
It had special meaning for both men. Farnell was Greer's mentor when both presided over juvenile court. "He's a type A guy," Greer says. He taught Greer how to be tough.
Farnell was famous in 2006 for threatening to jail and fine the secretary of the Department of Children and Families. The secretary, Lucy Hadi, had resisted Farnell's order to move hundreds of mentally ill inmates from jails into hospitals, claiming that her department didn't have the money to pay for their care.
An outraged Gov. Jeb Bush barked that Farnell had thrown a "judicial temper tantrum." But when Charlie Crist became governor, he put Butterworth in charge, and the two found $16-million to get sick people out of jails.
Greer had felt Farnell's influence years ago in juvenile court, when he had a case involving a little girl who had been sexually molested. Greer had ordered therapy for her. A year went by, and state caretakers had not provided the therapy.
"They told me, 'Judge, there's no money.'
"I hate to shoot the messenger, but I said, 'If that child isn't in therapy by Friday, someone is going to jail.'
"The money fell out of the sky."
Last Monday morning, after the divorcing couple left to go find tuition money, a woman came to court whom Greer recognized.
Karen Gaby had come for her final divorce judgment for a marriage that, in her words, had reached the point of "no love, no respect."
Greer knew her large Pinellas County family, had known many of them for years. In fact, a niece of Gaby's had once entered a motion in his court - in the Schiavo case.
The niece represented the Department of Children and Families. Her motion was to allow the department to intervene in the case, short-circuiting the guardianship of Schiavo's husband, Michael.
Greer denied the niece's motion, and sent her packing. But he also heard that she was a candidate for a county judgeship the governor was about to appoint.
He wanted to help her win the appointment. He thought about calling Jeb Bush.
"That would have been the kiss of death."
He kept quiet. The niece got the appointment anyway. Last Monday, her aunt got her divorce, and a hug from the judge.
John Barry can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com or (727) 892-2258.
Fast facts Judge George Greer
- His wife is Gail Patricia. He calls her "Buns."
- She drives him to work. He doesn't drive because of impaired vision.
- He runs. He tries to run 3 miles, five times a week.
- He has a view from his office of the Clearwater waterfront. But he keeps his back to the window.
- Friends say he was as conservative as Barry Goldwater while a student at Florida State University. His roommate for one semester was Jim Morrison. They did not get along.
- He is a former Pinellas County commissioner, elected in 1984. He said the experience helped make him a good judge, showing him how issues of right and wrong trumped personal relationships.
- He offered to write a book about his experiences in the Schiavo case, but couldn't interest a publisher.
[Last modified January 17, 2008, 23:17:24]
© 2011 · All Rights Reserved · Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South · St. Petersburg, FL 33701 · 727-893-8111
Contact Us | Join Us | Advertise with Us | Subscribe to the Times
Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright


text:
While ostentatiously pursuing an "investigation" of the Marc Rich pardon (which will lead precisely nowhere), Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has stubbornly refused to indict top Democratic and union officials directly implicated in a money-laundering scheme uncovered by her own office some years ago.
In what is now called the Teamsters Swap Scandal, prosecutors working for Mary Jo White won three guilty pleas from top Teamsters aides back in 1997. Two years later, the Teamsters' former political director, William Hamilton, was convicted for his role in the kickback scheme. But for four years now, the big kahunas implicated in the money-swap operation have been largely forgotten by White's office. One big fish studiously ignored by Ms. White is the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton pal, Terry McAuliffe.
At the center of the money-laundering scheme was Ron Carey, who had been anointed Teamsters president by "the most ethical administration in history" as part of an ingenious plan to "clean up" the Teamsters. When Teamsters legacy James Hoffa Jr. later challenged Carey for the union presidency in 1996, Carey's aides


text:
The Sagebrush State, 3Rd Edition
Nevada'S History, Government, And Politics
Publication Year: 2006
Published by: University of Nevada Press
Series: Wilbur S. Shepperson Series in History and Humanities
Illustrations and Tables
Preface to the Third Edition
Since the second edition of The Sagebrush State was published in early 2002 the state of Nevada has seen a great deal of political change. In addition to the elections of 2002 and 2004 and the new officeholders who assumed their duties during that time, there have been two very contentious regular sessions ...
When I first began discussing this book with Nicholas Cady and Thomas R. Radko of the University of Nevada Press some years ago, I had in mind a relatively short work that would provide readers with an overview of Nevada history and government. I thought then, as I do now, that many Nevadans and non-Nevadans ...
Chapter One Nevada: Origins and Early History
Although archaeological excavations indicate the migration from Asia of prehistoric peoples to the area now known as Nevada as early as 12,000 years ago, the state's written history can be said to have begun in 1776, the same year the American colonists in the East launched their war for independence against the British Crown. ...
Chapter Two Nevada Territory and Statehood
In 1861, the settlers' representative, John J. Musser, finally persuaded Congress to establish a separate territory in western Utah. Musser was aided by the election of Abraham Lincoln as president and the resulting secession from the Union of the southern states. With the pro-slavery states no longer represented in Congress ...
Chapter Three Civil Rights and Liberties in Nevada
Civil rights are generally defined as those "positive acts of government designed to protect persons against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by government, or individuals."1 Civil rights include those we deem necessary for equality to prevail among and between citizens: the right to vote, for example, and the right to equal ...
Chapter Four Political Parties and Elections
Nevada has traditionally been a competitive, two-party state in which elections are fought more on the basis of personalities and issues than parties. Nevadans are notorious ticket splitters who take pride in the fact that they vote for the "person" and not the "party." Nonetheless, it is possible to divide Nevada's political ...
Chapter Five Interest Groups and Lobbying
While political parties are concerned with ensuring that their members are elected to various governmental positions, interest groups are more interested in seeing that the policies they favor are enacted into law, regardless of which party controls the government. Thus, parties tend to be more personnel oriented, ...
Chapter Six The Nevada Legislature
Like the federal government, the state government of Nevada consists of three branches that oversee one another through a series of checks and balances. The state legislature is the first of these. Unlike the federal Constitution, which merely implies the separation of powers, the state constitution establishes ...
Chapter Seven The Nevada Executive
In general, the executive power can be defined as one that enforces and implements the laws passed by the legislature as interpreted by the courts. The area now known as Nevada has been governed by an executive throughout its recorded history. During the period of Spanish colonialism the area was governed by ...
Chapter Eight The Nevada Judiciary
In interpreting the meaning of various statutes and constitutional provisions, the judges of Nevada's courts engage in a form of policy making that affects not only the lives of the litigants in each case but also the lives and fortunes of all the state's citizens. It should come as little surprise, then, that the state's judges, ...
Chapter Nine City and County Governments
It is generally true that most citizens pay far more attention to the actions of the national and state governments than they do to local governments such as counties and cities. This is due in part to the nature of the issues dealt with by those larger entities, such as war and peace and economic policies; in part it is due to ...
Chapter Ten State and Local Finance
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Although most can agree with Holmes's sentiment, questions over who will pay taxes and how those funds will be spent inevitably invite disagreement. Indeed, revenue and appropriations questions are ...
Chapter Eleven Nevada: Past, Present, and Future
Chapters 1 and 2 examined the history of Nevada through 1864. The subsequent eight chapters outlined, within the context of individual topics, the state's historical and political path since it achieved statehood. It seems appropriate, therefore, in this final chapter to discuss and summarize in chronological sequence ...
Selected Bibliography
Print-ISBN-13: 9780874176827
Page Count: 200
Publication Year: 2006
Series Title: Wilbur S. Shepperson Series in History and Humanities
See more Books in this Series
MUSE Marc Record: Download for The Sagebrush State, 3Rd Edition


text:
Helen Phillips Biography
Helen Phillips has set a new weight loss standard.
The season seven champion on The Biggest Loser shed 140 pounds and managed to drop 20 dress sizes during her run on the show. That's simply incredible.
Phillips is 48-year-old mother of two. She hails from Sterling Heights, Michigan and went from 257 pounds to 117 during the competition. Congrats are very much in order!


text:
Heidi Ott ~ Faithful Friends
A Target Advertisement for the dolls
Beth shows you the detail on her lovely, lined coat, which has real
button holes.
Doll Line
Faithful Friends Collection
Also sold as Best Friends, School Children and Play Dolls
Stores (later, School Children/Play Dolls were sold by Heidi Ott)
Heidi Ott
Production Years
1997-1998 (at Target), 2000-2004 at Heidi Ott's
Body Type
Soft body, non-articulated
Sleep eyes
Wigged synthetic
Identifying Markings
"Heidi Ott" in script incised on the neck, body tag
("Heidi Ott")
Retail Price
$39 (?)
Boxed outfits available separately.
Clothing Fit
Fits American Girl doll clothes fairly well. Feet
are longer and narrower. Shoulders and hips are broader. Slightly
Dolls in Series
blue eyed blonde, sober face no teeth
Hannah: dark brown hair, blue eyes, smiling face, teeth showing
Ben: Beth mold,
blue eyes, blond hair
Maria: Maggie mold, medium skin,
dark hair and eyes
All these books are by
Sharla Scannell Whalen,
illustrated by
Virginia Kylberg:
"Meet the Friends"
"Flower Girl
"Friends on Ice"
"Best Friends Under the Sun"
Secondary market
For More Information
None known
The Faithful Friends are 18", soft-body play dolls made by Heidi Ott, a
Swiss doll artist, that were distributed by Target
in the late 1990s. Like American Girl, the dolls were also the
protagonists of historical fiction books. The four books are set in the
year 1896 on the Illinois prairie. In them, we meet Ellie, an African
American daughter of a preacher; Beth, a wealthy girl; Maggie, the
tomboy who wants to play baseball; and Hannah, a shy girl who lives on a
farm. On the right is the cover of "Meet the Friends", the first book in
the series.
The dolls were also found under
the name of Best Friends in the beginning, before the books were
published. At that time, the names and hair/eye colors of the dolls were
less well-defined and you could, for instance, find a brunette Beth even
though she is later found only as a blonde. The dolls were well received
and well covered in the doll press: Benjamin was a 1997 DOTY (Doll of
The Year) winner, Maggie made the cover of Doll World magazine in
June, 1997, there was an article in the May, 1997 issue of Doll
Reader and Maggie was a cover girl again for the June/July, 1998
issue of Doll Castle News.
The quality
of these dolls is quite amazing. The sculpting is exceptional, not just
of the face but also of the wonderfully detailed
and feet. (In the picture on the left, you can see the difference
between the Faithful Friends foot on the left and the AG foot on the
right.) The vinyl quality is the best and the materials that make up the
cloth body are sturdy and will last forever. The only real "flaw" in
these dolls is the wig quality. Considering how affordable they were,
it's understandable that the absolute best quality wigs could not be
used. Fortunately, they are quite
easy to re-wig. Another
"flaw", which is much more a
matter of opinion, is their body style. Because the dolls do not have
jointed arms or legs they cannot stand on their own or hold a pose with
their arms. Some people who are bothered by this have solved the problem
by inserting an armature into the doll's body. They also have some
trouble fitting in to doll clothes made for American Girl. The only way
to solve that problem is to untie the neck string holding the head on
and swap bodies with
a Götz doll or some other doll with a body
that better approximates the proportions of American Girl. (For
instance, my Maggie, in the picture on the right, has been given a Götz
clothing for the dolls is similarly high quality. The materials,
multiple layers, great shoes, lack of velcro, and great detailing are
far above the norm for play dolls. The dolls did not have one single
"Meet" outfit -- instead, they could be found in different collections,
like the Holiday Collection, where they are dressed for Christmas. None
of the outfits are modern, however, and the girls always wore clothing
appropriate for their American prairie girl heritage. A fair amount of
American Girl clothing fits them fine, but pants and shoes are
particularly a problem. Short sleeve/sleeveless or short pant length
outfits also look a bit odd on them because of the cloth that extends
down past their shoulders and hips.
Faithful Friends and American Girl body comparison
These were the first play dolls that Heidi Ott made and the first that
were made in China and not handcrafted. She wanted her dolls by be
enjoyed the mass market, not just those who could afford her
similarly-sized $200-$600 handcrafted dolls. However, when Target began
marketing them in ways she objected to, she terminated the relationship
and sued. Heidi Ott
eventually won the suit but not until after a bitter fight.
After this, she sold the dolls herself under the name of School
Children and later Play Dolls. They were given different names, better wigs and were
available in more variations. (In the picture on the right, wearing Addy's Stilting Dress, you can see Georgia from the School Children
line.) Since 2004, Heidi Ott no longer sells this type of doll, focusing
instead on her extensive line of miniatures.
If you collect 18" vinyl play dolls, be sure to track down a Faithful
Friends doll (or three) for your collection. They are still readily
available on eBay, often mint in the box, and the prices are very
reasonable. They are a wonderful, affordable way to own a piece of
Heidi Ott's artistry.
Text Copyright © 2006 Maria
Greene All Rights Reserved
Home • About Just Magic • Meet the Dolls • Articles • Pictures and Stories • Message Boards • Links • Contact the Webmaster
This page was last updated


text:
Please enter a valid mileage
Curious about the newer model? Check out the 2018 Kia Sportage
By KBB.com Editors
Those who remember the original Sportage SUV probably won't recognize the current model. Gone are the body-on-frame architecture, harsh ride and weak engine - not to mention the questionable reliability. The newest Sportage derives its underpinnings from a car chassis to give it a smooth ride, improved handling and better crash test results. The trade-off is an inability to tackle true off-road terrain (the Sportage lacks a proper high/low transfer case and locking differentials), but heavy snow and mud are still easily managed. And, while the humble Sportage must contend with flashy newcomers such as the Honda CR-V and Dodge Nitro, many people will find its low price and long list of standard features preferable to just another pretty face.
If you're on a modest budget but don't want to give up comfort or convenience, you'll appreciate Kia's approach to the compact SUV segment. And, while its V6 engine produces little more power than Honda's in-line four, you'll appreciate the V6's smoothness with every tip of the accelerator.
If you're an individual who cherishes an established nameplate, Kia (despite dramatic sales growth) lacks the long history of some other brands. And though Kia has definitely made strides versus segment leaders from Toyota and Honda, the Sportage might be a shade down from them in product refinement.
No Major Changes for 2007.
Kia's product team has hit the sweet spot in achieving a ride/handling balance completely appropriate to the target consumer. With a curb weight of some 3,400 pounds, the Sportage is...
... no lightweight. That fairly substantial heft is reflected in a feeling of solidity from the unit body structure. Suspension settings are biased toward comfort, and while the steering provides some feedback, it seems almost artificially induced. The V6 engine, while offering two more cylinders than the 2007 Honda CR-V (Toyota now offers a V6 with its RAV4), doesn't seem any more responsive than the Honda when connected to the standard four-speed automatic. We'd view the Sportage's on-road demeanor as creditable, although not entertaining.
Distinctive Design
We come away most impressed by the Sportage's distinctive design. In an era of generic styling emanating from many Asian studios, it's refreshing to see something truly distinctive without the carmaker resorting to "shock and awe."
Quality Interior Appointments
Five years ago, one peek at an interior in a Hyundai or Kia was all you needed to know to determine its origin or price point. That's certainly not the case today, with Kia employing improved plastics and upholstery throughout the lineup. On top of improved quality is true utility, with easy ingress and egress, in combination with a fold-flat rear seat that provides real stowage capability.
Most Sportage prospects will be pleased by its interior, combining real functionality with a number of upscale touches. Thankfully, the Korean car industry has finally embraced quality plastics, with an almost quantum improvement in both appearance and texture. Our test EX offered attractive cloth upholstery, which felt comfortable and appeared durable. The instrument panel, while not overly informative, offered easy-to-read gauges, while the center-mounted cluster employed controls easily identified and appropriately ergonomic. Adding to its upscale appeal were aluminized accents on both the instrument and door panels. Seating position is appropriately upright and, while the standard sunroof encroaches slightly on rear-seat headroom, most adults will find either front or rear seating to be generous. As with most compact SUVs, the fifth passenger's area is marginal, albeit available.
The Sportage represents a dramatic departure for the Kia design palette. As opposed to the original, discontinued in 2002, the newest Sportage replaced the curvaceous, almost organic look with something more akin to Origami. While not, to many eyes, beautiful, today's Sportage certainly has spunk, with a get-up-and-go attitude accentuated by short overhangs, a relatively wide track, ample tires (235/60-16 all-season radials) and generous headroom. The hatch features an opening window for convenience. A dual exhaust system with chrome tips accentuates the Sportage's not-quite-cute Sport-Ute pretensions.
Kia's tagline, "The Power to Surprise," is abundantly evident when viewing the Sportage's window sticker. A high level of standard equipment is part of Kia's core strategy. Available in either LX or EX variants, the Sportage enjoys an almost opulent level of equipment, even at its $16,495 base price. Young families will appreciate the safety benefits of Electronic Stability Control (ESC), traction control (TCS) and, at the EX level, a tire pressure monitoring system. Audiophiles will enjoy an AM/FM/CD system with six speakers - EX models enjoy MP3-compatibility. Privacy side glass is standard across the board, while a sunroof is included on the EX at no additional charge. Finally, while we wish the roof rails offered more than the stated 100-pound capacity, they are included in the base window sticker price for both versions.
With all that is standard the customer is left with little to add. Of course, the less expensive LX gives the customer more variables, although many of those would be dealer-installed. On the EX, a luxury package includes body-colored bumpers, leather seats and trim, heated front seats, automatic headlamps and a six-disc CD changer.
The base LX utilizes a fairly conventional (for the category) 2.0 liter in-line four, while the EX benefits from the 2.7 liter DOHC V6. It, along with the
Hyundai Tucson and Ford Escape, were among the first to offer six-cylinder power in the compact utility category. As noted above, we were not blown away by the responsiveness of the V6. It will meet consumer expectations, but we don't believe it will exceed them. The four-cylinder should be reserved for light duty only - no full loads, light towing and little exposure to work at high altitudes.
2.0-liter in-line 4
140 horsepower @ 6000 rpm
136 lb.-ft. of torque @ 4500 rpm
EPA city/highway fuel economy: 23/28 (2WD manual), 22/27 (2WD automatic), 22/26 (4WD manual)
2.7-liter V6
173 horsepower @ 6000 rpm
178 lb.-ft. of torque @ 4000 rpm
EPA city/highway fuel economy: 19/25 (2WD automatic), 19/23 (4WD automatic)
To compare current market prices, check out KBB.com's car classifieds to view the new and used Kia Sportage vehicles for sale near you.


text:
The Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times is absolutely incredible. I can't even begin to describe it properly in this space; really, you've got to read the whole article about it, even if that does take 45 minutes. They will be 45 minutes well spent, as this is without question the journalistic scandal of the (admittedly young) century. Check out Andrew Sullivan's excellent observations, too. But here is the gist, very briefly:
A staff reporter for The New York Times committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events in recent months, an investigation by Times journalists has found. The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.
The reporter, Jayson Blair, 27, misled readers and Times colleagues with dispatches that purported to be from Maryland, Texas and other states, when often he was far away, in New York. He fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He lifted material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.
That's only the beginning. It gets even worse when you read the details, and the even more detailed details. Seriously.
Heads must roll for this. I don't mean Blair's; he's already gone, having resigned earlier this month after being caught for committing plagiarism in an article late last month (just the tip of an enormous iceberg, as it turns out). No, I mean Blair's editors. Some of their heads must roll, too.
You see, some editors saw this coming. Some of those editors told their superiors. Some of those superiors didn't listen. Others listened selectively. Bad decisions were made, inexcusably bad and stupid decisions. Lots of them. It's a long story, and like I keep saying, you've got to read the whole thing to even begin to grasp it. But the point is, the whole communication system within the New York Times newsroom suffered a complete and utter breakdown.
This is a systematic, newspaper-wide failure. Jayson Blair is the perpetrator, yes, but it is utterly unacceptable that he was not stopped earlier. As 9/11 was to the intelligence community, as the Catholic priest sex scandal was to the church hierarchy, so is the Jayson Blair debacle to the New York Times editorial staff. And because, despite my recent rightward leanings, I still have a good deal of respect and admiration for the Times, it bothers me. A lot.
I am not one to say "heads must roll" at the drop of a hat. Indeed, I am generally averse to that phrase, and the sentiment that usually lies behind it. Part of this aversion stems from my dad's frequent, and quite correct, criticism that Americans too often believe we can create perfection on earth, as evidenced by the empty promises such as "let us make sure this never happens again" that tend to follow any sort of disaster. Perfection on earth is impossible; human beings are imperfect, and we should not lash out at them for forgivable imperfections, even if those imperfections cause us great anguish.
Moreover, I am particularly averse to the phrase "heads must roll" as applied to newspaper editors, for personal reasons. My head rolled once — over a "mistake" at the Daily Trojan that I believe really wasn't a mistake at all, but regardless of that — I was asked to resign an editorial position because my superiors believed heads had to roll, and mine was the one on the chopping block. So I know "heads must roll" is a sentiment that can be, and often is, abused. But I still think, in this case, that heads must roll.
Sometimes, the very fact of a preventable, catastrophic disaster is enough that the people who could have prevented it, who should have prevented it, whose very job description includes preventing it, can no longer be trusted to do their jobs properly. In cases like this, even if you feel bad for those people, even if they have halfway valid excuses (and I'm not sure some Times editors have even that), you still have to get rid of them. Not end their careers, not tarnish them forever, but fire them. Let them find a new job. Or, at the very least, give them the option of either resignation or demotion. If only as a cautionary tale, these people cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
That would include Howell Raines, the executive editor of the Times. He is ultimately responsible for the whole paper, and the paper has suffered a catastrophic failure here. If a corporation's earnings plummet, its CEO is fired; if a government agency suffers a major scandal, its secretary is sacked; and so should Howell Raines be replaced. (Indeed, if an equivalent scandal happened at any government agency — something going straight to the core of the agency's mission, as this goes straight to the Times's core mission of reporting the truth — I suspect the Times editorial board would be clamoring for the removal of the agency's head. The same should apply here.)
Arthur Sulzberger, the ball is in your court. Demote Raines, or let him find work elsewhere. But he has no place as the leader of the New York Times. Not now, not after this.
Unfortunately, I fear that heads as big as Raines's will not roll. The Times article includes this passage:
But Mr. Sulzberger emphasized that as The New York Times continues to examine how its employees and readers were betrayed, there will be no newsroom search for scapegoats. "The person who did this is Jayson Blair," he said. "Let's not begin to demonize our executives — either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."
Yes, the person who did this is Jayson Blair. But the people who allowed it to happen are Howell Raines and a host of others. Unfortunately, if Sulzberger's attitude doesn't change, they will not suffer for their crimes of negligence. Instead, it will be the Jenny Medinas of the world who will suffer. Young reporters, former interns, etc. — like Medina, the former Daily Trojan editor who interned last summer for the Times and, last I heard, was still writing for them — will now be under incredible scrutiny, and I fear it will be increasingly difficult to get promoted from the bottom up.
That's unfortunate, but ultimately, understandable and even fair. What isn't fair is if the higher-ups get off scot free, and only the lower-level staffers suffer. It's not a matter of finding "scapegoats." It's a matter of holding the responsible people responsible.
I hope I get lots of comments on this, because I know I'm being very harsh, and I'd love to hear outside opinions about whether that harshness translates into unfairness. I don't think it does, but I'm not unwilling to be swayed by a good argument.
I should say that the Times should be greatly credited for reporting on this so openly and in such great detail, and putting it in the Sunday paper, no less. I also appreciate the apology:
For all of the falsifications and plagiarism, The Times apologizes to its readers in the first instance, and to those who have figured in improper coverage. It apologizes, too, to those whose work was purloined and to all conscientious journalists whose professional trust has been betrayed by this episode.
Thanks. But I still might cancel my subscription. I have been thinking about doing so anyway, for financial reasons. Now it may become a matter of principle. I can see the letter now: "Dear Mr. Sulzberger, I am cancelling my subscription due to your shameless refusal to hold upper management accountable for their inexcusable negligence in the Jayson Blair debacle."
Thoughts, anyone?


text:
In a year when Republicans seem to be running to the right, candymaker Rick Enstrom has no problem admitting his ties to some of Colorado's best-known Democrats.
The former wildlife commissioner has spent time with former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter at Wyoming's One Shot Antelope Hunts and considers him a friend.
Enstrom and his wife donated $800 to Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey's re-election campaign this year.
And one of Enstrom's closest text-messaging pals is Mike King, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources under Ritter and now Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper.
Asked what he brings to the race, Enstrom didn't hesitate.
"An open mind," the Lakewood Republican said. "I'm not an ideologue. I just want business to be better in the state of Colorado."
Enstrom faces Rep. Max Tyler, D-Lakewood, who was appointed to the seat in 2009. House District 23 is one of the races to watch as Republicans try to hang on to their 33-32 majority and Democrats fight to gain control of the chamber.
Both candidates are expected to be hammered by the other party or outside groups over comments they made during the 2010 session, Enstrom about a bill that taxed soda and candy and Tyler on a teacher-tenure measure.
Tyler is well-known in the district, having started several businesses and served on a number of community commissions and panels.
On the campaign trail, the lawmaker, who serves on the House Transportation Committee, talks about the importance of getting road projects underway faster.
"The construction industry will tell you, when they go to work, a lot of other people go to work too," he said.
Tyler won his race in 2010 with 53 percent of the vote, despite it being a GOP year. House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, credited Tyler's margin of victory to his strong support for small businesses and his constituent outreach.
This time around, the district is even more Democratic because of how it was redrawn last year during reapportionment.
Ferrandino said a bigger problem for Enstrom than the registration breakdown is his fudging on facts during a fight over ending a tax break for candy sales.
"And now he wants to go work for a body he knowingly misled?" Ferrandino said.
But House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, said Enstrom did nothing but highlight Democratic attacks on "honest, hardworking businesspeople," which he said was a factor in Republicans winning the majority in 2010.
"Rick Enstrom was down there defending small businesses, and as a citizen of Colorado he had every right to do that," McNulty said. "To have the Democrats attack him for that shows an obscene level of dishonesty on their part."
Enstrom is an executive with Enstrom Candies, the business his grandfather started in Grand Junction. Enstrom in 2010 became the face of a fight against the so-called "Dirty Dozen," referring to tax breaks Democratic lawmakers and the Ritter administration wanted to end to help balance the budget.
One of the bills subjected candy and soda sales to the state's 2.9 percent sales tax. Enstrom testified about his family's 50-year-old business and the 146 Coloradans it employs.
"The adoption of a discriminatory tax on candy will have a huge impact on many small confectionery businesses and make it even more difficult to survive during these difficult economic times," he testified.
Ferrandino and other lawmakers were outraged when Enstrom admitted a few months later he knew the tax-exemption repeal wouldn't apply to his company because most of its products are frozen or refrigerated.
But Enstrom said he was far more than the face of his own candy company.
"I was representing the National Confectioners Association and the Retail Confectioners International. I was representing small business in Colorado," he said. "Then to get a lecture on top of that about how business doesn't do enough for the state of Colorado and it's time we started carrying our fair share. Really?"
Just as Democrats are critical of Enstrom's candy testimony, Republicans have gone after Tyler for his remarks during an emotional debate on a teacher- tenure bill on the House floor. Tyler said teachers must handle all types of kids who walk in the door, regardless of their condition coming in.
"If you were running a business baking bread and the flour came in to you full of maggots and worms, you would not be able to produce a good product, would you?" Tyler said, to gasps from fellow Democrats.
Tyler apologized within minutes for what he called his "poor analogy." He has apologized a number of times since then.
Lynn Bartels: 303-954-5327, firstname.lastname@example.com or twitter.com/lynn_bartels


text:
North Korea warns US over joint naval drill
North Korea warned the United States of "horrible disaster" on Tuesday as the isolated communist state put troops on alert against a joint naval drill involving a US aircraft carrier.
North Korean troops had been ordered to "keep themselves fully ready to promptly launch operations any time", a spokesman for the General Staff of the Korean People's Army said, in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.
The massive naval drill near the Korean peninsula is being staged by the United States, South Korea and Japan from Tuesday to Thursday and involves the nuclear-powered carrier USS George Washington.
It comes after Seoul and Washington last week signed a new joint strategy to counter the growing threat of a North Korean nuclear or chemical weapons attack.
The North Korean statement said the situation on the peninsula was "getting strained again" and warned the US that the closer its forces came "the more unpredictable disasters their actions will cause".
"The US will be wholly accountable for the unexpected horrible disaster to be met by its imperialist aggression forces," the statement said.
"The US should bear in mind that the Korean people and army are highly alert to promptly and confidently cope with and foil blatant provocations of any hostile forces in the world with its own powerful military muscle."
North Korea has habitually condemned joint army drills staged south of the border and has issued threats of counter-attacks that have rarely materialised.
The North's atomic test in February -- its most powerful to date -- triggered months of heightened military tension on the peninsula.
Pyongyang threatened pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Seoul and Washington, while the Pentagon has responded by deploying nuclear-capable B2 stealth bombers during past joint exercises with Seoul.
Tensions eased somewhat in recent months after the North changed tack to make a series of conciliatory gestures to Seoul, including an agreement to hold family reunions for those separated during the Korean War.
But acute concerns remain over the North's nuclear programme, with a US think tank saying last week that Pyongyang has clearly restarted an ageing plutonium reactor.


text:
LAST CHANCE: Join Movies Anywhere today to transfer your movies! Our service closes FEBRUARY 28.
Disney creates a whole new breed of comedy with a character unlike any other. Meet Spot, a clever little dog with big dreams of becoming a real boy. When Spot finds out that a crazy scientist can make his wish come true, he takes a cross-country trek with his best friend and master Leonard and their mom. However, Dr. Krank's experiments are a little less than perfect, and it will take Leonard and his pet pals to right this genetic wrong. (C) 2004 Disney
Nathan Lane, Kelsey Grammer, Shaun Fleming, Debra jo Rupp, David Ogden Stiers, Jerry Stiller, Paul Reubens, Megan Mullally, Rob Paulsen, Wallace Shawn, Estelle Harris, Jay Thomas
All transactions subject to applicable license terms and conditions.


text:
Defensive end Adewale Ogunleye, right, is still upset over the Bears' inability to defeat the lowly Detroit Lions in 2007.
Associated Press
- » Message or not, policy a welcome one
- » Bears still have things to work on
- » Lovie, please do not make that call every time
- » Looks like nothing better than .500 for Bears
- » Bears shopping Alex Brown a bad gamble
- » If Bears fire coaches, cleaning house next
- » Bears glass half full with Wanny, Smith
- » Bears should trade Briggs to get help
- » Time to mix things up
- » Note to Urlacher: Wake up and smell the D
- » Lovie: There's no need to coddle Cutler
- » Cutler's pickoffs something he can control
- » How are Cutler's woes Turner's fault?
- » Doesn't look good, but it's not over
- » Bears have 8 weeks to get ready for Allen
- More from Bob LeGere
The surest and the quickest way for the Bears to undo all the good they accomplished with Sunday night's victory over the Eagles is to underestimate the Lions this week in Detroit.
Granted, the 0-3 Lions are well on their way to an eighth straight losing season, including seven with double-digit defeats. But recent history says the Bears will regret taking lightly the perennial NFC North doormats, who swept them last season.
In the first 2007 meeting, the Bears were poised to even their record at 2-2 when they led the Lions 13-3 after three quarters at Ford Field. But 34 fourth-quarter points by the home team sent the Bears home on the short end of a 37-27 score with a 1-3 record.
Defensive end Adewale Ogunleye well remembers that defeat, which he says will prevent him from looking past the Lions.
"I know I won't," he said. "Last year they beat us two times, and that's the kind of thing that we need to remember. You can't look at it like they're 0-3. Last year, we had a lead in the third quarter and they came back and scored like 100 points or something and beat us. So we have a bad taste in our mouths after last season, and hopefully all of us will remember that."
After that loss, the Bears managed to regroup, defeating the Packers in Green Bay and turning in an inspiring performance to defeat the Eagles 19-16 in Philadelphia to get back in the race at 3-4. But just like this year, they faced Detroit the following week, and the Lions came into Soldier Field and won 16-7, leaving the Bears at 3-5 and dead in the water.
The Bears don't have the luxury of savoring the Sunday night prime-time victory or looking beyond the game at hand, but a victory over the Lions could build momentum for a long winning streak. The next week they face a beatable Falcons team in Atlanta, then they come home to host the struggling Vikings and, after an off week, get the Lions again, at home. A 6-2 record at the halfway point is within their grasp.
"For us, it's just about the next game," coach Lovie Smith said. "This team swept us last year. So we know what they're capable of doing. I know what their record says right now, but the season is still young. After one quarter (of the season), what can you really tell about how good a football team anyone really is?"
Players, for the most part, are maintaining a realistic perspective. They knew beating the Eagles was huge, but they don't seem to be satisfied. They're confident but not cocky, having the fresh memory of blowing two winnable games.
"We've played good enough to be 2-2, but a play here and a play there we could very easily be 4-0," defensive end Alex Brown said. "We've just got to keep working. We're sitting in good shape (considering) we haven't played very well. We believe we've got a really good team here, but we've just got to get rid of the mistakes."
Tripping over the Lions would be a mistake the Bears might not be able to overcome.


text:
Qualifying Medical Conditions
Find out if you qualify to receive benefits of Medical Marijuana.Read More
Get Your Medical Marijuana Card
Learn how to get your Medical Marijuana Card. It takes time, so get started now!Read More
Frequently Asked Questions
Have questions? No problem, we are here to help! Here's a list of answers to your commonly asked questions.Read More
Let Us Help You
EarthMed is dedicated to helping you with your medical marijuana needs with expertise and compassion.EarthMed combines accessibility, class, and comfort for patients seeking alternative medicine through medical marijuana. We believe this focus on comfort, overall wellness, and health will create a comfortable, warm, and happy environment which makes EarthMed the premier destination for medical marijuana patients in Illinois.
In order for us to get in touch with you to discuss the medical marijuana treatment options available to you, please fill out the form to the right. Once we receive your request for information, someone from our team will be in contact with you to help you receive the medical marijuana treatment that you need and deserve.


text:
Fanny Dickenson Scott Johnson Marker, K-5
In this valley in June 1785, Fanny Dickenson Scott's husband, Archibald Scott, their four children and a young male member of the nearby Ball family were killed by members of four different Indian tribes. The rest of the Ball family escaped, but Fanny Scott was taken prisoner. She later was able to flee her captors. After evading Indians and enduring many hardships, she reached the New Garden settlement in present day Russell County by 11 August. Newspapers as far as away as Philadelphia reported her ordeal. She later married Thomas Johnson for whom Johnson County, Tennessee is named. She died in May 1796 in Russell County.
Marker Information:Year On Marker: 2000
Geographic Location: Lee County
Physical Description of Location: Duffield, VA 24244. Located on Daniel Boone Trail (Hwy 421), less than 1/5 of a mile northwest of the junction of Daniel Boone Trail (Hwy 421) and State Route 612. Marker is on the left when traveling northwest on Daniel Boone Trail (Hwy 421).
Display on Google Maps
Display on Google Earth


text:
My escape when it rains it seems to run rough but it dries out but this last storm 4 days ago it has not (Sandy storm) when in idle it will run some what rough but when I put it in gear or idle it up it starts to choke for air or fuel (stall out) I took out the air filter and it was dry other than the wires or plugs could it be a cat converter or water in the fuel? (Bad jets) can you please addvise me on what to do. Thank you
have the same problem?
Saturday, November 3rd, 2012 AT 6:19 PM


text:
rather than cutting off triagle for mq6 i sewed the second seam to right then cut . i'm doing solids. now for another quilt i plan on sewing all the left over square of hst together then cut a circle how could i achieve a stain glass look rather than a bunch triangles sewed together ? any ideas?
Quilting My Rainbow
if you put a skinny 1/4 inch strip of black between all of the triangles, it will look like stained glass. that might be kinda hard. you could stitch them all together and applique a skinny strip over all the seams.
gini in north idaho
Thanks gini and wow your quick at answering any way this one is on my eventually list because i have the mq6 working on plus a bom before joining qca i was a one quilt at a time person .
One way that makes it quicker to sew on those 1/4 inch strips, is to take a long strip and sew on a triangle one after another, but leaving space between for the triangle points.
Chiliwist Valley
i never thought to strip piece them, that's a good idea
To get the stained glass effect, you could do a satin stitch in black on the front at the seams. Might even be a good way to quilt it.
today i'm thinking that maybe i would look at black lace to do an overlay because this quilt woul be more like a wall quilt its just a thought.
Just had another thought for this project I might crochet a doilly overlay in black thread.


text:
We hear a lot about how older Americans have difficulties with their prescription medications. That makes it all the more disturbing when a pharmaceutical company takes advantage of them by promoting a drug as safe and effective for a certain condition – like, say, dementia – when in fact it may not be.
According to the Justice Department, that's what Johnson & Johnson did in marketing its antipsychotic drug Risperdal to older adults and other vulnerable patients. Now the company will pay more than $2.2 billion in civil and criminal fines.
>> Sign up for the AARP Health Newsletter
By way of background, the federal government has been cracking down on pharmaceutical companies that market their drugs for "off label" purposes, such as treating diseases for which they have not been approved. In this case, Johnson & Johnson pushed physicians and other prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion in older adults with dementia, even though the Food and Drug Administration had repeatedly refused to approve the drug for this purpose. What's more, studies have shown that older adults with dementia who take antipsychotics such as Risperdal are at a greater risk for stroke – and death – during treatment. According to the Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who spoke about the settlement at a news conference, Johnson & Johnson "recklessly put at risk the health of some of the most vulnerable members of our society – including young children, the elderly and the disabled."
Among other things, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, created an entire marketing unit called "ElderCare" and tasked it with selling Risperdal and other similar drugs to specialists in geriatric medicine. In business plans, according to the Justice Department, Janssen said that it's goal was to "[m]aximize and grow Risperdal's market leadership in geriatrics and long term care." The result? The drug became one of the company's biggest sellers – and with big sales, of course, comes big, big money.
But, this week, the federal government used the "big money" stick to hit Johnson & Johnson where it hurt. As a part of the settlement, it got the company to plead guilty to a criminal misdismeanor, acknowledging that it improperly marketing Risperdal to older Americans for "off label"uses. While a company can't serve time in jail (and no individuals pleaded guilty under the terms of the deal), it can pay through the nose; its criminal fines and forfeiture add up to $485 million. The rest of the gigantic monetary settlement is in the form of civil penalties.
>> Get discounts on financial products and services with your AARP Member Advantages.
This isn't the first time Johnson & Johnson has been prosecuted by the federal government. In the recent past, it has been sued for paying kickbacks to a large nursing home pharmacy and fined for marketing other drugs for unapproved uses.
Johnson & Johnson did not admit to wrongdoing for the civil portion of the settlement, which involved accusations that it promoted the use of Risperdal use in children and the developmentally disabled and also that it paid kickbacks to physicians and to the nation's largest long-term care pharmacy provider.
Photo: Housed via Wikipedia
Also of Interest
- AARP: Reject Harmful Cuts to Social Security and Medicare
- 8 Germiest Places
- Shopping for health insurance? The health insurance marketplace is now open
- Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being
See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more


text:
ST. PETERSBURG — Ann Steward and her boyfriend Michael Rossi thought they'd found their dream boat.
The young couple recently saw a Craigslist ad for what they thought was a good deal on a used, 24-foot cabin motorboat.
They picked it up Monday from a Tampa pawnshop.
Just before 1 p.m. Tuesday, less than 24 hours after the purchase, the couple and their three young children were stranded in Tampa Bay, about 20 to 30 yards south of the center span of the Gandy Bridge, after a fire started in the engine compartment.
"We wanted to take it on a trial run," said Steward, 24. "But about a mile or two into the trip the boat started smoking and smelling really bad."
Rossi dropped the anchor, but winds kept pushing the boat closer to the bridge.
Someone driving by saw the smoke and called 911.
Within minutes, a crew from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which has an office nearby, reached the boat.
"If that boat hit pylons it would all be over," said FWC Officer Robert Scholl. "It was crucial that we get there."
FWC officers loaded Steward and the kids onto their boat and helped Rossi put out the blaze with a fire extinguisher he had on board. He opted to stay with the vessel until it could be towed to shore.
Steward said she and Rossi had been saving up and looking for a boat for a while. She grew up with a boat and wanted her kids to have that experience as well.
On Tuesday, though, she was just glad to be on land. She watched as her children, girls ages 7 and 5, and a 1-year-old boy, played under a tree.
"I was really scared, being out in the water like that," Steward said as she waited for her husband and their boat to be towed back to shore. "I'm so happy help showed up."
Officials are still investigating the cause of the fire.