text:
- Font:
- +
- -
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Can the Senate and the House agree on a comprehensive reform of immigration? Was the FBI raid on a congressional office a breach of the constitutional separation of powers? With us: the senior senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel; and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
Then, President Bush admits missteps in the Iraq war.
(Videotape, May 25, 2006):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Saying, "Bring it on." Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: And the new Iraqi prime minister in an exclusive NBC News interview.
Insights and analysis from David Broder of The Washington Post, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, Kate O'Beirne of the National Review, and Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post.
And in our MEET THE PRESS MINUTE, we remember former Treasury Secretary and U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who died this week.
But first, immigration. Can the House, the Senate and the White House find common ground? We are joined by Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Senator Chuck Hagel.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE): Hi.
MR. RUSSERT: Welcome both.
Let's put this issue in context for our viewers, and read a summary of the bill that was just passed by the Senate. Here we go. "Border security would get a boost, with 14,000 Border Patrol agents added ... over the next five years. Extra detention facilities would be built to hold the illegal immigrants caught at the border. And the bill authorizes the construction of 370 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico boundary.
"Employers would have to start using an electronic verification system within 18 months to ensure that all new hires are legal. Companies that hired illegal workers would be fined up to $20,000 dollars, and repeat offenders would draw prison terms.
"... The bill creates a three-tiered system to determine the future status of illegal immigrants. Those who arrived in the U.S. in the last two years would be required to leave. Those in the country more than two years but less than five years would have to leave the country and get a work visa before reentering, after which they could work toward legal status.
"Those in the U.S. longer than five years could stay and eventually apply for permanent legal status, a step toward citizenship, as long as they paid back taxes and fines of at least $3,250 dollars, continued working, and learned English and U.S. civics.
"A guest worker program would allow foreign workers to enter the country in the future and provide a way for them to gain permanent legal status.
"The bill also declares English the national language."
Congressman Sensenbrenner, what is wrong with that legislation?
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): Well, it's too much too soon and too expensive. What we have to do is first secure the border, and then we have to turn off the magnet that brings more illegal immigrants into our country. Once we do that and we know it's effective, then we can figure out what to do with the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants that are already here. I'm afraid that the amnesty—and that's what it is—that's proposed in the Senate bill and the way it's proposed is going to result in huge document fraud just like there was when amnesty was passed 20 years ago in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, which failed so miserably that we have a problem that's out of control now.
MR. RUSSERT: What would you do with the 11 million illegal immigrants?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Well, if we have a workable and effective employer sanctions program, then I think a lot of the illegal immigrants would simply go back home because they would no longer be able to work in this country illegally. The problem with the Senate bill is that there is no verification of current illegal immigrant status, so they can keep their jobs forever. The House bill does require current employee Social Security numbers to be verified so that we can squeeze the illegal immigrant employment out of our economy and replace illegal immigrant workers with either citizens or legal immigrants who have green cards.
MR. RUSSERT: As you well know, those 11 million illegal immigrants have about three million children who were born in the U.S., therefore they are U.S. citizens. What would happen to them? Would they go back to the or—the country of origin for the mom and pop? Or would they stay in the U.S.?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The mom and pop would have to make that determination on their own. We cannot deport U.S. citizens, and I would tell you that it's impractical and probably physically impossible to deport the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants that are already here. What the Senate does is throw up their hands, say, "Give them amnesty"—they don't call it amnesty—but give them amnesty and allow them to stay. That's not fair because it gives a reward to a lawbreaker, but it also is unfair to people who are standing in queue to become legal immigrants. For example, a legal immigrant from Mexico has to wait 16 years. Under the Senate bill, an illegal immigrant who is a Mexican citizen can get the permanent resident status and a green card in only six years. So sneaking under the fence under the Senate bill jumps you ahead in the line by 10 years.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hagel, you are the author of that said legislation.
Please respond.
SEN. HAGEL: Well, my friend, Jim Sensenbrenner, has not given all the story here as to what that bill does. Let's start with a couple of the main points. Our bill is 730 pages long. The House bill is 255 pages long. The first half of our bill deals solely with enforcement. You put some of them up on the screen. It goes for hundreds of pages beyond that. So we do enforce the border, and we do things in addition to which you said, 500 miles of vehicle traps and so on. There are 60 subsections in our bill on what we would do with enforcement. In fact, our bill goes further than the House bill in some sections on enforcement.
Now, let's get to the bigger issues after enforcement. In the first half of our bill is enforcement. Nobody questions enforcement. Amnesty, that's nonsense. What Ronald Reagan did in 1986 was amnesty, "Unconditional, all is forgiven." What Jimmy Carter did in 1978 with those who left this country rather than serve the country, "unconditional, all is forgiven." That was amnesty. This is not amnesty, as you've already laid out some of the criteria that those who would qualify would have to go through. Not all of the criteria you laid out.
Let's talk about the workers. For example, in the front page of The New York Times this morning, there's a story about firefighters in the Northwestern part of the United States. It talks about half of the National Forest Service firefighters are immigrants, and probably most of those are illegal immigrants. The fact is, temporary workers—and by the way, the secretary of labor signs off on temporary workers. No temporary workers are allowed in this country unless he signs off or she signs off.
We need to deal with that. We need to deal with the 11 million to 12 million and, as you noted, those children. We can't just defer that. This is not a sequential process. This is a process that must be comprehensive. All the pieces that we have in our bill—and yes, they are debatable and they should be debatable. Yes, they're emotional, but they're all part of what we're trying to do in a wider view, wider sense of what is important to our, our country.
Let me talk about a couple of other things here. He talks about money. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Commission on Taxes both said—both came up with the same number, over the next 10 years the Senate bill would cost about $54 billion dollars. But what you don't hear is they also said that the revenues coming in from that Senate bill would be about $66 billion dollars. So, yes, it's going to take some resources, but actually the Congressional Budget Office says that our bill produces more revenues than it does expenses.
You can't just let dangle out there for our country, for our national security, for our economics, for our fabric, our social fabric, those who are here illegally. They have broken a law, they must be dealt with, and we have a way to, to deal with them. Is it imperfect? Yes, it is. But when you asked the chairman the question, "What are you doing, Mr. Chairman?" he really doesn't have an answer for that. "Well, let's just fix the border first." Well, of course you fix the border first. The problem with 1986 in that, in that bill, yes, it was amnesty. This is not amnesty. Second, we didn't enforce our border. Third, we didn't do anything about worker enforcement. We didn't give any penalties or any structure to those who hire, the employers, their verification, those illegals, and we just let the rest of, of it drift. We have an opportunity now to restructure, recommit ourselves and do it right.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Sensenbrenner, when the president of the United States addressed the nation on this subject, you said, quote, "I think he doesn't get it." What doesn't President Bush get?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: President Bush and my, with all due respect, my colleagues in the Senate don't get the fact that Simpson-Mazzoli failed miserably 20 years ago. This bill is a repeat of Simpson-Mazzoli. First, let me say that the convoluted thing that Senator Hagel says is not amnesty really is amnesty, and former Attorney General Ed Meese, who was Reagan's AG at the time, wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times on Wednesday, said that at least Ronald Reagan was honest in calling it amnesty.
Now, what—the procedure that the Senate has done invites document fraud. That happened in '86 when illegal immigrants who were here for two years could apply for amnesty. Meese said that there was a huge amount of document fraud. The same construct is in the Senate bill. But the Senate also has got a provision in their bill that says that the immigration authorities cannot investigate beyond the piece of paper that the immigrant applies for amnesty on. So if the person lies on that application, there can't be an investigation, and the government employee is subject to criminal investigation and liability if they try to investigate it on their own.
The other thing the Senate bill does, and I think this is really outrageous, is that it gives retroactive Social Security credit to illegal immigrants who are using fraudulent Social Security cards. That's going to be an $80 billion to $100 billion-dollar raid on a Social Security trust fund that we all know isn't very healthy. And what this does is that it rewards the illegal immigrants for the period that they were here illegally, work—and working illegally, not just in letting them stay here, but to dip into a Social Security fund that has got to be restructured if it is to continue to provide the benefits to people who have worked here and paid in all of their lives.
MR. RUSSERT: But isn't it estimated that illegal immigrants have contributed over $400 billion dollars into the Social Security fund?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: And, and illegal immigrants can't get Social Security numbers on their own, so either they contributed with a stolen Social Security number or a fraudulent Social Security number. And the fact of the matter remains is that the entire transaction was fraud and the Senate bill retroactively rewards that fraud. That's not right.
MR. RUSSERT: Go ahead, Senator.
SEN. HAGEL: Well, let me, let me correct the chairman on a couple of points. The Senate bill puts into place a biometric identification card. Every alien, every immigrant worker must have a biometric identification card. That means you can't get a job without it. It's tamper-proof, fraud-resistant. And therefore, that starts to deal with some of the things the chairman's talking about. He inconveniently forgets that.
The fact is, on workers, one of the things that we don't talk much about is that we are essentially at full employment in the country today. Our current unemployment rate in this country today is 4.7 percent. That—any economist will tell you that's almost full employment. The fact is, we have more jobs today than ever in the history of this country, all kinds of new jobs. Our bill deals with these, these worker visas, these temporary worker visas, both low skill and high skill.
One of the things that Europe did wrong in this years and years ago—and France is a good example—when they're not dealing with the things the Senate bill's dealing with, what you do is you perpetuate a, a lower class, a constant, a consistent, a permanent lower class. That's part of the problems that the Europeans are having today. Our bill deals with that. You, you cannot perpetuate that lower class. So all of these things are, are part of what we have to deal with.
And I acknowledge, can we do something better in a conference? I hope so. That's the whole point of a conference. But, but to just walk away from it and say, "Well, we're going to enforce budgets—our borders first, and then maybe we'll get to the rest of it," we fail the American public. We fail those who sent us here not to resolve this problem. And I think the president's right. I think the American people are starting to move in that direction, fix the problem. It will be imperfect.
MR. RUSSERT: What will be the political consequences this fall if a Republican president, a Republican Senate and a Republican House do not come together and find common ground on immigration?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, there will be political consequences. There are political consequences for everything we defer and don't do. We're in the mess that we're in today on this issue is because we've deferred this tough issue. My dear friend Jim Sensenbrenner and those who think like Jim on this, they want to continue to defer it. That's why we have the problem we have. There will be a political consequence for this. That's not why we do it or should fix it, but, but make no mistake, politics is wrapped around everything. Politics is in the fabric of our very processes, as it should be, because politics is about accountability, it's about leadership, it's about courage. This is the test. This is a significant test.
MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, Congressman Sensenbrenner, will you—will House Republicans accept any path to citizenship for the illegal immigrants now in the U.S.?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Tim, the words "path to citizenship" is a buzz word for amnesty. We ought to be honest. It is amnesty.
But to respond to Senator Hagel, I was in Congress when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed. I voted against it. We have the problem today not because we deferred the problem, it's because Congress made a mistake in passing Simpson-Mazzoli. And those who supported it, including former Senator Simpson, said that the Simpson-Mazzoli bill has given us the difficulty that we're in.
The Senate bill is Simpson-Mazzoli 20 years later. I want to solve the problem. The American people want this problem solved, but this time we've got to do it right. And to do it right means to do things in the proper order. The secret is first, secure the border and enforce the employer sanctions law. If we don't do both of those things, then we will simply get more illegal immigrants coming across the border and taking jobs, because it is always cheaper for an illegal immigrant to be hired than either a citizen or a legal immigrant with a green card and work authorization. The market does work, and no bill that we pass, unless it is done right, will be able to rectify the market so that people who are doing these jobs, including Americans and legal immigrants, will be on the books, will be legal, will be paid and will have their Social Security taxes paid under their own Social Security number and their own name. And that's what the priorities of the House are.
I can say that earlier this month Zogby released a poll, and they had a fair question where they asked the American public whether they preferred the Senate or the House approach. The House approach was preferred over the Senate approach by a 64- to 30-percent margin by the American public. I think the House is where the American people are; the Senate has gone way off the page.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask my question again: Would you accept any legislation which would put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship or, as you say, amnesty?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: No. Amnesty is wrong, and even Mexican government officials have said that the talk of amnesty is actually increasing the flow of illegal immigrants across the border as we speak. And they have redeployed some of their security forces into the desert on the Mexican side of the border to prevent Mexicans who are trying to come across the border from either starving or being deyhdrated. Amnesty is wrong and we should not pass it.
MR. RUSSERT: Twenty-four percent of the farming industry relies on illegal immigrants; 17 percent of the cleaning industry, 14 percent of the construction industry, 12 percent of the food preparation industry—all illegal immigrants. What happens to those industries if the illegal immigrants are sent home?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: I'm not saying that the illegal immigrants will be sent home, and I think that the end sum game, which I hope Senator Hagel agrees with, is to turn the illegal immigrant work force into a legal work force, whether they're legal immigrants or whether they're United States citizens. Because this problem has festered for such a long period of time, that can't be done with the wave of a wand or the signing of a bill by the president of the United States.
But I get back to the point that unless we do employer sanctions right and do border security right, you'll simply get more illegal immigrants coming across the border, and those that are here now might not apply for amnesty or whatever else it's called because they're afraid that they will price themselves out of the market and lose their jobs.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator:
SEN. HAGEL: Jim Sensenbrenner has just described the Senate bill. He has just described why we should pass the Senate bill. Everything he just said, it is right and it is included in the Senate bill. You talk about polls and the American people and where the American people are on this. Isn't it interesting that you have four states that are along that 2,000-mile border with Mexico, four states with eight United States senators. Five of those eight senators, bipartisan, supported the Senate bill.
Now, are they so out of touch with their constituents, five out of eight border state senators supported the Senate bill? I don't think so. I think the American people, as they start to become more aware of what the details are, what the facts are, information, your kinds of programs, Tim, that allow people to understand this, will, as we always do, start to appreciate the fact that you just—you cannot let this continue to drift, that you have to deal with it. And, again, I'm, I'm amused, is the only reaction I can have at Jim and others, they're continuation on amnesty. I mean, this is just not amnesty. But we'll let, we'll let the conference figure this out.
Last point I'd make on this. I don't speak for the Senate, I don't speak for any senator. I've spoken to a number of Jim's colleagues—matter of fact, some leadership colleagues over there. Most of the people, the Republicans on the House side that I've spoken to, including leadership, including the chairman of the Rules committee who is from California, Congressman David Dreier, want to try to find a resolution to this. So what I'm saying is, this is the best opportunity to do that in a conference, and I think we all want that. I know Jim Sensenbrenner wants it. But to, but to say that something's a nonstarter before you go in, you can't do that.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you support legislation, in the final analysis, that did not provide a path for citizenship for the illegal immigrants?
SEN. HAGEL: I think you've got to have some system, Tim, to do this. Now, they could change it, they can tune it up, they can amend it, but you again are deferring the problem. And, as Jim Sensenbrenner said, the failure of the 1986 act was because we didn't deal with that, as well as we didn't deal with other things. We are now dealing with all those pieces in the Senate bill. Doesn't mean it's perfect, doesn't mean it can't be improved. That's why you have the conference.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Sensenbrenner, will there be a bill?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: I hope so. I think the American public wants us to have a bill, but it's important to do it right. Twenty years ago we did it wrong, and we're paying the price. I don't think either Senator Hagel or I want our name on a bill that ends up blowing up in the face of the United States 20 years from now like Simpson-Mazzoli did.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to another subject. You issued a press release saying that you're going to have a hearing entitled "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?" The FBI raiding the office of Congressman William Jefferson, a Democrat, with a court-approved search warrant, in their investigation of potential bribery. Why are you so upset?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The Constitution has given Congress immunity for certain transactions, but the court has very clearly said that no corrupt member of Congress can hide behind the speech or debate clause of the US Constitution to shield criminal activity. The FBI has been able to convict corrupt congresspeople in the ABSCAM and in the House bank scandal without this kind of a raid. The executive branch has got immunity under executive privilege as well. And I don't think that it would be right for a House committee to issue a subpoena to the president's office and send the Capitol Police rummaging through files, taking everything, and then deciding what wasn't relevant by themselves and returning it to the president. And that's what the Capitol—or what the FBI did in Congressman Jefferson's office two weeks ago.
Separation of powers and checks and balances is very important, but I want to emphasize and reemphasize that this debate is not over whether Congressman Jefferson is guilty of a criminal offense. He cannot use the constitutional immunity of Congress to shield himself from that or any evidence of that. But it is about the ability of the Congress to be able to do its job free of coercion from the executive branch, and this is something that's worked very well for 219 years, and I think if it's done right, it will continue to work very well for the next 219 years.
MR. RUSSERT: When Speaker Hastert spoke out like you have against this raid, he said information was leaked about him and being involved in his own investigation against him in order to intimidate him. What do you know about that?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Well, the Justice Department twice denied that Speaker Hastert is under investigation. One of your competiting—competing news channels after that denial by the Justice Department republished the fact that the Justice Department allegedly was investigating Speaker Hastert. There was a second denial. I think that news media people have a justifiable cynicism of those of us who serve in public office, but believe me, after the department denied that the speaker is under investigation, for them to turn around and put it up on the air again kind of makes those of us who are in the cross hairs because we happen to be elected a little cynical of what some people in the news media do. Fortunately, that's not you, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hagel, are you upset at the fact that the FBI raided the office of a congressman with a subpoena, court-ordered, because he is the subject of a criminal investigation?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, first, we all need to reaffirm that no individual is above the law. Whether it's a congressman, a senator, certainly a president. But some of the points that Jim Sensenbrenner brings out are important. I don't know the facts here, so I'm a little out of my depth. But what I do know, I think this was handled a little awkwardly. I think the president is right in pulling this back a little bit. He is, as you know, put a freeze on this and they will not make a decision for 45 days. We can work our way through this, but you've got a number of factors involved. Not only the ones that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee mentioned, but you've got also atmospherics here and, and a very testy relationship that's going beyond just what, what this issue is about. So we need to just work it through.
MR. RUSSERT: You mean Republicans are fed up with the Bush White House?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, there, there are lot of issues here. And I would go back more specifically not to political issues, but NSA for example, using new technologies to monitor and inventory calls. This is, this is the point I'm making. It's a universe of bigger issues than, than just this. And this environment, now, is widened and deepened by this one last issue and, and yes there is.
MR. RUSSERT: Is there anger amongst Congressional Republicans with the White House?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, I think there's an issue of—and there's always a tension usually.
MR. RUSSERT: Frustration?
SEN. HAGEL: There's some frustration. Sure, there is. And I think that you're seeing that played out on both sides.
MR. RUSSERT: You said last week the president should negotiate directly with Iran. Why?
SEN. HAGEL: I said he should engage directly with Iran. I don't see, first of all, how you're going to get to the core, to the central issues on the differences, significant differences, between Iran and the United States without that direct engagement. How are things getting better? Are things getting better at the United Nations? Are we enlisting more support for our cause? Are things getting better in the Middle East? I think you could make a pretty strong case that things are worse off in the Middle East today than they were three years ago, by measurement of Iraq, by Iran, by the Palestinian/Israeli issue, what's going on in Egypt.
And I think the United States must use its force of diplomacy to engage Iran. Eventually you're going to have to do that. It is bigger than just the nuclear issue. We're talking about Israel, Iraq, oil, economy. Iran is a large country. It's a powerful country. It's a country of a 5,000 year history. That's diplomacy, that's the hard work of diplomacy. Eventually, we're going to have to do it, we should do it, we should take the leadership.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Chuck Hagel, Congressman James Sensenbrenner, we thank you both very much for your views.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Thank you.
SEN. HAGEL: Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: And we'll be watching this conference committee discussion about immigration.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, our political roundtable. Immigration and the Iraq war, how will they affect the midterm elections November 2006? Our political roundtable is next right here on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. RUSSERT: Our political roundtable—David Broder, David Ignatius, Kate O'Beirne, and the one and the great Mr. Robinson of The Washington Post—after this station break.
MR. RUSSERT: Welcome, all.
David Broder, here's the front page of your paper today. "Republican House members facing the toughest races this fall are overwhelmingly opposed to any deal that provides illegal immigrants a path to citizenship—an election-year dynamic that significantly dims the prospects that President Bush will win the immigration compromise he is seeking ... The opposition spreads across the geographical and ideological boundaries that often divide House Republicans. ... Moderates such as Christopher Shays in suburban Connecticut and Steve Chabot in Cincinnati [and] conservative J.D. Hayworth in Arizona said they are adamant that Congress not take any action that might be perceived as rewarding illegal behavior." Where are we?
MR. DAVID BRODER: The House is convinced—the Republicans in the House are convinced that the public is with them, as you heard Mr. Sensenbrenner say. I think it's going to be a very difficult negotiation, and I think, for many of those Republicans, they'd rather have no bill than a bill that they can't justify to their constituents.
MR. RUSSERT: Kate O'Beirne, the speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, has said, "I will not put forward any legislation that does not have the support of the majority of the Republicans." Even if he has every Democrat and 49 percent of the Republicans, a majority in the House, he won't move the legislation. Is that right?
MS. KATE O'BEIRNE: Right. That, that's been a long-standing pledge of his, not too much unlike the Democrats who were running Congress before the Republicans took over. Let's not forget, most of the items on the Contract with America were items that Republicans in the House couldn't get a vote on on the floor. So it, it is a difference between the House and Senate.
Senator Frist, of course, didn't get a majority of his Republicans for the bill the Senate just passed out. He had no alternative, because his option was no bill, because he needs 60 votes to get something out of the Senate. But a majority of the Senate Republicans wind—wound up seeming to agree with the majority of the House Republicans, so it sort of puts George Bush with congressional Democrats on the issue of immigration.
MR. RUSSERT: Gene Robinson, how about this? You see George Bush closer to John McCain and Ted Kennedy than he is to House Republicans. What happens politically if a Republican president, Republican House, Republican Senate cannot agree on an immigration bill?
MR. EUGENE ROBINSON: Well, I think politically it's damaging. It makes it—this whole issue has been raised, it's, it's topic A. If they get nothing done on it, I think it's harmful to the Republican Party. It may be a good thing for the country if they don't get anything done, because the House approach, I think, really ignores the fact that there are 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants here who can't be rounded up and deported overnight, or, or whatever. The president's bill, and the president's approach and the Senate approach—very complicated, hard to sell—might make more sense as public policy, I think, but harder to sell.
MR. RUSSERT: David:
MR. DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, you know, I—listening to the debate between, between, between Sensenbrenner and Hagel, I, I kept thinking this is a wedge issue for Republicans. And Republicans are really angry at each other. And, you know, I think this may be a moment where, if they're unable to come to a compromise on final legislation—you'd certainly have to say that after, after watching this debate and hearing what's going on, that may be a good thing, that the country really isn't quite yet at the point where there is a clear path that everybody will feel comfortable about going forward that will legalize this very difficult problem of immigration. We're just not there yet.
MS. O'BEIRNE: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: Go ahead.
MS. O'BEIRNE: What the House is going to argue, I think, is—what they are arguing is we wouldn't have the 11 million to 12 million illegals here had we not done what we did in 1986, which was, of course, legalize three million illegals and promise to enforce the border and interior enforcement, and not do so. So I think what the House is going to be arguing is for an incremental approach. We do know 80 percent of the public wants the border enforced, they want to stop the hundreds of thousands coming over, and they support workplace sanctions. They think you shouldn't be able to hire illegals. So they're with the public on the enforcement side, and they'll talk incremental.
Once we have that in place, then we can adopt—and I think there's more support among House Republicans than people think for a guest worker program. They are hearing from employers back home. But they want to make sure that it's going to be orderly, not make the mistakes in '86, and it would be unworkable if we don't get the enforcement and workplace stuff right.
MR. IGNATIUS: You know, Sensenbrenner talked about turning off the magnet that's drawing illegal immigrants. I'm sorry, the magnet is the U.S. economy.
MS. O'BEIRNE: Right.
MR. IGNATIUS: And you can't turn that off.
MR. ROBINSON: And the border is not easily sealed.
MS. O'BEIRNE: Right.
MR. ROBINSON: It is not easily sealed. Go down there, you'll see.
MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, the president of the United States, 35 percent approval rating, has talked about this issue, immigration, passionately for a long time. What does he now do if he moves forward on the path to citizenship—or amnesty, as Congressman Sensenbrenner referred to it? Does he further antagonize his political base and risk going down in the polls, or will a success on the issue help him with moderate or swing voters?
MR. BRODER: Well, a success would certainly help him. He has not had a win in Congress for much too long politically. So he's better off if he can get a bill. But there's no question that he's going to pay a price for challenging the core of the Republican Party on, on this issue.
I have to say, I think the president is committed. I think his gut and his heart is in this issue, and he is prepared, I think, to fight on this issue.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of the FBI raid on the office of Congressman William and—Jefferson, denounced in an interesting bipartisan letter by Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi, the first I've seen in a long time.
Kate O'Beirne, your National Review editorial this week is quite strong on this subject. Let me read it. "House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader John Boehner led a chorus of disgruntled legislators in crying foul, closing ranks around an apparent felon and raving incoherently about a supposed separation-of-powers violation.
"This incredibly tin-eared performance was based on an extravagant construction of the Constitution's speech-and-debate clause (Article 1, Section 6). Congress evidently reads this clause as giving its office space blanket immunity from any investigation by the executive branch - even with court authorization - in connection with any crime, no matter how heinous.
"This is delusional. Congress had a chance to come out swinging against corruption - to demonstrate, amid a slew of tawdry scandals, its recognition that public officials are subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. The Republican leadership in particular should have seen an opportunity to redirect attention from its caucus's lapses to a Democrat's crude criminality. They chose, instead, to rally around an apparent swindler." Wow.
MS. O'BEIRNE: The, the broad constitutional claim I think is awfully shaky. In fact, as you watch this during the course of this week, it's not a claim that the congressional leaders are making. They do allow that no member should be able to hide in secret in his office, away from law enforcement officials, evidence of criminal behavior.
But just because the Justice Department has a legal right under a, under a legal search warrant, doesn't mean they should either do it or that they did it in the right way. There actually are legitimate separation of powers arguments, I think. And, in fact, the legislative branch is susceptible to being intimidated by the executive branch. The members had no interest in appearing to be defending an accused felon in their midst. They knew the public relations was terrible on the objections they raised, but they felt so strongly about the principle of it. And members who are uneasy about the public relations of seeming to be protecting an accused felon in their midst really reacted so negatively to a leak from the Justice Department against Speaker Hastert a couple of days later, falsely claiming that he was the target of an investigation, part of the Abramoff scandal, that they really rallied to the speaker on those grounds. And it was reminded to them that the same people capable of leaking in retaliation are rummaging through congressional offices.
MR. RUSSERT: How much anger, frustration is there amongst House, Senate Republicans with the Bush White house?
MS. O'BEIRNE: There's a backdrop of frustration. So some saw this as maybe the latest example of showing a lack of regard for legislative prerogatives. I mean, it is an administration that has jealously guarded its own prerogatives, it's own executive privileges. You think they would have been more sensitive to a co-equal branch's view of its prerogatives.
MR. RUSSERT: Gene Robinson, I can hear people, watch people all across the country saying, "You know, the guy is under investigation for taking money. Why not go into his office?"
MR. ROBINSON: Well, you know, the Justice Department seems to feel equally strongly about that what they did was right. The question I had initially was, if you got the money in Bill Jefferson's freezer and you got the alleged bribe on videotape, why do you need to go into his office?
MS. O'BEIRNE: What do you need?
MR. ROBINSON: What do you need? Well, you know, it turns out that there are other instances, there are other possible crimes they want to look into. But also, remember the Abramoff investigation is ongoing. It seems to me that, in a sense, the Justice Department was kind of putting down a marker and saying, you know, "We're going to be looking at a number of people up here, and we're going to go in when we need to go in, and you can't just hide stuff in the corner in your office and expect that, that it will never come to light."
MR. BRODER: I talked to a former member of Congress, a very good lawyer, last night because I was confused by this, by this issue. He said he thinks that the law is probably on the side of the Justice Department, but that it's not a very clearly defined area of law. And he said institutionally he's glad that the Congress is challenging it because this may get it to the Supreme Court and get a definitive ruling about under what circumstances and under what limits can an executive branch agency go in to the congressional office, because there truly is an important principle of the separation of powers that's at stake here.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the president. Back in April of '04, David Ignatius, he was asked about his biggest mistake, and he said that he really couldn't respond at that moment, he couldn't think of one, and, and he wishes he had more time to prepare for that kind of question. Then, this week he was asked about his biggest mistake with, with Iraq, and without hesitancy, he said, "I shouldn't have said 'Bring it on.' I shouldn't have said, 'We're going to get them, alive or dead,' and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was a huge problem." Are we seeing a president who's been chastened by Iraq, more introspective about Iraq? What?
MR. IGNATIUS: Well, I thought there was some of both. It was, it was, it was telling, two years on that the president looks back and he's willing to talk, finally, about, about mistakes. In this case, they were mistakes of language. You can say, you know, Abu Ghraib was a mistake, but, frankly, you know, the administration's response still has not been a vigorous one in terms of holding people account for what happened at, at Abu Ghraib. It's been the, been the military.
You know, I, I thought that, that Tony Blair's response to that question was much more substantive. Tony Blair said the problem was that our deBathification effort was too aggressive, that we, that we toppled the basic foundations of this society and we created a vacuum and we haven't known how to, how to, how to fill it.
But, you know, listening to this discussion of past mistakes, it was a reminder that the past and what you know about it really is not a guide to the future. I mean, the dilemmas going forward in Iraq are as painful today as they, as they were two years ago. Looking at those two men, I thought Tony, Tony Blair looked, looked battered, the British prime minister, Bush less so, but you realized the weight of the decisions they still face.
MR. RUSSERT: Kate O'Beirne, we still have a situation of 135,000 American men and women on the ground. Will the president be forced to acknowledge more misjudgments about WMD, about troop levels, about insurrection in order to maintain public support for the war amongst Democrats, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, mainliners, moderates, whatever you want to call them?
MS. O'BEIRNE: I think there's a recognition at the White House, Tim, that being candid about mistakes in the past appears to be more realistic. People maybe are more open to listening to your assessment of how things are going now if they, if they see that sort of sense of being realistic.
I thought it was notable during the press conference with Tony Blair that, rather than talk about all the possibilities with this new government or how many Iraqi forces are now standing up, Tony Blair was emphasizing the course of not winning in Iraq. And I, I think that the public is more open to hearing that than updates on progress on the ground when they don't see a concrete progress—meaning, it seems to me, withdrawing troops, or at least a scheduled withdrawal of troops, capturing Zarqawi. In the absence of that kind of concrete evidence, I don't think the public is open to assessments week by week that they have no way of judging. I think there's just more candor involved when, in lieu of that, you're admitting past mistakes and reminding people of the course of failure and how resolute the enemy is. And I thought Tony Blair and the president both made clear we've got to be equally resolute. I think the public's more receptive to that.
MR. RUSSERT: Eugene:
MR. ROBINSON: You know, the, the difference in tone is really amazing when, when you go from "Mission accomplished" and "Bring it on" to, to the way the president sounds now. And if you put this together with, with other things he said recently, it all seems to be an acknowledgment that, you know, not only is Iraq not the, the Athenian democracy it was supposed to be, but, in fact, this is going to be a messy situation for a long time beyond his term in office. There's no easy resolution, there's no easy answer. And there's a—he seems to be looking ahead, you know, toward the verdict of history.
MR. RUSSERT: Enter Iran. The new Prime Minister Maliki sat down with Richard Engel this week, of NBC News, and said, "Iraq will not be used as a base for any military operations against Iran." That is not what we're here for.
David Ignatius, you wrote an interesting column where you said, and I'll read it, "Amid all the debate about intelligence, there has been surprisingly little focus on the question the average citizen (and average policymaker, too) would probably have at the top of the list: Will these guys get it wrong again? Will they tell the world that something is a 'slam-dunk,' only to discover later that it didn't exist? ...
"So how can [Director of National Intelligence John] Negroponte ... be sure the analysts are getting it right this time on Iran? How can they remake the analysts' world so that their human judgment is again 'the intelligence device supreme,' in the words of their patron saint, Sherman Kent, who headed CIA analysis during the Cold War?" Big challenge. Will the world, will the country listen to an American president saying, "Iran is dangerous. We must do something"?
MR. IGNATIUS: Well, that's obviously the biggest nightmare that anyone in the intelligence community could have, that the country will so fundamentally have lost trust in their judgments that when they warn of, of a real crisis, they won't be believed. We have a new CIA director, Michael Hayden, who was confirmed this week, who's going after the agency with a mission of restoring morale, of trying to do analysis in a different way, much more careful look at sourcing, much more transparency so that analysts know who these sources, who typically have been hidden from their view, are. Much more competition and really argument about, about hypotheses for what's going on. So they're going at Iran in a, in a different way.
On the Maliki comments about Iran, where he says, "We will not allow Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on Iran," you know, obviously that, that would worry Americans who'd hoped that Iraq would be an aircraft carrier for us in the Middle East. But, you know, this is an assertion of Iraqi sovereignty and independence, and that should not frighten Americans. Quite the opposite, that's actually good news.
MR. RUSSERT: We have 20 seconds, David. Senator Hagel calling on the president to negotiate directly with the Iranians.
MR. BRODER: I think that's questionable, because we have committed to the Europeans that we would work with them. For us to go off on our own now would leave them in a—wondering can the Americans keep their own commitments to us?
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. David Broder, David Ignatius, Gene Robinson, Kate O'Beirne, thanks very much.
Coming next, our MEET THE PRESS MINUTE with former vice presidential candidate, treasury secretary and U.S. senator from Texas, the late Lloyd Bentsen.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Former U.S. senator of Texas, Democratic vice presidential candidate, and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen died this week at the age of 85. During his long career, he appeared on MEET THE PRESS 18 times. This 1994 appearance with NRA chief Wayne LaPierre stands out for what Mr. Bentsen brought to the MEET THE PRESS table. Let's watch.
(Videotape, May 1, 1994):
MR. RUSSERT: We're back with the secretary of the treasury, Lloyd Bentsen.
Mr. Secretary, you heard Mr. LaPierre's challenge. Will you go to the range on Wednesday and experiment with his guns?
SEC'Y LLOYD BENTSEN: I tell you, that's funny, because I went to the range this last week and fired some of those guns. Let me give you an example. When I heard him say that these were not used in crime, that's a street sweeper, 156 instances in the last three years this gun involved in crime.
And I was amused to hear that I'm not supposed to know anything about the guns. I've had guns all my life. I qualified as an expert on the range in the military. I went to the front lines and fired guns in World War II. I fired .50-calibers. In addition to that, I flew 35 missions over Europe. I'm also a quail hunter. Can you imagine that thing being used in...
MR. RUSSERT: Is that Dan Quayle?
SEC'Y BENTSEN: No, no, no.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: That reference, of course, to what The Washington Post called "the perfect put-down." Mr. Bentsen's famous exchange with Dan Quayle during the vice presidential debate, October 5, 1988.
(Videotape, October 5, 1988):
SEN. DAN QUAYLE: I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration if that unfortunate event would ever occur.
MODERATOR: Senator Bentsen:
SEN. LLOYD BENTSEN: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy.
Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Lloyd Bentsen will be laid to rest this Tuesday in Houston, Texas. He and his family are in our thoughts and prayers.
And we'll be right back.
MR. RUSSERT: Every American president since John F. Kennedy has been a guest on this program during his political career. Now, you can watch complete episodes of some of the most historic MEET THE PRESS presidential appearances: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. "Meet the Presidents," and other NBC News programming now available on iTunes. For more information and a preview of what's available, check out our Web site mtp.msnbc.com.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.
And this weekend we honor all those brave young men and women in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world, and we remember all those in our nation's history who've paid the ultimate sacrifice so we all could be free.


text:
Global Angiography SystemProduction Market Share, Revenue, and Average Price by Manufacturers Shared in a Latest Research Report
The global Angiography System market is valued at million US$ in 2018 is expected to reach million US$ by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of during 2019-2025.
Access Report Details at: https://www.themarketreports.com/report/global-angiography-system-market-research-report
This report focuses on Angiography System volume and value at global level, regional level and company level. From a global perspective, this report represents overall Angiography System market size by analyzing historical data and future prospect. Regionally, this report focuses on several key regions: North America, Europe, China and Japan.
Key companies profiled in Angiography System Market report are Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, Philips, Siemens Healthineers Global, Shimadzuand more in term of company basic information, Product Introduction, Application, Specification, Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2014-2019), etc.
Purchase this Premium Report at: https://www.themarketreports.com/report/buy-now/1406271
Table of Content
1 Angiography System Market Overview
2 Global Angiography System Market Competition by Manufacturers
3 Global Angiography System Production Market Share by Regions
4 Global Angiography System Consumption by Regions
5 Global Angiography SystemProduction, Revenue, Price Trend by Type
6 Global Angiography System Market Analysis by Applications
7 Company Profiles and Key Figures in Angiography System Business
8 Angiography System Manufacturing Cost Analysis
9 Marketing Channel, Distributors and Customers
10 Market Dynamics
11 Global Angiography System Market Forecast
12 Research Findings and Conclusion
13 Methodology and Data Source

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We already flagged the absurdity of Dallas Cowboys coach Jason Garrett's announcement that this year's rookies will have to earn the right to wear the logo of a team that's hasn't won anything since those rookies were in the Pop Warner Tiny-Mite division. Go ahead, treat the Cowboy star as a rah-rah prize, like a Buckeye sticker. Any new reason to laugh at Dallas is fine with the rest of the world.
But one part of Garrett's inane spiel needs to be taken seriously. "It's the Dallas football Cowboys," the coach said. The what? As opposed to what, the Dallas WNBA Cowboys?
This stupidism is Chris Berman's fault. Berman thinks it's funny to intone "NEW York FOOT-ball GIANTS," as a comical Old-Time Sportscaster affectation. The original point of the phrase was to distinguish the NFL team from the baseball-playing New York Giants. The baseball Giants have been playing in San Francisco for 53 years now, so some people have no idea what Berman is even talking about. Jason Garrett would be one of these people.


text:
Jennifer Venditti's debut film is the provocative coming-of-age story BILLY THE KID, an odyssey into the soul of an American teenager. Following Billy as he bicycles through the quiet streets of small town Maine, we watch him traverse the frustrating gap between imagination and reality, grappling with isolation and first-time young love. By turns exhilarating and disturbing we see the world from the intimate view of an expressive and seemingly fearless outsider.
- Jan 1, 1900
- Documentary


text:
Hot Directory .net
Submit Link
Latest Links
Top Hits
Weed For Sale | Marijuana For Sale | Buy Weed Online
http://420suppliesshop.com/, buy weed online, buy marijuana online, weed store, buy edibles online, weed edibles for sale, strawberry shortcake kush, marijuana for sale, moon rocks for sale, weed for sale online, 420 mail order usa, buy pot online, weed for sale, buy marijuana online usa, buy moon rocks online, order marijuana edibles online, buy edibles online uk, marijuana online store, buy edibles online, buy dabs online, kush for sale
»» Looking for Premium Featured Links at Very Low Prices ««
Hot Directory .net
Job and Employment Resources
Top Categories
#ryanmarijuanashop.com +19038845125 online dispensary shipping worldwide | buy weed online
wees for sale,o ryan kush strain,death star edible,stars of death edibles for sale,monkey oil cartridge,death star edible for sale,purple thunder strain,jack herer pipe,socal master kush review,beyond blue dream strain review,harlequin vape oil,online dispensary shipping worldwide,grinch og leafly,gram of kief price,tornado t vape pen,best pre rolls 2018,miss mango kush,pre roll joints moonrock,keef weed crystals,blue moon rocks,rolling a blunt with honey,1 gram blunt,purple
Online Chemical Recreational Store
Welcome to Online Pharmacy https://onlinepharmacopoeia.com/ adderall, adderall for sale, buy adderall online, generic adderall, buy xanax, buy xanax online, buy xanax online legally, order xanax online, where to buy xanax online, best over the counter weight loss pills, buy adipex, buy adipex p, buy phentermine, diet doctor near me, how does phentermine work ,buy vyvanse online, legal, buy cheap oxycodone, buy oxycodone online, oxycodone for sale, oxycodone online, where to buy oxycodone online, buy percocet, buy percocet online, percocet for sale, , buy promethazine legally online, buy promethazine online.((whatsapp/calls/text: +1(872)216-8495))
buy hydrocodone online
Are you looking to buy hydrocodone online, pill finder xanax,buy dmt,Concerta coupon,buy ambien,buy lsd online,dmt crystals,where to buy dmt,where to get adderall,adderall online,mdma for sale ,buy meth online ,at very affordable prices with the best quality with or without prescription contact us at https://www.royeronlinephamacy.com or whatsapp us at +1(609)831-2773
Directory: Free Directory for Businesses Online, Web Site Listing in Related Nich Category and Sub Category.
BUY Actavis Purple Syrup Online
Buy Actavis Purple Syrup Online: It is a pain reliever and a cough suppressant. Promethazine is an antihistamine. It blocks the effects of the naturally occurring chemical histamine in your body. Straight from the pharmacy Purchase Actavis Purple Syrup Online, BUY Actavis Purple Syrup Online
Buy Wockhardt Cough Syrup
FROM BUYACTAVISONLINENOW.NET - 16oz Pints to ship to and within USA, Canada, Australia, UK. Buy actavis Syrup / sizzurp promethazine codeine syrup online canada. Order Tussionex wholesale near by. FedEx wholesale delivery. Legit Hi Tech Sirop because we are the best.
Backlinks Kaufen - BUY BEST BACKLINKS
Motorcycle Transport service
Motologistica is a motorcycle transport company with central office in Spain but active in Germany, France, Portugal, Italy etc. We bring your bike in many countries of Europe with insurance incl. in price and without packaging.
Buy Subutex 8mg Online
Buy Subutex 8mg Online – +1 954 363 9427 (WHATSAPP)— from PRO HIGH CONNECT online Pharmacy at very affordable prices with the best quality with or without prescription.
Your Link Here for $0.80
Your Link Here for $0.80
Arts & Humanities
Business & Economy
Computers & Internet
News & Media
Recreation & Sports
Science and Technology
Our Partners
Suboxone Treatment for an Opioid Addiction — Subutex Treatment for an Opioid Addiction. With locations across the country, our Subutex / Suboxone clinics provide adults struggling with addiction the ability to recover from heroin, oxycodone, Percocet, and other opiates. Medicare is now accepted at most clinics! Please call today for more information. +1 (615) 334-8541 (Text/Call Only) +1 (954) 363-9427 (WHATSAPP ONLY)
Fast & instant Approval Directory List - 90 WebDirectories
Active Listings:
Pending Listings:
Todays Listings:
Total Categories:
Sub Categories:
Job and Employment Resources
Mivian International Pvt Ltd.
Jan 11, 2019 |
Job and Employment Resources
We provide highly qualified professionals and skilled labours to support with the best top, middle and lower level workforce in a short, medium and long term basis. Our major focus is on 100% customer ...
Read more
Newbie Wood Lathe Projects.
Sep 12, 2019 |
Job and Employment Resources
Want to see more woodturning projects? As a long period of time fan of your site and very first time individual in a discussion I wanted to show you and the community that it IS possible to make from ...
Read more
Models in Lahore
Mar 18, 2020 |
Job and Employment Resources
hotescortsinlahore.com Best Call Girls Provider in Lahore. Models in Lahore, Lahore Models, Models service in Lahore and Much More. ...
Read more
Powered By:
PHP Link Directory


text:
Torturing Nurse & Vertonen: Torturing Nurse/Vertonen. 2012. Rococo: 6784937576-8.
Torturing Nurse: "txnxtxnxt"
Junky Cao: voice, noise
Youki: turntable, guitar
Vertonen: "Allegiance Variance"
Blake Edwards: devices
Even with an aesthetic bent toward sonic extremes and a willingness to plunge into saturated textures, noise music is actually about restraint and a deliberate sense of how one manages sonic density over time. With this split release from Shanghai's Torturing Nurse and Chicago's Vertonen the ears are presented with two different takes on restraint versus saturation as a means of shaping form.
"txnxtxnxt" is a crafted sonic canvas that systematically adds new sonic sources and ideas with a deliberate effort to avoid thick layering of materials. Leaving an interaction between two performers that is startling in its ability to allow new materials to bubble up into the foreground. The constant sense that the textures of "txnxtxnxt" could come unhinged at any moment and give into the waves of harsh noise constantly hinted at around the edges adds a delicious tension to the piece as a whole.
"Allegiance Variance" takes more of an installation object approach to noise. Short movements strung together, each offering up a sound logic that is set in motion and allowed to run itself out. It becomes a measured study of noise materials and the nature of drones and mechanical devices artfully mixed and realized. This is mechanics with a pulse and a sense of shading and perspective.
Kronos Quartet: Nuevo. 2002. Nonesuch: 79649-2.
David Harrington: violin
John Sherba: violin
Hank Dutt: viola
Jennifer Culp: cello
Luanne Warner: marimba
Alejandro Flores: vocals
Efren Vargas: vocals
Carlos Garcia: musical leaf
Tambuco Percussion Ensemble - Ricardo Gallardo, Alfredo Bringas, Claudia Oliveira, Raul Tudon
Rominko Patixtan Patixtan: harp
Pegro Lunes Tak'il Bek'et: guitar
Carmen Gomez Oso: vocals
Xun Perez Hol Cotom: vocals
Rominko Mendez Xik: vocals
Luis Conte: percussion
Anonymous: organillo
Gustavo Santaolalla: toys, percussion
Ariel Guzik: plasmaht
Cafe Tacuba -
Ritacantalgua: electric guitar
Emmanuel: programming, keyboards, jarana
Quiqui: jarana, concha, programming
Joselo: electric guitar
Alejandro Flores: violin, requinto
El Sinaloense by Severiano Briseno (arr. Osvaldo Golijov)
Se Me Hizo Facil by Agustin Lara (arr. Osvaldo Golijov)
Mini Skirt by Juan Garcia Esquivel (arr. Osvaldo Golijov)
El Llorar - traditional arranged by Osvaldo Golijov
Perfidia by Alberto Dominguez (arr. by Stephen Prutsman)
Sensemaya by Silvestre Revueltas (arr. by Stephen Prutsman)
K'in Sventa Ch'ul Me'tik Kwadulupe by Osvaldo Golijov
Tabu by Margarita Lecuona (arr. by Osvaldo Golijov)
Cuatro Milpas by Belisario Garcia de Jesus and Jose Elizondo (arr. by Stephen Prutsman)
Chavosuite by Ricardo Gallardo
Plasmaht by Ariel Guzik (arr. by Kronos Quartet)
Nacho Verduzco by Chalino Sanchez (arr. by Osvaldo Golijov)
12/12 by Cafe Tacuba (Ruben Albarran, Emmanuel del Real, Enrique Rangel, Jose Alfredo Rangel) (arr. by Osvaldo Golijov)
El Sinaloense (Dance Mix) by Plankton Man
At some point, Kronos Quartet releases became concept albums. Which follows a certain logic as the string quartet that pioneered its identity as a chamber ensemble dedicated to contemporary works it soon broke that particular "niche" wide open. And at some point Kronos Quartet releases broke loose from the confines of "string quartet" music in the formal sense and exploded into an expressive playlist that happens to involve the members of the quartet. Here the sonic journey is unified by an exploration of the cultural vibrations of Mexico. At times augmented by percussionists, voice and pre-rendered electronics, this is a rich sampling of the musical contours of Mexican culture. And much to Kronos' credit, it is a vibrant mix of traditions both established and in flux. But more than a sampler, this is a journey and a concept album that follows its own arc. The vocals on El Llorar are astounding. And the true gem of this collection is the riveting Silvestre Revueltas Sensemaya in the middle of the set. The Cafe Tacuba collaboration loses me to a certain extent as a sequence of ideas of variable quality that don't always hang together for my ears. The exuberant Plankton Man mix at the end ties everything back together to conclude the experience. The focus on arrangements of music from various portions of Mexico's high and low-brow cultures almost leaves me wishing for string quartet compositions by Mexican composers. But the sonic integrity of this experience snuffs out that fleeting criticism. If anything, it's the brevity of these fleeting experiences that leave the ears breathless from so much breadth of experience without the satisfaction of depth. Many of these pieces could stand to go longer at the risk of puncturing the pacing of the overall concept album. But that is perhaps the takeaway of Nuevo. As it serves as kindling for the curious to dig deeper into this realm.
Richard Strauss: Tone Poems. 1957. Deutsche Grammophon: 463-190-2.
Staatskapelle Dresden
Berliner Philharmoniker
Karl Bohm: conductor
Eine Alpensinfonie, op. 64
Don Juan, op. 20
Der Rosenkavalier: Waltzes from Act III
Also sprach Zarathustra, op. 30
Festival Prelude, op. 61
Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche, op. 28
Salome: Dance of the Seven Veils
Ein Heldenleben, op. 40
Tod und Verklarung, op. 24
The music of the Romantic Era - particularly the late Romantic Era - leaves these ears cold with its excesses. Music that emotes (and emotes, and emotes) through long-winded chromaticism and a tonal language that sounds dated feels about as remote as music can get. Richard Strauss is often the exception, with traces of modernism creeping into his sound and helping to usher in the much more agreeable modern era. Yet his tone poems possess very little that can be regarded as anything other than squarely Romantic. And yet it simply blows this listener away. This is not a sentimental attachment to this music (it was never part of my formative experience). This is an appreciation of raw orchestration. And an admiration of Strauss's ability to write music that was about something. There's no abstraction here. Eine Alpensinfonie is about the majestic Alps complete with stormy weather and breath taking altitude. The Festliches Praludium strikes an irresistible majesty with its combination of pipe organ and orchestra. Also sprach Zarathustra is a genuinely great orchestral work. These Karl Bohm versions are a true indulgence and a reminder that not all Late Romantic works were over-indulgent. Some hit the high marks that they aimed for.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
ISD 279, in compliance with current state and federal statutes and regulations, and in recognition of its obligation to provide equal opportunity for education and employment for all persons within its jurisdiction, affirms that it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital or parental status with regard to public assistance, or handicapped. This applies to all users of ISD 279 facilities. If you have questions or concerns regarding this, contact:
Human Rights Officer
Laurel Anderson
11200 93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove, MN 55369
ISD 279 does not discriminate on the basis of disability. If you need auxiliary aids or services in order to participate in--or attend--a district activity, please provide ISD 279 with a seventy-two (72) hours notice. Please call your local school or TDD 763-391-7250.
If you have questions or comments, please call the community education facilities coordinator at 763-391-7112 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Online ShopSKI-DOO Engine and Exhaust Hoods Chassis Accessories Skis and Seats Suspension Tracks POLARIS ARCTIC CAT YAMAHA Snow Turbo Systems ATV Parts Chopper Kits Street Turbos For Sale Fuel
List All Products
Advanced Search
Advanced Search according to Parameters
|Forgot your password?
|Forgot your username?
|No account yet? Register
Info: Your browser does not accept cookies. To put products into your cart and purchase them you need to enable cookies.
RSI BURRANT SERIES HANDLE BARRSI Riser 6" (7/8 - 1 1/8)


text:
Greetings, Eyeballers. Yes, that's what you're called now. I am extremely happy to present an exclusive interview with published author Chris Davis, who released an awesome vampire novel called 'Takers' last year has a sequel to it coming very soon.
This interview is being released in three parts.
Starting Monday 5th March: Writing Process
Parts Two and Three please follow links.
Chris Davis resides in Memphis, Tennessee with her cat, Ramses. She has a Master of Science degree in Project Management and is a novelist, aspiring screenwriter and currently stretches her journalism muscle working for Hawaii Five-0 Online. Chris's first published novel, a bloody twist on traditional vampires called "Takers," is now available on Amazon and Smashwords and her personal blog can be found here.
Today, Chris shares her opinions about the creative process and explains what drives her to write:
H.E: Welcome to my Haunted Eyeball, Chris! So, when did you first start writing?
C.D. I've been writing since I was a pre-teen. I'll go out on a limb and say I was maybe about ten years old when I first put pencil to notebook paper, back in the dinosaur days when we actually had to write longhand.
Do you have a writing routine? How do you fit it in with the day job, etc?
I can't say I have a routine, per se. Unlike many writers, I don't do the thing where I say, "Between the hours of X and Y I'm working on Project #1 and then I'm doing this and then I'm doing that." My schedule in terms of day job doesn't keep me from writing when inspiration hits, which is very lucky for me. Instead, I have enough writing projects going at any given time that if I open up one document and don't feel it flowing; I simply go to another project until I find the thing that feels like I should be working on it. I very much let the Universe flow in, around and through me and guide me to what I should be working on, what's the right thing to be doing in that moment, rather than trying to force square pegs into round holes.
How do you start writing? Do you listen to music?
Funny you should ask me this question, because it occurred to me a few weeks ago that when I really started hitting the ground running in terms of producing profusely (around a decade ago), I always had to have music playing, whether via headphones or stereo. These days, I find that sometimes it helps to be playing my music, but other times I write like gangbusters in complete silence. Still others, you'll find me able to produce multiple chapters of a book with so much noise occurring around me you wonder how I can think. Again, I go back to the fact that I just allow things to happen as they're meant to, and if that means I'm supposed to write four chapters of my next novel today, then a twister could be spiriting me off to Oz and I wouldn't be aware of it until those chapters were complete!
Where's your favourite place to write?
I find that I'm most productive sitting at a desk, whether it be in a corporate workplace type of environment or my own home office. I have successfully written sitting up in bed, but for the most part I guess me being seated at a desk tells my brain "time to work," and so that's usually how I do it.
Does Writer's block ever hit? How do you deal with it?
Absolutely. But I always know it will pass. I'll go back to how it is I work: if something isn't flowing in that moment that I think I should be doing it, I close it and come back to it. Generally speaking it always works out so that I'm not missing deadlines or getting something done too late. If I planned to write something for a writing challenge, and it's simply not coming and becomes clear it's not going to happen, I take that as a sign that it wasn't meant to be written and I either see about writing something else for that challenge, or simply don't enter it. There have been times when I've tried to force myself through a block moment, but I find that when I do that, what I produce is crap, so it's literally not worth it for me to do it. If it's meant to be then it happens, is how I live, while at the same time doing everything in my power to keep up my end of the bargain – which is to keep writing, no matter what it is that's getting written!
Is there anything you wouldn't consider writing about, and why?
I have never been fond of politics in any way, shape or form. It's simply a subject which holds no interest for me. Admittedly, my interests are skewed much more toward what you might term the supernatural, or fantasy worlds, but over the past year I've challenged myself to write in more "realistic" arenas as well, so that I have to practice abiding by the laws of what's accepted as "real life," instead of skirting around them by writing in arenas where I can make up my own laws and rules. Hence my screenplay "Fractured," which I'm intending to enter into the Nicholl Fellowship competition. "Fractured" is about as far away from my 'normal' fare as you can get. It's much more the real life independent film sort of thing, whereas my novel "Takers" (urban fantasy) and my first screenplay, "The Healer" (supernatural) are worlds where I made up my own rules. To get back to your original question, however, I think that other than not wanting to write something with too much political content, I'm pretty open to anything from G-rated fare all the way to stuff that would curl your grandmother's hair, on any topic.
How long do you allow for research?
I have to make a confession here: the majority of the time I research as I write. Now, I know I have to have some modicum of understanding of my subject matter prior to coming up with a story outline or diagram, but more often than not I've already got that hammered out in my own mind because it's just there. However, in a recent story I wrote, which focused on two men climbing Denali (Mt. McKinley) in Alaska, I had to do lots of research prior to even starting the story, because I haven't got a clue about mountain climbing! By and large, though, as I'm going along writing, when I hit something where I say, "I don't know this," that's when I stop and research for as long as I need to until I'm confident I'm writing with some authority, and then just keep going. It's sort of a pay-as-you-go feel rather than spending weeks doing research and taking notes and then writing the story. For me, that's far too mind-numbing. I need to be "Action, now, do, write!"
Whose writing advice do you really listen to?
My friend, editor and publisher, Jaimi Sorrell, who runs Plotfish Press. While I do listen to the opinions of a handful of others, for the most part she's the one whose word I trust implicitly (though I've been known to fight her on stuff now and again). She's been working with me for…holy cow, I think it's been something like eight or nine years now? Over that period of time you develop a mutual trust and respect, and you see that when you put something into practice, it either does or doesn't work for you. Nothing I write professionally gets out the door until she's satisfied with it, whether novel or screenplay, because as she always says, "If you can get it by me, you can get it by anyone," and I think that's true!
Are there any books on writing and creativity that you'd recommend?
Okay, another confession for you: I don't read about writing and being creative; I do it.
For me, the best way to learn and grow as a writer is to actually keep writing, keep putting your stuff out there, keep asking for feedback, and then incorporating what you get. The two hours I spend reading a book someone's written telling me how to get characterization right, I could've produced two or three chapters of my own book, which I find much more productive than reading someone else's opinion about how I can improve. I commend people who can quote "helpful" books left, right and center, really, I do. But for me, personally (and this is no judgment of anyone else), reading about being creative or reading about writing is a waste of my time, because it means I'm not actually writing.
The thing I think lots of people don't quite get is that writing is very, very personal to each individual writer. What works for Joe Cool in his four hundred-page book about how to plot out your novel before you write it, may be more painful than being skewered and raked over hot coals for someone like me.
Can I tell other people how I do what I do? Not really, because I am blessed in that it just sort of…happens. It makes me think of all those books people write about how male/female relationships work and how to be successful at them. I'm sorry, but blanket statements drive me bananas. Telling me that "all men think this way" or "this is how all women feel" is such a load of you-know-what because it is empirically impossible for every single man in existence to think precisely the same way about Subject X. Similarly, if a writer has found something that's made writing an easier or more fulfilling experience for him, that's wonderful and I'm very happy for him! However, that doesn't mean that what he talks about will necessarily have any bearing on what I do, will work for me even if I try it, or is going to be of any use to anyone other than him.
I find my own path, and if it's not there I keep whacking at the undergrowth until I've made one.
Your golden rule of writing? Tips for new writers?
Write every day. I don't care if it's 100 words on what your water bottle looks like or the next bestseller. I don't care if it's fan fiction, biographical, a TV series script, a feature-length screenplay, a book, a short story, a poem or song lyrics. Write something every. Single. Day. Period.
For new writers, I'll put it to you this way: anyone can read all the books they want about surfing. About how to catch a wave. How to stand on the board. How to balance. What to do when you wipe out in a barrel. They can learn what the backdoor is, how to carve and how to make a cutback. In theory.
But until that wannabe surfer picks up a board, paddles out into the ocean and takes the drop, do you think they're going to actually be able to stay upright and mimic the lifelong surfers you see in almost every opening scene of Hawaii Five-0 just because they read a book? Of course not! Reading about it does not equate doing it. Actually writing is exercising your brain the same way lifting weights is exercising your biceps.
So I'll say it again. My golden rule, my tip: Write every day.
Hope to see you Eyeballers here again tomorrow, when Chris discusses Inspiration and the challenges of Publicity for ebook authors


text:
Advanced Planning and Scheduling Systems, APS, Sales & Operation Planning (S&OP), Finite Capacity Scheduling, Planning, S&OM, Business Intelligence.
How retailers can prepare themselves for upcoming promotions through better forecasting
ClickSoftware recognized for its dynamic schedule optimization technology
Turkish Corporation Aims to Increase Promise-to-Deliver Ratio
Leading global tire manufacturer and longtime JDA customer deploys JDA Sales & Operations Planning to support organization-wide transformation
New pre-configured implementations enable rapid nine-week deployment so retailers can quickly accelerate merchandise planning and achieve rapid ROI
Vendor Positioned the Highest for Ability to Execute
Kinaxis achieves third consecutive ranking in Leaders quadrant by delivering unified processes across S&OP, supply and demand on a single platform
Both companies individually recognized for supply chain partnership
Apliqo AG is launching two innovative extensions of its product range onto the market.
International Brewing Leader Chooses Infor Advanced Scheduling for Global Programme
Quintiq announced its partnership with Alro
New release features powerful new capabilities for winning execution on the factory floor and beyond
Quintiq selected by Dubai Airports to plan and schedule its fixed resources at Dubai International and Dubai World Central
First ever cloud-based solution designed for scenario analysis of prescriptive analytics (optimization) models
Supply chain complexity remains the biggest challenge to businesses, says CEO Rob van Egmond
Infor EAM Helps Oil & Gas Company to Digitalize Maintenance Processes, Streamline Planning and Achieve Control of Maintenance Costs
Leading Global Manufacturer Set to Boost Supply Chain Performance with Logility's Multi-Echelon Inventory Optimization
As a former Director of Supply Chain Management for a large multi-channel food manufacturer I experienced first-hand the variety of challenging problems
Logistics optimization with SAP partner inconso
DISKOVER gives ERP systems a lasting boost
An IT solution from CSB-System is managing all the business processes at Belgian beef specialist Veviba.
Ex-servicemen and an entrepreneur have launched the War Room, a specialist digital technology support room for monitoring and assessment for businesses, alongside intense leadership training.
Quintiq, a Dassault Systèmes company and global leader in supply chain planning and optimization (SCP&O), and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) announced today a partnership with the objective of optimizing WFP's humanitarian supply chain worldwide.
Worldwide IT spending is forecast to be flat in 2016, totalling $3.41 trillion, according to Gartner, Inc. (see Table 1). This is up from last quarter's forecast of negative 0.5 per cent growth. The change in the forecast is mainly due to currency fluctuations.
Field service companies of all sizes will be at different stages in their scheduling journey.
Cargo Sphere has said that UASC, a leading global ocean carrier, has quickly implemented its second CargoSphere Rate-Mesh connection with Dachser Logistics, a global third party logistics service provider (LSP).
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has officially become law, giving organisations two years to become compliant or risk fines of up to 4% of global turnover if they suffer from a data breach
With implementation of a new global container weight requirement less than a month away, United Arab Shipping Company has extended its partnership with INTTRA
A new strategic partnership between global road transport organisation IRU and German software developer PTV Group will develop new standards and services for route planning across Europe and beyond.
Kaleido Logistics, together with RocketSpace, has launched the first acceleration programme for startups in logistics, named Logistics Tech Accelerator.
A Guildford, Surrey (UK) accountancy firm has launched a new cost-effective service to support start-up businesses in the digital, games and apps market which Guildford is becoming increasingly renowned for.
E2open, the supply chain operating network, has acquired Terra Technology, a provider of innovative supply chain solutions that help the world's largest consumer product companies manage market volatility to make better business decisions.
Terra Technology has selected Dell Inc. to deliver cloud-based supply chain planning and optimization solutions.
Van den Bosch Transporten has selected the Quintiq planning and optimization software platform to optimize its logistics operations.
Poor support, a lack of scalability, security gaps – there are many reasons to do away with outdated enterprise content management (ECM) systems.
Unplanned equipment outage drains time and resource at every company – now one solution provider is suggesting that one reason for such an outage can be a maintenance schedule not best adapted to the equipment.
Imperago has announced new Risk and Fatigue management functionality within its Workforce Design software.
Furla, the Italian fashion company of high-quality bags, shoes and accessories, has selected the TXTPlanning solution as its corporate planning platform.
Engineering simulator ANSYS has revealed what it calls the most feature-rich release in the company's 45-year history, which it says delivers 10x improvements to product development productivity, insight and performance.
A new add-on to GAC's GACtrack portal claims to offer more job transparency and greater job control to ship agency customers.
Colin Tankard, Managing Director of digital security company Digital Pathways, outlines his personal predictions for 2016.
Leading logistics service provider Kerry Logistics Network Limited opened its first IT Development Centre in Penang, Malaysia today, to harness internet technology in support of its international operations.
New Optimization Model Solves Bigger Problems Faster
Pioneering Virtual Singapore Project to Solve Emerging and Complex Challenges Faced by Singapore
Enhancements to Infor Advanced Scheduling optimise schedule collaboration and drive intelligent scheduling
Lectra Fashion PLM streamlines product development from planning to sourcing
Software specialist, Lobster, is launching a new website to make it easier for UK companies to find out more about its alternative approach to electronic data interchange (EDI).
AEB offers local service and software solutions for Benelux countries and Scandinavia
Advanced Composite Curves Deliver Enhanced Sales and Operations Planning,
Multi-Tier Vendor Minimum and Constrained Production Planning Capabilities
Monoprix, the French supermarket chain, part of the Casino Group, has implemented the TXTPlanning solution to support merchandise and assortment planning on an international scale and across channels.
Mining and Construction Equipment Manufacturer Turns to Advanced Supply Chain Software to Drive Sales and Operations Planning Success


text:
Flash memory (aka. non-volatile memory) is in high demand right now. It is found in a variety of electronic devices including portable MP3 players, digital cameras, cell phones, and USB key drives, just to name a few. Fortunately, various memory manufacturers are ramping up and vamping up their memory manufacturing techniques to meet this demand. Samsung just announced that it is doubling its flash chip's capacity by rolling out 2-gigabit NAND chips (256MB) built on a 90nm process. Not to be out done, SanDisk and Toshiba have jointly developed a 4-gigabit (512MB) NAND chip and a stacked 8-gigabit (1GB) chip:
[SanDisk] introduced a 4-gigabit (Gb) single-die, multi-level cell (MLC), NAND flash memory chip with double the capacity of its present largest single-die NAND flash memory chip. Advanced design concepts implemented in the new 4Gb NAND flash device and its associated next generation SanDisk controllers enable faster MLC write speeds necessary for increasingly demanding digital consumer electronic devices. SanDisk also announced a 8Gb NAND flash memory chip that stacks two of the 4Gb NAND flash memory chips in a single package.
Despite Toshiba/SanDisk's breakthrough, Samsung is already taking moves to keep up by creating an alliance with IBM to push their memory manufacturing process to 65nm and ultimately 45nm. So what does this all mean for the consumer?
More data storage, faster data storage, and probably lower power requirements (read: longer battery life). The memory density of each chip will probably decide where each is utilized. The SanDisk/Toshiba chips will likely find their way into high-density memory devices like CompactFlash modules for digital cameras and MP3 players, while the Samsung chips will more than likely be embedded directly in in USB key drives and mobile picture phones. Fortunately for us, there will probably be a fair amount of overlap between these two segments allowing for good, old-fashioned competition to keep prices down for consumers.


text:
Merits cases remaining for October Term 2012
Following today's decisions, there are twenty-three merits cases from October Term 2012 that have not yet been decided. Although we do not know which decisions the Court will issue on which days, we expect the Court to issue all of these remaining decisions between this Thursday, June 13, 2013, and the end of June, when the Court traditionally breaks for its summer recess. The cases below are arranged by the sitting in which they were argued; a list of the remaining cases arranged in alphabetical order is available here.
October (1)
Issue(s): Whether this Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, permit the University of Texas at Austin's use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. (Kagan, J., recused)
November (0)
Issue(s): Whether the "supervisor" liability rule established by Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" their victim.
January (4)
Issue(s): Whether, in a case under the Armed Career Criminal Act, when a state crime does not require an element of the federal crime of burglary, the federal court may find the existence of that element by examining the record of the state proceedings under the "modified categorical approach."
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that lawyers who obtain, disclose, or use personal information solely to find clients to represent in an incipient lawsuit – as opposed to evidence for use in existing or potential litigation – may seek solace under the litigation exception of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725; and (2) whether the Fourth Circuit erred in reaching the conclusion that a lawyer who files an action that effectively amounts to a "place holder" lawsuit may thereafter use DPPA-protected personal information to solicit plaintiffs for that action through a direct mail advertising campaign on the grounds that such use is "inextricably intertwined" with "use in litigation."
Issue(s): Whether this Court's decision in Harris v. United States, holding that the Constitution does not require facts which increase a mandatory minimum sentence to be determined by a jury, should be overruled.
Issue(s): (1) Whether a land-use agency can be held liable for a taking when it refused to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) (2) whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use.
February (2)
Issue(s): Whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.
Issue(s): Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits courts, invoking the "federal substantive law of arbitrability," to invalidate arbitration agreements on the ground that they do not permit class arbitration of a federal-law claim. (Sotomayor, J., recused)
March (5)
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution ("the Elections Clause") that is contrary to the Supreme Court's authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote.
Issue(s): Whether the First Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it created a circuit split and held – in clear conflict with this Court's decisions in PLIVA v. Mensing, Riegel v. Medtronic, and Cipollone v. Liggett Group – that federal law does not preempt state law design-defect claims targeting generic pharmaceutical products because the conceded conflict between such claims and the federal laws governing generic pharmaceutical design allegedly can be avoided if the makers of generic pharmaceuticals simply stop making their products.
Issue(s): Whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the court below held), or instead are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit has held). (Alito, J., recused)
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case.
Issue(s): (1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State; (2) whether the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (3) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
April (10)
Issue(s): Whether human genes are patentable.
Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that any degree of judicial participation in plea negotiations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires vacatur of a defendant's guilty plea, irrespective of whether the error prejudiced the defendant.
Issue(s): (1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines "parent" in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.
Issue(s): Whether 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), which provides that "a State [or] political subdivision . . . may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property," contains an unexpressed "market participant" exception and permits a municipal governmental entity to take action that conflicts with the express preemption clause, occurs in a market in which the municipal entity does not participate, and is unconnected with any interest in the efficient procurement of services.
Issue(s): Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the court of appeals erred in conducting its constitutional analysis on the premise that respondent was not under a federal registration obligation until the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was enacted, when pre-SORNA federal law obligated him to register as a sex offender; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Congress lacks the Article I authority to provide for criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A), as applied to a person who was convicted of a sex offense under federal law and completed his criminal sentence before SORNA was enacted.
Issue(s): Whether the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, 22 U.S.C. § 7631(f), which requires an organization to have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive federal funding to provide HIV and AIDS programs overseas, violates the First Amendment. (Kagan, J., recused.)
Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress's approval of an interstate water compact that grants the contracting states "equal rights" to certain surface water and – using language present in almost all such compacts— provides that the compact shall not "be deemed . . . to interfere" with each state's "appropriation, use, and control of water . . . not inconsistent with its obligations under this Compact," manifests unmistakably clear congressional consent to state laws that expressly burden interstate commerce in water; and (2) whether a provision of a congressionally approved multi-state compact that is designed to ensure an equal share of water among the contracting states preempts protectionist state laws that obstruct other states from accessing the water to which they are entitled by the compact.
Issue(s): Whether the "recommendation" of an attorney, who is a salaried employee of a governmental agency, in a single instance, is intangible property that can be the subject of an extortion attempt under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a)(the Hobbs Act) and 18 U.S.C. § 875(d).
Issue(s): Whether the retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove but-for causation (i.e., that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive), or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive (i.e., that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action).
Recommended Citation: Kedar Bhatia, Merits cases remaining for October Term 2012, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 10, 2013, 2:38 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/merits-cases-remaining-for-october-term-2012/


text:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says New Orleans was a "terrific" Super Bowl host and that the Superdome power outage that delayed the game for 34 minutes will have no effect on the city's future bids to host the league's championship.
Goodell says, "The most important thing is to make sure people understand it was a fantastic week," and that it "will be remembered as one of the great Super Bowl weeks."
New Orleans has now hosted 10 Super Bowls. Officials have said they will bid to host an 11th in 2018 to coincide with the 300th anniversary of the city's founding.
Goodell says the outage is not of great concern going forward because it is "fixable," and the league will look forward to evaluating New Orleans' next Super Bowl bid.
Goodell: New Orleans 'terrific,' despite blackout
This article
Goodell: New Orleans 'terrific,' despite blackout
can be opened in url
Goodell: New Orleans 'terrific,' despite blackout
Rating: 100% based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Dakilangbayani News
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment