text:
- Font:
- +
- -
TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: President Bush insists Congress was briefed about his plan for wiretapping without a court order. What information was shared? When, and in what form? With us, four of the very few congressional leaders who had notice of the eavesdropping plan: former Democratic leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle of South Dakota; the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman of California; Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra of Michigan; and the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas. A special edition of MEET THE PRESS on the Constitution, legal and political ramifications of domestic wiretapping.
Good morning and welcome, all. A very complicated but important subject this morning. Let me start with the president's comments in December at a news conference after the plan had been revealed by The New York Times, and then some follow-up comments he made in January. Let's watch.
(Videotape, December 19, 2005)
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: And I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. The program is carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly. Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program.
(End videotape)
(Videotape, January 23, 2006)
PRES. BUSH: When people say to me, "Well, he's just breaking the law," if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, you were the leader of the Democrats when this plan was put in place by the president. Were you briefed? And to what extent?
SEN. TOM DASCHLE, (D-S.D.): Well, I can't get into the details, Tim, obviously because this is very sensitive information. We were briefed. We were not given all of the information that was—has been reported. There were many omissions, given what we were told then and what we now know. And so, yes, members of Congress were briefed, but it was far less than the comprehensive understanding of what was going on that many of us have today.
MR. RUSSERT: In those briefings, did anyone raise objections to the plan?
SEN. DASCHLE: Objections were raised both orally and, as you know now, Nancy Pelosi and others, Jay Rockefeller expressed real concern about these actions and about the approach that was now being employed by the administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Roberts, you were part of the team of leaders that was briefed in Congress. Is that your recollection?
SEN. PAT ROBERTS, (R-Kan.): I hate to quarrel with my good friend, Tom, but my recollection—I have to search my recollection. And we were briefed. At every opportunity at these briefings, during the briefing, those that did the briefing would say, "Do you have questions? Do you have concerns? Do you need additional briefings?" I think that in my situation, I knew exactly what was going on. I don't have the—I just don't have the same take on it as my good friend here, and so consequently, I think I was fully briefed and I was very comfortable with the program, and I think it's extremely valuable and my main concern is that we may lose it under the circumstances.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Rockefeller, who's the vice chairman of your committee, did write a letter to Vice President Cheney in July of 2003 after one of the briefings.
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: And here it is on the screen. "Dear Mr. Vice President, I am writing to reiterate my concerns regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today. Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received." That seems to be real doubt.
SEN. ROBERTS: Well, you know, that letter was kept in a safe for three years, and a senator or a congressman has many tools that you can use if you are upset with a program. In my conversation with Senator Rockefeller, he never mentioned to me, A, the letter and, B, those concerns, and we could have in the committee taken up some of those concerns. The extreme thing that you could do is simply de-authorize the program. So I'm a little puzzled by that; feigning helplessness, you know, to me, doesn't really represent a tool that you can use. Senators have a lot of tools that you can use, and that simply was not done.
MR. RUSSERT: Without violating your oath not to reveal anything that you've been told in the committee?
SEN. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, I'm not quite...
MR. RUSSERT: You have—you say a senator has tools at his or her disposal. Can you act—use those tools without violating your pledge of confidentiality as a member of the Intelligence Committee?
SEN. ROBERTS: I'm not talking about speaking out about the specifics of the program. If you wanted, you could simply introduce an amendment during whatever we're considering and saying, "Let's de-authorize the program." Or you can say, "I oppose the program and I want another briefing" and make those points in those sessions. That was not done. As a matter of fact, just to be very frank, my recollection is that virtually everybody that received those briefings was comfortable with it, I'm going to say thought it was legal, and that actually knew that this was a very crucial, crucial tool of intelligence that we have to have. It is a military capability to stop an attack on the country, I can't think of anything more important.
MR. RUSSERT: Congresswoman Harman, you were also briefed. Were you comfortable with the plan when you were informed of it?
REP. JANE HARMAN, (D-Calif.): My briefings started in 2003 and have been in existence for about a year and a half, and I didn't join this group until I was ranking member on Intelligence. The briefings were about the operational details of the program. I support the program, I've never flinched from that. However, the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program, nor were they about the appropriateness of the Gang of Eight process. I talked to absolutely no one, because I would have violated three different federal criminal statutes had I talked to anybody.
MR. RUSSERT: When you say "Gang of Eight," you mean the four leaders of Congress—the majority leader, minority leader, the speaker, and Democratic leader in the House—and then the four ranking members of the Intelligence Committee...
REP. HARMAN: That's right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...two in the Senate and House?
REP. HARMAN: That's exactly right. And I became a part of this group when I became ranking member in January of 2003. At any rate, I couldn't talk to anyone about this program, and did not until the president disclosed its existence. It's not the leak to The New York Times that triggered things—and by the way, I deplore that leak—but the day after that, President Bush disclosed the fact that the program existed, at which point I consulted constitutional experts, the former general counsel of the CIA, some of the excellent staff on the House Intelligence Committee, and then I learned, although I'm a trained lawyer, about some of the serious legal issues that I have been raising ever since. I still support the program, but it needs to be on a sounder legal footing, and I think the Gang of Eight process violates the National Security Act of 1947, which requires that, unless it's a covert action program—Congress, that means the two Intelligence Committees—have to be fully and completely briefed.
MR. RUSSERT: Vice President Cheney gave an interview in which he said this, "The program has operated for four years. Congress has been informed, a few members of Congress, informed throughout that period of time, and everything was fine until there was publicity in The New York Times. And at that point now, we've had some members head for the hills, so to speak; forget, perhaps, that they were at the briefings and fully informed of the program." Is the vice president correct that Democrats went along with this program, and then when it became public, began to raise reservations?
REP. HARMAN: Well, there was no way to raise any reservations before that. Jay Rockefeller's letter is a, you know, is a private cry. If he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information regarding cryptology and the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents. So he could not talk about it. And again, this Gang of Eight process is only under law for the revelation of covert action programs. This is not a covert action program, this is a very valuable foreign collection program, and I'm—I think it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Hoekstra, in the briefings you received, did some members express reservations?
REP. PETER HOEKSTRA, (R-Mich.): I've been briefed over the last 16 months since I've been chairman of the Intelligence Committee. As Jane says, I walked out of those meetings believing that, on a bipartisan basis, we thought that this was an essential program, we recognized that it was very, very focused in its scope.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Hoekstra, in the briefings you received, did some members express reservations?
REP. HOEKSTRA: I've been briefed over the last 16 months since I've been chairman of the intelligence committee. As Jane says, I walked out of those meetings believing that on a bipartisan basis, we thought that this was an essential program, we recognized that it was very, very focused in its scope, we walked out of there believing it was legal, and we walked out of there believing it was making an impact, it was keeping America's families, it was keeping America's communities safer, and we needed to continue this program. As some have mentioned, the problem now is the program is really of questionable value. It's been across the media for the last 50 days. Does anyone really believe that after 50 days of having this program on the front page of our newspapers, across talked shows across America, that al-Qaeda has not changed the way that it communicates?
MR. RUSSERT: Did anyone in the congressional branch say is this constitutional? Should we be doing this? What about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? What authority does the president have to do this?
REP. HOEKSTRA: Not in the briefings that I was in, and I'll say that if members of Congress that were briefed—and you had the leadership in there, of the intelligence committee and of the House and the Senate—if they believed the president was violating the law, it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it. That's one of the primary—that's one of our primary responsibilities, to make sure that the executive branch is following the law. We have lots of tools. I meet with the speaker every week to go through intelligence issues. If I came out of that briefing and believed that the president was violating the law, I would have gone to the speaker and say, "Mr. Speaker, the president's violating the law, you and I need to go see the president and talk to him and get this issue resolved and do it now."
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask the Democrats.
Senator Daschle, did you have an obligation after those meetings to go see the president and say, "Mr. President, you can't do this."
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, I think Jane is right. We have had a good deal of analysis done on what you can and cannot talk about, and I think the president's making a false choice here, and we're hearing again the argument this morning that somehow we—we either are for hating the terrorists or protecting our values. We both—we all support going after the terrorists. We support the wiretapping program. We support doing everything we can to ensure we've got the best information we can get. But we also support respecting the rule of law. That's what this is about, respecting the rule of law, and it's worked. This law has worked since 1978. We haven't had a problem before. You've got two chief justices of the Foreign Surveillance Act court, which have now suspended this law because of concern for what the administration has done. So what good is a law if the judges themselves are suspending it? We've got a problem here. We say let's—let's abide by the law, respect the rule of law, respect our values, respect privacy, and let's go after the terrorists aggressively.
MR. RUSSERT: But were the Democrats so caught up in post-September 11, 2001, that they decided not to go to the president and say, "I think you're violating the Constitution?"
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, as I said, a number of Democrats expressed concern about the way this was being implemented, expressed concerns about whether or not this was falling within the context...
MR. RUSSERT: To whom?
SEN. DASCHLE: ...of the rule of law. To the administration. To officials within the administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Harman, do you regret not having raised more reservations?
REP. HARMAN: Well, I wish I'd been a lot smarter in those briefings about the legal underpinnings of the program. That was not discussed in the briefings. The briefings were about the operational details of the program and only in the last briefing because I requested it ahead—this was after the president had disclosed the existence of the program—did we spend an hour on the process, which was a very valuable discussion. The vice president and others were there. But remember, we go into those briefings alone, we have no ability to consult staff, we have no ability to consult constitutional experts or legal experts on the history of FISA. Since the program has been disclosed, I—and I think all of us, at least I have become a lot smarter about all that, and now that I have read the legislative history of FISA, which was enacted in 1978 on a bipartisan basis to cure the abuses of the Nixon era that had preceded it, I understand that it is the exclusive way that we can eavesdrop on Americans in America.
Let's—let's understand that our Constitution really is the issue here. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to listen and seize property of Americans. Every one of us wants to catch al-Qaeda and its affiliates. All of us want the president to have the tools. I just voted again for the Patriot Act. I believe we need modern tools. And, oh, by the way, FISA was modernized eight times in the Patriot Act after 2001. It is not a quaint little old thing that doesn't work here, it can work here, and I think the entire program should fit under FISA as currently drafted. We don't even need to amend FISA.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about that. It's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and this was passed in 1978, both houses of Congress, signed by President Carter. Here's part of that legislation, Section 1809 (a): "A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance, except as authorized by statute."
The president, in his news conference in January, seemed to suggest that FISA, in his words, was an old law. Let's listen to the president.
(Videotape January 26, 2006, Press Conference)
PRES. BUSH: The FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006.
I said, "Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law," and people said "It doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do."
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Roberts, it seems as though the president is saying, "This is a law that's on the books from 1978"...
SEN. ROBERTS: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: ..."but it's an old law, and my program doesn't work under that law, so I'm just going to set it aside." What is the authorization for the president to undertake this program, and did he violate a statute...
SEN. ROBERTS: No.
MR. RUSSERT: ...called FISA?
SEN. ROBERTS: No. The president has the constitutional authority. It rises above any law passed by the Congress. President Roosevelt did that during World War II. Every president has done that under the Constitution, saying that the president has the primary duty to protect our national security.
I have just visited the NSA. I have gone out and visited with the good people who are working very hard with this capability, and I must tell you that the biggest problem with FISA, which I disagree with my good friend Jane, I think the FISA law is a pretty good law for what it does. But now it doesn't really match up with the threat we have in terms of terrorism, and secondly it doesn't match up with hot pursuit or agility or to stop the terrorist act. Now...
MR. RUSSERT: Stop there. Then why not change the law
REP. HARMAN: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...rather than just ignore it?
SEN. ROBERTS: There was a lull about a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago, where that was considered. And everybody took a look at it and said, "Now wait a minute. If you change the FISA law and you have say a streamlined FISA law on top of FISA, you"—you've got to understand that these FISA cases are this thick and on emergency cases they are stacked up and on nonemergency cases even higher, and the time delay, we need action by minutes and hours to stop a terrorist attack. We're talking about days—days delay. So, consequently, you could do an amendment to FISA to say this particular program does fit under FISA, but it would be a streamlined FISA.
Now, understand that's only from a call from a foreign terrorist cell, an al-Qaeda terrorist cell to the United States; not a phone call in the United States to another person in the United States. Now, after you do all that, and you got to figure out what committee you go to and what jurisdiction you go to, and how many details you're going to reveal, and the operational details that you reveal—and I agree with Pete. We're to the point now where we're about to lose the capability. That's the big issue here in terms of going deaf. You're right back where you started from with a president's authority that he has under the Constitution, and you have that—the very same thing that you have now.
MR. RUSSERT: But people go back to, Democrats and Republicans, many, to the law, and they'll say the law is very clear: You cannot engage in this activity unless authorized by statute. Vice President Cheney offered this: "When we were hit on September 11th" he "was granted," the president, "the authority by Congress to use all necessary means to take on the terrorists. And that's what we've done."
Congressman Hoekstra, do you believe that the authorization to go to war, passed by Congress in 2002, excuse me, September 15, 2001, to go into Afghanistan, to take out al-Qaeda and the Taliban, that authorization granted the president the authority for this eavesdropping program?
REP. HOEKSTRA: Eleven-fifteen 2001 we were concerned about one thing; we were concerned about taking out al-Qaeda. We authorized the president, "If you find bin Laden in Afghanistan or if you find him in Pakistan, you've got the authority to take this guy out. You've got to—the authority to take out his operatives." But on one—on 11/15, we were concerned about the operatives in the U.S., his—his operatives.
MR. RUSSERT: September—September 15.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Yeah, September 15, 2001. And to believe that we gave the president the authority to kill bin Laden, but if he was on his cell phone we said, "Oh, but if you want to listen to him calling into the United States, perhaps planning the next attack," because we didn't know what that might occur, "I'm sorry, you've got to go to the court, and you've got to do this one-inch thick document, and you've got to have a legal review before you can actually listen to what bin Laden is saying." Intercepting communications from your enemies is an essential element of war. We've—it's always been a key component conducted in war.
MR. RUSSERT: So you believe the authorization passed in September of 2001 granted the president the authority for eavesdropping.
REP. HOEKSTRA: We gave the president to conduct—we gave the president the necessary authority to use the tools to effectively fight and eliminate al-Qaeda. Absolutely.
SEN. ROBERTS: And he already has that under the Constitution anyway.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, President Carter, when the signed the FISA Law said that, "This bill, this statute, will, in effect, clarify the executive's authority." So there was a debate as to whether or not the president had the authority to eavesdrop under the Constitution.
REP. HARMAN: But, Tim, Tim, Tim...
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes, but those weren't...
MR. RUSSERT: Yeah.
SEN. ROBERTS: But those are phone calls from within the United States to the United States. These are phone calls from terror cells that we had reason to believe, probably cause, are plotting an attack on the United States. And the FISA Act, as I say, it's a good law as far as it goes. But the time delay and the threat that we're faced today are different. Now, if we choose to go ahead and fix FISA, which was considered and then drawn back by the same people that were in the room and I was in the room when that happened, decided, "How do we do this?" And the end result was we would end up with the same kind of a program. So it wasn't the doing of it that was the question. It was, "Well, let's go ahead because we have to protect the country."
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, you wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post about the debate leading up to the war. And I want to read through this very carefully because it is part of the history, legislative history, and come back and talk about it. You write, "On evening of September 15--September 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to, quote, 'deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.' Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill-defined, Congress chose instead, on September 14, to authorize, quote, 'all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided' the attacks of September 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive language—more expansive authority he sought, and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text." This would be the proposed wording from the White House, "all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations, organizations, persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11." Back to your piece. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas—where we all understood he wanted authority to act—but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused." Did anyone mention eavesdropping to you when they sought to change that language?
SEN. DASCHLE: They didn't, Tim. Tim, there were actually two pivotal moments. That was one, what should be the scope of the president's authority as we told him to. He had our complete support in using all necessary means. And the article lays it as clearly as I know how to lay it out. We said "concerning activities abroad," not within the United States.
But there was a second pivotal moment. And that was in December with the reauthorization of the intelligence legislation that comes before Congress every year until this year. But—and that specifically dealt with the president's request to change FISA. We said to him, "Look, if FISA isn't working to your satisfaction, what would you have us do?" And we did two things. One was we gave the president retroactive authority. There isn't any requirement today that the president go before FISA before the action. They now have 72 hours to act and then can come back retroactively and ask FISA to make a decision. And they don't—there's no vote required of the FISA court. One judge has the ability to do that. So we changed it from 24 hours to 72 hours and we made it retroactive.
Now, the other thing that I might say is that even before those changes, you had 17,000 requests and only a handful, around seven or eight, requests that were actually denied over the time that FISA has been in position. The final thing I'd say is, up until then people cited the Constitution as the sole authority for making these actions. Now since FISA, you can't do that. FISA, constrained—or clarified the Constitutional authority, and that's exactly what we did again in December of 2001.
REP. HARMAN: Can I add to that? In the Steel Seizure Case, which is cited as a grab of presidential power by President Truman, the Court—the Supreme Court said that the president's power is at its lowest ebb if Congress has acted. That was the reason that, in 1978, President Carter, who signed FISA, said this is the exclusive remedy. He did a signing statement, which we're getting more traction these days. But, also, that was the legislative history of the statute. It's the exclusive way to eavesdrop on Americans in America. And that is why this late claim that the authorization to use military force, which was never considered, at least contemporaneously, to give this power to the president, is a weak claim, and that is why we should bring all of this activity under FISA. And to Senator Roberts, my friend, I remember all those efforts to change FISA. We asked the president if he needed more authority. He's the one who requested the 72-hour delay, longer than 24 hours, which had been the standard before. He requested that it extend to roving wiretaps and e-mails, all the modern communications methods. It's not a quaint statute. FISA lawyers say it takes less than a day to prepare a filing, and they can be prepared orally in an emergency.
MR. RUSSERT: Here's where I'm confused, because...
SEN. ROBERTS: Actually, that's not true, Tim. If you've got five days, eight days on one of the threats that we were briefed on, you've got to act within minutes and hours. If you have 10 dots here and you have 100 dots to get the full picture and you're waiting days and you may be missing these communications, it may be too late.
MR. RUSSERT: Then why not go to Congress and say that, and request a change in the statute that would allow this activity specifically? What's the reluctance to go to Congress?
SEN. ROBERTS: I think that they do—I don't know, this—I have some memory pills, I think everybody here ought to take a memory pill every morning on the recollection of, you know, what really went on, because that's not my recollection. My recollection was that we just sat there with the people who did the briefing, I'm not going to say who, and they said, "Do we need to change this law?" And we started to really figure out what jurisdiction, how we could change it, how we could streamline FISA, because it is outdated because of the time constraints and because of the stack of materials that they have at FISA. And don't tell me that isn't there, because I've just been there. OK? So here we have a situation where we need to change the FISA law, and everybody said, "Well, what jurisdiction is—and then you're going to have to reveal the operational details." One of the concerns I had was that some people were saying, "Well, maybe we could just put a line in here," or—you know, like the manager's amendment that we do in the Senate, or whatever, in the House, and say, "Just get it done." You can't do that. You've got to say, "What are we doing? How are we doing it?" Give it to the jurisdictional committees, and then we will see exactly what happened in The New York Times whether the program is going to be followed.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, if you believe that the president had the authority to do this with the statute in September of 2001, "Use all necessary means," then why not go to Congress and say, "We need the president to have the authority to do domestic eavesdropping against phone calls that either originate here or overseas when there's indication that it involves al-Qaeda," period, and put that before a vote of Congress? Why not ask for the authority? What's the fear?
SEN. ROBERTS: He already has the constitutional authority, regardless of the use of force issue, as did Roosevelt when the Supreme Court said, "No, you can't do that," and he did it anyway and said, "It's too late after an attack." But he needed this extra—what?--this extra authority or this extra program, this capability to say, if you have a terror cell here, they're plotting against the United States, they called the United States, then we at least have the time frame that we can act.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, let me refer you to Buffalo, New York—a great town—up in—back in April of 2004.
SEN. ROBERTS: Even colder than it is here now.
MR. RUSSERT: It's a great town. April of 2004, the president's in the middle of the campaign, and this is a big issue, the whole idea of the war on terror. And this is what the president said to the American people in Buffalo.
(Videotape, April 20, 2004)
PRES. BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretape requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Did the president tell the truth?
REP. HOEKSTRA: The president told the truth in terms of if we are going to domestic to domestic, there is a court order. Obviously at that time, we in Congress knew, or at least the eight of us knew that if he was taking—if we were listening to al-Qaeda on one end calling in to the United States, that there was not a court order, there was not a warrant.
MR. RUSSERT: The president never said domestic to domestic. He said, "A wiretap requires a court order. When you're talking—when you're tracking down—talking about chasing down the terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." So he's suggesting to the American people that he is bound, as president, to get a court order. He was not saying, "I have inherent congress—constitutional authority to do what I want to do."
REP. HOEKSTRA: I think that's accurate. The president was focused on making sure that when al-Qaeda's calling into the United States, we were listening.
REP. HARMAN: I think we...
MR. RUSSERT: You think the president misled the American people?
REP. HARMAN: ...I—I think we should be listening. I support this capability, but I also think Congress should be listening. I think that this entire program now should be briefed to the two intelligence committees, as is required by the National Security Act of 1947. There were some—some briefings this...
SEN. ROBERTS: Not right.
REP. HARMAN: Let me just—can I finish my thought, Pat?
SEN. ROBERTS: Certainly.
REP. HARMAN: Briefings earlier this week, which were extremely helpful, of all of the members of our committees, all of whom are very responsible. We're only 36 members total that we're talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program.
MR. RUSSERT: The vice president said Congress would leak like a sieve. You couldn't possibly brief that many people.
REP. HARMAN: I—I find that ironic, Tim, since one, these leaks came from the administration, nobody in Congress knew. Two, the White House declassifies the information it chooses to declassify, and there's material in the newspapers that the vice president may have authorized his then-chief of staff Scooter Libby to talk about classified portions of the national intelligence program.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, knowing what we know now, should the president stop this program?
SEN. DASCHLE: No, absolutely not. I think it's a very valuable program. But again, as I said, it's a false choice, Tim, to say that you can either stop the program or protect the rules of law. I think we've got to respect the rule of law, and that's what this is about. The law was put in place, it's worked effectively, we know now it can be just as applicable. If they want to see some changes to it, let's find changes. I think there ought to be an investigation by the appropriate committees of Congress and look into NSA to see how we might it effectively. Let's not just depend on the administration to give us their guidance, let's look at it ourselves. Let's do that. And I think if we did that, we can make this law work, and we can do both: protect the rule of law and protect the citizens of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the program should be stopped?
REP. HARMAN: No. I think the program should go on, I think the program should fully comply with FISA.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Roberts, let me ask you a very serious question. Do you believe that the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to do anything he believes is necessary to protect the country?
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes, but I wouldn't say anything he believes. I think you go at it very, very carefully, and that's been done by every president that I know of. And it's very important to point out, not only for this president but for the next one, because we have a different kind of war, a different kind of threat, a different kind of technology. And again, the FISA court, and I don't mean to pick a fuss with my good friend Jane, who I agree with 90 percent of the time. But it is an outdated law for this threat and the time equation that we have to have to stop terrorists. Not only for President Bush, past presidents have done this, future presidents will have to have that authority. The 1947 National Security Act said, yes, you will inform members of Congress. But Congress itself then went in and passed a law and said, if it is sensitive information and would reveal sources and methods, then you have to limit this, and it has been limited to the leadership, who better, and the four people on the intelligence committee. We were briefed. Now, I don't know, I don't know how else I can say it.
REP. HOEKSTRA: This is a false description of saying that the president took the authority by himself to do whatever he wanted to do. Almost immediately after this decision and this program was put in place, the president went to the leadership of Congress and shared with them the program of what he was doing. And, you know, I have trouble accepting the fact that if there are members of Congress, the House or the Senate, who believe that the president is breaking the law, that they're saying, "Don't worry about it, just go ahead." If the president's breaking the law, it is our responsibility to stop it until we fix the law.
MR. RUSSERT: Should the Democrats have tried to stop it?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think there have been efforts, and we've documented those efforts, to try to change it, to try to warn the president, not only—but it's not only the Congress, Tim, we're talking about the chief justices of the FISA court itself, who—who actually terminated the—the utilization of the law for a couple of periods of time. What good is a law if the court themselves is—are stopping it. You know, we're in this—they're now calling it the long war. Well, this is going to be the long war. We have to make sure that we have the full support of the American people, and you're not going to have the full support of the American people if these doubts continue to surface, and real questions and debate about its utilization continue to—to undermine our ability to use the law.
MR. RUSSERT: We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back with more of our discussion about domestic eavesdropping without court warrants, the constitutional, legal and political ramifications, right after this.
Announcer: MEET THE PRESS is sponsored by...
MR. RUSSERT: Domestic eavesdropping and the war on terror. More of our conversation after this.
MR. RUSSERT: And we're back with our discussion on domestic eavesdropping. James Risen broke this story in The New York Times. He says that the information was provided to him by a whistleblower, who was concerned about the constitutionality of this program. "Porter Goss, the head of the CIA, asserted that leaks had done very severe damage to the national security and declared that the leakers would be found. 'I have called in the FBI, the Department of Justice,' Mr. Goss said. 'It is my aim, it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information.'"
Congressman Harman, should members of the press be called in by a grand jury and asked where they got the information?
REP. HARMAN: Well, this is getting messier and messier. We just saw that in the Valerie Plame investigation. If the press was part of the process of delivering classified information, I think there have to be some limits on press immunity. I—the Goss article was, again, ironic because it came out the same day that there was another selective declassification, this time of the fact that there was a plot that was thwarted, thank goodness, to bomb the Library Tower.
MR. RUSSERT: But if this came from a whistleblower—if this came from a whistleblower, should The New York Times reporter be subpoenaed?
REP. HARMAN: Well, it's not clear it was a whistleblower. You have to prove that first. No. The answer is if it's protected under the whistleblower statute, then it's protected. Goss in his op-ed said he was trying to protect whistleblowers, but these were despicable people going around the process.
The problem is, however, that Congress is being cut out. Senator Mike DeWine said, I think very impressively on Monday in the Senate Judiciary hearings, that it's good to have Congress on your side. Having these closed briefings of eight members of Congress when we can bring no tools into the room and talk to nobody, is not full consultation with Congress. The right thing to do here is to meet with the Congressional Committees, disclose the program and have us work together to make sure it complies with the law. We've seen this movie before. It was called, "Torture CID." We just went through this. And finally, the administration was forced to comply with the law that Congress passed by overwhelming majorities. And we're going to get to the same closing scene in this movie.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Hoekstra, should the reporters be subpoenaed?
REP. HOEKSTRA: Yeah, these are not whistleblowers. There's a process for whistleblowers to go through their agencies or to come to Congress. The whistleblower process doesn't say, "Go to The New York Times and let The New York Times decide whether something is vital to our national security or not." You know, there's a real threat out there. We need to be prepared to fight this threat. We had the tools in place. The New York Times released it, and James Risen had an economic interest in this. His book came out four weeks after The New York Times published this in their newspaper. That's not appropriate.
MR. RUSSERT: But if this is a—but if this is a serious and legitimate constitutional debate between executive and legislative authority, shouldn't the media be allowed to report on that from someone who was inside government who is troubled by this program?
REP. HOEKSTRA: If this person is troubled in government, there are a series of steps that they can take so that they do not jeopardize national security. They can go through their agencies. They can go through their inspector generals. They could come to the committees. They can come to Pat, myself, or Jane and say, "We are very, very troubled by what this administration is doing. You need to take a look at this." They didn't go there. It appears that they went directly to The New York Times, they went directly to James Risen. That is the wrong thing to do. You know, America's...
MR. RUSSERT: They may have feared for reprisal. They may have feared that Congress wouldn't do anything.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Well, that's not their decision to make. Congress has outlined the laws by which this will happen. Their responsibility and their oath to keep these secrets confidential says this is how the whistleblower process works. It's not in their option whether they're going to abide by this law or not. The process is laid out. If that individual decides to use a process outside of the law or in violation of the law, they do it at their risk.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, should reporters by subpoenaed?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, I deplore leaks and I think a lot of what Congressman Hoekstra has said is right. We should try to discourage it at all costs. But I have to say, the administration and many in Congress have a very significant double standard when it comes to leaks. There wasn't any resistance—there was a great deal of resistance on the Valerie Plame investigation on who leaked that. You know, now you've got the vice president actually authorizing leaks at times. And no one seems to be challenging that. So, I think there ought to be an investigation of NSA. In fact, you wouldn't even have this as a story if the president had been biding by the law itself—the F.S.A. law requiring him to get the authority. So, there's a substantive question that ought to be asked here: What is the problem with the NSA? And how can we fix it if it needs fixing? But, of course we have to go after the leaks. I don't think that—I'm very concerned about any infringement on reporters' rights to investigate wherever the news may take them.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think reporters should have to reveal their sources or go to prison?
SEN. DASCHLE: No, I do not.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Roberts, I want to ask you the same question, but add into it Congressman Harman's comments and Senator Daschle's comments about the vice president. This was the National Journal on Thursday. "Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been 'authorized' by Cheney and other White House 'superiors' in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records."
SEN. ROBERTS: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: Should there be an investigation into that leak by the vice president?
SEN. ROBERTS: The executive basically has control over what's classified and what isn't. It could very well be that we don't know yet whether that information was declassified and was actually given as purported in the press. That has to play out in regards to grand jury proceedings.
MR. RUSSERT: But should we find out? If there's been an allegation made that in fact classified information was leaked, should there be an investigation?
SEN. ROBERTS: Oh, I think—I think we ought to find out every allegation. My God, how many investigations have we had here on the board now? If we investigate the NSA, you're shooting the messenger. As I say, I have paid a visit out there. These people are dedicated, they are—they have great expertise, you sit next to lawyers, you go through checklists in regards to make sure that they're following the law exactly. That's exactly the wrong place to do any kind of an investigation.
And I might add in regards to this effort to brief the full committees, I will give the administration some credit, and had something to do with it, by the way, and I think the reception on the House side was much better. I think Jane and Pete all said that everybody came out of there feeling a little better about the program, like to know more about it, but then you get into operational details and you worry about leaks.
We have the same thing on our side. We had a pretty good session, but then immediately after that session, we had two senators issue a press release on the very one thing that we talked about in regard—I can't say that—the very one thing that was the most sensitive issue of all. So, you know, who leaks around this place, I don't know.
I remember when we had the investigation on the 9/11 investigation joint House/Senate Intelligence Committee. And then there was an intercept, an NSA intercept, and it was leaked to the press—had nothing to do with 9/11 but it was very incendiary. The time is now, the match is burning, OK? And so the president said, "Whoa! Wait a minute. Stop! Stop the whole thing. I'm not going to give you anything." And then the FBI was granted permission to investigate the Congress when we were investigating the FBI. How silly was that!
So it does happen from Congress. I suspect it's some Justice Department guy by a water cooler who's upset about this or it may even be—perish the thought—a FISA judge whose basic, you know, feelings or ego is second only to that of senators.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you do not believe that the NSA should be investigated for a leak, then do you think that a reporter should be subpoenaed, brought before a grand jury and forced to testify who...
SEN. ROBERTS: Well, you're talking to an old reporter. You're talking to a journalist. If you look in the bio, it says, "Roberts: journalist." That's an unemployed newspaperman. OK?
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe reporters should have to testify before a grand jury?
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes, I do.
MR. RUSSERT: And reveal his sources.
SEN. ROBERTS: That's a tough call, and it has gone back and forth, and back and forth. And you get in the soup, and it lasts about two or three years. I think—I think the effort to try to get something like that done is probably proper. We did have a bill before the Senate Intelligence Committee said, "If a reporter, or anybody, intentionally leaked something, that then it would be something that obviously it would be a felony." Now that bill, I—I think it actually passed the Senate Intelligence Committee and then it went nowhere because of all the fourth estate getting upset.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, why would you have a different standard for a reporter than you would have for a government official?
SEN. ROBERTS: No, I mean, it would mean anybody. If anybody leaked information intentionally—now you can do it unintentionally—and on that basis, I think you have a different standard.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an article written by Paul Pillar, a CIA analyst for 28 years, who's now written a piece on foreign affairs. Four people at the table, all of whom voted in favor of the war in Iraq, and this is what he said: "The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its relationship with the policymaking process is broken and badly needs repair. In wake of then Iraq war, it's become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized. As a national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing development. If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers, it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades."
And, Senator Daschle, he says that he was not contacted by the administration for an assessment of post-war Iraq for a year after the war began. Based on everything you have learned over the last several years, do you regret authorizing the president—giving the president authority to go into Iraq?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, you can't turn back the clock, and I'm—I'm not going to re-visit that vote. I will say I regret very much the way this was all handled. The tremendous—the shocking revelations now that Mr. Pillar has provided gives us yet another reason why we ought to be investigating the use of intelligence. You know, we were promised over two years ago that we would have an investigation on whether or not the intelligence was abused. Now you've got one of the most prominent CIA analysts in the country who has said, "Yes, it was abused, and Congress and others made very serious decisions based on faulty information." We ought to have a far more aggressive oversight than what we've seen today.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Hoekstra, you agree with that?
SEN. ROBERTS: Wait a minute. Could I answer this, Tim? Because it's under my jurisdiction. OK?
REP. HOEKSTRA: It's under ours, too.
REP. HARMAN: Ours, too.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, go ahead, yeah.
SEN. ROBERTS: We did—we did the WMD study.
MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, you promised on this program...
SEN. ROBERTS: Our inquiry. Yes, I did. Now—and by the way, there are five pieces to that, and by the way, it would be—we have 13 people working on it, and three will be ready next month. And it's something to say that phase two is now completed, and then have a lot of criticism of it, by the same people who keep moving the goal post and adding in more information.
We are now going to, on that one particular piece that would refer to this gentleman, 40,000--even more than that—intelligence papers to match up what people said, and they looked at the intelligence and say, "Does that make sense?" So phase two will be completed, and rest assure there's nobody in Washington that wants that completed more than I do.
Now we interviewed over 250 analysts during the WMD—the WMD inquiry, including this gentleman. Not one, except him now, post after all this is done, said that they were pressured in any way. And that was backed up by the WMD commission. Now, there was some comment about repeated questioning, but most analysts will say there better be some repeated questioning, but there was no—no political pressure, no manipulation. We asked over 250 analysts about that.
Now, the intelligence was wrong. We had a world-wide intelligence failure. That's why the Congress stepped up and passed the intelligence reform bill, that's why the WMD commission recommended 95 changes, and the administration has made 94. But this gentleman was interviewed, and when he was interviewed that kind of rhetoric was not in the interview.
MR. RUSSERT: He says that the essence of the intelligence was Iraq was not going—worth going to war over.
REP. HOEKSTRA: Right. You said should the committees be doing aggressive oversight? And the answer is absolutely yes. Pat is doing it on the post—or the prewar intelligence, Jane and I, we do a lot of things together. We don't agree on everything, but there—you know, we agreed on a number of the priorities for the committee this year. We—we have a lot of blood, sweat and tears put into the intelligence reform bill. We want to make sure that the intelligence reform is creating the kind of intelligence community that we want created: agile, thorough, global. We both have concerns that it's not moving fast enough.
REP. HARMAN: Yes.
REP. HOEKSTRA: I have talked—or my staff contacted Mr. Pillar on Friday. Interesting allegations. I've asked to meet with him. I'm not sure we're going to open an investigation on one new story. We're going to talk with Pat and see the information that he's got. But if this guy's coming out now—the question is where was he before we went to war?
MR. RUSSERT: We only have 15 seconds.
REP. HARMAN: He was trying to get everyone's attention. Intelligence was ignored. Yes everyone agreed there was WMD in Iraq, but the—the—the weight of the recommendation was Saddam was contained and he wasn't going to use it. And that's the part that the administration never let us hear about.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret your vote for the war?
REP. HARMAN: I—I regret that our intelligence wasn't considered in full, and that those of us on the intelligence committees didn't have access to a fuller picture. I think that that would have staved off the actual military action had we understood it.
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued.
Hoekstra, Harman, Daschle, and Roberts: Thank you. We'll be right back.
MR. RUSSERT: A reminder, you can now watch the entire hour of MEET THE PRESS whenever and wherever you want. Our MEET THE PRESS Webcast posted each Sunday at 1 p.m. Eastern on our Web site, mtp.msnbc.com.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week at a special time in some areas because of NBC Sports' Olympic coverage. Check your Web—our Web site next week for airtimes in your local market. Because, if it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.


text:
Richard Simmons Wears Face Paint for 'Sweat, Hugs and Rock n Roll'
So this is what you get when you cross Alice Cooper with a unicorn: Richard Simmons in corpse paint.
The legendary weight loss guru decked himself out in heavy metal makeup and workout gear before leading a recent class at his Slimmons Studio in Beverly Hills, and commemorated the occasion with the brief video clip embedded here, which he posted to Facebook along with the battle cry "Sweat hugs and rock 'n' roll!"
It may seem shocking if you're only familiar with Simmons' old TV show, records, or 'Sweatin' to the Oldies' video series, but judging from Simmons' Twitter feed, his fabulous metal getup is just the latest in an occasionally bizarre series of attention-getting disguises that includes a blonde wig and glasses, an evening gown, a toupee worn in honor of L.A. icon Angelyne, a bedazzled leprechaun outfit, a triangle visor, a legitimately disturbing Easter bunny costume, and what appears to be some sort of self-tanning experiment that, as one of his followers put it, left him "starting to look like one of the Golden Girls."
Sure, it's all a little silly. But Simmons doesn't look any goofier in this face paint than any of the serious musicians who slap it on -- and when you've been trying to help people get healthy for a few decades, you've earned the right to wear whatever you want. Rock on, Richard.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Paint Shop Pro PHOTO XI now includes an Organiser, a window allowing easy thumbnail browsing of your photo collection.
Pick an image, then choose the Learning Centre option for whatever you want to do next: tweak a photo, retouch or restore it, add effects, whatever that might be. The program will provide the necessary explanations, so even beginners will soon be doing useful editing.
Alternatively, you could just browse the regular menus, which are packed with useful functions. The problem-fixing options are particularly good (you get no less than four red-eye removal methods), if not as automated as in some other tools.
Great editing tools include a colour changer that can automatically turn a yellow car red, for example, and new effects include the Time Machine (create a genuine old photo look), and a less successful but still handy depth-of-field simulator.
It's a professional, but very usable, tool at an excellent price: recommended.


text:
from Purdy Insurance Agency
To receive a quote for landlord insurance, fill out the information below and we'll get back to you right away with a competitive quote.
Required fields are marked with: *
8:30 AM - 5:00 PM M-Th
8:30 AM - 4:00 PM Fri
purdy [at] purdyinsurance [dot] com
If you need help with this form, or if you'd prefer to get a quote by phone or email, please let us know.
Home Page | About Us | Contact Us | Customer Service | Privacy Policy | Companies | Search | Disclaimer
© 2020 Purdy Insurance Agency
136 Market Street
Sunbury, PA 17801
8:30AM - 5PM Mon - Thu
8:30AM - 4:00PM Fri


text:
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) today announced that Mike Burgess M.D., Ph.D. has joined the Company as senior vice president, Discovery Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology. He will report to Francis Cuss, MB BChir, FRCP, senior vice president, Research, R&D, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and will be a member of the Research Senior Leadership Team.
"As a physician scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology, clinical experience in pediatrics and pediatric oncology, and extensive pharmaceutical industry and leadership experience, I believe Mike will be an important addition to our research and development organization," said Dr. Cuss. "Mike's broad clinical expertise, cross-therapeutic global team leadership and proven operational excellence will enable Bristol-Myers Squibb to continue to execute its strategy of ensuring sustainable delivery of an innovative pipeline of new medicines for patients."
Before joining Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Burgess was interim head of Hoffman La-Roche's Pharma Research and Early Development organization. Prior to that he led the Hoffman La-Roche Oncology Discovery and Translational Area, one of five disease-focused organizations, and at the same time served as head of Global Large Molecule Research. Before joining Hoffman La-Roche, Dr. Burgess was at Eli Lilly and Company as a Medical Fellow. He received his medical training and Ph.D. from the University of Bristol, U.K., and is a member of the Royal College of Physicians and of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health.
"I am excited by the opportunity to join Bristol-Myers Squibb and its Research Leadership Team," said Dr. Burgess. "Bristol-Myers Squibb is well known and respected for its innovative pipeline and approach to discovering and developing new medicines. I am looking forward to joining this committed team and continuing to drive research that delivers a differentiated pipeline of potential new medicines."
About Bristol-Myers Squibb
Bristol-Myers Squibb is a global biopharmaceutical company whose mission is to discover, develop and deliver innovative medicines that help patients prevail over serious diseases. For more information, please visit www.bms.com or follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bmsnews.


text:
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?gialyons Mar 9, 2009 6:42 PM (in response to gialyons)
Another one from my pal Chris Reckling over at IBM Lotus:
You could riff on that with Lava Lounge, Velvet Lounge, etc. Best to tie it into the overall branding of the site, of course.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?wallyrogers Mar 9, 2009 10:33 PM (in response to gialyons)
We called it "around the water cooler" but "the latest scuttlebutt" comes to mind. For a little younger or more casual crowd, you might try "Just Chillin"
We had some good spontaneous conversations at the water cooler. One on standardizing online training and tools. Another on creating a community calendar. Another long on favorite ice breakers with groups.
It surprised me.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?Ted Hopton Mar 10, 2009 6:25 AM (in response to gialyons)
I named ours, "Get a Life" but we now find that the user-created groups are, instead, the popular places for people to conduct these kinds of activities. I see it as a telling example of the way social media works: sometimes it doesn't matter what you set up for people to use, as they have the power and the tools to create their own communities. Our "Get a Life" space doesn't get much traffic (but, admittedly, we haven't worked at all to promote it).
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?mandyharvey Mar 10, 2009 9:02 AM (in response to gialyons)
We named ours, "Break Room". Pretty basic title but our employee base seems to get the idea around the purpose of that space!
Similar to Ted our "Break Room" does not get a lot of usage and we too have not promoted it as much as we should (we will do this more in the coming year though)!
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?kevin.jones Mar 10, 2009 3:51 PM (in response to gialyons)
GTS is the name of our company so we do...
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?cflanagan17 Mar 13, 2009 8:54 AM (in response to gialyons)
I like the idea of Break Room and Lounge as alternatives that get across the same "non"-business purpose.
For global companies, do you think this would be words that mean the same thing in all cultures? And have you heard other ideas from your global counterparts?
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?mdcrocker Mar 13, 2009 10:33 AM (in response to gialyons)
We created a community called "Speak Out". With no real push, it took off and remains one of the most visited areas. I keep and eye on the questions and discussions to make sure the "right" people are seeing them. Making sure questions are answered and suggstions and comments are acknowledged goes a long way in keeping the energy level up.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?cflanagan17 Mar 13, 2009 11:22 AM (in response to gialyons)
That's a great idea.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?summers Mar 20, 2009 11:44 AM (in response to gialyons)
I love the watercooler idea. I have been pushing for this for some time. Do you guys have any success metrics that I could show a positive return.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?TommyRyan Sep 20, 2011 7:19 AM (in response to gialyons)
Gia Lyons do you typically see folks create the "Water Cooler" non business place as a Group or Space? I noticed that in our new Jive Instance that it was provisioned as a Space and I expected a Group instead (since it is ad-hoc and topic based). I also asked this question on Groups vs. Spaces .
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?mdcrocker Sep 20, 2011 7:30 AM (in response to TommyRyan)
We called our area "Speak Out". We used a community instead of group because we also consolidated the executive communications and our internal communications into that area. Group does not allow setting different permissions for different people.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?FrankGebhardt Sep 21, 2011 6:00 PM (in response to gialyons)
We weren't that inventive and simply called it "The Watercooler". It's implemented as a "member's only" group and was one of the first things we did. About a third of the populace is a member and there's a constant stream of activities (about 2 new discussions a day). We used it originally as an onboarding facility. Much easier for people to post a question or answer about a good dentist or panel beater and not to worry about if something goes wrong I loose all of that information.
Conversely we have a similar generic group for business purposes called "Ask all of Tait". While membership is growing content is still scarce....
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?guckenjd Sep 21, 2011 7:59 PM (in response to FrankGebhardt)
Given that we reach over 50K users in 60 countries, we didn't want to setup a single home for 'water cooler' chat. We did start a couple of non-business groups to show others that anyone was welcome to start a social group around their personal interests and share with others. Two of the groups that we originally started, 'The Foodie Network' and 'Health & Fitness group' are still our to largest social groups. People can join, follow and share in group that is centered around their interests, and not be hammered with topics that they had little interest in.
It has been very interesting watching groups form around various topics. Some of my favorites are:
Cat Ladies
What's on Tap (Beer Brewing)
Wine Cellar
Motorcycle Enthusiasts
Model Rocket Club
Rugby World Cup
Although one of best groups has to be 'I have a Question?' We have seen hundreds of questions get asked and get answered. Some are work related, like ordering Blackberry accessories. Others were some random, like where buy the Jelly Bellies in Indy?
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?gialyons Sep 21, 2011 8:34 PM (in response to guckenjd)
Thanks for sharing JD! I want to point out that JD's organization is in the pharmaceuticals industry. Love the freedom to connect on non-business topics - it makes for deeper, trusted work relationships in the end. IMO.
Sent from my iPad
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?kieranpkelly Sep 22, 2011 2:07 AM (in response to gialyons)
Hi Gia, can you point to any material that makes a good case for using SBS to connect on non-business topics? My feeling is that SBS works best when it mirrors how people genuinely interact in the workplace and this of course involves a great deal of non-business discussion and humour. I would like to be able to make a case for non-business interaction with a current client who has insisted that we use the term BNS (Business Networking Software) rather than SBS because they distrust the notion of using a business tool for social interaction. So anything that makes the argument that social interaction in the workplace is natural and beneficial would be helpful. Thanks!
And to bring my reply right back to topic here are some ideas for the name of the Watercooler area:
- The Promenade
- The Nags Head (typical name for an English pub)
- The Kitchen (in my experience this is where people gravitate at parties!)
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?TommyRyan Sep 22, 2011 5:27 AM (in response to kieranpkelly)
Thanks Kieran Kelly , JD Guckenberger , Mike Crocker , Frank Gebhardt (and of course Gia Lyons ) for the help with this. We are going with an Open Group called Just Chillin. Will probably expand with topic specific non-work related Open Groups (like On Tap for favorite beverages or Rocky Mountain High for hiking enthusiasts).
How can you not love crowd sourcing a question. You guys rock!
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?gialyons Sep 22, 2011 6:39 AM (in response to kieranpkelly)
Hi Kieran,
In my experience, the whole, "people connecting on non-business/personal interest topics leads to trusted relationships" argument is a weak one when faced with a traditional organizational culture.
Instead, here's what I've seen work:
Relate a personal interest topic to business.
One of our customers has a business unit that creates surgical devices used by, well, surgeons. When we discussed the validity of non-business topical groups, we identified what I call "tangential topic domains" that support the business's surgical device R&D activities. As a result, they created the Model Airplanes interest group, because the thinking and activities associated with building model airplanes can inform what researchers do when thinking about surgical devices. So, the lesson here is to ARTICULATE HOW a particular non-business topic leads to time or money saved, more money, or better innovation.
Another example: one customer had a culture that allowed for appropriate non-business topics. Their Photography group ultimately came up with an idea to use the group members' photos in the company's marketing campaigns. They effectively saved the company money that would have been spent on expensive digital assets.
Position personal interest topics as a way to support HR-related employee health and wellness initiatives.
In many organizations, HR groups have ongoing employee health and wellness initiatives. One Jive customer (in the healthcare industry) created personal interest groups in each region that related to employees' physical health, local community involvement, and environmental interests.
This included groups such as:
- San Diego Cyclists (commuting to work on bicycles, races, etc.)
- Cleveland Volunteers (volunteering in the local community)
- The Recycle Challenge (who can reduce, reuse, recycle the most within a given month)
Here's what I would recommend:
Go to your HR folks, and ask them how personal interest groups in your Jive community could help support their initiatives. Ask them if their initiatives would also allow for generally accepted hobbies, such as photography, knitting, recipe-sharing, etc. Perhaps they have some sort of "Whole Employee" or "we support our employees lives, not just their work lives" approach.
Finally, I haven't actually read through all of this yet, but Gallup seems to be the ultimate authority in measuring overall employee engagement, and recommending what to do to keep employees engaged at work. This leads to lower employee turnover, better business performance, and higher employee satisfaction.
Here are some more stats, but I don't see anything blatantly saying, "when people commune on non-business topics, it helps keep them engaged"
I hope this helps!
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?kieranpkelly Sep 22, 2011 8:39 AM (in response to gialyons)
Thank you for a very full answer
When the time comes I'll let you know how we get on.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?gialyons Sep 22, 2011 7:31 AM (in response to kieranpkelly)
Kieran Kelly, here's a bit more from Kathryn Everest:
You put that "balance" of work and non-work back on the worker in social software the same way you do today [without social software]. And you measure the benefit of "we are hitting our numbers harder - AND we have less turnover, happier more engaged workforce, etc."
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?bjewell Sep 23, 2011 7:33 AM (in response to guckenjd)
I'll pile on to JD's list with some of our more popular "life beyond work" groups:
- Working Parents
- Photography
- DIY (do it yourself)
- The Discerning Drinker
- Events in the City
- GameOn
- Fitness (another is Love to Run)
- I'm a MAC
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?Oosthuar Sep 25, 2011 11:34 PM (in response to gialyons)
Although we dont have social communities/topics yet, I support the idea and believe the success factors (adoption) for a watercooler area are the same as for a work related community - it needs to be interesting and useful, thus it must be relevant and you will need some "topic" owners to stimulate useful content.
With Jive, you will have to create a social group/place for each social topic - if you used another technology, one would create a social area with a number of social topics. The topics in either case will be focused on a relevant topic i.e. running, cycling, soccer, 2010 World Cup, Single Parenting, Working Parents, etc. I dont think one single generic forum/blog will draw much interest as no one will be able to stomach the amount spam only to find one relevant post.
It is simple supply and demand principles - you need people that want something and people that want to give give something together. Find out what is the general interests / needs of the people and focus on that, get some subject champions to stimulate conversation/useful info. People like people like themselves..
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?TommyRyan Sep 26, 2011 11:03 AM (in response to Oosthuar)
Armand, well said on why one group/place is not the best approach and will eventually be ignored like spam. I think topic based is very appropriate... like "Getting Started" for new hires, "Working Parents", etc.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?bbenton Jan 13, 2014 7:59 AM (in response to gialyons)
Just thinking about this now, good ideas on this thread, thanks. I'm wondering if we do this whether it's better to have a space with sub-interest spaces and groups maybe so we can keep all of the 'general chat' places together. Would be interested to hear what others have done.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?Kara Francis Jan 13, 2014 8:38 AM (in response to bbenton)
I like the subspace hierarchical approach, but I don't like the permissions management piece. If groups had sub groups, then I'd vote for that. Otherwise, I'd probably just do groups and then tag them each with watercooler and then add tags related to the specific topic. We could then have a watch a tag widget added to a main watercooler group to display the groups and also ask for watercooler "sub group" topics or as a topic becomes popular in the main watercool spot, it could be a signal to set up a stand-alone group for that topic and move the related content. There is some overhead to this approach as well, though.
I'm thinking out loud, so I don't know if I like my idea or not…
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?bbenton Jan 13, 2014 8:42 AM (in response to Kara Francis)
I would expect all these 'general' areas to be fully open, can't think why areas around encouraging relationships would need to be restricted, they would need ownership though. I still think access could and should be open but maybe I'm missing something.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?Kara Francis Jan 13, 2014 8:49 AM (in response to bbenton)
Although they'd be open, you have to use the admin console to manage the ownership. Groups would be simpler and groups owners can add additional group owners, etc. Also, we tend to encourage groups if the topic is narrow and not of general interest to the whole company.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?brianulm Jan 13, 2014 8:38 AM (in response to bbenton)
I tend to agree with the comments that is better to have social groups that are focused on a topic / area of interest versus a general catch-all water cooler. The exception might be if the company is not very large. We have groups that have sprung up on themes ranging from fitness, to runners groups, to veterans working within the company. I think its make for a more organic, genuine experience when the participants have a common thread that pulls them together and engages them.
Re: What would you call the Watercooler area?JHaines Jan 13, 2014 8:50 AM (in response to brianulm)
Agree with Brian Ulm and others that you probably need a few affinity cases, they should be specific and I would avoid having a general / non-specific area. The better you can focus the conversation in to specific subject areas the better it will be used, consumened and found by others. I would also add that you need to determine what your looking to get in return e.g. ideation, conversation, etc. and tailor the experience from there.


text:
Space galore: Hidden Forest offers grand retreat
Address: 260 Forestvue Drive
Neighborhood: Hidden Forest, Earlysville
Asking: $745,000
Assessment: $702,200
Year Built: 2006
Size: 3027 fin. sq. ft./2075 unfin.
Land: 4.94 acres
Curb Appeal: 7 out of 10
Listing Agent: Amy Webb 434-760-1319, Nest Realty, 434-825-5756
Anyone who reads real estate advertisements on a regular basis understands that agents and brokers, who typically create their own copy, are as overtaxed as copywriters in other industries. The same words and phrases– privately situated, cozy, functional floor plan, graciously appointed– tend to get recycled. Nonetheless, there are some situations in which the descriptions, however overused, are accurate.
For instance, 260 Forestvue Drive is privately situated: accessed by two driveways– one of which leads to an attached three-car garage– the home sits on nearly five acres at the end of the cul-de-sac in Hidden Forest, a small subdivision off Bleak House Road in Earlysville. The land offers a nice mix of woods and open lawn, accented with attractive landscaping that complements the farmhouse-style design.
The custom-built house features over 3,000 finished square feet, including four bedrooms, four full baths, and a few surprises– like the dining room, accessed from the front entry by a wide cased opening. It's smaller than one might expect for a house this size, but the crown molding and oak floors give it a classic feel, and it's easy to imagine several friends gathered around the table enjoying a casual dinner in this cozy space. The modest size also provides balance to both the high-ceilinged foyer and the adjacent spacious kitchen.
With plentiful counters, a gas range, and a walk-in pantry, the kitchen should satisfy even the most ardent cook. An eat-in area is separated from the neighboring great room by a half-wall, contributing to the easy functional flow of the main living areas. Vaulted ceilings can sometimes make a large room feel vast and overwhelming, but a gas fireplace and built-in bookshelves help mitigate the effect here and make the great room feel comfortable rather than impersonal. Folks seeking solitude will find it in the television room at the front of the house (with a full bath).
Tucked behind the great room, the master bedroom suite is also surprisingly small, although dual walk-in closets, a glass-enclosed shower, a soaking tub, and a double vanity provide all the necessary amenities. This space won't appeal to those seeking Texas-sized quarters and over-the-top glamor, but buyers who can be happy with a quiet, light-filled retreat won't be disappointed.
Upstairs are three more bedrooms, one so spacious that it could easily be converted to a second-floor master, a playroom, or even a rec room. A cedar closet and a small floored attic space provide generous storage.
Most people shopping in this price range aren't looking for a fixer-upper, but the basement offers plenty of opportunity to satisfy even people with big plans. The floors are painted, and the walls are insulated and sheetrocked, but the ceilings haven't been put in, the trim work hasn't been done, and the roughed-in bath hasn't been finished. With windows and doors admitting loads of natural light, the basement, which presently houses mechanical systems, a workout space, and a workshop, is a prime area for expansion.
A front porch, a rear deck, and a slate patio allow for appreciation of the outdoors, and the views are bucolic. Raised bed gardens and a fenced compost area will please gardeners; the yard is large enough to accommodate more extensive landscaping.
This offering will appeal to large families with lots of children, couples who enjoy entertaining and hosting out-of-town guests, or retirees who need plenty of room to house their visiting grandkids.
Given that the median home sale in Albemarle County last year was under $300,000, however, the current list price will limit the number of prospective purchasers. That's not to say that it's an unfair figure– at just over 5 percent above assessment, the asking price is competitive and within range of the other available listing in the same subdivision. But based on last year's sales of homes in the $700,000-$750,000 range (13) and the current inventory (25), there's a lot of competition.
Each week, a brave local seller invites the Hook to provide an impartial, warts-and-all look at their real estate listing. E-mail yours today!.
Note: The photographs above are properly credited in this online edition, but in the print version of the Hook they carried the wrong credit line.


text:
After the Federal "bailouts", and on the cusp of Obama's Apotheosis:
The Ghosts of Local Governance return to taunt us…
I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism. Robert E. Lee in reply to Lord Acton
(***Note: Just to nip silly comments in the bud since most folks think the Civil War was all about slavery: This is not an approval of ghastly things like slavery, racism, segregation, etc. Rather it is a lamentation of the violent displacement of the Sovereignty of the States which created the Republic, with the current Centralized Monstrosity.***)


text:
Body of Iraqi woman severely beaten in California to be flown to native country
EL CAJON, Calif. -- Iraq's foreign minister said Monday that the body of an Iraqi-American woman who was found brutally beaten next to a note saying "go back to your country, you terrorist" will be flown to Baghdad as lawmakers in her native country demanded a thorough investigation.
Shaima Alawadi, 32, was taken off life support on Saturday, three days after her 17-year-old daughter found her unconscious in the dining room of the family's El Cajon home in suburban San Diego.
"The government has ordered to transport her body from California to Baghdad," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said when asked about the death at a news conference for the Arab League summit in Baghdad. He declined further comment.
Investigators said they're exploring all aspects of her slaying, including the possibility that the attack was a hate crime.
Alawadi's father is Sayed Nabeel Alawadi, a Shiite cleric in Iraq, a Muslim leader in Michigan told the Detroit Free-Press on Sunday. "Everybody is outraged," Imam Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn said. "This is too evil, too criminal."
Reaction in Baghdad was muted, though some lawmakers pressed for answers. Government offices were closed, and newspapers were not printing this week for the diplomatic summit.
"We deplore this hideous crime that took place in a country calls itself the land of democracy, freedoms and freedom of religious. The parliament will take a serious position on this. Iraqi Foreign Affairs Ministry must now officially ask the U.S. Embassy and the Department of State for more details on this hideous crime," said Aliyah Nisayef, an Iraqi female lawmaker.
Lawmaker Haider al-Mulla, a Shiite from the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya political party, also asked that the U.S. government step into the investigation.
"If the investigation reveals that the attack was a hatred crime, then U.S. authorities should take measures to protect all Iraqi refugees on American soil," al-Mulla said.
The victim's daughter, Fatima Al Himidi, told KUSI-TV in San Diego that her mother had been beaten on the head repeatedly with a tire iron, and the note was next to her. Police said the family had found a similar, threatening note earlier this month but did not report it to authorities.
Al Himidi told KGTV-TV her mother dismissed the first note, found outside the home, as a child's prank.
Flowers were set on the doorstep of the home Sunday. Neighbors said the family had moved in about two months ago.
Friends said Alawadi wore a hijab, the Islamic head scarf.
Hayder Al-Zayadi, a family friend, told the Free-Press that Alawadi moved to the United States in 1993 with her family and was part of a wave of Shiite Muslim refugees who fled to Michigan after Saddam Hussein cracked down on an uprising in 1991.
After living in Dearborn for a few years, she moved to the San Diego area in 1996, graduated from high school and became a housewife raising five children, Al-Zayadi said.
Al-Zayadi said Alawadi's brothers worked for the U.S. Army, serving as cultural advisers to train soldiers who were going to be deployed to the Middle East. Another family friend told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Alawadi's husband had a similar job.
El Cajon, east of San Diego, is home to one of the largest Iraqi communities in the United States.


text:
Books and Pamphlets, Including Serials and Contributions to Periodicals, Volume 13, Issue 1
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959 - American literature
From inside the book
19 pages matching Grosset & Dunlap in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 19
What people are saying - Write a review
User Review - Flag as inappropriate
SHALL WE GO? Margaret Bocook
SHALL WE GO? Margaret Bocook
Well I was a young girl when my aunt went to the good will and she found a book, called Shall we go. Margaret has the very same last name as me. I didn't get to read the book Shall we go, but I wanted to. I wanted to know all about her. So now that Technology has come a long way, I would like to read this book. To know if Margaret Bocook is still alive. Thank you. Melinda Bocook.
engineering Engineering infor
Addendum AA414 10l issue l
Bell System practices Equipment
10 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
Ace Books additions & revisions Albert American Standards Assn Appl Aprij9 Arthur Bell System Brown Brown & Bigelow Bulletin California Carrier Corp catalog Charles Chicago Christian Church city directory classified telephone directory Club College Committee comp compilation Corp David Davis Dept Division Doctoral dissertation series Edited editor Education Edward Electric employer for hire Engineering Ernest Fawcett Publications Federal-Mogul Film Filmstrip Ford Motor Francis Frank George Grosset & Dunlap handbook Harold Harry Henry House Illinois Bell illus Illustrated Industrial Institute International introd issue James Jean John Johnson joint author Joseph Junj9 Librairie Louis manual Mars9 Mary Microfilms National Nelson Doubleday notice Paris Paul prev Products pseud Publications Radio Research revisions & additions Richard Robert Ruth Section Service story Teachers telephone direc telephone directory Thomas University Microfilms Verlag Walt Walt Disney Productions Walter William


text:
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification
Event Navigation
The ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) program provides an opportunity for professionals in the arboriculture industry to expand their knowledge through education and training in the fundamentals of tree risk assessment. This qualification promotes the safety of people and property by providing a standardized and systematic process for assessing tree risk. The results of a tree risk assessment can provide tree owners and risk managers with the information to make informed decisions to enhance tree benefits, health, and longevity.
Registration Deadline: September 16, 2020
Retake Exam Information
This registration is to apply to attend a Tree Risk Assessment Qualification Course and Assessment. If you need to apply for a TRAQ exam retake only, please contact ISA at email@example.com or call +1 217.355.9411.
Payment Instructions
You must pay by credit card to register online.
All fees are charged in U.S. Dollars.
Credit cards are charged at the time of registration.
Course Information
The course includes Tree Biology and Mechanics, Tree Inspection and Assessment, Data Analysis and Risk Categorization, and Risk Reporting. The Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Course prepares the participant to take the TRAQ assessment to become ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified.
The qualification consists of a 2-day educational course followed by a ½ day assessment that includes both a written and field component. It is required that you attend the course and successfully complete the assessment in order to receive this qualification.
By applying to participate in a TRAQ event, you are agreeing to the terms, conditions, and policies outlined in the Tree Risk Assessment Qualification Application Guide. Please review this document before applying for an event.
To be eligible to earn a Tree Risk Assessment Qualification you must hold or have held one of the following prerequisites. For non-ISA credentials, you will be asked to please submit a copy of a certificate, credential identification card, diploma, or similar documentation. Documentation can be sent by mail to PNW-ISA at PO Box 811, Silverton OR 97381 or by email to firstname.lastname@example.com.
- ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
- ISA Certified Arborist®
- ISA Board Certified Master Arborist®
- EAC — European Tree Worker
- EAC — European Tree Technician
- Fachagrarwirt Baumpflege
- AHC30810 Certificate III in Arboriculture (Australia)
- New Zealand National Certificate in Horticulture (Arboriculture) (Level 4)
- United Kingdom Qualifications and Credit Framework Level 2 Certificate or Diploma in Arboriculture
- Manitoba Arborist Training and Licensing Program
- Connecticut Arborist License
- Louisiana Arborist License
- Maryland Tree Expert
- Massachusetts Certified Arborist
- Rhode Island Arborist License
- New Jersey Certified Tree Expert
- New Hampshire Arborists Association Certified Arborist
- Society of American Foresters Certified Forester
- ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) status
- A degree in arboriculture, urban forestry, traditional forestry, or horticulture that is part of a national qualifications framework or is from a college or university that is accredited or recognized under a system that is substantially similar to accreditation.
If you hold a credential or have completed a program of study that is not listed above, go to https://www.isa-arbor.com/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Certification/TRAQ-Eligibility-Appeal.pdffor information on submitting an appeal. Please be aware that the appeals process could take several months.
Special Accommodations Requests
If you have an accommodation request, please complete the Special Accommodations Request Form and submit it with your application. You can find the form online at http://www.isa-arbor.com/Accommodations. Submit the form to email@example.com.
Confirmation Packet
You will receive a confirmation packet with a letter containing the date and time of the course and the name of the appropriate contact person. Confirmation packets are shipped three weeks prior to the date the course begins.
Confirmation packets will be shipped using UPS to the address provided on the personal information registration page. Please provide a physical shipping address.
What to Bring to Exam
- A government-issued photo identification card, such as a driver's license, passport, or military ID
- Tree Risk Assessment Manual (included in your confirmation packet)
- Tree Risk Assessment Qualification Workbook (included in your confirmation packet); the workbook is required to complete the course
- Hard hat
- High visibility vest, coat, or other hi-vis attire
- Appropriate attire and footwear for both indoor and outdoor activities
- Clipboard or hard surface to write on outdoors
- Writing utensil(s), including at least one #2 pencil
Refund and Cancellation/Rescheduling Policy
Registration is limited to 20 people. Cancellations will be assessed a 10% processing fee.
A full refund (100%) will be given for cancellation requests made up to midnight on the course registration deadline. No refunds will be given for cancellations or rescheduling after midnight of the course registration deadline.
Most TRAQ courses fill and have a waitlist. Last minute cancellations prevent others on the waitlist from being notified of an opening in a timely manner. If you cannot attend a class for which you are registered, please contact the PNW-ISA office as soon as possible.
- Day 1 and Day 2 run from 8 AM to 5 PM.
- Day 3 runs from 8 AM to 12 PM.
- Instructor: Dr. Julian Dunster
- Location: The Gardens at Horticulture Centre of the Pacific, 505 Quayle Rd, Victoria, BC, V9E 2J7, Canada
- CEUs: 14.5
Allied Professionals are members of allied organizations. See our list of qualifying organizations.


text:
Department of Human Evolution
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
04103 Leipzig
phone: +49 (341) 3550 - 350
fax: +49 (0341) 3550 - 399
e-mail: streiber@[>>> Please remove the brackets! <<<]eva.mpg.de
Debra Colarossi
Post-Doctoral Researcher
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Department of Human Evolution
Deutscher Platz 6
04103 Leipzig
phone: 0049 (0) 341 3550 862
fax: 0049 (0) 341 3550 399
e-mail: debra_colarossi@[>>> Please remove the brackets! <<<]eva.mpg.de
Debra Colarossi is a postdoctoral researcher specializing in optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating within the Department of Human Evolution. She has a strong background in luminescence dating and experience with multiple luminescence signals from both quartz and feldspar, including quartz OSL, quartz violet stimulated luminescence (VSL) and K-feldspar post-infrared infrared stimulated luminescence (post-IR IRSL) at both multiple and single grain level. Her research focuses on utilising multiple luminescence chronometers to extend the upper age limit of the luminescence dating technique. Her strong luminescence background is complemented by extensive experience in geology, geomorphology and physical geography, having worked in numerous environmental settings.
Debra holds undergraduate degrees in teaching and geology. During her MSc research at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa she used OSL dating to establish the timing of deposition of tributary fan sediments, exposed in donga (gulley) systems, along the Nyl/Mogalakwena River in South Africa. This lead to her doctoral research at Aberystwyth University into the fundamental principles of luminescence dating and its application to determine the driving factors of deposition and erosion, and the switch between them, by accurately dating episodes recorded in Quaternary sediments.
Debra joined the Department of Human Evolution in March 2017 were she will be responsible for dating archaeological sites across Europe and Africa. She is also keen to continue her research into the fundamental principles of multiple luminescence chronometers, with a view to extending the upper age range of the technique.