text:
"When our cards came in the mail, they were better than we could have imagined. They were on heavy stock with a beautiful matte finish. And even more fun was that there was room to put pictures on the back when we designed it."
"Really pretty card, great paper quality. Envelope quality is excellent as well. Easy to create. Photos were very clear on final product. Shipment arrived a few days before the expected date. Very pleased with this purchase."


text: Debate with Walter Mondale (Defense and Foreign Policy) (October 21, 1984) Ronald Reagan MS. RIDINGS: Good evening from the Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City. I am Dorothy Ridings, the president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of this final Presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale.Our panelists for tonight's debate on defense and foreign policy issues are Georgie Anne Geyer, syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate; Marvin Kalb, chief diplomatic correspondent for NBC News; Morton Kondracke, executive editor of The New Republic magazine; and Henry Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Edwin Newman, formerly of NBC News and now a syndicated columnist for King Features, is our moderator. Ed.MR. NEWMAN: Dorothy Ridings, thank you. A brief word about our procedure tonight. The first question will go to Mr. Mondale. He'll have two and a half minutes to reply. Then the panel member who put the question will ask a followup. The answer to that will be limited to one minute. After that, the same question will be put to President Reagan. Again, there will be a followup. And then each man will have one minute for rebuttal. The second question will go to President Reagan first. After that, the alternating will continue. At the end there will be four-minute summations, with President Reagan going last.We have asked the questioners to be brief. Let's begin. Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. Central AmericaMS. GEYER: Mr. Mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of Central America. You and the Democratic Party have said that the only policy toward the horrendous civil wars in Central America should be on the economic development and negotiations, with perhaps a quarantine of Marxist Nicaragua. Do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there? Do you really believe that there is no need to resort to force at all? Are not the solutions to Central America's gnawing problems simply, again, too weak and too late?MR. MONDALE: I believe that the question oversimplifies the difficulties of what we must do in Central America. Our objectives ought to be to strengthen the democracies, to stop Communist and other extremist influences, and stabilize the community in that area. To do that we need a three-pronged attack: one is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured; secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us; and finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area.That's one of the big disagreements that we have with the President—that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within El Salvador or as between the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve a peaceThis brings up the whole question of what presidential leadership is all about. I think the lesson in Central America, this recent embarrassment in Nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals, and the rest—all of this has strengthened our opponents.A President must not only assure that we're tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power. We saw the same thing in Lebanon, where we spent a good deal of America's assets. But because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated, and our opponents are stronger.The bottom line of national strength is that the President must be in command, he must lead. And when a President doesn't know that submarine missiles are recallable, says that 70 percent of our strategic forces are conventional, discovers three years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didn't know that most Soviet missiles were on land—these are things a President must know to command.A President is called the Commander in Chief. And he's called that because he's supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation.MS. GEYER: Mr. Mondale, if I could broaden the question just a little bit: Since World War II, every conflict that we as Americans have been involved with has been in nonconventional or irregular terms. And yet, we keep fighting in conventional or traditional military terms.The Central American wars are very much in the same pattern as China, as Lebanon, as Iran, as Cuba, in their early days. Do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time, or react to it in those terms?MR. MONDALE: We absolutely must, which is why I responded to your first question the way I did. It's much more complex. You must understand the region; you must understand the politics in the area; you must provide a strong alternative; and you must show strength—and all at the same time.That's why I object to the covert action in Nicaragua. That's a classic example of a strategy that's embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our people and our country in the region. Strength requires knowledge, command. We've seen in the Nicaraguan example a policy that has actually hurt us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our country in that region.MS. GEYER: Mr. President, in the last few months it has seemed more and more that your policies in Central America were beginning to work. Yet, just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not, in effect, our own state-supported terrorism?PRESIDENT REAGAN: No, but I'm glad you asked that question, because I know it's on many peoples' minds. I have ordered an investigation. I know that the CIA is already going forward with one. We have a gentleman down in Nicaragua who is on contract to the CIA, advising—supposedly on military tactics—the contras. And he drew up this manual. It was turned over to the agency head of the CIA in Nicaragua to be printed. And a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge, and he sent it on up here to CIA, where more pages were excised before it was printed. But some way or other, there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for this printing process by the CIA.Now, those are the details as we have them. And as soon as we have an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed, we certainly are going to do something about that. We'll take the proper action at the proper time.I was very interested to hear about Central America and our process down there, and I thought for a moment that instead of a debate I was going to find Mr. Mondale in complete agreement with what we're doing, because the plan that he has outlined is the one we've been following for quite some time, including diplomatic processes throughout Central America and working closely with the Contadora group.So, I can only tell you about the manual—that we're not in the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt. But if guilt is established, whoever is guilty we will treat with that situation then, and they will be removed.MS. GEYER: Well, Mr. President, you are implying then that the CIA in Nicaragua is directing the contras there. I'd also like to ask whether having the CIA investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time?PRESIDENT REAGAN: I'm afraid I misspoke when I said a CIA head in Nicaragua. There's not someone there directing all of this activity. There are, as you know, CIA men stationed in other countries in the world and, certainly, in Central America. And so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered to, and he recognized that what was in that manual was in direct contravention of my own Executive order, in December of 1981, that we would have nothing to do with regard to political assassinations.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: What is a President charged with doing when he takes his oath of office? He raises his right hand and takes an oath of office to take care to faithfully execute the laws of the land. A President can't know everything, but a President has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws.This manual—several thousands of which were produced—was distributed, ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals, and other forms of terrorism. Some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. How can this happen? How can something this serious occur in an administration and have a President of the United States in a situation like this say he didn't know? A President must know these things. I don't know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it.And what about the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua which violated international law? This has hurt this country, and a President's supposed to command.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal.PRESIDENT REAGAN: Yes. I have so many things there to respond to, I'm going to pick out something you said earlier. You've been all over the country repeating something that, I will admit, the press has also been repeating—that I believed that nuclear missiles could be fired and then called back. I never, ever conceived of such a thing. I never said any such thing.In a discussion of our strategic arms negotiations, I said that submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional-type weapons, not as destabilizing as the land-based missiles, and that they were also weapons that—or carriers—that if they were sent out and there was a change, you could call them back before they had launched their missiles.But I hope that from here on you will no longer be saying that particular thing, which is absolutely false. How anyone could think that any sane person would believe you could call back a nuclear missile, I think is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. So, thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. I'm sure that you appreciate that. [Laughter]MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan. Soviet UnionMR. KALB: Mr. President, you have often described the Soviet Union as a powerful, evil empire intent on world domination. But this year you have said, and I quote. "If they want to keep their Mickey Mouse system, that's okay with me." Which is it, Mr. President? Do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detente—or what goes for detente—or do you really want to roll back their empire?PRESIDENT REAGAN: I have said on a number of occasions exactly what I believe about the Soviet Union. I retract nothing that I have said. I believe that many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality that we have. But I also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world, we have to live with each other. And I told Mr. Gromyko we don't like their system. They don't like ours. And we're not going to change their system, and they sure better not try to change ours. But between us, we can either destroy the world or we can save it. And I suggested that, certainly, it was to their common interest, along with ours, to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the nuclear weapons. And I think that perhaps we established a little better understanding.I think that in dealing with the Soviet Union one has to be realistic. I know that Mr. Mondale, in the past, has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves, and if we were kind and good and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. And the result was unilateral disarmament. We canceled the B-1 under the previous administration. What did we get for it? Nothing.The Soviet Union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man at the same time that we tried the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness, if you will. And now we are putting up a defense of our own. And I've made it very plain to them, we seek no superiority. We simply are going to provide a deterrent so that it will be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. Now, they claim they're not. And I made it plain to them, we're not. There's been no change in my attitude at all. I just thought when I came into office it was time that there was some realistic talk to and about the Soviet Union. And we did get their attention. Regions Vital to U.S. InterestsMR. KALB: Mr. President, perhaps the other side of the coin, a related question, sir. Since World War II, the vital interests of the United States have always been defined by treaty commitments and by Presidential proclamations. Aside from what is obvious, such as NATO, for example, which countries, which regions in the world do you regard as vital national interests of this country, meaning that you would send American troops to fight there if they were in danger?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Ah, well, now you've added a hypothetical there at the end, Mr. Kalb, about where we would send troops in to fight. I am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be, but obviously there are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us. One is the Middle East, and that is of interest to the whole Western World and the industrialized nations, because of the great supply of energy upon which so many depend there. Our neighbors here in America are vital to us. We're working right now in trying to be of help in southern Africa with regard to the independence of Namibia and the removal of the Cuban surrogates, the thousands of them, from Angola.So, I can say there are a great many interests. I believe that we have a great interest in the Pacific Basin. That is where I think the future of the world lies. But I am not going to pick out one and, in advance, hypothetically say, "Oh, yes, we would send troops there." I don't want to send troops any place.MR. NEWMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. President. Sir, your time was up.PRESIDENT REAGAN: All right. Soviet UnionMR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, you have described the Soviet leaders as, and I'm quoting, ". . . cynical, ruthless, and dangerous," suggesting an almost total lack of trust in them. In that case, what makes you think that the annual summit meetings with them that you have proposed will result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country?MR. MONDALE: Because the only type of agreements to reach with the Soviet Union are the types that are specifically defined, so we know exactly what they must do; subject to full verification, which means we know every day whether they're living up to it; and follow-ups, wherever we find suggestions that they're violating it; and the strongest possible terms.I have no illusions about the Soviet Union leadership or the nature of that state. They are a tough and a ruthless adversary, and we must be prepared to meet that challenge, and I would. Where I part with the President is that despite all of those differences we must, as past Presidents before this one have done, meet on the common ground of survival. And that's where the President has opposed practically every arms control agreement, by every President, of both political parties, since the bomb went off. And he now completes this term with no progress toward arms control at all, but with a very dangerous arms race underway instead. There are now over 2,000 more warheads pointed at us today than there were when he was sworn in, and that does not strengthen us.We must be very, very realistic in the nature of that leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways of reducing these differences, particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of Soviet power.There will be no unilateral disarmament under my administration. I will keep this nation strong. I understand exactly what the Soviets are up to, but that, too, is a part of national strength. To do that, a President must know what is essential to command and to leadership and to strength.And that's where the President's failure to master, in my opinion, the essential elements of arms control has cost us dearly. He's three years into this administration. He said he just discovered that most Soviet missiles are on land, and that's why his proposal didn't work.I invite the American people tomorrow—because I will issue the statement quoting President Reagan—he said exactly what I said he said. He said that these missiles were less dangerous than ballistic missiles because you could fire them, and you could recall them if you decided there'd been a miscalculation.MR. NEWMAN: I'm sorry, sir—MR. MONDALE: A President must know those things. Eastern EuropeMR. KALB: A related question, Mr. Mondale, on Eastern Europe. Do you accept the conventional diplomatic wisdom that Eastern Europe is a Soviet sphere of influence? And if you do, what could a Mondale administration realistically do to help the people of Eastern Europe achieve the human rights that were guaranteed to them as a result of the Helsinki accords?MR. MONDALE: I think the essential strategy of the United States ought not accept any Soviet control over Eastern Europe. We ought to deal with each of these countries separately. We ought to pursue strategies with each of them, economic and the rest, that help them pull away from their dependence upon the Soviet Union.Where the Soviet Union has acted irresponsibly, as they have in many of those countries, especially, recently, in Poland, I believe we ought to insist that Western credits extended to the Soviet Union bear the market rate. Make the Soviets pay for their irresponsibility. That is a very important objective—to make certain that we continue to look forward to progress toward greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal.PRESIDENT REAGAN: Yes. I'm not going to continue trying to respond to these repetitions of the falsehoods that have already been stated here. But with regard to whether Mr. Mondale would be strong, as he said he would be, I know that he has a commercial out where he's appearing on the deck of the Nimitz and watching the F-14s take off. And that's an image of strength—except that if he had had his way when the Nimitz was being planned, he would have been deep in the water out there because there wouldn't have been any Nimitz to stand on—he was against it. [Laughter]He was against the F-14 fighter, he was against the M-1 tank, he was against the BI bomber, he wanted to cut the salary of all of the military, he wanted to bring home half of the American forces in Europe. And he has a record of weakness with regard to our national defense that is second to none.AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hear, hear!PRESIDENT REAGAN: Indeed, he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the Senate. And he opposed even President Carter, when toward the end of his term President Carter wanted to increase the defense budget.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: Mr. President, I accept your commitment to peace, but I want you to accept my commitment to a strong national defense. [Applause] I propose a budget—I have proposed a budget which would increase our nation's strength, in real terms, by double that of the Soviet Union.I'll tell you where we disagree. It is true over 10 years ago I voted to delay production of the F-14, and I'll tell you why. The plane wasn't flying the way it was supposed to be; it was a waste of money.Your definition of national strength is to throw money at the Defense Department. My definition of national strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollar's worth of defense. There's a big difference between the two of us. A President must manage that budget. I will keep us strong, but you'll not do that unless you command that budget and make certain we get the strength that we need. You pay $500 for a $5 hammer, you're not buying strength.MR. NEWMAN: I would ask the audience not to applaud. All it does is take up time that we would like to devote to the debate.Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale. Use of Military ForceMR. KONDRACKE: Mr. Mondale, in an address earlier this year you said that before this country resorts to military force, and I'm quoting, "American interests should be sharply defined, publicly supported, congressionally sanctioned, militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny, and alert to regional history." Now, aren't you setting up such a gauntlet of tests here that adversaries could easily suspect that as President you would never use force to protect American interests?MR. MONDALE: No. As a matter of fact, I believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country. And we can see that in both Lebanon and in Central America.In Lebanon, this President exercised American power, all right, but the management of it was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the Soviet Union became stronger, terrorists became emboldened. And it was because they did not think through how power should be exercised, did not have the American public with them on a plan that worked, that we ended up the way we did.Similarly, in Central America: What we're doing in Nicaragua with this covert war—which the Congress, including many Republicans, have tried to stop—is finally end up with a public definition of American power that hurts us, where we get associated with political assassins and the rest. We have to decline, for the first time in modern history, jurisdiction in the World Court because they'll find us guilty of illegal actions. And our enemies are strengthened from all of this.We need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength, but we must understand that we are a democracy. We are a government by the people, and when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interests and end up with a stronger country behind us. It is only in that way that we can persevere. NicaraguaMR. KONDRACKE: You've been quoted as saying that you might quarantine Nicaragua. I'd like to know what that means. Would you stop Soviet ships, as President Kennedy did in 1962? And wouldn't that be more dangerous than President Reagan's covert war?MR. MONDALE: What I'm referring to there is the mutual self-defense provisions that exist in the Inter-American treaty, the so-called Rio Pact, that permits the nations, our friends in that region, to combine to take steps—diplomatic and otherwise—to prevent Nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it.The Nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. And by working with all of the nations in the region—unlike the policies of this administration and unlike the President said, they have not supported negotiations in that region—we will be much stronger, because we'll have the moral authority that goes with those efforts. LebanonMR. KONDRACKE: President Reagan, you introduced U.S. forces into Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the Lebanese government. Eventually you were forced to withdraw them under fire, and now Syria, a Soviet ally, is dominant in the country. Doesn't Lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a foreign policy strategist and as Commander in Chief?.PRESIDENT REAGAN: No, Morton, I don't agree to all of those things. First of all, when we and our allies—the Italians, the French, and the United Kingdom—went into Lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the Lebanese government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government.But the first—pardon me—the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in Beirut between Israel and the PLO terrorists. Israel could not be blamed for that. Those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently, and Israel chased them all the way to there.Then we went in with the multinational force to help remove, and did remove, more than 13,000 of those terrorists from Lebanon. We departed. And then the government of Lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of Lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders.And we were succeeding. We were there for the better part of a year. Our position happened to be at the airport. Oh, there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire, but we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. And this is what we did. We never initiated any kind of action; we defended ourselves there.But we were succeeding to the point that the Lebanese government had been organized—if you will remember, there were the meetings in Geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and try to put together some kind of a peace plan. We were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. There are forces there—and that includes Syria, in my mind—who don't want us to succeed, who don't want that kind of a peace with a dominant Lebanon, dominant over its own territory. And so, the terrorist acts began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. Then the multilateral force withdrew for only one reason: We withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. But we went in in the interest of peace and to keep Israel and Syria from getting into the sixth war between them. And I have no apologies for our going on a peace mission.MR. KONDRACKE: Mr. President, four years ago you criticized President Carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in Iran might be taken hostage. Haven't you done exactly the same thing in Lebanon, not once, but three times, with 300 Americans, not hostages, but dead? And you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but doesn't our lack of response suggest that you're just bluffing?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Morton, no. I think there's a great difference between the government of Iran threatening our diplomatic personnel, and there is a government that you can see and can put your hand on. In the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over. In a recent 30-day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. The most recent has been the one in Brighton. In dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of Beirut where these terrorists are operating.I have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal, along with our allies, with this terrorist problem. And it's going to take all the nations together, just as when we banded together we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings sometime ago.Well, the red light went on. I could have gone on forever.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?MR. MONDALE: Groucho Marx said, "Who do you believe?—me, or your own eyes?" And what we have in Lebanon is something that the American people have seen. The Joint Chiefs urged the President not to put our troops in that barracks because they were indefensible. They went to him five days before they were killed and said, "Please, take them out of there." The Secretary of State admitted that this morning. He did not do so. The report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. That was the second time.Then the embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken. And we were warned five days before that explosives were on their way, and they weren't taken. The terrorists have won each time. The President told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didn't. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is that the United States left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Yes. First of all, Mr. Mondale should know that the President of the United States did not order the marines into that barracks. That was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. That is one.On the other things that you've just said about the terrorists, I'm tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think they're going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as I say, we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But we're not going to simply kill some people to say, "Oh, look, we got even." We want to know when we retaliate that we're retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. And terrorist acts are such that our own United States Capitol in Washington has been bombed twice.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan? The President's AgeMR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for two or three weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history. And some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. [Laughter and applause] If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don't know which, that said, "If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state." Strategic MissilesMR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, I'd like to head for the fence and try to catch that one before it goes over, but I'll go on to another question.You and Mr. Mondale have already disagreed about what you had to say about recalling submarine-launched missiles. There's another, a similar issue out there that relates to your—it is said, at least, that you were unaware that the Soviet retaliatory power was based on land-based missiles. First, is that correct? Secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime? And third, is it even necessary for the President to be so intimately involved in strategic details?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Yes, this had to do with our disarmament talks. And the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought that the strategic nuclear weapons, the most destabilizing are the land-based. You put your thumb on a button and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. So, we thought that it would be simpler to negotiate first with those. And then we made it plain, a second phase, take up the submarine-launched or the airborne missiles.The Soviet Union, to our surprise—and not just mine—made it plain when we brought this up that they placed, they thought, a greater reliance on the landbased missiles and, therefore, they wanted to take up all three. And we agreed. We said, "All right, if that's what you want to do." But it was a surprise to us, because they outnumbered us 64 to 36 in submarines and 20 percent more bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles than we had. So, why should we believe that they had placed that much more reliance on landbased?But even after we gave in and said, "All right, let's discuss it all," they walked away from the table. We didn't. The President's AgeMR. TREWHITT: Mr. Mondale, I'm going to hang in there. Should the President's age and stamina be an issue in the political campaign?MR. MONDALE: No. And I have not made it an issue, nor should it be. What's at issue here is the President's application of his authority to understand what a President must know to lead this nation, secure our defense, and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary.A minute ago the President quoted Cicero, I believe. I want to quote somebody a little closer to home, Harry Truman. He said, "The buck stops here." We just heard the President's answer for the problems at the barracks in Lebanon, where 241 marines were killed. What happened? First, the Joint Chiefs of Staff went to the President, said, "Don't put those troops there." They did it. And then five days before the troops were killed, they went back to the President, through the Secretary of Defense, and said, "Please, Mr. President, take those troops out of there because we can't defend them." They didn't do it. And we know what happened.After that, once again, our embassy was exploded. This is the fourth time this has happened—an identical attack, in the same region, despite warnings—even public warnings—from the terrorists. Who's in charge? Who's handling this matter? That's my main point.Now, on arms control, we're completing four years. This is the first administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. We have an arms race underway instead.A President has to lead his government or it won't be done. Different people with different views fight with each other. For three and a half years, this administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he came close to an agreement, at least in principle, on medium-range weapons. And we have this arms race underway. And a recent book that just came out by perhaps the nation's most respected author in this field, Strobe Talbott, called Deadly Gambits, concludes that this President has failed to master the essential details needed to command and lead us, both in terms of security and terms of arms control. That's why they call the President the Commander in Chief.Good intentions, I grant. But it takes more than that. You must be tough and smart. The President's LeadershipMR. TREWHITT: This question of leadership keeps arising in different forms in this discussion already. And the President, Mr. Mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, among the more charitable phrases—weak, I believe. It is a question of leadership. And he has made the point that you have not repudiated some of the semidiplomatic activity of the Reverend Jackson, particularly in Central America. Did you approve of his diplomatic activity? And are you prepared to repudiate him now?MR. MONDALE: I read his statement the other day. I don't admire Fidel Castro at all. And I've said that Che Guevara was a contemptible figure in civilization's history. I know the Cuban state as a police state, and all my life I've worked in a way that demonstrates that. But Jesse Jackson is an independent person. I don't control him.And let's talk about people we do control. In the last debate,1 the Vice President of the United States said that I said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in Lebanon. I demanded an apology from Vice President Bush because I had, instead, honored these young men, grieved for their families, and think they were wonderful Americans that honored us all. What does the President have to say about taking responsibility for a Vice President who won't apologize for something like that?[Mr. Mondale was referring to an earlier debate between George Bush and Geraldine Ferarro, the Vice Presidential candidates.]MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Yes. I know it'll come as a surprise to Mr. Mondale, but I am in charge. And, as a matter of fact, we haven't avoided arms control talks with the Soviet Union. Very early in my administration I proposed—and I think something that had never been proposed by any previous administration—I proposed a total elimination of intermediate-range missiles, where the Soviets had better than a 10—and still have—better than a 10-to-1 advantage over the allies in Europe. When they protested that and suggested a smaller number, perhaps, I went along with that.The so-called negotiation that you said I walked out on was the so-called walk in the woods between one of our representatives and one of the Soviet Union, and it wasn't me that turned it down, the Soviet Union disavowed it.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?MR. MONDALE: There are two distinguished authors on arms control in this country—there are many others, but two that I want to cite tonight. One is Strobe Talbott in his classic book, Deadly Gambits. The other is John Neuhaus, who's one of the most distinguished arms control specialists in our country. Both said that this administration turned down the "walk in the woods" agreement first, and that would have been a perfect agreement from the standpoint of the United States in Europe and our security.When Mr. Nitze, a good negotiator, returned, he was rebuked, and his boss was fired. This is the kind of leadership that we've had in this administration on the most deadly issue of our times. Now we have a runaway arms race. All they've got to show for four years in U.S.-Soviet relations is one meeting in the last weeks of an administration, and nothing before.They're tough negotiators, but all previous Presidents have made progress. This one has not.MR. NEWMAN: Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. Illegal ImmigrationMS. GEYER: Mr. Mondale, many analysts are now saying that actually our number one foreign policy problem today is one that remains almost totally unrecognized: massive illegal immigration from economically collapsing countries. They are saying that it is the only real territorial threat to the American nation-state. You, yourself, said in the 1970s that we had a "hemorrhage on our borders." Yet today you have backed off any immigration reform, such as the balanced and highly crafted Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Why? What would you do instead today, if anything?MR. MONDALE: This is a very serious problem in our country, and it has to be dealt with. I object to that part of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill which I think is very unfair and would prove to be so. That is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they're hired. I'm convinced that the result of this would be that people who are Hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent, would find it difficult to be employed. I think that's wrong. We've never had citizenship tests in our country before, and I don't think we should have a citizenship card today. That is counterproductive.I do support the other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill that strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status.I have further strongly recommended that this administration do something it has not done, and that is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers, and to do so in a way that's responsible and within the Constitution of the United States. We need an answer to this problem, but it must be an American answer that is consistent with justice and due process.Everyone in this room, practically, here tonight, is an immigrant. We came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. And one of those dreams is justice. And we need a measure—and I will support a measure—that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that I think is very serious.The second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. We cannot solve this problem all on our own. And that's why the failure of this administration to deal in an effective and a good-faith way with Mexico, with Costa Rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in Central America has undermined our capacity to effectively deal diplomatically in this area as well.MS. GEYER: Sir, people as well-balanced and just as Father Theodore Hesburgh at Notre Dame, who headed the select commission on immigration, have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions, because it would be an unbalanced bill, and there would be simply no way to enforce it. However, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any immigration reform because of the Hispanic groups—or Hispanic leadership groups—who actually do not represent what the Hispanic-Americans want, because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of immigration reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this? And how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special interest groups at the expense of the American nation?MR. MONDALE: I think you're right that the polls show that the majority of Hispanics want that bill, so I'm not doing it for political reasons. I'm doing it because all my life I've fought for a system of justice in this country, a system in which every American has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination. This bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an American or not. And just inevitably, they're going to be reluctant to hire Hispanics or people with a different accent.If I were dealing with politics here, the polls show the American people want this. I am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border, and for many other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, but all my life I've fought for a fair nation. And despite the politics of it, I stand where I stand, and I think I'm right, and before this fight is over we're going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people.MS. GEYER: Mr. President, you, too, have said that our borders are out of control. Yet this fall you allowed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill—which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship—because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the states for legalized aliens. Given that, may I ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element? How sincere are you in your efforts to control, in effect, the nation-state that is the United States?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Georgie Anne, we, believe me, supported the Simpson-Mazzoli bill strongly—and the bill that came out of the Senate. However, there were things added in in the House side that we felt made it less of a good bill; as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. And in conference—we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even Senator Simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. There were a number of things in there that weakened that bill. I can't go into detail about them here.But it is true our borders are out of control. It is also true that this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of administrations. And I supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. With regard to the employer sanctions, we must have that not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also, while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldn't be so concerned about, and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. We don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free.And this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions, and so forth—and I'm going to do everything I can, and all of us in the administration are, to join in again when Congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us, once again, control of our borders.And with regard to friendship below the border and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that I know has established the relationship that we have with our Latin friends. But as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders. And we work with those other countries.MS. GEYER: Mr. President, the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different quantitatively—qualitatively different from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. For instance, Mexico's population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. Many of these people will be coming into the United States not as citizens, but as illegal workers. You have repeatedly said recently that you believe that Armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our times. Do you ever feel that we are in for an Armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy, regarding the population explosion in the world?PRESIDENT REAGAN: No. As a matter of fact, the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated—over exaggerated. As a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and solid figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people we can have. It's almost like going back to the Malthusian theory, when even then they were saying that everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. But the problem of population growth is one, here, with regard to our immigration. And we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry here, in Mexico, where their population is increasing and they don't have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. And this is what we're trying to work out, not only to protect our own borders but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?MR. MONDALE: One of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they don't come north, come north despite all the risks. And if we're going to find a permanent, fundamental answer to this, it goes to American economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity, so that they can have jobs for themselves and their people. And that's why this enormous national debt, engineered by this administration, is harming these countries in fueling this immigration. These high interest rates—real rates that have doubled under this administration—have had the same effect on Mexico and so on, and the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship, and heartache. And that drives our friends to the south up into our region, and we need to end those deficits as well.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal.PRESIDENT REAGAN: Well, my rebuttal is I've heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border— [laughter] —and it has nothing to do with it.But with regard to these high interest rates, too, at least give us the recognition of the fact that when you left office, Mr. Mondale, they were 21 1/2—the prime rate. It's now 12 1/4, and I predict it'll be coming down a little more shortly. So, we're trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. [Applause]MR. NEWMAN: No applause, please.Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan. ArmageddonMR. KALB: Mr. President, I'd like to pick up this Armageddon theme. You've been quoted as saying that you do believe, deep down, that we are heading for some kind of biblical Armageddon. Your Pentagon and your Secretary of Defense have plans for the United States to fight and prevail in a nuclear war. Do you feel that we are now heading perhaps, for some kind of nuclear Armageddon? And do you feel that this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Mr. Kalb, I think what has been hailed as something I'm supposedly, as President, discussing as principle is the recall of just some philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the same things; and that is the prophecies down through the years, the biblical prophecies of what would portend the coming of Armageddon, and so forth, and the fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed that this was true, that the prophecies are coming together that portend that. But no one knows whether Armageddon, those prophecies mean that Armageddon is a thousand years away or day after tomorrow. So, I have never seriously warned and said we must plan according to Armageddon.Now, with regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of a nuclear war, of course we would. But let me also point out that to several parliaments around the world, in Europe and in Asia, I have made a statement to each one of them, and I'll repeat it here: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage.But the deterrent—and that's what it is for—is also what led me to propose what is now being called the Star Wars concept, but propose that we research to see if there isn't a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming missiles. And if such a defense could be found, wouldn't it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people? Strategic Defense InitiativeMR. KALB: Mr. President, when you made that proposal, the so-called Star Wars proposal, you said, if I'm not mistaken, that you would share this very super-sophisticated technology with the Soviet Union. After all of the distrust over the years, sir, that you have expressed towards the Soviet Union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of America's technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Why not? What if we did—and I hope we can; we're still researching—what if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete? There has never been a weapon invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive, a counter-weapon. But suppose we came up with that?Now, some people have said, "Ah, that would make war imminent, because they would think that we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy." But why not do what I have offered to do and asked the Soviet Union to do? Say, "Look, here's what we can do. We'll even give it to you. Now, will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these nuclear weapons and free mankind from that threat?" I think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon.MR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, you've been very sharply critical of the President's Strategic Defense Initiative. And yet, what is wrong with a major effort by this country to try to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming nuclear warheads as possible?MR. MONDALE: First of all, let me sharply disagree with the President on sharing the most advanced, the most dangerous, the most important technology in America with the Soviet Union. We have had, for many years, understandably, a system of restraints on high technology because the Soviets are behind us. And any research or development along the Star Wars schemes would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, our most advanced engineering. And the thought that we would share this with the Soviet Union is, in my opinion, a total non-starter. I would not let the Soviet Union get their hands on it at all.Now, what's wrong with Star Wars? There's nothing wrong with the theory of it. If we could develop a principle that would say both sides could fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, I suppose it's a good idea. But the fact of it is we're so far away from research that even comes close to that, that the Director of Engineering Research at the Defense Department said to get there we would have to solve eight problems, each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the Manhattan project. It would cost something like a trillion dollars to test and deploy weapons.The second thing is this all assumes that the Soviets wouldn't respond in kind. And they always do. We don't get behind. They won't get behind. And that's been the tragic story of the arms race. We have more at stake in space satellites than they do. If we could stop, right now, the testing and the deployment of these space weapons—and the President's proposals go clear beyond research; if it was just research we wouldn't have any argument, because maybe someday, somebody will think of something—but to commit this nation to a buildup of antisatellite and space weapons at this time, in their crude state, would bring about an arms race that's very dangerous indeed.One final point. The most dangerous aspect of this proposal is, for the first time, we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether to start a war. That's dead wrong. There wouldn't be time for a President to decide; it would be decided by these remote computers. It might be an oil fire, it might be a jet exhaust, the computer might decide it's a missile—and off we go.Why don't we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free from war? [Applause] Nuclear FreezeMR. KALB: Mr. Mondale, in this general area, sir, of arms control, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "A nuclear freeze is a hoax." Yet the basis of your arms proposals, as I understand them, is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. In your view, which specific weapons systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze, and which could not?MR. MONDALE: Every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations for an agreement. I would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the Soviet Union that we couldn't verify every day. I would not agree to any agreement in which the United States security interest was not fully recognized and supported. That's why we say mutual and verifiable freezes.Now, why do I support the freeze? Because this ever-rising arms race madness makes both nations less secure. It's more difficult to defend this nation. It's putting a hair-trigger on nuclear war. This administration, by going into the Star Wars system, is going to add a dangerous new escalation. We have to be tough on the Soviet Union, but I think the American people—MR. NEWMAN: Your time is up, Mr. Mondale.MR. MONDALE: —and the people of the Soviet Union want it to stop.MR. NEWMAN: President Reagan, your rebuttal?PRESIDENT REAGAN: Yes, my rebuttal, once again, is that this invention that has just been created here of how I would go about rolling over for the Soviet Union—no, Mr. Mondale, my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then say, "Now, are you willing to join us? Here's what we"—give them a demonstration and then say—"Here's what we can do. Now, if you're willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world, then we'll give you this one, so that we would both know that no one can cheat; that we're both got something that if anyone tries to cheat .... "But when you keep Star-Warring it—I never suggested where the weapons should be or what kind; I'm not a scientist. I said, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed with me, that it was time for us to turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of defensive weapon. And suddenly somebody says, "Oh, it's got to be up there, and it's Star Wars," and so forth. I don't know what it would be, but if we can come up with one, I think the world will be better off.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal.MR. MONDALE: Well, that's what a President's supposed to know—where those weapons are going to be. If they're space weapons, I assume they'll be in space. [Laughter] If they're antisatellite weapons, I assume they're going to be aimed against satellites.Now, this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. The Soviets try to spy on us, steal this stuff. And to give them technology of this kind, I disagree with. You haven't just accepted research, Mr. President. You've set up a Strategic Defense Initiative, an agency, you're beginning to test, you're talking about deploying, you're asking for a budget of some $30 billion for this purpose. This is an arms escalation. And we will be better off, far better off, if we stop right now, because we have more to lose in space then they do. If someday, somebody comes along with an answer, that's something else. But that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable.Why do we start things that we know the Soviets will match and make us all less secure? That's what a President's for.MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale. Strategic WeaponsMR. KONDRACKE: Mr. Mondale, you say that with respect to the Soviet Union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze, yet you would unilaterally give up the MX missile and the B-1 bomber before the talks have even begun. And you have announced, in advance, that reaching an agreement with the Soviets is the most important thing in the world to you. Now, aren't you giving away half the store before you even sit down to talk?MR. MONDALE: No. As a matter of fact, we have a vast range of technology and weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we need. And I support the air launch cruise missile, the ground launch cruise missile, the Pershing missile, the Trident submarine, the D-5 submarine, Stealth technology, the Midgetman—we have a whole range of technology. Why I disagree with the MX is that it's a sitting duck. It'll draw an attack. It puts a hair-trigger, and it is a dangerous, destabilizing weapon. And the B-1 is similarly to be opposed, because for 15 years the Soviet Union has been preparing to meet the B-1. The Secretary of Defense himself said it would be a suicide mission if it were built.Instead, I want to build the Midgetman, which is mobile and thus less vulnerable, contributing to stability, and a weapon that will give us security and contribute to an incentive for arms control. That's why I'm for Stealth technology, to build a Stealth bomber—which I've supported for years-that can penetrate the Soviet air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. In other words, a President has to make choices. This makes us stronger.The final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. Our conventional strength in

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By GEORGE HENRYAssociated Press
ATLANTA (AP) - Georgia Tech has begun 2014 searching for a new quarterback after Vad Lee announces he will transfer to another school.
Lee, a rising junior, went 7-6 as the Yellow Jackets' starter, ending his career in Monday's 25-17 loss to Mississippi at the Music City Bowl.
Though both Lee and coach Paul Johnson released statements Friday saying they appreciated the chance to work with each other, Georgia Tech's spread offense was inconsistent during much of the season.
Johnson often publicly criticized Lee for making wrong reads and his teammates for missing blocks and failing to create space on the perimeter.
Justin Thomas, a rising sophomore, is listed No. 2 on the depth chart behind Lee.
Georgia Tech has lost five of six bowl games under Johnson, eight of nine overall.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
KDFW FOX 4400 N. Griffin StreetDallas, Texas 75202
Main Station Directory:(214) 720-4444News Fax:(214) 720-3263 or (214) 720-3333


text:
If Divorce Is Contagious ... Are Other Issues, Too?
Hayley Krischer: Set up the quarantines! New research says that a friend's divorce increases your own chances of splitting up by a whopping 147 percent. The reason? Apparently, people's feelings about their spouses rub off on each other within social groups. According to James Fowler, a social scientist who has conducted numerous studies on the topic, divorce can therefore be deemed a "social contagion."
It's best to participate in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I'll advocate this site!
When I initially commented I clicked the "Notify me when new comments are added" checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove people from that service? Bless you!
An interesting discussion is worth comment. I think that you must write extra on this topic, it may not be a taboo topic however generally persons are not enough to talk on such topics. To the next. Cheers
I am not so smart to be clever to evoke gifted stuff like you do but I am trying to pay it back so hoepfully this will produce you a idiotic grin or make you giggle or at the very least give you a thought for the day? : The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
fantastic issues altogether, you just gained brand new reader. What would you suggest about your post that you simply made some days in the past? Any positive?
I was curious if you ever considered changing the structure of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or 2 pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?
I'm really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Outstanding work!
Hello there, simply become aware of your weblog via Google, and located that it is truly informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels. I will be grateful should you continue this in future. Many other folks can be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your weblog when you could be giving us something informative to read?
Hrmm that was weird, my comment got eaten. Anyway I wanted to say that it's nice to know that someone else also mentioned this as I had trouble finding the same info elsewhere. This was the first place that told me the answer. Thanks.
Hello! I have saved your website because you have so cool posts here and I would like to read some more^^
I do not know if you care or not, but i'm making use of my cell in order to view your webblog but it doesn't really render properly. You can find a wordpress plugin available to make sure it is cell phone compatible though, you ought to investigate it.
This is definitely awesome notion dude.iam truly proud of you .
Do u have twitter?? i wish to follow you .thx
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this info for my mission.
You made some decent points there. I appeared on the web for the difficulty and found most people will associate with along with your website.
Undeniably believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the internet the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people think about worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks
Hello! My friend forwarded me this site because he thought it's great and I have to agree with him. Really great post you have here:)


text:
WAUSAU, WI (WSAU) The Marathon County Sheriff's Department Special Investigations Unit arrested five people on Thursday on Heroin and Cocaine trafficking charges. Two homes were searched at 309 E. Wausau Ave and 8091/2 S. First Street. The suspects range in age from 23 to 42 and include two women.
Heroin has become a problem in the county the the Sherrifs Dept. and increased their investigations into the supply of that drug.
No names were relased on Friday and the investigation continues.


text:
"Senior Day" is a day that most every player wishes they could avoid. It often represents a senior's final home match in a career marked by countless minutes on the pitch and countless memories made with their soccer family.
It is often a day in which the entirety of the team rallies behind its senior group, yearning to send its leaders off with one more home win. But for the Rutgers women's soccer team's senior group, a different approach was taken.
"We want to play for you" they told the team before the match.
"It was unbelievable that they went out of their way to say that to us," said freshman midfielder Tori Prager (Mount Laurel, N.J.). "It really shows what kind of character they have that they're going to put their pride behind them and do it for us. It really just showed what team players they are and what a family Rutgers really has."
On Sunday, Oct. 27, the families of all the Rutgers women's soccer players made their way to the field to form a tunnel leading onto Yurcak Field, a gesture never before attempted by head coach Glenn Crooks. Underclassmen, support staff and more stood along the sidelines to cheer on the seniors on their big day, celebrating careers spanning from four years to seven.
"Part of our approach to 'Senior Day' and what we did the weekend prior when we were on the road was just to depict how much we are a family here with our program," Crooks said. "It's our whole support staff, our players, our coaching staff, everyone."
"That was perhaps the most impactful moment on me, to have the families side-by-side with their daughters as the seniors were introduced."
Honoring the seniors, however, extended beyond RU's match vs. Temple on Oct. 27. The Scarlet Knights dedicated their final road weekend in the "Sunshine State" to its senior group, making sure to spend as much time as possible with their Rutgers family.
The coaching staff setup up a senior trivia game and broke the squad into teams to see who knew the seniors best, and also gave the seniors t-shirts signed by each player on the squad. Written with the signatures were notes of well wishes and appreciation, a gesture much appreciated by the veteran unit.
"In the past years it was always senior day was the day to celebrate seniors so it was nice to celebrate with just the team while we were on our last away trip," said senior forward Maria Gerew (Toms River, N.J.).
But the seniors also made it to be clear that there was more soccer to be played.
"We thanked the girls and we told them it's nothing to get emotional about because we have a lot of soccer left to play this season," said redshirt senior Tricia DiPaolo (Sparta, N.J.). "We're looking to extend the postseason as much as possible and keep playing."
The Scarlet Knights were able to do just that, defeating Temple, 2-0, on 'Senior Day' to earn the No. 3 seed and right to host an American Athletic Conference Quarterfinal match against No. 6 Cincinnati.
RU will take on the Bearcats on Sunday, Nov. 3 at Yurcak Field, in what most likely will be the final home match for its senior class. It will not, however, be the final memory they make with their Rutgers family.
Four years from now members of the 2013 freshman class will trot through the Rutgers soccer tunnel, giving high-fives and smiles prior to their emotional final match.
And as they do so they will remember the senior group that brought them into the family four years prior.
"It has been such a blessing to have been a freshman with this senior class," Prager said. "They really care about the team and care about all of us and they really just took us under their wing."


text:
It's a … Boom!
These are sweet days for the construction industry. Home prices are hitting the stratosphere, just as a decade of billions of dollars worth of military construction work kicks in. Condominiums are kicking it in Kakaako, while retailers around town are starting to opt for much-needed property facelifts.
The University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization is expecting a 17.4 percent increase in the value of commercial construction permits to beyond the $5 billion mark this year. As the writer of this special report on construction, Alex Salkever, notes, it's beginning to look a lot like a boom, with more and more sightings of that unofficial state bird, the construction crane.
It's a boom that has construction companies licking their chops and moving or returning to Hawaii at a brisk clip, often by way of affiliation or acquisition. It's also a boom that most local construction executives are feeling pretty good about. Check out our question and answer session with local construction executives Gerard Sakamoto, Kathleen Thurston, Bruce Coppa, Glen Kaneshige and Bill Wilson.
There are challenges, such as the rising cost of building materials outlined in "Chinese Takeout." However, techies, such as Kaikor Construction's Garrett Sullivan, are creating efficiencies using new technologies.
A look at the difficulties of building in Waikiki and profiles of Denny Watts, who recently returned to Hawaii to head his own construction company, and of Baseyard Hawaii, a thrift shop for surplus and recycled construction materials, which is saving us plenty in potential costs of landfill clutter, round out this comprehensive collection of construction stories. It will give you the 411 on what's up in Hawaii construction.
Kelli Abe Trifonovitch
Do you like what you read? Subscribe to Hawaii Business Magazine »
Hawaii Business magazine invites you to comment on our articles and the issues they raise. Comments are moderated for offensive language, commercial messages and off-topic posts and may be deleted. Some comments may be chosen for inclusion in the magazine on the Feedback page.


text:
John Piper Interviews John Knight (Part 2)
Disability and the Sovereignty of God
Download this interview's transcript and watch Part 1 and Part 3 of the videos.
©2014 Desiring God Foundation. Used by Permission.
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in its entirety or in unaltered excerpts, as long as you do not charge a fee. For Internet posting, please use only unaltered excerpts (not the content in its entirety) and provide a hyperlink to this page. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. ©2014 Desiring God Foundation. Website: desiringGod.org


text:
World-Class New Orleans Museums
Immerse yourself in the city's History, Culture & Arts
With over 45 museums throughout the New Orleans to choose from, it's easy to immerse yourself in the city's history, culture and arts.
Contemporary Arts Center (CAC)
900 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 528-3805 The CAC is the home of modern multidisciplinary arts programming in the South. From bold experiments in visual arts, photography and sculpture to cutting-edge theatre, music and dance, the CAC celebrates the art of now. It is a must-see on our New Orleans travel guide! More info
Louisiana Children's Museum
420 Julia Street (504) 586-0725 Explore 30,000 square feet of hands-on fun, engaging exhibits and exciting programs designed to spark your kids' curiosity. Dine in a five-star role-playing café, lift 500 pounds, trap your shadow…learning has never been so fun! This exciting New Orleans museum is located just 5 blocks from the hotel. More info
Louisiana State Museum
751 Chartres Street New Orleans, LA 70116 (800) 568-6968 Showcasing the unique history and traditions of New Orleans, the Louisiana State Museum includes landmark properties the Cabildo, Presbytere, Old U.S. Mint, Madame John's Legacy and 1850 house. More info
New Orleans Museum of Art
1 Collins C. Diboll Circle (504) 658-4100 The city's oldest fine arts museum houses more than 40,000 objects with an estimated worth of over $200 million. Discover works of art from ancient to modern times from around the world, including painting, sculptures, photography and objects. The New Orleans museum also hosts traveling exhibits. Located in City Park and accessible via the Canal Street streetcar. More info
National WWII Museum
945 Magazine Street (504) 527-6012 Relive the American experience of WWII. A collection of personal stories, artifacts and interactive displays brings history to life and proudly illustrates the teamwork, courage and sacrifice of the men and women who took part in one of the most significant events that changed our country. The museum's new 250-seat Solomon Victory Theater is unlike any other venue, showcasing an experience unlike anything else on the planet. The theater's 120-feet wide immersive screen will show Beyond All Boundaries, a 4-D cinematic experience. Located just 7 blocks from the hotel. More info
Stage Door Canteen at National WWII Museum
The National WWII Museum honors the memorable wartime tradition of GIs visiting the Canteens to forget their anxieties and enjoy some entertainment in their very own Stage Door Canteen, an exciting entertainment and dining destination. The Stage Door Canteen presents a wonderful weekly series of unique entertainment — evening performances and matinees of headliner acts, signature musical productions, big bands, dancing, The Victory Belles vocal trio, and more! Enjoy pre-show dinner, brunch or lunch by Chef John Besh at The American Sector restaurant. More info
Ogden Museum of Southern Art
925 Camp Street (504) 539-9612 Get to know the South! Located in the cultural heart of New Orleans just 7 blocks from the hotel, the museum houses the largest collection of Southern art in the world. Learn about the history of the South through permanent collections, traveling exhibits, educational programs and publications at this fascinating museum in New Orleans. More info
INSIDER TIP: The National WWII Museum, Odgen Museum of Southern Art and the CAC are all located in close proximity to each other and very close to the contemporary art galleries of Julia Street.
Contact our concierge for additional recommendations.
Please note that most of the city's museums and art galleries are closed on Mondays.


text:
The Minden Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. met at the Minden Housing Authority to commemorate the 22 college educated women who, on January 13, 1913, at Howard University, founded and chartered the largest sorority or fraternity in the world.
It now has over 920 chapters with over 250,000 active members.
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. is a public service sorority dedicated to a sisterhood called to serve by transforming lives and impacting communities.
The Five-Point Program Thrust of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. is the vehicle through which we seek to project the image of the Sorority as a public service organization.
Through this program, we work to assist in eradicating educational, social and economic inequities. The five areas are: Economic Development, Educational Development, International Awareness and Involvement, Physical and Mental Health and Political Awareness and Involvement.
The Minden Alumnae Chapter, charted on January 13, 1960, also celebrated it's 13 charter members. Three of them are still very active with the sorority. Mrs. Susan Dogens, Mrs. Mable White Jones, and Mrs. Truvesta H. Johnson have each served as President of Minden Alumnae and each one is a Golden Life Members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.
The ladies were presented with a bouquet of flowers, from the members, in appreciation for their service. The celebration was concluded with a scrumptious meal.


text:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- The issue of same-sex marriage takes center stage this week in the nation's capital.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases that could shift the legal landscape.
Earlier this month, Ohio Senator Rob Portman became the most prominent Republican to offer support for gay marriage.
But, in an interview Monday morning, Republican Congressman Todd Young, who represents Southern Indiana, declined to say where he stands on the issue.
He did say that the question should be left up to the states to decide.
"It's my hope that we would leave these things to the states rather than one side prevailing over another. We'll see if that is exactly what the law says. It's the Supreme Court's job to decide what in fact our fundamental law, the Constitution, requires. Of course all of us will abide by that decision," explained Young.
He also says it may not be appropriate for government to sanction marriage at all.
Young says his priority remains addressing the nation's budget issues, most importantly tax reform, as opposed to social issues such as same-sex marriage.
Copyright 2013 WDRB News. All Rights Reserved.
624 W. Muhammad Ali BlvdLouisville, KY 40203


text:
The Stir Exclusive
Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson Talk Kids -- Are They Ready for Their Own? (PHOTOS)
Alright, don't get TOO excited. Yes, Kristen and Rob talked kids at The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 press conference recently. Rob loves them. Kristen even expressed wanting some of her own. But let's allow them to get used to their second dog -- and, you know, each other for a little while longer before we push the parenting idea on them.
Oh, what am I talking about? Let's go ahead and think about it. What ... if ...??? Sigh ...
Well, while we had Rob and Kristen in the room the other day, we asked them about kids (oh yes, we did). And we got some whopper answers from both of them, as well as from the Twilight series author Stephenie Meyer, who got to watch them play Renesmee's parents on set long enough to have an opinion about it.
Well, Rob and Kristen aren't parents (yet), but how well did they play them in the Twilight finale? Stephenie Meyer, mom of three, was impressed:
For people who had never been parents, they were impressive. Before we even got to set, Kristen had already put herself in that mindset. She and Mackenzie [Foy] had a really great relationship. She would go to Bill [Condon] all the time and say, "I should be looking at Renesmee in this scene. I should be focused. I need to be oriented around her."
Kristen was the mother bear. She was such a protective, all-consumed kind of mother. I thought that came through really well. And Rob, the easy-going dad ... Whenever they were together in scene, he and Mackenzie were laughing about something. It was really, really sweet.
Sounds promising, huh? But let's see what Rob himself had to say about stepping into the fatherhood role for Breaking Dawn 2.
I quite like working with kids and animals, which everyone says you shouldn't do, because it makes you feel like you're not acting -- as soon as you have someone who's providing stuff to react to. Especially working with a baby. It's great. I would say, put a dog or a baby in every scene -- everyone's gonna do better ... And if they're not better, just shoot the dog [laughs].
Um, what the??? Hmmm, I'm not sure Rob is really there yet. What do you think? He followed that doozy up by saying, "They've got some good baby actors." Oh, Rob.
Kristen, on the other hand, had some serious passion in those green eyes of hers when she talked about playing mama Bella and about motherhood in general:
It was one of my favorite things about the story from Day 1. There was never enough about [motherhood] in the script for me, and luckily Stephenie has been really involved in this last one especially. She was on set every day. It's something that we were really together about. It was one aspect of [Bella] that I was most excited to play. Vampires have a slightly more animalistic nature. Perfect for it. What better way to show THAT. I have a great relationship with my mom and she can be a bit feral when it comes to being a mom. I think that's what it is.
Wow, she liked it. She really liked it. So is she ready to be a mom? And if so, when? "I can't wait to be a mom ..." Kristen said (!!!). "But I can wait."
Well said. Well said.
Are you excited to see Kristen and Rob play parents in Breaking Dawn 2?
Images via Sheri Reed
Piping Hot Posts
In the Mix
- -- Facebook comment from
Nancy WentworthNovember 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM
yes, waiting , 10 more days
- -- Nonmember comment from
crystalmpNovember 6, 2012 at 9:47 AMIt sounds like rob was just nervous about the question
- --
hellokd87November 6, 2012 at 10:26 AM
I'm sure Rob was nervous about it because the media/journalists tend to dissect & analyze every single word that comes out of their mouths so he didn't want to say anything that was too forthcoming and have the world speculate "Is it talking about Kristen? if so, WHEN?!" and create this whole scenario. But being at the ages they are at, they're still young enough (Kristen, at least) to have a long way to go. Rob, being 26 (I think?), he's probably under more pressure to have kids at that age so he's not too old of a dad.
- --
MaevelynNovember 6, 2012 at 11:42 AM
I don't think that you can be too old to be a dad, I think older dads are actually better bc they've settled down a little more than most younger guys. I think that young guy akwardness is what Rob was kind of living. Some women are the same way but Kristen obviously 'gets' beign a mom even if she isn't one. She's right, being a mom connects you with your instincts (or atleast it did for me) and it makes you more of the human animal in a good way.
- -- Facebook comment from
Jazzica JohnsonNovember 6, 2012 at 12:13 PMmany people say they thik rob is ready to be a parent and kirsten isn't. I think they both are ready. I think the only reason why they say kirsten isn't is because of the whole cheating bit. I think thats the only reason why they say she isn't ready.
- -- Facebook comment from
April MarchantNovember 6, 2012 at 12:29 PM
pretty baby they would have is all i can say. It is not like they are 18 and strapped for cash, a baby is not so far fetcvhed; although I would like to see their wedding first. :)
- --
rccola1945November 6, 2012 at 10:51 PM
I agree with, April, they would make pretty babies, but want to see a wedding first. I know it is very common now, to have babies first, but I'm, from a different era, when we got married, before any babies. I just hope, that they remain a couple,long after, Twilight.
- -- Nonmember comment from
AnonymousSeptember 14, 2013 at 10:48 AMIt looks like Kristen can't have kids. The way she said 'I can't wait to have kids! But I can wait.' If she wasn't ready shed say something like 'I want kids someday in the future maybe, but not right now' it's like she's putting something off. And my suspicions that she's had a kid are rising.. :/


text:
The 2013 West Virginia Governor's One Shot Whitetail Hunt to
benefit the Hunters Helping the Hungry Program will take place Oct. 26 at Stonewall
Resort State Park
in Lewis County.
The One Shot program has donated more than $300,000 to the
Hunters Helping the Hungry Program since it was created in 2007. The event is
supported by volunteers from the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources,
the private sector and individuals who serve as guides for participating
Hunting takes place on private land, so as not to interfere
with other hunters, and only antlerless deer are harvested, to help control the
populations on the lands.
All venison harvested during the hunt is donated to the HHH
program, which is administered by the West Virginia Food Bank in Gassaway.
The hunt began Friday, Oct. 25 with an event to sight in the
rifles, then an evening banquet to introduce the hunters to the guides and
The program concludes Oct. 26 with an award banquet, raffles
and a live auction.
Visit www.wvdnr.gov for details.


text:
Discovering Scotland's Oldest Pub in Hidden Duddingston, Scotland
I feel tiny as I walk along the road. A granite cliff-face towers high above to my left. The edge drops away sharply down the other side, into a marsh that is crossed by an ancient stone bridge. I look up at the wild hillside, catch a glimpse of a rabbit running through the purple haze of heather bushes. The only option is to follow the road forward around the loch. From the wildness of my surroundings, it's hard to imagine I'm barely a twenty minute walk from the centre of Edinburgh, and that this rugged slice of nature is completely surrounded by the city's suburbs. Rounding a bend, I arrive in the wee village of Duddingston and pause for a pint at The Sheep's Heid, Scotland's oldest pub, an escape from the city without ever leaving it.


text:
Ectoplasm is a substance or spiritual energy that is secreted by a medium during séances. The term was coined in 1905 by French physiologist Charles Richet after witnessing Spiritualist Eusapia Palladino produce "gelatinous protoplasm" from her body.
Ectoplasm typically consists of a white, transparent formation which is said to resemble gauze or mucus. The substance oozes out of various orifices on the medium's body including the nose, mouth, ears, vagina, and anus.
Many believe that ectoplasm is a physical manifestation from the spirit world. Notable luminaries like William Butler Yeats and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle risked their professional reputations by endorsing the material as "an absolute confirmation that the supernatural was tangible and proveable."
Ectoplasm began to lose its validity in the 1920s when several mediums were found to have fraudulently produced the substance. Some would regurgitate pieces of muslin and cheese cloth on demand while others went as far as storing sacks of material in their rectum and vagina.
In 1984 ectoplasm took on a new meaning due to the film Ghostbusters. The movie portrayed the phenomena as a slimy green substance that splattered on paranormal investigators after exterminating a spirit.
- Autopsy
- Embalming


text:
The Philadelphia Flyers had better be pretty sure that Ilya Bryzgalov is the superstar goalie the franchise has been lacking for 15 years, because GM Paul Holmgren just gutted the team to carve out enough money to sign him.
First the Flyers dealt Jeff Carter to the Columbus Blue Jackets for the eighth pick in tomorrow's draft, 21-year-old right winger Jakub Voracek and a third-round pick. Then, minutes later Philadelphia dealt captain Mike Richards to the Los Angeles Kings for über prospect Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds and a second-round pick.
The deal with the Blue Jackets had been rumored since the Flyers acquired the rights to Bryzgalov as Philadelphia needed to clear enough salary cap space to accommodate Bryzgalov's hefty contract demands. Carter, 26, had scored 33+ goals in three straight seasons but was signed through 2021 at an unmanageable $5.27 million cap hit. The performance of James Van Riemsdyk and Claude Giroux in the playoffs made Carter expendable, so the Flyers pulled the trigger.
The Richards deal, on the other hand, shook the hockey world. Richards' relations with the Philadelphia media had long been tense, but the Flyers' captain was still an integral part of the team. With enough salary cap space already free to sign Bryzgalov, the Flyers could have hung onto Richards and been fine financially. However, Philadelphia felt the need to make major changes and was obviously enticed by the chance to acquire Schenn, considered by many to be the best prospect in hockey.
In making the deals, the Flyers shed two of hockey's enormous contracts – amounting to $110 million in total – in an afternoon and once again got younger and deeper, but not necessarily better.
Carter and Richards combined for 132 points last season and 692 since entering the league together in 2005-2006. Their long-term contracts were burdensome for Philadelphia, but they are two of the better forwards in hockey and dealing both of them arguably set the Flyers back a couple years. Philadelphia picked up several intriguing young players and should be set to make another splash or two at the draft this weekend, but there's no guarantee any of the forwards heading Philly's way approaches the production of either Carter or Richards.
Voracek has yet to fully break out, but he could become a solid second-line player. Schenn has yet to play in the NHL, but he might become the Flyers' top center in short order. Simmonds will also be a nice addition on the Flyers' third line and he should quickly become a fan favorite in Philadelphia. If Schenn reaches his full potential, Voracek continues to improve and the Flyers turn one of those draft picks into a good player, the deals will look a lot better in a few years, but right now the trades seem like questionable decisions.
The key here is that while the trades on their own are significant moves, their consequences reach even farther.
Philadelphia was left with plenty of money to sign Bryzgalov and may now even be able to retain UFA left winger Ville Leino. If the actual return for moving Richards and Carter is first, second, and third-round picks plus Schenn, Simmonds, Voracek, Bryzgalov and Leino, then the Flyers come out looking like winners of the day.
But once again the big question for the Flyers is in net. If Bryzgalov – already 31-years-old – plays at an All-Star level for the next few seasons, Philadelphia, already set along the blue line and deep up front, could win a Stanley Cup or two. But if Bryzgalov is anything less than spectacular – and he hasn't been good in the playoffs the last two years – Flyers fans may rue this day when two superstars were traded for unproven players.


text:
National Institute of Mental Health
National Mental Health Association
Canadian Psychiatric Association
Mood Disorder Association of Ontario
Depression: What you need to know. Mental Health America website. Available at:
http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/go/information/get-info/depression/depression-what-you-need-to-know. Accessed September 17, 2013.
Dysthymia. EBSCO DynaMed website. Available at:
http://www.ebscohost.com/dynamed/what. Updated March 11, 2013. Accessed September 17, 2013.
Dysthymic disorder. American Academy of Family Physicians Family Doctor website. Available at:
http://familydoctor.org/familydoctor/en/diseases-conditions/dysthymic-disorder.html. Updated January 2010.
Accessed September 17, 2013.
Lim MA, Moncrieff J, Soares BGO. Drugs versus placebo for dysthymia.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005;2:CD001130.
This content is reviewed regularly and is updated when new and relevant evidence is made available. This information is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with questions regarding a medical condition.
Copyright ©
All rights reserved.
Go Back : New Search
Disease & Condition Facts
Disease & Condition Topics
Procedures & Surgery Facts
Health and Wellness
Interactive Tools
Hospital Website Design by Brown Parker & DeMarinis Advertising


text:
Back to Document
American Academy of Dermatology
American Cancer Society
Green AC, Williams GM, Logan V, Strutton GM.
Reduced melanoma after regular sunscreen use: randomized trial follow-up.
J Clin Oncol. 201129(3):257-263.
This content is reviewed regularly and is updated when new and relevant evidence is made available. This information is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with questions regarding a medical condition.
Copyright ©
All rights reserved.


text:
RoomsVARAA NYT ▼▲
Tarkastele tai muuta nykyistä varaustasi:
Kirjaudu sisään nähdäksesi kaikki varauksesi
Sleep well in our Indianapolis Airport hotel rooms
After a long day of travel or sightseeing in Indianapolis, few things are more rewarding than relaxing in one of our 258 comfortable hotel rooms and suites. Thoughtfully designed for your comfort, these accommodations feature welcoming decor and amenities like flat-screen TVs, free Wi-Fi and premium bedding. Whether you choose a Standard Guest Room, a two-room Executive Suite or a Parlor Suite with two connecting rooms, you are guaranteed a restful stay near the Indianapolis Airport.
Our hotel rooms feature:
Our hotel rooms feature:
- Premium bedding
- Sleep Number® beds
- 27" flat-screen TVs
- Large work desk
- Ergonomic chair
- Room service
- ASiRATM Body Care products made with natural ingredients
- Accessible hotel rooms available
- High-speed, wireless Internet access (complimentary)
- Pet-friendly hotel rooms available


text:
St. Anthony Daytime Book Club
The St. Anthony Daytime Book Club welcomes new members to join them this September for the 2012-2013 season. The club typically meets on the second Monday of the month, September through May, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. in the St. Anthony Library meeting room.
Upcoming selections are:
September 10 - The Language of Flowers by Vanessa Diffenbaugh
October 8 - Leaving Van Gogh by Carol Wallace
November 12 - Lone Wolf by Jodi Picoult


text:
Toepfer recently signed up for the Nike Women's Marathon, a 26-mile race in San Francisco, from Union Square along the waterfront to the Presidio and through Golden Gate Park. It's an event she's been working up to for several years, and she gets her chance to fulfill her goal this year because of her involvement with the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Team in Training.
Toepfer has been a P.E. teacher for 13 years, including six years as a full-time teacher with Tracy Unified School District. She teaches kids in kindergarten through fifth grade at Villalovoz, Bohn and Central schools. She wants them to know that that physical fitness can be fun, but also that hard work and determination can lead them to even more success in athletics.
"I want to set a good example for them," she said, "and show them that I don't just tell them about exercise and staying healthy and nutrition, but they actually see that I'm doing something to back that up."
Toepfer, 43, said her love for running inevitably led her to sign up for distance races.
"A friend asked me if I wanted to do a 5k about five years ago, so that was my first plunge into running," she said. "That was pretty grueling, because I didn't know what I was getting into."
That introduction led her to pursue new goals. The 10k's were next, followed by a half-marathon, and four years ago, she ran the Silicon Valley Marathon to meet her goal to complete a marathon before her 40th birthday.
"The Nike Marathon has been in the back of my mind. That sells out quick, and the only way you can get into it is through a lottery or, like I'm doing with Team in Training, which is a good cause," she said.
She said that Team in Training gives her the camaraderie that encourages her to pursue bigger accomplishments.
"You have somebody to push you, because when I'm running on my own, I might think that I'm improving on my time or my speed, but if there's somebody that's next to you, … that forces you to run a little faster to keep up with them."
She's on the path to making better times. Her finish of 46:58 in the 10-kilometer race at the July 16 Escalon Park Fete Walk/Run was her best yet and good enough to put her in first place in the women's 40-49 age group.
Groups like Team in Training can enter runners who might not have as much experience, but are running the race as a benefit. In this case, Toepfer, running her second marathon, will raise at least $2,500 for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
A benefit for cancer research is close to her heart, because her father, Bill Toepfer, was diagnosed with brain cancer in September and died in February. Oct. 16, the day of the marathon, is also her father's birthday.
"Just what he had to endure in those six months he had the disease, and what he had to go through, I feel like I can push my body beyond the limits and do the marathon to help raise money for a good cause," she said.
She goes into it knowing some of the things that only experience can teach about marathon racing, having completed the Silicon Valley race four years ago.
"I thought I was prepared, but when it came to actually running it, I was good for about the first 20 miles and then I hit the wall," she said. "I finished, but I feel like if I train like I'm doing with Team in Training, I'm going to better prepare myself for this."
How to help
• Donations to support Jill Toepfer's entry in the Nike Women's Marathon can be made through http://pages.teamintraining.org/sac/nikesf11/jtoepfer