text:
About Fossil Amazon coupons
🛍 Fossil Amazon coupons Available: | 8 |
🔥 Top Discount Available: | 80 % Off |
✅ Fossil Amazon coupons Status: | Active |
🏷 Available Savings Categories: | Black Friday |
🎁 New Discount Code Found: | Every 30 days |
Every Way To Save At Fossil Amazon coupons
Try our 6 best Fossil Amazon coupons Try these 4 older and expired couponsTry These Older Or Expired Fossil Amazon coupons
These Fossil Amazon coupons have been reported as expired or no longer working. However, it might be worth trying some of these codes, just in case you score a discount.Fossil Amazon coupons FAQs
How many coupon codes are currently available for Fossil Amazon coupons?
At the moment, there are a total of 23 active coupon codes that can be used on the Fossil Amazon coupons website.How do I redeem my Fossil Amazon coupons discount code?
To redeem your Fossil Amazon coupons discount code, add any items you would like to purchase to your shopping basket and click on the View Basket or Checkout button. On the checkout page, enter your discount code in the Promo Code box and click Apply.Why did not my coupon code work?
There are several reasons your coupon code may not work:- It may not be valid for the items you have in your cart.
- It may be valid only for a first time purchase.
- It may be expired.


text:
That's good, Kanye, since it's a right pain to get a book to even hold a pen, much less autograph itself.
Anyhoo, after banging my head against the desk and weeping for future generations, I decided that today we should celebrate those authors and illustrators who made (and make) reading so much fun during our early years.
Remember The Very Hungry Caterpillar?
This adorable cupcake mosaic (not a cupcake cake, now, a cupcake mosaic) has been submitted by about a billion readers, but I do believe Rachel K. was the first. It was made by the stupendously talented Coco Cake Cupcakes, who is also responsible for this guy:
Here's a side view:
Love that big orange nose. (There's another WTWTA Sweet here, too.)
Here are a few that look like the book itself:
Zita H. found this next one on Cake Central, but she didn't say by which baker. Let me know who I should credit if you recognize it:
I especially like how the "book" looks a little careworn - as if it's been read many times. I'm going to give the baker the benefit of the doubt and assume that's intentional. ;)
Here's some more Dr. Seuss, this time courtesy of Debbie Does Cakes:
I was hoping we'd have some Golden Books represented today, and luckily Hey You delivered with this Poky Little Puppy inspired cutie:
This was made by her friend Stacey, and you can see more pictures of it and the party here.
I've had this Babar cake photo forever, so you guys will have to help me once again in identifying the baker:
I love everything: the colors, the outlining, the garland... just exquisite.
And finally, how about a little love for Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit?
(By Cheryl of Heavenly Confections.)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sports talk shows and news outlets have been all over the story of a Texas parent who filed a complaint about bullying after his son's high school football team lost a game last week by the score of 91-0.
If you haven't heard about what happened during that game, here's how Fort Worth's Star-Telegram sums up the story:
"Aledo [High School] beat Fort Worth Western Hills 91-0 at home, pushing its season scoring pace to 69.3 points a game and running its undefeated record to 7-0. In four District 7-4A games against Fort Worth schools, the Bearcats have outscored their opponents by an average of 77 points per game."
CBS Local in Dallas/Fort Worth says Aledo kept scoring even though its coach, after seeing his team score 56 points by halftime, "began actively trying to keep the score down, subbing in backup players, letting the clock run continuously, and instructing players to make fair catch calls."
Western Hills coach John Naylor had no problem with the way Aledo played. "We just ran into a buzzsaw," he told the Star-Telegram. "[Aledo] just plays hard. And they're good sports, and they don't talk at all. They get after it, and that's the way football is supposed to be played in Texas."
But an unidentified parent did have an issue with what happened, and filed a complaint with the Aledo school that the CBS Local station says alleges "we all witnessed bullying firsthand, it is not a pretty sight."
Wednesday, Aledo coach Tim Buchanan said his district has investigated and found "no grounds" for the bullying charge.
The game and the bullying allegation, as we said, have caused much discussion. Even widely quoted legal scholar Jonathan Turley has weighed in, writing that "it is not unsportsmanlike or bullying to play a game to a lopsided conclusion. It is called life. This is just one of its lessons."
One line of thought from many critics of the parent's complaint is that bullying can be deadly — leading in some cases to young victims taking their lives. An accusation about a lopsided football game could make it look like bullying isn't a serious problem, they say. It also could be disrespectful to bullying's victims.
We wonder what everyone thinks.
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Wichita State moves past OSU
Published 8:25 am Monday, April 1, 2013
LOS ANGELES — Cleanthony Early kept stealing glances down at the hat in his hands while he waited for his turn to climb the stepladder. The Wichita State forward seemed stunned at the words on the side of his brand-new ballcap: "Final Four Atlanta."
"It's crazy. I still can't believe we're here," Early said. "You try to expect it, but you expect a lot of things that don't happen. This really happened."
Believe it. Wichita State is going to Atlanta, and these Shockers are no longer a surprise after the way the tenacious ninth seeds held off mighty Ohio State in the West Regional final.
Malcolm Armstead scored 14 points, Fred Van Vleet bounced in a big basket with 1 minute left, and Wichita State earned its first trip to the Final Four since 1965 with a 70-66 victory over the Buckeyes on Saturday.
Van Vleet scored 12 points as the Shockers (30-8) followed up last week's win over top-ranked Gonzaga with a nail-biting victory over the second-seeded Buckeyes (29-8), whose 11-game winning streak ended one short of their second straight Final Four. Wichita State's 20-point lead in the second half dwindled to three in the final minutes, but several Shockers stepped up with big plays to stop the surge, heeding coach Gregg Marshall's halftime command to "play angry."
All that anger turned into a joyous postgame party at midcourt, even though the Shockers realize they've got more work to do.
"I don't think we're Cinderella at all," Marshall said. "Cinderellas usually are done by this stage. If you get to this point, you can win the whole thing. You beat a No. 1 seed and a No. 2 seed — I don't think Cinderella just found one glass slipper. I think she found four."
Wichita State is just the fifth team seeded ninth or higher to reach the Final Four since seeding began in 1979, but the second in three years following 11th-seeded VCU's improbable run in 2011. The Shockers' celebration was wild, if a bit disbelieving, in front of several thousand roaring fans.
"Last year we were watching all this on television," said Early, who scored 12 points despite spraining his ankle in the second half. "I just feel like we've got the same potential as those (big-name) guys, regardless if they know who we are or not. We just tend to work hard."
Wichita State roared to a 20-point lead with 11 minutes to play after Ohio State played an awful first half, but LaQuinton Ross scored 15 of his 19 points after halftime, leading a ferocious rally that got the Buckeyes within three points in the final minutes.
Tekele Cotton hit a clutch 3-pointer for Wichita State with 2:20 left and grabbed a key offensive rebound moments later, allowing VanVleet to score on a shot that bounced all over the rim before dropping. Ron Baker and Cotton hit last-minute free throws to secure the second Final Four trip in Wichita State's history and a school-record 30th win.
"We're happy, but I'm still shocked," said Carl Hall, the glasses-wearing big man who scored eight points and led the Shockers' strong defensive effort. "We've got a team full of fighters. I brought them all together near the end and said, 'No matter what happens, I love y'all.' We had to fight so hard. We've got each other's backs, and it's hard to beat a team that's got five guys who work together like us."
Deshaun Thomas scored 21 points after missing nine of his first 12 shots for Ohio State, which made just 24 percent of its first-half shots. Aaron Craft scored nine points on 2-for-12 shooting against Armstead and a host of defenders for the Buckeyes, who dug a hole too deep to escape with their second-half rally.
"The way we shot coming into the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, everything was falling," Thomas said. "Today, it just wasn't our night. Nothing was falling. We had great looks, some of them, but they just weren't falling."
Yet after two weeks of upsets in the wild West bracket, underdog Wichita State seemed an appropriate pick to cut down Staples Center's nets. The Shockers' well-balanced roster managed built that enormous lead with the same consummate team play that they've shown throughout the tournament.
The Shockers are also the kings of Kansas, reaching the national semifinals after the powerful Jayhawks and Kansas State both went down.
Two sections packed with cheering Shockers fans provided all the encouragement necessary for a team that didn't win the Missouri Valley Conference tournament and was thought to be a bubble team for an NCAA berth. Now, Wichita State is the MVC's first Final Four team since Larry Bird led Indiana State to the title game in 1979.
Another giant awaits the Shockers in Atlanta next weekend: They'll face the winner of Sunday's Midwest Regional final between Duke and Louisville.
"We're all new to this, but I think we're ready for this," Early said. "We're going to prepare ourselves, and this game was pretty good preparation. We started at the bottom, and we've been working our way up."
Everybody chipped in for the Shockers. Armstead, the Oregon transfer, was named the regional's top player. Baker made nine free throws without a miss on his 20th birthday. And both Early and Hall returned to the court with second-half injuries, pushing Wichita State forward.
Seven seasons after underdog George Mason crashed the Final Four and underlined college basketball's growing parity, the Shockers are the latest smallish school to get on a big roll in the tournament. Butler made the national championship game in 2010 and 2011, and the Bulldogs were joined by that VCU team in the Final Four two years ago.
This year's tournament included stunning wins by Florida Gulf Coast, La Salle and Harvard, but nobody kept it going longer than Wichita State.
Although the Shockers have a beautiful home arena and robust support from fans and donors in Kansas' largest city, Marshall acknowledged that Wichita State's athletic budget is a fraction of what a BCS school can spend. He hasn't let it slow the Shockers, who made the NCAA tournament last year only to lose to 12th-seeded VCU in the first round.
After the Shockers easily beat La Salle two days ago to reach their first regional final since 1981, Marshall's pregame speech to the Shockers on Saturday finished with talk of cutting down the nets at Staples Center before getting on that plane back to Kansas, saying Wichita State didn't have to play "a perfect game" to beat mighty Ohio State.
"The Mecca awaits in Atlanta," he said.
Marshall was right, but he couldn't have anticipated just how imperfect Ohio State would be.
The postseason-tested Buckeyes appeared calm and confident during warmups in front of their healthy fan contingent, yet they proceeded to play the first half just like NCAA newbies.
They missed their first seven shots after the opening tip in a string capped by an airballed 3-pointer from Thomas, who missed his first five overall. The junior star was labeled "a bad-shot taker and a bad-shot maker" by Marshall on Friday, but he only lived up to the first part of that billing while going 4 for 13 in the first half.
Early hit two 3-pointers in the opening minutes, and the Shockers stretched their lead to 13 points shortly before halftime.
"You've got to give them credit," Craft said. "They really came out firing and we really didn't regain our footing until it was too late."
Hall went to the locker room after drawing a charge from Thomas early in the second half, holding the back of his head after Thomas' elbow clipped him on the jaw. Hall found his glasses and got back in the game 66 seconds later.
Wichita State gradually stretched its lead early in the second half, with Early's layup putting the Shockers up 53-33 with 12:09 to play.
Ross desperately tried to rally the Buckeyes, scoring eight consecutive points and leading a 23-6 run midway through the second half. Ohio State went into a full-court inbounds defense, and Shannon Scott's free throws with 2:49 left cut the lead to 62-59 — but Ohio State couldn't get any closer.


text:
This collection contains the documents of Joseph Cullinan related to the founding and early operation of the Houston Negro Hospital. Cullinan, a Houston businessman, helped start the hospital with a monetary donation to be used in construction of the building. The hospital was the first nonprofit hospital for African Americans in Houston, and these varied documents provide insight into the founding, construction, initial problems, and political and social forces at play during its early years.
In the early 1920s, the need for a new African American hospital became clear to the community and its physicians. Though a group of physicians had established the Union-Jeremiah Hospital to serve the community, they quickly realized the need for something larger. Cullinan, a successful oilman who had founded Texas Company (later Texaco), was impressed with the group's work and donated $80,000 to the group in 1923. On June 19, 1926, the building's cornerstone was dedicated to Cullinan's deceased son, an Army officer who led African American soldiers during World War I. Cullinan, who made additional donations to the hospital, was consulted and kept informed about hospital business.
The hospital, located in Houston's Third Ward, opened to patients on May 14, 1927, and provided a place for African American physicians, who were not allowed to admit patients to the African American wards in Houston's other hospitals, to practice medicine and train students and nurses. It initially operated on an "insurance" system in which individuals and families paid a yearly subscription which entitled them to treatment. The hospital's early years were difficult, with problems that included a lack of patients and dissension among and between the hospital's two boards, one African American and one white.
Throughout the 20th century the hospital underwent many changes, including the elimination of the insurance system. In 1961 the hospital was renamed Riverside General Hospital, and in 1984 the building underwent historical renovations. The original hospital building and the School of Nursing building are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and Riverside General Hospital still operates today, primarily as a substance abuse center.
The original materials are available in UH Libraries' Special Collections in the Joseph S. Cullinan Papers.
Title | Date | |
1925-02-09 | ||
1931-02-10 | ||
1931-05-18 | ||
1931-01-13 | ||
1929-05-18 | ||
1929-01-24 | ||
1931-04-24 | ||
1929-07-12 | ||
1929-01-24 |


text:
2009 RotoRob MLB Draft Kit: Top 10 Rookies
The 2009 RotoRob MLB Draft Kit continues today as we kick off the RotoRob Top 10 Lists of Lists that Fantasy Owners always Wanted, but were Afraid to Ask For with the RotoRob debut of our newest voice, Todd Habiger, who brings us the Top 10 rookies. Please join me in giving Todd a hearty welcome to RotoRob. He's a long-time fantasy expert and is an excellent writer, to boot!
This list includes players (with less than 130 major league at-bats or 50 innings pitched) that will create the biggest stir this season.
In fantasy leagues, owners are constantly search for the next big – that mega star that will lift their team to fantasy glory. But there is a danger in investing in too many rookies. For every Evan Longoria there's an Alex Gordon, the player that despite the hype only puts up modest numbers in their rookie season. Unfortunately, most rookies aren't going to pan out and give you superstar numbers, so buyer beware (or caveat emptor, for my Latin friends). Even so, rookies can be good for injury fill-ins or to plug into your starting lineup in deeper leagues.
Below are my best bets to help you this year.
1. Matt Wieters, C, Baltimore Orioles: You got to like it when a rookie catcher is compared to Mike Piazza (unless they're talking about his defense). Wieters comes into this season with a tremendous amount of hype, and based on his average draft position, you've noticed. He is a superb prospect that can help your team this year – but probably not for the first month or two. With the O's not expected to contend, the plan is to keep Wieters in the minors long enough to delay his service time. So if you draft him, be sure you get a serviceable backup for the first month. After that, sit back and enjoy the ride.
2. Colby Rasmus, OF, St. Louis Cardinals: This super prospect lost a little luster last year with injuries and mediocre numbers. But don't fret, he's the real deal and will arrive this season. Tony La Russa plans to bat him ninth to start the season, but if Rasmus shows he can handle the bat he'll move up in the order quickly. I expect a solid season for Rasmus in the range of .280-20-65-10.
3. David Price, LHP, Tampa Bay Rays: If you haven't heard of Price, stop reading right now, take your wife and kids out for a nice meal, take up building model cars and send the money you were going to waste playing fantasy baseball this year to: Todd Habiger, PO Box 1259, Overland Park, KS 66204. Of course, Price is one of the most hyped prospects of our time. His coming out party was when he closed the door on the Red Sox to send the Rays to the World Series. But his fame is going to be as a starter and from the looks of things he's going to be a good – if not great – one. But remember, he is a rookie and his innings are going to be watched. Think 12 wins and an ERA in the mid to upper 3s.
4. Chris Perez, RHP, St. Louis Cardinals: La Russa doesn't plan on naming a closer, but rather go with a bullpen by committee. Really, how often has a committee worked out well? Expect Perez to eventually lay claim to the job and hold on to it for say, the next five to 10 years. He has a great fastball that can reach the upper 90s when he needs something extra. But Perez can be wild and lacks a consistent secondary pitch. Still, he's the best option in a rather mediocre St. Louis pen. I'm putting him down for 25 saves.
5. Travis Snider, OF, Toronto Blue Jays: Snider shot through the Blue Jays farm system last year, starting out at High A and ending up in the Show. This kid is the real deal and should lay claim to either an outfield or the DH slot. Power is Snider's game and he should eventually find his way into the middle of the Jays lineup. Despite a somewhat high strikeout totally, scouts expect that Snider to settle into a .280 hitter or better.
6. Cameron Maybin, OF, Florida Marlins: This kid is an all-world athlete. A true five-tool player, Maybin should be able to translate those skills into a regular stint in the 30-30 club. As of now, he doesn't have the greatest plate discipline, so don't expect a stellar batting average or on base percentage right way. What you can expect is tape measure home runs, blazing thefts of second and lots of Sports Center moments. All that with a .230 BA.
7. Taylor Teagarden, C, Texas Rangers: The Ranger farm system is so deep that Teagarden didn't even make Baseball America's Top five Texas prospects. But my money's on him having the biggest impact on the big league club this year. Teagarden had an impressive debut, smacking six home runs in 47 at bats to give him a leg up on the starting catcher position entering 2009. But it's a tough road with former top prospect Jarrod Saltalamacchia and fellow prospect Max Ramirez standing in the way. Still, Teagarden offers more of a complete package with his defense ability to call a game.
8. Brett Wallace, 3B, St. Louis Cardinals: Wallace is one of my big hunches this year (for more, see below). The man can hit. He started knocking the cover off the ball in High A ball and when an injury created an opportunity at Double-A, Wallace didn't lose a beat, batting over .300 with power. With Troy Glaus injury prone and no suitable replacement on the St. Louis bench, I think Wallace could have an opportunity to make an impact on the big league club right away.
9. Dexter Fowler, OF, Colorado Rockies: Fowler is a superb athlete who is still translating all his potential on the baseball field. Blessed with natural speed and strength, Fowler had an amazing 2008, being selected to the Futures Game and making the Olympic Team. While he hasn't shown much power yet, scouts seem to think it's only a matter of time. With the Colorado outfield looking pretty underwhelming right now, Fowler could find himself in a battle to make the opening day roster. If that happens, snatch him up.
10. Elvis Andrus, SS, Texas Rangers: Not even old enough to legally drink yet, Andrus nonetheless unwittingly caused a ruckus this offseason when the Rangers said they were moving All-Star shortstop Michael Young to third base to make room for the kid. Young immediately asked for a trade, but eventually backed down and agreed to the move. While he will probably only show modest power in his career, Andrus has good speed and should be able to steal 20+ bases regularly.
Habby's Hunches
RotoRob only wanted my top 10 so I gave him my best bets. But still, with no insider knowledge, I just have a feeling about the five guys below. There's nothing out there to say these guys are ready or have an easy path to a big league job, but there's something about them that my gut is telling me "these guys are going to do something this year." If they pan out, remember you heard it here first. If they don't, hey they were only hunches, what do you expect?
Alcides Escobar, SS, Milwaukee Brewers: One J.J. Hardy stands in Escobar's big league path, but eventually Hardy is going to be just a speed bump. Escobar is outstanding defensively and projects to hit with decent power, Throw in a touch of speed and you've got a future All-Star in the making.
Gordon Beckham, SS, Chicago White Sox: I must admit, I have a major man crush on Beckham. I think he's going to be an outstanding power hitting shortshop (provided he stays there). The kid can simply rake. He hit the ground hitting, so to speak. Beckham showed good power in his minor league debut and then tore into AFL pitchers this winter. With Chris Getz no sure thing at 2B in ChiTown, I'm thinking Beckham might have a shot at seeing the Show this year.
Chris Tillman, RHP, Baltimore Orioles: Tillman is a good bet to open the year in Triple-A, but where he ends it is up for debate. He has nasty stuff — the kind No. 1 starters are made of. I'm guessing the first injury to the O's rotation will unleash Tillman on big league batters and then, look out.
Kila Ka'aihue, 1B: Kansas City Royals: There's nothing to suggest that Ka'aihue has any shot in hell of making the Royals this year. The club traded for Mike Jacobs and, if needed, Billy Butler can slap on a glove and play first base. But Ka'aihue has good plate discipline (something Jacobs can only dream about) and something the Royals sorely need. I personally think he'd look great in the middle of the Royal lineup.
Tommy Hanson, RHP, Atlanta Braves: The Braves have revamped their starting rotation by adding Derek Lowe and Javier Vazquez to the mix and seemingly leaving Hanson to fend for himself in Triple-A. Last year, Hanson had a season to remember, putting himself near the top of everyone's top pitching prospects list. He dominated High A ball and didn't miss a beat upon promotion to Double-A, a stint which included a no-hitter. The hitter-friendly AFL didn't slow Hanson down either, as he won the pitching Triple Crown.


text:
A woman who recently was crowned Miss Riverton after wowing the judges on the piano is accused of exercising a more sinister talent — cooking up homemade bombs and throwing them from a car.
Kendra McKenzie Gill and three others were arrested Saturday after allegedly tossing makeshift explosives in neighborhoods at least nine times. Police said the four 18-year-olds admitted buying plastic bottles, aluminum foil and household chemicals before assembling the devices.
"They were throwing them at both property and people," Unified Fire Authority Capt. Clint Mecham told KUTV-TV, adding that nobody was injured. "This goes well beyond a teenage prank."
Gill was booked on suspicion of 10 counts of detonating an incendiary device. She didn't appear on the Salt Lake County jail roster Monday morning, and no phone number for her was listed.
The others arrested in the case were John Patrick Reagh, Shanna Marie Smith and Bryce Christopher Stone. It wasn't immediately clear if any of the four had an attorney.
Stone reportedly told police that he and his friends were "pranking" with fireworks.
But fire officials said the devices — which can spew caustic chemicals and shrapnel when they burst — can be very dangerous.
"They can do a great deal of damage to property," Mecham told KSL-TV. "They can sever limbs. They can even kill people."
Gill topped a slate of nine beauty contestants earlier this summer, showing off her years of piano training with a Scott Joplin number and taking home a $2,000 scholarship.
As part of her platform, "Fit to be You," she planned to establish workout groups and encourage healthy body image, the South Valley Journal reported shortly after the pageant.
"You don't have to look just a certain way," Gill was quoted as saying. "It's about being healthy and happy."
Before competing in a local pageant, contestants sign a contract certifying they've never been convicted of a crime and have no pending charges against them. If circumstances change after the contract is signed, pageant officials have the right to revoke a contestant's title.
Riverton pageant officials were expected to issue a decision in Gill's case Monday, according to Justi Lundeberg, a spokeswoman for the Miss Utah pageant.
The Miss America Organization "requires a lot of these young women — that they're living a good life, a clean life," Lundeberg said, adding that she hoped the incident was a misunderstanding. "This is such an unfortunate event. We haven't had to deal with this before."
About 40,000 people live in Riverton, which is 20 miles south of Salt Lake City.
(Photo: AP)


text:
Justin Bieber -- Sheriff Comes Up Goose Eggs in Raid
Justin Bieber Sheriff Comes Up Goose Eggs in Raid
Justin Bieber is a lucky duck ... the L.A. County Sheriff's Department found no evidence he egged his neighbors house when deputies searched Justin's mansion ... sources connected to Bieber tell TMZ.
TMZ broke the story ... Sheriff's deputies were looking for surveillance video that might have incriminated Bieber. They were also looking to see if Justin bragged about the egging in text messages immediately after the incident.
Sources familiar with the surveillance video tell us you do NOT see Bieber egging the house. Furthermore we're told there is no video before or after the incident that shows Bieber at the immediate scene.
We're also told ... Bieber did not "brag text" about the egging incident.
It would appear then ... the case against Bieber will stand or fall based on TMZ's video and the account of two eyewitnesses who ID'd Justin.
As for the video, you cannot see Bieber ... but you definitely hear a voice that sounds exactly like him. As for the two eye witnesses ... they are the neighbor who got egged and his 13-year-old daughter.
Law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... the Sheriffs department will send the case over to the L.A. County District Attorney for review this week.
The D.A. could charge Bieber with felony vandalism or settle for misdemeanor vandalism. Or the D.A. could let Bieber skate all together.


text:
When consumers think about green products, they often face a dilemma - that car that uses less gasoline or a more efficient refrigerator tends to cost more. Buyers have to choose whether money is more important to them than public good. Now new research shows there might be a way to boost interest in these products, at least among a core group of consumers. NPR social science correspondent Shankar Vedantam is here to talk with us about that. Hi Shankar.
SHANKAR VEDANTAM, BYLINE: Hi Steve.
INSKEEP: What consumers?
VEDANTAM: We're talking about narcissists, Steve.
INSKEEP: Oh, a very big group of consumers. OK, go on. Go on.
VEDANTAM: Well, narcissists are a group of people you think are the least likely to go green. They are people, of course, who have an inflated sense of themselves. They constantly seek attention. I was speaking with Iman Naderi. He's a marketing professor at Fairfield University in Connecticut, and he said there was another reason to think narcissists were especially unlikely to make environmentally friendly or pro-green purchasing decisions. Here he is.
IMAN NADERI: The other important dimension of a narcissist is lack of concern for others. So if you think about green products, you need to sacrifice your self-benefit in order to protect the society or environment. So by default, narcissists are not willing to go green.
VEDANTAM: Naderi and his co-author David Stratton (PH) realized they did have something working in their favor. Being pro-environment is now seen as socially desirable, and narcissists are all about boosting their social desirability. The question was, is there a way to use this to actually change how they buy things. So Naderi and Stratton conducted a series of experiments. Volunteers were rated on their narcissistic tendencies using a common scale that measures narcissism, and then there given choices between a regular computer and an environmentally friendly computer, a so-called green computer. Here's the catch. Some of the volunteers were asked to choose a green laptop, and some of them were asked to choose a green desktop. Here's Naderi.
NADERI: We found that narcissists tend to choose the green laptop more frequently compared to the green desktop because the green laptop is visible to their audience. It's something that they use in a social setting, to signal something else. It's a means to an end compared to the green desk top that they use at home.
INSKEEP: Oh, the laptop is an advertisement for your greenness, and you whip it out in the coffee shop or around the office or other places.
VEDANTAM: That's exactly right. Naderi and Stratton also found that narcissists were more likely to go green when they bought things in a store compared to when they bought them online. And that's, of course, because you have an audience in the store. By contrast, people who are not narcissists were consistent about their purchasing decisions. If they wanted to buy a green product, they bought the green laptop and the green desktop. If they cared more about price, they bought the regular laptop and the regular desktop, and it didn't make a difference whether they bought it in a store or online.
INSKEEP: So narcissists will not go green for themselves or for the community, but they might go green for their image.
VEDANTAM: That's exactly right. And there's something else. If you're going to use green products as a signaling device to draw attention and praise to yourself, price might also play a role. Naderi and Stratton conducted a experiment where volunteers had to choose between different kinds of backpacks. One of them was a regular backpack, and the other one was billed as being good for the earth. Here's the catch. When the green backpack was listed as cheaper than the regular backpack, the narcissist weren't interested. But when the very same backpack was listed as more expensive, the narcissists flocked in droves to buy it.
INSKEEP: Because they want to prove that they're willing to put their money on the line.
VEDANTAM: Exactly. And the more expensive the backpack, the stronger the signal you can send that they're doing something socially desirable. So there are three rules if you want to sell pro-green stuff to narcissist. Sell the products in public. Make sure the products can be used in public. And make sure you mark up the price.
INSKEEP: (Laughing) This may apply to other industries as well. Shankar, thanks very much.
VEDANTAM: Thank you, Steve.
INSKEEP: That's NPR social science correspondent Shankar Vedantam. You can find him on Twitter - @HiddenBrain. You find this program at @MorningEdition and @ NPRinskeep or here. It's NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. While Syria is the crisis of the moment in the Middle East, Iran looms as an even more difficult challenge in the months ahead. And these two issues are not unconnected. Iran remains the most important ally of President Assad in Damascus, and the survival of his regime is critical to Iran's larger struggle with its Arab rivals.
But the issue that may trigger conflict is Iran's nuclear program. While diplomacy inches ahead, Iran's centrifuges continue to enrich uranium, and both the United States and Israel say time is not unlimited. A recent report undersigned by a number of former officials argues that sanctions may have become counterproductive. Others think it's time or nearly time to consider a military strike.
Later in the program, on the Opinion Page this week, did the Boston police let their guard down before the bombs exploded two weeks ago? But we begin with David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times. His book "Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power" is out now in paperback. He joins us from member station WAMU here in Washington. And David, always good to have you with us.
DAVID SANGER: Great to be back with you, Neal.
CONAN: And to return to the connections between Syria and Iran for just a moment, the president says he needs conclusive evidence before he concludes that Syria crossed his red line on chemical weapons. Many senior Republicans say it's clear that line has already been crossed, and failure to act sends a message to Iran that U.S. warnings can be ignored.
SANGER: Well, certainly there is a risk that if a president sets a red line, and then it is crossed, all sorts of other adversaries and potential adversaries look at that and take the president's measure. It's not a problem new to President Obama. You may remember that it was President Bush who said repeatedly he would never tolerate a nuclear North Korea.
Well, the nuclear test came in 2006, and I remember going off to interview him at some point shortly after that, and I said you'd never tolerate - you said you'd never tolerate a nuclear North Korea. He said I'm not tolerating it; we're doing sanctions.
Well, since that time North Korea's set off, what, two more nuclear tests and a number of missile tests. So I think that all presidents, when confronted with somebody transgressing their red line, begin to say, well I didn't say what I would go do. And President Obama finds himself with Syria in the same position that President Bush did with North Korea, which is that he can't imagine a scenario in which you could land American troops on the ground and not turn the whole country against him.
And of course that's exactly what he's trying to avoid doing at a time that Bashar al-Assad is fighting a civil war. Even the Israelis, and I was in Israel all last week, who revealed some of the evidence ahead of the Americans to indicate that Sarin gas had been used, they're not pushing very hard for the president to take military action because they want to save that card, if they need to use it, for Iran.
CONAN: And your colleague there in Jerusalem reported this morning that the Israelis think, well, the red line in Syria has nothing to do with that red line in Iran.
SANGER: Well, of course to the Iranians it probably has something to do with it. Now, the fact of the matter is that when it comes to red lines, the Israelis are in no better shape than the United States. By the count that Graham Allison of Harvard has taken and a great chart he's put together, the Israelis have moved their red line on Iran's nuclear program about seven or eight times over the past 15 years, things they said they could never tolerate the Iranians doing, and then the Iranians turned around and did them.
But as you suggested in the opening, at this point there is some optimism among American and Israeli officials that the sanctions that they have put in place and that the Europeans have put in place are really beginning to bite into the core of the Iranian economy, which is to say their oil import revenues.
And their revenues were, over the past month or so, were some of the lowest they've seen in nearly a quarter century. So the question is: Can that pressure actually affect the nuclear decision-making? And so far it hasn't.
CONAN: So far it hasn't. There's nothing to suggest in the various negotiations, there's been, well, procedural advances here and there, but on substance there seems to be no shift whatsoever.
SANGER: On substance this has gone absolutely nowhere. There was early optimism at the beginning of the year that the Iranians suggested that some elements of the proposal that the United States had put in place, which was to close the one facility that is the best protected, it's called Fordo, it's deep in a mountain in Iran, and it's where they're producing the kind of fuel that you could convert to weapons grade most quickly, and ship that fuel out of the country and do - take a number of other steps that would result in a gradual lifting of sanctions; the Iranians had initially indicated that might be the basis of a conversation.
At their most recent set of negotiations, which were about three weeks ago, they basically went nowhere with that idea. And so we're sort of back where we were, which is that the Iranian capability is built up considerable and has recovered from something that I deal with at length in "Confront and Conceal," which was the cyberwarfare program against the Iranian enrichment effort.
This was what's commonly known as the Stuxnet virus, which was unleashed starting in 2008, 2009, and then because of a technical error became public in 2010. And if you look at the Iranian production records on nuclear fuel, you'll see a dip in 2010, but they've gotten past that now, and they are clearly moving ahead to produce their fuel at a pretty rapid clip.
CONAN: And there is, during the president's recent visit to Israel, seeming agreement between Washington and Jerusalem that the red line still has some months left to run.
SANGER: Well that's true, but you have to remember that the Israelis and the Americans still define their red lines differently. President Obama has said repeatedly that he would not let Iran get a nuclear weapon on his watch. He has been less specific on the question of whether they could get a nuclear capability, and the difference is important.
A capability means the ability to go produce a weapon in fairly short order, even if you haven't turned the last screws. The Israeli red line is really set at the production of fuel, because their view is that once you've got the fuel in hand, actually producing a weapon can be done in a room basically the size of your radio studio and that you'd never see it.
And as a result, you would have to stop the Iranians before they got to that capability. I think during President Obama's visit with Prime Minister Netanyahu, they narrowed the gap there. President Obama is beginning to talk about stopping Iran before it actually got to the final weapons stage. But I don't think they're quite in the same place yet.
CONAN: Well, let's talk about various options. Joining us now is Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She's with us from her office here in Washington. Nice to have you back on the program.
JESSICA MATHEWS: Thanks, Neal, good to be here.
CONAN: You signed a report by the Iran Project which urges the White House to rethink its sanctions against Iran, which you argue may be becoming counterproductive even as they truly begin to bite?
MATHEWS: Well, I wouldn't have described it that way. I think what it does do is it illustrates the enormous complexity of this tremendous number of sanctions that are imposed both by the U.S. and by the U.N. and by executive order and by Congress, how complicated it is. But for me, the central point is that sanctions aren't self-executing. They don't work absent a negotiating strategy to use them with.
And that means you have to be clear about what steps on the Iranian part would induce you to raise which sanctions. If you don't do that, if your political system is allergic to that and is frozen against it, then sanctions can in fact be self-defeating because then the other side says, well, it doesn't matter what I do, I'm just going to be facing this same set of problems.
CONAN: Well in that case you're talking about political paralysis at the congressional level that no matter what the president does, Congress is going to impose sanctions?
MATHEWS: Well, particularly at the presidential level, but I think that's more broadly applied to both the whole - to the whole American public. We are not clear in the United States about what our goal is in Iran, and we need to be much clearer about whether it has to do just with nuclear issues or whether it also has to do with human rights, Iran's behavior in Lebanon, Iran's support of Hezbollah and indeed regime change, which is the usually unstated goal of some people.
CONAN: And Iran's support of the Syrian president as well.
MATHEWS: Yeah, of course.
CONAN: And as we go through all of that, that litany, though, isn't that the essence of negotiation, you sit in a room with somebody and say, if you do this, we will do that, you don't give away your position ahead of time?
MATHEWS: No, but you have to know what it is you would do, what you're - you know, what you're prepared to do, and at times say that. Otherwise having the sanctions just holds you back. They can bring somebody to the table. As David said, these things are really starting to hurt the Iranian economy.
But they can't get you to agreement unless you're prepared to say this for that, this - you know, this action will produce this response on our part.
CONAN: And doesn't that take two parties, though, the Iranians to say we will do this in exchange for that?
MATHEWS: There's no question it does, and we haven't seen that kind of flexibility or preparedness on their part. But that doesn't excuse us from the need on our part. I mean it is so easy to say the Iranians are impossible, they're so hard to negotiate with, they don't really want an agreement. Some or all of that may be true. But unless we're prepared to deal on our side, we're not going to get anywhere. And...
CONAN: So unless we're prepared to hear at some point, yes, we can't start negotiation?
MATHEWS: Not start but succeed. I think there are two issues here on our part. One is: What sanctions would we be prepared to lift in exchange for what action on the Iranian side? That's the first one. And number two, which maybe is at least equally important, is we have to recognize that they are going to demand and to keep the right to enrich uranium in the context of a demonstrably peaceful program.
And, you know, their argument has been for years the non-proliferation treaty gives them the right to enrich. Well, it doesn't give them the right to enrich, it gives them the right to enrich in a peaceful program and for peaceful purposes, and they cannot show that their program has been peaceful because there are 17 years of violations of the IAEA, et cetera.
So - but we have to recognize that there is no way to yes unless we're prepared to allow enrichment under proper safeguards.
CONAN: David Sanger and Jessica Mathews will stay with us. After a short break, we'll address another idea for dealing with Iran: attack. Stay with us. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.
CONAN: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says it cannot accept Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes without more information. In particular, the IAEA wants access to Parchin, a military base southeast of Tehran. The IAEA, the CIA and others suspect Iran's scientists there have conducted a series of experiments to develop various non-nuclear technologies needed to create an atomic bomb.
Recent satellite photography shows big changes in the landscape there -buildings torn down, roads pulled up - that suggest to some that Iran has something to hide. IAEA inspectors want in. The Iranians say it's a no-go. Nuclear inspectors get to inspect nuclear sites, and Parchin, a military complex, does not fit that bill.
David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, and Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, are our guests. Joining us now in Studio 42 is Matthew Kroenig. He's a professor of government at Georgetown University, a former advisor on Iran policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. His article "Time to Attack Iran" is in the January issue of Foreign Affairs. Nice to have you back on the program.
MATTHEW KROENIG: It's a pleasure to be here.
CONAN: And as we look at this timetable, there are - at least by most accounts - months still left for sanctions and diplomacy before Iran is ready to produce nuclear weapons.
KROENIG: That's correct. So David spoke before about the red lines. And I think something that's important to point out is that the U.S. military option is really only good for preventing Iran from producing the fuel, because right now, we can bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them from enriching uranium. But once they have the sufficient enriched uranium, the game's over, because at that point, our only military option would be invading the country, overthrowing the government, searching the entire country for enriched uranium, which obviously isn't a good option, isn't an option that any president would consider anytime soon.
So the question is: How long until Iran has enough highly enriched uranium for one, or a small arsenal? And right now, the best estimates are, depending on Iran's behavior, we have somewhere between two and 14 months.
CONAN: Two and 14 months. That's obviously a pretty big window, and alarmists can, well, be alarmed, Matthew Kroening.
KROENIG: Yeah. It is a big window, and it does depend on Iran's behavior, to some degree. So the best estimates are that right now, if Iran made the decision to enrich from 20 percent to 90 percent, that it take them two months or so to produce one bomb's worth of material. But the problem is that even if they don't make that decision, they're putting more centrifuges online. Their stockpiles of low-enriched uranium are increasing. They're putting more advanced centrifuges online.
So all of these things are shrinking their dash-time to a weapon. And at some point, their ability to dash to the first weapon will be shorter than our timeline to respond, which also creates a decision point. And I think that's the 14-month window that people are looking at.
CONAN: David Sanger, to get back to red lines, does anybody consider that one nuclear weapon, even a handful of nuclear weapons is a significant change?
SANGER: Well, it's a significant psychological change, because at that moment, the president's ultimate red line - which is that he wouldn't allow Iran to become a nuclear weapon state, has been passed. But as a practical matter, one nuclear weapon doesn't do you a lot of good. Think about the North Koreans, in this particular case.
They only began to test once they amassed enough fuel to make six or seven, because if you only have enough fuel for one, and you set it off in the test, you're obviously - have left yourself pretty vulnerable. So the Iranians, even if they intend to go make a weapon - and, of course, they deny that that is at all their goal - they would not simply go off and do a single one. And I think that's why the point that is being made that you would - they would want to have a short dash time to a small arsenal of weapons is the right one.
Now, I was at the IAEA just about a week ago, and I sat down with them and went through the report that they turned out in November of 2011 that looked at what they called possible military dimensions of the program. And that is to say all the questions that they've raised to the Iranians about work that would only be explained by working on weapons - you know, working on nuclear triggers or other elements that you wouldn't use in a civilian power program, but you would use in a weapons program.
They turned that list public in 2011, at the end of 2011, in the hopes that that would sort of embarrass the Iranians into answering their questions. That didn't work. And I think their big fear right now is that they're simply not going to get the answers to those questions, and so there are two big mysteries here.
One of them is: How long will it take Iran to produce enough fuel to build a handful of weapons? The second one is: Do they have the technology now to produce a weapon that you could fit on a missile? And the answer to that seems to be probably not. It's unclear whether it would take them a year or two years or three years to get that.
CONAN: And let's go back to Matthew Kroenig, and the implications of an attack on Iran are so difficult. There would be repercussions from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf that people say, look, we have to give diplomacy and sanctions every chance to succeed before we even consider this.
KROENIG: Yeah, well, I think it would be helpful to take a step back and look at all the possible options. So there are really only three possible outcomes to this crisis. First, we could get a diplomatic settlement. Second, we could simply acquiesce to a nuclear-armed Iran, or third, the United States or Israel could take military action.
And now, clearly, if we could solve this diplomatically, come to some kind of mutually satisfactory diplomatic settlement, that would be best. I just think that that is unlikely, and the window for diplomacy is closing, as the president has said many times.
So when the window finally closes, that means that the United States is going to have this difficult choice between living with the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran for decades to come, or taking military action. And the president has said many times that he's made his decision, that he will use force if necessary to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. And I think that that's the right decision.
So the military option is not a good one. There are many risks and dangers, as you point out. But it's less-bad than living with the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran for the foreseeable future.
CONAN: Jessica Mathews, I wanted to bring you in on that point. Do you see the options the same way and the logic the same way?
MATHEWS: Well, they are, if you reduce them to the starkest outlines. But the real world never behaves that way. And I think this whole discussion, starting from your introduction with David Sanger, suggests a really important point, which are that red lines are a really lousy way to doing foreign policy, that the real world doesn't work like that.
I think what we can - the most important outcome would be that might be mutually acceptable at this point might well be that Iran has sort of an existential nuclear capability, but not an actual one or declared one. And that, while it is by no means a good outcome for us - it's a horrible outcome - is, in my view, much less horrible than the consequences of going to war.
CONAN: So when you say that, in other words, a situation where Iran has the - all the components to construct a deliverable nuclear weapons, or a number of them, but has not tested or done so.
MATHEWS: That's right. A lot of people call this the Japan option: Everything's there. It's sort of a screwdriver turn away. But - and there...
CONAN: And at that point, presumably, these sanctions - which are still going to be in effect - are still crippling Iran's economy.
MATHEWS: That's right, but - and again, they're only useful if you can use them to get some kind of a deal at the negotiating table. When - and the current Iranian government may not be capable of doing that. I entirely recognize it. But this is the first time that we have been able to engage the world, and it's an important achievement of this administration, in raising the cost in a really painful way to the Iranians, of pursuing this capability.
CONAN: David Sanger?
SANGER: Yeah, I wanted to just leap on Jessica's very good point about the Japan option. And I was the Times bureau chief in Japan for six years, and, you know, this would be perpetually debated back and forth. And in the end, the reason the world lives with the Japan option - and Japan's not the only country that has basically everything that they would need to go do it and the engineering talent, clearly, to build a weapon - is that the world's fairly confident in not only the political intent of the country, but that it's enough of an option society that you'd have a real sense if they were deciding to make the decision to go for a bomb.
I think the concern one hears about Iran is that we don't understand very much about how decisions are made. It's not a very transparent system. And so if a future leader in Iran decided to go produce a weapon, it's not clear whether or not the United States would know about it. And, of course, that's sort of what happened in the North Korean case.
Or they could slip into a case kind of like Pakistan, which was a case where we saw the capability for years, and then one day got taken by surprise when they actually did do a test. And I think that's the reason that the Japan option worries so many people when it comes to Iran.
CONAN: And Matthew Kroenig, it worries, in particular, Israel, for whom this is not an abstract question, but an existential one in the sense of its very life is at threat, at least it believes so.
KROENIG: Yes, so I think Jessica's right, that if we could get Iran to stay with the Japan model forever, indefinitely, that that would be an acceptable option. I just think there's really no reason to believe that Iran would stay at that level of capability. We know that Iran's strategic goals are to, first, be able to deter its adversaries, or Israel and the United States from attacking. And second, to be the most dominant state in the Middle East. This is something that they're very explicit about.
Getting nuclear weapons gives them both of those things. Having the Japan model, having a bunch of nuclear facilities does not allow them to deter foreign attack. It doesn't allow them to become the most dominant state in the Middle East. So I don't think that that's a sustainable solution to this problem.
CONAN: But if the other - at the same point, it doesn't prompt American and Israeli attack. It doesn't prompt Saudi Arabia and others perhaps to start nuclear weapons programs of their own, which could eventually threaten Iran.
KROENIG: That's right in the short term, but the concern would be that Iran wouldn't stay at that capability for the foreseeable future, that at some point they would have strong incentives to weaponize, and then we would be forced back into this terrible choice of acquiescing or taking action.
CONAN: With a much shorter timeline?
KROENIG: With a shorter timeline, presumably. I mean, the Iranians are doing some things to suggest that they might be willing to slow that timeline. They've threatened that they're going to deploy these more advanced centrifuges, but they haven't done that yet. They're not enriching above 20 percent yet. They're converting some of their 20 percent to fuel plates. So it all depends on Iranian behavior and how fast they push the nuclear program.
CONAN: And, Jessica Mathews, that brings us back to the diplomatic options, and you're suggesting that perhaps the United States - let me be clear, are you saying the United States should make these positions public? We're willing to do this for that?
MATHEWS: No. I mean, almost never is it because again you're forced back into that's the sort of diplomatic equivalent of red lines. You've got - you negotiate in private, but you have to be prepared politically to recognize when you've succeeded and to take steps to accommodate and to understand what the other side's bottom line is. And a big part of - let me be clear. We are not the major problem here. Iran is the major problem. But there is a big problem in U.S. policy, which is we have not become clear yet for ourselves or to them that we would accept enrichment under some appropriate conditions, very stringent conditions.
But we're going to have to do that if we have any hope both of sustaining a global sanctions regime and of getting some kind of Iranian agreement if they are prepared to deal.
CONAN: We're looking ahead to what may be a looming crisis with Iran. Our guests, Jessica Mathews - you just heard - is the president of the Carnegie - wrong piece of paper - president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She's with us here in Washington. Also Matthew Kroenig, professor of government at Georgetown University, former adviser on Iran policy in the Office of Secretary of Defense, and David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, is with us.
You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And, David, let me ask you. In this context, is an Iranian ability to enrich acceptable to, well, some of the people - to the United States, to Israel, to the president's Republican critics?
SANGER: If you ask them in public, their answer would be no because the United Nations' resolutions all call for a full halt of enrichment. But when you ask them with microphones off, you get an answer much closer to what you just heard from Jessica, which is, of course, the world could live with a limited enrichment capability if Iran agreed that the amount that it would enrich each year was limited to X amount, and then it would ship out additional material that wasn't being used in civilian reactors or use it in some way - keep it in some form that it could not rapidly be turned into bomb fuel.
In other words, that the United States and its allies would have plenty of warning if it was being turned into bomb fuel, and that means very rigid inspections. But there are two issues, I think, our conversation has brought up. One of them is suggested by Jessica's very good explanation of the difficulties of doing the diplomacy here, which is the United States so far has done this in bits and slices, and it has never stepped back and said, here's what a grand bargain would look like of a total relationship between the United States and Iran.
And, of course, the two countries have a lot of interests in common. One of the reasons they haven't done that is that there's no confidence that the Iranian system could handle it. In other words, that the supreme leader who's presumably making all of the decisions here, Ayatollah Khamenei, would be prepared given his own mindset about his country's revolutionary agenda to take a total deal with the United States. But the second problem that's suggested by this is it's a lot easier to get Congress to approve putting new sanctions on. That's an easy vote for everybody. But getting Congress to then agree to back off on sanctions as the Iranians backed off, that would be more difficult.
CONAN: And, Matt Kroenig, as you look ahead to that possibility, it is extremely difficult, yet the other option, that military strike, and a lot of people say, look, it may not work, and at best, it will not destroy. It will delay Iran's nuclear program.
KROENIG: Well, that's absolutely correct that there's no guarantee that a strike would prevent Iran from developing - from ever developing nuclear weapons. But if we simply stand by while Iran builds nuclear weapons, we'll be guaranteed that they have nuclear weapons. So what a strike does is it creates space for a lot of things to happen where Iran ends up permanently without nuclear weapons. So there is a significant strategic benefit, and there are also costs and risks, as you pointed out.
But there's also a lot that the United States can do to manage and mitigate those risks. So it's not a good option. I would not say it's a good option. But again, when you compare that to the risks of living with a nuclear-armed Iran, including possible nuclear war against Israel and possible nuclear war against the United States, the Department of Defense estimates that Iran could have ballistic missiles capable of reaching the East Coast of the United States by 2015. So these are real serious dangers, and I think the military option while not a good option is something that we should do to prevent from Iran developing nuclear weapons.
CONAN: And Matthew Kroenig, thank you very much for your time today. Our thanks as well to Jessica Matthews of the - president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and David Sanger of The New York Times. We thank you all for your time. And this is, well, two to 14 months. This is an issue that's not going away. When we come back, the Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi on the Opinion Page this week, wondering if the Boston PD led its guard down, well, not after the bombs exploded but before the bombs exploded, Patriots' Day two weeks ago. I'm Neal Conan. It's the TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
WARNING: This product is intended for use by persons 18 or older, and not by children, women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, or persons with or at risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, or taking medicine for depression or asthma. If you have a demonstrated allergy or sensitivity to nicotine or any combination of inhalants, consult your physician before using this product. This product is sold purely for recreational purposes - it is not a smoking cessation product and has not been tested as such. You must be over the legal age in your state to buy or use this product.
Nicotine is highly addictive and habit forming. Keep out of reach of children. This product contains Nicotine, a chemical known to the state of California (Proposition 65) to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. No statements made on this site have been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease |


text:
The information and content on Yale School of Medicine and Yale Medicine websites are provided for your convenience and general educational information only, and are not intended as medical advice nor to replace the relationship that you have with your health care professionals. If you have a question related to your medical care, please communicate with your Yale Medicine provider through MyChart, which is secured for that purpose.
Acceptance of Terms
Please read these Terms of Use (the "Terms") carefully before accessing or participating in any website or other online platform or service available on or through medicine.yale.edu, yalemedicine.org or other Yale School of Medicine or Yale Medicine sites (the "Site" or "Sites"). The Terms are an enforceable agreement between Yale University ("Yale") and you, the user of the Sites, whether you are a student, faculty member, staff member, alumnus/a, group, association, corporation, patient, caregiver, physician, referring physician, or other individual or organization. Terms such as "we", "our" and "us" refer to Yale University. By using and accessing the Sites, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms and agree to be bound by and comply with them. If you do not agree to be bound by and comply with the Terms, you are not authorized to use the Sites. Yale reserves the right to modify the Terms at any time in its sole discretion, and will publish notice of any such modifications on this site. Any modified Terms are effective immediately upon posting. By continuing to access any Site after Yale posts notification of modified Terms, you agree to be bound by and comply with them. If you do not agree to the Terms, please do not enter the Sites. If you are not yet eighteen years of age, a parent or guardian may agree to be bound by the Terms on your behalf.
Nothing in the Terms overrides the application of other rules and policies of Yale or other agreements between you and Yale. For example, your use of the Site is also subject to:
- The Yale Information Technology Appropriate Use Policy
- If you enter into any other agreement with Yale, for example regarding health plan coverage, then the Terms are in addition to the terms of such other agreement. Neither your acceptance of the Terms, nor visiting any Site, guarantees that you are eligible to receive coverage under any plan offered through any Site or otherwise.
Medical Information
If you are experiencing a medical emergency, you should not rely on any information on the Site and should seek appropriate emergency medical assistance, such as calling "911". You should always talk to your health care professionals for diagnosis and treatment, including information regarding which drugs or treatment may be appropriate for you. Statements made by any persons on these Sites are not intended to substitute for discussion or evaluation with your health care professional or provide any guarantee as to outcomes. Nothing on these Sites represents or warrants that any particular drug or treatment is safe, appropriate or effective for you. Health information changes quickly. Therefore, you should always confirm information with your health care professionals.
The Sites are intended for a United States audience. If you live outside the United States, you may see information on the Sites about products or therapies that are not available or authorized in your country.
Privacy Policies
Yale is committed to protecting your privacy and the confidentiality of your medical information.
Website Privacy
Our Privacy Policy describes the collection and use of information about you on the Sites, and explains how we will safeguard your privacy. Please review these carefully as they form a part of these Terms of Use and are fully incorporated herein.
Patient Privacy
Please review our Patient Rights on the Yale HIPAA site if you are looking for information about your Patient Rights or the Notice of Privacy Practices.
Trademark Notice
The names, marks, logos, seals, devices and designs associated with Yale University, Yale School of Medicine, and Yale Medicine are trademarks and service marks of Yale or its affiliates (collectively, "Yale Trademarks"). All other trademarks or service marks appearing on the Site are the trademarks, service marks, or logos of their respective owners. No trademark or service mark appearing on the Site may be used without the prior written consent of the mark's owner. You may not use Yale Trademarks without valid, written authorization from Yale. Additionally, you may not use Yale Trademarks in any manner that (a) will likely cause confusion about the source of any product or service or (b) falsely implies or represents that Yale sponsors, endorses, or is affiliated with any third-party activity. You may not register any domain names containing any Yale Trademarks without Yale's prior written consent in each case.
Use of the Site - Code of Conduct
You agree not to use the Sites or any other Yale computing resources to engage in any of the following conduct. Such conduct is unacceptable and may result in the termination of your use of the Sites.
- Interfering with the operation of the Sites, or, restricting, disrupting or inhibiting any other user from using and enjoying the Sites and services;
- Posting or otherwise transmitting any unlawful, fraudulent, threatening, harassing, libelous, defamatory, discriminatory, obscene, or similarly objectionable or harmful material or information of any kind;
- Posting or otherwise transmitting any advertisement, promotion, or solicitation of goods or services for commercial or partisan political purposes;
- Posting or otherwise transmitting any information or software that contains a virus, worm, time bomb, Trojan horse, or other harmful or disruptive component that may compromise the security of the Sites;
- Posting, transmitting or otherwise using materials in violation of another party's copyright, privacy, publicity or other proprietary right, or the terms of any contractual agreement or fiduciary relationship;
- Using the Sites or services for any commercial, partisan political or unlawful purposes;
- Copying, scraping, downloading, exporting, storing or otherwise capturing any data obtained via the Sites without proper written authorization by Yale;
- Modifying, adapting, sublicensing, translating, selling, reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling any portion of the Sites;
- Misrepresenting your identity, or, sharing or otherwise transferring user account information to any person other than the registered user authorized by Yale to use such account;
- Accessing or attempting to access any portion of the Sites to which you have not been explicitly granted access;
- Directly or indirectly authorizing anyone else to take actions prohibited in this section; or
- Otherwise using the Sites or any services, information and content available on or through the Sites in violation of the Terms or applicable law.
Submissions to the Site by You
Where authorized, you may submit any text, images, data, information, content or other materials (collectively, "Materials") to the Sites. In doing so, such Materials will be considered non-personal and non-confidential (except for personal information as described in the Privacy Policies), and you hereby grant to Yale a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, assignable, worldwide right and license to link to, use, reproduce, transmit, modify, adapt, practice, publish, display, perform, distribute, translate, and create derivative or collective works from, any such Materials, in whole or in part, throughout the world in any media, including all intellectual property rights therein, unless otherwise agreed in writing with Yale. You acknowledge and agree that any Materials submitted by users of any Site represent the opinions of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion or information of Yale. Any such Materials is no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for any purpose.
By submitting Materials to any Site, you certify ownership authority to grant such rights to Yale and acknowledge that the burden of determining whether any such Materials are protected by copyright rests solely with you.
Further, you are solely responsible for Materials submitted by you, and Yale assumes no responsibility or liability for Materials submitted by you or any other visitor to the Sites. We may, but are not obligated to, restrict or remove any and all Materials that we determine in our sole discretion violates the Terms or is otherwise harmful to us, other Site visitors or any third party. We reserve the right to remove Materials you submit at any time, but you understand that we may preserve and access a backup-copy, and we may disclose such Materials if required to do so by law or in a good faith belief that such access, preservation or disclosure is required by law or in the best interests of Yale.
Any Materials you submit will be routed through the Internet and you understand and acknowledge that you have no expectation of privacy with regard to any such Materials. Never assume that you are anonymous and cannot be identified by your submissions. You hereby grant Yale and any of its sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with the Materials, if they choose. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the Materials submitted by you; that such Materials are accurate; that use of such Materials does not violate the Terms, and will not cause injury to any person or entity; and that you will indemnify Yale and its officers, trustees, employees, representatives and agents for all third-party claims resulting from Materials you submit.
Use of Password-Protected Areas on the Site
Certain areas of the Sites are protected by usernames and passwords and may be accessed only by members of the Yale community. All user names are subject to review and approval by Yale. If you have a user name and password for accessing any Site, you agree not to share them with any other person, including any person who may have his or her own user name and password. You agree that the user name and password for your account is personal to you only, and you will not access or attempt to access any other user's account, or misrepresent or attempt to misrepresent your identity, while using the Sites or any services. You are responsible for all uses of your user name and password to gain access to any Site and for all activity under them, including the use of any information or material obtained by using them. Yale may terminate your account or authorization to access any Site and/or services at any time, without notice, for conduct that Yale believes violates the Terms or other applicable policies, rules or regulations of Yale.
If you become aware of any unauthorized use of your account, another user's account or any other portion of the Sites, you agree to notify the Yale School of Medicine Communications Office by telephone at (203) 785-5824, email at email@example.com, or in writing at: Yale School of Medicine Office of Communications, 1 Church St, Suite 300, New Haven, CT 06510, and to provide prompt reasonable assistance at the request of Yale and/or its representatives to address any violations of the Terms as determined by Yale.
Content Monitoring
You acknowledge and agree that Yale has the right, but not the responsibility, to monitor the Sites and Site-related services, including, without limitation, comments, chat rooms, message boards and forums. Yale reserves the right to refuse to post, or to remove, any information or materials, in whole or in part, that is in violation of the Terms in its sole discretion. Yale is not a publisher of user-generated content on the Sites, or of any content that may be available through them, and, with regard to such content, is acting solely as an Internet service provider (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). Neither Yale nor any Yale-affiliated entity screens, approves, reviews or endorses any such content.
Links to Yale's Site
You may not create links to any Site from any website with content that is fraudulent, threatening, harassing, libelous, defamatory, discriminatory, obscene, or similarly objectionable or harmful, or in a manner that would constitute or encourage a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party (directly or indirectly), or otherwise give rise to liability, violate any law or falsely imply Yale's sponsorship, endorsement or approval of your or another party's site or activities. Additionally, Yale, in its sole discretion, has the right to require that you remove links to any Site.
Links to Third-Party Sites
As a courtesy, the Sites may contain links to websites controlled by third parties. Yale is not responsible for these third-party sites or their content, activities or privacy practices. The inclusion of links on the Sites does not imply Yale's endorsement of the linked web sites, their content, or any associated organization or activity. Yale makes no representation or warranty whatsoever about the nature of the linked sites. You should read the privacy policies and terms of use that govern your use of other sites before accessing and using their services.
Copyright Information
Copyright Yale University 2016. All Rights Reserved.
In consideration for your agreement to the Terms, where authorized, Yale grants you a limited, personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to view, access and use the Sites. You may also print a reasonable number of copies of information and content available on or through the Sites for your personal, non-commercial and educational use only, provided that you reproduce all copyright, trademark and proprietary notices (for example, some Sites may include trademarks or logos belonging to third-party licensors and are used pursuant to an agreement with such third parties), and you comply with all other terms or restrictions that may be applicable to that material. Although parts of the Site are freely accessible, Yale does not intend to cede its respective rights, or the rights of third parties, to information and content available on or through the Sites. By accessing, downloading or printing information and content from any Site, you agree that there is no explicit or implicit transfer of ownership rights, and any and all rights, title and interest in and to the Sites, including all services, information and content available on or through the Sites, and all intellectual property rights, including all copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret rights therein, shall remain with Yale and our third-party licensors, as applicable. You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, exploit or otherwise transfer any such information or content unless permission to do so is specifically granted by Yale. Because Yale does not hold the copyright to certain materials on the Sites, Yale cannot grant or deny permission to use those materials. Accordingly, you are solely responsible for determining the copyright status of any materials you may wish to use, to investigate the owner of the copyright, and to obtain permission for your intended use, if appropriate.
Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement
Yale intends that all information and content on the Sites respect the copyright and other proprietary rights of third parties. However, Yale cannot monitor the copyright ownership of all such material. If you believe that any material posted on the Sites infringes your copyright, then you may request the removal of those materials from the Site in accordance with the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3), and the procedures described below.
A notice of infringing material that complies with the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3) ("Notice") must be sent to the agent Yale has designated with the Copyright Office:
Chief Information Security Officer
Yale University
150 Munson Street (25 Science Park)
Room 132
New Haven, CT 06511
Tel: (203) 436-5872
Fax: (203) 436-8292
To comply with the Copyright Act, your Notice must be in writing and must include the following:
- A physical or electronic signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed;
- Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works;
- Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit Yale to locate the material;
- Information reasonably sufficient to permit Yale to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which you may be contacted;
- A statement that you have a good-faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
- A statement that the information in the notification is accurate and made under penalty of perjury, and that you are the owner, or authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
When Yale receives a Notice that complies with the Copyright Act, it will remove the identified material immediately. Yale will promptly take reasonable steps to inform the user who posted the allegedly infringing material (the "alleged infringer") of the Notice and subsequent removal. The alleged infringer may then provide Yale with a counter-notice ("Counter-Notice") that the initial infringement notice was erroneous. Such Counter-Notice must be in writing and must include:
- A physical or electronic signature of the alleged infringer;
- Identification of the material removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;
- A statement under penalty of perjury that the alleged infringer has a good-faith belief that the material was removed or access to it disabled as a result of error;
- The alleged infringer's name, address, and telephone number; and
- A statement of consent to jurisdiction in federal district court and that the alleged infringer consents to service of process from the complaining party or its agent.
Upon receipt of a Counter-Notice, Yale will notify you of the Counter-Notice and restore the material within 10 to 14 business days of receipt of the Counter-Notice, unless you inform Yale that you have filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the allegedly infringing party from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the Site.
Disclaimers of Warranties
The Sites and services, information and content available on or through any of them are provided "as is" and "as available." Yale does not warrant that the Sites or any such services, information or content will be uninterrupted or error-free. There may be delays, omissions, interruptions and inaccuracies in such services, information and content. Yale makes no representations or warranties about the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, reliability or non-infringement thereof, including user content, or of any services, information or content available through links to other websites. Yale reserves the right to correct any errors or omissions in the Sites. If you rely on any services, information and/or content available on or through the Sites, you do so entirely at your own risk.
You specifically acknowledge that Yale is not liable for the defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of other users or third parties, and that the risk of injury from this type of conduct rests entirely with you. Your sole remedy for dissatisfaction with any Site or any services, information and/or content available on or through any Site is to stop using the Site and/or those services, information and content.
To the maximum extent permitted under law, Yale disclaims all express or implied warranties with respect to the Sites and any services, information and content that are available on or through them, including without limitation, any warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose (even if that purpose has been disclosed) and non-infringement.
Although Yale intends to take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, "Trojan horses" or other malicious code to the Sites, Yale does not guarantee or warrant that the Sites, or any services, information and content that may be available on or through the Sites, are free from such destructive features. Yale is not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. It is up to you to take any and all precautions to ensure that the services, information and content you access and use from any Site or any hyperlinked website is free of such items of a destructive nature.
Limitation of Liability
Yale and its officers, trustees, employees, representatives and agents are not liable for any claim of any nature whatsoever based on loss or injury because of errors, omissions, interruptions or inaccuracies in the Sites or any services, information or content available on or through the Sites, including loss or injury that results from your breach of any provision of the Terms.
Under no circumstances will Yale or its officers, trustees, employees, representatives or agents be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, punitive, or exemplary damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substituted services or materials; loss of use, data, revenues or profits; or business interruption) arising in any way out of or in connection with your use of any Site or any services, information or content available on or through the Sites or the Terms, however caused and regardless of the theory of liability, whether in tort (including negligence of any kind), contract, statutory, or any other legal or equitable theory, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Some states do not allow the limitation of liability for certain kinds of damages, so some of these limitations or exclusions may not apply to you.
You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold Yale and its officers, trustees, employees, representatives and agents harmless from and against any and all third-party claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, or other expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that arise directly or indirectly out of or from:
- your breach of the Terms;
- your violation of the Code of Conduct (as set forth above); or
- your activities in connection with any Site or Site-related services.
The Terms are the complete agreement between you and Yale regarding the subject matter hereof, and any and all prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreements existing between you and Yale regarding such subject matter are expressly canceled. We may terminate this agreement at any time for any reason. If you breach any of the Terms, your license to access and use the Sites, including all services, information and content available on or through the Sites, terminates immediately. Upon such termination, you must stop using the Sites, including all services, information and content available on or through the Sites, and return or destroy all copies, including electronic copies, thereof in your possession or control. Any heading, caption, or paragraph title contained in the Terms is inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way defines or explains any paragraph or provision contained within the Terms. If any provision of the Terms is found to be invalid by any court having competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions thereof, which shall remain in full force and effect. No waiver of any of the Terms shall be deemed a further or continuing waiver of such term or condition or any other term or condition. You may not transfer or assign any rights or obligations under this agreement. In the event of termination hereunder, you shall have a continuing obligation thereafter to comply with any provision of the Terms that by its sense and context is intended to survive termination.
Choice of Law/Forum Selection
You agree that any dispute arising out of or relating to the Terms, the Sites or any services, information and content available on or through them, including copies and republication thereof, whether based in contract, tort, statutory or other law, will be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut, excluding its conflicts of law provisions. You irrevocably agree to bring any claim or dispute relating to your use of the Sites or any services, information and content available on or through them, and the Terms exclusively in the applicable state courts located in New Haven County, Connecticut or the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (sitting in New Haven), to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts, and to waive any objections based on jurisdiction, venue, or inconvenience of the forum. In any action to enforce this agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to costs and attorneys' fees. If a court determines that any provision of the Terms is unenforceable for any reason, then that provision will be deleted and the remaining provisions will be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
- If you are concerned about your patient privacy rights, please contact the Yale HIPAA Privacy Officer at 203-432-5919 or email@example.com.
- If you have an issue relating to a Yale School of Medicine or Yale Medicine website, email us at email@example.com, and we will forward your concern to the appropriate unit for response or resolution.
- Please read our Privacy Policy about the collection, use and protection of information about you on the Sites.


text:
Hail to the Washingtons
I'm a bit late to the topic, but the Washington, D.C., professional football team really ought to change its name.I'm a bit late to the topic, but the Washington, D.C., professional football team really ought to change its name. As encouragement for the franchise's stubborn owner, we should just stop saying the offensive word.
The term "redskins" — it's hard to write a column about a word without using it, I'm afraid — is a racial slur. Fans of the team, myself included, have pretended not to notice this uncomfortable fact for many years. Now we're beginning to confront it.
The name fails the most basic tests of acceptability. Can you imagine employing it to address someone? Would you use it to describe anyone not associated with the team? If you overheard someone using the term in a non-football context, would you think more of that person or less?
The answers are obvious. To be honest, they always were.
We ignored the fact that we were uttering a vile and condescending insult — often, during games, yelling it at the top of our lungs — because we loved the team. I mean this literally: "Hail to the Redskins, hail victory" does not quite match "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" as poetry, but it is no less ardent an expression of love.
So we told ourselves that hey, it's just sports, and maybe everybody should lighten up. But we knew — I did, and come on, you did, too — that this was a dodge. No one can seriously argue that sports are somehow insignificant or tangential to American life. And certainly no one can make the case that professional football, of all things, is some sort of obscure little sideshow.
Of the 20 most-watched broadcasts in U.S. television history, do you know how many were Super Bowls? All of them.
The national movement to get rid of racist team names and mascots is decades old by now. It's odd, when you think about it, that the practice of naming sports teams after American Indians became so widespread in the first place — Braves, Chiefs, Seminoles, and so on. Apologists say it was a sincere attempt at paying homage to fierceness and bravery. I have my doubts, especially in the case of Washington's football franchise.
George Preston Marshall, the owner who in 1933 changed the team's name from Braves to Redskins, was a notorious racist. For more than a decade after other pro football teams began putting African-American players on the field, Marshall's team remained an all-white bastion. Covering a game against the Cleveland Browns, legendary Washington Post columnist Shirley Povich once wrote acidly that the great fullback Jim Brown, "born ineligible to play for the Redskins, integrated their end zone three times."
So it strains credulity that Marshall intended the new name to be a "badge of honor," as current team owner Dan Snyder claims. More likely, it was casual racism of the kind that isn't practiced in polite society anymore.
In May, Snyder told USA Today, "We'll never change the name. It's that simple. Never — you can use caps." So I guess he means NEVER.
But public opinion is clearly shifting. Earlier this month, Snyder took what he must have intended as a more empathetic approach: an open letter to the team's fans. It was pretty much an unmitigated disaster.
Snyder's missive was a convoluted mixture of arrogance, petulance and historical fantasy. He essentially argued that since the name has been used for 80 years, and since he went to his first game when he was 6, and since some Indians apparently don't consider the name offensive, it stands to reason that … well, it's unclear just what those elements were supposed to add up to.
The fact that a slur has been used for many years does not impose a duty to keep using it. Language and attitudes evolve; Snyder's problem is that discomfort with the team's name has gone viral. We can all think of words in common usage eight decades ago that would start a fight today. If you've managed to unite President Obama and Charles Krauthammer against you, it's over.
Snyder's vision is clouded by nostalgia and an unjustified sense of grievance. Fans of the team should sharpen his focus by simply declining to use the name — and calling the team "Washington" instead.
If fans don't allow the slur to pass their lips, at some point the name shifts on the balance sheet from tradition-steeped asset to embarrassing liability. Like RGIII racing toward the goal line, that day is coming fast.
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
© 2013, Washington Post Writers Group
Your support matters…Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media.
You can help level the playing field. Become a member.
Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearths what's really happening- without compromise.
Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.


text:
Web Sites Encourage Student Creativity in Cartoon Development.
There are a number of sites that allow students to create their own comics and/or cartoons. They allow students to create characters, cartoon panels, and speech bubbles. These can be used to develop writing activities or as discussion prompts. Several examples are: