text:
Selling our Ports
How can this be?
How can it be OK to give control of our ports to a foreign company, let alone one in a nation with ties to 9/11?
UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports
By TED BRIDIS , 02.11.2006, 09:41 AM
"A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism."
Senator Schumer was just on television voicing his concern about this. He basically said there was a committee, that nobody ever heard of, that o.k.'d this proposal in the middle of the night.
Where is everyone else?
Where is the big outcry?
I would think that everyone would be just as, or even more, upset about this than we were about the Chinese Co. that tried to buy Chevron.
That was oil. This is about security against threats coming directly through our 'Ports of Entry'.
It should be against the law! NOW!
Posted by Dawn at February 13, 2006 7:55 AM
I'm glad to see that someone on the Right actually recognizes that this is a BAD thing!
Of course, since Bush isn't objecting to it, you'll probably be labelled a left-wing pinko-commie tree-hugger before long. After all, if Bush can be trusted with unchecked wiretap authority, why can't we trust his judgement here?Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 13, 2006 8:32 AM
Are you really suprised? If you are, you have totally misread the political situation today. The name of the game is m-o-n-e-y. Somewhere, somehow, the members of whatever commitee that okayed this will benefit. For all of the talk and bluster about domestic security coming from the hallowed halls of Congress, when it comes down to the bottom line, it's still money. I believe there are some in Congress who would sell their mothers and sacrifice their first born if they could figure out a way to make a buck. And, I'm talking about both sides of the aisle.
If this deal goes through, it will make a good platform for a group of anti-incumbent candidates to run for Congrss, and I say more power to them. If I have the opportunity I will definitely vote for one of them.
If anyone can find out the name of the commitee that passed this neat little piece of treason, please post it here.Posted by: John Back at February 13, 2006 9:28 AM
Here we go again. Shades of Jimmah Catah giving away the Panama Canal to China. Remember the Huthcinson-Whampoa attempt to buy Long Beach? Seems as if Bush just wants to sell us out to the highest bidder, terrosist ties or not be damned. You can bet there was some serious lobbying going on behind the scenes on this deal. I'm sure the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment was wined and dined for this. Note that one of the deal agreements was that the committee NOT formally investigate the purchase. Another that Bush could not block the deal. Some real slimy back-room deals happening on this.Posted by: Beak at February 13, 2006 10:23 AM
If money is the game, simply refuse to by any products (gas or otherwise) from this "outside" company. Make sure to research which American companies DON'T use "terrorist" country oils, there are a few, and f*$k the rest. Power is with the consumer. Buy smart and your, OUR country will profit. Good hunting!Posted by: Raven at February 13, 2006 10:26 AM
The government claims border security is too difficult.
The fact is, government is failing at one of their most basic, primary functions: National Defense
And, Americans are being victimized daily, but government simply ignores it.
It is just a matter of time.
Government telling you they are doing a good job because there have been no more attacks is incredibly false and irresponsible.
But, our irresponsible bought-and-paid-for incumbents have better things to do with their time. Government is not genuinely interested in National Security, as evidenced by their ignoring warnings about securing cock-pit doors, ignoring the 911 Commission recommendations, and ignoring near wide-open borders. And even though all the dots are screaming "look at me, look at me", they ignore them until it is too late.
I fear we'll have to learn the hard way again.Posted by: d.a.n at February 13, 2006 12:34 PM
Why haven't we secured the Mexican border? Because Bush wants big businesses to save money with cheap labor.
Why isn't the administration doing anything about high heating costs and the price of gasoline? Because petroleum companies wouldn't be posting $10 billion quarterly profits.
How come health care costs are growing at an average of 30% each year, but personal income isn't? Because BushCo thinks HMO profits are more important than personal profits.
This should help to answer your questions, Dawn.Posted by: 0% APR at February 13, 2006 12:52 PM
Yeah, it is Bush. But, it is really all irresponsible incumbents of all parties.
The irresponsible incumbents won't allow any common-sense, no-brainer reforms.
National Security is supposed to be one of the governments' most basic, and important functions.
This is a serious problem.
It is but on of several serious problems.
However, it is all futile until voters get fed-up and do one important thing first…what we should be doing always, all along.Posted by: d.a.n at February 13, 2006 1:35 PM
It shows the only thing Bush cares about more than national security is the all-mighty greenback. I think it's obvious this administration is so pro-business they would (and do) sell out the gov't to the highest bidder. Too bad we the people can't summon a hundred billion dollars and pay them to retire.
Maybe we should have a corporate government, 1 share=1 vote (The GOP will naturally have 51% or more of the shares, but hey, it's the idea that counts). Buy stock, eliminate national debt, and have a say in the government!
If money is the game, simply refuse to by any products (gas or otherwise) from this "outside" company. Make sure to research which American companies DON'T use "terrorist" country oils, there are a few, and f*$k the rest. Power is with the consumer. Buy smart and your, OUR country will profit. Good hunting!
Yeah, that's easy. I'll be sure to ask the next gas station attendent if he knows which country the gasoline came from (why not have one pump for gas from Saudi Arabia, one from Iraq ,etc. so we can "influence" the country).
Heck, I should check all the things I buy to see if it tells which port it arrived in. Hopefully instead of made in China, it will say "arrived in Baltimore."
Now that we have the idea of seriously impacting our country simply buy our purchases, I'll choose to support a power company that invests in alternative energy, oh wait… There's only one power company where I live. Two broadband internet providers, which both rip off the consumer. How about movies from studios that don't use DRM, too bad they all do.
Okay, sorry. I just mean as much as I like capitalism, we learned in the 1800s that pure, laissez-faire economics does not work for the country. Consumers can't realistically research every little product they buy, and even so, they often don't have much of a choice. CEOs have a duty to make money for the company and shareholders, not to serve the public. Corporations will not by themselves protect the environment or purchasers.
We need a government that stands up to greedy businesses. It's supposed to be by and for the people. Sadly, now adays the Bush administration is for the corporations and oil companies.Posted by: John at February 13, 2006 1:57 PM
"Why haven't we secured the Mexican border? Because Bush wants big businesses to save money with cheap labor."
Ahh sorry but no, you don't win a cookie.
This is an argument from someone who obviously has a bookshelf filled with conspiracy theories, and may wear a tin foil hat to keep the radio frequencies out.
It was Bush who refuses to shut down the Mexican border because of free labor, but it was Clinton who signed the NAFTA agreement. I'm sure it was Big Willy's intention to "lock down the Mexican border" as you say with a Free Trade Agreement.
It also must've been Bush that started this darn globalization trend in the world's economy. He probably was also single-handedly behind other countries reducing their boundaries to foreign direct investment.
Look, my point is that with so many things to attack Bush on, why would you choose such a foolish, generalized statement that is not true?
Lock down the Mexican border?? Do you know who many spanish-americans, mexican-americans, etc there are? Since when has this border EVER been completely locked down and how in the WORLD do you blame one person for that, regardless of who it is?
You can't restrict American companies to NOT using cheaper labor when their foreign competitors aren't restricted. Do I agree with it outsourcing?? No, and I'm sure many of us probably don't either, seeing as it could be us to have our jobs displaced.
However, as long as we want to be free to buy what we want from wherever we want, than those companies we work for and rely on need to be free to be as competitive as they can, especially in today's very competitive global economy.
I have a hangnail…Bush must be behind this…Posted by: OU812 at February 13, 2006 3:42 PM
It was Bush who refuses to shut down the Mexican border because of free labor
Posted by: OU812 at February 13, 2006 4:02 PM
Should've been cheap labor….sorry for the mistype.
I never said that Bush needs to "Lock Down" the Mexican Border, as you accuse. I did write that he needs to secure the border, when in fact I probably should have qualified that statement — he needs to do a better job attempting to secure the border, knowing that securing the entire border is a leviathian, and probably impossible, task. So on that part we agree.
Where we may disagree is in my contention that Bush isn't doing one damned thing to enforce the immigration laws we ALREADY have on the books, nor does he seem to care about the flood of illegals aliens (and perhaps worse) coming across our borders and burdneing the millions of taxpaying citizens who ARE here legally.
On a separate but related note, Ken Mehlman recently announced that he plans on painting the Dems as incapable of defending our country in order for the GOP to win Congressional setas in 2006. Can you in all seriousness defend Bush's blatant disregard of border security as a positive when it comes to national security?
Unlike you, I do not consider border security as trivial. The fact that you do speaks volumes for the hypocrisy of your party.Posted by: 0% APR at February 13, 2006 4:17 PM
Don't you know the first rule of conservatism? Reduce government. What is the best way to reduce government? Bring in the private sector. According to the Republican mantra, government can't do anything right and the private sector can't do anything wrong.
A good part of the military activity in Iraq has been taken over by private contractors. If we can do it there, why not in ports?
By the way, United Emirates are our buddies. Where would we be without them?
Is it really true you are tired of this Republican message? Join the Democrats and work to get rid of this government privatization, thereby making our country safer.Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 13, 2006 5:49 PM
Interesting reading, This is a conservative site …???
What happened to the… of the people, by the people government. Please lets all take responsibility, and lets start taking action IE Jim Gilchrest and the minutemen project. Get active and quit your sniveling. Ya all sound like victims. Stand up and act!
I can't believe you hate America so much that you would disagree with your Dear Leader Bush. Don't you know a Free Market is a good thing?Posted by: Aldous at February 13, 2006 7:19 PM
Actually, I don't remember stating my party which is obviously not the one which you think I'm a part of.
And I do not think that border security is trivial. One could say that the fact that you accuse me of saying things I did not say after I truthfully misqouted you is hypocritical, so please lets not cast stones.
And I also never defended Bush's enforcement(more like un-enforcement I agree on that point with you.) My point was that he is not the first to do so, and certainly not the worst. Immigration has always been a burden in this country, and at the same time it was what this country was founded on.
I apologize for misqouting you, but don't call me a hypocrite without looking in the mirror.
The borders can and should be secured.
It won't even be expensive.
It will use resources we already have.
It will eliminate numerous crimes.
It will relieve the burden on school, medical, welfare, law enforcement, prison, and insurance systems.
And the cost of cheap labor is not cheap. That is a myth
This should come as no suprise.
There is no homeland security.
It is all a scam to make your
tax money disapear. The color
code is a diversion tool. Note
how it climbs as polls lower.
There is no commen since left
in the Republican party. Liers
and crooks. How dare I say this?
Because no matter how loyal
a person is to a party the
time comes when one must look
at facts. The party is over now
all that is left is the mess.
The republican party has let
america become a bad joke.
They label anyone who questions
them a liberal evan turning
on members of there own party.
The fact that this kind of a
deal can be made with out a
great deal of fight is just
the kind of thing that proves
a drastic change is needed.
What a strange thread.
Starting with the horribly innacurate title "Selling our Ports," everybody starts free-associating about the evils of capitalism, immigration and border control.
Huh? Did anybody actually bother to look at this story before starting to ramble on about irrelevant issues?
What has happened here is that a British company which already has contracts to MANAGE these ports (and doesn't "own" them) is being bought out by a company based in the United Arab Emirates.
Now, I don't much like it either, but it's not as though these operations are suddenly being privatized as some are suggesting (they were already privatized).
It's definitely not as though the ports are being "sold."
And it's not as though the United Arab Emirates is being awarded these contracts by the Bush administration.
Once again: a British company who already has these contracts is being bought out. If this goes through, the same people who are managing the ports will still be managing it, just with a different home office.
The US government has no authority to stop the sale of this company. All they could do is cancel pre existing contracts.
I agree somewhat that this is a problem. From my point of view, I'd like to see the US cut off all trade relationships with a lot of middle eastern countries.
But without very good reasons to think that a particular company is untrustworthy, we can't just start banning business contacts in this country for no better reason than we don't trust Arabs.
If this company has a bad record or terrorist ties, then fine, let's keep them out. But if they don't, there's just no way to do it unless you want to ban all foreign investment in this country. And when that happens, believe me, plenty of others will do the same to us.
Posted by: sanger at February 13, 2006 9:59 PM
There are two MAJOR stumbling block in the use of the military to secure the border. Do I think that it's the right idea, yes!, but there is a problem. The national guard is controled by the individual governors and is NOT controlled directly by the President until it is called up by the governor of each state (thus the REAL problem with the Katrina fiasco—despite the horrible performance or FEMA and other government agencies due to red-tape problems). It is a HUGE state's rights issue. If the President called up the National Guard, the Supreme Court would HAVE to step in and tell him that he does not have the authority to do so. There is a hierarchy of the whole thing. The state official (governor) has to declare a state of emergency or a disaster area. Then it is up to the governor whether or not they want to call up the guard. Then they must petition the federal govt to be considered a federal disaster area. Then the guard can be controlled at the federal level.
Second problem with the military. If you use regular military as "border patrol" it would be considered "policing it's own citizens" aka martial law. That would also be struck down by the Supreme Court (even with Roberts and Alito). The precedence there is the review of what Lincoln did during the Civil War in DC.
I personally think that there should be something done with the whole situation. The governor of Arizona has declared a state of emergency, but has not called up the guard or applied for a federal disaster relief.
Can you imagine the PC police if we considered a human being (or a group of them) as a "disaster"?Posted by: Robert at February 13, 2006 10:03 PM
I support the Minute Man Project as long as they do it peacefully and do not come into contact with illegal aliens. That will lead to trouble that will hurt their cause. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Minute Men only calling the border patrol and reporting illegal trespassers. The danger of coming into contact with illegal aliens is that some Minute Men may get carried away, and harm the illegal trespassers, or vice-versa (i.e. some of the trespassers are drug runners, coyotes, armed, and dangerous). Legal force should remain with the legitamate law enforcement. The Minute Men need to remember that many (not all) of these trespassers are not evil people. The real evil is the greedy corporations that lure them here for sub-miniumn wage jobs, and the government that allows that, and refuse to enforce the existing laws that prohibit it. ____________________________________
…The Minuteman Project is not a call to arms, but a call to voices seeking a peaceful and respectable resolve to the chaotic neglect by members of our local, state and federal governments … more ……Historians will write about how a lax America let its unique and coveted form of government and society sink into a quagmire of mutual acrimony among the various sub-nations that will comprise the new self-destructing America.
The border states are being over-run.
We've even got illegal aliens voting in our elections. Securing the borders is not the monumental task that some want you to believe it is. It could easily be done with resources we already have, and a mere 1% of our current 2.6 million active military, guard, and reserves.
Many have proposed many doable plans. While government should enforce the law and punish greedy corporations luring (at great risk to many) illegal aliens to sub-minimum wage jobs, we still must secure our borders, or we will live to regret it. The next attacks may not come from hijacked airlines. They may walk right across the border, completely unobstructed. We have enemies, and they are not going to dissappear any time soon. Al-Qaeda has already been reported to have cross the U.S./Mexico borders.
Please, do not try to play the race card and turn this into a racist thing. I don't care where illegal aliens come from, what their race is, what nationality they are, or what color they are. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. No soveriegn nation allows illegal trespassers, and for very good reasons. We do not yet live in Utopia. We are not yet free to move about the planet without permission of the government of the various nations.Posted by: d.a.n at February 13, 2006 10:10 PM
Those are good points. Yes, sticky points, but points that can easily be worked out.
For example, we already have a coast guard.
And it may not be terribly important whether the border security is executed by state or national forces. The military is responsible for national security. States want the federal government to secure the borders. I see your points, but don't see them as big problems really. The real hurdle/problem is overcoming the greed that stops government from simply enforcing the existing laws.
Here's something I think could work out fairly well, uses technology, surveillance cameras, and reduces the total staffing required significantly.
It is doable. The technical, staffing, and resource requirements are not the problem. The problem is corrupt/do-nothing government.
Hence, we are now to the root problem and solution.
No reforms, including the border security problem, can ever be passed until voters do what they are supposed to do, and vote out (or) recall all irresponsible incumbents. That would be most (if not all). Incumbents won't allow any reforms to be passed. Newcomers are outnumbered by incumbents. Newcomers would like to pass many badly-needed, common-sense reforms, but incumbents pressure, tempt, threaten, shun, and isolate newcomers that don't accept the status quo. Government is FOR SALE, and rotten to the core. Newcomers need the voters help. Only the voters can now resolve the problem. And, they will some day. The only unknow is how:
(a) The peaceful, less painful way?
(b) Or, the hard, painful way (again)?
Dawn, good post. It's outrageous that they want to allow this to happen.
Here are a few more of the questions that Shumer is asking regarding the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami being taken over by the United Arab Emirates.
Honey P,
I understand your frustration.
Most of that is why I'm no longer a Republican.
But, I'm not fleeing to the Democratic party either.
But, parties are not the problem.
The problem is what makes up the parties.
They are people.
Politicians, and voters.
The incumbents are half the problem.
The other half are voters that tolerate it.
But, now, only the voters can change it, because incumbents will not reform themselves, and incumbents will not allow newcomers to congress to pass badly-needed, common-sense reforms either. No reforms are possible if they in any way reduce the incumbents' power or opportunities for self-gain.
Yes, Dawn,
Good article. It is a very important issue.
It is a national security issue.
What the hell good is Homeland Security?
Next thing ya know, they'll be running security at the airports too.
Should an Arab-American be allowed to work at an airport? Should one—gasp—be allowed to actually man a metal detector?
It's funny how liberals suddenly demand racial profiling of companies when they'd scream and yell if it was done to an individual.Posted by: sanger at February 13, 2006 11:13 PM
Sure, as long as that person is a citizen of the United States, and can pass a background check. It does not matter what ethnicity, race, color, gender, etc. that person is.
No foreigners (non U.S. citizens) should not be operating metal detectors in airports.Posted by: d.a.n at February 13, 2006 11:28 PM
D.A.N., then I have trouble understanding why you'd think a foreign company which has also cleared a background check should be singled out and have the contracts of its British subsidiaries cancelled just because their home office is in the United Arab Emerates.
The US government has nothing to do with DP World's intention to buy out and merge with the British Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co, and only has the option of cancelling their contracts to manage some operations at some of our ports.
Without solid reasons and a convincing explanation, cancelling such contracts will look like nothing more than racism and invite massive international retaliation.
Is this the kind of "better" diplomacy liberals are always talking about?
One thing I'd like to hear about, which nobody has bothered to mention, is what these port contracts actually entail.
What would DP World actually do? What added vulnerabilities, if any, might arise from an English company with an Arab home office being in charge?
So far, I've heard it suggested that they would "own the ports," but that is obviously false. And I know they're not in charge of security—that's the role of the Port Authority.
So what do they actually do? Xerox, mop floors, change the toilet paper rolls, fill out forms in triplicate? Anybody?
I guarantee you that not a single person here raising their routine fuss has any idea what DP World's responsbilities would actually be.
I'd like to hear and opionion from somebody who actually knows what they're talking about for a change, but I'm not holding my breath.Posted by: sanger at February 14, 2006 12:17 AM
The Gaurd can be called up by the President without the Governors approval. It's really under the Defense Department and is subject to being called up whenever the President fells it necessary.
Do you understand the republican neo-con party now??? Do you get it yet? Do you see the whorish nature of things?????
THEY DON'T CARE DAWN, THEY DON'T just like multinationals don't care and they will try to excuse it. This is a party that gets power to fluff up their own stock portfolio hun, that's it. How many of them own stock in this company now that they know they could attain US ports????? this is bad sh*t especially from a party that uses 9-11 at every turn. Go independent and take a stand against these people because The Republican Party won't, I assure you unless it comes from independent members of the republicans on the hill, that they keep calling R.I.N.O's. Those are the Patriots, the who aren't afraid to criticize definite troublespots especially with our own national security. Why would they allow the selling of our own national security???? That's near nihilism.
This is what we mean about bending over for corporations even when it doesn't meet with OUR AMERICAN best interests. As a Dem this has me livid and just more of an indication that even though a centrist I'm with the right party (even with my odds with some of the democratic leadership they do take responsibility).
This is unconscionable, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Something such as this should never be on the table knowing what we know now.Posted by: Translator at February 14, 2006 12:29 AM
What was it 15 of the 19 highjackers of 9-11 were Saudis?? This is a real red flag especially after the mohammad cartoon riots??? I hope history won't prove me right but if they are overseeing it and they are in with anti-American/anti-Israeli groups (very large ones at that backed by billions in oil revenues) this such a bad idea all of it. What if they decide to do these groups favors being that they do side with them? Where the hell is homeland security in all of this?!Posted by: Translator at February 14, 2006 12:42 AM
Just to let you know… to be Anti-Israel is not to be Anti-American. They are not equal in value or in politics.Posted by: Aldous at February 14, 2006 2:28 AM
Just to let you know… to be Anti-Israel is not to be Anti-American. They are not equal in value or in politics.
Good point. And to clarify, Anti-Israel is also not Anti-Jew. (As shown by the several Anti-Israel Jews that I know!) Too many people confuse that one, too.Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 14, 2006 7:50 AM
Its interesting to note that Chuck Shumer says "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties." I'd agree with him on this, but he seems to neglect the fact that the outsourcing he is concerned with has already happened.
The ports are already being outsourced. The only difference now is who they are being outsourced to. And of course that must be considered—-and your article mentions that it has, in fact, been considered.
"DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.
The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security."
Control over our ports is obviously an important component of national security. But your story provides weight to my theory that the "left's" scattershot approach hurts them. They try to bring huge levels of significance to issues that simply don't rise to those levels of significance. Look at the uproar from WB writers on this issue—and its obvious that most of them don't even know the details of the issue. Yet that hasn't stopped them from spouting uninformed opinions.
If the above mentioned committee has done its job properly, then there is no national security risk to this transaction. If they have not, then the relevant question is why not. End of story.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 14, 2006 8:25 AM
D.A.N., then I have trouble understanding why you'd think a foreign company which has also cleared a background check should be singled out and have the contracts of its British subsidiaries cancelled just because their home office is in the United Arab Emerates
I'm against ports being owned and security being operated by anyone but U.S. citizens. That's all. Everything else should be derived from that constraint.
Is this the kind of "better" diplomacy liberals are always talking about?sanger, I don't know. Ask them. I'm not a liberal and not big on labels, but the nearest description of me is probably a centrist with a libertarian leaning.
Without solid reasons and a convincing explanation, cancelling such contracts will look like nothing more than racism and invite massive international retaliation.Why try to play the race card? I never said any of this had anything to do with race. It doesn't. It is about national security. How can we secure our borders and ports if we sell them to non U.S. citizens ? And, if we are going to sell ports to non U.S. citizens and entities, there should still be security operated by U.S. citizens, so that there is accountability and no conflicts of interest.
sanger wrote: I'd like to hear an opinion from somebody who actually knows what they're talking about for a change, but I'm not holding my breath.Our humble apologies. Would you be so kind to please enlighten all of us? What is your esteemed opinion? Do you not see a security problem? Or, are you for wide-open borders (and ports)? Should we be selling ports-of-entry to foreigners? That's not to say foreigners can't own property within the U.S. But, there are some obvious security problems with turning over control and ownership of entry points (borders and ports) to foreign entities. I am for free trade and the least possible government regulation. But there are valid security concerns that Dawn and Schumer have pointed out. If we do sell ports, there should still be a way to ensure security. We will never be invulnerable, but we don't have to make it easy either. Selling our ports seems sort of like selling our Canada/U.S. border stations to Mexico, and our Mexico/U.S. border stations to Canada. If you are a proponent of wide-open borders, then I can understand such a stance against interferring with such port sales. Otherwise, there is a genuine security issue. Posted by: d.a.n at February 14, 2006 10:53 AM
The country of Somali is primarily Islamic. In Phoenix, at Sky Harbor Airport, 90% of the cab drivers are Somalis. How did this happen? There are several cab companies and yet this vast majority of drivers are Somali. There are a smidgen of Middle Eastern countries represented by the other drivers. Some will say they are only cab drivers. Where intel and security matters there is no difference in where the people are or what their position is, it presents a difficult position of security.Posted by: tomh at February 14, 2006 11:10 AM
I agree with your statement.
The problem is a combination
of the voters not demanding
more of incumbents. But then
I see yet anouther story on
a republican breaking anouther
law. The fact that our republican
created department of homeland
securety has not raised the
alert about such a take over.
Makes clear to me that they
use fear only when it serves them.
A working program is beyond there
grasp. It would not serve them
and might actually get in the way
of there ability to loot our nation.
the fact that diehard republicans
continue to defend this leval of corruption
and incompatance dumbfounds everyone
that takes this nation seriously
What sanger pointed out, and what you have yet to discuss, is that the ports in question are already outsourced. Your outrage should be directed there—not at the corporate buyout of the outsourcing company.
Focus on the real issue—not just the symptom, and I think you'll get more agreement. Discuss, for example, the problem you have with the British company currently contracted to do the outsourcing. Discuss what specifically is outsourced: Is the security of the ports outsourced, the material handling on the docks, the payroll system….etc. Many things can be outsourced without affecting national security. Do you know the details on this, or are you just having a knee jerk reaction to the story?Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 14, 2006 12:00 PM
You make a lot of really good points in this thread, and I agree (aieee) with 90% of what you say here. But your posts raised 2 questions in my mind:
1. You say that nothing will change from the shift in ownership. I'd point out that's not a given. It's entirely possible (is it probable? No idea.) that the new ownership could implement widespread changes in operations and personnel.
2. You say that this new company "already passed a government background check." Can you explain or provide more details/evidence?
Thanks, and good posts.Posted by: Arr-squared at February 14, 2006 1:04 PM
Your answer is below from an earlier post of mine—-i'll take the moment to answer for Sanger.
"DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.
The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security."
Fascinating. Many thanks.Posted by: Arr-squared at February 14, 2006 1:57 PM
If security is being outsourced anywhere at our ports and borders, it is news to me.
Federal law requires the Coast Guard to regulate cargo and passenger facilities. Port operators have to comply with lots of regulations and maritime procedures to facilitate security, but port operators should not be responsible for U.S. port security. The sad fact is that port security (despite the billions to research vulnerable ports) is insufficient to prevent WMD within a container from reaching a U.S. port. The only way to prevent that is to inspect containers before reaching port.
Still, I hate to see the U.S. selling our port operations. They are obviously important assets. But, more importantly, we are in a better position to retain 100% authority and ensure secure ports if we still own them 100%.
Consider this analogy. Land borders also have established points-of-entry, analogous to sea ports. Should we outsource the operation of those points-of-entry to foreign corporations (regardless of the country)? What does that do to the hierarchy of accountability? What conflicts of interest does it pose?
Honey P wrote: The fact that our republican created department of homeland securety has not raised the alert about such a take over. Makes clear to me that they use fear only when it serves them.
No doubt about it. Wire-tapping, and other such power grabs, but the refusal to address border and port security reveals their hypocrisy.
My point was, and still is, that the story is nothing new. The same level of outsourcing at the ports will exist under the new corporation as did under the old corporation. Yet the reaction to the story by WB writers is to suggest that we shouldn't outsource. Where were they when the outsourcing began? It's a bit silly to complain about something as if it were new, when its been happening for quite a while.
Also, you say that "port security is insufficient to prevent WMD within a container from reaching a U.S. port." If its insufficient, to what do you attribute the lack of WMD's reaching our ports, or do you assume that perhaps some WMD's have in fact reached our ports. If they have, then to what do you attribute the lack of attacks on American soil?
I'm not looking to disagree with you—-I'd like to see our ports secure. What I'm simply asking is this: If they are so unsecure, why do you think we have not yet had problems as a result?Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 14, 2006 2:58 PM
One other thing. I suspect the billions being spent to research sea port security is largely just more corporate welfare. Sea ports are still, now in 2006, very vulnerable. Sea port security is a complex problem, but neither sea port or border security seems very important to this government.Posted by: d.a.n at February 14, 2006 2:59 PM
But, we don't have to keep selling port operations. It's not too late to remedy the problem.
As for the British company, that's not the problem. Race, nationality, etc. are not the issues (not unless it was perhaps an Iranian or N. Korean corporation…that would definitely seem like a bad idea).
I don't think the lack of more attacks is a good indicator of sea port or border security, since we know they are not secure. A little more secure maybe? Slightly.
Why have there been no attacks thus far?
I don't know. You'd have to ask our enemies, because there isn't much stopping them. Perhaps they don't yet have the WMD they need. That's why they resorted to air liners and conventional bombs in 2001 and 1993? I wouldn't start celebrating yet. There is much work to do, and I don't think this government takes sea port or border security as seriously as their desire to wire-tap and argue its legality.
I'm not talking about you knuckle heads I mean terrorists.
Let me throw a scenario at you: Now let's say there was a comapany that made radiators out of the west bank that the Saudis supported and was funded by Hamas dollars which are Saudi dollars actually. Now they want to bring this stuff to market in the US. Saudis do them a favor in bringing the container over full of radiators for a fair price being that they side with them. Now there is little if any customs and people here in the US come and get that crate and hoist it onto the back of a truck with few checks. It goes back to a safehouse where the crate is opened and hidden inside the radiators are explosive devices and detonators.
That is a bad policy to sell these ports and that scenario was just as complex as 9-11 was.Posted by: Translator at February 14, 2006 11:40 PM
I'd agree that a lack of attacks does not mean we are secure. We thought we were secure before 9-11, but a fatal weakness was identified on that day.
I don't think you've addressed one of my questions, though. What areas of the ports are we outsourcing? I don't believe we have to have control over 100% of the port activities in order to maintain security. We should enforce the security of the ports, and make sure that any subcontractors follow the security guidelines.
As an example, consider subcontracting work at a sensitive facility in the United States. The work is task specific and has nothing to do with the operation of the plant—instead it has to do with building infrastructure. The sub is required to follow all plant safety procedures to the letter of the law. To suggest that the plant is less safe because they are outsourcing something would be wrong. To think that they could perform every duty in house, and maintain efficiency at the same time, is absurd. There are simply many things that they are not efficient at, so they outsource those things and focus on their mission critical issues.
As an example, lets say they outsource the payroll operation. There would be no inherent danger in that, and it would most likely be more efficient than hiring payroll specialists etc to do the work in house. Other similar examples might include vehicle maintenance, building maintenance, accounting, taxation, computer tech support etc.
d.a.n., we agree that our ports need to be secure. That there have been no attacks is an indicator that they might just be more secure than you give them credit for. But lets not overreact to this particular story, which has virtually nothing to do with your desire for safety at our ports. They are two different issues.Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 15, 2006 8:02 AM
MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!Wow can you really believe that the same govenrment that is so concerned about national security that it will wiretap its citizens phones secretely wouldn't be in an uproar over a company from a nation with terrorists ties can purchase 6 ports of entry to our country? What is next are we going to allow Bin Ladin to purchase property next to the white house, or maybe we will give the terrorists who keep making video taped messages the right to buy a broadcasting network…no I got an even better idea…sell the pentagon to SadaamPosted by: astounded at February 15, 2006 2:06 PM
joebagodonuts wrote: … which has virtually nothing to do with your desire for safety at our ports.Posted by: d.a.n at February 15, 2006 6:38 PM
No? I beg to differ. The first sentence of this article is:
How can this be?
How can it be OK to give control of our ports to a foreign company, let alone one in a nation with ties to 9/11?
So, I was commenting on that issue, which is about security.
OK. As you say, there are two issues:
(1) Security.
(2) Who is outsourcing Port Operation.joebagodonuts wrote: I don't think you've addressed one of my questions, though. What areas of the ports are we outsourcing? I don't believe we have to have control over 100% of the port activities in order to maintain security. We should enforce the security of the ports, and make sure that any subcontractors follow the security guidelines.
Yes, I beleive that was answered that above. Only operation of the ports is outsourced, not the security, because the Coast Guard, by law, has to do the security. But, port operators have to follow many rules to facilitate security.
I just think we lose some vital controls that do not enhance security, by selling the port operations, since port operations and security are not completely separable.
That's all.
As for who does the outsourcing if it is outsourced?
That doesn't matter, as long as they are deemed fit. But, my concern still is that you can never know that. A port operator, if they want, could undermine security.
NOW DO U BELIEVE ITPosted by: IRVING MANDEL at February 15, 2006 11:08 PM
Thanks everyone. (I, and the rest of my family, have been ill the past few days.)
To anyone who thought I have just 'woken up' to this I would like to say:
I have always been against selling U.S. assets to foreign companies. I never understood why a few dollars would make anyone sell out like that.
Is it the assumption that eventually an American citizen will buy it back?
Seems like everything we do in this country is based on:
'Who's child has to die at that dangerous intersection before they'll put in a stoplight?'
and of course… the almighty dollar.
My point is that to change these "little problems" we must change the Article II powers of the President, or have a law that changes the chain of command to allow guard to be placed at the border. Libs (especially now—and personally me as a conservative) would have a HISSY over that. I think that the founding fathers got it right so don't mess with it!
Ron Brown,
The President may ONLY call up the guard for FOREIGN action (ie Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan). To call them up for domestic uses they must be called up by the individual states. Otherwise, when Rhode Island needed National Guard troops they could call up California guard troops to help. Now they CAN be used with the "permission" of the governor, but they cannot be brought to the fore-front by the President. Makes you think about how much we really need for a "standing military" that was DESIMATED by the Clinton Administration and now is being "stream-lined" (more like down-sized) even more by Bush (something I'm not a fan of). Still a big problem in bureacracy (sp?)!
If you can prove me wrong in the constitution I invite being educated, but I have read it (quite a while ago) and that's what I remember.
Like it or not, I'm afraid that d.a.n. is right though, there will be a backlash if something is NOT done whatsoever, and it doesn't seem like it's going to happen in the next 10 years unless we're hit again…and again…and probably AGAIN. We, mostly libs (despite the way some conservatives CONSTANTLY trumpet it), have SHORT memories.Posted by: Robert at February 16, 2006 9:01 PM
Rep. Peter King(R-NY) has just let us know that he is very unhappy with this approved(doesn't take much for the committee to do this) deal to sell the ports to the company from UAE.
He said that even though the coast guard would be overseeing the main security of the ports of entry - the company would be given 'trade secrets' because they would need to know them to run their day to days.Posted by: dawn at February 17, 2006 7:32 AM
Its comforting to know that US ports of entry will soon be under the control of potential terrorists. Im sure Helen Thomas and others within her pinko kind will be quite ecstatic over this approval, which I am sad to say was made by a committee in a republican ran congress. Thats okay, maybe we'll get hit again. When we do, the nation will be up in arms for about a month. Afterwards, we'll all forget about it until we get hit AGAIN. Life is way to easy to live nowadays and that is why our nation is filled to the brim with nieve liberals with no long-term memories. A leftist is a terrorist's best friend.Posted by: Matt at February 17, 2006 11:32 AM
d.a.n My point is that to change these "little problems" we must change the Article II powers of the President, or have a law that changes the chain of command to allow guard to be placed at the border. Libs (especially now—and personally me as a conservative) would have a HISSY over that. I think that the founding fathers got it right so don't mess with it!
Good point. Perhaps expanding the Border Patrol, instead of using the military would be best. There has been some talk of doing that, to get around these complications. That would suffice. It's doubtful border states will mind that, since a majority of citizens want the borders secured. Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency, but the federal government still ignores the problem.
People that don't live along the borders may not really appreciate the negative impact. Some think it is good because it gives us cheaper products. It's not cheap. There is a very high cost . Not only money, but lives too.
Listen. The blame game is useless. It is a never-ending cycle with no results. To believe that one single president or person is responsible for the very large problems facing this nation is unrealistic and narrow-minded at best. TRY THIS…Go to your search engine, type in 'contact state representative', or something similar, and you will find a link to YOUR representative who would like to have your vote next time around, and voice your complaints there. THE SQUEEKIEST WHEEL GETS THE MOST OIL! It takes only moments and anything we can do to stop the treasonous sale of our ports, or control our borders is a very worth cause. While Bush is not perfect, I will certainly take him over people like Al Gore who would pass out vaseline while John Kerry or some idiot like him convinced us all to turn around and bend over!Posted by: Tia at February 17, 2006 2:55 PM
I find this action by our country truly disturbing. How can we as a country let this happen? We have arrived to a place in time, where we cater to our enemies in order not to offend anyone. We are so worried about offending other people, that we neglect to take the right course of action in preserving and protecting our citizens and country. I only hope that we as a nation will wake up and smell the coffee. So what if we offend others. So what if we tell them no you can't buy our ports. I mean we really shouldn't even deal with these other countries that support terrorism. Plus, look at our South American boarders. We have a huge problem right here at home. We say no big deal we can handle it. England thought the same thing and we all know what happened. They got beat by a bunch of farmers. We as a country should not get high minded. In the end we all put our pants on one leg at a time.Posted by: bill at February 18, 2006 1:19 PM
I was so shocked to hear about the U.S. selling our ports. Friday night was the 1st time for me to hear it. The news only had about a 15 second talk on it, I have not heard no more about it…The American people need to be informed. Who made this decicion??? Why were we (Americans) not warned about this? It really should not surprise me, who cares that we (Americans) are offended. It seems as though we offend many now days and our freedom is being taken away. Are we going to have to move out of our own country? Do you think we can go to these other countries and have them stop living their culture because it offends us…Speak up America or we will be no more..God Bless America!!Posted by: Tina at February 19, 2006 6:16 PM
I personaly think the selling or allowing the arabs to control our ports would be very huge mistake. Not to mention putting the American people at risk. I for one don't trust the arabs with our ports. And if they sell or allow them to control our ports whats next? I cant even believe that this is even being considered. I think the people should have a say in this by allowing the American public vote on it. This is our country and it will affect us all. My fear is that America being taken over by these arabs, and turning the US into an islamic country. If they allow this God help us all.Posted by: T.J. at February 21, 2006 2:24 AM
I am wondering how anyone could think that the selling of our ports is fine and dandy. How in the world could it be a good idea, to turn our ports over to an arab or any other islamic person.
I certainly pray that this does not happen.
Maybe it would be a good idea to just turn all of
our military installations over to them also…that would be a good way to down-size.
I am a Republican who voted for GWB twice and support him on many issues. However, he has been a disaster when it comes to defending our borders, and now we find out that he supports selling our ports to a company from the terrorist-enabling UAE. When I firdt heard this, I thought it was some kind of hoax. The Dems have already smelled blood on this issue and are trying to capitalize. We need to call, write, e-mail, and whatever else to our senators and congressmen not to mention GW himself and try to stop this before it starts. This is the most insanely idiotic thing I have seen from this administration, and it's a catastrophy waiting to happen.Posted by: Duano at February 21, 2006 7:52 PM
I am a registered Republican who voted for
Mr. Bush, and usually agree with most of his
policies, but this time I think he has gone
round the Bend !!!!!!!!!
I guess I will re register !
I, too, voted for President Bush twice and supported him on most issues. My family has been busy the past few days making our views known to the President, VP, Senators, and other congressman. We believe that selling our ports to foreign countries is the biggest mistake our government can make. Why don't we just open all the doors and let the enemy in??? We can't go to other countries and buy their ports or land. Anyone can buy our land and ports whether an American or not. What kind of legacy are we leaving our children and grandchildren. Wake up America and speak out!!!Posted by: maride at February 21, 2006 9:57 PM
Stupid is an understatement!
As a fundraiser for the GOP, I have heard the public outcry for and against pretty much everything the Bush Administration has or hasn't done. I have (out of necessity) learned to spin the failure to push social security, out of control spending, and the fact that little or nothing has been done about our borders. I'm not exactly sure WHAT the rationale is for this, and a large percentage of the people I talk to across the nation are equally perplexed. I'm starting to believe that our President is so disconnected from the pulse of America, and that he has sold not only himself to corporate America, but America in the process. God help us all.
The selling of America, and endorsed by "Our" President. I use the word "Our" lightly because I am not certain exactly whose interests he's working to protect.
I didn't vote for Bush but I usually back our leader no matter which party he represents as I assume he was voted in by a majority of the people and they can't all be wrong but I'm worried for my children, grand children and what kind of future they may be facing.
I am writing this as a result of the selling of Americas Ports to "any foreign interest", let alone a country with ties to 911. I'm appalled at even its consideration. What's next? How about we sell the Capitol and the Whitehouse and lease it back from….Osma??
We spend trillions on waste. We talk about building a wall between Mexico and the US, which makes sense, but no sense in light of the possibility of selling our ports!! Why? We might just as well end all attempts to secure this country.
America needs to stand up and protest the further selling of America before it's too late.
Thank you for your time, Danny W.Cook
I know I didn't vote for him. I say, you made your bed …. now sleep on the oily sheetsPosted by: Slim Whitey at February 22, 2006 12:14 PM
Well this proves the Europeans are right, Americans are a stupid lot of dolts that think they know it all but know nothing. Dolts only fall into your party line, jerks. there is a party line only for the Electorate only. Every President since Nixon and every Congress since has been for sale and it don't matter who the buyer is. It's pretty good odds that Clinton got paid $675,000 for the NAS in So.cal; and a good bet that Bush is promised up to a Billion for the ports,maybe more. Hey jerks, why was the planning so secret???? And this took a hell of a lot of planning Think, if you can. FredPosted by: F. William Keating at February 22, 2006 6:04 PM
Sanger, I think, mostly, you are right. The US is right now on very good terms with the U.A.E. and denying this 'sale' will only make us lose these terms, hense increasing the already overwhelming population that is angry at us. The approval should not have been so secret, but not allowing the trade because they are Arabs is just not right. It would be in fact easier for terrorists to just bribe one or two American workers, than create a massive web of employed terrorists into the company. No matter what country a person hails from, somewhere someone is willing to do a lot just for a cheap buck, and that is a sad fact. As long as the company had a good reputation, there is no reason that they are any less qualified than the British. Also, we should concentrate more on checking incoming shipments, and national defense like that, rather than racial prejudices.Posted by: sdd at February 22, 2006 8:53 PM
WELL….I GUESS GRANDPA WAS RIGHT, IF YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN YOU VOTE FOR THE BIG CORPORATIONS, IF YOU VOTE DEMOCRAT YOU VOTE FOR MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE….." NOT PERSONALITIES, NOT ABORTION, NOT SCHOOLS, NOT CHRISTIANITY, NOT WELFARE, ETC!!!" YOU ARE VOTING FOR HOW AMERICA DOES BUSINESS IN THE USA AND WITH THE USA…..WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!! SIGNED A "SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE" DEMOCRAT!!!!…REMEMBER KIDS….FRIENDS DONT LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN…..Posted by: lisa at February 23, 2006 2:39 AM
The fact that foreign nationals are operating our ports is a reflection of just how rotten the whole system has become. There is but one way to cure this and all the other problems in our government today. Simply go to the polls in November and vote against every incumbent, and in 2008 take out the rest of them. We have to eliminate at least 2/3 of the lobby existing on K street, and let all the politicians know that we will not t olerate this anymore.Posted by: Bill at February 26, 2006 8:43 PM
Ok, I admit that I am as gulible as the rest of the morons who voted for GB, but I can now say I am sorry and that I made a grave mistake. Now what to do? Can we somehow impeach the man? What about a vote of non confidance? We better do something quick before our country and our economy collapses.Posted by: Peter at March 5, 2006 2:27 PM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Luxembourg Garden
About sight / Luxembourg Garden / Paris / France / Europe
About sight: Luxembourg Garden
It is one of the busiest districts of the city because of a great number of youth and universities of Quartier Latin. You may long wander along the alleys of the district and then have a rest in Luxembourg Garden.
• Palais du Luxembourg. The palace was built for Marie de Medici, who desired to live in a building similar to her native Florentine palazzo. In 1612 she bought the palace of duke of Luxembourg with its fairly extensive domain and commissioned the new building in 1615, which is today called Luxembourg Palace. Also she directed to plant a garden which is now one of the best gardens of Paris. There are always many people, especially students of nearby Sorbonne, in the Luxembourg Garden. You must see the Medici Fountain there.
• L'église Saint-Sulpice & Fontaine des Quatre Parties du Mond. It is the second largest temple of Paris after the famous Notre Dame de Paris. The church was built by six architects for 134 years. That's why the project was repeatedly changed. As a result, there was built a church with antique facade and two towers. There is a very curious Fountain of the Four Part of the World near the church.
• Panthéon. Louis XV began to build the Church of St. Genevieve in 1744, but during the Revolution it became the Temple of Glory, designed for burials of great people. This huge Pantheon is 110 meters long and 83 meters high. There are burial vaults of such outstanding individuals as Rousseau, Hugo, Voltaire, Zola and many other people. And in 2002 Alexander Dumas the Senior was buried in the Pantheon.
• L'église Saint-Etienne-du-Mont. The temple is on the square near the Pantheon. The church has a unique mix of Gothic and Renaissance on its three frontons.
Thanks for adding of this publicaton to:
TOP - 3 Attractions Paris
TOP - 3 Sights France
URL Photo:
URL Gallery:
URL Place:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
"Twas the Night Before Christmas"
Christmas Eve this year was nothing extravagant, considering the fact that I was sick (all better now). I got to spend Christmas Eve with my boyfriend this year for the first time since we started dating and it was both exciting and relaxing. We just stayed in and watched Christmas movies all night and it was so much fun just spending time alone at the house. But, I did wake him up early to open presents:)
Sweater- New York&Co
Jeans- Express
Posted by Just Another Shopaholic at 10:03 PM
9 comments:
aw sounds like you guys had an awesome Christmas! great blog and happy new year <3ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 31, 2010 at 8:52 AM
thank lovely! beautiful tree and sweet you!ReplyDelete
all best wishes for the New Year in Greece!
sounds like a lovely evening! xoxReplyDelete
So fun!! I love the outfit too :)ReplyDelete
I love that sweater and your hair looks so cute!!ReplyDelete
Thanks for following us, we're going to follow you back!!
happy new year to u tiff!ReplyDelete
wish you the best for evrything hun :)
The tree looks super cute and you look super comfy! Nice blog hun :)ReplyDelete
Stay gorgeous!
Gorgeous! Happy holidays and a happy new year! xo style, she wroteReplyDelete
awe these pictures are darling.ReplyDelete
you look great!<3
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
A union for public transit workers is criticizing a House Republican plan to tie cut backs in mail delivery to transportation funding as "bad transportation policy."
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) International President Larry Hanley said Monday in a letter to House Speaker John BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerFormer Speaker Boehner's official portrait unveiled Key Republicans say Biden can break Washington gridlock From learning on his feet to policy director MORE (R-Ohio) that he was staunchly opposed to the GOP plan to take approximately $15 billion they say can be saved by eliminating Saturday letter deliveries to pay for transportation projects.
"On behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), the largest labor organization representing public transit workers in the United States, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the reported effort to shore up the Highway Trust Fund by making several changes to the United States Postal Service, including ending the six-day delivery mandate," Hanley wrote.
"Like the misguided effort to cut public transportation out of the Trust Fund two years ago, this idea is simply bad transportation policy that is certain to derail the House version of the surface transportation bill right from the start," he continued.
Lawmakers are trying to prevent a bankruptcy in the Department of Transportation's Highway Trust Fund that is projected to occur as early as August without congressional action.
The traditional funding source for transportation is money that is collected by the federal gas tax, which is currently priced at 18.4 cents-per-gallon. The gas tax only brings in about $34 billion per year however, while the federal government currently spends approximately $50 billion per year on transportation projects.
Republican leaders in the House have said their plan to take money from eliminating Saturday letter deliveries would provide enough funding to close the shortfall for at least one year.
Transportation and postal advocates have both slammed the Republican proposal as a short-sighted plan that would not solve the funding problems that are facing either area.
"This is no time for gimmicks," Hanley said in his letter to BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerFormer Speaker Boehner's official portrait unveiled Key Republicans say Biden can break Washington gridlock From learning on his feet to policy director MORE.
"Let's fill the gap in the Highway Trust Fund now with General Funds and then pass a fully funded, six-year surface transportation bill by advancing a revenue stream that makes sense," Hanley continued.
Democrats in the Senate have similarly objected to the House's plan. The primary author of the Senate's proposal for a new $265 billion transportation bill, Sen. Barbara BoxerBarbara Levy BoxerHillicon Valley: Ocasio-Cortez clashes with former Dem senator over gig worker bill | Software engineer indicted over Capital One breach | Lawmakers push Amazon to remove unsafe products Ocasio-Cortez blasts former Dem senator for helping Lyft fight gig worker bill Only four Dem senators have endorsed 2020 candidates MORE (D-Calif.), called the House plan "unworkable" when it was first announced.
Boxer has argued for a more permanent solution to the transportation funding problems, although the upper chamber has not yet identified how it intends to pay for its version of the bill beyond the money that is collected from the gas tax.
Hanley said his union is supporting a bill that has been introduced by House Democrats to nearly double the gas tax to 33 cents-per-gallon gradually.
"ATU supports H.R. 3636, the Update, Promote, and Develop America's Transportation Essentials Act of 2013, which would phase in a 15 cent/gallon tax increase over the next three years on gasoline and diesel," he wrote. "The gas tax, which has not been raised since 1992, is an admittedly flawed mechanism to generate transportation revenues. However, it remains the only tried and tested way to raise enough money to keep our highway and transit systems moving."


text:
Let's empty the stray thoughts from my head today, shall we? I want to say something quick about Madam Secretary, Charmed, and House of Cards. I'm not too happy about things in this episode of the brain dump. Continue reading "Brain Dump: Madam Secretary, Charmed, House of Cards"
Tag: Robin Wright
Watch This: Trailer for House of Cards, the final season
I confess, I stopped watching House of Cards when Trump was elected. It was all too much with a real-life horrible man in the White House and a character no better than him at the top of House of Cards. Continue reading "Watch This: Trailer for House of Cards, the final season"
10 Things I Loved About Wonder Woman
Perhaps you are aware that I loved Wonder Woman. Let talk about why. I have reasons. Continue reading "10 Things I Loved About Wonder Woman"
Watch This: Trailer for House of Cards season 5
House of Cards season 5 begins on Netflix on May 30. The creepy President Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) sounds even creepier in this trailer. Continue reading "Watch This: Trailer for House of Cards season 5"
Director Patty Jenkins Talks about Wonder Woman
Patty Jenkins directed Monster in 2003. A big hit. After that success, she should have gotten an opportunity to direct another top movie. Instead, she had a few gigs directing TV shows. She's a prime example of what's wrong with the sexist situation for women directors in Hollywood. Continue reading "Director Patty Jenkins Talks about Wonder Woman"
Trailers and News from Comic Con SDCC
There is so much news and hype coming out of the San Diego Comic Con. I'm not interested in most of it, but I'm very interested in some of it. Here are some of the things I'm watching happen in San Diego. Continue reading "Trailers and News from Comic Con SDCC"
Review: Empire Falls
The novel Empire Falls by Richard Russo is one of the best novels I've ever read. The book was rich, detailed, full of memorable characters and built to an exciting climax. Adapting that to a 2-part TV mini-series must have been a daunting project. Richard Russo wrote the screenplay himself. Continue reading "Review: Empire Falls"
Watch This: Trailer for House of Cards season 4
House of Cards season 4 comes down to Underwood vs. Underwood in this trailer. Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright are back as Frank and Claire Underwood in this political drama set in the world's most ruthless centers of power. Continue reading "Watch This: Trailer for House of Cards season 4"
Brain Dump: House of Cards, Empire, The Americans, The Fosters
It's a brain dump day. Just a little bit of one thing or another in disconnected ramblings.
House of Cards
When Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) finally has all the power in the world in his hands, he becomes a tyrant and a bigger ass than he ever was. And when Claire Underwood (Robin Wright) has a chance, she chooses to do the right thing. Unlike dear Frank.
House of Cards is more about the relationship between Frank and Claire than it is about political intrigue and power. Season 3 really brings that home, especially the final moments.
Favorite scenes: 1. When Claire shamed the Russian President on Russian TV. 2. When Frank caused Jesus to go all to pieces. 3. When Claire – aw, shucks, that's too big of a spoiler to share.
I'm surprised by how much I'm enjoying Empire. I know I'm a sucker for any show with music, but I thought this one would be different because I don't enjoy rap. I get tired of all those male voices in rap. But the music on this show is good, with only an occasional bit of rap and with plenty of women performers in the mix.
I'm also into the characters and the drama. Taraji P. Henson as Cookie Lyons and Terrance Howard as Lucious Lyons show off outstanding acting chops in every episode, with the rest of the cast doing just as well. I'm happy it keeps climbing in the ratings, because that means it will probably be back for another season.
The Americans
In The Americans, Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings (Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell) have agonized all season over when (or if) to explain to their oldest child Paige (Holly Taylor) that they are Russian spies. Phillip doesn't want to. Elizabeth wants to but can't bring herself to do it. It underscores everything that happens this season from what they do as spies to how they relate to each other and their daughter. It's fascinating to watch their lives and all their assumptions kind of unravel over this issue.
The Fosters
I think we need more geeky young women on TV as role models. Well, we got one. Cierra Ramirez as Mariana on The Fosters turns out to be quite the hacker. I love Mariana the geek! More geeky girls, please.
House of Cards: Trailers, Posters and Dates
The release date on Netflix for House of Cards is Friday, February 27. All 13 episodes of season 3 will be available then.
In season 3, Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is the President, Claire (Robin Wright) is First Lady. I forget the exact details of how Frank Underwood manipulated himself into the Presidency. I must go back and review season 2 before Feb. 27.
Most of the season was filmed in Maryland, but the finale was filmed in northern New Mexico in the Santa Fe and Las Vegas area. I'll definitely be on the lookout for places I recognize in the finale!
Netflix calls this preview a moving poster. It doesn't show much of anything except the Underwoods looking Presidential.
The official season 3 trailer is much more exciting – and drum laden.


text:
Flitwick Moor makes it into a top 20 Times list
Britain's 20 best nature reserves
In the Times Guide to the Wildlife Trusts' most beautiful reserves Flitwick Moor featured at no.11 and here is what was said about it.
11 Flitwick Moor, Bedfordshire
What to spot: frogs and toads
Peat built up over thousands of years along the River Flit under Flitwick Moor as reeds and sedges died and fell into the oxygen-starved mud. Today the area is conserved, and is a beautiful mixture of fen, meadow and wet woodland, with acid-water springs and boggy mires. Look through the tall reeds that fringe the open water at this time of year and you'll find frogs and toads. Common frogs vary enormously in colour — from green to brown, red or yellow. They have smooth skin and their jelly-like spawn is laid in clumps. Common toads have olive-brown rough skin and tend to walk rather than hop. They lay their eggs in long strings of spawn that are wrapped round aquatic plants.


text:
Since Homeschool Heart is participating in its first ever "blog party" we are meeting all sorts of great moms and visiting all sorts of neat sites. This week we'll highlight a few of the blogs we've visited that we think are particularly cute or original. To submit a suggestion, email us at theresathomaseverydaycatholic at gmail dot com.
Blog: In the Kitchen With Audrey
What It's About: Audrey's mom offers recipes and ideas for cooking with a toddler. Pics included.
What's Unique: Audrey's mom makes recommendations for special tools to make cooking with toddlers easier, safer and fun. Her recipes are kid-friendly. Her daughter helps with everything and is off the scale on CUTENESS!
The girls are always looking for new recipes to test.
Visit Audrey and her mom HERE.


text:
Interview with Andrew Cummings, LGBT rights supporter.
Here at The Antipodean Adrift, we're celebrating the arrival of the 2014 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras season! Today's featured interview spotlights Andrew Cummings, who was the Executive Director of the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition and an outspoken champion of LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer) rights. In our interview for The […]Read Post ›


text:
Born in the 60s, i grew up with variety of musical styles. This always influenced my music. Handmade, Acoustic, Rock, Blues, Folk and New Age.
Playing in various bands i was changed insofar as i now produce my own musik, play the instruments and record all sounds. I love to experiment, to fit into any category.
Because, i set up my own Label, in this way i am able to publish my own ideas to my music.
When I'm in the mood, i play, what i feel. To make a komplete project, that was a challenge for me.
So, when i have the time, i take my Camera and take some pictures, play my guitars or keyboard, and when i discover some good samples, i experiment with it.
On this website, i present you the results.
You can visit me also on Facebook, ReverbNation, on my MixCloud's, Soundcloud, and if you like to listen all the music i love and like, than listen to my lastFM-Radio-Station - links here on my website !
It all starts in the beginning 80s
(pict. from the first open-air concert with Band, 08/1980)
Welcome to my Sound-Projects.
Sounds in different styles & genres.
Discover and enjoy.


text:
Foundation piecing is the primary method we use to develop our patchwork in the hoop blocks. It is a great method for piecing intricate blocks where the number of pieces could result in inaccurate measurements.
When I think of foundation, I think of the first step in creating a building. Much the same way, foundation piecing is the first step in piecing a patchwork block using this method. It is like a blueprint for a patchwork block.
One can use a standard piece of paper, draw your block on it, and get going. There are also a few block patterns printed on stabilizer like fabric available in strips for purchasing from some quilt stores.
The pattern of the block is printed on paper/fabric, and then you stitch over the lines to attach your fabric. The paper gets ripped out after you have finished stitching your blocks together.
Getting started
To start, you will need a foundation pattern. If you want to follow along with our tutorial, you can print the log cabin we are using from here.
Print the template, and cut the pattern out using the seam allowance line as your guide.
With the log cabin, you can measure the width of the strips you require and add a bit for the seams. Other blocks won't be as simple, but this will be a good learning method.


text:
Love comfortable and the fit!
OMG Everyone needs a pair of these in their life ! They are super soft stretchy, very comfortable. I absolutely love the distressed look .They are excellent quality and extremely affordable 😀. This is one happy customer 😀
These are so slimming and comfortable.
Customer Reviews
These fit true to size and the ruffle hem is so cute! I am in love with the L& B brand of jeans. So happy Rosie Grace Boutique has introduced this brand to me.
These jeans are everything!! They are comfy, stretchy, flattering, and the ruffle at the bottom gives them that little something extra. I'm in love with them!!
Totally Love the the high wasted jeans I purchased super customer service as well!
Customer Reviews
The most comfortable leggings,want in all colors,fit is perfect
They are very comfortable and soft!
I love the fit and stretch of these so much I went back for all the colors.
These leggings are so comfortable and stretchy❤ Great to wear with a dress and boots, or a tunic.
Customer Reviews
These thigh high legging are so cute, great quality and comfortable. Love them
Perfect fit! Stay in place. Love the pockets and yoga waistband!
Customer Reviews
What can I say these are amazingly comfortable and stretchy and I got a ton of compliments when I wear them. I was so excited to get them and I am super happy that I did!
I received my moto jeggings in a timely matter and when I put them on I fell in love and can't wait to get more.I sized up as suggested and I was worried but there was no need to they fit perfectly


text:
So about a month or so ago I had the opportunity to meet with Stephanie Morin about a photography assistant position! She takes the most precious and beautiful pictures of newborns! (Aren't they adorable!) So not only does she get to work as a photographer, but she gets to work with little babies who are only a few days old! You can't get any better than that! I haven't been able to help her out just yet, but fingers crossed a mom-to-be will be due soon so she can show me the ropes. I wanted to give her a shout out on my blog to help get her name out there, since she's still trying to build her porfolio; she's having some great deals right now too!
Stephanie Morin Photography: Hi everyone! I'm in need of 1-2 newborn models due within the next few weeks! The sessions will be free of charge and held in my home. I need to show my new assistant the ropes before a twins session coming up next month 🙂 5 free digital files for web-sharing to those who participate! Spread the word and give me a call if you're due soon! 207.651.6971 Thanks!♥
So I only know of one mom that's ready to pop (but not until after I throw her the most wonderful baby shower!) but if you know of anyone in Southern Maine that has a new one on the way, they should check out Stephanie's website!! What better way of documenting such a wonderful time in your life, but with photographs of your new family!


text:
Thousands of marketplace sellers are now in an uproar after Amazon announced its newest returns policy.
According to the email sent by the company to its sellers, beginning October 2, every item that is on sale will be "automatically authorized" for return. So basically, sellers are now forced to refund any return request without having the opportunity to communicate with the customer.
1. You are required to have a return address on file. If you have not specified a return address by October 2, your business address will be used as the return address.
2. You are required to issue a refund within two business days of receipt of a return. If you do not take action regarding the refund request, Amazon may refund the customer on your behalf and charge the amount to your seller account.
3. You might be responsible for the cost of return shipping in accordance with Amazon's policies.
On top of that, Amazon also introduced the "returnless refund," a feature that enables sellers to offer refunds without taking back the item.
"We are also introducing 'returnless refunds,' a feature that is highly requested by sellers. If you so choose, you will now be able to set rules and automatically issue a refund without requiring an item to be shipped back to you. Sellers have requested this because, in many cases, it allows you to save on both return shipping and processing costs."
Sure, Jeff Bezos is looking out for its customers. But how about its third-party sellers? Well, the email actually says that these changes will "reduce the effort required to manage returns and decrease customer Return Dissatisfaction Rate (RDR), thereby improving ratings."
Not sure about that though. The New Amazon Return System thread on the site's seller forums is now blowing up with comments from angry sellers.
"It proves that Amazon has no clue what the business issues are. Probably are result of the work of the same idiot who created the Return Dissatisfaction Rate (RDR) which provides better ratings for sellers with lots of returns than sellers who sell good products on well written catalog pages and provide excellent customer service, so they get few returns."
"And Amazon is going to assume that a buyer would NEVER lie about the reason for the return so they don't have to pay for it."
"Wonder what the appeal process is on bogus return claims just so the buyer wouldn't have to pay the return shipping? Or will a buyer saying "defective, doesn't work" become the new norm when requesting a return?"
Amazon has been a place for entrepreneurs to sell and reach more customers since 2000. According to the site, "more than 40% of Amazon's total unit sales come from third-party selection."
But with all these new changes that come at the expense of third-party merchants, I'm pretty sure that most of them are now wondering if Amazon is still the best place for them to build their businesses.


text:
Courtroom Testimony for Expert Witnesses Course
Who Should Attend?
This three-day course is specifically designed for experts (and experts in training) in ANY area of expertise. Specific examples and moot court practice will focus on the areas of expertise represented by course participants.
An expert witness is a person with expertise in a particular field that exceeds the knowledge level of the trier of fact and who applies that expertise in a legal setting. Becoming an expert witness in any field is a significant accomplishment. It means that through your education, training and experience you have gained knowledge in a particular field of endeavor that is superior to that of the trier of fact.
From both a criminal and civil trial perspective, it is essential that a forensic expert be able to communicate that vital information in an effective and compelling manner so as to maximize its value. The ability to do that is rarely innate and is something that can be learned and practiced. This course is designed to teach experts how to become effective expert witnesses.
This highly rated course is dynamic and combines lectures, demonstration and moot court practice.
Since 2006, this course has been presented at various locations in Canada and the United States for federal and state investigative agencies, forensic laboratories, provincial regulatory agencies, provincial and municipal police services and other professional groups.
This course fulfills the 24 hour Courtroom Training requirement for the Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) Forensic Video Analyst Certification Program.
This course will provide participants with a substantial amount of useful and practical information. Topics covered include the following:
- Preparation for courtroom testimony
- Drafting expert reports
- Format
- Content areas
- Wording of opinions
- The role of the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge and jury
- Trial procedure
- Becoming qualified as an expert witness for the first time
- Expert witeness bias
- Drafting curriculum vitaes
- The role of the expert witness
- Strategies for effective direct examination
- Essential communication skills needed when presenting evidence to juries and judges (many areas are covered under this topic)
- Visual, mutli-modal presentation of evidence
- Strategies for successfully handling cross examination
- Changing opinions
- Daubert and Frye hearings
- The role of the expert witness when there is an opposing expert
- Moot court practice
The instructor for this course is Jonathan W. Hak, Q.C. He has over 30 years' experience as a major crimes prosecutor for the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service in Calgary, Alberta. He has extensive experience prosecuting major crimes and specializes in legal issues involving expert witnesses and teaching law in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom. He holds a Diploma in Criminal Justice from Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta; a Bachelor of Science Degree (with distinction) in Criminal Justice from California State University; a Bachelor of Laws Degree from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, B.C.; and a Master of Laws Degree from Cambridge University in England. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 2006.
Who Can Apply?
Employees of any international, federal, state/provincial, or local public safety agency including the Dept. of Defense and Dept. of Homeland Security, may apply. Private industry applicants are also welcome to apply, space permitting.
- $750 per attendee.
Unless otherwise arranged with LEVA, students accepted to attend must pay the course fee by April 15, 2019. Payment options are check, credit card (Visa, Mastercard and American Express only), PO and wire transfer. Detailed payment instructions will be provided after you are notified your application has been accepted.
LEVA will issue a certificate to each student who passes the course.
Ground Transportation / Accommodations:
Students are responsible for acquiring accommodations, ground transport from the airport to the hotel and training venue and return to the airport.
Air Travel:
For those traveling by air, the closest major airport is John Glenn Columbus International Airport (CMH).
The course will end by 4:30 P.M. on that Friday. Travel time from training site to airport is 20-30 minutes.
Recommended Lodging:
All include complimentary breakfast, WiFi and parking.
Holiday Inn Express & Suites Columbus East - Reynoldsburg
2806 Taylor Road Ext , Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068
Five-minute drive to/from training location.
Fairfield Inn and Suites Columbus East
2826 Taylor Road Ext, Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068
Five-minute drive to/from training location.
Comfort Inn
1800 Hill Road North, Pickerington, OH, 43147
Ten-minute drive to/from training location.
Best Western – Columbus East
1899 Winderly Ln, Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Ten-minute drive to/from training location.
None provided. Lunch available in the academy cafeteria (cash or credit card).
Register on-line by April 1, 2019. A response will be e-mailed out within 24 hours.
With the exception of war, government regulation, disaster, strikes or exigent circumstances, no refunds of tuition should be expected. However, in exigent circumstances, a refund may be applied minus a $25 service fee.
Essential Disclaimer:
Graduates of the course receive a LEVA certificate indicating successful completion of the 24-hour curriculum. That certificate should NOT be interpreted as a certification of any type. The disclaimer and student's signature on the course application further indicate they fully understand they are not receiving any certification from this course and must refer to this training as LEVA's on their resume, CV or any discoverable document.
Additional Information:
Event Properties
|Event Date
|05-01-2019 8:00 am
|Event End Date
|05-03-2019 5:00 pm
|Cut off date
|Number Hours
|The State of Ohio Division of State Fire Marshal


text:
Select a Topic
- Get an Annulment in Illinois
- Who gets Child Custody
- Grandparents Visitation Rights
- Grounds for Divorce
- Marital Separation
- Mediation to settle Disputes
- Modify Court Orders
- Parenting Classes
- Parenting Plans mandatory
- Property divided by Divorce
- Relocating your child out of state
- Maintenance (formerly Alimony)
- Visitation with non-custodial
- Child Support - who pays
- Illinois Divorce Forms
A marriage annulment is a judicial ruling (nullity) that the marriage never existed. Getting an marriage annulment (also known as a marital annulment) is considerably more difficult to have ruled than a divorce because one must prove grounds for annulment and in most cases present proof and witnesses. All issues surrounding child and spousal support, property settlement and parenting must be resolved and be included in the agreement. Grounds for an annulment accepted in Illinois include:
- One person can not have more than one spouse
- Same-sex marriages are prohibited
- Consanguinity is also a lawful Illinois annulment ground (marrying a close relative: father, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt), or
- Marriages of children who are under 17 years of a age without the consent of parents
[Based on Illinois Code Sections 5/212, 5/301, 5/302, 5/303]
Share this page with friends on social media


text:
Nashville North Studios
ART Gallery and
Music Production Studio
Do you have...
...what it takes?
Submit your words and/or music and receive a response from me!
Nashville North Studios
or email@example.com
Beginning in February 2019, we will launch our 4th year of "4th Friday Art and Music Receptions" featuring regional artists and musicians. Our art exhibitions include a group show, a solo exhibit, featured artists and works by American Nature Painter Judith Maddox Saylor, all of which are available to enjoy and acquire. Along with the art, we will immerse you in real live original music written by regional artists and maybe even ones that have recorded in our NNS Recording Studio. Have you heard the new "Lucy the Elephant" Song by Dan Walsh?? It is a must and will really make you happy!
Our schedule is filled to the brim for 2019. Here are some of the highlights... with the solo and group exhibitions changing monthly. We begin on February 22 "All You Need is Love" and the solo exhibition, "Retrospective: Nancy Palermo", Music by Neil Miranda; March 22 "Thaw/Bloom" and Solo Exhibit "Shattered", Music by Norman Spurgeon & Bob Naumchik; April 26 "Pop Art - Warhol to Banksy", Solo Exhibit by Jill Cucci Smith, Music by Toni Teschner; May 24 " Songs of the Sky", Solo Exhibit by Tony Troy, Music by Tony Troy; June 28 "Island Life", Solo Exhibit Margaret Leslie, Music by Dan Walsh; July 26 Animal Kingdom (with a highlight on Beacon Animal Rescue) and solo exhibit of Cheryl Knowles Harrigan, Music by Jeff Toth; August 23 "Inspired by Frida Kahlo", Music by Kenn Dorn & Lou Guinta; September 27 "Paris Affair" with solo by Kathleen Arleth, Music by Tony DeLuca; October 25th "Hocus Focus", Solo Exhibit by Bob Boyd, Music by Jeff Caraway; November 22 "Big Chill", Solo Exhibit Renee Leopardi, Music by Neil Miranda; and our annual holiday party on December 20 with Open Mic hosted by Tin Faherty.
We have made some additional changes in the studio setup. Jim's Production Studio is now in a updated space as is the Vocal Room. Additionally, in the Vocal Room will be a continuation of "Retrospective-Nancy Palermo".
We have mixed
Grammy Award Winner Gretchen Wilson's GAC Special.Grammy Award Winner
Linda Davis
recorded her album
"I Have Arrived" in our studios!
From this studio also came a #1 Billboard Single from
Country Super Star, Reba McEntire, as well as a 10 million seller by Grammy Award Winner
LeAnn Rimes and countless others!
Nashville North Studios, Home of NNS Records...
Headquartered in Linwood, New Jersey with our Affiliate Studio in
Nashville, Tennessee.
"Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents."
- Ludwig van Beethoven
All work on this site is protected by Copywrite Law. Nothing may be reproduced without written permission from Nashville North Studios and NNS Records.
Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®


text:
Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History, New York: Penguin, 1997, 768 pages.
Perhaps no single person has had as lasting an impact on the collective American perception of the Vietnam War as Stanley Karnow. As a correspondent on the ground in Vietnam for such publications as Time, Life, the Washington Post, and the Saturday Evening Post, he shaped the perception of the war as it was being fought. After the war, as chief correspondent for the early eighties WGBH television series "Vietnam: A Television History" (later repackaged as a PBS American Experience series) he compiled the collection of images that has become America's visual understanding of the war. His written companion to this television series was Vietnam: A History. With well over a million copies in print, it is the most pervasive, if not the most comprehensive, history of the war. The first third of the book recounts the French experience in Vietnam, beginning with first colonization and ending with the Paris Accords that finally brought France's exit from the country. The rest of the book is dedicated to America's involvement in the conflict, culminating in the evacuation of the US embassy and the North's conquest of South Vietnam.
On one level, Karnow has done a much better job than many other journalists-turned-historians in detaching himself emotionally from the conflict. He has avoided many of the heavy-handed caricatures of the American leaders who prosecuted the war found in other Vietnam histories. But on another level, the book is firmly grounded in his personal perception of the war as a journalist. He often cited his own conversations with players in Vietnam at the time to illustrate his points. Furthermore, from places where the narrative dwells, one can clearly identify among his sources, even when unnamed, men such as Lt.Col. John Paul Vann, with whom he had extensive interaction during the war. Still, Karnow did do a good job of reexamining several common misconceptions that had emerged by the early 1980s about the conflict. For instance, he admitted that the Phoenix program--a CIA program to infiltrate and eradicate the Vietcong "shadow government" in rural South Vietnam--was much more effective than he acknowledged at the time (p. 617).
Like other journalists chronicling the war, Karnow included little analysis of the Vetnamese perspective on the conflict. Vietnamese perspectives come only in retrospective quotations from North Vietnamese leaders, clouded by years of historical revision by the communist government that now rules Vietnam. Karnow's Vietnam also suffers for its breadth. Faced with the daunting task of covering nearly two centuries of history in just under 800 pages, Karnow could not linger on any single topic. Events where he did linger were chosen arbitrarily based on interesting anecdotes he could impart, rather than on their significance. Most fundamentally, however, Karnow had no argument to make. He simply retold the story of Vietnam. As a result, Karnow's Vietnam: A History ends up being less a history than a chronology.


text:
5{76d07640ff49f157108c7bbeedfd643cc5b51c6d49098292127af1029d0c1b2a} low price on dwelling enchancment initiatives for Army and First Responders. You might acquire worthwhile publicity to all elements of life inside a slicing-edge fitness heart, spending time across various departments along with hiring, membership gross sales, facility operations, service, non-public teaching and promoting and public relations.
3. Gender and shopper resolution-styles. Online purchasing has turn out to be a serious disruptor in the retail industry. A few of the most branded corporations, whose timepieces are offered by Snapdeal embody Rolex, Mont Blanc, Seiko , Victorinox, Roberto Cavalli, and Emporio Armani among others.
The first digital mechanical pocket watches appeared in the late 19th century. We've the best house enchancment tasks, expert suggestion, and DIY dwelling improvement ideas in your residence. Women pondering available in the market only for procuring. Particularly, it goals to discover the relationship between two sorts of innovativeness – sensory and cognitive – and consumer shopping types.
Hold track of the time in model any more. Offering each a style statement and a practical purpose, a watch is likely one of the most important equipment of all. One thing we all know, is all shopping types love bargains. For mechanical watches, numerous additional features called " issues ", equivalent to moon-part shows and the various kinds of tourbillon , are typically included.
McLeod Effectively being is dedicated to serving to you acquire a healthful lifestyle and enhance your basic health. Moreover, some modern smartwatches even incorporate calculators , GPS 6 and Bluetooth expertise or have coronary heart-charge monitoring capabilities, and some of them use radio clock technology to repeatedly appropriate the time.
Wedding Costume Shopping
When it comes without cost, seize it and make the most out of it. Much like your free glycemic index – a free frequently guide to healthy consuming and fabulous physique. With over one hundred fifty new merchandise launching each week, supplies you with an exciting assortment to choose from each time you log in. can be the one Indian online buying web site to collaborate on exclusive capsule collections with properly-identified names in world style.
A chronograph is a watch with an added period timer, typically a stopwatch complication (as defined above), while a chronometer watch is a timepiece that has met an trade standard take a look at for efficiency underneath pre-defined conditions: a chronometer is a top quality mechanical or a thermo-compensated movement that has been examined and certified to function within a certain normal of accuracy by the COSC (Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres).
Besides water resistance requirements to a minimal of 100 metre depth score ISO 6425 additionally gives eight minimal necessities for mechanical diver's watches for scuba diving (quartz and digital watches have barely differing readability necessities).
Choose from a variety of smartwatches, sports activities watches, chronograph, analogue and digital watches or shop by material corresponding to leather-based, stainless steel and more. Add one in every of our women' watches to your wardrobe, and you will be bringing a classy and effortlessly cool timepiece into your collection.
In addition, it also makes a brand new contribution to the procuring types literature by exploring potential antecedents to the varied procuring kinds. All you need are just a few items of exercise gear arrange in your individual house health membership. The company has been discovered to be successful within the promoting of the timepieces to the shoppers online.
Information & Fashion & Obtain 106
When it comes totally free, seize it and make the most out of it. Identical to your free glycemic index – a free on a regular basis information to healthy consuming and fabulous physique. House enchancment loans of £7,500 or more will be repaid over 1-10 years. All brand new and of high quality, our watches are precisely the same as those you find in retailers, simply with a better price ticket. A self-winding or computerized watch is one that rewinds the mainspring of a mechanical motion by the natural motions of the wearer's physique.
Having a home health membership stocked with well being gear is the most effective area to work out in. Because your exercise instruments is appropriate inside your individual residence, you in no way have to stress about dangerous climate or lineups for machines at the fitness center.
Many individuals really feel that women at all times get extra energy in buying than males. Korgaonkar, Pradeep K. (1981), "Shopping Orientation of Catalog Showroom Patrons," Journal of Retailing, fifty seven, 78-89. For those who've ever taken an individual in your life round the retailers, and despaired at their, 'get in, get out' style of buying, then you definitely've skilled the Driver.
The Instrument Time theme music, an early 1960s-fashion saxophone-dominated instrumental rock tune, was generally used because the closing theme music for House Enchancment, notably when behind the credit have been running the blooper scenes that happened all through the taping of a Instrument Time phase.
Fitness is a lifestyle for us, and we're committed to developing custom objectives and programs to move your health ahead. Self-winding watches normally may also be wound manually to maintain them working when not worn or if the wearer's wrist motions are inadequate to keep the watch wound.