text:
The Trial of German Major War Criminals
Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
23rd March to 3rd April, 1946
Ninety-First Day: Tuesday, 26th March, 1946
(Part 5 of 7)
[Page 74]
THE PRESIDENT: You are reading from the document, are you not, Dr. Horn? You began to tell us something about Hitler.
DR. HORN: Yes, I interrupted at the phrase "as bound by this pact which has been rendered void," in order to bring in the role of Ribbentrop briefly. On the basis of this pact and of the intentions of the French General Staff, Hitler then had the defendant von Ribbentrop ...
THE PRESIDENT: We shall hear that from von Ribbentrop, shall we not?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, we are permitted to add a few connecting words to the documents. I can now explain ...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Pokrovsky.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: As far as I can understand, the Tribunal has already explained to the defence counsel, Dr. Horn, that the defence has already submitted documents. Although Dr. Horn does not consider it necessary to state when he deviates from the documents and when he quotes from them, I have had the opportunity of noting that in the document he has just quoted, numbered
"Ribbentrop-1 " there is a complete absence of any reference to the plans of the French General Staff. Among the documents in the Document Book submitted by Ribbentrop's defence counsel I could not find any copies of the plans of the French General Staff. It is therefore quite incomprehensible to me how Dr. Horn happens to be informed in connection with the plans of the French General Staff, and on what grounds he refers to these plans in Ribbentrop's case, since they appear to be completely absent among the documents to which he refers?
DR. HORN: Mr. President ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, what you appeared to the Tribunal to be doing then was not anything explanatory of the document, but telling us what Hitler did and what the defendant Ribbentrop did in consequence of what Hitler did. That is not in evidence. You cannot tell us what is not in evidence. You can only give us explanatory remarks to make the document itself intelligible.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, the defendant von Ribbentrop is accused on account of the administering of the entire foreign policy. The prosecution has presented the foreign political activity as they see it and we have been permitted, not to give a speech but, in connection with the documents submitted, to present our opposing view, as the defence see it. In order to do that, I must refer to certain facts, documents and quotations. I can never give a complete picture if I may just submit a document without giving a large frame to this matter, a certain development in the entire policy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Horn, the Tribunal is not expecting you to give a complete picture at this stage. All you are doing at the present moment is introducing the evidence. You are going to give the complete picture when you make your final speech. It is intelligible, this document. It is a document which is well known; it is perfectly intelligible without telling us what Hitler or what the defendant Ribbentrop did.
DR. HORN: Regarding these questions raised by the Russian Prosecutor, I have already asked for the defendant von Neurath as a witness. I can interrogate him on this point only after the defendant von Neurath is in the witness box. But I can still refer now to these facts that are counter- evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: But, you see, that would be his function. If you are going to tell us what you think the defendant von Neurath is going to say in answer to questions which you put to him, that would be making an opening statement. Well, that has not been provided for by the Charter. We must wait until you call von Neurath or until you question von Neurath.
DR. HORN: Then I will read from this document just mentioned, Ribbentrop Exhibit 1, on page ten of the document book:
"The German Government is now forced to face the new situation created by this alliance, a situation which is made more critical by the fact that the Franco-Soviet pact has found its supplement in a pact of exactly parallel nature, between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. In the interest of the elementary right of a nation to safeguard its borders and to guarantee its defensive capacities, the German Government has therefore re-established the full and unrestricted sovereignty of the Reich in the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland, effective today."
I ask the Tribunal to accept the entire document as evidence. Through this step of the German Government certain articles of the Treaty of Versailles which were concerned with the demilitarisation of the Rhineland zone, had become obsolete. Since this morning, by decision of the Tribunal, the taking of a position on the Versailles Treaty is not permitted, I will omit the corresponding material from the document book of the defendant von Ribbentrop, and turn now to the document Ribbentrop Exhibit 8, which is on page twenty-one of the document book.
May I put another question first, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. HORN: Is it permitted to submit the official documents oh the Treaty of Versailles that were exchanged between governments before the conclusion of the Treaty? These are purely government documents and not any arguments on the Treaty itself. May these documents be submitted after the decision today of the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: Which are they, the one on page twenty-one?
DR. HORN: This is in regard to the Ribbentrop Exhibit 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that?
DR. HORN: It is on page fourteen of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal would like to know what issue in this trial this document is relevant to.
DR. HORN: I wanted to explain with it the German opinion of the Treaty of Versailles. Ribbentrop Exhibit 2 deals with the note of Germany to the United States that contains the offer for an armistice and conclusion of peace. And I wanted further to show in the next note again that this offer was one based on the Wilsonian Fourteen Points. Further, with Ribbentrop Exhibit 4, I wanted to submit evidence that the peace and the armistice were to be concluded on the basis of the Fourteen Points with two exceptions. I also wanted to show through Ribbentrop Exhibit ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I tried not to interrupt, but really this is the issue that the Tribunal ruled on a fortnight ago when the defendant Goering, I think, applied for documents on exactly this issue: and that also, as I understand, the Tribunal ruled on again this morning. The issue is perfectly clear; the only issue to which this can be directed is whether the Treaty of Versailles was in accordance with the Fourteen Points and if not, was therefore an unjust treaty which comes directly within the Tribunal's ruling of an hour ago.
DR. HORN: May I add something more?
As far as I and my colleagues have understood the ruling of the Tribunal today, the only prohibition is against making before this Tribunal statements on the injustice of the Treaty and on the fact that it purportedly was concluded under duress. We have not understood the decision in any other way.
THE PRESIDENT: That was why I asked you to what issue this was relevant, and you said that it was relevant to showing what the German opinion on the Treaty was. Well, these are documents of the period before the Treaty was made, and they seem to be only relevant upon the question of whether or not the Treaty was a just treaty or not a just treaty.
DR. HORN: I personally did not want to demonstrate through this document either that it was a just or an unjust treaty, but only that it was a treaty which had many legal inadequacies, since the main treaty was not in line with the agreements of the preliminary treaty.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the main treaty was not in accordance with the preliminary treaty then the main treaty would, according to that argument, be an unfair treaty. That is the very point upon which the Tribunal has ruled.
DR. HORN: For that reason, Mr. President, I have just omitted these documents also and said that I will not refer to them in view of this ruling. I will now turn to document No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: As you are going through a lot of documents we might break off for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. DODD: I do not want to take much of the Tribunal's time, but in view of the statement of Dr. Horn concerning the condition of the defendant von Ribbentrop, I think it is required that we inform the Tribunal of the situation as we understand it, which is something quite different from the understanding of Dr. Horn.
I have talked with Colonel Andrus and with one of the Army doctors in atten-
dance. Colonel Andrus has talked with both of them. And our understanding is that Ribbentrop is not ill and is able to take the witness-stand; that he is nervous, and appears to be frightened, but he is not disabled in any sense and is capable of testifying.
DR. HORN: I come now to page twenty-one of the document book and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the document appearing under Ribbentrop Exhibit 8. It is a copy, again from the "Documents of German Politics," volume 4, which I turned over, signed, to the Court. It is the speech of Ambassador von Ribbentrop at the ninety-first session of the League of Nations Council in London, regarding the Soviet Pact, the Locarno Pact and the German Peace Plan. The speech was delivered on 19th March, 1936. I refer to page three of the speech and begin my quotation at No. 5. I quote:
"According to this alliance, France and Russia appoint themselves the judge in their own affairs by independently determining the aggressor if occasion arises, without a resolution or a recommendation on the part of the League of Nations, and thereby are able to go to war against Germany according to their own judgement.
This strict obligation of the two countries is clearly and unequivocally evident from paragraph 1 of the signed protocol to the Treaty of Alliance, which states: In a given case France can decide, with its own judgement, whether Germany or Soviet Russia is the aggressor. It only reserves the right in this, not to have itself exposed through its military action based on such an individual decision to sanctions on the part of the powers guaranteeing the Rhine Pact, namely, England and Italy.
From a legal and 'real political' point of view, this reservation is meaningless.
In terms of law: How will France be able to foresee, when determining the aggressor itself, what attitude the guarantors of the Locarno Pact will afterwards assume towards this determining on its part? The answer to the question of whether France would have to fear sanctions in such a case depends in practice not only on the faithful adherence to the pact by the guarantors - about which the German Government does not wish to raise doubts in any way - but also on the most various prerequisites of a purely factual nature, the probability or improbability of which is not to be perceived in advance. In addition, however, the evaluation of the relationship between the new treaty of alliance and the Rhine Pact cannot be made dependent on the treaty relationship between France and Germany on the one hand and the guaranteeing powers on the other, but only on the immediate treaty relationship between France and Germany itself. otherwise one would have to demand of Germany that it tolerate silently every possible violation of the Rhine Pact by France, in confidence that the guarantors would have to provide for its security. That certainly was not the purpose of the Rhine Pact.
In terms of real politics: When a country is attacked by such a superior military coalition as a consequence of a decision, incorrect because taken in advance in some party's own interests, it is an inconsequential consolation to obtain its right in subsequent sanctions against the aggressors condemned by the League of Nations Council. For what sanctions could actually touch such a gigantic coalition reaching from East Asia to the Channel? These two countries are such powerful and important members, and especially militarily strong factors of the League of Nations, that, according to all practical considerations, sanctions would be unthinkable from the outset.
Therefore this second restriction dealing with the consideration of eventual sanctions is wholly inconsequential from a real political point of view.
I now ask the members of this Council to bear in mind not only the legal and practical political scope of this obligation, on the part of France, to act
independently, but to ask yourselves above all whether the opinion can be advocated that the German Government of that time, which signed the Locarno Pact, would ever have taken upon itself the obligations of this Pact, had it contained such one-sided stipulations as have now later developed."
I now go to page twenty-six of the document book, and the same document, and to clarify the German point of view, I add the following:
"But the Franco-Soviet Russian alliance means, beyond that-in the German Government's view of history - a complete elimination of the hitherto existing European balance and, consequently, of the fundamental political and legal conditions under which the Locarno Pact was concluded at that time."
With this Germany had expressed the legal basis of its attitude toward the Locarno Pact and the Versailles stipulations regarding the demilitarisation of the Rhineland. In order to prove its will to disarm, there is in the same document on page seven, that is, page twenty-seven of the document book, an exhaustive and detailed disarmament proposal.
I ask the Tribunal to accept in evidence the document just cited, so that I may later refer to it.
With this exposition I conclude my presentation on Germany's reasons for re-occupying the Rhineland. Regarding the role of the defendant von Ribbentrop in the occupation of the Rhineland - I shall enter upon that when I call the defendant to the witness-stand.
After the occupation of the Rhineland, the defendant von Ribbentrop returned to London, where he was appointed then as ambassador. On 4th February, 1938, he was appointed Foreign Minister, and from that time on conducted the foreign policy along the lines laid down by Hitler. In proof of this statement I refer to Ribbentrop Exhibit 10, to be found in the document book. This is a very short document that I submit to the Tribunal for judicial notice. It is an excerpt from the speech of the Fuehrer before the German Reichstag in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin on 19th July, 1940. I quote:
"I cannot conclude this appraisal without finally thanking the man who for years has carried out my foreign political directions in loyal, tireless, selfless devotion.
The name of Party Member von Ribbentrop will always be recognised as that of the Reich Foreign Minister at the time of the political uprising of the German Nation."
I submit this quotation to the Tribunal to show according to what principles the defendant von Ribbentrop conducted the foreign policy.
I should like now to ask the Tribunal to hear the witness State Secretary von Steengracht.


text:
Sorry! Username and Password doesn't match!
URTH BITES
Delicious food, seasoned with love.
The Goodness of a Tasteful Strategy.
For our client Urth Bites, our goal was to introduce their product branding, specifically their brand identity, naming, and package design. Urth Bites are manufacturers and distributors of various organic nuts, dried fruits,and jams. They came to us with the desire for a brand identity and packaging that would attract a health conscious audience. They also wanted to be made marketable to wholesale health food store chains.
Logo Development.
The naming and logo development aspect of this project needed to focus on telling a story about this new business. We designed a name and logo that would be universally appealing and would attract consumers of all backgrounds. We wanted a brand identity that all people, other than just health buffs, could be drawn to. Most importantly, the logo should convey the idea that the product being offered is essentially delicious food.
Package Design.
We created packaging that maintains the integrity of the product and can be easily adapted to include new products as they are added into the line in the future. This allows for freedom in product development for the client. We focused on various colors as the differentiation between specific products within the line. For example, the packaging for pistachios is green, while the packaging for almonds is a light brown. We also designed takeaway packaging for orders that are delivered to the customer's home as a means of instilling the brand in the home. Takeaway packaging including boxes and reusable grocery bags serve as propaganda and a constant reminder to customer's of the brand. Reusable grocery bags are also current with the sustainable trends in the target market.
We're Honored to be Listed Among the Global Leaders 2018
We're top United States Web Design Firm in 2018 by Clutch Research
Blog Learning Privacy Policy
Join our newsletter and get all newest updations first!
Certified Partner Company
Selected by Goldman Sachs in 2016
Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved.| TRIXMEDIA - Digital Branding & Web Design Agency Los Angeles, CA

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Waiouru Welcome Inn
Waiouru Welcome Inn | Tel 06 387 6247 | Fax 06 387 6395 | Cell 021 212 6812 | Backup Cell 021 029 58795 | email office@waiourumotel.com
Rangitikei River Access / Southern Access Corridor
21.5 km Time: 10 to 12 hours 42 km south of Turangi, near the Desert Road summit, a car park and signpost indicate the start of the access corridor. The route is poled as far as the bush line above Otamateanui Stream. A marked track descends through the beech forest steeply into Otamateanui Stream. Carry on down the stream 7 km to its confluence with the Rangitikei River. Beware most of this route follows the army land boundary, so please keep to this route for your own safety.
Unmarked Backcountry Routes
There are many opportunities in Kaimanawa Forest Park for backcountry travel along untracked river valleys and open tops. However, these routes are not marked and those using them need to be experienced, well-prepared and familiar with navigation in isolated country.
Rangitikei River Access
There are many great picnic spots along the Rangitikei River. A particular family favourite can be found Just north of Mangaweka. When driving north (from Mangaweka) on SH1, turn eastward onto Mangawharariki Road and continue driving for 1.2 km until you reach the Mangaweka Camping ground on your right. At this picnic area you will find several tracks that lead down the river. From here you can take one of the many paths that lead to different sections of the river. It's a great location for family days out.
It's one of the best walks in the world. The "crossing" will take you through a volcanic alpine landscape with breathtaking scenery. You will see steaming vents, beautiful crater lakes, glacial valleys, alpine vegetation and more - all with stunning views of Mt Ruapehu, Mt Ngauruhoe, Mt Tongariro and the central plateau. However, although beautiful, it can be dangerous if you're not fully prepared to enter an alpine environment with unpredictable weather changes. Ensure transport is arranged to drop you at the beginning of the track and pick you up at the end of the day.
Old Coach Road
Experience the magnificent cycle trail along most of the historic Ohakune Coach Road between Ohakune Station and Horopito. This part of the Ruapehu to Whanganui "Nga Ara Tuhono" cycle trail, also called "Nga Haerenga," is the first of the national cycleway 'quick start' projects to be launched. The planned trail will go all the way from Ohakune to Horopito, then along Middle Road to Ruatiti. Then from Ruatiti through the Mangapurua Valley, across the "Bridge to Nowhere" and finish on the banks of the Whanganui River at the Mangapurua Landing. From the landing it will be a jet boat ride to Pipiriki, then a long cycle ride down River Road to Wanganui.
© Waiouru Welcome Inn | Website by Pete Smithies Media
Welcome Inn Ltd - Trading as Waiouru Welcome Inn is a New Zealand owned business


text:
The Geology of Bali's Simmering Agung Volcano
The high viscosity magma of stratovolcanoes like Agung makes them extremely explosive—and potentially deadly
Mount Agung MAGMA Indonesia
Bali authorities have issued evacuation orders for 100,000 people living within a six-mile radius of volcanic Mount Agung, the highest point on the Indonesian island.
Trouble has been brewing at the volcano for quite some time. Researchers recorded seismic activity at Agung beginning in August, with the unrest increasing in the following weeks, according to the Earth Observatory of Singapore. On September 22, authorities raised to the volcano's status to level 4, its highest warning category. Then, last Tuesday the volcano began emitting plumes of smoke and mudflows streamed through local waterways. Over the weekend, the ash cloud reached 30,000 feet and magmatic eruptions began, reports the Associated Press. About 59,000 travelers are currently stuck on the island after the ash caused the international airport to close.
While authorities tell the AP they don't expect a major eruption, the activity changed early this morning from emission of steam to magma. So officials are playing it safe. Last time Agung erupted in 1963, an estimated 1,100 people died. And since the 1963 catastrophe, population density has only intensified on Agung's slopes.
So what makes Agung so dangerous? Blame its geology.
Agung is what's known as a stratovolcano. Also known as composite volcanoes, these formations occur at tectonic subduction zones, areas where two tectonic plates meet and one plate slides underneath another, geophysicist Jacqueline Salzer at the German Research Centre for Geosciences tells Fabian Schmidt at Deutsche Welle. The lava in those areas is usually thick and sticky, causing pressures to build within the steep cones, which results in highly explosive—and deadly—eruptions.
As Janine Krippner, a volcanologist at the University of Pittsburgh, writes for the BBC, Agung has gone through the predictable stages of a waking volcano. In August, small earthquakes were measured, but the mountain appeared unchanged. Then, in September, as rising magma heated the interior of the cone, plumes of steam were observed as the water in the mountain heated up.
Beginning last week, steam-driven or phreatic eruptions began. During this time, steam inside the volcano built up pressure causing small explosions to shoot ash, crystals and rock into the air. Now the magma has reached the surface—the point at which it is called lava—and its glow can be seen at the top of the mountain.
Authorities are hopeful the eruption won't continue further but if it does, several types of disasters could unfold. The cloud of gas and steam will blow off larger pieces of the mountain off, shooting rock "bombs" into the air. Actual lava flows could also stream down the mountain for several miles. But the most dangerous element of the eruption is the pyroclastic flow, an explosion of hot gas and debris that follows valleys or low-lying areas. These flows can race down the mountain at 50 miles per hour, destroying everything in its path.
Another major concern is lahars which occur when volcanic debris and ash mixes with water, creating a slurry the consistency of wet concrete. Lahars can rush down slopes at up to 120 miles per hour and swell in volume, destroying any villages or structures in its path.
According to John Seach at VolcanoLive, during the 1963 Agung eruption, 820 people were killed by pyroclastic flows, 163 died from falling ash and rock and 165 were killed by lahars.
The 1963 eruption also had global consequences. Alle McMahon at the Australia Broadcasting Corporation reports that the sulphur dioxide blown into the atmosphere by that event temporarily cooled the Earth by 0.1-0.4 degrees Celsius by reflecting some of the sun's ultraviolet radiation.
If Agung does have another major eruption, this miniscule amount of cooling is likely too small to be noticed. But the immediate consequences of such an eruption can be deadly, so authorities are encouraging locals to heed the evacuation notices.
Geology Natural Disasters Pacific Ocean Trending Today Volcanoes


text:
Marco Asensio reveals he 'had a poster of Zidane in his bedroom'
Real Madrid host Juventus in the Champions League on Wednesday night
Zinedine Zidane's men boast a 3-0 aggregate lead heading into the tie
Marco Asensio has revealed he had a poster of manager Zidane in his bedroom
The 22-year-old explained how he idolised his current boss as a youngster
By Jaime Wright For Mailonline
Marco Asensio has revealed he had a poster of his 'idol' Zinedine Zidane on his wall as a youngster.
The Real Madrid star has surged into the limelight under the watchful eye of Zidane since making his debut in 2016, and for Asensio, there is no one he would rather learn his trade under.
He explained to BeIn Sports how he has idolised his manager from a young age and has even remodelled his own game since playing under Zidane.
Marco Asensio (left) explained how he idolised his manager Zinedine Zidane as a youngster
'I had a poster of Zidane in my room, he was my idol when I was little,' he said. 'He had such elegance and a lot of talent and everything that I loved in footballers, he showed on the pitch.'
After a slow start to their season, which has consequently seen Real's hopes of La Liga glory slip away rapidly, Zidane's men are heading full-steam ahead as they push for a third-successive Champions League crown.
Real host Juventus in the second leg of their quarter-final tie on Wednesday night, with their place in the last four all but secured after hammering their opponents 3-0 in Turin last week.
'We showed against PSG and Juventus, we showed that we are the same team as last season and we have returned to the level which helped us achieve our objectives then,' Asensio said before explaining how his game has developed under Zidane.
Asensio has revealed he had a poster of Zidane on his bedroom wall when he was a child
'I have changed my own way of playing, I have tried to develop and my game now is more natural, with more flow.'
Asensio has six goals in his 26 La Liga appearances and the former Espanyol star looks to be an exciting prospect for Real in the years to come.
As well as Real, though, Spain will also be looking to benefit from the attacking midfielder's talents with his place in their squad for this summer's World Cup likely to be secured already.
The 22-year-old has 10 caps for his country with his most recent coming in their 6-1 thrashing of Argentina last month, where he scored twice.
Spain certainly set down a marker when they stunned one of their fellow favourites for glory in Russia, but Asensio was reluctant to lay down any rash predictions.
He added: 'The World Cup? Spain have many great players with a great Coach and hopefully we have a strong tournament in the World Cup.'
The 22-year-old is also hopeful that Spain can 'have a strong tournament' at the World Cup


text:
Molson Coors to Close Irwindale, California, Brewery
Molson Coors has announced plans to cease production at its Irwindale, California, brewery, by september 2020.
The company has also signed an agreement with Pabst Brewing Company giving the latter an option to purchase the Irwindale facility.
The plant opened in 1980 and employs approximately 470 people. In 2019 the brewery produced 4.8m barrels, shipped to 261 independently owned distributors. Brands currently produced at Irwindale include Miller Light, Coors Light, and Miller High Life, as well as several brands for Pabst. The closure will not affect production and availability of these beers as they will be transitioned to other facilities.
The move follows Molson Coors' recently announced plans to restructure the business and cut between 400 and 500 jobs. Those numbers do not include the Irwindale closure, meaning total job losses could top 900.
"This move will allow us to optimize our brewery footprint while streamlining our operations for greater efficiency across the network," said Chief Integrated Supply Chain Officer Brian Erhardt. "While it was a very difficult decision, we have extra capacity in our system and Irwindale's production can be absorbed by other breweries in our network."
Related Items:Molson Coors Irwindale California, Molson Coors Irwindale Closure, Molson Coors Irwindale Factory
Veganuary Workshops Taking Place in Limerick & Clare
Over 800 Travel Journalists Visited Ireland in 2019


text:
The Green Wall: Oregon's New Offensive Line
David Marsh November 18, 2020 Editorials
This is not the year we envisioned for Oregon's offensive line. We all expected to have Penei Sewell anchor the left side this fall. However, the pandemic robbed us of the opportunity to watch Sewell dominate the line of scrimmage for one final season as a Duck, as he instead prepares for the 2021 NFL Draft.
Sewell's opt-out dramatically changed the look of the offensive line going from replacing four starters to a complete position group overhaul, which normally wouldn't be too big of a difference as most of the line has to learn how to play together anyway, but Sewell was the best offensive lineman in the country last year. It wouldn't have been a surprise to see this year's offensive line take a step back.
That hasn't happened.
This offensive line still has a long way to go before they become a truly elite offensive line, but they are off to a great start. This is Mario Cristobal's offensive line, built in Cristobal's vision for what he wants Oregon to look and feel like. This line is bigger and stronger than any previous offensive line we have seen at Oregon before.
Up to this point, Cristobal has been working with an offensive line he inherited from Mark Helfrich, with the exceptions of Sewell and Dallas Warmack. This year's offensive line is the first year at Oregon where Cristobal had a say in the recruitment of every player along the line and it shows.
Tom Corno
Verdell runs through an opening created by Oregon's offensive line.
Oregon is currently cycling through six linemen of starting quality. Of these six potential starters, with an average height of six feet and four inches and an average weight of 318 pounds. This is a human wall and over the course of a game this wall wears down its attackers.
Washington State came out hot against Oregon and put a lot of pressure on the offensive line and did record a single sack. However, that sack was less the offensive line's fault and more Tyler Shough's fault for running into the line when he chose to keep the ball rather than hand it off or throw it.
One of the biggest problems for a new offensive line is penalties. False starts and holding penalties are setbacks that stem from a lack of discipline and technique. Oregon's offensive line had one holding penalty against Stanford, which was declined, and one false start on special teams right before a field goal attempt.
Eugene Johnson
Junior offensive tackle T.J. Bass pass sets against the Cougars
In week two, the offensive line improved with only one penalty against Washington State and it came during a two-point conversion attempt.
This offensive line isn't hurting the Oregon offense. Quite the opposite, as Oregon currently has an eye-popping 73% conversion rate on third-downs, and is two-for-two on fourth down. Furthermore, Oregon's run game is averaging a staggering 7.1 yards per carry and 269 yards per game. Offensive coordinator Joe Moorhead and the running backs deserve some of the credit as well. However, the offensive linemen are creating the holes needed to run the football.
Before the season the offensive line was a position of apprehension and fear. Though after two games the offensive line looks like a strength for this young Oregon team. So far my pre-season fears have gone away concerning the Ducks' offensive line production, have yours?
David Marsh
Top Photo By: Bob Hubner
Visit our Sister Site, the new Our Beloved Ducks Forum!
This new forum that is unlike anything you have ever seen between our civilized discussion, (NO TROLLS ALLOWED) complete directions available for easy usage and the delivery of all Oregon Sports News. (That last part is a gradual transition up to Spring Football)
Go to the forum where we delve into today's article and so many more topics and the nuances within them over there.
We have a topic post begun over at the forum for today's article; it is a free site and offers more opportunity for the exchange of opinions on all the Oregon Sports subjects of the day. (And there are some very cool features!)
An introduction article about the new forum is right here.
offensive lineOregon Ducks FootballOregon's Offensive LinePac-12 FootballWashington State football


text:
The Ukrainian Weekly (http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/america-still-stands-with-ukraine/)
America still stands with Ukraine
By Orest Deychakiwsky | January 31, 2020
More on Columnists
Subscribe to Columnists
I doubt that anyone could have imagined back last summer that Ukraine would be at the center of an impeachment of an American president. Yet, since late September, when the story broke of allegations of President Donald Trump's campaign to pressure Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating a political opponent, notably by withholding military aid, Ukraine has been in the news on a daily basis.
How has impeachment impacted America's public perceptions of Ukraine? More importantly, how has it affected U.S. support for Ukraine? First, as tragic as this scandal has been for the United States, it has not been the unmitigated disaster for Ukraine or its standing with America's public and political elites that some fear. Mr. Trump's politicization of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship has harmed and complicated U.S.-Ukraine relations in the short-term. The lack of a bilateral ambassador, a special envoy for Ukraine (who most likely will not be replaced), or Ukraine policy experience at senior levels of the National Security Council, certainly does not help matters. Thanks to the shadow foreign policy of Rudy Giuliani and other Trump lieutenants, there is understandable confusion and consternation in Ukraine regarding U.S reliability and commitment. Moreover, America's moral standing in Ukraine has been somewhat damaged because of the scandal – although I would argue not irreparably.
And yet, despite the mess, U.S. support for Ukraine remains robust.
In terms of public attention, the "Ukraine affair" offers a mixed picture. Not without foundation, Ukraine is perceived as corrupt, although often its extent is exaggerated. At the same time, members of Congress during the impeachment hearings and many in the media have often pointed out that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is at least trying to fight corruption – something that cannot be said of other countries such as Russia.
The American people have become more familiar with Ukraine. The country has become part of the American story – even if not in the way one would have wanted. Significantly, far more Americans are now aware of Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression. The media often refer to Ukraine not just as a partner or friend, but as an ally, something not often heard before the scandal erupted. Alas, there are some regrettable exceptions, notably comments by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who questions giving aid to Ukraine and sides with Russia in its war against Ukraine, but most Americans recognize that Vladimir Putin's invasion and occupation of Ukraine is just plain wrong and that Ukraine deserves our help.
Millions of Americans watched the impeachment hearing testimony of witnesses such as William Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, David Holmes and others. In each opening statement, as well as during the questioning, you heard unequivocal, eloquent, well-argued backing for Ukraine's Western direction and its struggle against Russia's ongoing aggression. The same holds true in the presentations during the Senate trial. Supporting Ukraine in defending itself against Putin's predations is almost a given; it is an article of faith. This has reinforced in the public mind the reality that America stands with Ukraine, notwithstanding President Trump's inexplicable affection for Mr. Putin, his negative comments about Ukrainians and his pressure on Ukraine for personal political reasons.
Importantly, the Washington policy world remains supportive, with all of the key foreign policy think-tanks – liberal, moderate and conservative – squarely on Ukraine's side. Of course, the Ukrainian American community and the plethora of U.S. NGOs and individuals who have worked with and in Ukraine for many years remain steadfast in their support.
Strong, consistent statements on Ukraine also continue to flow from the State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, and the U.S. Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. These send the message to Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world that, despite the current troubles, the United States is committed to Ukraine.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been supportive. During the House hearings, even those Republicans who parroted Mr. Trump's talking points into alleged Ukrainian interference into the 2016 U.S. elections have not challenged the notion that the U.S. stands behind Ukraine in its war with Russia and have voted for continued assistance.
On December 19, President Trump signed a massive spending bill to keep the U.S. government running. This bipartisan, bicameral appropriations legislation approved nearly $700 million for security and foreign assistance for Ukraine in Fiscal Year 2020, a slight increase over FY 2019. The aid includes military/security assistance to help Ukraine fight Russia's aggression. It also encompasses vital non-security assistance that supports Ukraine's democratic trajectory, rule of law, anti-corruption, economic development, energy, health and agriculture.
The end of the year also saw passage of the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which imposes sanctions related to Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline and bars military-to-military cooperation with Russia. The NDAA also includes the reauthorization of $300 million of funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
There are other pieces of legislation on Ukraine in this that have been introduced or seen some kind of action since the scandal emerged. These include the House- and Senate-introduced Ukraine Religious Freedom Support Act (drafted by my former colleagues at the U.S. Helsinki Commission) that opposes violations of religious freedoms by Russia and its proxies in the occupied territories, and a bipartisan resolution introduced just a few weeks ago by the co-chairs of the House Ukraine Caucus "reaffirming U.S. support for the Ukrainian people and Ukraine's democratic trajectory, free from Russian malign influence."
Notwithstanding the current adversity, I remain confident that U.S. political support to Ukraine, as well as concrete assistance – both security and non-security – will not only be maintained, but even see future increases in certain areas. The longstanding pattern of bipartisan support for Ukraine that Congress has exhibited for the last century will continue. As one who has been a small part of this world for nearly four decades and has witnessed the evolution of U.S. policy towards Ukraine, I have no doubt that there are enough serious people in Washington's national security and foreign policy establishment and in the Congress – both Democrats and Republicans – who understand that an independent Ukraine is essential to our security and to a Europe "whole, free and at peace."
Don't worry, Ukraine, in spite of it all, America still has your back.
Orest Deychakiwsky may be reached at odeychak@gmail.com.
Ukraine boldly goes where no NATO member dared go
Last month, Ukrainian special forces conducted a daring operation in Kabul to rescue 19 Afghan refugees, among them translators, including one whom worked for Canada's leading newspaper, The Globe and Mail, and another who served in the Canadian military, as well as their families. They arrived in Kyiv on August 29. This rescue was coordinated by the Ukrainian military, the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and The Globe and Mail. Mark MacKinnon, the Globe and Mail's senior international correspondent, not only broke the story but was integral in co-ordinating the rescue, reported CTV News.
Musings on current state of U.S.-Ukraine relations
Chetniks, trust and more
View all Columnists Stories →
"Zhyvyi Lantsiuh" – 30 years
Organizations bring carols to UNA Home Office


text:
The Anti-terror Barrier – Where the International Court of Justice went wrong.
A Dangerous And Faulty Ruling Re Self-Defense
By Maurice Ostroff July 21, 2004
On the strange grounds that Palestinian terror does not constitute an armed attack by a state, the ICJ advisory denied Israel's right to self-defense. While this ruling was obviously directed against Israel, it carries dangerous implications for all countries, which will be denied the right of self-defense against terror attacks from armed groups which are not states.
But the ICJ conclusion is faulty. In Clause 139, the ICJ claims that Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the existence of a right of self-defense only in the case of armed attack by one State against another". Strangely, the words "in the case of armed attack by one State against another" are nowhere to be found in article 51.
Effectiveness Of The Anti-Terrorist Barrier (ATB)
How does one measure the comparative injustices of preventing savage murder by terrorists of hundreds of uninvolved civilians, including infants, the elderly and infirm, Arabs and Jews alike, with the real and hopefully temporary inconvenience to Palestinians affected by construction of the ATB?
The advisory is again remiss in ignoring the effectiveness of the ATB. Between September 2000 and July 2003, West Bank terrorists carried out 73 atrocities within Israel, killing 293 people and badly wounding 1950. Between erection of the first segment in August 2003, and June 2004, the number of successful attacks originating in the West Bank dropped to three, all in the first half of 2003, during which 26 civilians were murdered and 76 wounded. Because the portion of the ATB already erected forces terrorists to take more difficult routes, the number of attempted attacks foiled by security forces improved greatly. Dozens of attacks were prevented and several intending perpetrators were captured.
Israel's High Court Ruling on the ATB
The ICJ was sadly remiss in failing to consider the Israel High Court ruling. Well known for its impartiality, the Israel court ordered that everything must be done to minimize hardship to Palestinians. Even though the partially constructed barrier has reduced attacks, it nevertheless ordered the state to reroute 30 kilometers of a 40-kilometer stretch. Contrary to fears expressed in the ICJ advisory that Israel is creating permanent facts on the ground, in many parts the barrier will be torn down and compensation paid to local residents for damage to their lands. "A democracy," said Chief Justice Barak, "must sometimes fight with one hand tied behind her back".
The Israel government announced complete acceptance of the high court ruling and construction has been halted while a less intrusive route is planned, even at the cost of some security.
In the Arab sponsored UN vote, referring the barrier to the ICJ, 8 countries voted against and 74 abstained. The absence from the hearing of Israel, heightens doubts about the legitimacy of the ICJ's agreement to adjudicate as pointed out by UK Judge Higgins. She stressed that the Court did not deal with the important aspect that lack of consent of an interested State (Israel), might render an advisory opinion incompatible with the Court's judicial character.
Inexcusably, the ICJ ignored the reference in GA resolution ES 10/14 to note the agreements between Israel and the PLO. Had it done so, it would have found that Israel's construction of the ATB complies fully with its duty under Article XV of the of the 1995 (Oslo II) Interim Agreement which specifically provides that "Both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other… " With the PA's flagrant failure to comply with its obligations under this clause, the ATB should be welcomed as the only non violent remaining means available to comply with the obligations of both parties.
The ICJ would have noted too, the PA's tolerance of, and even cooperation with, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP in gross violation of Article XIV which unambiguously forbids any armed forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip other than the Israeli army and the Palestinian Police Force and strictly forbids the possession or manufacture by any other organization of weapons, explosives or any related equipment.
Construction of the ASB becomes even more understandable in view of the PA's violation of Article XXII which requires the parties to abstain from incitement and ensure that their respective educational systems contribute peace.
It would not be unreasonable to have expected the ICJ to welcome, not only this non-violent ATB, but the fact that by reducing the incidence of terror attacks, the ATB will hopefully minimize, if not avoid the need for violent incursions into PA controlled territory.
In part 1, we discussed some serious weaknesses and errors in the ICJ advisory. We now examine the faulty manner in which the ICJ interpreted the historical context surrounding Israel's struggle for survival since birth and its faulty assumption about the legality of Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza.
Referring to the 1947 UN partition resolution, clause 71 states, "Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution; armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States and the Plan of Partition was not implemented".
"Armed conflict broke out." Indeed! The statement is equivalent to historians reporting blandly without any explanation "The Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11". Not even the most extreme history revisionist denies that Israel accepted the 1947 UN partition resolution; the Arabs rejected it. Immediately Israel declared independence in 1948, the Arab League declared "Holy War", with the publicly announced intention of driving the Jews into the sea. Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq invaded the newborn state, expecting to destroy it in a matter of weeks. Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini pronounced "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"
In her separate opinion Judge Higgins wrote, "…I find the history as recounted by the Court in paragraphs 71-76 neither balanced nor satisfactory".
The ICJ advisory treats, as a given fact, that Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza is illegal. Surprisingly, this body of eminent judges did not consider it important to examine the legal arguments on which this conclusion was reached. In clause 74, the ICJ makes a very cursory reference to one of the most important and hotly debated SC resolutions. To really understand what 242 is about, who better to turn to than one of the authors of the resolution, the late Eugene Rostow. In an article "Are the settlements legal?" in The New Republic, (October 21, 1991), Rostow wrote:
"Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War–not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims."
The indisputable facts are that prior to 1967, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were not possessed by the Palestinians but were ILLEGALLY occupied by Jordan. Gaza was similarly, ILLEGALLY occupied by Egypt, both countries having illegally invaded the territories in defiance of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Jordan resolved to annex the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1950 but this attempt at annexation was rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized this attempt at annexation.
It is relevant to quote former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who at one time headed the ICJ. In 1970 he wrote: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. It is a matter of history that Israel only entered the West Bank in self-defense. It is also a matter of record that the UN rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War".
Contrary to the basic assumption on which the ICJ advisory is based, the unavoidable logical conclusion is that Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza may be justifiable or unjustifiable, wise or unwise, but it certainly is not illegal until such time as a just and lasting peace is achieved. The corollary is that the minor intrusions of the ATB into the West Bank are justifiable in terms of international law, subject to the conditions imposed by the Israel High Court ruling referred to earlier.


text:
A Tale of Two Churches: A Microcosm
By Joseph Phelps
"Justice Sunday–Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith," is being staged at Louisville's Highview Baptist, a church. The name is so similar to my church, Highland Baptist, that they are often mistaken for each other.
Despite the name similarity, these sister congregations would not seem to have been born from the same litter or even the same species. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
But we were. Both churches come from a heritage that proclaims God to be real and active in the world. Both seek to be faithful to the well-known line from Jesus' prayer "Your will be done on earth as in heaven." And both understand that religious liberty does not ban churches from the public square of influence and debate.
But like so many other siblings, these sisters take different paths. There is a pronounced difference between the "view" and the "land" of Highview and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Highland. This difference is a microcosm of today's religious and political polarization.
Highview Baptist sees a messy world and works to control it by laying out a uniform action plan from a Bible that anticipated and prescribed everything we need to fix the world. (Thus the new "Biblical Counseling" program at Southern Seminary, led by Highview's Al Mohler, which pits science and psychology against their view of "what the Bible says.")
It is their calling to impose this plan, perfectly written for anyone to see, upon individuals, churches and denominations, but also, finally, upon public policy.
They know God's truth with certainty, and those who think otherwise are deceived or deceitful. Thus they seek to save us from ourselves by working to take over every facet of government–from the school boards to town councils to the national legislative and executive branches. Their final frontier: to own the judiciary and to mold it to their revisionist, Christian-nation view of history. In short, to remake America as a Christian theocracy.
Highview's sister, Highland Baptist, also yearns for a kind of theocracy, not in the form of a Christian takeover, but as a condition in which God's vision for this world rules the affairs of people and policies. For Highland, Jesus showed that God chooses to work by way of calling rather than controlling, by demonstration of love rather than domination of laws, by God's justice rather than government's justices.
Which brings up another difference between these sister churches. Exactly what does Highview mean by "Justice Sunday?" Does "Justice" refer to the judicial system? Or to Supreme Court nominees they hope to appoint? Or to consequences and revenge? Or to the Bible and to God's justice, which is mostly about compassion and fair treatment for the underdog?
Highland Baptist finds the Bible to be a justice-saturated book. The Bible is not merely a collection of instructions readily transferable to today. God's revelation comes as a narrative that has a trajectory toward justice to be discerned and anticipated to the best of our limited abilities. It points us in a direction, rather than only giving literal directions.
That is to say, the Bible, like the Constitution, must be translated and interpreted. Biblical justice is finding out what belongs to whom and giving it back to them. It teaches us to relate to each other lovingly, fairly, equally as children of God.
Highland and Highview both advocate on behalf of moral issues in the public square. But Justice Sunday has caused Highview to leap into the partisan political process, and to be associated with erroneous, alarmist assertions about filibusters which supposedly threaten people of faith. In doing so, they have moved beyond the realm of the church's resources and expertise and into a realm where churches are neither equipped nor permitted to go.
Highview and Highland are still linked as sisters by our witness to Jesus. Our differing paths make for interesting family reunions. But we can't give up, just as the larger culture of which we are but a microcosm, cannot give up. We are family.
Joseph Phelps is pastor of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky.
The 1 Word That Should Describe Your Church. Does It?
By Bill Wilson
5 Trends That Will Challenge Churches Like Yours
By Charles Revis
Your Church's Future Relies on Imagination, Not Memories


text:
IP Associations
mirandah Cases
mirandah News
Passing Off
Patent Legislation
Shape Marks
Trademark Cases
Trademark Legislation
The Mailbox is Opened – Indian Patent Office all set to examine product patent applications!
April 24, 2007 January 31, 2018 by mirandah
On January 21, 2005 the Government of India issued a Special Notice that all patent applications filed or claiming priority up to July 20, 2003 shall be deemed to have been published. Accordingly, Requests for Examination (RFE) can be filed in respect of all applications filed or claiming priority up to the aforesaid date. The complete specification in respect of all such applications can be inspected at the Patent Office.
Once a Request for Examination (RFE) is filed in respect of a published patent application, the application will be examined as per the amended Patents Act (as amended by the recently promulgated Patents Ordinance, 2004). This is the testing moment for the Indian Patent Examiners. They will be examining patent applications after the removal of the controversial Section 5 from the Indian Patents Act. By way of background, it is this Section that ensured only a limited term process patent protection for inventions claiming 'food', 'drug', and 'medicines' for over three decades. This provision had enabled Indian generic pharmaceutical producers to manufacture and market generic versions of proprietary drug molecules in the country.
The Patent Office has not issued any guideline for examination of patent applications for the post TRIPS compliant patent regime. Nor have they issued any specific guideline in respect of pharmaceutical product applications. Consequently, one is most likely to find the reflection of the Examiner's subjective understanding of the amended legal provisions and the invention claimed in the whole process of prosecuting a pharmaceutical patent application in India. Consequently, the craft of drafting patent specifications in general and claims in particular, could play a major role in successfully prosecuting pharmaceutical product patent applications in India. The Indian Patent Office often gives persuasive value to granted concurrent European Patents. As a strategy, Patent applicants in India could submit a copy of the claim set accepted by the European Patent Officeif available, during the Examination of the corresponding Indian applications.
"New Use Claims" – New Indian patent law heralds fundamental changes
India – TRIPS Compliance – the Unfinished Agenda


text:
Monterey Bay Aquarium Live Cameras
Monterey Bay Aquarium live aquarium cams are some of the best live cameras to watch sea life from the comfort of your own home.
Be delighted by the antics of sea otters or mellow out to the hypnotic drifting of jellyfish. With ten live cameras, you can experience the wonder of the ocean no matter where you are.
Watch the beautiful sea nettles drift, sway, and pulse through the seat waters on this Monterey Bay live aquarium camera. Don't let these unassuming invertebrates fool you, their graceful tentacles are covered in stinging cells used for hunting.
When their tentacles touch tiny prey in the water, the stinging cells paralyze it and stick tight. The prey is moved to the mouth-arms and then to the mouth, where it's consumed and digested
Enjoy the sea nettle jellies live on camera daily from 10 a.m. – 9 p.m. Pacific time. Watch a preview below and live here.
This colorful habitat is home to many different species of tropical fish including the scrawled filefish, Cortez angelfish, and more.
Wild coral reefs are the most valuable ecosystems on the planet and are home to many thousands of species of fish and coral.
Enjoy the coral reef cam daily from 12:30 p.m.-8 p.m. Pacific time. Watch a preview below and live here.
Kelp Forest
Immerse yourself and you'll find awe-striking diversity of fish and invertebrates swimming in the Kelp Forest exhibit and clinging to the kelp and algae.
Enjoy the kelp forest live cam daily from 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. Pacific time. Watch a preview below and live here.
Moon Jelly
Watch moon jellies move with the current as they pulsate their delicate, translucent bells.
The moon jellies at the Monterey Bay Aquarium are sporting their distinctive characteristics, including bright, petal-like gonads in the center of their bells and stinging fringe that is used to hunt prey.
If they feed on an abundance of crustaceans, they'll turn pink or lavender. An orange tint means they've been feeding on brine shrimp. Various foods can transform them into a kaleidoscopic array of colors.
Enjoy Moon Jellies from 10 a.m. – 10 p.m. Pacific time daily. Watch a preview below and live here.
The African penguins in Monterey Bay Aquarium's Splash Zone exhibit feed multiple times a day.
Sometimes they are fed by hand to make sure they get their daily vitamin intake. Other times they will be fed by tossing food into the water to stimulate natural foraging behavior.
Watch for underwater acrobatics as the penguins dart and dive to catch their fish.
Enjoy penguins live every day from 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. Pacific time. Watch a preview below and live here.
The southern sea otters in the Sea Otters exhibit love to play with toys, lounge in ice buckets or just snooze.
They're fed four times each day. Often, the food is placed inside toys to stimulate the otters' natural behavior of pounding and working to free food from shells.
Enjoy otters live on camera daily from 10 a.m. – 10 p.m. Pacific time. Watch a preview below and live here.
Watch sharks, rays and other fish as they glide effortlessly through the rocky reef.
Sevengill sharks, leopard sharks, spiny dogfish and the elusive Pacific angel shark all dwell in our Monterey Bay Habitats exhibit.
Designed with sharks in mind, the 90-foot-long hourglass shape gives these big sharks plenty of room to glide and turn.
Enjoy sharks on live cam daily from 10 a.m. – 10 p.m. Pacific time. Watch a preview below and live here.
Open Sea Cam
Watch the open sea cam from home and you'll be able to see giant tuna power their way through the water. Keep watching to spot pelagic rays and green sea turtles swim just inches away – it's like you're right there swimming with them!
This live streaming camera is home to one of the most diverse communities of open-ocean animals found in any aquarium. The 1 million-gallon Open Sea exhibit is a must-watch.
Enjoy the open sea live cam daily from 10 a.m. – 10 p.m. Pacific time. Watch a preview below and live here.
Monterey Bay Cam
Gander and spot a number of birds and sea mammals that find refuge in the Monterey Bay.
Look for the black cormorants perched on a rock, watch the water's surface — you might find a harbor seal poke its head out of the water or a sea otter playing.
Enjoy the Monterey Bay Live Cam 24 hours a day! Watch below and live here.
Other Aquarium Cameras
Don't stop here. While the Monterey Bay Aquarium live cameras are amazing, stop by to see these other live aquarium cams. Some of them you'll be able to catch live daily on Facebook. Cruise their websites. Learn more than ever about sea life!
New England Aquarium
Get first-hand knowledge from the New England Aquarium educators on their website.
They're also currently hosting Facebook Live videos you can watch. Catch them while they're on, or watch on replay. The information about ocean life and our environment is invaluable!
Atlantic White Shark Conservancy
Atlantic White Shark Conservancy is currently hosting storytime and Shark Q&A on their Facebook page and will be hosting more virtual events and activities going forward.
Visit their website here to discover worksheets, activities, newsletters, and more.
Discover an underwater world at the Georgia Aquarium as you watch live streaming cams.
Several live aquarium cams are available. Stream fish, whales, jellyfish, sea lions, puffins, and more! See them here.
New Orleans Zoo, Aquarium and Butterfly Garden
710Share Now →


text:
The RSV Vaccine From Pfizer Shields Unborn Children From Serious Illness
RSV Vaccine
The experimental RSV vaccine for pregnant women protects newborns against the severe illness for at least 6 months after birth, according to a Pfizer announcement on Tuesday.
The vaccine was about 82% effective at preventing severe cases of the respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, in infants who's mothers were immunized, according to phase III of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, is regarded as the gold standard of epidemiologic studies.
This level of protection was seen from birth to three months of age. The Pfizer vaccine was still 69% effective against the disease at six months of age, though there was a decline in protection.
Pregnant participants in the study were monitored throughout the vaccination process and for six months following delivery to evaluate the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. Over half of the infants were monitored for two years, and all were monitored for at least a year.
Human Heart Transplants From Pigs: More Successful Than Anticipated
Weight-loss Medication Reduced BMI in Obese Teens, According to a Study


text:
These 3 COVID-19 vaccines have been in the news. Here's what you need to know about them
By Theresa Waldrop
the US has now surpassed five million confirmed cases of Cove in 19 and in the last two weeks of July. Nearly 100,000 of those cases were attributed to Children, a s'more schools prepared to open. Some are worried. I have heard the words from educators scared to death multiple times over the past month of her. So Thea, American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association studied the child cases, and in the last two weeks of July say there was a 40% increase in child infections across the states and cities that were studied. If we don't have the ability to socially distance, they are not safe. If we don't have mass and protective equipment, they are not safe. In Georgia, this photo went viral. I was very concerned for everyone in that building and everyone in our county, because this is obviously nowhere near safe. Then the high school reported nine Cove in 19 cases, six were students, three were staff members. The school now turning to temporary virtual learning. I just am very hopeful that we can take more precautions going from work in school and everything of the sorts. Children are less likely to die, but they do carry and transmit the virus. I'm Camila Burnell, reporting
The U.S. government is pouring billions into COVID-19 vaccines, and candidates from three companies are moving along quickly: Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax.Here's what you need to know about them.These are among the dozens of COVID-19 vaccines in trials around the world as researchers rush to find a way to stop the pandemic.To help speed the process, the U.S. government's Operation Warp Speed is providing some funding for those three and five others — vaccine candidates the Department of Health and Human Services calls "the most promising."Operation Warp Speed's goal is to have 300 million doses of a vaccine that's safe and effective by January 2021.While the Phase 1 trial results are promising, the proof will be in the results of the final, large Phase 3 trials. If a vaccine candidate makes it through that, it will go to the Food and Drug Administration for approval.Phase 1 trials involve testing the vaccine in a small group of people to see whether it's safe and whether it's effective. Phase 2 trials involve a larger group and often involve various potential doses. Phase 3 trials are a final stage before seeking approval and look for safety, efficacy and optimal dosing. For coronavirus, they are all scheduled to involve 30,000 people.President Donald Trump said last week he's optimistic that a vaccine will be available by the presidential election Nov. 3. Experts told CNN, though, that it's highly unlikely that either of the two U.S. companies with a vaccine candidate now in Phase 3 trials will have a vaccine ready for use by then, given the status and timelines of their trials now.ModernaWhere is it now? The start of Moderna's Phase 3 trial of its mRNA-1273 vaccine was announced just last week. It will involve 30,000 adults at 89 clinical research sites around the country. It is the first Phase 3 trial begun under Operation Warp Speed, according to the National Institutes of Health.Phase 2 started in May.Trial results: So far, only Phase 1 results have been released. Those early results showed the vaccine brought about an immune response, which is what researchers wanted to see. The higher the dose, the higher the immune response was in the people who got it.How safe is it? More than half of participants had side effects, including fatigue, chills, headache, muscle pain and pain at the injection site. These are considered normal side effects for a vaccine. The higher the dose, the worse the side effects. The Phase 3 trial will use the middle dose.Who is developing it? Moderna, a biotech based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, developed the vaccine with help from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.PfizerWhere is it now? Pfizer has more than one vaccine candidate, being developed together with the German company BioNTech. It has moved into a combined Phase 2/3 trial, also started last week, with one of them, BNT162b2. That's being carried out at about 120 sites worldwide, including 39 U.S. states and Argentina, Brazil and Germany.When will we have it? If the trial is successful, Pfizer and BioNTech have said they are on track to seek regulatory review as early as October. If it gets emergency authorization from the FDA, as many as 100 million doses may be available by the end of the year, and about 1.3 billion by the end of 2021.The Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Defense last month announced a $1.95 billion agreement with Pfizer to produce 100 million doses of the vaccine. The deal also allows the U.S. government to acquire an additional 500 million doses.Trial results: In the combined Phase 1/2 trial, both vaccines brought about an immune response and produced antibodies, a "double-arm" approach that the companies hope will be more effective and provide longer protection. So far, only one has moved on to more advanced trials. Almost 120 people participated.How safe is it? Preliminary data from the Phase 1/2 trial showed "a favorable overall tolerability profile" for the vaccine, Pfizer said in a news release, "with generally mild to moderate" side effects that lasted one to two days, "such as fever, fatigue and chills and no serious adverse events."NovavaxWhere is it now? Maryland-based biotech Novavax hopes to have its vaccine in Phase 3 trials next month.Trial results: Novavax released data from its Phase 1 trial Tuesday involving 131 participants. After two doses of the vaccine, participants had levels of antibodies that can fight off the virus that were four times higher, on average, than those developed by people who have recovered from COVID-19.The vaccine also brought about a response by immune cells, according to an analysis of 16 randomly selected volunteers.How safe is it? Of the 106 people who got the vaccine, and not a placebo, five had severe side effects, including muscle pain, nausea and joint pain, and one had a mild fever. The side effects lasted two days or less, on average.
The U.S. government is pouring billions into COVID-19 vaccines, and candidates from three companies are moving along quickly: Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax.
Here's what you need to know about them.
These are among the dozens of COVID-19 vaccines in trials around the world as researchers rush to find a way to stop the pandemic.
To help speed the process, the U.S. government's Operation Warp Speed is providing some funding for those three and five others — vaccine candidates the Department of Health and Human Services calls "the most promising."
Operation Warp Speed's goal is to have 300 million doses of a vaccine that's safe and effective by January 2021.
While the Phase 1 trial results are promising, the proof will be in the results of the final, large Phase 3 trials. If a vaccine candidate makes it through that, it will go to the Food and Drug Administration for approval.
Phase 1 trials involve testing the vaccine in a small group of people to see whether it's safe and whether it's effective. Phase 2 trials involve a larger group and often involve various potential doses. Phase 3 trials are a final stage before seeking approval and look for safety, efficacy and optimal dosing. For coronavirus, they are all scheduled to involve 30,000 people.
President Donald Trump said last week he's optimistic that a vaccine will be available by the presidential election Nov. 3. Experts told CNN, though, that it's highly unlikely that either of the two U.S. companies with a vaccine candidate now in Phase 3 trials will have a vaccine ready for use by then, given the status and timelines of their trials now.
Where is it now? The start of Moderna's Phase 3 trial of its mRNA-1273 vaccine was announced just last week. It will involve 30,000 adults at 89 clinical research sites around the country. It is the first Phase 3 trial begun under Operation Warp Speed, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Phase 2 started in May.
Moderna reveals how much its coronavirus vaccine would cost per dose
Trial results: So far, only Phase 1 results have been released. Those early results showed the vaccine brought about an immune response, which is what researchers wanted to see. The higher the dose, the higher the immune response was in the people who got it.
How safe is it? More than half of participants had side effects, including fatigue, chills, headache, muscle pain and pain at the injection site. These are considered normal side effects for a vaccine. The higher the dose, the worse the side effects. The Phase 3 trial will use the middle dose.
Who is developing it? Moderna, a biotech based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, developed the vaccine with help from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Who Will Be First in Line for a COVID-19 Vaccine?
Where is it now? Pfizer has more than one vaccine candidate, being developed together with the German company BioNTech. It has moved into a combined Phase 2/3 trial, also started last week, with one of them, BNT162b2. That's being carried out at about 120 sites worldwide, including 39 U.S. states and Argentina, Brazil and Germany.
When will we have it? If the trial is successful, Pfizer and BioNTech have said they are on track to seek regulatory review as early as October. If it gets emergency authorization from the FDA, as many as 100 million doses may be available by the end of the year, and about 1.3 billion by the end of 2021.
The Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Defense last month announced a $1.95 billion agreement with Pfizer to produce 100 million doses of the vaccine. The deal also allows the U.S. government to acquire an additional 500 million doses.
Trial results: In the combined Phase 1/2 trial, both vaccines brought about an immune response and produced antibodies, a "double-arm" approach that the companies hope will be more effective and provide longer protection. So far, only one has moved on to more advanced trials. Almost 120 people participated.
How safe is it? Preliminary data from the Phase 1/2 trial showed "a favorable overall tolerability profile" for the vaccine, Pfizer said in a news release, "with generally mild to moderate" side effects that lasted one to two days, "such as fever, fatigue and chills and no serious adverse events."
Here's how to volunteer for a COVID-19 vaccine trial
Where is it now? Maryland-based biotech Novavax hopes to have its vaccine in Phase 3 trials next month.
Trial results: Novavax released data from its Phase 1 trial Tuesday involving 131 participants. After two doses of the vaccine, participants had levels of antibodies that can fight off the virus that were four times higher, on average, than those developed by people who have recovered from COVID-19.
The vaccine also brought about a response by immune cells, according to an analysis of 16 randomly selected volunteers.
How safe is it? Of the 106 people who got the vaccine, and not a placebo, five had severe side effects, including muscle pain, nausea and joint pain, and one had a mild fever. The side effects lasted two days or less, on average.