text:
« Gag Me With An Order - Not! | Main | Sacked CIA Officer - Hey, Big Donor... »
CIA Officer Sacked For Leaking
The NY Times and the WaPo cover the news that CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy was dismissed for leaking. From the Times:
The Central Intelligence Agency has dismissed a senior career officer for disclosing classified information to reporters, including material for Pulitzer Prize-winning articles in The Washington Post about the agency's secret overseas prisons for terror suspects, intelligence officials said Friday.
The C.I.A. would not identify the officer, but several government officials said it was Mary O. McCarthy, a veteran intelligence analyst who until 2001 was senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, where she served under President Bill Clinton and into the Bush administration.
At the time of her dismissal, Ms. McCarthy was working in the agency's inspector general's office, after a stint at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an organization in Washington that examines global security issues.
The Times found her bio at the CSIS before someone took it down, or crashed it out, or something. I reprint it below, and it is also available at NYU Law (scroll down) or the Google cache (until Chloe and the CIA clean it out). Let's duly note her overlap with Joe Wilson on the National Security Council from June 1997 to July 1998.
The Times notes that Ms. McCarthy made the max $2,000 contribution to John Kerry in 2004, but so did Sue; what the Times missed (but Rick didn't) is that Ms. McCarthy also appears to have given $500 to the DNC in 2004. Ghostcat found a $2,000 contribution to Kerry from the presumed hubby, Michael J McCarthy; and I have found a $5,000 contribution to the Ohio democratic party in 2004 (FEC, Mary McCarthy, Bethesda, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIO).
So, in 2004 the McCarthys gave over $9,000 to the Democrats. How about that? And the Times even found $2,000 of it. Maybe they should subscribe to the FEC Spy. [Open Secrets site is helpful, too - Mary O. McCarthy, Michael J McCarthy.]
But the Times did better on this than the WaPo, which did not even look in that direction.
I liked this:
News of the dismissal was first reported Friday by MSNBC.
I have read that Andrea Mitchell had that first. Since she also broke the news of the Plame criminal referral in September 2003, I just like to think of her as in the know.
The Times regales us with this outraged intel official:
Several former intelligence officials — who were granted anonymity after requesting it for what they said were obvious reasons under the circumstances — were divided over the likely effect of the dismissal on morale. One veteran said the firing would not be well-received coming so soon after the disclosure of grand jury testimony by Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff that President Bush in 2003 approved the leak of portions of a secret national intelligence estimate on Iraqi weapons.
"It's a terrible situation when the president approves the leak of a highly classified N.I.E., and people at the agency see management as so disastrous that they feel compelled to talk to the press," said one former C.I.A. officer with extensive overseas experience.
No - it's a terrible situation when the Times can run this criticism of the NIE "leak" with a seemingly straight face and fail to note that the key bits of the NIE were formally and publicly declassified on July 18, 2003, within a few weeks of the Libby talks. In fact, if the Times reviews their own Ms. Miller's account, they will see that she was troubled that Libby was not giving her anything new [on the NIE] (since other parts of the NIE had been declassified in October 2002). Let's just clip that here:
As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002, which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium.
An unclassified version of that estimate had been made public before my interviews with Mr. Libby. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I had pressed Mr. Libby to discuss additional information that was in the more detailed, classified version of the estimate. I said I had told Mr. Libby that if The Times was going to do an article, the newspaper needed more than a recap of the administration's weapons arguments. According to my interview notes, though, it appears that Mr. Libby said little more than that the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version.
A terrible situation indeed. To their credit, the Times runs two off-setting quotes:
But another official, whose experience was at headquarters, said most employees would approve Mr. Goss's action. "I think for the vast majority of people this will be good for morale," the official said. "People didn't like some of their colleagues deciding for themselves what secrets should be in The Washington Post or The New York Times."
Paul R. Pillar, who was the agency's senior analyst for the Middle East until he retired late last year, said: "Classified information is classified information. It's not to be leaked. It's not to be divulged." He has recently criticized the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence about Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons programs.
UPDATE: Flopping Aces plays Friendster with Mary McCarthy - links to Joe Wilson, Rand Beers, Sandy Berger, Dana Priest (at the NYU Center for Law and Security).
Let's go to the bio:
Mary O. McCarthy:
Prior to joining CSIS in August 2001, Mary O. McCarthy was a senior policy adviser to the CIA's deputy director for science and technology. Until July 2001, she served as special assistant to the president and senior director for intelligence programs on the National Security Council (NSC) Staff, under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. From 1991 until her appointment to the NSC, McCarthy served on the National Intelligence Council. She began her government service as an analyst, then manager, in CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, holding positions in both African and Latin American analysis. From 1979 to 1984 she was employed by BERI, S.A., conducting financial, operational, and political risk assessments for multinational companies and banks. Previously she had taught at the University of Minnesota and was director of the Social Science Data Archive at Yale University. McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State University, an M.A. in library science from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Minnesota. She is the author of Social Change and the Growth of British Power in the Gold Coast
(University Press of America, 1983).
and for good measure James R. Schlesinger, who spoke with Wilson and Larry Johnson at that Iraq Symposium? he is a...you guessed it... CSIS Trustee.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 03:28 AM
BTW -- Have people seen this latest 60 Minutes hit piece planned for this Sunday? (h/t: Rick Moran). This guy Tyler Drumheller is worthy of some research. Initial google searches have come up with some interesting pairings, but too many hits to fully sift through at this hour. Goodnight.
Posted by: Neuro-conservative | April 22, 2006 at 03:28 AM
Wow, Neuro...your not kidding...
look at the site owners name...twilight zone was tame
(link google highlighted for ease too)
You know, it is hard to fathom how a woman who undoubtedly had to fight her way to the top, and who is extremely well educated and was involved where the real power is could be so overtaken with BDS that she'd throw it all away. This is so reckless, it smacks of fanaticism, not far different from the Terrorist Extremists.
I wasn't a particular fan of the President when he was first elected, but I've grown to like him and I can't understand why he generates such fanatical hatred. Our career military family despised Clinton, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to put my country in jeopardy. I figured sooner or later he'd be an out of office has been and we'd move on. This maniacal hatred we see from the left is very disturbing. Mary McCarthy can't be written off as one of those "kiddies" or immature Deaniacs. She screwed the pooch on her career, her reputation, possibly her marriage (and her children??), and probably the majority of her friends, not for any noble cause, but for the sole purpose of making George W. Bush look bad.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 03:35 AM
Please tell me that John McCarthy is not her husband.
Larry just help sowing seeds of chaos - Dr. Sanity linked to this in her email just rec'd:
Report documents major increase in terrorist incidents
By Warren P. StrobelKnight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The number of terrorist attacks documented by U.S. intelligence agencies jumped sharply in 2005, crossing the 10,000 mark for the first time, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and documents obtained by Knight Ridder Newspapers.
The official said that worldwide last year, there wasn't a large change in the number of high-fatality attacks, in which 10 or more people were killed, compared with 2004.
Larry Johnson, a former State Department counterterrorism official and frequent administration critic, said counting terrorism incidents is tricky because "it's always required a judgment about motive and intent." But Johnson criticized the new definition of terrorism now in use.
"There are some things they're lumping in there as terrorism that in my view make absolutely no sense," he said. "They've made it almost impossible for the average person to understand what's happening in international terrorism."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14390584.htm
Our Larry is such a busy boy -he'll be even busier when when
VIPS are exposed as he makes LSM AAA list and the book /movie
deals pour in.
Posted by: larwyn | April 22, 2006 at 03:44 AM
Shockingly, Mr. Drumheller has a book coming out. On the Brink, published by William Morrow.
* Hardcover: 256 pages
* Publisher: William Morrow (February 1, 2006)
You can preorder now!
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2006 at 03:45 AM
--Please tell me that John McCarthy is not her husband.--
Squig...happy to inform no, husband name "Michael", but does she have a brother named John?
::grin::
oops, that would be brother-in-law.
Drumheller, another asshole lying about his particular grasp on an elephant extremity.
Posted by: kim | April 22, 2006 at 03:57 AM
Would you believe Sabri?
And just to reiterate and theme I am going with...Daniel Benjamin being a "quoted" source for the Fitz/WAPO story, he who was a National Security Council memeber with Wilson and McCarthy of which Benjamin is a ffliated with both CSIS and the NYU security group of which DANA PREIST is a member as well...
"...Pincus had been writing about the buildup to theinvasion for months, along with ***Post writers Dana Priest, Karen DeYoung, Barton Gellman, ***and others who ****gathered at "war meetings" every day.**** But according to reporters, editors continually underplayed Pincus's scoops and discounted their stories that ran counter to Bush's call to arms...
...In June Pincus sunk his teeth deeper into the emerging story of the nuclear material that Iraq was supposed to have sought from Niger to make nuclear bombs. US officials repeated the claim as fact and talked ominously of mushroom clouds. President Bush mentioned "significant quantities of uranium" in his State of the Union speech.
Other reporters questioned the nuclear transfer, including Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, David Sanger in the New York Times, and Joby Warrick, Priest, and DeYoung with Pincus at the Post. Pincus pursued it day after day. He says he had to fight to get it on the front page....
///Finally, at the end of May, Pincus broke onto the front page with a story about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. He stayed there as his stories—some with other reporters—put pressure on the White House to admit that the President's 16-word sentence about uranium going to Iraq was not credible.
Pincus eventually prevailed within his own newspaper, but why did a veteran reporter have to bow and scrape to get his stories noticed and then printed?
"It was ridiculous. Many of the stories were buried," says Priest, also a star on the national-security beat. "Editors continually undervalued what he does."...
http://www.washingtonian.com/buzz/2004/pincus.html
This is the page on John J.McCarthy jr. on the site you linked:
An American P.O.W.
--- In America
Captain John J. McCarthy
FROM THE WILDERNESS
is proud to present the story of U.S. Army Special Forces Captain John J. McCarthy Jr, a real American hero.
While some would challenge hero status for a man who admittedly was ordered to train assassination teams for the CIA during the Vietnam War (none of which carried out a mission), no one can challenge the fact that as a triple volunteer (airborne, ranger, Special Forces), John served his country with bravery, honor and distinction. Like so many of the young men who went to Vietnam, he believed in his country and what he had been taught was the rightness of its mission in the world. But this is also the story of John's disillusionment and of his painful awakening, which came at the cost of wife, family and friends. It is a story about how he stood alone, at a crucial moment, as his country broke its word to him and refused to capitulate as he saw that the moral leadership of those who gave him orders was an empty house of cards. ---
Mike Ruppert, 7/14/98
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html
Oh my God, he must be one of Kerry's Winter Soldiers.
he sure fits into the group!
Is he the bro-in-law? Be too old to be son.
Need to go talk to the Swift Boat group. They would know.
TM:
they will see that she was troubled that Libby was not giving her anything new (since other parts of the NIE had been declassified in October 2002).
and Miller:
it appears that Mr. Libby said little more than that the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version.
As I've noted in an earlier thread, the October '02 declassified NIE said nothing about Iraq trying to procure uranium in Africa. It only discussed uranium in the context of Iraq's uranium enrichment capabilities.
So when Libby, according to court documents describing his testimony, was instructed to tell Miller that the classified version of the NIE said that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium, this was specific information that was not in the October '02 declassified NIE. And when he told her that Wilson's report said that Iraq had tried to expand commercial ties with Niger, this was, again, specific information that in no way was present in the October '02 declassified NIE. In other words, Libby was giving her something new.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 22, 2006 at 04:34 AM
great idea - must try to get some sleep - too much excitment tonight to log off
see you in the morn---afternoon
She also testified before the 9/11 commission. some excerpts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1619050/posts?q=1&&page=1051#1075
Posted by: frequent lurker | April 22, 2006 at 05:47 AM
If only this were happening in August we'd have a feeding frenzy over it and maybe get to the bottom of what happened.
Specter-
"Or would I have hordes of FBI types rummaging through my entire house and office while I was led away in shackles?
No kidding brother. Any of the rest of us would be wearing orange overalls this morning and eating balogna sandwiches.
Ghost-
She's lost her generous pension, which she nearly had in hand, and his biz doesn't seem that prosperous. Absent a bailout, they're in a world of hurt. Which is to say, I agree she's likely to cop a plea.
Yeah....so if money is so tight then what are they doing giving away $10,000 of the American dollars (as the Manolo would say)? Its a small point, but where do government employees get 9 or 10 thousand dollars to contribute to politicians? That's a pretty good chunk of change - the type of offhand toss in the kitty contribution that big dollar guys make.
Ahh. Reading further down in the thread I see I am not the only one wondering about this. FWIW I disagree with anyone that thinks a $10k donation is 'not unusual' for a wage earner, even one that makes 6 figures. It is WAY unusual for anyone but the idle rich.
Anyway get ready for it guys. Mary McCarthy is about to become the toast of the left, the new Dem hero and media darling. Book deal to follow ASAP.
Posted by: Dwilkers | April 22, 2006 at 06:22 AM
Regarding fake prisons.
It would be entirely appropriate for the CIA to creat fake prisons, prisons that even some in our government believe exist.
One of the scariest things to a captured terrorist is to be sent back to his home country like Egypt or Saudi Arabia where he will probably be tortured and at the very least have a really hard time in prison as opposed to say an American prison.
Liberals have complained about this process of rendition - EVEN THOUGH IT WAS STARTED BY BILL CLINTON -. So what if we just made terrorists believe they were being taken to
one of those countries.
Fly them around on a plane for several hours, land, truck them to a 'prison' where all the guards are Eqyptian, etc. Except the 'prison' is not in Egypt.
Might not be a bad way to get them to talk or turn them over (You talk now and you can get back on that plane, otherwise you will be staying here!!
Posted by: Patton | April 22, 2006 at 06:41 AM
Anyone want to hazard a guess how the Lamestream media will play this story:
1. CIA Agent was a criminal out to undermine the war effort.
2. CIA agent was a whistleblower trying to correct the excesses of the Bush White House.
TEXT: BERGER APPOINTS MCCARTHY SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR INTELLIGENCE
(And senior director on NSC Staff for intelligence programs) (370)
Washington -- National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced
June 16 the appointment of Mary O'Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant
to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.
She succeeds Rand Beers in that post, an announcement by the office of
the White House Press Secretary said.
Mary McCarthy had been Director of Intelligence Programs on the
National Security Council Staff since July 1996. Previously, said the
White House, Mrs. McCarthy served as the National Intelligence Officer
for Warning from 1994-1996 and as the Deputy National Intelligence
Officer for Warning from 1991-1994. She began government service in
1984 as an analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State University
and an M.A and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.
Following is the White House text:
(begin text)
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced today the
appointment of Mary O'Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant to the
President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs. Mrs. McCarthy
succeeds Rand Beers.
National Security Council Staff since July 1996. Previously, Mrs.
McCarthy served as the National Intelligence Officer for Warning from
1994-1996 and as the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Warning
from 1991-1994. She began government service in 1984 as an analyst in
the Directorate of Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Prior to her government service, Mrs. McCarthy held positions in both
the private sector and academia. She was a Director, then Vice
President of BERI, SA, a firm conducting financial and political risk
assessments, from 1979-1984. Previously, she had taught at the
University of Minnesota and was Director of the Social Science Data
Archive at Yale University.
Mrs. McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State
University and an M.A and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. She
and her husband Michael McCarthy have a son, Michael.
(end text)
Here is a taste from the start of a NewsBump USA article: (http://www.newsbump.net/brainbox/nbus/NewsBump.nsf/AddComment?OpenForm&ParentUNID=89A672A74CE309A8CA2571580039F154)
Bombshell Accusation: Rice Leaked Classified Defense Info
From the diaries. This should give us plenty to talk about on a Friday night. Are you going to fire this leaker, Mr. President? --mcjoan. On the day that a courageous CIA whistleblower is fired for telling the truth about American gulags, a bombshell accusation.
Looks like McCarthy, just like Joe Wilson had ties to Beers who headed Kerrys' National Security government in waiting.
Most likely Beers or someone close to him told her/Wilson/Clarke and others that they would be under consideration for high positions in a Kerry adminstration.
Part of that is to make contributions to get your name on the list.
I agree with Rick:
Throw all these Clinton Bums out! They are now working against us in the War on Terror.
She would have been a natural selection for NSA. What makes me mad is she was obviously qualified for a high level job based on the merits and she just threw it all away. And worse, she threw it all away for a cowardly lurch.
And whistleblower ... give me a break! There are guidelines for whistleblowers and I'd bet the farm that Dana Priest isn't mentioned in them.
Funny that McCarthy, leaking to the media to feed the "people's right to know", gets her bio yanked from public view the second it's *her* butt on the line.
But hey...Go Spartans!!
Why the $5000 to OHIO? $5000 to a state you don't live in? Isn't that kind of weird? I know it was going to be a battle ground state, but so were many others. Ohio only gets the buzz as the big election decider after the fact- because it was one of the last reporting and the Kerry people were calling the stations begging them not to call it.
PA was about as close, with 21 electoral votes (OH has 20). Michigan and Wisconsin were both close. The meme that it was all about Ohio was made up after the fact. So why did she give that kind of money to OH? Why not just the DNC?
I guess it's too much to hope for, but wouldn't it be great if Bush himself didn't LET the MSM portray McCarthy as a whisteleblower instead of a criminal? If Bush gave a press conference every week, turned any remotely related question into a diatribe (with potent soundbites) about cleaning up his own sloppy intel agencies, while excoriating a press that's just a wee bit too creatively "adversarial" during wartime? Something like "We're helping to build hospitals and schools in Iraq, but you're looking for stories about imaginary prisons, and the American people are getting disgusted with your negative slant"? W needs to be on the attack for November and this McCarthy story, and all of the fall-out sure to follow from it, seems tailor-made for some relentless outrage from Bush. Maybe dreams can come true.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | April 22, 2006 at 07:50 AM
One comment...she served on the African desk while working for the CIA. Same desk that would oversee Plame/Wilson game on Yellow Ore?
Posted by: Judith | April 22, 2006 at 07:54 AM
Do these people understand that Bush was elected and as a result of that election he gets to make foreign policy decisions? ...Bush is the elected official. It is up to us to remove him from office, not some unelected, pissed off, Kerry-ite, career CIA agent.
I appreciate your rant. Last weekend I was watching CNN Reliable Sources. There was a panel discussion with Kurtz, Johah Goldberg and Aravosis, Americablog.com. I was gobsmacked when Aravosis said this:
"It's Richard Nixon all over again. As long as the president does it, it's OK....The president has decided when he wants to leak stuff -- and I would argue that it may be legal for the president to leak things, but good God! Do we really want George Bush being the one deciding what classified information will and won't hurt national security?
Simply unbelievable...if I hadn't heard it for myself.
Posted by: JeanneB | April 22, 2006 at 07:58 AM
Well, new or not, the report on the Wilson trip was not part of the NIE, which is what the Times was ranting about. Tenet gave a lot of info on that trip on July 11.
As to the NIE itself, there does seem to be a gap between what Libby was authorized to say and what showed up in Miller's notes.
That said, one might argue that even though I have about four paragraphs on the NIE, when I say "Libby was not giving her anything new (since other parts of the NIE had been declassified in October 2002)" it may not be crystal cear that I am referring to the NIE.
I'll work on that.
Posted by: TM | April 22, 2006 at 08:08 AM
McCarthy has connections to Berger? "Sox" Berger? There's your answer. She's obviously part of that mindset that came out of the Clinton era which said 'winning wasn't important; it was the ONLY thing' and chose to do 'whatever it took' as Berger did. If she is part of the group of 'entitled' personages, she may well not have balked at leaking to the media, seeing it as her Democratic 'duty' to save the country from the evil 'Bushniks'.
Posted by: foreign devil | April 22, 2006 at 08:11 AM
Berger destroyed documents that even the most naive would speculate contained information damaging to the Clinton administration.
His punishment was hardly onerous.
Why would McCarthy turn states evidence?
At worst can anticipate a long and confortable retirement at our expense.
Posted by: lonetown | April 22, 2006 at 08:28 AM
I have posted what appears to be the only picture of Mary McCarthy, plus her background info.
Posted by: Kitty | April 22, 2006 at 10:06 AM
Lefty blogs referring to her as a whistleblower.
Posted by: sad | April 22, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Someone needs to rewrite the Whistleblower Act to include the ability to leak to journalists. Otherwise, they are pissing in the wind. Of course, they have pissed in the wind before and failed to have it come back in their face. Hopefully, this time they will need hankies.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 10:27 AM
You know, it is hard to fathom how a woman who undoubtedly had to fight her way to the top, and who is extremely well educated and was involved where the real power is could be so overtaken with BDS that she'd throw it all away.
Probably the simplest explanation is that she didn't think she was risking throwing it all away. When's the last time you heard of a senior CIA person with political appointments in her resume be snagged for leaking?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2006 at 10:34 AM
Remeber when SACKED had a whole different meaning in the Clinton adminstration?
MayBee,
It would be interesting to know when the $5000 donation to Ohio happened. She was in the loop enough to know where the DNC was asking for the donations to go. Remember all the lawyers the Kerry campaign had lined up for the threatened recount in Ohio. This was to be the big push in the final weeks of the campaign.
Also, isn't it interesting that she held the same job descriptions as Tenet did before he was appointed CIA Director? Could she have been in line in a Kerry administration for CIA Director... She is definately a big fish.
Posted by: JF | April 22, 2006 at 10:58 AM
I see a book by Ms. McCarthy already in the works.
Posted by: MikeyMike | April 22, 2006 at 11:20 AM
If they can't get the Wistleblower Act re-written through the legislature, they will try to do it through the judiciary. Hence, the argument that the 1st Amendment protects the press from revealing it's sources.
Posted by: Chants | April 22, 2006 at 11:27 AM
The $5,000 donation to the Ohio DNC was on 10/04/2004.
Being too lazy to check the FEC link, did anyone note whether the McCarthy's contribution(s) to the Ohio DNC before or after election day?
If after, it creates the inference that they were among the truly die hard deadenders on the 2004 election.
Posted by: vnjagvet | April 22, 2006 at 12:18 PM
vnjagvet,
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:31 PM
I'm confused about something... A couple of months back Zell Miller wrote an op-ed for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution advocating that the regulations against politicking by CIA agents be extended to spouses. (I can find quotes from the article in various spots on the internet, but the AJC site has taken it down.)
But anyway, this article made pretty clear that intelligence agents were not supposed to be engaging in political activity under current rules -- how does McCarthy get to be making donations under her own name?
cathy :-)
Some have already alluded to it indirectly, but I get a strong vibration that McCarthy is the tip of an iceberg that involves the post-9/11 removal of the Gorelick wall.
Military intelligence and the various civilian agencies have been in a blood feud for going on five years now. With MI on the wax and CIA on the wane, the Clintonistas and careerists see their territory shrinking. They honestly believe, I think, that they are the only ones capable of (and entitiled to) intel gathering and dissemination.
The whole timely donation above pay grade into what would be a contested state (and I dunno: was Ohio considered seriously that far ahead of the election?) seems suspicious. But having said that, I get the feeling that this is garden variety D.C. status quo protection (similar to the Six Generals), with a splash of B.J. Clinton legacy protection thrown in for flavor:
Chimpy is peeing in the personal and career cabbage patches of some of Clinton's best and brightest. Therefore, Chimpy must be brought down.If not to protect their jobs, then to protect their reputations.
What I find terrifically amusing is the fact that BDS has changed traditional liberal loyalties somewhat. Used to be if you were Pentagon or CIA you were the liberal poster child for everything evil. Now, it sort of depends on how committed you are to bringing about Chimpy's demise through leaks, votes or donations.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 22, 2006 at 12:34 PM
I see it was on 10/5/04, according to FEC. Still, (I speculate) as an insider, she knew it was going to be close.
Were I a conspiracy theorist, I would be suspicious that so many of her contacts through CSIS have been in the middle of the MSM stories on the current administration's security "scandals".
As a lawyer who has prosecuted and defended conspiracy cases, were I investigating these "scandals", I would be exploring these connections very thorougly.
For example, Libby's counsel might be checking up on this even as we write.
OK, thanks. My point was not that you had paraphrased Miller's account of what was said re:the NIE at the Libby/Miller meeting incorrectly. My point was that Miller's account does not jibe well with what the court docs say.
Just as you might have hoped that the NYT would follow the former CIA officer's quote with something about how Miller said she wasn't getting anything new on the NIE, I might have hoped that you would follow your reference to Miller's account with something from the court docs that suggests that Libby did actually give her something new on the NIE.
Posted by: Foo Bar | April 22, 2006 at 01:09 PM
"The $5,000 donation to the Ohio DNC was on 10/04/2004."
Sure looks like lawyer money for challenging election results. McCarthy had every right to support any candidate she liked, but it's hard not to read this particular contribution as messaging, i.e. I'm on your side. At that point, a whole lot of folks thought Kerry was actually in a position to win the election, so you could also read it as a play to keep her job in a new administration. Combine it with the leaks, however, and it starts looking less exclusively pragmatic and more overtly political.
She'll certainly be played as a whistleblower, but I hope she does write a book. Even allowing for inevitable spin, I think we'd end up learning a bunch about the internecine warfare that's been playing out below the surface. There's an increasing irony attached to the assertion that each and every buck stops at Bush's desk, considering just how few former Clinton appointees he apparently replaced.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 22, 2006 at 01:18 PM
There's an increasing irony attached to the assertion that each and every buck stops at Bush's desk, considering just how few former Clinton appointees he apparently replaced.
I don't buy into all the accusations of 'incompetence' on Bush's part, but this comes close. I really do think Bush has more faith in people than was good for him.
Since Bush did not share that side's worldview before 9/11, he wouldn't understand how uncomfortable it is to sense one's worldview being shattered after that event. Some people went with the flow and changed, others hung on to their old views and fought tooth and nail to keep them. Inflexibility, thy name is the Left.
Posted by: Syl | April 22, 2006 at 01:52 PM
CULTURE OF TREASON!
Take that Nancy!
Gateway Pundits:
TIME MAGS "BEST SENATORS"
Flopping Aces:
Democrat's "Culture of Treason"
Posted by: larwyn | April 22, 2006 at 01:59 PM
More irony from McCarthy's CSIS bio: Under expertise they list "Preventive diplomacy/Conflict resolution."
I don't think leaking is going to be her final downfall, although I think it should be. She is going down because she FAILED a lie detector test ... a fact that has been shunted to the back in favor of the "she leaked classified info." The government's favorite fallback is to charge lying and obstruction and if she lied, then she was obstructing the investigation. To get caught lying on the lie detector test seems particularly egregious, especially for someone in her position. In fact, I would think that people at her level probably think they are immune from things like lie detector verification of their veracity.
Anyway, I'd like to see the Referral to DOJ, but I'd bet the principle charge is the lie.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 02:29 PM
They cannot charge on the outcome of a polygraph test. That's why her admission of the leak(s) is so important.
I'm not sure that's true, Syl. The CIA and many government offices inform prospective employees that they can be subject to random polygraphs and that failure is grounds for dismissal and perjury charges. They sign agreements not to reveal and that they understand the procedures and the consequences. If prosecution is spelled out in advance as a consequence, they may very well be able to prosecute the lie and surely the obstruction rising from the lie.
Thnik about what she revealed and the sensitivity of the information and how it affected our enemies and allies. Pollard is sitting in prison for life for revealing sensitive information to a friendly, Israel, and this woman revealed not only to foreign friends but foreign enemies as well during wartime. If it turns out that I've been right for months that there is/was a CIA cabal to bring down the duly elected government of the United States, then maybe it is time to think treason.
Squiggler, they can dismiss you fo failing your poly (although they've failed to do so in a number of cases) but I'm pretty certain that when I signed my oath there wasn't anything about prosecution for failing a poly, and even if there had been, considering that the polygraph isn't admissible as evidence of guilt, I don't think they could possibly make a charge stand on the poly alone.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2006 at 04:16 PM
There has always been a great deal made overbe th the existence of two governments in Washington - the elected and appointed political government, and the career government officials who are, supposedly, the real core of the government and outside of the political domain. The accepted apolitical nature of this bureaucracy has been the justification for retaining the vast bulk of government officials from one administration to the next. The benefits are obvious - you get to keep the experienced people; those people can continue to grow in competence, as the political heads of government come and go; normal government functions have a continuity of operations, without the glitches that would result from political replacements deep into the bureaucracy.
The integrity of the career government has long made this a relatively low risk way of doing business. Now, however, the polarization of American politics and the propensity for career government officials to violate their apolitical role has drastically increased the risk factor in allowing career government officials to retain their jobs from one administration to the next.
What are the alternatives?
IMO, either much more of the career bureaucracy needs to be replaced as a matter of course when a new political party takes control, or a no-prisoners enforcement of the "no politics" rules already in place, as well as the security regulations governing disclosure of classified information, must occur across the board.
I would much rather see the second option. I think it would be extremely difficult to replace many thousands more government officials every 4-8 years without seriously degrading the government's ability to function efficiently. I don't think we could find the numbers of qualified people who would be willing to interrupt their own careers, and I fear the political cronyism that would undoubtedly result. To avoid that, however, the government (and by this, I mean the career managers, as well as the politically appointed chiefs) have to play hardball with the "know betters". Step on them and step hard. Zero tolerance must be the rule.
Posted by: Dave in W-S | April 22, 2006 at 04:20 PM
But what about the obstruction charges growing out of the lie and the fact that once the poly showed she wasn't telling the truth she admitted the lie? I'm just trying to get this all straight, not questioning anyone's facts.
I would like to see the restrictions on career CIA employees as far as political activity. You can't do it while an active duty military person, or at least we were restricted during my husband's 30 year career.
I agree on the cure Dave, although I think it's not just that polarization has become increasingly problematic. It's that 9/11 really raised the ante -- both in terms of blame-gaming failures and in terms of prospective policy. Which is not to say there isn't a certain chicken-and-egg element to this sorry state of affairs. [BTW, does W-S stand for Winston-Salem? I assume you don't mind explaining the reference, but pls. don't feel obliged to do so.]
JMH,
You got it in one - Winston-Salem, NC :-)
Back later, off to deliver teenager to birthday party. (No strippers, this is W-S, not Durham)
TM, I look forward to your investigative reporting on how 67% of Americans are secretly american-hating communists with ties to Iran.
One day, I suggest you sit down and spend some time with Bayes rule. It will help clarify your misperceptions on how to evaluate evidence. This doesn't seem to be something they teach in law school.
Posted by: Jor | April 22, 2006 at 05:40 PM
When circularity palls, switch to hyperbole, molls.
Posted by: kim | April 22, 2006 at 05:59 PM
Is that 67% a part of the 74% who don't approve of Hillary? Seems to me you're rather confused about the electorate.
DaveinW>S>
LOL about the teenage party. A sense of humor can carry us through these crazy times.
Living in Ohio I can tell you it was VERY close on election night. My husband and I were on pins and needles and as I've posted before just screamed when they called Ohio for President Bush. I love the fact that Maybee I believe posted that Kerry people were begging the networks not to call Ohio for Bush.
Finally on topic; All the inter-connections with McCarthy and Berger and Kerry campaign is just downright creepy. Is this how our government by the people is supposed to work? People working at the pleasure of the president are trying to stage an election coup? We haven't seen such nefarious doings since "Julius Caesar" " Et tu Brute" Indeed.
Posted by: maryrose | April 22, 2006 at 07:49 PM
No, it's not supposed to be how government by the people is supposed to work. At least, as our experience with self-government grew, we learned from the mistakes and excesses of the past and policed ourselves. Hence, the Hatch Act of 1939, which
"...grew out of a general tradition of electoral reform. In essence, it finally did away with the last vestiges of patronage, and one could say it was the end of the civil service reforms started in the 1880s. But the most significant impetus, affecting both its timing and its content, was the widespread allegation that Works Progress Administration (WPA) funds had been misused by staff members and local Democratic Party politicians during the congressional elections of 1938."
"The original Act forbade intimidation or bribery of voters and restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibited using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It also forbade officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.
The most restrictive measure was brought about by Republicans in the Senate. It dictated that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns."
The Hatch Act survived Supreme Court 1st Amendment challenges in 1947 and 1974, and numerous attempts in Congress to water down its provisions. Finally, in 1993, "...Congress passed legislation that significantly amended the Hatch Act as it applies to federal and D.C. employees..."
The current version of the Hatch Act still prescribes what federal employees may and may not legally do with respect to political activity.
Most federal and DC employees have been allowed somewhat greater political freedom.
Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Participate in Partisan Political Activity
These federal and D.C. employees may-
* be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
* register and vote as they choose
* assist in voter registration drives
* express opinions about candidates and issues
* contribute money to political organizations
* attend political fundraising functions
* attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
* join and be an active member of a political party or club
* sign nominating petitions
* campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
* campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
* distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
* hold office in political clubs or parties
These federal and D.C. employees may not-
* use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
* solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
* solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* engage in political activity while:
o on duty
o in a government office
o wearing an official uniform
o using a government vehicle
* wear partisan political buttons on duty
HOWEVER, there is more yet to come:
Agencies/Employees Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity
(My presumption is that these lists are cumulative - i.e., the restrictions that follow are on top of the restrictions previously listed.)
Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:
Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Imagery Office
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Federal Elections Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
Office of Special Counsel
Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))
Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Not Participate in Partisan Political Activity
These federal employees may-
* participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
* contribute money to political organizations or attend political fund raising functions
* attend political rallies and meetings
* join political clubs or parties
These federal employees may not-
* campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches
* collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
* distribute campaign material in partisan elections
* organize or manage political rallies or meetings
* circulate nominating petitions
* work to register voters for one party only
* wear political buttons at work
BTW, one more tidbit on the Hatch Act.
Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act
"An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board."
I wonder whether Mary McCarthy was fired for a Hatch Act violation.
What does the Hatch Act say about regicide?
Okay, so I'm on a soapbox here. But I spent 20 years in the Army and can't begin to count how many mandatory classes I attended on the Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions on political activity by service members - basically the Hatch Act as it was incorporated into the UCMJ. Every active duty service member knows full well what the deal is on political activity. I can't help but believe that senior people in non-military government service are also well schooled in this area.
Somewhat OT, with regard to the gaggle of generals who recently became outspoken critics: If their actions would not be acceptable for an active duty serving officer, are they excusable for a retired officer?
I submit, for your consideration, two points:
1. Military retirees are not retirees in the same sense as civilian retirees. They are, upon retirement, transferred to the Retired Reserve, are placed on half-pay by virtue of their reserve status, and are subject to recall to active duty per the needs of the service.
2. Per the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 802.ART.2 Persons Subject to this Chapter, the persons subject to the UCMJ include
"(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."
The question then appears merely to be, is the political fallout worth taking down these generals for violating their own legal code?
I doubt the Hatch Act says much about regicide, but the British equivalent (if there is one) may well. ;-)
Is that 67% a part of the 74% who don't approve of Hillary?
Do you have a link to this poll that shows 74% disapproval of Hillary? I would like to read more about this poll. Thanks!
There are other interesting 'connections'.
According to blogger 'Sweetness & Light' (www.sweetness-light.com) "Dana Priest's Husband Gets Joe Wilson Gigs -- Pulitzer Prize winning Dana Priest is married to William Goodfellow. William Goodfellow is the Executive Director of the the Center for International Policy (CIP)."
"The Center's Mission:
Promoting a U.S. foreign policy based on international cooperation, demilitarization and respect for basic human rights
The Center for International Policy was founded in 1975, in the wake of the Vietnam War, by former diplomats and peace activists."
Mr. William Goodfellow's email address is wcgpeace@aol.com. So, Ms. Priest is married to an antiwar activist. I am certain she brings fairness and balance to all her 'reporting'.
Posted by: NIBystander | April 22, 2006 at 10:24 PM
Now who was that "Winter Soldier" John McCarthy? Hmmmm.
Dave says ""The question then appears merely to be, is the political fallout worth taking down these generals for violating their own legal code?"""
It may be fun if Bush recalled Zinni to active duty and send him to Iraq for a year.
In response to the article by Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver
All That's Given Up In The Name Of National Security
http://www.nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/All%20Thats%20Given%20up%20Op-ed-July31-06.htm
The potential for abuse with the catch all phrase of "National Security" is finally exposed in the continuous efforts on the part of the US Government which show no sign of abatement.
So, what is the reason for "national security" being used as the blanket response to justify the suppression of information?
Is it invoked for gagging whistleblower's who possess information which, if disclosed, would expose the official government position on a given subject as a bold faced lie or as a pretext for war or continuing a war?
Grave Danger to the United States gives us pause to reflect on the cause and effect of the inappropriate release of information which could provide an enemy of our country to take such action as to avoid our defenses. But that is not the case here. We certainly would not want a potential enemy from knowing our war plans. That is not the case here, either.
But suppressing information which would destroy our government's contrived position on relevant information on issues such as 911 is an egregious excuse and mis-use of "national security"excuse to hide the truth. It should also be noted that current and past regulations forbid the use or excuse for the classification of matters which are invoked to cover a criminal act.
An actual example of invoking "national security" as the primary reason/excuse for closing a criminal trial proceeding stretches the fabric of the blanket of "national security" to the breaking point.
Government court arguments that exposure of witness testimony in an open court environment would seriously effect the national security of the United States and the further prosecution of the war (in Vietnam) gives us obvious trepidation and a cause to pause. For those who would question the validity of such procedures without having access to the "national security" issues, there is the assumed factor that there MUST be something in the classified portions of the Record of Trial which are part and parcel of the evidence for the court having rendered a verdict of guilt. This throws us back to the reasoning that "certainly if the government had a reason to listen to our conversations, read our email or maintain a classification of sensitive materials, there must be a just cause for such action".
However, when years later it comes to light that the actual reason for this blanket of national security was to obsfucate a high crime, it is way too late to do anything about it, and in most cases, the perpetrators are dead.
Will the excuses of "national security" gag orders against the current cases of whistleblowers last long enough for them to die before the documents are exposed for what they actually are?
1. Since no one had yet testified on the "national security" issues argued by the government as the reason to close the trial to the public, in violation of the 6th Amendment, it would appear incredible that such a position be advanced before the court. The fear of exposing unknown and unspecified secrets gives caution as to the actual reason for closing the trial to the public.
2. Re witness testimony "seriously effecting the further prosecution of the war" in Vietnam, one is left with the great impression that such testimony would cause the war in Vietnam to be stopped. This Linus Blanket of "national security" was the ultimate excuse which was designed to provide the trial judge with the rationale to close the court to the public. (Had the testimony been given in open court and the war in Vietnam stopped as a result of this testimony, there would be thirty thousand fewer names on the Vietnam War Memorial. Did the government actually fear that the exposure of the treason on the part of the NSC members would halt the Vietnam War? Did they even know of the actual treason or were they just relying on CIA's reasoning that the issues were most sensitive to their sources and methods? Did the local CIA have a clue to the NSC treason against the President?)
Other options for the government were to defer the trial until after hostilities ended or dismiss the charge and free the defendant. The government strongly hinted that if the judge ruled in favor of keeping the trial open, they would entertain the option of halting the prosecution.
The judge, being informed that the prosecutions case did not rely on classified matters, allowed the trial to proceed in open session with a number of interested parties in attendance.
The prosecution had already established that all members of the court, the lawyers for both prosecution and defense were cleared for information up to and including top secret. The judge was therefore on notice that certain issues of "national security" would be forthcoming in the form of testimony from defense witnesses but not from the prosecutions witnesses.
When prosecution witnesses began responding to questions by the prosecutor the judge called a halt to the proceedings and declared, after the court was cleared of jurors and 'interested' parties, "I thought you assured me that we were not going to have this turning the witnesses on and blurting out classified information?" The prosecutor explained that there was nothing classified about the witnesses testimony. The judge noted that, "Well, the security officer (CIA) is about to have a heart attack!"
The judge then exclaimed, "I am not going to conduct this trial walking on egg shells. Why are we being forced to go through this exercise?"
Up to this point, there had been no disclosure before the court or interested parties of CIA involvement or mention of the country of Cambodia. Discussion on these issues had taken place before the court was called during government's arguments to close the court to the public. The aura of National Security permeated the courtroom and the psyche of the judge. But it is here that the pattern in the weave of the Linus Blanket of 'national security' began to unravel.
The trial ended in a conviction for premeditated murder on January 30, 1968 at 7:00 PM. The sentence was life in prison.
The conviction was overturned in November, 1970 by an appellate court in Washington, DC because of "newly found evidence and fraud on the court". The governments expert witness had recanted his incourt testimony, in writing, and submitted it to his boss at the Bethesda, Maryland Armed Forces Institute of Pathology where it remained hidden from September, 1968 until November, 1970. This file also contained FBI reports dated February 8, 1968, just nine days after trial, containing exculpatory evidence in violation of Supreme Court Ruling Brady v Maryland http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/brady_v_maryland.htm
However, the written recantation of the government's star witness was determined to be sufficient to over rule the conviction and the FBI was never called to task for their violation of Supreme Court rulings or other egregious acts in this matter.
The charge was dismissed on January 8, 1971
In November, 2000 the State Department declassified once top secret documents which were released on the Internet by the LBJ Library.
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id48.html
http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/17.html
This is where the Linus Blanket of 'national security' became shredded. These documents prove, in no uncertain terms, that the CIA, State Department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as other members present during National Security meetings attended by the President, blatantly disregarded presidential directives issued during NSC meetings during June 1966 wherein the president expressed his concern over the state of affairs in Cambodia and his desire to 'get closer' to then Prince, now King Norodom Sihanouk by forbidding any and all support for Khmer Serei activities including the overthrow of the Cambodian Government and the assassination of Sihanouk.
This information allows but one conclusion for critical thinking: The government's demand for a closed trial was predicated on maintaining the secrecy of rogue CIA operations in violation of presidential directives issued during NSC meetings, during wartime. When LBJ was made aware of the court outcome in 1968 he made it known that he "...would not seek, nor accept, my parties nomination for a second term as President of The United States". One must conclude, therefore, that the treasonous actions by the NSC were of major concern to the President and the root cause for the continued quagmire of the Vietnam War.
And these are only a few examples and long lasting ramifications when 'national security' is wrongly invoked. Unfortunately, the added blockage of 'need to know' further isolates those with true justification for such knowledge.
The pattern of abuse continues.
Must we wait another thirty two years for the blanket of national security to be lifted on the information used to gag Sibel Edmonds by court order? Are there crimes of treason in the documents shielded from interested parties relating to the 'inside job' and government facilitation of the events of 911?
It should also be noted that the information found in the above documents has been submitted to Senators of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the former Attorney General, the National Archives and White House, without response. Subsequent letters of Inquiry seeking response have likewise been ignored.
Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver wrote:
"We have also received e-mails from individuals who argued against the public's right to know when it comes to issues such as NSA warrantless eavesdropping or mass collection of citizens' financial and other personal data by various intelligence and defense related agencies. They unite in their argument that any measure to protect us from the terrorists is welcomed and justified. One individual wrote: "so what if they are listening to our conversations. I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind the government eavesdropping on my phone conversations. Only those engaged in evil deeds would worry about the government placing them under surveillance." But how far can one let the government go based on this rationale? This issue is well articulated in Federalist, No. 51, "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." How do we oblige our government to control itself?"
Having nothing to hide matters not when the government resorts to fabricating evidence in order to obtain a guilty verdict. Surveillance of phones and emails can trigger a warrant-less search and the potential of 'planting' evidence which, when 'found' can and will be used in a court of law to convict any individual. But in this continuous war on terrorism and the Patriot Act, such convictions will only be obtained in secret courts covered by the blanket of 'national security', ostensibly to protect the vital interests of our country but actually to secret the sources and methods of obtaining 'evidence' with which to convict 'terrorists' or other enemies of the state.
"Our entire system of government and its institutions is grounded in an insistence that tyranny be combated and that individual liberty be protected from a potentially tyrannical government. The result is a suspicion of authority and an emphasis on limited government. Samuel Huntington, a well-known conservative Republican, states in American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony: "The distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its antigovernment character. Opposition to power, and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power, are the central themes of American political thought."
Tyranny in the form of treason, to undermine the will of the President, and therefore the people, by forming a government within the government, and by subtrefuge, bypass and eliminate the will and focus of the President to counter efforts of war expansion and continuation of the existing war is utterly reprehensible and mind numbing to those now exposed to such skulldugary. In this case, the opposition to power, the power of the presidency, itself, is a matter of grave concern and shows the potential for true disaster in the nuclear age by those who would subvert the law of this land.
The following was written in 1979, before the above documents were known to exist or released. This is the background for continuity of the documents in question.
And the following synopsis, written in 1997, provides further continuity.
In conclusion, the use and excuse for secreting crimes by invoking the blanket of "national security" must be exposed for the ruse that it is.
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com
Posted by: john mccarthy | August 13, 2006 at 06:17 PM


text:
Could ALL Of The Marvel Television Shows Soon Be Falling Under The Marvel Studios Banner?
September 29, 2019 by jaywashington, posted in Entertainment, Film, TV
One of the big things that Marvel Studios is doing on top of the Phase 4 and 5 movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the big MCU TV shows they are producing for the Disney plus streaming site. Marvel Studios President, Kevin Feige is developing a number of big budget TV shows for the Disney+ streaming service. But now it seems that may not be all because days after Hulu pulled the plug on GHOST RIDER, it's now believed that all future live-action small screen productions will fall solely under Feige's Marvel Studios banner.
A Marvel Television insider recently told Variety that they at HULU have "several" live-action projects in the works. But for know the only one that known is HELSTROM as the rest have either been scrapped or have uncertain futures. RUNAWAYS and CLOAK AND DAGGER (both which are set to air upcoming seasons) have yet to be renewed beyond their upcoming seasons.
It's being reported that the plan now is for Marvel Studios to basically be in charge of everything to ensure that the stories put out there are of a consistent quality. With the Disney+ shows, "Marvel Studios execs and Feige held meetings early on to discuss how to maintain the visual standard fans have come to expect from Marvel's films while still bringing their budgets more in line with other TV shows."
Marvel Television has never really recovered from the embarrassment of THE INHUMANS, which many do not like to speak of. Along with the cancellations of the Marvel Netflix shows it is very understandable. But the animated projects which are set to hit HULU are still all set to go .
Now, it sounds like Marvel Television's future projects will mostly be of the animated variety.
Tagged Cloak And Dagger, Ghost Rider, Helstrom, Hulu, inhumans, Kevin Feige, Marvel Studios, Marvel Television, Marvel TV, RunawaysLeave a comment
Hulu is bringing the RUNAWAYS back for a second season
January 8, 2018 by jaywashington, posted in Entertainment
The Marvel series that revolves around a group of teens who discover their parents are part of an evil organization will continue to tell its story for a second season.
Hulu has announced that it will renew the Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage hit series and will upgrade them to 13 episodes for its sophomore season. Much of this is thanks to positive reviews from fans and critics (90 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and certified fresh at 83 percent among critics).
We are excited for the second season having hung along for the ride. We want to know what you all think about this. Are you excited? Do you want to see a second season?
Tagged Hulu, Josh Schwartz, Marvel's Runaways, Runaways, Stephanie SavageLeave a comment

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
RT @jaythechou: I Photoshop paddington into a movie, game, or TV show until I forget: Day 690 https://t.co/Pa7VBVjG8z 3 minutes ago
@Denissemoo @WindsOfTheWeird There are MANY hints about Leland, despite only David and Mark knowing. It's staggering. 4 minutes ago
@timheidecker Beef Boys 1 hour ago
Film Threat Review: The Informant!
Prolific and varied best describes Steven Soderbergh's career. "Sex, Lies and Videotape," "Out of Sight" and "The Limey" are all compelling character pieces. "Traffic" and "Erin Brockovich" are preachy Oscar-pandering (but hey, it worked) and the "Oceans" movies are gimmicky commercial fare. "The Informant!" falls in line with his character-driven early work. It's not a perfect film, but it's definitely the Soder-side I prefer.
Matt Damon proves once again that he was the more talented of the Beantown Twins. He's virtually unrecognizable in the role of whistle blower, Mark Whitacre, and it's not because he "bravely" gained weight for the part (though I'm sure the Academy is salivating at gesture). You can still recognize the matinee idol underneath the chub, but he's pulling off something that few of his contemporaries are capable of. He buries the celebrity persona deep inside the character, in this case, the mind of a manic-depressive mid-western geek who fancies himself a secret agent.
"The Informant!" is the true-ish story of a scientist-turned-executive working for an agribusiness firm that makes corn additives for foods. Whitacre becomes involved with the FBI when he reveals that his company has been involved in price-fixing. He is suspiciously cooperative when they ask him to wear a wire. Before long, Whitacre's enthusiasm takes over. He fancies himself a character in a John Grisham novel. The spy-music score echoes the fantasies that Whitacre weaves in his head. Eventually, we learn that his self-delusion goes deeper than anyone had ever imagined.
I love an unreliable narrator, and Mark Whitacre's voiceover is about as unreliable as they come, thus eliminating the usual trappings, such as tedious over-exposition. His narration is more stream-of-consciousness than informational. Most of the time, his thoughts are only loosely connected to what's happening around him. His brain spouts factoids about animals and comes up with ideas for TV shows when he's in the middle of a conversation. So when he repeatedly tells the FBI agents "There's something I haven't told you guys," the revelations are as much a surprise to the audience as they are to the other characters. This keeps things interesting in what could have easily been a dry corporate corruption story. There is a definite Coen Brothers-esque lightness to the whole thing.
The supporting cast is also excellent. It's refreshing to see Melanie Lynskey returning to the meatier fare that launched her career. Scott Bakula, Joel McHale and Thomas F. Wilson (Biff!) also turn in terrific performances. Where the film suffers is in the editing. The story feels a bit repetitive at times and could have been tightened up. The retro titles and music are an interesting but not entirely appropriate choice for a film that begins in 1992. Many of the jokes work, but occasionally, they are just a little too cutesy for their own good. For the most part, however, "The Informant!" earns the charisma that the title's exclamation point implies.
Originally posted on FilmThreat.com.
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags:filmthreat . Author: Baxter
Vaya Con Dios, Bodhi NFT Radar – Fainting Goat Gelato


text:
<layout name="TestHarness" title="Test Harness" version="4.0">
	<element _type="_menubar" />
	<element _type="_toolbar" />
	<element _type="splitterview" orientation="vertical">
		<element _type="splitterpane" size="47" relative="false">
			<element _type="cwfUserHeader" />
		</element>
		<element _type="splitterpane" size="90" relative="true">
			<element _type="tabview" orientation="top">
				<element _type="tabpane" label="Test Harness">
					<element _type="treeview" caption="Plugins:" open="true" />
				</element>
			</element>
		</element>
		<element _type="splitterpane" size="17" relative="false">
			<element _type="cwfStatusPanel" />
		</element>
	</element>
</layout>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


SJC Long Island's Council for the Arts will welcome internationally renowned artist Ejay Weiss as the fall 2016 Artist in Residence. His work will be on display from Oct. 9 through Nov. 18 in the Board Room Gallery of O'Connor Hall.
Weiss, whose work is inspired by the splendor of nature and its vast array of organic processes, will host an artist reception Monday, Nov. 14 at 1 p.m. Additionally, Weiss will lead an artist talk in the Shea Conference Room at 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 15.
For five decades, Weiss' pieces have been inspired by nature, physics, evolution and geologic processes. Notable this September, four of his large, nine-panel 9/11 Elegy: Ghost City series of paintings are featured at the inaugural art exhibition entitled: Rendering the Unthinkable: Artists Respond to 9/11. The exhibition commemorates the 15th anniversary of 9/11 at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.
Throughout his residency, Weiss conduct a series of workshops and talks discussing how the second dimension can utilize a global perspective, and the ways critical mass and entropy are embedded within the macro/microcosm of his canvas.


Interest Only Loan Calculator – Simple & Easy to Use – Additionally, the interest rate of an interest-only loan is usually higher than a conventional mortgage loan because lenders consider interest-only loans to be riskier. It is also possible for the interest rate to vary based on fluctuating market conditions if your particular loan is set up as an adjustable-rate loan .
mortgage pre approval means Loan Preapproval: A Smart Move for Buyers – The Balance – But what does that mean, and why is it important?. If you and the lender have been thorough in the preapproval process, there shouldn't be.
fha 203 k financing Learn About FHA 203k Improvement Loans – The Balance – An FHA 203k loan allows you to borrow money, using only one loan, for both home improvement and a home purchase. These loans can also.about home equity loans conventional mortgage without pmi Veterans: You May Be Missing Out On $42K In Mortgage Benefits – In fact, between rates that average a little under half a point less, and the fact that vets do not have to pay private mortgage insurance, VA loan payments on a $250k mortgage average about $3,100.lenders that offer fha loans Are online mortgage lenders the Best Way to Buy a Home? A Reality Check – pro: online lenders often offer lower rates and fees Because online mortgage. This can be a big disadvantage if you're applying for a complicated loan, such as an FHA loan or a mortgage for a.Should you use home equity to pay off student loans? – The. – · With nearly 44 million Americans saddled with $1.4 trillion in student loans, Fannie Mae is offering those with houses an opportunity to wipe out the debt through refinancing their mortgage.
Freddie Mac Announces Pricing of $560 Million Multifamily Small Balance Loan Securitization – Freddie Mac is guaranteeing four senior principal and interest classes and one interest only class of securities issued by the. lenders with extensive experience in this market who source loans.
Refinance Mortgage | Home Loan Refinance Options | ditech – You are leaving the ditech website and linking to the website of assurant insurance agency. This link is provided for your convenience only in connection with your current mortgage loan, and is not intended to be provided in connection with any potential refinance or purchase loan transaction.
Student Loan Refinance & Consolidation Companies for 2019 – LendKey Full Review. LendKey is a refinancing option for student loan borrowers. LendKey works to match borrowers with not-for-profit credit unions offering educational debt refinancing and consolidation.
How to Refinance an Interest-Only Loan | Home Guides | SF Gate – How to Refinance an Interest-Only Loan. This is one benefit interest-only loans provide. Their major disadvantage is that the minimum payment does not reduce the loan balance each month. In areas experiencing declining housing prices, an interest-only loan can create a situation in which the homeowner's mortgage is more than the value of the home.
Refinance Interest Only Loan – A fixed rate of interest remains unchanged throughout the period of the loan. Low rates refinancing helps save money which can be used to repay the principal of the loan, thus further reducing payments.


text:
Group accuses Atiku of tax evasion, asks FIRS to release his record
by Oluwatoyin Bayagbon	0 Comments
The Committee for the Protection of Peoples Mandate (CPPM), an activist group, has demanded that the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) produce tax receipts belonging to Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
In a letter sent to the FIRS dated November 16, and signed by Nelson Ekujumi, the group's national coordinator, Abubakar was accused of evading tax for several years.
The group said he only paid the backlog from 2015 to 2017 in order to meet up with the requirements of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to contest the presidential election.
CPPM alleged that Abubakar only used his 2017 tax receipt to fill the presidential nomination forms.
A copy of Abubakar's tax clearance certificate showed that the PDP presidential candidate was issued the certificate on April 19, 2018, for payment of his personal income tax for 2015, 2016, and 2017.
A separate receipt was issued by the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCTIRS) for N4 million paid as tax for the year 2017.
The payment date captured on the receipt was April 12, 2018.
The group threatened to take the matter to court if the FIRS did not honour its request for the tax receipts, to prove whether Atiku paid his taxes at the right time or not.
"We are Nigerians committed to enthrone honesty and integrity in public office and the sustenance of true democracy," the letter read.
"It is in this regard that we write to you under Section 1 (1) and (2) and Section 4(a) of the Freedom of Information Act to make available to us the 2015 and 2016 Personal Income Tax receipts of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar who is the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the 2019 Presidential elections.
"Information at our disposal is that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar DID NOT PAY HIS Personal Income Tax for several years and only ran to the FIRS in April this year to pay the back-log of only his 2015 – 2017 taxes to meet up with the requirements of INEC. Hence, in filing his INEC forms, he only produced his receipt for 2017 tax which was paid in April, 2018.
"As someone who continuously says he is interested in getting Nigeria and its economy working again, it is important Nigerians know whether he has been paying his Personal Income Taxes AS AT WHEN DUE.
"Consequently, we request for his 2015 and 2016 Tax receipts to ascertain whether he paid his taxes AS AT WHEN DUE.
"TAKE NOTICE that you are to meet our demands within SEVEN (7) working days of the receipt of this letter."
atiku abubakarFIRSINECTax Evasion
Rasheed Balogun, 3SC GM, dies at 62


text:
Urban Adaptation ›
Help Center ›
Ways to Use the UAA ›
Making the Case for Where to Invest
A city council for a mid-size city in Arizona has been presented with a proposal for adaptation strategies to reduce the health risks due to future heat waves. These strategies include public communications efforts to direct residents to seek air-conditioned shelter, stay hydrated, and limit their exposure to direct sunlight, as well as investing in future community infrastructure like cooled community centers and added tree coverage. The UAA can be used to determine not only what to focus funds on, but where.
With the UAA, a city councilor can find their city, and access the sub-city mapping. Within these maps, they can select the heat hazard tab, then view a map of their city that shows -- for each census tract within the city -- the percentage of tree canopy coverage, layered with a view of social vulnerabilities such as the percentage of the population that is elderly and living alone.
With this information, a city councilor can determine if their district shows the highest need for adaptation within the city. If it does, they can screen capture the maps and download the data to present to the other city councilors, supporting the case that investment in their district offers the most return in terms of health outcomes, minimizing any political struggle over where in the city to distribute resources.
Urban Adaptation
Adaptation in Action


text:
Carriera
Con il Club Bruges vinse 5 campionati belgi (1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980) e 2 Coppe di Belgio (1970, 1977). Era il capitano dei neroblù che raggiunsero la finale di Coppa dei Campioni nel 1978 contro il Liverpool, e che in precedenza segnò la prima rete della vittoriosa semifinale di ritorno contro la Juventus.

Palmarès

Club

Competizioni nazionali

Bruges: 1972-1973, 1975-1976, 1976-1977, 1977-1978, 1979-1980

Bruges: 1980

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

Calciatori della Nazionale belga

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The Study of Information System in Occupational and Environmental Health
สมเกียติ ศิริรัตนพฤกษ์; เพ็ญศรี อนันตกุลนธี; พิบูล อิสสระพันธุ์;
The study of information system in occupational and environmental health is a project under the development of information system in occupational and environmental health project. The aims of the study were to review knowledge on information system in occupational and environmental health field and study the situation of such system in the country. The steps of the study included literature review, information collection, and seminar for information and experience sharing among experts and relevant organizations The results of the study showed that there are 2 issues concerning the study: the information system for occupational health and the other for environmental health. There are at least 2 important databases for both information systems, including environment database and health database. Environment database consists of data from measurement of hazardous levels in various setting such as working environment, or pollution level in communities. On the other hand, health database consists of exposure data in population from health screening and disease information from hospitals and other health service centers. Apart from the database, the proper information system should include data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and dissemination systems. In this study, only occupational health information system under the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Health was selected for analysis. The study found that such information systems are mainly responsible by two agencies such as the Bureau of Health Strategy and Planning and the Bureau of Epidemiology. Both agencies have established and developed their own information system, e.g. data collection, analysis, and interpretation. They focus on not only occupational diseases but also general diseases, depending on their mandates. Regarding health service centers, several hospitals and health centers throughout the country have provided occupational health services. The occupational health services include pro-active and passive approach (or service at health service stations). The information collected includes data from walk-through survey, environmental assessment, health screening, and disease diagnosis and treatment. Up to now, several health service centers have developed their own occupational health information system to manage information they collected. In conclusion, the development of information system in occupational and environmental health is very important for occupational and environmental health service system. However, the system faces many obstacles and problems, such as no information available, data accuracy, data sharing among relevant organizations, and supportive system for system maintenance. Therefore, responsible agencies have to co-operate to tackle the problems and to improve the information system.
Name: hs1675.pdf


text:
Q: Error when trying to add splash screen - android app I'm an android newbie
I was following this tutorial Android splash screen howto, it's a little outdated, but anyways.
I just add the new layout file splash.xml into res/layout, and then the image into drawable/mdpi, then I change the main image into MainActivity.java, ie:
setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);

to
setContentView(R.layout.splash);

Being activity_main the name of the default layout, activity_main.xml, and splash the name of the other layout called splash.xml.
But application stops, says the application has unfortunately stopped, and I can't even access it.
I don't know what am I missing here, here's the interesting code on MainActivity.java:
 protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState)
  {
    // TODO Auto-generated method stub
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);

    getWindow().setFormat(PixelFormat.TRANSLUCENT);
    requestWindowFeature(Window.FEATURE_NO_TITLE);
    getWindow().setFlags(
                         WindowManager.LayoutParams.FLAG_FULLSCREEN,
                         WindowManager.LayoutParams.FLAG_FULLSCREEN);

    setContentView(R.layout.splash);

    relativeLayout=(RelativeLayout) findViewById(R.id.containerImg);
    relativeLayout.setDrawingCacheEnabled(true);
    cameraSurfaceView = (SurfaceView)
                                       findViewById(R.id.surfaceView1);
  //  cameraSurfaceView.setLayoutParams(new FrameLayout.LayoutParams(640, 480));
    cameraSurfaceHolder = cameraSurfaceView.getHolder();
    cameraSurfaceHolder.addCallback(this);
//    cameraSurfaceHolder.setType(SurfaceHolder.
  //                                               SURFACE_TYPE_PUSH_BUFFERS);

    btnCapture = (Button)findViewById(R.id.button1);
    btnCapture.setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener()
    {
      @Override
      public void onClick(View v)
      {
         // TODO Auto-generated method stub
         camera.takePicture(cameraShutterCallback,
                                       cameraPictureCallbackRaw,
                                       cameraPictureCallbackJpeg);
      }
    });
  }

My activity_main.xml:
<FrameLayout xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
xmlns:tools="http://schemas.android.com/tools"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="match_parent"
tools:context=".MainActivity" >

<RelativeLayout
    android:id="@+id/containerImg"
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent" >

        <SurfaceView
            android:id="@+id/surfaceView1"
            android:layout_width="1276px"
            android:layout_height="745px"
            android:layout_centerInParent="true" />

        <ImageView
            android:id="@+id/imageView1"
            android:layout_width="wrap_content"
            android:layout_height="wrap_content"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@+id/surfaceView1"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@+id/surfaceView1"
            android:layout_marginLeft="20px"
            android:src="@drawable/mark3" />

</RelativeLayout>

<Button
   android:id="@+id/button1"
   android:layout_width="wrap_content"
   android:layout_height="wrap_content"
   android:layout_gravity="right|center_vertical"
   android:background="@drawable/camera" />

</FrameLayout>

My splash.xml:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<LinearLayout
    xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
    android:layout_width="fill_parent"
    android:layout_height="fill_parent">

<ImageView
    android:src="@drawable/splash"
    android:layout_width="fill_parent"
    android:layout_height="fill_parent"
    android:scaleType="fitXY"/>
</LinearLayout>

Any ideas?
Maybe I should use the same activity_main.xml for this purposes, not really sure...
Thanks in advance!
EDIT
Logcat:
3774-3774/com.kkoci.photo E/AndroidRuntime﹕ FATAL EXCEPTION: main
java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to start activity     ComponentInfo{com.kkoci.photo/com.kkoci.photo.MainActivity}:     java.lang.NullPointerException
        at android.app.ActivityThread.performLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2245)
        at android.app.ActivityThread.handleLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2295)
        at android.app.ActivityThread.access$700(ActivityThread.java:150)
        at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage(ActivityThread.java:1280)
        at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99)
        at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:175)
        at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:5279)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:511)
        at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:1102)
        at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:869)
        at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method)
Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
        at com.kkoci.photo.MainActivity.onCreate(MainActivity.java:65)
        at android.app.Activity.performCreate(Activity.java:5283)
        at android.app.Instrumentation.callActivityOnCreate(Instrumentation.java:1097)
        at android.app.ActivityThread.performLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2209)
at android.app.ActivityThread.handleLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2295)
at android.app.ActivityThread.access$700(ActivityThread.java:150)
at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage(ActivityThread.java:1280)
at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99)
at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:175)
at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:5279)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:511)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:1102)
at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:869)
at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method)

A: relativeLayout=(RelativeLayout) findViewById(R.id.containerImg);
relativeLayout.setDrawingCacheEnabled(true);
cameraSurfaceView = (SurfaceView)findViewById(R.id.surfaceView1);

these are the views present in your activity_main xml file.. when you change your layout file why you are accessing these?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Continue reading "Our Rural ABI Treatment Project"
Continued Professional Development (CPD). What benefits does it offer you?
Want to feel happier and healthier in 2 minutes? Take the #222 Challenge and see.
Continue reading "Mental Health Awareness"
Continue reading "Life Lessons & Our Perspective"


text:
It Takes Two (1988, David Beaird)
It Takes Two features a dream sequence set in protagonist George Newbern's stomach. It looks cheaper than an antacid commercial.
The movie's filled with fake Southern accents–Newbern loses the accent after about fifteen minutes, right before he gets to the big city (Dallas) where he needs to buy an imitation Lamborghini from some seedy city folks.
It Takes Two doesn't like big city folks, Mexicans or blacks much, but big city folks and Mexicans are worst.
I'd been curious about the film because of Newbern, who appeared in this one at the start of his film career. It apparently stalled it.
The second unit shots of Dallas are fantastic, Beaird's not a bad director and the film has an amazing score from Carter Burwell, so it's occasionally watchable. Newbern's playing a rube and he's not terrible besides the accent. Leslie Hope is his Machiavellian fiancée. If she's supposed to be shrilly evil, she does a good job (except her accent). Kimberly Foster is a lot better as the other woman, but she's got an actual character. Or at least the semblance of one.
Some decent supporting performances from Barry Corbin, Anthony Geary, Patrika Darbo and Frances Lee McCain. Bill Boleander looks like he's reading from the script on set. Marco Perella is pretty awful too.
Peter Deming's fantastic cinematography gives the film a far more reputable feel than it deserves.
It's all okay though, because the ungodly Foster gets her comeuppance.
Heinous is a good adjective for the movie.
Directed by David Beaird; written by Richard Christian Matheson and Thomas E. Szollosi; director of photography, Peter Deming; edited by David Garfield; music by Carter Burwell; production designer, Richard Hoover; produced by Robert Lawrence; released by United Artists.
Starring George Newbern (Travis Rogers), Leslie Hope (Stephanie Lawrence), Kimberly Foster (Jonni Tigersmith), Barry Corbin (George Lawrence), Anthony Geary (Wheel), Frances Lee McCain (Joyce Rogers), Patrika Darbo (Dee Dee), Marco Perella (Dave) and Bill Bolender (Judd Rogers).
Anthony GearyBarry CorbinCarter BurwellGeorge NewbernIt Takes TwoKimberly FosterLeslie HopePatrika DarboUnited Artists
Previous PostInnerspace (1987, Joe Dante)Next PostCat Feud (1958, Chuck Jones)


Eyewear by the brand PRADA Sport, for Men's eyeglasses, with reference M0011295, with a(n) Formal, Modern, Original and Sporty style.These Prada Sport 60Tv 1Ab1O1 51 20 have a(n) Full Rim frame made of Metal with a(n) Round and Oval shape in Black and Lead colours. Their size is 51mm and their bridge width is 20mm, with a total frame width of 71mm. These glasses are suitable for prescription lenses.
These are top of the range glasses from the brand PRADA Sport, made of high-quality materials, modern eyewear that will give you a look that matches your image. Buy Prada Sport 60Tv 1Ab1O1 51 20 eyewear in an easy and safe way at the best price in our online store.


text:
12 Reasons for the Harley Davidson Livewire | Bobberbrothers
12 Reasons for the Harley Davidson Livewire
12 Reasons for the Harley Davidson LivewireOne of the most anticipated bikes among the Harley Davidson community is the Harley Davidson Livewire. This bike after much expectation was expected to hit the dealerships by the year-end. The reason for the big hype for the Harley Davidson Livewire is because of the fact that it is an electric bike. But after many rumors on the date and many dates being postponed, it was later announced that the Harley Davidson Livewire will not be seen in the market until the year 2019. Considering these recent talks it is understood that the Harley Davidson Livewire is just one for the plans of the company.
Harley Davidson seems to have many such plans in its plate which will be revealed as the year progresses. This single electric bike Harley Davidson Livewire seems to be just one dish in a whole plate. All this was found out from the 'More Roads to Harley Davidson' came. The growth plan for the company was unveiled a bit with the help of this announcement. Apart from this major move the company also shared some of the insights into the vision it has for the growth of the company in the upcoming years. This was clear with the mentioned 'More Roads to Harley Davidson'.
The company also expects to grow its base by the year 2022 and future plans after the said year was also seen in the plate. The majority of the plan can be subdivided into three major areas. The first one is said to cover the new products which the company has in its store and also the ones which the company plans to launch. The second major area to concentrate is the broader access to the company's products. The last one and this is one of the strongest areas for the company which is to get stronger dealers and also to concentrate on strengthening the relationship with the present dealers.
While the three categories seem to equally important many are waiting for the major news in the first category which is the Harley Davidson Livewire. Initially, the company promised that it will get its first electric bike on the market for sale by the year 2019. This bike which is still one of the most hyped bikes had its first preview in 2014 with the concept of a sub-500-pound. The bike, although had only 58 pound-feet of torque. The most interesting fact is that this was made available for the zero RPM itself. A combination of all these facts made it one of the most interesting motorcycles too.
While this may be the first one in the list it seems that Harley Davidson has many more electric bikes planned and is set to release it one by one in the future. The company has given promises which state that a whole line of EV bikes are on the plate which will also get the 'twist and go' mentality as they might lose the traditional clutches. Some even speculate that there are two-wheelers lined up in the sense that some scooters can also be seen in the way.


How do the band and DJ work together? As the owner of a company that provides live music and DJ services, it's often one of the first questions I hear.
The truth is, there are lots of ways to combine live music and DJ services. Some approaches are all about creating a "big moment," some build the energy throughout your party, and still others focus on offering the greatest variety of music for guests to enjoy.
At Backthird Entertainment, we've chosen to focus on small live ensembles - 3 or 4 people playing live jazz or pop strings - for "listening music" while we leave the dance music to your DJ. The specific ratio of live music to DJ music is entirely up to you - but here are 5 ways that have worked well for us in the past.
1. The ceremony string quartet.
If you're getting married at a different location from your reception (like a church, for example), it often makes sense to take a different approach for each. A string quartet or string trio can play traditional music for your offsite ceremony, while the DJ handles everything at the reception hall.
2. Strings for ceremony and cocktails; DJ for dancing.
If your ceremony and reception are at the same location, you can usually hire the string ensemble to stay for an extra hour – at a fraction of the ceremony cost. Add or subtract an instrument, or find a group that's strong in more than one genre of music, so that there's still a stylistic change between your ceremony and cocktail times.
3. Jazz cocktails; DJ for the rest.
First impressions are a big deal – and the tone set by your cocktail music tells guests what they can expect from the entire reception. Background "Muzak" in the hotel lobby while your guests arrive says one thing – a jazz trio grooving in the corner says something else. And if your ceremony is at the same location as your reception, your DJ can provide ceremony music too.
4. The live first dance.
Some couples who book our pop strings quartet for their dinner time do so not just for the benefit of live music during dinner - but so the live ensemble can stay and play the first dance. It's a great way to set your first dance apart as something special, and your DJ can take over afterward when it's time rock the dance floor.
5. Classical ceremony, pop cocktails, jazz dinner.
The most variety at Backthird comes from using two different live ensembles in addition to your DJ. It's possible to use a classical string ensemble for your ceremony, make it a pop string ensemble for your cocktail time, and then have a jazz group ready to play when your guests enter the main ballroom for dinner. Your DJ is still onhand to MC the celebration and to play dance music after dinner. And by totally changing up the music every hour or two, you ensure that there's always something new to keep your guests excited and engaged.
Want more ideas? Follow the link below to see what 7 Backthird couples booked - and what it cost them, too.


text:
I Do! (novella)
by : Rachel Gibson
Vince Haven and Sadie Hollowell are headed to the altar, and all their friends are headed to Lovett, Texas, to join them for the party of the year.
But Becca Ramsey doesn't have time for all that. Fresh out of beauty school, Becca's all business . . . and the last thing she needs is bad boy Nate Parrish anywhere in her life.
In the past, Nate was trouble. He's been trying to repair his reputation—heck, he's even got just one girlfriend. The problem is, she isn't Becca. Now Nate's in a whole lot of hot water. He needs to get Becca from "I won't" to "I do" . . . but how can he do that when she won't even say "I might"?
Avon Impulse
Contemporary: Old Flames- Reuniting- Second Chances


What is better Canvas or QPoint Survey? It's easy to our scoring system to give you a general idea which Survey Software product is will work better for your company. For overall product quality, Canvas received 8.3 points, while QPoint Survey earned 8.0 points. At the same time, for user satisfaction, Canvas scored 94%, while QPoint Survey scored 100%.
Specifics of their unique elements, tools, supported platforms, customer service, plus more are given below to give you a more accurate review. Don't forget to purchase only the tools your business requires so as not to waste resources for features that you won't be using.
People who don't have much time or could use a Survey Software recommendation from our team might want to take a look at these top choices for the current year: SurveyMonkey, Qualtrics Research Core, SurveyGizmo.
Both Canvas and QPoint Survey were tested by a panel of independent SaaS experts who prepared a detailed examination of all core aspects of every app. Their total score was prepared using our unique SmartScore system which provides a separate partial score to each element like: main features, client support, mobile device support, security, customer satisfaction as well as market presence. Here at FinancesOnline we realize useful features are not the only thing crucial to a business so we make sure we pay attention to all aspects of a service prior to giving it a final score.


Waterside is located in North Fulton County in the City of Milton, less than one mile west of the historic Crabapple area.
We are a neighborhood of 279 homes situated around 2 lakes located less than a mile from three of the state's top schools: Milton High School, Northwestern Middle School, and Crabapple Crossing Elementary School.
The City of Milton was recognized as having the highest quality of life in the state of Georgia and ninth-highest quality of life in the southern United States by the Business journals' "On Numbers" survey. To read more about this honor, click here.
Amenities include a clubhouse, two lighted tennis courts, a playground, basketball court, a large pool, two fishing lakes, and beautiful common area landscaping.
Interested in living in Waterside?
Please read our letter to prospective homeowners to learn more about our community.
Our community is served by some of the best schools in the state!
Located in the historic Crabapple community in the northwestern corner of Fulton County, Northwestern Middle School (NMS) was established in 1996. Named a Georgia School of Excellence, Northwestern has four academic wings, two exploratory wings, media center, gymnasium with a stage, cafeteria, administrative and student support service areas and five computer labs.
The school serves sixth, seventh and eighth graders who live in the communities of Roswell, Alpharetta, and Milton. The school was designed for a capacity of 1325 and it opened with 1282 students.