After the House, with the support of fifty-five Democrats including Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, blocked attempts to reform the FISA Act, Rand Paul and Ron Wyden attempted to filibuster FISA renewal in the Senate. They wrote this letter describing the civil liberties violations in the bill to renew and expand the FISA act for six years. The vote was close, with sixty votes required for the cloture vote. Cloture passed on a vote of 60 to 38, with Democrat Claire McCaskill casting the deciding vote. Once again several Democrats voted to betray the Constitution and vote against civil liberties.
Eighteen Democratic Senators, along with independent Angus King of Maine, vote for cloture. The Democrats voting for cloture were: Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Doug Jones (Ala.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Mark Warner (Va.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.).
The following Republican Senators voted to support the filibuster, which would have provided an opportunity to debate and offer amendments to reform the law: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Steve Daines, Cory Gardner, Dean Heller, Jerry Moran, and Lisa Murkowski. Yes, Ted Cruz was on the right side of this while eighteen Democrats were not.
The final bill is expected to pass the Senate this week.
This bill doesn't just renew Section 702 for six years; it also codifies permission for the FBI to access and use data secretly collected from Americans for a host of domestic federal crimes that have nothing to do with protecting America from foreign threats. It has added some unusually worded warrant requirements that will protect some people—but only when they're actually suspected and are being investigated for criminal activities.
Furthermore the bill will give the NSA permission to attempt to restart what are known as "about" searches, access to communications that merely reference a foreign target, not just communications to and from that target. The NSA voluntarily ended these types of searches once it became clear they were gaining access communications that they had no authority to be viewing. This bill will allow them to attempt to restart it unless Congress acts separately to stop it.
Once again many Democrats have acted as collaborators rather than as the resistance. Democrats who claim that Trump is a tyrant in cahoots with Putin have not been able to unite to oppose giving him increased powers to spy on Americans. Although they are a minority in both Houses of Congress, the presence of some Republicans supporting privacy rights, along with the requirement for sixty votes in the Senate, provided Democrats with the power to force changes. A swing of one vote in the Senate or twenty-six Democrats in the House could have forced reforms to the law which allows warrantless surveillance of Americans as well as foreigners.
A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s.
The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind.
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.
Meanwhile, there has been a blizzard of ancillary accusations, including much broader and vaguer charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. It remains possible that Robert Mueller, a former FBI director who has been appointed to investigate these allegations, may turn up some compelling evidence of contacts between Trump's people and various Russians. It would be surprising if an experienced prosecutor empowered to cast a dragnet came up empty-handed, and the arrests have already begun. But what is striking about them is that the charges have nothing to do with Russian interference in the election. There has been much talk about the possibility that the accused may provide damaging evidence against Trump in exchange for lighter sentences, but this is merely speculation. Paul Manafort, at one point Trump's campaign manager, has pleaded not guilty to charges of failing to register his public relations firm as a foreign agent for the Ukrainian government and concealing his millions of dollars in fees. But all this occurred before the 2016 campaign. George Papadopolous, a foreign policy adviser, has pleaded guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI about his bungling efforts to arrange a meeting between Trump's people and the Russian government – an opportunity the Trump campaign declined. Mueller's most recent arrestee, Michael Flynn, the unhinged Islamophobe who was briefly Trump's national security adviser, has pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the FBI about meeting the Russian ambassador in December – weeks after the election. This is the sort of backchannel diplomacy that routinely occurs during the interim between one administration and the next. It is not a sign of collusion.
So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. (There are members of VIPS who dissent from the VIPS report's conclusions, but their arguments are in turn contested by the authors of the report.) The VIPS findings received no attention in major media outlets, except Fox News – which from the centre-left perspective is worse than no attention at all. Mainstream media have dismissed the VIPS report as a conspiracy theory (apparently the Russian hacking story does not count as one). The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record.
Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. The claim that the Russians hacked local and state voting systems in the US was refuted by California and Wisconsin election officials, but their comments generated a mere whisper compared with the uproar created by the original story. The rush to publish without sufficient attention to accuracy has become the new normal in journalism. Retraction or correction is almost beside the point: the false accusation has done its work.
The most immediate consequence is that, by finding foreign demons who can be blamed for Trump's ascendancy, the Democratic leadership have shifted the blame for their defeat away from their own policies without questioning any of their core assumptions. Amid the general recoil from Trump, they can even style themselves dissenters – '#the resistance' was the label Clintonites appropriated within a few days of the election. Mainstream Democrats have begun to use the word 'progressive' to apply to a platform that amounts to little more than preserving Obamacare, gesturing towards greater income equality and protecting minorities. This agenda is timid. It has nothing to say about challenging the influence of concentrated capital on policy, reducing the inflated defence budget or withdrawing from overextended foreign commitments; yet without those initiatives, even the mildest egalitarian policies face insuperable obstacles. More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters.
that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics and mailings.
Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota and Douglas Kriner of Boston University analysed election results in three key states – Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan – and found that 'even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community's rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.' Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. Kriner and Shen conclude that Democrats may want to 're-examine their foreign policy posture if they hope to erase Trump's electoral gains among constituencies exhausted and alienated by 15 years of war'. If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there.
As time goes on we get increasing evidence that the DNC rigged the Democratic nomination for Hillary Clinton while the evidence also increasingly casts doubt about her claims that Russia rigged the general election for Trump. Donna Brazile finally admitted to the unethical conduct at the DNC and rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton in her new book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House. I had hoped to have a post up on this earlier but did not have time until now. There was a lively discussion on Facebook after I posted a comment on this earlier today. As I said then, I would have a higher opinion of her if she hadn't leaked the debate questions to Clinton, and if she wasn't pushing the bogus line that Russia cost Clinton the election.
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary's campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as "essentially … money laundering" for the Clinton campaign, Hillary's people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie's people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.
I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.
When I got back from a vacation in Martha's Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate's team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate's control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore's campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.
The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity.
Donna Brazile's confession that the nomination was rigged is hardly the first evidence of this. Their actions were actually quite obvious considering how the rules were used to help Clinton, including both long standing rules to allow the DNC to influence the process, along with changes initiated in 2016 specifically to help Clinton. DNC email released by Wikileaks provided further confirmation. Tom Perez previously admitted this before trying to walk this back. Elizabeth Warren agreed today that the nomination was rigged for Clinton.
If the Democratic Party is going to have a chance to restore its integrity and bring back those who are now reluctant or unwilling to vote for a Democrat again, major reforms will be necessary. This includes eliminating Superdelegates, eliminating front loading of primaries in the south, eliminating restrictions on debates, making primaries open, and ideally removing those from DNC leadership positions who were involved in either giving Hillary Clinton the 2016 nomination or the recent purge of progressives. Tulsi Gabbard has also recommended many of these reforms.
Update: Donna Brazile Considered Removing Clinton From Ticket And Replacing Her With Joe Biden. Links also in post debunking false claims from Clinton supporters about the excerpt discussed here.
…if he runs, he's got one big roadblock in his way first: The energy in the Democratic Party right now comes from a newly energized left. And the energized left, not to put too fine a point on it, hates Cuomo.
For the most part, we can dismiss this concept without even addressing the already tiresome idea that what a Democratic voting base that has spent the past six months getting jazzed up about aggressive resistance and unapologetically liberal policies is actually fixin' to do in 2020 is nominate a moderate centrist triangulating triangulator who—as Politico points out itself!—lowered taxes on millionaires and has close ties to his state's most powerful corporate executives. Let us simply look, in a nonideological fashion, at two of the most prominent things Andrew Cuomo has done in his time as governor of New York.
He announced that he was creating an independent commission—the "Moreland Commission"—to investigate corruption in state politics and then shut it down because it started investigating his own allies. The entire process could not have been more perfectly executed to expose Cuomo as a self-serving hack, and widely respected ex-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (a registered New York Democrat) actually used "Moreland Commission" as a shorthand synonym for "craven corruption/ethics fiasco" when he was suddenly fired by Donald Trump in March. Just what Democratic primary voters want—someone who's known for replicating the worst behaviors of a widely disliked Republican president!
He has allowed the New York City subway—which he is ultimately responsible for because the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which runs it, is a state agency—to deteriorate into total disaster. As a New Yorker (humblebrag!), I cannot overstate how poorly the subway system is currently functioning and how stabby it makes the city's residents.
It looks likely that we will continue to see battles between the Democratic establishment and the left, especially with party rules continuing to favor more conservative nominees.
The Oscars had many political jokes at the expense of Donald Trump, but will be most remembered for an epic mistake in announcing the wrong winner for Best Picture. The accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers has taken the blame for handing out a duplicate envelope with Emma Stone's award for Best Actress, leading to La La Land being announced as the winner instead of Moonlight. Donald Trump has blamed Hollywood's obsessive focus on politics for the mistake.
There were multiple references to diversity and immigrants throughout the awards. He introduced Cheryl Boone Isaacs, President of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, by noting that she is a president who supports both the arts and sciences. Donald Trump's use of Twitter was also the topic of jokes. Kimmel announced that, "Some of you will get to come up here on this stage tonight and give a speech that the president will tweet about in all caps during his 5 a.m. bowel movement tomorrow, and I think that's pretty excellent if you ask me." Later in the show, Kimmel tweeted Donald Trump.
Sure La La Land won more than it deserved. Wikileaks has revealed that they had Debbie Wasserman Schultz rig the Oscars.
By then the political comparisons were irresistible. I wrote, "Cast of La La Land is now blaming Vladimir Putin and James Comey for them not getting the Oscar." Then I added that they also blamed Bernie supporters and Jill Stein voters, and that Jill Stein was raising money for a recount.
WikiLeaks published documents on Hillary Clinton and the US Democrats. How do you reply to those who accuse you of having helped to elect Mr. Trump?
"What is the allegation here exactly? We published what the Democratic National Committee, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, and Hillary Clinton herself were saying about their own campaign, which the American people read and were very interested to read, and assessed the elements and characters, and then they made a decision. That decision was based on Hillary Clinton's own words, her campaign manager's own words. That's democracy".
Do you agree with those who say that it was a hit job, because you hit Hillary Clinton when she was most vulnerable, during the final weeks of her campaign?
"No, we have been publishing about Hillary Clinton for many years, because of her position as Secretary of State. We have been publishing her cables since 2010 and her emails also. We are domain experts on Clinton and her post 2008 role in government. This is why it is natural for sources who have information on Hillary Clinton to come to us. They know we will understand its significance".
So Clinton is gone, has WikiLeaks won?
"We were pleased to see how much of the American public interacted with the material we published. That interaction was on both sides of politics, including those to the left of Hillary Clinton those who supported Bernie Sanders, who were able to see the structure of power within the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and how the Clintons had placed Debbie Wasserman Schultz to head up the DNC and as a result the DNC had tilted the scales of the process against Bernie Sanders".
What about Donald Trump? What is going to happen?
"If the question is how I personally feel about the situation, I am mixed: Hillary Clinton and the network around her imprisoned one of our alleged sources for 35 years, Chelsea Manning, tortured her according to the United Nations, in order to implicate me personally. According to our publications Hillary Clinton was the chief proponent and the architect of the war against Libya. It is clear that she pursued this war as a staging effort for her Presidential bid. It wasn't even a war for an ideological purpose. This war ended up producing the refugee crisis in Europe, changing the political colour of Europe, killing more than 40,000 people within a year in Libya, while the arms from Libya went to Mali and other places, boosting or causing civil wars, including the Syrian catastrophe. If someone and their network behave like that, then there are consequences. Internal and external opponents are generated. Now there is a separate question on what Donald Trump means".
"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising the pre-existing central power network within DC. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better".
In these ten years of WikiLeaks, you and your organisation have experienced all sorts of attacks. What have you learned from this warfare?
"Power is mostly the illusion of power. The Pentagon demanded we destroy our publications. We kept publishing. Clinton denounced us and said we were an attack on the entire "international community". We kept publishing. I was put in prison and under house arrest. We kept publishing. We went head to head with the NSA getting Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong, we won and got him asylum. Clinton tried to destroy us and was herself destroyed. Elephants, it seems, can be brought down with string. Perhaps there are no elephants".
While there is potential for significant harm under Donald Trump, bringing down such a tremendous force for evil on the world stage such as Hillary Clinton would be a great victory. While the revelations from Wikileaks were damaging to Clinton, it is not clear how much they actually affected the election. They primarily acted to verify criticism already being made of Clinton by Sanders supporters and her opponents on the left.
Having Wikileaks as a major news story in October was probably harmful in that this centered much of the discussion in the final days of the election on Clinton's flaws as opposed to Donald Trump's flaws. The polls seemed to show signs of limited memory on the part of many voters as Clinton's lead seemed to grow or diminish based upon which candidate was receiving the most coverage. With Donald Trump staying quieter in the final days of the campaign, it did probably hurt Clinton to have her flaws dominate the news between the Wikileaks revelations, along with further discussion of the FBI investigation of her email.
There just isn't a clean-cut story in the data. For instance, you might have expected a decline in the percentage of Americans who trusted Clinton after Wikileaks began its releases. As Politico's Ken Vogel pointed out in mid-October, both Trump campaign officials and even progressives said the Wikileaks emails revealed that Clinton would be "compromised" if she became president. But the percentage of Americans who found Clinton to be honest or trustworthy stayed at around 30 percent in polling throughout October and into November.
The evidence that Wikileaks had an impact, therefore, is circumstantial. Trump, for instance, won among voters who decided who to vote for in October 51 percent to 37 percent, according to national exit polls. That's Trump's best time period. He carried voters who decided in the final week, when you might expect Comey's letter to have had the largest impact, 45 percent to 42 percent. (Although, Trump's margin among those who decided in the final week was wider in the exit polls in some crucial swing states.) And while Clinton's lead was dropping in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast before the Comey letter was released, the drop accelerated slightly afterward.
Of course, one thing didn't sink Clinton. The evidence suggests Wikileaks is among the factors that might have contributed to her loss, but we really can't say much more than that.
"In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player. WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources, though not always. For example, we have published more than 2 million documents from Syria, including Bashar al-Assad personally. Sometimes we make a publication about a country and they will see WikiLeaks as a player within that country, like with Timor East and Kenya. The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English. Chinese culture is quite far away".
Hindsight is easy, but in retrospect there were plenty of clues that Clinton would lose Michigan, and the general election. Before the primaries, I noticed an unusual amount of enthusiasm about Bernie Sanders, including from people who are not normally very vocal about politics. Sanders went on to upset Clinton. I saw no signs of enthusiasm for her campaign. I saw a lot of Sanders bumper stickers, a fair number of old Obama bumper stickers, and even a few old Kerry bumper stickers into November. I saw exactly one for Clinton, and that wasn't until later in November after the election. I know of a street, and I mean one single street, which had a number of pro-Clinton yard signs around where I live. While I had signs up for Kerry and Obama in the past three elections, my yard sign from this election can be seen in the picture above.
My antipathy for both major party candidates was shared by others. An unusual number of patients started talking to me about voting for third party candidates (without first hearing of my plans). It was notable to see Clinton rush to Michigan in the final week of the campaign after she earlier had a double digit lead. I questioned her strategy when I saw her ads. Those which I saw solely concentrated on personal attacks (even if valid) against Donald Trump, in contrast to the ads from Trump making promises (regardless of their credibility) of jobs and a brighter future. If someone was already on the fence despite weeks of news about the vile things Trump had said, it was clear which ads had a better chance of sealing the deal.
Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat's models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.
Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.
Clinton never even stopped by a United Auto Workers union hall in Michigan, though a person involved with the campaign noted bitterly that the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days, and that AFSCME never even made any, despite months of appeals.
Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not "scientifically" significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to hand out like in most campaigns, also left and never looked back.
Most importantly, multiple operatives said, the Clinton campaign dismissed what's known as in-person "persuasion" — no one was knocking on doors trying to drum up support for the Democratic nominee, which also meant no one was hearing directly from voters aside from voters they'd already assumed were likely Clinton voters, no one tracking how feelings about the race and the candidates were evolving. This left no information to check the polling models against — which might have, for example, showed the campaign that some of the white male union members they had expected to be likely Clinton voters actually veering toward Trump — and no early warning system that the race was turning against them in ways that their daily tracking polls weren't picking up.
People involved in the Michigan campaign still can't understand why Brooklyn stayed so sure of the numbers in a state that it also had projected Clinton would win in the primary.
With Clinton's team ignoring or rejecting requests, Democratic operatives in Michigan and other battleground states might have turned to the DNC. But they couldn't; they weren't allowed to ask for help.
While they clearly failed to use the right plan to win in 2016, Clinton supporters are ignoring their mistakes and placing the blame on external factors such as James Comey and Russia. In a race which turned out so close, many factors could have change the result, but it makes far more sense to place the blame both having a flawed candidate and the many mistakes made during the campaign. The same close minded thought processes seen in the campaign could be seen in Hillary Clinton throughout her life, leading Clinton to having been wrong on virtually every major decision of her career. While his appointees and many statements from Donald Trump make me fear a very poor outcome from his presidency, this is still an open matter. Hopefully Bill Gates is right in his optimistic prediction. Clinton's history of poor judgement, both on campaign strategy and public policy, makes it very doubtful she could have been a competent president.
BS Well, you know. We took on the entire establishment and that's what happens. But we have some enormously difficult times now. We gotta go forward, and I look forward to working with you to make that happen.
BS Well, I think a number of people who voted for Obama once, or twice, voted for Trump. And I think the issue is that there are millions of people in this country who voted for Trump but do not accept… I'm not going to deny for a second that there's a lot of racism and xenophobia and sexism out there; there certainly is. But there are a whole lot of other people who are just really, really hurting. They're working two or three jobs, they're worried about their kids, they can't afford to send them to childcare or to college. And Trump comes along and says, "I'm a champion of the working class." And he's a good showman and a good entertainer, and people believed him.
But our job now, it seems to me, is in three areas. Number one: to fight him tooth and nail in any movement toward racism, xenophobia, sexism, trying to divide our country up. And number two: if he is at all sincere – and we will see if he is – in developing programmes to create jobs and raise wages, I think we should work with him. But I'll tell you what also concerns me, not just for this country but the planet, is this guy thinks that climate change is a hoax. Well, let me tell you, it ain't a hoax. Climate change is real, and if we don't transform our energy system, the planet we leave for our kids and grandchildren may not be a pretty place.
SL Excuse me, if I may, sir; you know I love sports. I've seen it too many times, when a team thinks they've got it all won, just wrapped up, and you see players go down the sideline and start celebrating, and then they reach the goal line and fumble. The Clintons – and I'm not asking you for a comment; this is my opinion – thought they had it won. And what do the great coaches always say? Keep playing until there is no time on the clock! And it seems to me the Clintons were celebrating before the day was up.
SL It was not Hillary Clinton's birthright to be president of the United States of America! And Trump, he played it like he was going to keep going at this until the whistle blows, until time has run out.
BS Right. You're right. Now, no one can deny that Trump was holding three or four rallies a day, he was running all over this country, working 20 hours a day. And that's the truth. But I think that speaks to, Spike, something that goes beyond Hillary Clinton. It really goes to the very nature of the Democratic party.
SL Would you say that it's a shambles, now, Senator – the DNC?
SL There's a whole lot of finger-pointing going on.
BS Yes. I think we need a house-cleaning. I think the DNC needs an entirely new direction. I think it needs leadership, and I think it needs to be very clear about the fact that it stands with working families and is prepared to take on the billionaire class and Wall Street, and corporate America, and the drug companies and the insurance companies. People are hurting. And we need a programme that stands with working families and brings people together.
SL Were you ever offered the VP position, sir?
SL Would you have taken it?
BS Er. Probably, yes. But that's again looking through the rear-view mirror.
SL [Long silence.] Hmmm. This is a rhetorical question, but I just want readers to understand this, very clearly. Where do we go? Where is the hope?
BS OK, here is where the hope is. The hope is to understand that the Democratic party has stumbled very significantly in the last number of decades. It's not just this election, Spike, as disastrous as it has been. It is the fact that the Republican party controls the Senate, controls the US House, controls something like two-thirds of the governor seats in this country, and that the Democrats have lost over 900 state legislature seats in the last eight years. What that tells me is that the Democratic party has got to very fundamentally rethink who it is and where it goes. It has to shed the current situation where it's a party of the liberal elite, a party of wealthy people who give substantial sums – we can use that money, that's fine, but it must reidentify itself as a party of working people. Whether you're black, white, Latino, there are millions of people today who are working longer hours for lower wages, and they're seeing almost all new income and wealth going to the top 1%. The Democratic party has got to say we are on the side of the 99%. Our party is not about having fancy fundraisers, it's about going into union halls, veterans' halls, farm communities, the inner cities. It has to bring people together around the progressive agenda and make government work for all of us and not the 1%. That's why I'm supporting Keith Ellison [as prospective chair of the DNC].
SL Oh, yes. He's the Muslim brother, right?
BS Yes. He's a very good guy, and he's the co-chair of the house progressive caucus. Very progressive guy. And I think Keith understands that the future of the Democratic party is a grassroots party. So I'm going to be supporting him and shaking up the Democratic party.
SL Let me ask you another question. The coalition that Obama got, that put him in office – did the Clinton campaign think it would automatically win [those people] without having to work? I don't understand it. Because I did not feel the energy there was for Obama – even for you – for Hillary Clinton. I respect the woman, but the enthusiasm wasn't there.
BS I think nobody would argue with you on that. What we have seen is that in 2008 Obama ran a historical campaign where the turnout was extraordinarily high: enthusiasm in the minority community, strong support in the white working class, and that carried over in 2012. But in 2016, what we saw – I think your point is quite right – it would be hard to suggest that the people of this country were enthusiastic about the Clinton campaign. There was not the energy we have seen in the Obama campaign, and what ended up happening was voter turnout was low. She won the black community overwhelmingly, but turnout was low. She lost a lot of white, working-class people. That's just the fact.
The Democrats have lost badly in 2010, 2014, and now in 2016 when they ran as Republican-lite. They will need to rebuild at the grassroots, and they will need to stand for something.
If Clinton could not physically continue her candidacy, she would have to voluntarily cede her nomination, creating a vacancy at the top of the national ticket. If she did, party procedures give the chair of the DNC authority to call a "special meeting" to vote on a replacement nominee. In this case, because chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in July, her successor, Brazile, has that authority.
Fowler argued that the party would be wise to immediately set up an even more detailed process for those who might seek to be Clinton's successor — from a signature-gathering requirement to a process for receiving nominations during the DNC meeting. All of which, he said, would help ensure confidence in the process and lead toward a broad coalescing around a successor candidate.
There is more on the topic here, here, here, and here. The key facts are that Clinton would have to agree to give up the nomination. The Democratic National Committee would then chose her replacement. The later it occurs, the more chaotic matters would be because of missing deadlines to change the candidate in various states. This may or may not matter in different states as it is possible that in many states Clinton's name would still remain on the ballot, but electors would then vote for the new Democratic nominee in the electoral college.
The DNC could conceivably choose Bernie Sanders as the second place candidate after the primaries, but I have my doubts that the Democratic establishment would do that. After all, if not for the Democratic establishment tilting the race towards Clinton in the first place, it is very likely that Sanders would have won the nomination. Joe Biden is the most likely replacement due to his name recognition and popularity. Other plausible choices include John Kerry and Elizabeth Warren.
If Clinton were to leave the race, the timing could also make a huge difference in what occurs. At this point I doubt Tim Kaine would be the choice as so far the vice presidential candidates have not had that much exposure. However, if Clinton should leave the race after the Vice Presidential debates, and should Kaine have an outstanding performance, he might also be considered.
The timing could also have a tremendous impact on the election results. Under normal circumstances a party losing its nominee would be placed at a disadvantage. In this case, running against a Republican candidate as awful as Donald Trump, a late entry could still have an excellent chance. A different candidate might actually do better than Clinton considering how unpopular she is. The timing could also be important here. A different candidate would have a better chance if entering the race soon, when there is still time to campaign. Whether it occurs after the debates could also be crucial. Should Trump manage to appear credible in a debate against Clinton, it would be harder for someone entering the race late to compete.
Again, this is all pure speculation. It is unlikely that Clinton will leave the race, but the unprecedented situation of a late change in candidates does make for an interesting story.
If that isn't a veiled threat to attack Russia in retaliation for their alleged "cyber-attacks" on the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Foundation, then what is she trying to say?
This should scare the bejesus out of "liberals" and others on the left who have been scammed into jumping on the Clinton bandwagon in the name of stopping Trump. Are we really going to start World War III in order to avenge the honor of Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Given how problematic attribution is in the case of cyber-attacks, this threat of "military action" makes Dr. Strangelove look sane.
For all the yelping and screeching in the media about how Trump is "unstable," and even crazy, this threat shows that Hillary in quite simply unhinged. Her major theme these days resembles something out of Joe McCarthy's playbook: her campaign has come right out and said Trump is "Putin's puppet." And since she so clearly believes the Russians are actively disrupting her efforts to take the White House, it's reasonable to assume her policy toward Russia will reflect this in a vindictive campaign of revenge.
And they tell us Trump is "scary"!
If Hillary Clinton doesn't scare you, then you aren't paying attention.
It is no surprise that the arms industry has been donating so much money to Hillary Clinton. There is a long history of bad blood between Clinton and Putin, and neocons have long desired to try regime change in Russia. We saw how well that worked out in Iraq. Donald Trump's naive man-crush on Putin in response to a compliment from Putin is also disturbing, but Clinton's long history of belligerence towards Russia really should scare us.
The facts behind the DNC hack remain unclear, with the anti-Russia hysteria raised by the Clinton camp sounding remarkably like the both Cold War red-baiting and like the anti-Iraq hysteria during the run-up to that war (with Hillary Clinton falsely claiming that their were ties between Saddam and al Qaeda). While I would not exclude the possibility of Russian involvement, Putin has again denied responsibility.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew another distinction between herself and Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.
U.S. officials rarely rule out nuclear attacks as a matter of diplomacy, preferring to keep the threat as a deterrent. Yet several foreign policy experts said Obama was essentially right: It would be unwise to target an individual or a small group with nuclear weapons that could kill civilians and worsen the United States' image around the world.
This year Donald Trump has been criticized for not taking nuclear weapons off the table in fighting ISIS. While he was wrong, his position was essentially the same as the position promoted by Hillary Clinton.


text:
import $traverse from './$traverse';
import getTypeErrorMessage from './utils/getTypeErrorMessage';

const $begin = $traverse({
  select: (object, next) => {
    if (Array.isArray(object)) {
      return next([]);
    }
    throw new Error(getTypeErrorMessage('$begin', 'array', object));
  },
  update: (object, next) => {
    if (Array.isArray(object)) {
      const beginArray = next([]);
      if (beginArray && beginArray.length === 0) {
        return object;
      }
      if (!beginArray || typeof beginArray === 'string' || typeof beginArray.concat !== 'function') {
        return [beginArray].concat(object);
      }
      return beginArray.concat(object);
    }
    throw new Error(getTypeErrorMessage('$begin', 'array', object));
  }
});

export default $begin;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Profile by Sanford - Charlotte, NC - Carmel provides nutrition, activity and lifestyle coaching to help members lose weight and keep it off. Profile was created by physicians and researchers at Sanford Health to take the guesswork out of healthy lifestyle change.
Fill out the form to talk with a Certified Profile Coach about our nutritional programs in Ballantyne, NC. We'll contact you to set-up a free, one-on-one coaching session to explain Profile's unique approach to healthy lifestyle change.


text:
This week in history: Germany, Russia sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
By Deseret News Mar 3, 2016, 5:00am MST
Cody K. Carlson, For the Deseret News
Share All sharing options for: This week in history: Germany, Russia sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
Field Marshall Leopold von Bayern, left, is pictured on the event of the ceasefire agreement between the Central Powers and the Soviet Republic in Brest-Litovsk on Dec. 15, 1917. On the left, members of the delegation of the Central Powers (from the front): member of the Ottoman delegation Ibrahim Hakki Pasha, Austro-Hungarian diplomat Kajetan Merey, Leopold von Bayern, German General Max Hoffmann, Bulgarian Colonel Gawtschew. On their opposite the Soviet-Russian delegation: Lev Borisovich Kamenew, Adolf Abramovich Joffe, Anastassija Bizenko, General Vassili Altfater (Altvater).The peace negotiations ended with the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk from March 3, 1918, with the Soviet Union withdrawing from the war. German Federal Archive via Wikimedia Commons
German officials welcome the Russian delegation with Leon Trotsky (middle, profile), Lev Borisovich Kamenev, left, and Adolf Abramovich Joffe in Brest-Litovsk. The peace negotiations ended with an exclusive protectorate treaty of the Central Powers with the Ukranian People's Republic of Feb. 9, 1918 and the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk from March 3, 1918, between the Central Powers and the Soviet Russia. Public Domain via Wikepedia Commons
On March 3, 1918, Bolshevik Russia and Germany signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, a peace accord that ended World War I in Eastern Europe. The treaty proved a very harsh peace toward Russia, yet it could not stop the disintegration of Germany's military power in the face of the Western Allies.
February 1917 saw the Russian people rise up against the autocratic czarist regime in Petrograd (the city's name had been changed with the outbreak of war in 1914 from St. Petersburg, in an attempt to make it sound less German). The "February Revolution" forced the czar to abdicate and the led to the creation of a provisional government representing Russia's liberal elements, who wanted Russia to become a republic. More radical interests created the Petrograd Soviet, a "council" for workers and soldiers who advocated communism.
Vladimir Lenin, the leader of Russia's Bolshevik faction, was in Switzerland when the war broke out and had been unable to return to Russia. Not long after the February Revolution, the kaiser's government in Berlin agreed to allow Lenin transit through Germany so he could return to Russia and foment anarchy — thus helping the German cause. When Lenin returned to Petrograd in April, he began agitating against the provisional government and calling for all political power to be consolidated with the Soviet.
The summer saw a failed Russian attack against the Germans which weakened the credibility of the provisional government. By October, Lenin felt he had enough political support to launch a coup and seize Petrograd. This "October Revolution" was not a mass movement of the people like what had occurred in February, but rather a relatively small number of agitators securing key parts of the city and intimidating their enemies to silence.
For most Russians, the war against the Central Powers had been popular only at its beginning, but the shortages in food and consumer goods, as well as the catastrophic loss of life, ensured that widespread support for the war did not last. Lenin knew if his regime was to gain the support of the people, he had to find a way to end the war. Unlike a light switch, however, a war is not an easy thing to turn off.
Lenin believed he had an ace in the hole, however. Consumed with Marxist ideology, Lenin believed that Germany, too, would soon experience its own communist revolution. Once the kaiser was overthrown and a German Bolshevik government was in place in Berlin, it would make common cause with Petrograd, and the two nations would then work to spread communism around the world. Lenin believed he just had to wait out the kaiser.
Lenin appointed fellow Bolshevik Leon Trotsky — who had been a Menshevik before the February Revolution — to the post of commissar of foreign affairs (the Bolshevik title for foreign minister). Trotsky was then charged with finding a way to bring the war to a close. In December 1917, the Germans and the Bolsheviks signed an armistice and began peace negotiations at Brest-Litovsk, in what is today Poland.
The Russians were in the weaker position, and both sides knew it. While what remained of the Russian army was itself disintegrating quickly, the German army remained relatively strong and organized. Morale among the Germans was also relativity high, considering the sad state of their opponents. Germany's military leaders, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and Gen. Erich Ludendorff, wanted to punish Russia, and the German demands capitalized on their relative military positions. They told the Russians the cost of peace would be the whole of Ukraine, as well as many other concessions.
The Bolsheviks balked at the German high-handedness, and soon the negotiations reached an impasse. Trotsky proposed a new, revolutionary way to end the war he called "No war, no peace." Essentially, he let it be known that the Russian army would not prosecute a war, nor would they seek any official kind of settlement — they would just let the war wither away until the absence of fighting itself became the new peace.
Predictably, the Germans did not share Trotsky's revolutionary notions of war and peace and resumed the fighting in February 1918. In the book "The Russian Revolution," historian Sheila Fitzpatrick quoted a German military commander shortly before the renewed offensive: "No other way out is possible, otherwise these brutes (the Bolsheviks) will wipe up the Ukrainians, the Finns and the Balts, and then quietly get together a new revolutionary army and turn the whole of Europe into a pigsty… The whole of Russia is no more than a vast heap of maggots — a squalid, swarming mass."
The Central Powers launched Operation Faustschlag on Feb. 18, 1918, the last great offensive in the east during World War I. In the course of 11 days the Germans advanced over 150 miles into Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic States. With the German army now less than 100 miles from Petrograd, the Bolsheviks moved the capital to Moscow, further to the southeast. With Russian troops throwing down their weapons and surrendering en masse, German Gen. Max Hoffman noted the ease of the campaign, supposedly saying it had "the charm of novelty."
Lenin and Trotsky knew the policy of "no war, no peace" had failed and that the Germans were playing to win, not merely for an unsatisfactory stalemate. Though Lenin still held out hope that the German revolution would appear soon, he reluctantly acknowledged the facts. A treaty must be concluded, or the entire Bolshevik experiment in Russia would be jeopardized. He therefore ordered Trotsky back to the negotiating table to accept the German terms, which were now much more harsh. In the book "The German High Command at War: Hindenburg and Ludendorff Conduct World War I," historian Robert B. Asprey wrote:
"The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed on March 3, 1918. Its terms, dictated almost entirely by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, were violent in the extreme. … The Bolsheviks lost control of Georgia, the Ukraine, Russian Poland and Russia's Baltic lands — nearly a million and a quarter square miles, 56 million people or 32 percent of her entire population, a third of the railways, 73 percent of iron production, 89 percent of coal production, over 5,000 factories, mills, distilleries and refineries, control of the navy, a reparations payment of 6 billion marks: 'a peace of humiliation … without precedent or equal in modern history,' in the words of one historian."
For the Germans, the defeat of Russia lifted morale in the face of growing Allied strength in the west and appeared to counteract the advantages that American entrance into the war had brought to the British and French. The German army immediately began to shift more troops to the western front, and a series of offensives soon began that met with initial success. For the first time since September 1914, the city of Paris appeared to be in real danger.
The German advances had come at a tremendously high cost, however, and were ultimately unsustainable. Likewise, though Germany had gained significant land and resources in the east, its already stretched economy ensured that those gains could not be integrated in a timely fashion. Food piled up on Ukrainian farms while Germans, suffering the weight of the British naval blockade, continued to starve at home. The infrastructure to transport goods across the continent simply did not exist, nor could it be created with the war on.
In Russia, the treaty proved highly controversial, with many now turning on the Bolsheviks for selling out the Ukrainians and others to the Germans. Lenin held firm, however, convinced that the German revolution was just around the corner, and then everything would work itself out as Moscow and Berlin cooperated with each other. In August 1918, Lenin was shot by Fanny Kaplan, a social revolutionary (as opposed to a Bolshevik), who believed Lenin had sold out the Russian revolution with the treaty. Kaplan was executed for the assassination attempt, and though Lenin recovered, his health took a turn for the worse. The assassination attempt undoubtedly contributed to the stroke that killed him in early 1924.
Germany ultimately agreed to a negotiated peace with the Western Allies in late 1918. The next year produced the Treaty of Versailles, a peace that, while certainly harsh toward Germany, proved far less draconian than the peace Germany inflicted upon Russia. Meanwhile, Russia tore itself apart in a civil war over the next few years, only to see the Bolsheviks emerge victorious.
Cody K. Carlson holds a master's in history from the University of Utah and has taught at SLCC. He is currently a salesperson at Doug Smith Subaru in American Fork. Email: ckcarlson76@gmail.com
Next Up In U.S. & World
Could mild COVID symptoms lead to brain damage?
Brian Laundrie claimed responsibility for Gabby Petito's death in his notebook, FBI says
New York City mayor receives first salary in cryptocurrency. How will he use the money?
U.S. and Russia will keep talking over Ukraine crisis
COVID-19 booster shots can protect you against omicron, new CDC data suggests

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


**SOLD** I have 2 seats in Lower Level Center Ice Section 120, Row Z (aisle) available for the Winnipeg Jets game on Sunday, 3/4/18. Selling for $45 each - $90 total. Gate Price is $146 each. I can meet in person with hard tickets or transfer from my season ticket holder account. You can contact me via private message or on this board.
General Parking Pass for the Carolina Hurricanes versus the New Jersey Devils on Sunday, 2/18/18. Selling for $10. Contact via PM if interested. Can meet in person or transfer from my season ticket holder account.
**SOLD** I have an extra general and premier parking pass for the Saturday, 2/10/18 Canes vs Colorado game. The general pass is $10 and the premier pass is $15. I can meet in person with parking pass or transfer from my season ticket holder account. Send PM if interested.
As a full season ticket holder in center ice, I have to say I do feel a bit "screwed over". Eleven games is 25 percent of the season! Vouchers to bring friends and family are nice, but they don't help my pocketbook. I would have preferred, in addition to vouchers, a dollar amount or a percentage discount off my renewal for next year. I also hope STH prices will be down across the board next season. I love the enthusiasm for filling the arena. I also have no problem offering discounts to the general public to accomplish this. I just wish they had taken better care of the people who have stuck by them. They also need to be careful with pricing. Once you offer these kind of prices (now on two occasions this season), people will come to expect them. If they are planning on severely reducing season ticket prices for next season, I guess that won't be a problem.
I have a pair in center ice Section 120, Row Q, seats 1 & 2 (aisle) with a general parking pass super discounted for tonight's game (12/2/17). Selling for $55 each - $110 total including free general parking pass. Gate is $160 each and parking is $20 arena. Send PM if interested.
It is fine to have a few discounted games throughout the year, but as a season ticket holder too many of them is a "slap in the face" to the season ticket holders who have paid higher prices. I have always thought that they should consider reducing season ticket holder prices across the board (not just a section or two). Make a real effort to increase the season ticket holder base. The model they have been using for past seasons has obviously not worked in increasing the number of season ticket holders. This would also keep season ticket holders from being resentful when they do offer promotions to the general public. The Canes management's line has always been that the fans won't mind paying these prices if the product on the ice gets better. It certainly will increase a bit. However, I still maintain the prices are too high for this market.
Still no tickets. At this rate, Santa Claus will deliver them.
Still no season ticket delivery. Is there a prize for the last sth to receive tickets?
Contacted my ticket rep to obtain status and tracking number. He said they are on the truck and out for delivery, but provided no tracking number. Not sure what you mean by "self-inflicted delay".
They sure take our money quick though.
I have still not received my season tickets. To say I am annoyed is an understatement.
Yes, I am getting hard copy tickets. I understand that might take a bit longer, but they are cutting it a bit close for comfort.
Count me as another STH that has yet to receive her tickets/parking. I contacted my rep, and I was told I would receive them by the end of the week. Lets just say - I am not happy. I have quite a few season tickets, and I need to hand deliver the preseason games to others who will be using them as I will not be available to go to those games (the first of which is next Wednesday). I know that I can transfer them, but I am finding most people (my husbands clients) would much prefer the hard copy versus the mobile copy - another change that I am not very happy about. I also do not like the fact that they made the announcement of the mobile transfers well after I had made my decision on adding extra tickets to my account. Would have been nice to have that information much earlier as I am sure they knew this was in the works. Makes my life much more difficult as I am sure it does for others. I am a season ticket holder since 2001 with a large account, and I certainly am not feeling appreciated.
What has Don Waddell done for this franchise?
Yes - poor attendance is related to poor performance. However, the situation is made worse because of the low season ticket holder base - which is definitely affected by price.
Even if some of the tickets on stubhub are brokers, one of the main points is still valid. The Canes rightly should offer a discount to brokers who are buying in bulk, but why did they insist on increasing prices for their valued (ha!ha!) season ticket holder base. They could have passed along some savings to us also. I know the product is bad, but they could have possibly created some buzz if they restructured the pricing in a positive way for the consumer. I also feel bad as Manwolf mentioned for the players. Has to be a real downer to be playing in front of so few fans. Also does not create a fun atmosphere for fans. Many people say they don't like paying these prices for such a bad product. However, I think the prices have become so inflated even if the product on the ice was better, we would still be overpaying. The prices are just not in line with the market.


9 out of 10 based on 363 ratings. 3,948 user reviews.
wwwzone›Ford E350 Econoline BatteriesOrder Ford E350 Econoline Battery online today. Free Same Day Store Pickup. Check out free battery charging and engine diagnostic testing while you are in store.
wwwpartswarehouse›Ford›E-350 EconolineWe have worked hard to design a site that caters to everyones Ford E-350 Econoline Battery Cable needs. Entering your vehicle information in our Year Make Model selector up top, helps ensure you get an auto part that fits your car, truck or other type of vehicle.


Virtual Reality is the next frontier that is being pursued by the major tech companies with a goal of making it as mundane as the modern smartphone. Facebook is one of the tech companies with interests in this segment including the likes of HTC with their Vive VR headset, Samsung with their Gear VR and Google with their Cardboard platform.
As you know a while back, Facebook bought Oculus Rift, the well known VR focused company for a cool $2 billion which signified its intent on being at the forefront of this tech. Yesterday during the Samsung Galaxy S7 unveil, Mark Zuckerberg made quite the entry and as a surprise, announced a partnership between his company and Samsung.
The partnership is centered around Samsung's Gear VR where users will be able to stream 360 degree video right from their headsets. Here is the cool thing, as of now, 360 videos are usually appear so dull due to their perceived resolution and it is thanks to the large file sizes. What Facebook have done is that they have quadrupled the resolution quality of the streaming VR video by reducing the bandwidth required by 4 times so that these videos will look clearer. Also, their "powerful dynamic streaming technology" will involve creating several variants of the entire 360 video at different angles and as you watch the video, the algorithm adjusts as you continue looking.
The age of VR being mainstream is almost here and during the Samsung event, the attendees were given each a VR headset so this wave is about to hit the shore. They even revealed that over 1 million hours of video in VR have been watched on its platform and over 2000 games are available on its Oculus store. As Facebook positions itself to be at the centre of the VR hype, 360 degree video in VR will be as mundane just like any other video format.
Facebook also sees the future of VR being applied in the social aspect where VR will be used to connect people more. They even have a Social VR team whose mandate is to explore the social interaction in VR and will work with other departments in Facebook to found tomorrow's future. The social network has 1.6 billion active users and it wants to secure its future by betting on VR and we will have to see how that will eventually roll out.


Teams working through the Norming stage have learned—and are continuously improving—how to function according to their defined shared purpose. Roles and responsibilities are already defined and accepted. Leaders selected by the group are acting as facilitators (not directors) at the will of your team.
Your team is practicing its model for shared leadership. Naturally, team members need to refine their collaboration skills and dispositions to ensure the team's ability to act according to its shared purpose.
Some teams hire consultants to help them learn how to have productive meetings in which everyone's voice is heard. Many teams also create norms for working through disagreements and use assessments to learn more about one another's strengths, personalities, and working styles.
It takes time and practice for individuals and teams to become accustomed to operating in a collaborative leadership environment. For example, some people need to learn that they can't always be the captain, while others need to unlearn the habit of always following orders.
Revisit the Storming stage step determining a collaborative leadership model for sample procedure documents that teacher-powered schools developed as they refined their collaborative leadership model.
Robert J. Garmston finds that, in adaptive schools, inquiry is placed at the center of change since it gives teachers the tools they need to bring about genuine school improvement through collaboration.
Teams starting or improving a teacher-powered school should use this resource to explore how to cultivate efficient, democratic decision-making practices as well as how teams delegate authority to leaders among leaders.
Developed by educators and the National School Reform Faculty, this facilitation and discussion guide helps teams understand how individuals' preferences can affect group work.
Teacher-powered Southwest Baltimore Charter School produces a continual flow of new instructional approaches, new ways of relating to students, and new modes of community engagement. It does so not just in special retreats or workshops, but in the routine meetings and conversations that make up most of organizational life.


text:
Tim Yandel: A Two-Way Star Emerges
The fan-favorite Yandel signs autographs down the left field line at Shirley Povich Field. (Photo by Lisa A. Kammerman/Big Train Photos)
Like all good opportunities, it took an immense amount of hard work, dedication, and just a bit of nagging.
During his first two years playing summer ball in the friendly confines of Shirley Povich Field in North Bethesda, Tulane starting pitcher Tim Yandel admits he, "bugged [manager] Sal [Colangelo] to death," to let him hit on days he wasn't on the mound.
After primarily focusing on pitching in 2014 – logging a solid 16 innings of work with a 2.81 earned run average in his second Cal Ripken season – a pre-summer meeting with Colangelo rewarded his continual persistence and enthusiasm; Skip granted him roughly 50 at-bats to prove his worth both in the batting order and defensively at first base.
Eleven games into the season, Yandel had hit just .214 through his first 14 at-bats. On June 14 with a double already under his belt, he stepped to the plate with runners on second and third, trailing the Herndon Braves 7-6 and clinging to Bethesda's final out. He promptly launched a double to right center field easily scoring both runners, carrying his team to an 8-7 victory to the tune four runs batted in on two doubles and a walk.
"Sal was kind of giving me a hard time and he put my name on the line-up card the next day as 'Walk-Off,'" Yandel recalls, "everyone started joking around asking if I would do it again, I said I've never seen it done before."
That evening – Pajama Night at the park – Yandel once again provided more heroics than Big Train fans could have conjured in the wildest dreams. For the second time in as many nights, the rising senior put an aggressive swing on a 1-1 pitch in the game's final frame, knocking home the winning run with identical walk-off doubles in the gap.
"Sure enough, same exact thing," said Yandel, "I told my parents it's one of the coolest baseball moments I've ever had."
Registering the first two Big Train walk-offs of the summer on consecutive nights, Yandel believes that's precisely where his bat began to heat up. While his average flutters around the .270-mark, Yandel drives in runs in proportions unseen throughout the Cal Ripken League. He currently sits tied for fourth in the league with 22 runs batted in.
To put things into perspective, let's compare Yandel to Big Train teammate and league-best RBI machine, Chris Lewis (Sacramento State), heading into the season's final week. The senior outfielder, at the time, had notched 33 runs batted in and was tied for the league lead in home runs – he now leads the league with seven four-baggers.
Yandel had brought home 22 base runners in 74 at-bats, averaging about 0.3 RBI per at-bat. That's tops in the league for any hitter with double-digit runs batted in. Lewis, the man now holding a commanding 10 RBI lead over the entirety of the league at the time only averaged about 0.22 RBI per at-bat.
Projected to a full season's worth of at-bats, Yandel's run production numbers put him on pace for a 43 RBI season. Currently third in the league, he has recorded fewer at-bats than each of the league's top 33 run producers.
Combined with his .988 fielding percentage on the season – he's committed just two errors in 29 games for Cal Ripken league's-leading defense – the Tulane standout would be more than serviceable in an everyday capacity.
But, not to be out-shined by his bat, the Cal Ripken League's brightest two-way star has brought an aggressive methodology to the mound, flooding the zone with strikes from the get-go.
Throwing 69.8 percent of his pitches for strikes, he cranks that number up to 72.3 percent on first pitches. While Bethesda's ace credits a portion of his success – and his 1.32 earned run average – to the development of his sharp slider, he remains focused on giving batters nothing for free.
"The biggest thing I stress most in my game is minimizing walks," said Yandel, "just basically make them earn whatever they get."
In his first 35 1/3 innings on the season he allowed just four walks. Working down in the zone, away from opponents' barrels has made him even more effective, thanks in part to the significant development of his slider.
His four- and two-seam fastballs, which he uses early in the count to get ahead, are complimented by a devastating changeup to lefties and his sharp slider, veering away from right-hander's bats.
"I try to get my slider to have the same spin as my fastball," he said, explaining how his fastball compliments his newly polished breaking ball. "When you can throw the fastball low in there, and you can throw the slider that starts in and drops and bounces at the plate, you get a lot of swings and misses."
In addition, a growing comfort for throwing inside to right-handers has opened up the outer half for his new strike out pitch. He often relies on his changeup to punch out lefties.
Despite allowing six walks in two starts after the all-star break – both in winning efforts – Yandel (4-1) still averages 3.8 strike outs per walk. He sits tied for third in the league with four wins, and fourth in both strikeouts (38) and ERA (1.32).
Like any pitcher worth his marbles, the humble Yandel spoke on the team-wide effort that has allowed him to progress both offensively and on the mound, not forgetting to mention the work of his less recognized battery mates.
An elder statesman in the organization, he played the 2014 summer with Tony DiLeo (Eastern Michigan). After playing the majority of that summer with the BCC-affiliate Big Train Stars, Nick Feight (UNC Wilmington), joined the Bethesda Big Train for the season's final three games. Slotted in the same NCAA Regional this year, Yandel's Tulane Green Wave were swept – and eliminated – by Feight's UNC Wilmington Seahawks.
"I had chemistry with [DiLeo] after throwing to him last summer," said Yandel, "and me and [Feight] really established some chemistry really quick."
"The first time [Feight] caught me was one of my best outings all summer," Yandel remembers, "I felt like every time I wanted to throw a pitch he called it. Showing up to the field every day knowing that whoever is going to catch me I'll be fine throwing to is a good feeling."
With the calendar winding down on his third Big Train season, the senior has gained valuable insight on the benefits of staying focused and constantly pushing himself during the long hot summer months.
"Sometimes summer ball can make you complacent," he said, "and you have to keep guys in the zone and locked in, always working on the right stuff. I definitely have a lot more confidence coming in having been her for a few years."
Despite the season-to-season roster turnover in summer league ball, Yandel, one of two Big Train players playing in their third consecutive season in Bethesda, credits his teammates enormously.
"I couldn't do any of this without all the guys on my team," he said, "I've had two huge walk-off hits this year and I think both times the inning before I looked at the guy before me and said 'me and you,' and if that guy didn't get on who knows what would've happened."
After clinching the number one overall seed and a fourth consecutive Cal Ripken League regular season title, Yandel aims to keep his bat hot and his arm hotter, looking to return Bethesda to championship glory after three straight runner-up finishes.


Brendo is flying solo as he tries to buy PWG tickets. He also talks about his insane WrestleMania week schedule, all the cool shows happening, and WrestleMania itself. Be sure to hit us up if you're going to be in Orlando! Thanks for listening and tell your friends!
This entry was posted in Episodes and tagged brendan creecy, brendoman, independent, indie wrestling, mbws, mr. brendos wrestling show, nxt, orlando, performance center, podcast, pro wrestling, pwg, raw, smackdown, wrestlemania, wwe on March 25, 2017 by brendoman.


I was needing some new electrode wires and was considering buying another roll of soft 1100 series aluminum wire, which is what I currently use, but I was upset at the high cost every place was charging.
I stumbled across aluminum welding rods, like those used for TIG welding, and liked the price, so I bought 5 pounds of 3/32" diameter x 36" long 5356 aluminum rods for about $30. Not a bad price when compared to the wire, which is usually about $10-$20 per pound.
What did I find when using these? They are extremely stiff when compared to the soft 1100 series wire! It actually made me re-consider some of my attachment methods, and it has saved me a good deal of time. I've now completed 2 completely successful batches, and am thrilled at the abilities of this stiffer welding rod, so I wanted to share this with everyone.
Here's one of the most troublesome shapes I've found for attaching an electrode to: a cylinder with no threaded holes. In addition, no external 'white spots' are an option. I used to hate anodizing parts like this, now they're a breeze. A simple J-bend in the end of the welding rod provides plenty of clamping force to provide a good connection throughout anodizing while leaving tiny electrode connection marks.
As you surmised, the welding wire is working for you in this case because the hardness and diameter are providing enough spring tension. Since you are using CC you should notice that the peak voltage is higher with this method compared to bolting or threading for the same anodizing conditions. This higher voltage is proportional to the higher connection resistance. The voltage compliance in Neomoses' CC/CV power supply automatically corrected for this. If you weren't using CC and failed to adjust the voltage to compensate, your current density would have gone down.
You're now one step from titanium wire, which would provide more spring tension.
Neomoses has the experience to use this method successfully, beginners should stick with threading or bolting until they understand the whole anodizing process. Spring connections are not as simple as they look.
1. When the surface area (SA) of the racking is much larger than the SA of the combined work (like in your picture) the rack will draw the majority of the current and dissipate most of the power.
2. Since the titanium won't anodize here, the electrical bulk resistance of the titanium SA will show a low resistance (lower than the work) and will remain constant.
It seems that because of 1 & 2 there going to be a current density problem with the work, the racking is setting the current density (not the work). Worse still, since the work and the rack are electrically in parallel, the constant resistance shown by the rack will lower the current density of the work as its coating builds up. This can be substantial when the rack is much larger than the work. In effect, this defeats constant current operation as far as the work is concerned (where it counts).
This can be reduced by only operating with lots of work; so that the work SA is much larger than the rack SA, or insulating the non contacting areas of the rack, reducing its SA. Plastic goop or something like that would probably work.
Have you experienced any problems with this?
I'll reply latter with what I know, when I have time to focus a bit.
Since you don't run the racks with only a few parts, you are probably minimizing the problems mentioned above.
What I didn't consider was that the conductivity of Ti is about 16X less than Al. This is good because it will reduce the current draw of its large surface area. This is not so good because this increases the voltage drop in the anode connections, meaning you need more voltage for a given current density, thus you dissipate more power in the electrolyte. If the racking was aluminum, and it wasn't masked off to minimize its exposed surface area, this would be a serious problem.
1. Small loads show a lower than normal resistance, because the much larger SA of the rack (compared to the load) is dominating the total resistance. CC is almost useless in this case.
A. More load SA, so the rack SA may not dominate. i.e: The effect of the parallel resistance of the rack itself is reduced.
B. The lower conductivity (higher resistance) of the titanium is dropping more voltage through the rack and via the contact points to the load. The higher the current, the more voltage dropped (V = I x R).
The lower conductivity means that the actual contact resistance with the work can never be as low as methods not using titanium. This is why Ti racking makes thermal problems (electrolyte temp. rise and contact burning) when used for Type III anodizing. Its not reasonable to expect numbers like mine when using racking, too many variables.
As always, there's never a free lunch.
I may take you up later on the loan of some Ti racking for experimentation.
When I said the Ti had lower resistance, I really should have said it differently. What I meant was in relation to the anodized parts it adds a lot of surface area that I thought should lower the voltage over hanging wires or aluminum racks when the racking surface area is accounted for.
With small loads in the 3 amp range, the peak voltage in our setup may be only be in the 11-13V area @ 8amps CD (rack not factored in). With loads in the ~15 amp range (again @ 8 amps CD), I see it reach 15V to high as 17V.
It just seems like there would be some way to factor the rack in, like adding a consistent amount for a certain rack SA to compensate. I don't know how to factor or calculate that though, and since there hasn't been any known end problems and I don't have much free time there hasn't been much incentive to experiment and learn more about it. I have thought about doing some very small loads to try and compare, but since my power supply resolution is not that small there would probably be a lot of built in error which would make tests inconclusive.
Do you think that calculating an empty racks surface area, and applying a given current that the voltage it takes would provide any usefulness in how much current is "wasted"? Or are saying that it would depend on the work versus rack area?
You might gain some insight by just measuring the resistance of the rack in the electrolyte (empty rack, no work). You can do this by immersing the rack and applying power, note the voltage and the current. The resistance is then R = V / I. Since it won't anodize, this resistance should remain constant if your electrolyte temp. is reasonably constant. It should not be important what current you make the measurement at.
Servisure should be able to provide you with the SA for the rack components, but it will probably be easier to come up with a rack resistance for each rack configuration that you use.
P = V x I, or P = I squared x R, or P = V squared / R, all work equally well.
This will tell you how much power you have to allow just for the rack.
It will be more complicated to account for the series resistance of the rack and the contact points to the work. Maybe you could dispense with this by calculating the resistance again, this time the rack and some typical amount of work (R = V / I) when you think the work is sufficiently anodized. If you subtract the rack resistance from this total resistance, you will have the anodic resistance, plus the rack series resistance, plus the contact resistance.
If the difference between these two calculated resistances is small; you are going to have issues with knowing what current density you are anodizing at, and keeping it constant throughout the anodizing process.
Sorry M_D; I know you didn't want to hear this, but you might need to get good at "Kentucky Windage" anodizing. Its a PITA, but others do it successfully.
Let me think about this a while longer.
We highjacked your thread, my apology.
I guess the hijacking was my fault, sorry NeoMoses. Fibergeek, thanks for the information.
Saw this tread a little late but wanted to post to it. We've been using welding rod exclusively for racking and attaching it to an aluminum busbar. A lot of the parts we do suspend very nicely on the J bend or a U bend.
If you don't yet have the necessary experience with the anodizing process (LCD or otherwise) so that you can tell when you have a bad connection and not some other problem, stick to tightly bolting or threading the work with soft aluminum wire. We have been through months of problems caused by beginners with lousy electrical connections, let's not go through that again.
NeoMoses as moderator, and M_D as an accomplished anodizer, it would be appropriate you to help me amplify this.
Fibergeek is 100% correct. To drive home exactly how tight the connections are between my workpiece and the wire, realize that I need pliers to squeeze the wire together. Depending on the part and the geometry, I'm getting 20-30 pounds of clamping force. There is absolutely no 'wiggle' or 'play' in the connection. Don't just think that you can loop a wire and let a part hang from it in the electrolyte bath, it's much more detailed than that.
well let me clarify since some seem to have the wrong idea. When I said the parts hang fine from a J bend or U bend the bend is in the form of a 'spring' the is wedged into an opening in the part.. the part is NOT just hanging off the welding rod.. Failure rates so far are less than 1 percent.
There indeed is no substitute for a good electrical connection.


text:
Le manifestazioni cliniche dell'AIDS sono principalmente il risultato di condizioni mediche che normalmente non si sviluppano in individui con un sistema immunitario sano. La maggior parte di queste sono infezioni opportunistiche causate da batteri, virus, funghi e parassiti che vengono normalmente controllati dal sistema immunitario. Queste infezioni influenzano quasi ogni sistema d'organo.

Le persone affette da AIDS hanno un rischio aumentato di sviluppare tumori, in particolare il sarcoma di Kaposi, il tumore al collo dell'utero e i tumori del sistema immunitario, noti come linfomi. Inoltre, le persone con AIDS, spesso presentano sintomi sistemici di infezione come febbre, sudorazione (soprattutto di notte), ingrossamento delle ghiandole, brividi, debolezza, perdita di peso e anoressia. Le infezioni specifiche opportunistiche che i malati di AIDS sviluppano dipendono in parte dalla prevalenza di queste infezioni nella zona geografica in cui il paziente vive.

Segni e sintomi

Polmonari

La pneumocistosi (originariamente conosciuta come "polmonite da Pneumocystis carinii") è relativamente rara in persone sane e immunocompetenti, ma comune tra gli individui affetti da HIV. È causata dal micete Pneumocystis jirovecii.

Prima dell'avvento di un'efficace possibilità di diagnosi, del trattamento e della profilassi di routine nei paesi occidentali, la polmonite era una causa comune di morte immediata. Nei paesi in via di sviluppo, questa rappresenta ancora una delle prime indicazioni di AIDS in individui a cui non è stato eseguito il test, anche se in genere non si verifica se il valore dei linfociti T CD4+ è inferiore alle 200 unità per microlitri di sangue.

La tubercolosi (TBC) è un'infezione comune nei pazienti con HIV ma che è trasmissibile anche alle persone sane attraverso le vie aeree. Una volta individuata, non è una patologia facilmente curabile. Secondo l'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità, nel 2007, 456.000 dei decessi tra i casi di TBC erano HIV positivi, un terzo di tutti i decessi tubercolosi e quasi un quarto del circa 2 milioni di morti di HIV nello stesso anno. Nella fase iniziale dell'infezione da HIV (CD4> 300 cellule per mL), la tubercolosi si presenta tipicamente come una malattia polmonare. Nell'infezione avanzata da HIV, la tubercolosi si presenta spesso atipica ed extrapolmonare (sistemica). I sintomi sono solitamente costituzionali e non sono localizzati in un sito particolare. Spesso colpisce il midollo osseo, l'apparato urinario e l'apparato gastrointestinale, il fegato, i linfonodi regionali e il sistema nervoso centrale.

Gastrointestinali

L'esofagite è un'infiammazione del rivestimento della parte inferiore dell'esofago. In individui infetti da HIV questa condizione è normalmente dovuta a infezioni fungine (candidosi) o virali (herpes simplex o citomegalovirus). In rari casi possono essere dovute a micobatteri.

La diarrea cronica, tipica dell'infezione da HIV, è dovuta a molteplici possibili cause, tra cui l'infezione da comuni batteri (Salmonella, Shigella, Listeria e Campylobacter), alle infezioni parassistiche opportunistiche (criptosporidiosi e microsporidiasi) e ai virus (astrovirus, adenovirus, rotavirus e citomegalovirus).

In alcuni casi, la diarrea può essere un effetto collaterale di diversi farmaci somministrati per il trattamento dell'HIV o può semplicemente accompagnare l'infezione da HIV. Può anche essere un effetto collaterale di antibiotici usati per trattare le cause batteriche della diarrea stessa.

Neurologici e psichiatrici

L'infezione da HIV può condurre ad una varietà di sequele neuropsichiatriche dovute all'infezione del sistema nervoso, diventato ora suscettibile, a opera di organismi o come diretta conseguenza della malattia stessa.

La toxoplasmosi è una malattia causata dal parassita unicellulare chiamato Toxoplasma gondii che di solito colpisce il cervello, causando encefalite, ma può anche infettare e causare malattie negli occhi e nei polmoni. La meningite criptococcica è un'infezione delle meningi (la membrana che ricopre il cervello e il midollo spinale) causata dal fungo Cryptococcus neoformans. Essa può causare febbre, cefalea, affaticamento, nausea e vomito. I pazienti possono anche sviluppare convulsioni e confusione mentale; se non trattata, può risultare letale.

La leucoencefalopatia multifocale progressiva è una malattia demielinizzante, in cui la progressiva distruzione della guaina mielinica che ricopre gli assoni delle cellule nervose altera la trasmissione degli impulsi nervosi. È causata da un virus chiamato virus JC e si verifica nel 70% della popolazione in forma latente, causando malattia conclamata solo quando il sistema immunitario è indebolito, come nel caso di pazienti affetti da AIDS. Essa progredisce rapidamente, causando generalmente la morte entro pochi mesi dalla diagnosi.

L'encefalopatia da HIV è una encefalopatia metabolica indotta da infezione da HIV e alimentata dalla attivazione immunitaria dei macrofagi cerebrali. Queste cellule sono infettate dalle neurotossine dell'HIV.

Tumori

I pazienti con infezione da HIV vedono notevolmente aumentato il rischio di sviluppare tumori. Ciò è dovuto principalmente alla co-infezione con virus oncogeni, come il virus Epstein-Barr. Il sarcoma di Kaposi è invece associato all'herpesvirus (KSHV) e al papillomavirus umano.

Il sarcoma di Kaposi è il tumore più comune nei pazienti affetti da HIV. La sua comparsa nei giovani uomini omosessuali nel 1981 è stato uno dei primi segnali dell'epidemia di AIDS. Esso appare come noduli violacei sulla pelle, ma può colpire anche altri organi, in particolare la bocca, il tratto gastrointestinale e i polmoni. Un altro tumore molto frequente nei malati di HIV, è il linfoma di Burkitt, associato al virus Epstein-Barr e il linfoma primario del sistema nervoso centrale. Questi particolari tipi di cancro spesso prefigurano una prognosi sfavorevole. Quando questi linfomi si presentano in un paziente affetto da HIV, si arriva ad una diagnosi di AIDS.

La presenza di un cancro cervicale è anch'esso una prova di AIDS conclamato nelle donne positive all'HIV. Questo tumore è causato dal Papillomavirus umano.

Oltre ai tumori, di cui sopra, che definiscono l'AIDS, i pazienti affetti da HIV sperimentano un rischio aumentato per alcuni altri tumori. In particolare per la malattia di Hodgkin, per il carcinoma anale e rettale, per i carcinomi epatocellulari e per il cancro ai polmoni.

È interessante notare come l'incidenza di molti tumori comuni, come il cancro al seno o il cancro al colon, non aumenta in pazienti affetti da HIV. Nelle zone in cui i farmaci antiretrovirali vengono ampiamente utilizzati per trattare l'AIDS, l'incidenza di molte neoplasie correlate all'AIDS risulta diminuita, ma allo stesso tempo i tumori maligni sono diventati la causa più comune di morte di pazienti affetti da HIV.

Altre infezioni

I pazienti affetti da AIDS spesso sviluppano infezioni opportunistiche che si presentano con sintomi non specifici, in particolare con febbre bassa e perdita di peso. Queste infezioni comprendono il Mycobacterium avium intracellulare e il citomegalovirus.

La penicilliosi è la terza infezione opportunistica più comune (dopo la tubercolosi extrapolmonare e la criptococcosi) nei soggetti HIV-positivi dell'area endemica del sud est asiatico.

Un'infezione frequente negli affetti da AIDS, ma che spesso non viene riconosciuta, è quella da parvovirus B19. La sua principale conseguenza è l'anemia, condizione difficile da distinguere dagli effetti dei farmaci antiretrovirali usati per trattare l'AIDS stesso.

Note

Clinica dell'AIDS

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Rocket Matter Knowledge Base CommunicatorHow to video conference a user.
2. Click on the video camera to begin video conference.
4. The camera will load and enter you into a conversation room.
Prev: How to add or remove a user as an admin of a channel.
Next: How to drag and drop/upload folders, documents and images through communicator.