text:
Red Army invasion of Georgia
Part of the Russian Civil War
The Red Army in Tbilisi, Feb 25 1921
15 February – 17 March 1921
Transcaucasia
Soviet and Turkish military victory
Establishment of the Georgian SSR.
Democratic Republic of Georgia government exiled to Leuville-sur-Orge, France and the United Kingdom.
Belligerents
Azerbaijan Georgia Turkish Provisional Government
Commanders and leaders
Anatoliy Gekker
Mikhail Velikanov
Sergo Ordzhonikidze
Filipp Makharadze Parmen Chichinadze
Giorgi Kvinitadze
Giorgi Mazniashvili
Valiko Jugheli Kâzım Karabekir
Units involved
11th Army
98th Independent Rifle Brigade
Soviet Armenian Mounted Brigade
Red Baku Brigade
Ossetian rebel forces
1st Rifle Division
2nd Rifle Division
Independent Mountain Artillery Division
1st Sukhumi Border Regiment
2nd Border Regiment
Army of the Grand National Assembly
XV. Corps
40,000 infantry
4,300 cavalry
900 Ossetian irregulars
196 artillery pieces
1,065 machine guns
50 fighter aircraft
7 armoured trains
24+ armoured cars[1] 11,000 infantry
400 mounted infantry
hundreds from the People's Guard of Georgia
46 artillery pieces
several hundred machine guns
(including 25 Ansaldo SVA-10s and one Sopwith Camel.)
several armoured cars[2] 20,000
Casualties and losses
5,500 killed
2,500 captured
unknown number wounded[3] 3,200 killed or captured
unknown number wounded
3,800-5,000 civilians killed[3] 30 killed
46 missing[4]
The Red Army invasion of Georgia (15 February – 17 March 1921), also known as the Soviet–Georgian War[5] or the Soviet invasion of Georgia,[6] was a military campaign by the Russian Red Army aimed at overthrowing the Social-Democratic (Menshevik) government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (DRG) and installing a Bolshevik regime in the country. The conflict was a result of expansionist policy by the Russians, who aimed to control as much as possible of the lands which had been part of the former Russian Empire[7][8] until the turbulent events of the First World War, as well as the revolutionary efforts of mostly Russian-based Georgian Bolsheviks, who did not have sufficient support in their native country to seize power without external intervention.[9][10]
The independence of Georgia had been recognized by Russia in the Treaty of Moscow, signed on 7 May 1920, and the subsequent invasion of the country was not universally agreed upon in Moscow. It was largely engineered by two influential Georgian-born Soviet/Russian officials, Joseph Stalin and Sergo Ordzhonikidze, who on 14 February 1921 got the consent of Russian leader Vladimir Lenin to advance into Georgia, on the pretext of supporting "peasants and workers rebellion" in the country. Russian forces took the Georgian capital Tbilisi (then known as Tiflis to most non-Georgian speakers) after heavy fighting and declared the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic on 25 February 1921. The rest of the country was overrun within three weeks, but it was not until September 1924 that Soviet rule was firmly established. Almost simultaneous occupation of a large portion of southwest Georgia by Turkey (February–March 1921) threatened to develop into a crisis between Moscow and Ankara, and led to significant territorial concessions by the Soviets to the Turkish National Government in the Treaty of Kars.
2 Prelude to the war
3 Red Army invasion
3.1 Battle for Tbilisi
3.2 Kutaisi Operation
3.3 Crisis with Turkey
After the February Revolution that began in Russia in 1917, Georgia effectively became independent.[11] In April 1918 it joined with Armenia and Azerbaijan to form the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, but left after one month and declared independence as the Democratic Republic of Georgia on May 26, followed the next day by both Armenia and Azerbaijan.[12][13] Georgia engaged in small conflicts with its neighbouring states as it attempted to establish its borders, though was able to maintain independence and de facto international recognition throughout the Russian Civil War, including being recognized by Soviet Russia in the Treaty of Moscow.[14]
Despite relatively wide public support and some successful reforms, the Social Democratic leadership of Georgia failed to create a stable economy or build a strong, disciplined army capable of opposing an invasion.[15] Although there were a significant number of highly qualified officers who had served in the Imperial Russian military, the army as a whole was underfed and poorly equipped. A parallel military structure recruited from members of the Menshevik Party, the People's Guard of Georgia, was better motivated and disciplined, but being a lightly-armed, highly politicized organization dominated by party functionaries, had little usefulness as a combat force.
Prelude to the war
Red Army Caucasus Front Headquarters, c. 1921. From left to right: Sergei Ivanovich Gusev, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Valentin Trifonov, uncertain. All four named officers would be killed during Stalin's Great Purge.[16]
Since early 1920, local Bolsheviks were actively fomenting political unrest in Georgia, capitalizing on agrarian disturbances in rural areas and also on inter-ethnic tensions within the country. The operational centre of the Soviet military-political forces in the Caucasus was the Kavburo (or Caucasian Office) attached to the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party. Set up in February 1920, this body was chaired by the Georgian Bolshevik Sergo Ordzhonikidze, with Sergey Kirov as his vice-chairman. The Sovietization of the Caucasus appeared to Bolshevik leaders to be a task which would be easier to achieve while the Allied powers were preoccupied with the Turkish War of Independence;[17] furthermore, the Ankara-based Turkish national government of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had expressed its full commitment to close co-operation with Moscow, promising to compel "Georgia … and Azerbaijan … to enter into union with Soviet Russia … and … to undertake military operations against the expansionist Armenia."[17] The Soviet leadership successfully exploited this situation and sent in its army to occupy Baku, the capital of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.
Following the establishment of Soviet rule in Baku in April 1920, Ordzhonikidze, probably acting on his own initiative, advanced on Georgia in support of a planned Bolshevik coup in Tbilisi. When the coup failed, the Georgian government was able to concentrate all its forces on successfully blocking the Soviet advance over the Georgian-Azerbaijani border. Facing a difficult war with Poland, Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin ordered a start to negotiations with Georgia. In the Treaty of Moscow signed on 7 May 1920, Soviet Russia recognized Georgia's independence and concluded a non-aggression pact. The treaty established the existing borders between the two nations de jure and also obliged Georgia to surrender all third-party elements considered hostile by Moscow. In a secret supplement, Georgia promised to legalize the local Bolshevik party.[18]
Georgian officers at the Headquarters of People's Guard in Tbilisi
Despite the peace treaty, an eventual overthrow of the Menshevik-dominated government of Georgia was both intended and planned.[19][20] With its well-established diplomatic ties to several European nations, and its control of strategic transit routes from the Black Sea to the Caspian, Georgia was viewed by the Soviet leadership as "an advance post of the Entente". Stalin called his homeland "the kept woman of the Western Powers".[21] Georgian independence was seen as a propaganda victory for exiled Russian Mensheviks in Europe; the Bolsheviks couldn't long tolerate a viable Menshevik state on their own doorstep.[7][22]
The cessation of Red Army operations against Poland, the defeat of the White Russian leader Wrangel, and the fall of the First Republic of Armenia provided a favorable situation to suppress the last independent nation in the Caucasus to resist Soviet control.[23] By that time, the British expeditionary corps had completely evacuated the Caucasus, and the West was reluctant to intervene in support of Georgia.
Soviet military intervention was not universally agreed upon in Moscow, and there was considerable disagreement among the Bolshevik leaders on how to deal with their southern neighbor. The People's Commissar of Nationalities Affairs, Joseph Stalin, who by the end of the Civil War had gained a remarkable amount of bureaucratic power, took a particularly hard line with his native Georgia.[24] He strongly supported a military overthrow of the Georgian government and continuously urged Lenin to give his consent for an advance into Georgia. The People's Commissar of War, Leon Trotsky, strongly disagreed with what he described as a "premature intervention", explaining that the population should be able to carry out the revolution. Pursuant to his national policy on the right of nations to self-determination, Lenin had initially rejected use of force, calling for extreme caution in order to ensure that Russian support would help but not dominate the Georgian revolution;[25] however, as victory in the Civil War drew ever closer, Moscow's actions became less restrained. For many Bolsheviks, self-determination was increasingly seen as "a diplomatic game which has to be played in certain cases".[26]
According to Moscow, relations with Georgia deteriorated over alleged violations of the peace treaty, the re-arrest by Georgia of Georgian Bolsheviks, obstruction of the passage of convoys to Armenia, and a suspicion that Georgia was aiding armed rebels in the North Caucasus.[27]
Red Army invasion
The tactics used by the Soviets to gain control of Georgia were similar to those applied in Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1920, i.e., to send in the Red Army while encouraging local Bolsheviks to stage unrest; however, this policy was difficult to implement in Georgia,[28] where the Bolsheviks did not enjoy popular support and remained an isolated political force.
On the night of 11-12 February 1921, at Ordzhonikidze's instigation, Bolsheviks attacked local Georgian military posts in the predominantly ethnic Armenian district of Lori and the nearby village of Shulaveri, near the Armenian and Azerbaijani borders. Georgia had taken over the Lori "neutral zone" in a disputed Armeno–Georgian borderland on the pretext of defending the district and approaches to Tiflis in October 1920, in the course of the Turkish–Armenian War. The Armenian government protested, but was not able to resist.[29]
Shortly after the Bolshevik revolt, the Armenian-based Red Army units quickly came to the aid of the insurrection, though without Moscow's formal approval.[30] When the Georgian government protested to the Soviet envoy in Tbilisi, Aron Sheinman, over the incidents, he denied any involvement and declared that the disturbances must be a spontaneous revolt by the Armenian communists.[31] Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks had already set up a Georgian Revolutionary Committee (Georgian Revkom) in Shulaveri, a body that would soon acquire the functions of a rival government. Chaired by the Georgian Bolshevik Filipp Makharadze, the Revkom formally applied to Moscow for help.
Disturbances also erupted in the town of Dusheti and among Ossetians in northeast Georgia who resented the Georgian government's refusal to grant them autonomy. Georgian forces managed to contain the disorders in some areas, but the preparations for a Soviet intervention were already being set in train. When the Georgian army moved to Lori to crush the revolt, Lenin finally gave in to the repeated requests of Stalin and Ordzhonikidze to allow the Red Army to invade Georgia, on the pretext of aiding an uprising. The ultimate decision was made at the 14 February meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party:
" The Central Committee is inclined to allow the 11th Army to give active support to the uprising in Georgia and to occupy Tiflis provided that international norms are observed, and on condition that all members of the Military Revolutionary Council of the Eleventh Army, after a thorough review of all information, guarantee success. We give warning that we are having to go without bread for want of transport and that we shall therefore not let you have a single locomotive or railway track. We are compelled to transport nothing from the Caucasus but grain and oil. We require an immediate answer by direct line signed by all members of the Military Revolutionary Council of the Eleventh Army.[26] "
The decision to support the invasion was not unanimous. It was opposed by Karl Radek and was held secret from Trotsky who was in the Ural area at that time.[32] The latter was so upset by the news of the Central Committee decision and Ordzhonikidze's role in engineering it that on his return to Moscow he demanded, though fruitlessly, that a special party commission be set up to investigate the affair.[27] Later Trotsky would reconcile himself to the accomplished fact and even defend the invasion in a special pamphlet.[33] This pamphlet by Trotsky is perhaps the best known book justifying the invasion. It was a rebuttal to Karl Kautsky's work which declared Georgia to be a democratic socialist workers and peasants republic.[34][35]
Battle for Tbilisi
Orjonikidze's telegram to Lenin and Stalin: "The Red Flag of Soviet power flies over Tiflis..." (National Archives of Georgia)
At dawn on 16 February the main body of 11th Red Army troops under Anatoliy Gekker crossed into Georgia and started the Tiflis Operation[36] aimed at capturing the capital. Georgian border forces under General Stephen Akhmeteli were overwhelmed on the Khrami river. Retreating westward, the Georgian commander General Tsulukidze blew up railway bridges and demolished roads in an effort to delay the enemy's advance. Simultaneously, Red Army units marched into Georgia from the north through the Daryal and Mamisoni passes, and along the Black Sea coast towards Sukhumi. While these events were proceeding, the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs issued a series of statements disclaiming involvement by the Red Army and professing willingness to mediate any disputes which had arisen within Georgia.[31]
By 17 February, Soviet infantry and cavalry divisions supported by aircraft were less than 15 kilometers northeast of Tbilisi. The Georgian army put up a stubborn fight in defense of the approaches to the capital, which they held for a week in the face of overwhelming Red Army superiority. From 18 to 20 February, the strategic heights of Kojori and Tabakhmela passed from hand to hand in heavy fighting. Georgian forces under General Giorgi Mazniashvili managed to push the Soviets back inflicting heavy losses; they quickly regrouped and tightened the circle around Tbilisi. By 23 February, the railway bridges had been restored, and Soviet tanks and armoured trains joined in a renewed assault on the capital. While the armoured trains laid down suppressing fire, tanks and infantry penetrated the Georgian positions on the Kojori heights.[37] On 24 February, the Georgian commander-in-chief, Giorgi Kvinitadze, bowed to the inevitable and ordered a withdrawal to save his army from complete encirclement and the city from destruction. The Georgian government and the Constituent Assembly evacuated to Kutaisi in western Georgia, which dealt the Georgian army a significant morale blow.
On 25 February, the triumphant Red Army entered Tbilisi. Bolshevik soldiers engaged in widespread looting.[31][38] The Revkom headed by Mamia Orakhelashvili and Shalva Eliava ventured into the capital and proclaimed the overthrow of the Menshevik government, the dissolution of the Georgian National Army and People's Guard, and the formation of a Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. On the same day, in Moscow, Lenin received the congratulations of his commissars – "The red banner blows over Tbilisi. Long live Soviet Georgia!"
Kutaisi Operation
The British Mark V tanks acquired by the Red Army in the course of the Civil War and Foreign Intervention contributed to the Soviet victory in the battle for Tbilisi.[39]
Georgian commanders planned to concentrate their forces at the town of Mtskheta, northwest of Tbilisi, and continue fighting on new lines of defense; the fall of the capital, however, had heavily demoralized the Georgian troops, and Mtskheta was abandoned. The army was gradually disintegrating as it continued its retreat westward, offering sometimes fierce but largely unorganized resistance to the advancing Red Army troops. Sporadic fighting continued for several months as the Soviets secured the major cities and towns of eastern Georgia.
The Mensheviks entertained hopes of aid from a French naval squadron cruising in the Black Sea off the Georgian coast.[31] On 28 February, the French opened fire on the 31st Rifle Division of the 9th Red Army under V. Chernishev, but did not land troops. The Georgians managed to regain control of the coastal town of Gagra, but their success was temporary. Soviet forces joined by Abkhaz peasant militias, the Kyaraz, succeeded in taking Gagra on 1 March, New Athos on 3 March, and Sukhumi on 4 March; they then advanced eastward to occupy Zugdidi on 9 March and Poti on 14 March.
The Georgians' attempt to hold out near Kutaisi was spoiled by the surprise advance of a Red Army detachment from North Caucasia, which traversed the virtually impenetrable Mamisoni Pass through deep snow drifts, and advanced down the Rioni Valley. After a bloody clash at Surami on 5 March 1921, the 11th Red Army also crossed the Likhi Range into the western part of the country. On 10 March Soviet forces entered Kutaisi, which had been abandoned, the Georgian leadership, army and People's Guard having evacuated to the key Black Sea port city of Batumi in southwest Georgia. Some Georgian forces withdrew into the mountains and continued to fight.
Crisis with Turkey
Map of Turkish invasion of Georgian-held territories February-March 1921
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Red Army invasion of Georgia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Red Army commanders in Batum in March 1921
On 23 February, ten days after the Red Army began its march on Tbilisi, Kâzım Karabekir, the commander of the Eastern Front of the Turkish Army of the Grand National Assembly, issued an ultimatum demanding the evacuation of Ardahan and Artvin by Georgia. The Mensheviks, under fire from both sides, had to accede, and the Turkish force advanced into Georgia, occupying the frontier areas. No armed engagements took place between the Turkish and Georgian forces. This brought the Turkish army within a short distance of still Georgian-held Batumi, creating the circumstances for a possible armed clash as the Red Army's 18th Cavalry Division under Dmitry Zhloba approached the city. Hoping to use these circumstances to their advantage, the Mensheviks reached a verbal agreement with Karabekir on 7 March, permitting the Turkish army to enter the city while leaving the government of Georgia in control of its civil administration.[6] On 8 March Turkish troops under Colonel Kizim-Bey took up defensive positions surrounding the city, leading to a crisis with Soviet Russia. Georgy Chicherin, Soviet People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, submitted a protest note to Ali Fuat Cebesoy, the Turkish representative in Moscow. In response, Ali Fuat handed two notes to the Soviet government. The Turkish notes claimed that the Turkish armies were only providing security to local Muslim elements put under threat by Soviet military operations in the region.[17]
"Red Army Effects Junction With Kemal's Troops After Overrunning the Republic" (The New York Times, 20 February 1921)
Despite Moscow's military successes, the situation on the Caucasus front had become precarious. Armenians, aided by the Red Army involvement in Georgia, had revolted, retaking Yerevan on 18 February 1921. In the North Caucasus, Dagestani rebels continued to fight the Soviets. The Turkish occupation of Georgia's territories implied the near certainty of a Soviet–Turkish confrontation, and the Georgians repeatedly refused to capitulate. On 2 March Lenin, who feared an unfavorable outcome to the Georgian campaign, sent his "warm greetings to Soviet Georgia", clearly revealing his desire to bring hostilities to an end as quickly as possible. He emphasized the "tremendous importance of devising an acceptable compromise for a bloc" with the Mensheviks. On 8 March, the Georgian Revkom reluctantly proposed a coalition government, which the Mensheviks refused.[6]
When the Turkish authorities proclaimed the annexation of Batumi on 16 March the Georgian government was forced to make a choice. Their hopes for French or British intervention had already vanished. France had never considered sending an expeditionary force, and the United Kingdom had ordered the Royal Navy not to intervene; furthermore, on 16 March the British and Soviet governments signed a trade agreement, in which Prime Minister Lloyd George effectively promised to refrain from anti-Soviet activities in all territories of the former Russian Empire. Simultaneously, a treaty of friendship was signed in Moscow between Soviet Russia and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, whereby Ardahan and Artvin were awarded to Turkey, which renounced its claims to Batumi.
The Turks, despite the terms of the treaty, were reluctant to evacuate Batumi and continued its occupation. Fearing permanent loss of the city to Turkey, Georgian leaders agreed to talks with the Revkom. In Kutaisi, Georgian Defense Minister Grigol Lordkipanidze and the Soviet plenipotentiary Avel Enukidze arranged an armistice on 17 March, and then, on 18 March, an agreement which allowed the Red Army to advance in force to Batumi.
Amid the ongoing Turkish-Soviet consultations in Moscow, the armistice with the Mensheviks allowed the Bolsheviks to act indirectly from behind the scenes, through several thousand soldiers of the Georgian National Army mobilized at the outskirts of Batumi and inclined to fight for the city. On 18 March, the remaining Georgian army under General Mazniashvili attacked Batumi and was engaged in heavy street fighting with the Turkish army. While the battle raged, the Menshevik government boarded an Italian vessel and sailed into exile escorted by French warships. The battle ended on 19 March with the port and most of the city in Georgian hands. On the same day, Mazniashvili surrendered the city to the Revkom and Zhloba's cavalry entered Batumi to reinforce Bolshevik authority there.
The sanguinary events in Batumi halted the Russian-Turkish negotiations, and it was not until 26 September when the talks between Turkey and the Soviets, nominally including also the representatives of the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian SSRs, finally reopened in Kars. The Treaty of Kars, signed on 13 October contained the provisions agreed upon in March and some other new territorial settlements just reached. In exchange for Artvin, Ardahan, and Kars, Turkey abandoned its claims to Batumi, whose largely Muslim Georgian population was to be granted autonomy within the Georgian SSR.[6]
See also: August Uprising
See also: Georgian emigration in Poland
Despite the Georgian government's emigration and the demobilization of the National Army, pockets of guerrilla resistance still remained in the mountains and some rural areas. The invasion of Georgia brought about serious controversies among the Bolsheviks themselves. The newly established Communist government initially offered unexpectedly mild terms to their former opponents who still remained in the country. Lenin also favored a policy of conciliation in Georgia, where a pro-Bolshevik revolt did not enjoy the popular backing claimed for it,[40] and the population was solidly anti-Bolshevik.[41] In 1922, a strong public resentment over the forcible Sovietization indirectly reflected in the opposition of Soviet Georgian authorities to Moscow's centralizing policies promoted by Dzerzhinsky, Stalin and Ordzhonikidze. The problem, known in modern history writing as the "Georgian Affair", was to become one of the major points at issue between Stalin and Trotsky in the last years of Lenin's leadership[40] and found its reflection in "Lenin's Political Testament".[42]
The world largely neglected the violent Soviet takeover of Georgia. On 27 March 1921, the exiled Georgian leadership issued an appeal from their temporary offices in Constantinople to "all socialist parties and workers' organizations" of the world, protesting against the invasion of Georgia. The appeal went unheeded, though. Beyond passionate editorials in some Western newspapers and calls for action from such Georgian sympathizers as Sir Oliver Wardrop, the international response to the events in Georgia was silence.[43]
In Georgia, an intellectual resistance to the Bolshevik regime and occasional outbreaks of guerrilla warfare evolved into a major rebellion in August 1924. Its failure and the ensuing wave of large-scale repressions orchestrated by the emerging Soviet security officer, Lavrentiy Beria, heavily demoralized the Georgian society and exterminated its most active pro-independence part. Within a week, from 29 August to 5 September 1924, 12,578 people, chiefly nobles and intellectuals, were executed[44] and over 20,000 exiled to Siberia.[31] From that time, no major overt attempt was made to challenge Soviet authority in the country until a new generation of anti-Soviet movements emerged in 1956.
Soviet historians considered the Red Army invasion of Georgia a part of the larger conflict which they referred to as "the Civil War and Foreign Intervention". In early Soviet history writing, the Georgian episode was considered as a "revolutionary war" and is described in just this term in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Later, the term "revolutionary war" went out of fashion among Soviet writers, partly because it was not easy to distinguish from "aggression", in the Soviets' own definition of that word. Hence, the later Soviet histories put things differently. The Red Army intervention, according to the official Soviet version, was in response to a plea for help that followed an armed rebellion by Georgia's peasants and workers. This version exculpated Soviet Russia from any charge of aggression against Georgia by pointing out that the Georgians themselves asked Moscow to send the Red Army into their country, so as to remove their existing government and replace it with a communist one.[45]
Using its control over education and the media, the Soviet Union successfully created an image of a popular socialist revolution in Georgia. Most Georgian historians were not allowed to consult Spetskhran, special restricted access library collections and archival reserves that also covered the "unacceptable" events in Soviet history, particularly those that could be interpreted imperialist or contradicted a concept of a popular uprising against the Menshevik government.[18]
The 1980s wave of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost ("publicity") policy refuted an old Soviet version of the 1921–1924 events. The first Soviet historian, who attempted, in 1988, to revise the hitherto commonly accepted interpretation of the Soviet-Georgian war, was a notable Georgian scholar, Akaki Surguladze, ironically the same historian whose 1982 monograph described the alleged Georgian worker revolt as a truly historical event.[18]
Under strong public pressure, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Georgian SSR set up, on 2 June 1989, a special commission for investigation of legal aspects of the 1921 events. The commission came to the conclusion[46] that "the [Soviet Russian] deployment of troops in Georgia and seizure of its territory was, from a legal point of view, a military interference, intervention, and occupation with the aim of overthrowing the existing political order."[47] At an extraordinary session of the Supreme Soviet of the Georgian SSR convened on 26 May 1990, the Sovietization of Georgia was officially denounced as "an occupation and effective annexation of Georgia by Soviet Russia."[48]
Modern Georgian politicians and some observers have repeatedly drawn parallels between the 1921 events and Russia's policy towards Georgia and Western Europe's reluctance to confront Russia over Georgia in the 2000s, especially during the August 2008 war.[49][50][51][52]
On July 21, 2010, Georgia declared February 25 as Soviet Occupation Day to recall the Red Army invasion in 1921.[53][54] The Georgian parliament voted in favor of the government's initiative. The decision, endorsed unanimously by the Parliament of Georgia instructs the government to organize various memorial events every February 25 and to fly the national flag half-mast to commemorate, as the decision puts it, the hundreds of thousands of victims of political repressions of the Communist occupational regime.[55]
^ "iveria". Retrieved 1 November 2014.
^ a b According to a Russian statistician and Soviet-era dissident, Professor I.A. Kurganov, the 1921-2 military operations against Georgia took lives of about 20,000 people. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-11-05. Retrieved 2006-11-03. CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^ Ayfer Özçelik: Ali Fuat Cebesoy: 1882-10 Ocak 1968, publisher Akçağ, 1993, page 206. (in Turkish)
^ "Советско-грузинская война 1921 г. (Soviet-Georgian war of 1921)". Хронос ("Hronos") (in Russian). Retrieved 2006-11-02.
^ a b c d Debo, R. (1992). Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1918-1921, pp. 182, 361–364. McGill-Queen's Press. ISBN 0-7735-0828-7
^ a b Kort, M (2001), The Soviet Colossus, p. 154. M.E. Sharpe, ISBN 0-7656-0396-9
^ "Russia". (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 27 October 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-01-07. Retrieved 2006-11-03. CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^ Suny 1994, p. 207
^ Sicker, M. (2001), The Middle East in the Twentieth Century, p. 124. Praeger/Greenwood, ISBN 0-275-96893-6
^ Suny 1994, pp. 185–190
^ Carr 1950, pp. 342–343
^ Gachechiladze 2012, pp. 22–23
^ Ėkshtut, Simon (September 2014). "ЮРИЙ ТРИФОНОВ:ВЕЛИКАЯ СИЛА НЕДОСКАЗАННОГО" (PDF). Rodina. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-01-18.
^ a b c Kedourie, S., editor (1998), Turkey: Identity, Democracy, Politics, p. 65. Routledge (UK), ISBN 0-7146-4718-7
^ a b c Beichman, A. (1991). The Long Pretense: Soviet Treaty Diplomacy from Lenin to Gorbachev, p. 165. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0-88738-360-2.
^ Erickson, J., ed. The Soviet High Command: A Military-Political History, 1918–1941 ( Routledge (UK), 2001, ISBN 0-7146-5178-8), p. 123
^ "Russian Civil War" in Encyclopædia Britannica (2006) Retrieved 27 October 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-05-26. Retrieved 2006-11-03. CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^ Mawdsley, Evan (2007), The Russian Civil War, p. 228. Pegasus Books, ISBN 1-933648-15-5
^ Pethybridge, RW (1990), One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward: Soviet Society and Politics in the New Economic Policy, p. 254. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-821927-X
^ Dench, G (2002), Minorities in the Open Society, p. 87. Transaction Publishers, ISBN 0-7658-0979-6
^ Wood, Alan (1990). Stalin and Stalinism. London: Routledge. p. 22. ISBN 0-415-03721-2.
^ "Glossary of Events: Georgian Affair-1921". Encyclopedia of Marxism. Retrieved 2006-11-02.
^ a b Kowalski, RI (1997), The Russian Revolution, p. 175. Routledge (UK), ISBN 0-415-12437-9
^ a b Smith 1998, pp. 519–544
^ Phillips, S (2000), Lenin and the Russian Revolution, p. 49. ca-print-harcourt_heinemann, ISBN 0-435-32719-4
^ Hovannisian 1996, pp. 287–289
^ Арутюнов, Аким Александрович (Arutyunov, Akim Aleksandrovich) (1999), Досье Ленина без ретуши. Документы. Факты. Свидетельства. (Lenin' Dossier without Retouching. Documents, Facts, and Evidences). Moscow: Вече (Veche). ISBN 5-7838-0530-0 (in Russian). See also an abridged online version of the book.
^ a b c d e Lang 1962, pp. 234–236
^ Brackman, R (2000), The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life, p. 163. Routledge (UK), ISBN 0-7146-5050-1
^ Deutscher, I. (2003), The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky: 1921-1929, p. 41. Verso, ISBN 1-85984-446-4
^ Trotsky, Leon (1922), Between Red and White: a study of some fundamental questions of revolution, with particular reference to Georgia (Social democracy and the wars of intervention) Archived 2005-02-04 at the Wayback Machine. Encyclopedia of Marxism. Retrieved on 17 April 2007.
^ Kautsky, Karl (translated by H. J. Stenning; 1921), Georgia: A Social-Democratic Peasant Republic – Impressions And Observations. Encyclopedia of Marxism. Retrieved on 17 April 2007.
^ "Тифлисская операция 1921 (Tiflis Operation of 1921)". Большая советская энциклопедия (БСЭ) (Great Soviet Encyclopedia) (in Russian) (3 ed.). 1969–1978. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29.
^ For further details on the involvement of the Red Army armored trains in the Tiflis Operation, see Дроговоз И. Г. (Drogovoz, IG) (2002), Крепости на колесах: История бронепоездов (Fortresses on wheels: History of armored trains). Минск (Minsk): Харвест (Harvest), ISBN 985-13-0744-0 (in Russian)
^ Melgunov, SP (1925), The Red Terror in Russia. JM Dent and Sons, London and Toronto. Russian translation: С. П. Мельгунов (2005). Красный террор в России. 1918-1923. Айрис-пресс, ISBN 5-8112-1715-3. Online version: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-05-22. Retrieved 2006-11-03. CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^ Aksenov, A., Bullok, D (2006), Armored Units of the Russian Civil War: Red Army, p. Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1-84176-545-7
^ a b Deutscher, I. (2003), The Prophet Armed: Trotsky: 1879-1921 , p. 393. Verso, ISBN 1-85984-441-3
^ Conquest, R (1991), The Great Terror: Reassessment, p. 4. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-507132-8
^ "V.I. Lenin. The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation"". Encyclopedia of Marxism. Retrieved 2006-11-02.
^ King, Charles (2008), The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus, p. 173. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-517775-4.
^ ШЕСТАЯ ГЛАВА ИЗ "ЧЕРНОЙ КНИГИ КОММУНИЗМА" (in Russian). Retrieved 2006-05-21. . A Russian translation of the Chapter 6 from Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panne, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7
^ Vigor, Peter Hast (1975), The Soviet View of War, Peace, and Neutrality, pp. 77–78. Routledge, ISBN 0-7100-8143-X
^ largely based upon extensive studies conducted in the "Georgian Archive" of Houghton Library, Harvard University, which has been opened for researchers since September 1988. [1]
^ Ментешашвили, А (Menteshashvili, A) (2002), Из истории взаимоотнашений Грузинской Демократическои республики с советской Россией и Антантой. 1918-1921 гг. (History of the Relations of the Democratic Republic of Georgia with Soviet Russia and the Entente of 1918-21)
^ Soviet Georgia Demands Talks for Independence. Los Angeles Times. 10.03.1990
^ Saakashvili Urges for EU's Help. Civil Georgia. 2008-05-12.
^ Saakashvili Address on Russia's Abkhazia, S. Ossetia Recognition. Civil Georgia. 2008-08-26.
^ Georgia's Statehood Under Danger, Resist Enemy Everywhere – Government Tells the Nation. Civil Georgia. 2008-08-10.
^ Lee, Eric (Autumn 2008), Global Labor Notes / Russia invades – and the labour movement is silent Archived 2009-07-25 at the Portuguese Web Archive. Democratiya.
^ "Georgia: 25 February Declared 'Soviet Occupation Day'". Stratfor. Archived from the original on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
^ Georgia to mark Soviet occupation every year Archived 2010-07-24 at the Wayback Machine
^ Civil Georgia. "25 February Declared Day of Soviet Occupation". Archived from the original on 3 August 2012. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
Allen, WED (May 1927). "New Political Boundaries in the Caucasus". Geographical Journal. 69, No. 5 (5): 430–441. JSTOR 1782090.
(in French) Andrew Andersen et George Partskhaladze (1/2009), La guerre soviéto-géorgienne et la soviétisation de la Géorgie (février-mars 1921). Revue historique des Armées, 254: 67–75
Blank, Stephen (1993), "The Soviet conquest of Georgia", Central Asian Survey, 12 (1): 33–46, doi:10.1080/02634939308400798
Anita L. Burdett, ed. (1 June 2001). "Caucasian Boundaries. Documents and Maps. 1802–1946". Central Asian Survey. 20 (2): 229–249. doi:10.1080/02634930120073523. Archived from the original on 3 January 2013.
(in Russian) Борисова, И.Д. Российско-грузинские межреспубликанские связи 1917–1922 гг. / И.Д. Борисова // PANDECTAE: сб. ст. преподавателей, аспирантов и соискателей каф. гос.-правовых дисциплин юрид. фак. ВГПУ. – Владимир: Изд-во ВГПУ, 2004.
Carr, E.H. (1950), The Bolshevik Revolution 1917–1923, Vol. I, London: MacMillan & Co.
Gachechiladze, Revaz (2012), "Geopolitics and foreign powers in the modern history of Georgia: Comparing 1918–21 and 1991–2010", in Jones, Stephen F. (ed.), The Making of Modern Georgia, 1918 – 2012: The first Georgian Republic and its successors, New York City: Routledge, pp. 17–34, ISBN 978-0-41-559238-3
Hovannisian, Richard G. (1996), The Republic of Armenia, Vol. IV: Between Crescent and Sickle, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-08804-2
Stephen F. Jones (October 1988), "The Establishment of Soviet Power in Transcaucasia: The Case of Georgia 1921-1928", Soviet Studies, 40, No. 4 (4): 616–639, JSTOR 151812
Kazemzadeh, Firuz (1951), The Struggle for Transcaucasia (1917–1921), New York City: Philosophical Library
Kautsky, Karl: Georgia: A Social-Democratic Peasant Republic - Impressions And Observations. International Bookshops Ltd., London [etc.] 1921.
Keun, Odette (1924). In the Land of the Golden Fleece: Through Independent Menchevist Georgia. London: John Lane.
Lang, David Marshall (1962), A Modern History of Soviet Georgia, New York City: Grove Press
Smith, Jeremy (May 1998), "The Georgian Affair of 1922. Policy Failure, Personality Clash or Power Struggle?", Europe-Asia Studies, 50 (3): 519���544, doi:10.1080/09668139808412550
Suny, Ronald Grigor (1994), The Making of the Georgian Nation (Second ed.), Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, ISBN 978-0-253-20915-3
Trotsky, Leon: Between Red and White: A Study of Some Fundamental Questions of Revolution, with Particular Reference to Georgia. Hyperion Press, Westport, Conn. 1975, ISBN 0-88355-189-6
Communist Takeover and Occupation of Georgia. "Special Report No. 6 of the Select Committee on Communist Aggression", United States House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, 2nd session. 31 December 1954. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1955.
(in Russian) "Оккупация и фактическая аннексия Грузии". Документы и материалы. Сост. А. Ментешашвили, ред. А. Сургуладзе, Тбилиси, 1990.


text:
The DSM-5 is a diagnostic tool. It has evolved over the decades, as have the classifications and criteria within its pages. It is used not just for diagnosis, however, but also for billing, access to services, and legal cases. Not all practitioners are in agreement with the content and structure of the DSM-5, and dissociative disorders are one such area. These disorders can be difficult to distinguish and diagnose. There is also controversy in the field over the legitimacy of certain dissociative disorders, such as dissociative identity disorder, which was formerly called multiple personality disorder.In this Assignment, you will examine the controversy surrounding dissociative disorders. You will also explore clinical, ethical, and legal considerations pertinent to working with patients with these disorders.The Assignment ( 3 pages)Explain the controversy that surrounds dissociative disorders.Explain your professional beliefs about dissociative disorders, supporting your rationale with at least three scholarly references from the literature.Explain strategies for maintaining the therapeutic relationship with a client that may present with a dissociative disorder.Finally, explain ethical and legal considerations related to dissociative disorders that you need to bring to your practice and why they are important.
https://studyhope.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/logo-300x75.png 0 0 Karis https://studyhope.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/logo-300x75.png Karis2023-01-23 18:42:182023-01-23 18:42:18Dissociative Disorder
spreadsheet showing Financial History business and finance homework help Assignment 06: Governance, Leadership, and Integration

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Jepkosgei wins London Marathon
By Ehi Ekhator Last updated Oct 4, 2021
Kenyan athlete Joyciline Jepkosgei is the current women's London Marathon holder after winning the race at 2:17:43 on Sunday, October 3, 2021.
She beat her compatriot and the world-recorder holder Brigid Kosgei who finished fourth after clicking 2:18:40.
Ethiopians Dagitu Azimeraw and Ashete Bekere emerged second and third, respectively.
They took 2:17:58 and 2:18:18.
The win came on the same day when Bahrain's Kalkidan Gezahegne broke her world record in the 10km race.
"It was fantastic to break the record and demonstrate what is possible, but now all I care about is winning here," she said. "This is my biggest triumph since London is the best race in the world. I put in a lot of effort in my training and just tried to stay focused and avoid making any mistakes."
JekposegeilondonLondon Marathon
Nairobi: One robber suspect gunned down as two others escape
Kenyan sports minister summoned over poor performance during 2020 Olympic Games


"This is one of those pyramid schemes." How many times have you heard this objections?
When it comes to dealing with the people that you know best, your warm market, you need to keep in mind that they know a lot about you.
They are professionals at picking up the subtle changes that occur in you when you're nervous, desperate, or high pressure.
When most people in sales and network marketing try to handle and overcome objections from their warm market prospects they usually end up falling apart and coming across as desperate or high pressure.
And one of the most important things sales professionals and network marketers need to know is that people don't want to buy from or join people who are desperate and/or high pressure.
People want to work with champions and people who don't need them to succeed.
So the more your posture and positioning indicates that you're the one doing your prospect a favor, not the other way around, and that you value their business, but don't need it, the more attractive you and your offer will seem to them.
So when attempting to prospect, invite, sell, recruit, or handle objections from your warm market, it's extremely important to make sure your posture is strong and that they know that you're the one doing them a favor by offering them your product, service or opportunity.
Overcoming objections about your business opportunity is a skill which needs to be developed.
So, in today's post, I will be sharing my best strategy on how to handle objections from warm market prospects.
Objections from your warm market prospects mean you have a prospect who has interest, but needs new information to make a new decision.
Your job is to provide that new information.
Objections mean your sales progress is moving forward, not backward.
If I were to come across any objection from my warm market prospects, this is what I will do.
"Charlie, to be realistic with you, when someone I don't know says something that seems non-serious, skeptical, or even ridiculous, what I have always say, is, thank you very much, I don't think that this is for you, have an amazing day ahead! and then I hang up the phone or leave the scene.
beliefs were based on inaccurate assumptions.
'But, because we're friends and because I actually do love you, before you make a final decision on this and you let that be the reason why you miss out on this, I feel like I should at least be a good friend to you and let you know the truth.
Then you pause and I can assure you that almost all of the time, they will be interested to know what it is and if you are good at closing, you will immediately close them at that same spot.
Your job is to contribute the possibility of your opportunity to them.
The secret to successfully managing sales and network marketing objections is this.
A genuine desire to understand and resolve a prospect's concerns, and a willingness to walk away if the relationship wasn't right for either party. Simple!
If you embody those two traits, it won't matter what objection your prospects throws at you; you'll be prepared to respond in a way that has everyone's best interests in mind.
And trust me, that's often all it takes.
What about you? What objections do you hear most often, and how do you handle them?
Share your experience in the comments below, then get back out there and crush it.
If you enjoyed this post about How To Handle Objections From Warm Market Prospects, share and comment please.
« HOW TO PROSPECT CO-WORKERS – Script Included.
Thank you. Glad you got some value.


text:
Innovation and Networks Executive Agency
Connecting Europe Facility > CEF Transport > Beneficiaries' Info Point > 2018 MAP Mid-Term Review
Connecting Europe Facility
TEN-T
CEF Energy
CEF Telecom
CEF Transport
Beneficiaries' Info Point
CEF Transport Projects
Sign up as an expert
Synergies with H2020
2018 MAP Mid-Term Review
In 2018, INEA will carry out a mid-term review of the ongoing Actions from the 2014 and 2015 calls under the Multi-Annual Work Programme (the 'MAP MTR'), with the objective to ensure the efficient and effective use of EU funds.
The MAP MTR will be carried out in the framework of the 2018 ASR exercise. The MAP MTR will look at a total of 338 Actions in order to assess their state of play by 31/12/2017, their future implementation plans and any risks.
Depending on their CEF contributions, the Actions will be subject either to a 'comprehensive' or a 'desktop' review. For the 'comprehensive' review, INEA will be supported by external experts.
INEA and DG MOVE will analyse the reviewers' findings on the state of play and perspectives of the Actions.
Presentation from the CEF Transport Committee meeting of 27 September 2018
Information note, at portfolio level, on the outcome of the 2018 MAP Mid-Term Review
Information note to beneficiaries of Actions from the 2014 and 2015 CEF transport calls under the Multi-Annual Work Programme
Presentation on the MAP MTR
List of Actions subject to comprehensive review
List of Actions subject to desktop review
The matrix is an internal review document (not to be filled by the beneficiary) which will be adapted to the situation of each individual Action. It is a supporting tool to organise the analysis of information provided in the 2018 ASR and 'scan' the risk factors of each Action, including their impacts on the different activities of each Action. The template of the matrix is made public in order to illustrate how the reviewers will assess the information provided by the ASR.
Did you find what you were looking for? * - Select -YesNo
What were you looking for? *
How to get to INEA


Established in 1959, La Rinconada is considered one of the best horseracing venues by fans of the sport, taking its architectural beauty into consideration. It is located south of Caracas and has two 1800m long sand tracks and three stands with a total of 12,500 seats. The racecourse was designed and built with great work going into it. From the engineering design and architecture to the beautiful landscapes and magnificent murals, the construction plans of La Rinconada have influenced a number of other world class horseracing tracks like Ascot in Britain, Belmont Park in the US and Longchamps in France.
Important races at the Hipodromo La Rinconada include the Gran Premio Clásico Simón Bolívar and the Clásico Internacional Propietarios La Rinconada, both Grade 1 races. Others are the Clásico Antonio Jose de Sucre, the Clásico Fuerza Armada Bolivariana, the Clásico Republica de Venezuela and the Copa Internacional Cruz del Avila.
Although betting on horses is legal in Venezuela, the government has a tight leash on the activities surrounding it on the racetracks. This has pushed majority of the betting fans and agencies to illegal cartels to avoid the government's tight noose, leading to the rise of the illegal gambling cartels. As with everything else, the Mafia is also in the horseracing circles, making it easier for fans and agencies to continue with their betting. But even with rising reports of race-fixing and horse poisoning by the gambling rings in Venezuela, it is reported that the cartels move up to sixty times the amount of money in betting than the state-run gambling agency.
La Rinconada also hosts the Poliedro de Caracas, an indoor sports arena with a capacity of 20,000 people. Boxing, volleyball, ice-skating and basketball tournaments are held here as well as concerts and trade fairs. Its a great melting pot of Venezuelan socio-economic life through the year.
Previous PostPrevious It's Grand to Win the National!


WASHINGTON/ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – The U.S. aviation regulator will significantly change its oversight approach to air safety by July following two fatal Boeing Co MAX 737 passenger plane crashes, according to written congressional testimony seen by Reuters.
At a U.S. Senate panel hearing on Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) acting head Dan Elwell will say the agency's oversight approach must "evolve" after the deadly crashes, according to the testimony.
A spokesman for Ethiopia's transport ministry, which is leading an investigation in Addis Ababa, told Reuters the preliminary crash report would very likely be released this week. The initial report will begin to paint a more detailed picture of what went wrong during flight ET 302's six minutes in the air, likely with huge consequences for the plane's manufacturer and the airline.
Boeing's best-selling jet, with orders worth more than $500 billion at list prices, has been grounded globally.
Elwell's testimony discloses that Boeing first submitted a proposed upgrade to its anti-stall software – which aviation experts have identified as a potential factor in both crashes – to the FAA for certification on Jan. 21.
Boeing is expected as early as Wednesday to unveil more details of the software upgrade to the MAX's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS. The company did not comment on Tuesday on the upgrade, but said it would closely monitor the congressional hearing.
U.S. Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel will also testify to the panel on oversight changes.
"While revamping FAA's oversight process will be an important step, continued management attention will be key to ensure the agency identifies and monitors the highest-risk areas of aircraft certification," said Scovel's written testimony, which was seen by Reuters.
According to Scovel, new FAA rules that took effect on March 12 require air carriers to train pilots for "specific abnormal flight conditions" including stall recovery.
Representative Peter DeFazio, who chairs the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he was sending a letter from lawmakers on Tuesday urging the FAA to engage an independent, third-party review of Boeing's proposed changes to the 737 MAX before it is returned to service.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is also examining the FAA's certification process, chairman Robert Sumwalt will tell the Senate, according to his testimony seen by Reuters.
China's civil aviation regulator has stopped taking applications for MAX 8 airworthiness certification, a regulatory official said on Tuesday.
Boeing did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Lufthansa.
Ethiopian Airlines' success over the past decade as it has expanded its Boeing-dominated fleet is emblematic of Ethiopia's ambitions: to be a regional powerhouse with an Asia-style economic development model.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who took office a year ago and announced sweeping economic and political reforms, has said he wants to open the airline up to foreign investment as part of a partial privatization of state-owned enterprises.


text:
ALEXANDER S. ROSEMURGY II
Mr. Rosemurgy is the current CEO of Rosemurgy Properties, a privately owned commercial real estate development, investment and management firm. Portfolio assets include multi-family, self-storage, retail, office and undeveloped land. For the past 44 years, the company has maintained focus on a long-term diversified investment strategy through multiple commercial asset classes. Mr. Rosemurgy was named Chief Executive Officer of Rosemurgy Properties in 2010. Since then, the company has expanded its portfolio to over $700 million in assets under development and management throughout the Southeast. In addition, he has expanded the operations of the company to include property and construction management services. He has taken a focused approach in the architecture, design and detail of every project as part of an overall objective in delivering best-in-class properties and new developments. Mr. Rosemurgy has more than 25 years of commercial real estate, construction, and development experience.
Mr. Rosemurgy is also the Managing Partner of Park Partners Residential. In 2013, Rosemurgy Properties teamed with Giles Capital Group to form a joint venture for the purpose of acquiring multi-family development sites and assets. In addition to development and acquisition, Park Partners provides property management and asset management services. Since May 2013, entities controlled by Rosemurgy and Giles have acquired and developed over $500 million in multi-family assets.
Mr. Rosemurgy currently serves as a Board Member on ULI's South Florida Chapter, a member of the City of Boca Raton Affordable Housing Advisory Board, and is a current YPO Palm Beach member, having served as former Chapter Chair and 8-term as Board Member. He has a degree in Finance from Florida State University and resides in Boca Raton with his family.
Notable commercial development projects:
Uptown Boca – Boca Raton, FL
A 1 million+ square mixed-use development in west Boca Raton, Uptown includes 456 apartments and over 180,000 square feet of retail. Tenants include Amazon Fresh, REI, Sephora, Chick-fil-A, Bonefish, MD Now, Bolay, Olive U, Lenora's, Lazy Dog, BurgerFi and F45. The Residences of Uptown recently sold to Cortland for $230.00M, which equated to a record $504,000 per door. Over 6 years in the making, Uptown was the first project approved in Palm Beach County under the 3.5.D Traffic Policy Exemption with a built-on-site workforce housing requirement.
University Park – Boca Raton, FL
As the first purpose-built student housing complex in Palm Beach County, University Park serves Florida Atlantic University, Lynn University and Palm Beach State University. The 598-bed project was sold in 2016 to InvestCorp along with 2 additional neighbor student properties for $105.25M.
Mainstreet - Coconut Creek, FL Currently in the entitlement phase, Mainstreet consists of a 200-acre development that will include over 1900 for-sale and rental units, 100,000 of grocery-anchored retail, civic and recreational uses as well as a 550-student charter school. With a projected capitalization of over $600M, the project is on track to break ground in late-2022


Pre-Qualification: Meet with our preferred mortgage broker or your own and find out how much you can afford to pay for a home.
With our extensive experience we will be working for your best interest and representing you, the buyer, not the seller.
In a convenient location, keep handy the items that will assist you in maximizing your home search efforts. Although we will setup a home search with the criteria you provide us, keep search our website for homes that come on the market. Property Home Search can be found at the top of this page.
A file of the properties that we have shown to you.
Paper and pen or camera, for taking notes as you view homes.
Include inspection period & mortgage contingencies in your written offer.
Have a second walk-through which will take place within 24 hours of closing.
We will want to check to see that no changes have been made that were not agreed on (i.e., a nice chandelier that you assumed came with the sale having been replaced by a cheap ceiling light).
All the above may seem rather overwhelming. That is why having us as professionals represent you and keep track of all the details for you. Please email me or call us directly to discuss any of these matters in further detail.


text:
AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums › Discussion › US Politics
Major Lawsuits Against Tech Giants Google, Facebook, Twitter, Etc.
Classic 19th Century Liberal
Finally, the Right is going after the major tech giants, that have been caught willfully discriminating against them on the internet. This is following the revelation of just how these companies have purposefully, AND collectively been going after the 'so called' Conservative Right. Now the Right is using the legal system to punish them monetarily for their transgressions.
The Whore Media has been very quiet about all this, because they fear they may also be drug into this entire Charlie Foxtrot. My guess is that there will be a series of major lawsuits, made by those directly discriminated against. Conservatives, such as Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, and others will also be going after all of these major tech companies, because the proof is laid bare already.
This is the first in what will almost certainly be a series. Once a precedent is established, the floodgate will be wide open.
Quote: Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple slapped with class-action lawsuit over conservative censorship
Social Media Opens a New Window. and search giants are being hit with a class-action lawsuit from a pro-Trump group who claims that they conspired against Conservatives.
Freedom Watch, which promotes right to privacy among other causes, claims that Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple violated antitrust laws.
"Our YouTube account on Google never gets above 49 thousand," said Larry Klayman, the group's founder, during an interview on FOX Business' "Varney & Co." on Tuesday. "It goes up, it goes down. That's been going on for about six months," he claimed while adding that other conservative groups and interests are also experiencing the same issues.
Klayman, a former antitrust lawyer who helped break up AT&T's telephone monopoly during the Regan administration, also alleged the tech companies collaborated to restrain trade.
"There's also a concept of conscious parallelism," he said. "When companies move in tandem in parallel fashion that do the same thing that can be restraint of trade. So we believe there's an actual agreement between these leftist owned media giants like Google, Twitter, YouTube etc.," he explained.
The lawsuit follows President Trump's public lashing against big tech last week for what he described as a "very antitrust situation" and it comes as Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook Opens a New Window. Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg prepares to get grilled on Capitol Hill over their company's role in the 2016 presidential election on Wednesday.
Here's a Klayman interview, where he discusses this issue to "The Next Generation Network".
BOOM! BILLION DOLLAR Hammer Dropped on Google, Facebook, Twitter After Censoring Conservatives!!!
Have a Gneiss Day!
It looks like the big three tech giants will be coming under microscopic scrutiny in the near future. The Tech industry has yet to have a thorough anal exam, as with other corporations, and my best guess is that their flagrant violation of conservative groups rights, especially Pro-Trump ones, will soon come to haunt them.
I suspect the "defecation is about to strike the rotating oscillator"........in a Big Way. Get your ear plugs ready for insertion, because the high pitched squealing and wailing is going to be a terrible thing to behold.
Quote: Report: Justice Department Prepares to Launch Antitrust Investigation into Google
The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to begin an antitrust investigation into Google that could see the tech giant come under a new wave of scrutiny from regulators. According to people familiar with the matter, the antitrust division of the Justice Department has been gathering information and preparing for the investigation for weeks.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shares antitrust authority with the Justice Department, has previously conducted antitrust investigations into Google on a broader scale but closed the investigation in 2013 with no action taken. Google did, however, make some voluntary changes to some of its business practices as a result of the investigation.
The FTC and Justice Department have been discussing which group will oversee further antitrust investigations of Google, with the FTC agreeing to give the Justice Department full jurisdiction over Google. Now that an understanding has been reached between the two government bodies, the Justice Department is preparing to conduct an in-depth investigation into Google. It has yet to be revealed if the Justice Department has contacted Google in relation to the investigation.
Those familiar with the matter stated that the Justice Department has been in contact with third-party groups that have been critical of Google in the past. The Wall Street Journal reached out to the Justice Department and Google for comment on the matter but did not receive a reply. The FTC declined to comment on the issue.
Breitbart News reported in March of this year that Silicon Valley giant Google has been fined $1.7 billion by the European Union for the company's third breach of E.U. antitrust laws in three years. The latest fine against the company relates to Google's AdSense advertising service and "illegal practices in search advertising brokering to cement its dominant market position," according to European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
Canuknucklehead
They should go after Twitter and Facebook.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones.
(06-01-2019, 10:33 PM)Canuknucklehead Wrote: They should go after Twitter and Facebook.
Oh, I'll bet they will. And Amazon as well.
Amazon could face heightened antitrust scrutiny under a new agreement between US regulators
And guess what they all have in common?
Fredledingue
They are just copying the EU. The EU has fined the tech giants 6 or 7 digits amounts, at regular intervals, for anti-trust, privacy, whatever.
They pay it and it doesn't seem that they pay it because they did something wrong. The way they do business remains and will always remain the same.
The truth is that it's a hidden tax. These companies pay little to no tax while hoarding huge profits.
(06-02-2019, 03:11 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: They are just copying the EU. The EU has fined the tech giants 6 or 7 digits amounts, at regular intervals, for anti-trust, privacy, whatever.
I believe what you really mean is that the US and the EU are headed in the same direction.
WmLambert
Many state and local governments have cut taxation deals with Amazon to lure it to their areas. Most of these are flourishing with the second-hand tax income coming from the new employees. However; once the Amazon warehouses and transportation hubs are established, a normalizing of taxes should gradually come into balance.
We are talking about paradigms, here - not just individual deals. Many MacDonalds in my area have self-serve kiosks, augmenting fewer counter personnel. Self-driving trucks are being experimented with. Pick-it-by-hand field workers are being replaced by automated machinery.
Regulations are reminiscent of the Obama regime, and were effectively exacerbating the harm to unskilled workforce. The new paradigm was sparked during Obama's time, and are being solved now. Democrats are calling for monthly stipends. Yang is calling foe $1,000 a month and doing double duty as reparations to Blacks.
(06-02-2019, 05:39 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Yang is calling foe $1,000 a month and doing double duty as reparations to Blacks.
Why don't you explain that a little better Bill. Mind reading is a bit hard these days.
JL Wrote: I believe what you really mean is that the US and the EU are headed in the same direction.
Not sure what you mean by that. But certainly, in this case, Europe has been an inspiration.
You can fine a company for this kind of things, a few hundreds of thousands or a few millions but not one billion.
IMO the governements take money where it is.
WmL Wrote: Regulations are reminiscent of the Obama regime
And Hillary?
(06-03-2019, 06:43 PM)Fredledingue Wrote:
Actually the EU is just the first, but both the EU and the US are going after these tech monopolies for their monopolistic actions.
(06-03-2019, 06:43 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: You can fine a company for this kind of things, a few hundreds of thousands or a few millions but not one billion.
Tell that to the EU Fred.
(06-02-2019, 06:40 PM)John L Wrote:
(06-02-2019, 05:39 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Yang is calling for $1,000 a month and doing double duty as reparations to Blacks.
Yang is one of the filed Democrat candidates for President. His issue is to give everyone $12,000 a year. He rolled the Black reparations issue into it, claiming it would do "double duty."
Want $1,000 a Month? Andrew Yang Is Running on It.
(06-04-2019, 03:40 PM)WmLambert Wrote:
Perhaps the Jackasses will come up with a Yin to balance him out.
They're all Yin. They want to take money away from everyone.
JL Wrote: Actually the EU is just the first, but both the EU and the US are going after these tech monopolies for their monopolistic actions.
Yes, the EU did it first and did it for some time.
But the monopoly issue is just a pretext. I'm not against using this pretext personaly. IMO I prefer them to tax the tech giants than me.
Neither Facebook, Google nor Microsoft will give up their monopoly because they have to pay one billion.
WmL Wrote: His issue is to give everyone $12,000 a year.
Jesus Christ! In the US too they start with the Universal Income utopia?
Bill Whittle gets to the very crux of the matter here. This is really all about whether Google, Youtube, and Facebook, are "Publishers", or "Carriers". They are supposed to be "carriers", and tout this. However, by being selective about who the carry or discriminate against, they are really, in effect, "Publishers", and have a completely different set of rules and regulations that must be followed.
Its well past time these giants were cut down to size.
Revenge of the Right: Why Break Up YouTube, Google and Facebook
Library of Congress to Archive Twitter Gunnen4u 0 749 05-25-2010, 10:37 PM
Last Post: Gunnen4u
Great Story about The NY Giants and a Friend Palladin 6 828 02-09-2008, 08:27 PM
Last Post: Palladin
Forum Jump: Private Messages User Control Panel Who's Online Search Forum Home Discussion -- Music/Photography/Art/Literature -- Militant Islam And The War On Terror -- Economics -- History & Education -- International Politics -- Jane's Essays -- Religion/Philosophy -- US Politics -- Science -- Computing,Technology & Projects -- Geography, Travel & Outdoors -- Cooking, Health, Food & Drink -- Chat -- General Resources Sunset Tommy's Global Warming Skeptics -- Science Earth ---- Meteorological links & charts ---- Science Presentations -- Human Earth ---- Climate Change Politics ---- Food & Health -- Cold & Warm Earth ---- Weather ---- Warm Interglacial ---- Cold Interglacial -- Geological History ---- Poles & Sea Ice ---- Vikings


text:
BATS Wireless Selected to Deliver its High-Speed FPSO Communications Solution
INDIANAPOLIS February 23, 2017 – BATS Wireless (BATS), the world's leading innovator of wireless stabilization, optimization, and tracking systems today announced that it has been selected by a major oil & gas company to deliver its innovative Platform-to-FPSO communications solution for integration offshore. The project calls for BATS to provide its state-of-the-art DVM-90XL system, which will help facilitate critical communications and data sharing between a central platform and fixed production and offloading vessel in the oil-rich Nigerian Basin.
The DVM-90XL antenna system will be outfitted with dual Aviat ODU600 radios; used to form a high-speed, high-capacity network that can offer 700 Mbit/s connectivity speeds. The expanded-size DVM-90XL offers a 360-degree continuous, marine-grade ruggedized architecture, boasting sea salt and spray-resistant composite materials with dual-layer water protection. These design improvements allow for a large antenna system that can deliver uninterrupted use in some of the harshest environments offshore.
The marine-grade BATS DVM systems deliver a wealth of cutting-edge wireless communications and data opportunities to FPSO and platform operators, enabling end users access to faster, more adaptive communications networks for both production and crew comfort. The DVM-90XL features BATS' industry-leading antenna tracking, allowing for the dynamic connection and continual movement of high-throughput point-to-point (PTP) communications while under constant FPSO motion.
"We are pleased to provide a reliable, high-speed wireless solution that will deliver critical FPSO communications during offshore operations." says Phillip Cramer, E.V.P. Sales & Marketing, BATS Wireless. "The need for high-capacity communications capabilities offshore is high, as it not only increases production capabilities, but also dramatically improves efficiency and safety."
About BATS Wireless
Broadband Antenna Tracking Systems (BATS) provides a proprietary software and hardware platform that locates, locks and tracks wireless broadband communication access points. Through the use of its industry-first automated microwave tracking and stabilization platform, BATS enables organizations to rapidly deploy self-healing, fixed or mobile broadband wireless networks over long distances without skilled technical resources.
Every day- whether on the battlefield, oil field, or airfield, BATS' technology is proven in some of the harshest environments on earth; providing organizations access to their critical communications. To learn more, visit: http://www.batswireless.com


During lambing every producer is faced with the problem of feeding lambs suffering from exposure and weakness. Attempts to bottle feed frequently result in fluid entering the air passages because of the lamb's inability to swallow. No doubt you have felt the bubbling sensation which is a forerunner of death by drowning or pneumonia.


text:
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>Javanotes 6.0, Solution to Exercise 2, Chapter 10</title>
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="../javanotes.css">

        [ Exercises |
        Chapter Index |
        Main Index ]

Solution for Programming Exercise 10.2

<big>T</big>his page contains a sample solution to
           one of the exercises from Introduction to Programming Using Java.

Exercise 10.2:

In mathematics, several
operations are defined on sets. The union of two
sets A and B is a set that contains all the elements that are in A together
with all the elements that are in B. The intersection
of A and B is the set that contains elements that
are in both A and B. The difference of A and B is
the set that contains all the elements of A except for those elements
that are also in B.

Suppose that A and B are variables of type set in
Java. The mathematical operations on A and B can be computed
using methods from the Set interface. In particular:
A.addAll(B) computes the union of A and B;
A.retainAll(B) computes the intersection of A and
B; and A.removeAll(B) computes the difference of A
and B. (These operations change the contents of the set A,
while the mathematical operations create a new set without changing A,
but that difference is not relevant to this exercise.)

For this exercise, you should write a program that can be used as a "set
calculator" for simple operations on sets of non-negative integers. (Negative
integers are not allowed.) A set of such integers will be represented as a list
of integers, separated by commas and, optionally, spaces and enclosed in square
brackets. For example: [1,2,3] or
[17, 42, 9, 53, 108]. The characters +,
*, and - will be used for the union, intersection, and
difference operations. The user of the program will type in lines of input
containing two sets, separated by an operator. The program should perform the
operation and print the resulting set. Here are some examples:

          Input                                 Output
         -------------------------           -------------------
          [1, 2, 3] + [3,  5,  7]             [1, 2, 3, 5, 7]
          [10,9,8,7] * [2,4,6,8]              [8]
          [ 5, 10, 15, 20 ] - [ 0, 10, 20 ]   [5, 15]

To represent sets of non-negative integers, use
sets of type TreeSet<Integer>. Read the user's input,
create two TreeSets, and use the appropriate TreeSet method
to perform the requested operation on the two sets. Your program should be able
to read and process any number of lines of input. If a line contains a syntax
error, your program should not crash. It should report the error and move on to
the next line of input. (Note: To print out a Set, A, of
Integers, you can just say System.out.println(A). I've chosen
the syntax for sets to be the same as that used by the system for outputting a
set.)

<big>Discussion</big>

This program would be much easier to write if we could assume that
the user's input was in the correct format. Unfortunately, the exercise says
that we have to detect errors in the user's input and handle them by printing
error messages. To do this we have to constantly look ahead while reading the
user's input, to see whether the input agrees with what we are expecting. The
techniques for doing this were covered for the example
LengthConverter2.java from Subsection 8.2.2.
We can use the function TextIO.peek()
to look ahead at the next character in the user's input. We need to be able
to skip past any blanks in the input.  Instead of writing my own method to do
that, I use the method TextIO.skipBlanks() in my program.

My program uses exceptions to handle
the errors. Exceptions make it possible to organize the error-handling code in
a straightforward way. When an error is discovered, an exception is thrown. The
main program uses a try..catch statement to try to process one line
of input. If an error occurs, the program does not crash. The error is caught,
an error message is printed, and the program continues. I throw an error of
type IllegalArgumentException when an error is found. This exception
is a standard part of Java, but it might be better style to define a new error
class to represent the specific type of error that occurs in this program.

My program uses a method named calc() to read and process one line
of input. This method in turn uses another method, readSet() to read
each of the two sets of integers from the input line. Without error handling,
an algorithm for readSet() would be:

Start with an empty set.
Read the '[' that begins the set.
Repeat:
   Read the next number and add it to the set.
   If the next character is ']':
      break.
   Read the comma that separates one number from the next.
Read the ']'.
Return the set.

To turn this into a robust routine, we just have to check, before reading
anything, that the next character is legal. If not, throw an exception. This
adds a lot of code, but the nice thing about throwing exceptions is that it
doesn't disturb the logical flow of the routine.

There is one possible bug in the algorithm. It assumes that there is at
least one number in the set. But in mathematics, a set can be empty. I decided
to allow for the possibility of empty sets in my program. See the solution,
below.

An algorithm for the calc() method is even more straightforward.
Again, the basic algorithm ignores the possibility of errors:

Read the first set, A.
Read the operator.
Read the second set, B.
if the operator is '+'
   A.addAll(B)  // Sets A equal to the union of A and B.
else if the operator is '*'
   A.retainAll(B)  // Sets A to the intersection.
else
   A.removeAll(B)  // Sets A to the difference.
Print A.

In the program, an error check has to be added to make sure that there is a legal operator
in the correct position. I also add an error check to make sure that there is
no extra data on the line.

<big>The Solution</big>

import java.util.TreeSet;

/**
 * This program is a very simple "set calculator" that can compute
 * the intersection, union, and set difference of two sets of
 * non-negative integers.  Each line of the user's input contains two
 * such sets, separated by one of the operators +, *, or -, standing
 * for union, intersection, and set difference respectively.  A set
 * must be given in the form of a list of non-negative integers, separated
 * by commas, and enclosed in square brackets.  For example:
 * [1, 2, 3] + [4, 3, 10, 0].  Spaces can occur anywhere in the input.
 * If an error is found in the input, the program will report it.
 * The program ends when the user inputs an empty line.
 *
 * This program is mainly a demonstration of Sets.
 */

public class SetCalc {

   public static void main(String[] args) {

      System.out.println("This program will compute union, intersection,");
      System.out.println("and set difference of sets of integers.");
      System.out.println("");
      System.out.println("");
      System.out.println("Enter set computations (press return to end):");

      while (true) {
         char ch;
         System.out.print("\n? ");
         TextIO.skipBlanks();
         if (TextIO.peek() == '\n') {
               // The input line is empty.
               // Exit the loop and end the program.
            break;
         }
         try {
            calc(); // Reads and processes one line of input.
         }
         catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
               // An error was found in the input line.
            System.out.println("Error in input: " + e.getMessage());
            System.out.print("Discarding input: ");
         }
         do {  // Copy extra characters on line to output.  If there
               // was no error, then the only character that is copied
               // is the end-of-line character.
            ch = TextIO.getAnyChar();
            System.out.print(ch);
         } while (ch != '\n');
      }

   } // end main()

   /**
    * Read a line of input, consisting of two sets separated by
    * an operator.  Perform the operation and output the value.
    * If any syntax error is found in the input, an
    * IllegalArgumentException is thrown
    */
   private static void calc() {

      TreeSet<Integer> A, B;  // The two sets of integers.
      char op;                // The operator, +, *, or -.

      A = readSet(); // Read the first set.

      TextIO.skipBlanks();
      if (TextIO.peek() != '*' && TextIO.peek() != '+'
                                         && TextIO.peek() != '-')
         throw new IllegalArgumentException(
         "Expected *, +, or  - after first set.");
      op = TextIO.getAnyChar(); // Read the operator.

      B = readSet(); // Read the second set.

      TextIO.skipBlanks();
      if (TextIO.peek() != '\n')
         throw new IllegalArgumentException("Extra unexpected input.");

      // Perform the operation.  This modifies set A to represent
      // the answer.  Display the answer by printing out A. The
      // output format for a set of integers is the same as the
      // input format used by this program.

      if (op == '+')
         A.addAll(B);     // Union.
      else if (op == '*')
         A.retainAll(B);  // Intersection.
      else
         A.removeAll(B);  // Set difference.

      System.out.print("Value:  " + A);

   } // end calc()

   /**
    * Reads a set of non-negative integers from standard input,
    * and stores them in a TreeSet that contains objects belonging
    * to the wrapper class Integer.  The set must be enclosed
    * between square brackets and must contain a list of zero or
    * more non-negative integers, separated by commas.  Spaces
    * are allowed anywhere.  If the input is not of the correct
    * form, an IllegalArgumentException is thrown.
    */
   private static TreeSet<Integer> readSet() {

      TreeSet<Integer> set = new TreeSet<Integer>();  // The set that will be read.

      TextIO.skipBlanks();
      if (TextIO.peek() != '[')
         throw new IllegalArgumentException("Expected '[' at start of set.");
      TextIO.getAnyChar(); // Read the '['.

      TextIO.skipBlanks();
      if (TextIO.peek() == ']') {
            // The set has no integers.  This is the empty set, which
            // is legal.  Return the value.
         TextIO.getAnyChar(); // Read the ']'.
         return set;
      }

      while (true) {
            // Read the next integer and add it to the set.
         TextIO.skipBlanks();
         if (! Character.isDigit(TextIO.peek()))
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("Expected an integer.");
         int n = TextIO.getInt(); // Read the integer.
         set.add( new Integer(n) );
         TextIO.skipBlanks();
         if (TextIO.peek() == ']')
            break;  // ']' marks the end of the set.
         else if (TextIO.peek() == ',')
            TextIO.getAnyChar(); // Read a comma and continue.
         else
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("Expected ',' or ']'.");
      }

      TextIO.getAnyChar(); // Read the ']' that ended the set.

      return set;

   } // end readSet()

} // end class SetCalc

        [ Exercises |
        Chapter Index |
        Main Index ]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
L'Équipe de Nouvelle-Zélande de rugby à XV féminin à la Coupe du monde 20065 termine première et vainqueur de la compétition, après avoir battu l'équipe de France en demi-finale et l'Angleterre en finale.

Résultats
5 matchs, 5 victoires, 0 défaite. 202 points marqués (31 essais dont 16 transformés, 5 pénalités), 34 points encaissés.

Poule A
La Nouvelle-Zélande termine première de son groupe, première au classement général et se qualifie pour les demi-finales.

|}

Premier tour

Demi-finale

Mardi  à Edmonton (Stade Ellerslie Rugby Park), Nouvelle-Zélande bat France 40-10 (mi-temps : 20-5)

Arbitre : Malcolm Changleng (Eco)

  : 2 essais Delphine Plantet (7), Corinne Devroute (43)

  : 6 essais Amiria Marsh (1), Rochelle Martin (10, 34), Emma Jensen (41), Anna Richards (55), Heighway (79), 2 transformations (11, 56) et 2 pénalités (12, 64) Emma Jensen

  : Christelle Le Duff – Catherine Devillers, Lucie Elodie, Dalila Boukerma (Fanny Horta, 67), Marion Talayrach – (o) Estelle Sartini (Céline Allainmat, 78) – (m) Julie Pujol (Stéphanie Provost, 78) – Delphine Plantet, Clotilde Flaugère, Aline Sagols (Sandrine Jauréguiberry, 78) – Corinne Devroute (Violaine Aubrée, 77), Maylis Bonnin – Danièle Irazu, (Fanny Gelis, 43), Laetitia Salles (Clémence Ollivier, 56), Rosa Marcé

  : Amiria Marsh – Claire Richardson, Huriana Manuel, Exia Edwards (Hannah Myers, 66), Victoria Blackledge – (o) Anna Richards (Rebecca Hull, 61) – (m) Emma Jensen (Waimania Teddy, 77) – Rochelle Martin, Shannon Willoughby (Linda Itunu, 54), Melissa Ruscoe – Victoria Heighway, Monalisa Codling (Kimberly Smith, 66) - Casey Robertson, Farah Palmer (cap) (Fiao'o Fa'amausili, 61), Diane Maliukaetau (Helen Va'aga, 77)

Finale

Dimanche  à Edmonton (Stade Commonwealth), Nouvelle-Zélande bat Angleterre 25-17 (mi-temps : 10-3)

Arbitre : Simon McDowell (Irl)

  : 4 essais Monalisa Codling (36), Stephanie Mortimer (41), Victoria Heighway (70), Amiria Marsh (79), 1 transformation (37) et 1 pénalité (25) Emma Jensen

  : 2 essais essai de pénalité (47), Helen Clayton (76), 1 transformation (48) et 1 pénalité (3) Karen Andrew, 1 transformation (77) Shelley Rae

  : Amiria Marsh – Claire Richardson (Hannah Myers, 72), Huriana Manuel, Exia Edwards, Stephanie Mortimer – (o) Anna Richards – (m) Emma Jensen – Rochelle Martin, Linda Itunu (Shannon Willoughby, 58), Melissa Ruscoe – Victoria Heighway, Monalisa Codling - Casey Robertson, Farah Palmer (cap), Diane Maliukaetau

  : Charlotte Barras – Danielle Waterman, Sue Day, Kim Oliver (Amy Turner, 77), Kim Shaylor – (o) Karen Andrew (Shelley Rae, 67) – (m) Joanne Yapp (cap) – Georgia Stevens, Margaret Alphonsi, Catherine Spencer (Helen Clayton, 72), – Jenny Sutton, Jenny Lyne (Tamara Taylor, 61), – Rochelle Clark, Amy Garnett, Vanessa Gray (Vanessa Huxford, 63)

Statistiques

Meilleurs marqueurs d'essais
 Amiria Marsh: 6 essais
 Rochelle Martin, Stephanie Mortimer, Claire Richardson, Melissa Ruscoe: 3 essais
 Victoria Blackledge, Monalisa Codling, Victoria Heighway, Anna Richards: 2 essais
 Fiao'o Fa'amausili, Emma Jensen, Rachel Makata, Diane Maliukaetau, Huriana Manuel: 1 essai

Meilleures réalisatrices
 Emma Jensen: 34 points
 Amiria Marsh: 30,
 Melissa Ruscoe: 17,
 Hannah Myers: 16,
 Rochelle Martin, Stephanie Mortimer, Claire Richardson: 15,
 Victoria Blackledge, Monalisa Codling, Victoria Heighway, Anna Richards: 10,
 Fiao'o Fa'amausili, Rachel Makata, Diane Maliukaetau, Huriana Manuel: 5.

Composition
Les joueuses ci-après ont joué pendant cette coupe du monde 2006. Les noms en gras désignent les joueuses qui ont été titularisées le plus souvent.

Première ligne
 Fiao'o Fa'amausili (3 matchs, 1 titularisation, 1 essai)
 Diane Maliukaetau (4 matchs, 4 titularisations, 1 essai)
 Beth Mallard (2 matchs, 1 titularisation)
 Melodie Ngatai (2 matchs, 1 titularisation)
 Farah Palmer (5 matchs, 4 titularisations)
 Casey Robertson (4 matchs, 4 titularisations)
 Helen Vaaga (2 matchs, 0 titularisation)

Deuxième ligne
 Monalisa Codling (5 matchs, 5 titularisations, 2 essais)
 Victoria Heighway (4 matchs, 4 titularisations, 2 essais)
 Rachel Makata (2 matchs, 0 titularisation, 1 essai)
 Kimberly Smith (4 matchs, 1 titularisation)

Troisième ligne
 Rochelle Martin (5 matchs, 5 titularisations, 3 essais)
 Melissa Ruscoe (5 matchs, 4 titularisations, 3 essais)
 Shannon Willoughby (5 matchs, 3 titularisations)
 Linda Itunu (4 matchs, 3 titularisations)

Demi de mêlée
 Emma Jensen (5 matchs, 4 titularisations, 1 essai, 10 transformations, 3 pénalités)
 Waimania Teddy (3 matchs, 1 titularisation)

Demi d'ouverture
 Rebecca Hull (4 matchs, 2 titularisations)
 Anna Richards (5 matchs, 4 titularisations, 2 essais)

Trois-quarts centre
 Exia Edwards (5 matchs, 4 titularisations)
 Huriana Manuel (4 matchs, 4 titularisations, 1 essai)
 Hannah Myers (5 matchs, 2 titularisations, 5 transformations, 2 pénalités)

Trois-quarts aile
 Victoria Blackledge (3 matchs, 3 titularisations, 2 essais)
 Stephanie Mortimer (3 matchs, 3 titularisations, 3 essais)
 Claire Richardson (4 matchs, 4 titularisations, 3 essais)
 Amy Williams (2 matchs, 0 titularisation)

Arrière
 Amiria Marsh (5 matchs, 4 titularisations, 6 essais)

Annexes

Articles connexes
 Coupe du monde de rugby à XV féminin 2006
 Effectifs de la Coupe du monde de rugby à XV féminin 2006

Liens externes
 - La page des Black Ferns à AllBlacks.com

Nouvelle-Zelande
2006

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The Unknown Peril of the Opioid Crisis
December 17, 2016 December 17, 2016 Greg Wagner
With Election Day receding into the history books and the Thanksgiving turkey, seasoned with a dose of political discourse, fully digested, it is time to put down politics and reason with the issues that the next administration must address. One serious public-policy issue that Washington must solve is the ongoing, yet often unacknowledged, opioid crisis.
This past summer, I attended a conference that convened health experts, policy coordinators, and community stakeholders to discuss potential policy solutions to the opioid crisis raging throughout the country. Public Health Management Corporation President Richard J. Cohen, a national leader in the public health arena, spelled out a harmless anecdote to begin the conference.
Dr. Cohen mused over the times he had heard about the dangers of opioid addiction in the news. He told the audience that he had only heard about the perils of opioids once. "It was in a commercial at 5:30 in the morning," Cohen told the audience. In the side-effects run-down of a prescription opioid advertisement, the commercial warned consumers that opioid-use can trigger diarrhea.
This anecdote solicited laughter from the audience, but Dr. Cohen did not mean to joke-around. "This is an acute, yet upsetting, representation of the public awareness surrounding an epidemic that plagues our nation," Dr. Cohen said.
The opioid crisis that runs rampant across the United States should come as a horror to every American. More people die each year from an opioid overdose than by being at the wrong end of a gun. In 2014, 18,893 people died from prescription opioid overdose compared to 10,945 people who died due to gun violence. Nevertheless, gun violence is broadcasted across nightly news headlines, while the danger of opioid addiction is relegated to commercials aired a five o'clock in the morning to warn of diarrhea.
Opioids are prescription pain relievers – such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine, morphine, and fentanyl – that produce pleasurable effects in the nervous system and relieve pain. Today, doctors prescribe these pain relievers on a whim. Enough opioid prescriptions have been filled for every American adult to possess at least one bottle of painkillers.
What makes the opioid crisis so difficult to combat is the spanning demographic that the epidemic inflicts its horror upon. The opioid crisis affects your uncle who just broke his arm after falling at the job-site; your high school quarterback that just shattered his leg after a brutal tackle last Saturday; your sister who just had an operation to remove her wisdom teeth. The opioid crisis affects a demographic that we are not usually accustomed to having to help with such problems, making it harder for those who need help to ask for it.
Compounding the issue, opioid addiction often leads to heroin addiction, claiming another 10,000 vulnerable lives each year. Once an addict's prescription runs out, or once purchasing illicit opioids from the street becomes too expensive, addicts turn to a cheaper alternative: heroin. A study that surveyed 2,800 heroin addicts found that 75.2 percent of them were introduced to heroin through prescription opioids. The heroin high is so powerful that after their first use, addicts "chase the high," each subsequent use. Unable to reach the power of their first high, addicts abuse heroin until they can no longer breath and their heart fails.
While the breadth of this pandemic is intrinsically disturbing, it marks a monumental turning point in American history, with an eerie undertone. The opioid crisis has led the federal government to understand addiction as a national health concern, rather than a national crime epidemic. After Congress passed a spending measure in an effort to tackle the crisis, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman acknowledged the unusual circumstances attached to the epidemic. "This is the first time that we've treated addiction like the disease that it is, which will help put an end to the stigma that has surrounded addiction for too long," he said.
Such a pronouncement from the Republican Senator is promising, yet it evokes a darker history, one filled with drugs, crime, and incarceration.
In 1968, Republican Presidential nominee Richard Nixon – mirroring the Dixiecrats' and Barry Goldwater's politics – guided white, working-class Southern Democrats towards the Republican Party. With the Southern white working-class perturbed by the social order being turned on its head after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Nixon rallied his newfound base, what he coined the "silent majority," behind a racially-veiled call for "law and order." Nixon's call for law and order, as per Nixon, came to unfurl itself into a "total war against public enemy number one in the United States, the problem of dangerous drugs."
Racially-veiled in rhetoric, Nixon's purpose for campaigning on "law and order" was explicit. Nixon's Chief Domestic Adviser John Ehrlichman remarked, "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with the marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."
During Nixon's tenure in the Oval Office, addiction was overtly used as a sinister political ploy to embolden Southern support, sparking disarray in vulnerable black communities. Under Nixon, a social war against drugs was created, but it was only beginning to ensue.
President Ronald Reagan continued Nixon's narrative. In a broadcast to the American people as "concerned neighbors," President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan warned Americans that "drugs are menacing our society, they are threatening our values and undercutting our institutions." Yet, instead of treating those who suffered the crippling effects of drug abuse, Reagan reinforced Nixon's creed that acknowledged addiction as a crime. "We have made much progress," Reagan announced, "by next year, our spending for drug law enforcement will have more than tripled. Last year alone, over 10,000 drug criminals were convicted and nearly $250 million of their assets were seized."
But President Reagan's "progress" did little to solve the drug epidemic that wreaked havoc across the nation. Instead, Reagan's "progress" only escalated the war against drugs and gave rise to a period of mass incarceration. During Reagan's Presidency, the American prison population doubled, and more ominously, the drug related arrest rate of the black population more than doubled, while the arrest rates of whites stayed stagnant.
Yet, the criminalization rather than the treatment of drug addiction has not been partisan. President Bill Clinton followed his Republican predecessor's footsteps and empowered the justice system to combat low-level drug offenses more deliberatively. Clinton passed the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 that authorized a "three-strike" provision, which mandated life-sentences following two prior convictions, including drug crimes. Again, the black prison population went soaring.
So, why is the federal government finally choosing to treat addiction as a health crisis and not a crime epidemic? What has sparked such a monumental shift? Race could be playing a role. Where addiction was more predominant in the black community than in the white community in the past, as attested to by Nixon's Chief Domestic Adviser John Ehrlichman, addiction is now overwhelming impacting white communities across the United States. According to a recent study, 90 percent of heroin users are white and 75 percent of users are located outside of cities. The current addiction crisis is damaging the same communities that President Nixon sought to politically entice into the republican fold in 1968 at the expense of black communities. The addiction crisis, which has been persistent throughout time, has ultimately reversed itself, from a racial point-of-view.
This reversal of policy posture also comes at a peculiar time in American history. More middle-aged whites are dying than at any point in our nation's history. Detailing the rising death rates of the white population, The New York Times found that "the mortality rate for whites 45 to 54 years old with no more than a high school education increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014." The New York Times claims that white, middle-aged Americans are the only demographic in a developed country where death rates are rising instead of falling.
Considering the horrifying impact that the opioid crisis has imparted upon the white population in the United States coupled with the timeliness of the federal government's newfound posture concerning drug addiction, it seems hauntingly accurate that Washington is reversing its past racial biases to protect white America.
Yet, whether this racial diagnosis is true, the federal government's shift in understanding drug addiction as a health problem rather than a crime problem is monumentally important. As PHMC President Cohen said at the conference this summer, "Drug addiction must be treated like the disease that it is." Washington has begun to act accordingly. This past February, President Obama urged Congress to adopt a measure to address the issue, and in July the Senate passed a bill allocating funding in the budget to addiction treatment and recovery services. The perceptional reform has been sweeping in Washington.
Nevertheless, the expanded resources allotted to addicts are certainly not indicative of an end to the crisis. At this past summer's conference on the opioid crisis, community stakeholders advocated for the expanded availability of Naloxone, a drug that blocks or reverses the life-threatening effects of overdose. But more importantly, speakers stressed the pertinence for heightened public awareness. The onus is on the public and medical professionals to become educated about the issue. It is critical that medical professionals understand the dangers that stem from prescribing unnecessary opioids; and when opioids are deemed necessary, doctors must educate their patients about the risk they take by using them.
Addiction has been a historically controversial and highly debated American problem. Although veiled in a disheartening past, addiction is beginning to be treated as the disease that it is rather than a crime that it is not. While we still have a long road ahead to support the tens of thousands of Americans whose lives are in danger, it is encouraging that our lawmakers are beginning to right their past wrongs.
Domestic, Featuredaddiction, Clinton, drugs, heroin, nixon, opioid, opioid crisis, war on drugs
The Foreign Policy Legacy of the Great War


Winter has finally come for the cast and crew of "Game of Thrones," who officially wrapped up shooting for the wildly popular HBO show.
In her hashtags though, the 21-year-old star wrote "#lastwomanstanding." Sooo … is she saying that Arya Stark is the one to ultimately take the Iron Throne and ultimately rule over Westeros?!
Or, is she just saying that she was the last actress to shoot her scenes in the show.
The 8th, and final season, of "Game of Thrones" is set to air in 2019, but since we're a big fan of conspiracies we'll just go ahead and say … All Hail Queen Stark!!!