text:
Dr. Laura to End Her Radio Show; Blagojevich Found Guilty on Only One Charge
Aired August 17, 2010 - 21:00 ET
LARRY KING, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, Dr. Laura exclusive. She shocked the country with her repeated use of the N- word on her radio show last week.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
LAURA SCHLESSINGER, RADIO HOST: Listen to a black comic and all you hear is (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(END AUDIO CLIP)
KING: Now, for the first time since then, she'll tell the world why she did it, what she was thinking. She's got a big announcement, too. It's seconds away.
And then, Kathy Griffin. Big supporters of same-sex marriage. What does she think of the fight over Proposition 8? Anything funny about that?
Find out next on LARRY KING LIVE.
KING: Good evening.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is the syndicated talk radio host, if I had to tell you that, you're on another planet. She is a "New York Times" best-selling author, and no stranger to controversy. Last week, she stirred up a storm when she used the N-word 11 times on her radio show. She was speaking with a black female caller who said she was becoming resentful of her white husband being what she called racist comments by his family and friends.
Here's a brief excerpt from that conversation and we'll get right into it with Laura. Watch.
CALLER: How about the N-word though? The N-word has been thrown around --
SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all of the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic and all you here is (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
CALLER: That isn't --
SCHLESSINGER: I don't get it. If anybody -- if anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing.
KING: Dr. Laura, always good seeing you.
SCHLESSINGER: Thank you.
KING: Before we get to the announcement, the one thing that you said was interesting. You said that on HBO, black comics use the N- word.
SCHLESSINGER: Rap music.
KING: But, Jewish comics can kid Jews, Hispanic comics, Josh Lopez, kids Hispanics all the time. Gay comics kid the gay situation. It's OK, isn't it? But not OK when the non-N-person uses it.
SCHLESSINGER: Well, I was trying to make a point to help her about what I felt, because that -- about her hypersensitivity. And in general, in America, our hypersensitivity about race instead of us feeling more like (INAUDIBLE), and I made the poorly. And so, I upset some people. I offended some people. I hurt some people.
And within 15 minutes, which is what I had to finish the hour, I took myself off my show for the rest of the day because I was so upset because I realized I had blown it. I didn't help her by, you know, making that point.
And, you know, about 8:00 that night, I had sent an apology that I was going to do in the morning on my show to LARadio.com. So, it wasn't until 48 hours later that there was a media brouhaha about it and I had already -- I had already policed myself and apologized and said I was sorry.
KING: Do you -- do you realize that it's OK if blacks want to kid blacks or make fun of themselves, but it's not OK for this lady to have a white person use the word?
SCHLESSINGER: I'm sorry if, you know -- I always tell people on my show to do the right thing. I thought I was trying to be helpful. I was trying to make a philosophical point.
But I was wrong. I apologized.
And there are people who won't accept my apology. And they have their own reasons for that. I feel bad for that. But, my listeners heard my being contrite, being remorseful, being sincerely apologetic because it's not my nature to go out of my way to hurt people. And, you know, get on with things.
KING: So, you're still regretful?
SCHLESSINGER: Well, of course. Any time you do something wrong, you should be regretful.
KING: So, what are you here to tell us tonight?
SCHLESSINGER: Well, I'm here to say that my contract is up for my radio show at the end of the year and I have made the decision not to do radio anymore. The reason is: I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind, and in my heart, what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent, and attack affiliates and attack sponsors.
I'm sort of done with that. I'm not retiring. I'm not quitting. I feel energized actually, stronger and freer to say the things that I believe need to be said for people in this country.
KING: So, you're giving up -- you are giving up the one area of your fame?
SCHLESSINGER: Oh, my dear. I write books. I have blogs. I have my Web site.
KING: But people think Dr. Laura, they think her radio talk show.
SCHLESSINGER: This is the area -- this is the era of the Internet.
KING: So, you are going to do Internet stuff?
SCHLESSINGER: Oh, yes, I am now.
KING: Why is your freedom of speech denied on radio?
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Because people can criticize what you say.
SCHLESSINGER: You know, when I started in radio, if you said something somebody didn't agree with and they didn't like, they argued with you. Now, they try to silence you. They try to wipe out your ability to earn a living and to have your job. They go after affiliates. They send threats to sponsors.
KING: That's their right, too.
SCHLESSINGER: Yes, but I don't hatch the right to say what I need to say. My First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate. They want to eliminate.
So, that's why I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset. KING: Did you tell your syndicate today? The people who syndicate you?
SCHLESSINGER: Ten minutes before I came on.
KING: This show?
SCHLESSINGER: Yes.
KING: You just told them?
SCHLESSINGER: Right.
KING: What did they say?
SCHLESSINGER: That there was absolutely no need to do this.
KING: Who syndicates you? What radio?
SCHLESSINGER: TRN, and (ph) Masters, and I said, this isn't a matter of need.
KING: Are you going to have a new contract?
SCHLESSINGER: This is -- yes. Yes, we've added five stations this week and we added sponsors. This is not an issue of I'm losing anything. You and I were -- anointed as, in the top seven of the most important radio hosts in America. I just got nominated for a Marconi, had great ratings.
This is not an issue of hiding, running, collapsing or quitting.
KING: So, if you've added sponsors, although we get, this group that was after you, "Media Matters" --
SCHLESSINGER: Well, that's their job in life.
KING: They said Motel 6 stopped advertising.
SCHLESSINGER: This proves my point.
KING: Netflix, OnStar, they're going to distance themselves, Advanced Auto Parts. But if you've added new sponsors --
SCHLESSINGER: And I've also added sponsors.
KING: So, where have you lost freedom of speech? You can say whatever you like and they can criticize and they can try to take you --
SCHLESSINGER: Larry, you're missing the point.
KING: I am?
SCHLESSINGER: Living with a constant fear of affiliates and sponsors being attacked is very distracting. It's -- it's -- the list that you just made. I didn't even know about that. I knew about Motel 6. I didn't know about the rest of that.
But I expected it to happen because these companies are in the business are in business. They're supporting their own families. They're supporting other families. They don't want to be in the middle of controversy. They want to be doing their business.
So, it's not a matter necessarily of them agreeing with the special interest group. It's a matter of them wanting to skirt the problems. I don't need --
KING: Who is the special interest group? SCHLESSINGER: Well, like "Media Matters" and some of the other groups that have lined up to decide that I should be silenced because they disagree with my points of view. I never called anybody a bad word. I was trying to bring -- and obviously, it has become a national discussion now -- I was trying to make a philosophical point and I made it wrong.
But I wasn't dissing anybody. I was trying to make a point. And for that to say I should be silenced is the reason that I'm saying to you, I obviously am losing First Amendment rights.
KING: You agree, though, that's a horrible word?
SCHLESSINGER: Yes, and I policed my self. You know, I don't know of too many people who have apologized before they were told you better apologize. I apologized because I knew what I had done was wrong.
I didn't wait to be threatened. I took responsibility for what I did. And to imagine that there are people who refuse to accept an apology because they have an agenda and would like me silenced is -- I'm done with that. I'm just done with that.
I want my voice out there. I feel freer and stronger than ever to be doing that in all the different venues I have. I am pretty excited.
January, I'm coming out with a book called "Shark Attacks: Surviving Shark Attacks on Land." It's about betrayal and revenge. I think the whole thing is interesting.
But I got so many things upcoming. I'm not going to be silenced in this way.
KING: How many years have you done that show?
SCHLESSINGER: I've been syndicated for 17 -- 16 of those, the top rated female. And I have never been out at the top five. Right now, I'm number three in most listened to talk show hosts in America. And I am -- just ready to take on the next level.
KING: Your last show is New Year's Eve?
SCHLESSINGER: December 31st. But I think I'm on vacation.
KING: When will your last show?
SCHLESSINGER: Christmas. I think just before Christmas, I guess.
KING: You'll come back?
SCHLESSINGER: Of course.
KING: Thanks, Laura.
Dr. Schlessinger is chucking it. Good way to put it.
Next, we've got the latest on the Blagojevich case.
And Kathy Griffin is ahead. She's here to talk about Proposition 8. Something tells me she probably has something to say about Dr. Laura.
Stick around.
KING: Former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, was found guilty this afternoon of making false statements or representations to the FBI. The jury was hung on 23 counts against him and his brother Robert.
After the verdict, an impassioned Blagojevich talked to reporters outside the courthouse in Chicago. Watch.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH, FORMER ILLINOS GOVERNOR: From the very beginning when all this happened, I told them that I did not let them down, I didn't break any laws, I didn't do anything wrong. The government -- the federal government, and this particular prosecutor did everything he could to target me and prosecute me, persecute me, put pressure on my family, try to take our home, take me away from our kids, arrest me. In the early morning hours on December 9th, with Patti and me in our bedroom, and our little Annie in bed with us, a sitting governor, and that very prosecutor said that he was stopping a crime spree before it happened.
Well, this jury shows you -- notwithstanding the fact that this government and the power and resources that they bring to bear -- this jury just showed you that, notwithstanding the fact that the government threw everything but the kitchen sink at me, that on every count, except for one, and every charge except for one, they could not prove that I did anything wrong that I did break, that I did break any laws.
KING: WGN's Julie Unruh on joins us from Chicago. Julie was in the courtroom throughout the trial and was there to day for the verdict. Surprised? JULIE UNRUH, REPORTER, WGN: I think everyone was a little surprised, Larry. You know, there have been so months that we followed this case. The prosecution has been screaming for months, if not more than a year and a half, that they had the strong case based largely on all these secretly recorded FBI tapes and then slowly -- through deliberations -- we were getting hints that this jury, while they may have been playing nice with one another, was not necessarily getting to the root of the issues and not able to come to a consensus on much at all.
Late last week, we learned they only agreed on two charges of all 24 against the ex-governor and his brother -- and today, only one.
KING: Well, what happened to that second one?
UNRUH: The second one, which second one are you referring to? There was one lying to the FBI.
KING: There was supposed to be two -- there was one, supposed to be two results, right?
UNRUH: Well, he actually was just found guilty on lying to the FBI and really, there's two parts to it --
KING: Right.
UNRUH: -- if that's what you're referring to. Excuse me.
One part was: was there a fire wall between politics and fund- raising? And the other was: was he keeping track of all this stuff?
They decided to commit on one and not the other. And that's where we sit. The bigger news, of course, is that all the other charges, whether it's bribery, extortion, racketeering -- all went by the wayside. And that means he wasn't acquitted on these, of course. It means he could potentially and will most likely face all of them again, or some of them again, in a reconfigured form in a retrial.
KING: Blagojevich also strongly denied that he lied to the FBI. Let's listen to that.
BLAGOJEVICH: I want the people of Illinois to know: I did not lie to the FBI. I have told the truth from the very beginning. This is a persecution.
We have police officers who are being gunned down on the streets. We have children who can't play in front of their homes in the summertime because they might get gunned down. And we have a prosecutor who has wasted and wants to spend tens of millions of taxpayer money to keep persecuting me, persecuting my family take me away from my little girls as well as take my home away from us.
KING: Has the jury been polled and questioned by reporters, or the lawyers, Julie, to your knowledge?
UNRUH: We're just getting some of the information. Right now, the people who get to the jurors first are typically the media, folks like us. And we are getting little tidbits starting to roll in now. It was sort of the last phase of the day.
And we've learned actually quite a bit. We learned that on the issue of selling the U.S. Senate seat, which has been the one that got so much play, starting back in December of 2009, I think we learned today that there was -- there were deadlocked, but 11-1 in favor of convicting Rod Blagojevich on trying to sell or trade Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat. That's what the foreman told us -- that was at one point during deliberations.
It sounds to me like they were 11-1 to convict. They couldn't convict -- one person, he apparently convicted or convinced everyone else to go his way. They couldn't decide. They dropped it. They decided they were hung on that one.
KING: Huh. Thanks so much, Julie. We'll be checking with you a lot.
And as this retrial comes, that should be coming I guess in a few -- it takes a while to retry.
Kathy Griffin is an actress and best-selling author, Emmy-winning star of Bravo's "My Life on The D-List." She joins us now here in Los Angeles.
First, a couple opinions on what's been going on.
KATHY GRIFFIN, ACTRESS: First of all, how am I most the sane person on this entire show. Look at this lineup. This is a comedienne's dream. You got Dr. Laura, who I believe is a botanist. I'm not sure what kind of doctor.
And then you got Blagojevich who I really enjoyed on the "Celebrity Apprentice." But how's just on tape trying to sell that seat.
And how do I get that one guy to convince the other 11 that the tapes weren't real.
GRIFFIN: OK. So, I'm sorry. We're here about Prop 8. But let's admit this is an action-packed show.
KING: All right. I got to take a break. But, quickly, what do you think of Laura's leaving radio?
GRIFFIN: Fantastic, it's about time.
KING: What do you think of the Blagojevich verdict?
GRIFFIN: It's hung in a way that is suspicious to me. And I'm from Chicago. And I say that with love and sense of humor.
KING: Suspicious in what way, Kathy?
GRIFFIN: Really. There's a tape of the guy trying to sell the seat. And the jury is hung?
KING: Do you suspect something?
GRIFFIN: I think I know what I know, and I know a guy who called a guy who might talk to a guy -- if you know what I am saying.
GRIFFIN: I'm from Chicago. What's the problem?
: We'll be back to talk about same-sex marriage. Next.
KING: We return with Kathy Griffin, who is the comic, actress and best-selling author and Emmy-winning star of Bravo's "My Life on the D-List." By the way, that's up for an Emmy which we congratulate you, end of the month.
GRIFFIN: And, in fact, the episode deals with Prop 8.
KING: That's right. That's the "Norma Gay" episode involving your opposition to Prop 8. During that episode you visited an LGBT center for teens. Here's an expert -- here's an excerpt, rather. Watch.
GRIFFIN: If you could, each one of you say one thing to that person who voted for Prop 8, meaning, against gay marriage -- what would you say to that person?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think I'd say to them, well, thank you for denying me the ability to live where I love now. Thank you.
GRIFFIN: Yes, you're taking away my civil rights.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean -- yes, thank you for taking away that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have to say, who are you to deny somebody their happiness?
KING: Why are you so strong on this topic?
GRIFFIN: Because I think it's a civil rights issue, you know, and it was interesting when -- I am not going to call her Dr. Laura because I don't have proof. I'm just going to say Laurie. When Laurie Schlessinger was here and she was talking special interest groups, which I believe she meant the entire African-American community, but that's another story.
To me, this is a civil rights issue. And even though I'm a heterosexual, you know, female, I am kind of immersed in the gay community. And I tour this country all the time. And I meet many, many, you know, gay couples, straight couples, and I think it's honestly no different than interracial marriage.
And it's shocking because people forget that within my lifetime, in my generation, you know, it was illegal to have a mixed race marriage. And when I think about that, I think, oh, that must have been a century ago. Well, it was 1967.
GRIFFIN: So, I think that the ruling yesterday will prove to be on the wrong side of history. On the other -- on the other hand, I think it's probably good it's going to go to the Supreme Court because I get nervous with this let's "let the states decide," because then if you are married legally in California, but you cross the border, then you lose your rights.
KING: But this is a conservative court, the Supreme Court.
GRIFFIN: Yes. Well, that makes me very nervous. I mean, I'm not a fan of the Supreme Court. I don't trust them. I didn't enjoy the last president.
KING: How about those who say marriage is a sacred thing for man and woman, about procreation?
GRIFFIN: Well, it's not because, first of all, the divorce rate is high. And I say that as a bitter divorcee. Because, you know I have a very unusual stance which is that I am pro-gay marriage, but I believe that heterosexual marriage should be a criminal offense because I'm divorced and a little bitter.
KING: That's Proposition 9.
GRIFFIN: Proposition 9.
KING: Ban heterosexual.
GRIFFIN: But the point is, we've learned that, you know, when it became legal in Massachusetts, the sky didn't fall down, everybody is fine, everyone is fine in Iowa. And so, I think, you know, just like Brown versus Board of Education, people were scared about the ruling. Nothing bad happened. In fact, good things happened.
So, we've learned that historically, some times, public opinion can, you know, take a little time to catch up with quite simply what is right. And I think that this is just an issue of right/wrong. I think it's pretty simple.
KING: And we will debate that issue coming up in a little while. Some more moments with Kathy after this.
KING: We're back with Kathy Griffin.
What is this symbolism here in that picture, what is that?
GRIFFIN: That means that gay people should not be silenced. It also means, of course, I won an Emmy. But more importantly, the symbolism is: lots of people are doing them, it's the duct tape which is that, obviously, a ruling like yesterday's ruling is a way to silence the gay community, put them on hold, well, we have to think about this more, let's decide in December. And so, the duct tape just simply represents the gay community and not really having a voice.
And that's really what this debate is about. Is Prop 8 is about gay marriage being equal for everyone as opposed to civil unions? Or, well, we're going to give you some rights and the 14th Amendment isn't about some rights or some equality. We don't get to pick and choose. We have to be equal.
KING: What is the essential difference between a civil union and marriage?
GRIFFIN: Well, what I didn't understand is that civil unions and marriage, there's 1,100 different rights that you don't get under a civil union, and that if you cross state lines, that's what makes me nervous. So, let's say that it's legal in Massachusetts, but then you cross state lines and then you're not recognized and then your partner -- God forbid -- goes to the hospital and then you can't visit them because they say, well, in this state, we don't recognize you as being married.
The bottom line is: I really think most Americans, especially younger Americans who are voting, need to know that they should go to Congress.org, which is a nonpartisan site, and let their representatives know that this is an important issue to them. And basically, you're not going to get my vote unless you're on the right side of this issue.
KING: A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll shows there's a big difference how younger and older Americans regard same sex marriage: 58 percent of those under 50 think it's OK. Only 38 percent over 50 think it's all right.
GRIFFIN: Right. Well, but that -- what's different about that? I mean, that happened with race relations and every kind of civil rights. And you know, one person who really, I thought, articulated it well was -- when we did the Prop 8 episode on "My Life on the D- List," there are some things I learned that were really great.
Number one, I met with Al Sharpton, who, you know, people you know, he's quite an out there character, but he's a very bright guy. You know him very well.
When he was able to articulate so well how it is a civil rights issue, then I was able to go back to my heterosexual friends and say, you know, this isn't really such a gay thing. I know you think it is just that I know a bunch of gay people, but it is really a civil rights issue.
Also, when I interviewed, as you saw in the clip there, 18, 19- year-old LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender kids who had been kicked out of their homes just because they came out to their families -- so they didn't have a roof over their head just because they said I'm gay; I'm bisexual; I'm lesbian.
So they weren't aware of Stonewall or Matthew Shepard. They were just frying to keep a roof over their heads. So getting them to go to their first rally in Sacramento was a really big deal, because these younger people need to know they do have a voice and a vote. And it will be heard.
KING: Were you surprised that the three-judge panel didn't allow the marriages to take place?
GRIFFIN: Yes, I was disappointed. I think -- like I said -- I think that Judge Walker will reflect upon this and see that he was on the wrong side of history. But I also like to think that there is optimism and then, when it goes to the Supreme Court, obviously that's going to be quite a debate.
KING: Is it?
GRIFFIN: It's not the Jimmy Carter years anymore. So things are very different now. And also, obviously those of us immersed in the gay community and believe in civil rights of all kind, we are really hoping and pulling for President Obama to do the right thing. And I think it is obviously, he is under a lot of political pressure that this could be considered political napalm. Yet I think your own polls show I don't think President Obama is going to lose an election over this.
I am actually kind of optimistic that a lot of people -- it's sort of not on their radar, as opposed to maybe 20 years ago, where they thought that you could catch gay all that stuff.
KING: He could sign an executive order and throw out Don't Ask Don't Tell. He wants Congress to do that. You think it is a cop out.
GRIFFIN: Yes, it is a cop out. He knows it. They know it. They all know it.
KING: Couple other things before you leave us?
GRIFFIN: What?
KING: Are you broken hearted over the fact that first Levi and Bristol got together?
GRIFFIN: Wow, you are really going there. If you are going to pull a Diane Sawyer, I would like the fuzzy lighting, because I didn't know you were going to just cut my heart open on this show.
KING: When he announced he was back with her -- GRIFFIN: I'm glad that you can't even say her name because I can't either. I know it's something like a vacuum cleaner brand. Yes, I have been dumped. It hurts.
KING: He is not with her now.
GRIFFIN: Don't play games with my heart. As the Backstreet Boys would say, if I can quote them again, "stop playing game with my hearts."
KING: But it changed. Now he is not with her. He fathered a child with someone else.
GRIFFIN: OK, you don't get me.
KING: I don't.
GRIFFIN: All right, Levi Johnson ripped my heart in pieces. You are just sitting there cold as ice. I was this close to living in the White House. If I had been First Lady or whatever I would have been if I had kept, you know, sleeping with Levi Johnston, I would have made gay marriage legal.
KING: But --
GRIFFIN: Let me tell you, gay guys like him because he is hot.
KING: You could have been the First Lady of the mayor of a city.
GRIFFIN: I think that could still happen. Let me tell you, we are going to gay up Wasilla. It is going to be literally one endless stream of me officiating gay weddings. By the way, I was supposed to go officiate a gay wedding after this. So I am disappointed. Gays have to wait, once again.
KING: One other thing on Levi, have you called him?
GRIFFIN: I'm doing something called the rules. I think Dr. Laura or whatever she is now, big Internet book writer, would agree that there is a lot of possibilities out there for me.
KING: You've don't think she is a doctor?
GRIFFIN: I wouldn't go to her for a pap smear.
KING: On that note --
KING: Thank you for joining us again.
GRIFFIN: Always a pleasure.
KING: Always funny, Kathy griffin.
GRIFFIN: Don't look at me suspicious like you regret this booking.
KING: We'll debate Proposition 8 next.
KING: Welcome back. Stephanie Miller is a progressive talk radio host of her own radio show. She came out as a lesbian last week on her program, and she supports, of course, same sex marriage. Bishop Harry Jackson joins us from London, senior pastor of the Hope Christian Church. He is the chairman of Stand for Marriage D.C. And he opposes same sex marriage. Dennis Prager is the nationally syndicated talk radio host of his own program. He's a best-selling author and he opposes same sex marriage. And Kamala Harris, the San Francisco District Attorney. She is the Democratic nominee for attorney general of California, and she supports same sex marriage.
Stephanie, quickly, why did you come out?
STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Why do you assume I am for gay marriage? I might be afraid of commitment. You don't know. I think everybody knows, Larry, that Rush Limbaugh married another woman finally, a little while ago. And if I could not have the one man that could complete me, there really was no other choice.
KING: So you finally decided to.
MILLER: Yes.
KING: Good choice.
Dennis, why are you opposed to two people who want to share a life together being together?
DENNIS PRAGER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I'm not. I'm opposed to one thing and only one thing. That is the redefinition of marriage. I don't think that every society in history, including ours, every religion, every secular society was evil and hate filled and had it wrong when they defined marriage as a man and a woman. That's all that any of us are opposed to.
We want gays to be happy. We don't want them ever harassed. They are created in God's image just like a heterosexual is. However, redefining marriage means that from now on, gender doesn't matter. It does -- man, woman, who ever you marry, it doesn't matter. That has never been the case. No one ever advocated it prior to now. And all we ask is to keep marriage as it is, male/female.
KING: Camilla, what's wrong with that argument?
KAMALA HARRIS, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Because it just belies the very fundamental basis of the founding of this country, which we said in 1776; we are going to assume and treat all people as equals. It's a fundamental American value.
And it its about fairness. It's about fairness under the law and under the Constitution of the United States. KING: Bishop Jackson, why isn't marriage a religious issue? Why shouldn't marriage take place in a church or a synagogue and everything else be a union. Why is the state involved in marriage?
BISHOP HARRY JACKSON, SR. PASTOR, HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: I think it's an historic issue, Larry. I wish the state weren't in it. But the reality is that the state is in it. Therefore, there are sociological ramifications that we have to take into account. And I believe that Kamala is dead wrong, that there is no place in the Constitution that says that something like marriage is a foundational right. It is something that society has always decided that she had the right to determine what is best for the long term on-going nature of our society.
KING: All right, Stephanie, what's wrong with that argument?
MILLER: Well, quite seriously, Larry, this was a very personal decision for me. I have been out to my friends and family for many years. I just hadn't talked about it on the radio. I'm a very private person.
But, as you know, my dad ran for vice president with Barry Goldwater. Very conservative family, Republican, Catholic. Part of my message is I spent so many years thinking they would judge me that I judged them. When I came out to them, they couldn't have been more loving and supportive.
It is a critical time, Larry, in a critical civil rights struggle I think in our country, where it is incumbent upon me or anybody else to put a human face to it, to say it is your sister; it is your favorite radio host; it's your brother. I was inspired by Shelly Wright, my friend who is the country singer, who just came out. That takes courage.
I think it is a time when you need to say, I am not going to keep cheering gay rights from the side lines. I'm going to step down on the battlefield and be part of it.
KING: Dennis, frankly, do you think you are fighting windmills? Do you think it is coming, because interracial marriage was the law until 1967. A black couldn't marry a white, and they made similar arguments to what you make?
PRAGER: No, not at all.
KING: They did.
PRAGER: I know -- no, no, no. I know. But they're not similar. I will tell you why they're not similar. There is nothing in common between race and gender. This is a massive confusion of all advocates of same sex marriage. I respect them. Some of them I actually love personally. I know they're in my family. But it is dishonest to compare race and gender. No one of different races is different. I am identical to a black to a yellow to a red. I am not identical to a woman. There is no comparison. We have men's rooms and women's rooms. We do not have black rooms and white rooms. We once did. And that was evil. It is not evil to separate sexes. It is evil to separate races. This is a massive act of confusion that is sown, not deliberately -- I think people believe it, but it is wrong. Race and gender have nothing in common.
KING: Kamala, how do you answer that?
HARRIS: I just think that it -- it is absolutely getting around the very, very fundamental and basic point, which is that we have a country that we believe in based on everything that we said we are when we were founded,. which included that all people are equal and should receive equal protection under the law. And that is what is so fundamentally important about the ruling by Judge Walker, which its that the Constitution of the United States says that people should not be treated differently because of sexual orientation, essentially.
The Constitution of the United States says explicitly that we are entitled to equal protection. Let all people be free to marry. It does not -- it does not have anything to do with the differences in the sexes. Of course, there are many books that have been written about that. Of course there are differences between the sexes.
HARRIS: The point is that people should not be deprived of their basic constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation. It's a very simple point. Don't take rights from people.
MILLER: It is -- Dennis, it is the same in the sense that it is separate but equal. I don't understand how you cannot say that is the same thing. To say we are -- you know, like when we let black people marry white people -- we're not going to call it marriage like you are real people. It is separate but equal. It is not American. And it is not constitutional.
PRAGER: Are you saying then that since the inception of the United States or the Constitution we have done something evil by having marriages man/woman.
MILLER: This is like any other civil rights battle. We did not used to let women vote. We didn't used to let black people marry white people. There are a lot of things we didn't use to do.
PRAGER: But we have always recognized racism is wrong.
MILLER: If you look at a poll out here in California, if you want to go to polling, people in California are for gay marriage now. You are going to be on the wrong side of history, Dennis.
KING: Let me get a break in.
PRAGER: Let people vote. Why have a judge do it? MILLER: We don't use mob rule. We don't put people's rights to mob rule.
KING: Let me get a break.
KING: Hold on. Let me get a break and I will ask Bishop Jackson how society would be harmed if gays could marry everywhere. Quick correction, by the way, Kathy Griffin just realized she misspoke during her segment. She said Judge Walker was on the wrong side of marriage. He is the judge who ruled in favor of same sex marriage. Kathy says she meant to say he is on the right side of history. More debate after this.
(NEWS BREAK)
KING: Bishop Jackson, how would society be harmed? Is society harmed in Massachusetts because gay people can marry there?
JACKSON: I think so. First of all, the right to vote is an essential civil rights. My father was threatened at gun point by an out-of-control state trooper because he weighed in on this issue of voting. So we're trumping one group's civil rights in the name of civil rights. There is something backwards there.
Number two, I think it its about the kids. You are not just changing marriage; you are changing everything that relates to marriage. And therefore "Heather Has Two Mommies" is being taught in schools around the nation, and it will fundamentally change how we view the world. And I think that some parents don't want their kids to know these things at such young ages.
In Washington, D.C., thirdly, on the gay and lesbian agenda right now is a desire to legalize prostitution in our city because they say that gays, lesbian, transgender kids are going to be discriminated against. Where will it end? So when we say yes to same sex marriage, we have all these unintended consequences that come behind it. I think this is a case, Larry, of a minority impressing and imposing its will upon a majority. I have had death had death threats. There have been all kind of crazy things. I just don't think it's fair. What happened today with Laura --
MILLER: Larry, Larry --
KING: I don't want -- I want everyone to get the same time. Kamala, you answer this one.
HARRIS: It is a mistake to suggest that when you give rights to one group, you are taking rights from another. It is not a zero sum game. The reality of it is that we have said as a country that we believe in fundamental fairness, which means equal rights for all. To take -- to give rights to this group of people who want to marry is not to take rights from anyone else. It's just to do the fundamentally fair and right thing.
And it's the thing that's based -- is the basic principle that was the foundation of our country: fairness.
JACKSON: But it fundamentally changes the institution. It's not giving rights. It destroys marriage as we know it.
HARRIS: It doesn't take anything away from the institution. We know that.
JACKSON: It does. No, no, you don't know that. I disagree with you.
HARRIS: It gives other people the protection of that institution. It gives other people the ability to have a legally recognized bond where they --
KING: one at a time, reverend.
JACKSON: -- commitment with each other. And there should be room in our country for the belief that people do fall in love and want to create a commitment between themselves that is recognized by the law. When they want to do that, we should give them that right.
KING: You are the same -- bishop -- rather, Dennis, you're the same gender as a gay man.
PRAGER: That's entirely right. But that's not the issue here. Let me ask a question to the two women.
PRAGER: With same-sex marriage -- by the way, I'll ask a question to the women. Let me answer you about Massachusetts. You asked what's happened. I'll tell you what has happened. The largest single institution in adoption in Massachusetts history has been the Catholic church, Catholic charities. They are now out of it. They have been kicked out because they prefer a married man and a woman to be an adoptive couple to two men or two women.
I ask the women a question. Do you believe that there is any difference in having a father, or not having a mother, or not having a mother? Is it identical to you, two mothers as a mother and a father, or two men and a mother and a father? Is it identical? You have to say it's identical or you agree with me.
MILLER: Most kids end up in foster care because some straight couple screwed up somewhere, Dennis.
PRAGER: It doesn't answer my question.
(CROSSTALK) HARRIS: I'll answer the question. I'm happy to answer the question.
PRAGER: I want an answer to my question. Is Catholic Charities -- Catholic Charities was kicked out of Massachusetts in the adoption industry because they prefer a man and a woman as parents. Do the two women --
HARRIS: The call of your question --
KING: Kamala, go ahead.
HARRIS: There's a point that has to be made here. And I am a career prosecutor. I specialized for a long time in child sexual assault and child abuse cases. I created the first child abuse unit of my office in the history of the office.
I'm going to tell you something. What's most important -- what is fundamentally most important for a child to become a healthy and productive adult is that they are raised by loving parents. And whatever --
PRAGER: So it doesn't matter?
HARRIS: Whatever role they take on, I'm supporting that. I'm supporting that.
PRAGER: So it doesn't matter, having no father or --
HARRIS: In the foster care system, in the juvenile delinquency system, who had a heterosexual parent and a couple -- married couple who were heterosexual who could not take care of their child.
MILLER: One of the other main reasons I did this, a dear friend of mine was the homecoming queen in high school, came out, lost all her friends. She works on the Trevor Project now, on the suicide hotline for gay kids. There is a gay kid somewhere tonight watching in Iowa that thinks -- that's going to kill himself because he thinks there's no one else is like him. There's a teacher somewhere who takes Pepto-Bismol because she's afraid someone is going to ask her what she did that weekend. There are kids at risk. There are kids killing themselves in this country. And it's important, you know, to step forward and tell them that they're not alone.
PRAGER: -- announcing that it doesn't matter if you have a mother.
HARRIS: I have a question for you. What's more important, if a child in a way that is with love or not?
KING: We'll take a break and come right back and have you answer. (CROSSTALK)
KING: Kamala Harris, what was your question, again, for Dennis?
HARRIS: Whether he believes that it is -- that the issue for a child is more important whether the parents are a heterosexual or homosexual couple versus whether the child is being raised in a loving home, where they are being supported and nurtured, so they can become the productive human being and adult we want them to become? If you have to take it on balance, I think most reasonable people would agree what is most important is that that child -- if the focus is truly on the child, that that child is raised in a family where they are loved.
KING: Dennis, what is --
PRAGER: I fully agree. Now I'll ask you a question.
HARRIS: OK.
PRAGER: You have a loving male/female and you have a loving male/male or female/female, you have a child to give for adoption. Would you flip a coin or would you prefer the male/female? All of them are loving, kind and good.
HARRIS: I would never engage in that simplistic an assessment when you're talking about if --
PRAGER: You asked me a question and I answered. Why is that simplistic?
HARRIS: Because I would need to know more. I would need to know more. Any person who deals with children -- I would want to know if there are other siblings in the home, I would want to know whether --
KING: Can I get another word in?
KING: Bishop Jackson, do you think it is coming anyway? Do you think you're going to lose this fight?
JACKSON: No, I don't think it's inevitable. I think the issue that we're dealing with is because it's not inevitable, these guys are yelling, screaming, fighting. They know that in the next two and a half years, I believe this issue will be decided at the highest court. And what we need for those who believe in traditional marriage is to stand up, let their voices be heard, and make sure we don't just let this thing be swept away by a whim of a few people.
KING: Stephanie?
MILLER: Every little girl has a dream, Larry. I have a new one. I want to be gay married by Kathy Griffin. I want to marry a black woman. I want Laura Schlessinger to be my maid of honor at a mosque, so that every right-wing head will implode simultaneously. That's my dream.
KING: Tomorrow night, we'll discuss the mosque situation.
We not with sadness the passing of Bobby Thompson today. Sad because Bobby Thompson provided the saddest moment in my life, October 3rd, 1951; he hit the shot heard around the world. Willy Mays was on deck, about to go into military service, and the Dodgers lost the pennant after leading by 13 and a half games in August.
PRAGER: They got the signal.
KING: It's OK, bobby. They were signaled. That's right. It's -- but I knew Bobby Thompson and like him very much. But he still hurt me. It's time now for John Roberts -- goodbye, Bobby. Rest well.
Time now for John Roberts and "AC 360."


Job Description How to applyApplication along with necessary certificates should be sent to the Registrar, Periyar University, Periyar Palkalai Nagar, Salem- 636 011. The last date for submission of filled in prescribed format is 20.12.2012 by 5.00 P.M.
Jawahar Science College Recruitment and Sarkari Naukri for the Post of Guest Lecturer Chemistry Job Description How to applyWritten test followed by an interview will be held on 18 02 2012 at Jawahar Science College Block 14 .
Post Name Field Assistant No. of Vacancy 01 Post Pay Scale Rs. 8000 Per Month Educational Qualification B. Sc Botany any other relevant Life Science Course with 60 Mark. Age Limit As per Periyar University.
Post Name University Research Fellowship No. of Vacancy 05 Post Pay Scale Rs. 5000 Per Month Educational Qualification Candidate should have have passed the Post Graduate degree of this University or of any other.
Post Name Junior Assistant No. of Vacancy 02 Posts Pay Scale Rs.5200 20200 Grade Pay Rs.2400 Post Name Assistant No. of Vacancy 01 Post Pay Scale Rs.5200 20200 Grade Pay Rs.2800 Post Name Computer.
Periyar University Recruitment and Sarkari Naukri for the Post of Professor Economics Job Description The envelope containing the filled in application should carry the superscription Application for thepost of Professor.
PERIYAR UNIVERSITY Recruitment and Sarkari Naukri for the Post of Assistant Professor Sociology Job Description The envelope containing the filled in application should carry the superscription Applicationfor the post of.


text:
Mintedpr launches PR Services for startups
Get your product or news quickly to over 500 News/TV websites in 72hrs.
Are you a startup or into dropshipping and not getting the required result?
At the onset of a new venture, startup founders already have a lot on their plates — from raising funds for getting the business plan off the ground to introducing the product to the market. Other than that, entrepreneurs and business people frequently have constrained assets. These are on the whole potential reasons why executing PR methodologies is frequently neglected by new businesses.
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/hVRNDMGbo4A
For many startups, public relations begins and ends with receiving a nod from TechCrunch. While TechCrunch is an incredible platform (and a notice from them is no little accomplishment), there's much more that goes into a triumphant PR methodology.
Startups that have a great product their customers love can benefit from public relations in more ways than one. Aside from the obvious benefit of publicity, entrepreneurs gain credibility
For a startup that hasn't settled on a product customers love, press coverage can be a huge mistake. Despite popular belief, getting as much press attention as possible right out of the gate is rarely a good idea. If you're an entrepreneur who is ready to start scaling, that nod from TechCrunch and mention from any famous blogger could be invaluable.
Instead of waiting to engage individuals at the exact moment you need something from them, try using a more proactive approach: start building relationships early on. There is incredible value in viewing the daily public relations of your startup as a two-way street.
That is why we have launched Mintedpr to enable startups to get a PR they deserve at an early stage before the big mention. With our coverage, you are set to reach an audience of over 5 million people from the fraction of the cost compared to what you will pay for ads on the well-known social network.
As an introductory offer, we are giving out a 50% discount to all first-time users. CODE: CYBER50
We currently have 3 Plans: https://mintedpr.com/pages/pricing
And our platinum plan is the most popular and gives you:
500+ Guaranteed Placements on Newspaper, Radio, TV Websites and Social Media including:
Google Inclusion
Yahoo Inclusion
Bing Inclusion
Google News Inclusion
Bing News Inclusion
SEO Mass Ping
Financial Feeds
Social Media Blast
Implementing a results-driven PR campaign requires a lot of hard work, time, and dedication, especially for new ventures that, more often than not, need to create a solid reputation from the ground up. Keep in mind that you don't have to do it alone. We can also help you the storytelling for the press release.
For more www.mintedpr.com or [email protected]
Company Name: Mintedpr
Contact Person: Koko Brass
Website: www.mintedpr.com
© 2018 Copyright Us Market News Latest. All Rights reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: How to go back more than one view model in mvvm light I am doing xamarin development and I am not doing forms.
I want to go back by 3 viewcontrollers/activities but goback method is for going back by one viewcontroller or activity
If I use navigateto i believe one more time the viewcontrolller/activity gets added.i.e two instances.
So how to solve this problem ?
Update:
Here is the inavigation interface there is no way to access thr navigational stack as well

A: If you are going back, then use INavigationService.GoBack();. You can call that 3 times in a row to go back 3 pages.
private void GoBackThree()
{
    _navigationService.GoBack();
    _navigationService.GoBack();
    _navigationService.GoBack();
}

A: I haven't used MVVM Light before but I have quite a bit of experience of Xamarin Forms. I used to use MVVM Cross for navigation but eventually found that the built in Xamarin Forms Navigation was much better, I ran into similar scenarios as to what you have here.
Under the hood it looks like MVVM Light is just wrapping the Xamarin Forms Navigation anyway - http://mvvmlight.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#Samples/Flowers/Flowers.Forms/Flowers.Forms/Helpers/NavigationService.cs
I don't think you need give up on MVVM Light navigation but you do need to get under the hood to achieve the navigation without seeing three transitions. I haven't tried this with MVVM Light but it works great with normal Forms navigation.
Step 1
Get access to the underlying Xamarin Forms navigation:
var navigation = Application.Current.MainPage.Navigation;

Step 2
Remove the two pages you want to skip when navigating back. It's important that you remove them before navigating backwards otherwise you'll get a double transition (note the -2 is because you want to remove the second to last page).
var firstPageToRemove = navigation.NavigationStack[navigation.NavigationStack.Count - 2];
navigation.RemovePage(firstPageToRemove);

var secondPageToRemove = navigation.NavigationStack[navigation.NavigationStack.Count - 2];
navigation.RemovePage(secondPageToRemove);

Step 3
Navigate backwards
_navigationService.GoBack();

I hope that works for you.
Alternative Consideration
I have a similar application in my app which I've solved a little more elegantly. If you know you never need to be able to navigate back to those previous pages. When you push the new pages on, you can actually remove the previous one if you no longer need it. Please note you have to remove the page after you push on the new one otherwise you get two transitions. I use this extension method on-top of the standard Forms Navigation which I showed you how to access in Step 1 to achieve it.
public static async Task ReplaceCurrentAsync(this INavigation navigation, Page page, bool animated = false)
{
    var curentPage = navigation.NavigationStack.Last();

    await navigation.PushAsync(page, animated);

    navigation.RemovePage(curentPage);
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Be unparalleled in your fashion game with the S20A6383 sunglasses from JRS by Coolwinks. Creating the perfect balance between your outlook and the happening trends, these cateye frames with blue tinted lenses outlines the unmatched craft on display. An ideal match for women with round & heart-shaped faces, these shades go along with every attire of your choice. Actual product colors may vary slightly from colors shown on your Computer/Mobile Screen.


Please inquire with us about the price.
Outdoor blinds can be used for 5-10 years, and indoor blinds for more than 30.
We offer replacement services for the cloth surrounding the indoor blinds.
We provide this same service for temple and shrine blinds as well. Our folding screens can be repaired by replacing the blinds.
*Depending on the condition of the blinds, there may be cases when repair work is no longer possible.


General Press Releases วันอังคารที่ ๒๒ มกราคม พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๒ ๐๘:๐๑ น.
Reed Exhibitions Japan Ltd., the largest trade show organiser in Japan announced that Manufacturing World Japan 2019 is coming back at Tokyo Big Sight from February 6 - 8, 2019.
Because the requirements for quality from Japanese manufacturers are well known as extremely high, all exhibitors will exhibit their latest products/technologies/solutions with all their skills. If visitors would like to see the finest skills of metal processing/micro fabrication by the craftsman's effort and history, or have a trouble on their products which they have been struggled for a long term, they should not miss this show.
Many major companies from all around the world are exhibiting in Manufacturing World Japan 2019. They are unveiling the world's latest technologies/products which are "Must-See" for all professionals working in manufacturing industry. Don't miss this opportunity to catch up the world's latest solutions for manufacturing.
Keynote & Special Sessions will be held as the concurrent events of trade show. Top industry leaders from global leading companies such as MAZDA MOTOR, OLYMPUS, HONDA, BOSCH, NIKON, FUJI XEROX, KONICA MINOLTA, SUBARU MOTOR, PANASONIC, FUJITSU, IBM JAPAN etc. will reveal their latest topics for manufacturing innovation, IoT technology, smart factory, IT strategy for manufacturing industry, etc.
Manufacturing World Japan 2019 is inarguably a must-attend show for every person working in manufacturing industry.


Field Maple is a lovely native species with soft green leaves with red tinges all summer and stunning yellow autumn colour. Field Maple is one of the species in our mixed native hedging packs - if you're choosing your own species for a mixed native pack we suggest you include it primarily for its autumn colour - but it's also very good as a single species hedge, particularly for areas of the garden that would benefit from a splash of autumn colour. Grows 40-60cm per year. Supplied as 60-90cm bare roots.
Field Maple is a lovely native species with soft green leaves with red tinges all summer and stunning yellow autumn colour. Field Maple is one of the species in our mixed native hedging packs - if you're choosing your own species for a mixed native pack we suggest you include it primarily for its autumn colour - but it's also very good as a single species hedge, particularly for areas of the garden that would benefit from a splash of autumn colour. Available in packs of 25 or 50 bare roots and grows 40-60cm per year.


Court ruling, Freeman v Chief Executive in Council, found here.
–HKTVN was also given leave to pursue a judicial review against the government's licence denial. The substantive hearing in the High Court has been scheduled for August 27, 2014.
–The Communications Authority fined TVB HK$50,000 for misleading audiences when one of its programmes claimed that rival HKTVN was an inferior applicant for the free-to-air licence. The CA received more than 27,000 complaints about the broadcast. TVB said it would appeal.


text:
Confronting South America's Violent Past: An Interview with Human Rights Scholar Dr Francesca Lessa
Posted byprotocolmagazine1 December 19, 2021 December 19, 2021 Posted inInterviews, Latin America and the CaribbeanTags:humanrights
Image by Greg Rosenke on Unsplash
By Clorrie Violet Yeomans
In this exclusive interview for Protocol Magazine, Oxford scholar Dr Francesca Lessa shares her two decades of experience researching human rights in Latin America. Lessa's research focuses on accountability for past human rights violations and the politics behind these processes, which involve state, regional, and international actors, as well as civilian activists. She is currently a Departmental Lecturer in Latin American Studies and Development at the Oxford Department of International Development and the University of Oxford's Latin American Centre.
MPhil candidate in Latin American Studies at Oxford University, Clorrie Yeomans, interviews Dr Francesca Lessa about her work on Operation Condor: a systematic plan of regional repression in Cold War South America. Lessa shares how her research, including her database and forthcoming book, aims to help combat impunity and restore justice today. The interview also reflects on the wider dangers of brushing the past under the rug.
How would you introduce yourself to our readers?
I would introduce myself as a scholar-activist. I quite like this word because I believe, when it comes to human rights and issues of justice and accountability, it's impossible to be impartial. In most cases, we are talking about extreme situations where people's basic rights are being violated on a systematic basis usually by the state. The clear situation of injustice and abuse of power means that there is an activist element. I have always felt that my work was about revealing these situations of injustice and trying to find a way to improve the victims' possibilities to access remedies for the past or present crimes they have suffered.
How do you deal with the ethical issues surrounding your research?
My research involves an abundance of ethical issues. I mainly work with victims of human rights violations and so the main concern is that the interview itself could turn into a situation of revictimisation. Generally, I try to ask very open questions so that the victims can choose what they share with me. For example, 'why were you a political activist at the time?'. Of course, the darkest aspects of human rights violations are there but what interests me the most is the story of the person and why they became a political activist and a human rights activist afterwards.
In most cases, because many of the victims have since become human rights activists, they have had plenty of experience testifying either in trials or truth commissions. They have usually told this story many times before. However, some people may speak out for the first time and it's much harder for them. In the case of South America, there is quite a significant time distance from these events. Most people, especially in Argentina and Uruguay, have had this previous experience of sharing their past militancy.
Now, with Covid-19, you have the additional element that, for these kind of personal topics, a remote interview would be a little bit uncomfortable. Doing it over a screen is far from ideal. On the other hand, most of the victims are in their sixties, seventies, or eighties and so they belong to the most vulnerable categories.
The second ethical issue is the risk to you as a researcher. Researching these topics that remain very sensitive in some countries can put you on the radar of some unpleasant people. Even when you think that you are going to a place that you know very well, it's always good to look at all the possible risk scenarios because things can change very suddenly. Sometimes we underestimate the impact of our research. We think that people aren't interested but sometimes they are, much more than we expect.
Another impact on the researcher is secondary trauma from listening to so many stories of people being tortured, abducted, and disappeared. Although you have not lived through the experience, the continuous listening to these very harrowing and heartbreaking stories can impact the researcher as well. We always feel that we can keep the distance but if you are doing prolonged fieldwork everyday, it's tough. I remember when I was at the trials in Argentina, it really depended on the person's testimony. Some people can really get to you and, even if after a year, when I thought I had heard everything I could possibly hear, there was still that testimony that really broke my heart. It's something that never really goes away. These are difficult stories of human bravery but also human cruelty at the same time.
Would you like to debunk any myths surrounding the Cold War in Latin America?
There are very skewed narratives about the global Cold War and if we were in any of the formerly Russian-speaking countries, they would have a very different story to the one we tell in the West. Many aspects are presented as if it were a Cold War because there was no conflict, nothing really happened, and few people died. But, if you start digging under the surface of that narrative, 200,000 Guatemalans were killed or disappeared, 9,000 to 30,000 Argentines were disappeared, 400 people were disappeared in Brazil and 20,000 were tortured through the Brazilian military justice system. Those are not wars in the traditional International-Relations sense of two armies or sides fighting each other like during World War One or World War Two. Here, we had states who imposed a very specific view of how society was supposed to be functioning and whoever opposed that view was targeted. In the case of South America, if you were a trade unionist or a student activist, or even a lawyer or journalist sometimes, that was enough for you to stand out as an internal enemy. Even though you weren't part of an army, your ability to criticise the system was enough to get you killed or disappeared. I think this narrative of 'there was no conflict' must be nuanced. There was no conflict as in the sense of a WWI-or-WWII-style-conflict, but each country had an authoritarian regime that was murdering its own people and that's problematic, too. Even in cases like Guatemala and El Salvador, where there were civil wars, we know from the subsequent truth commissions that it was never a balanced war. In reality, it was the state committing systematic human rights violations against civilians. So, the peaceful image of the Cold War that we are taught at school is erroneous.
So, even the name 'Cold War' itself is problematic…
Yes, because it's in opposition to the 'hot wars' of WWI and WWII where you have these traditional conflicts. I also don't like the alternative discourse which is the discourse of the 'Dirty War'. In Argentina and Uruguay, there were armed groups but you cannot consider them as being on par with the state. So, the narrative of the 'Dirty War' is a discourse that comes from the National Security Doctrine, the School of the Americas, and the armed forces themselves. They were saying that 'this is an unusual war because we don't have armies. The enemy is not another country invading you, it's your own people. So you don't know who the enemy is and that's why you need to torture people to get information and to see who your enemy is.' They tried to legitimise these practices by using the language of war when, in fact, there was no war. Rather, it was the state systematically violating the rights of citizens. Although this narrative is very problematic, it remains very popular in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay among individuals who try to somehow justify the past human rights violations.
Do you think that the UK can learn something from Latin America's experience of transitional justice?
Definitely. I saw in the news over the Summer that the UK Parliament was planning to issue a blanket amnesty for the crimes committed in Northern Ireland. I read an article by Louise Mallinder in which she argues that the amnesty that the UK government was planning to implement would have been worse than the amnesties in South America… and those amnesties were bad enough! I think that Latin America definitely has many lessons for the UK, the US, and many of the European countries that have done a relatively poor job at coming to terms with the past.
I think that Latin America exemplifies that you cannot brush the past under the rug. It will always come back to haunt you. Even though there have been ups and downs, the demand to know the truth and obtain justice is always there in Latin America. I don't know how the amnesty plan ended up in the UK Parliament but it will not be a lasting solution. Latin America shows us that the solutions of amnesties could work for a short period of time but they are not long-term solutions. In Argentina and Uruguay, these laws have been derogated and now we have lots of criminal trials. In Chile, the law is still there but it's being derogated in practice. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been very clear that you can come up with any kind of legal tool that you like but you still have to investigate human rights violations. It's very disappointing to see that, in 2021, the UK Parliament thought that a blanket amnesty might be the way forward in Northern Ireland.
The experience in Latin America shows that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to obtaining truth and justice. You can definitely be creative in your approach. For example, in Argentina they developed a kind of truth-trial which was a compromise between trials and truth commissions to try to access information about the fate of the disappeared. There has been compensation paid to various groups including the stolen babies who are now adults. No one path exists. The challenge is that each society must come up with its own path, as long as it complies with all the international human rights standards.
Could you tell us a little bit more about your database on Operation Condor?
The database now has over 800 cases of victims of cross border human rights violations in South America between the late 1960s and early 1980s. The idea for the database came from three workshops I organised in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay on the issue of Operation Condor. One of the topics that was always debated was which cases of repression were part of domestic repression and which others were part of Operation Condor specifically. If you read about Condor, you can find anything from 50 victims to 100,000 victims. One of the challenges was defining which cases count as Condor. I invited survivors, human rights activists, judges, lawyers, and prosecutors to these workshops to discuss this question.
Operation Condor was based on the exchange of information between countries looking for specific people living in exile. Sometimes, officers also travelled to another country to capture these people and take them back to their home country to kill them there. Since these cases can be quite complex, in Argentina, they originally said that all foreigners detained in Argentina were victims of Condor. When they then started looking at individual cases, they found, for example, a Paraguayan who had moved at two years old to Argentina. This individual had no connections to Paraguay and so it could not count as a transnational human rights violation.
By digging through all the stories, the experts came up with the following criteria. To count as Condor, the crime had to include a border crossing of information, foreign military officers, or deportees. I used these three criteria to build my database looking at all the information from previous research, truth commissions, and trials and going story by story. The database is not a finished product but I'd say that we have captured 80% of the cases. There are other cases that remain unreported since people are still very afraid.
Our aim was not to make categories of victims but to show how these states in South America really went the extra mile to expand their repression across borders. It shows an extra layer of sophistication in the repression through their communication systems, central headquarters in Buenos Aires, and hit squads operating in Paris against specific exiles. This also helps us to discredit the narrative of the Dirty War and 'excesses' because there was a plan throughout South America to tackle this Communist threat.
How has your database been used in practice?
So far, the database has been used by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in a case of two Uruguayan brothers who were abducted with their parents and ended up going to Uruguay and being abandoned in Chile. They filed a petition to the Commission a few years ago. The Commission then used the database in their report to contextualise their case. When Argentina didn't comply with the Commission's requirements, the case was referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and there was a hearing in May this year. I presented a written piece showing very specifically the victims' Uruguayan nationality and how members of their specific political party had been targeted. I highlighted how Argentina was also at the heart of this system as it was home to the headquarters of Operation Condor and the majority of South American exiles were living there.
Could you speak to us a little bit about your most recent publication?
I have just finished my next book called 'The Condor Trials: Transnational Repression and Human Rights in South America'. It's tells both sides of this story of cross-border repression in South America. The first part of the book explains the transnational terror that was taking place throughout the region at the time. It focuses on Operation Condor, which is the most well-known component of this story. I also try to go beyond the narrative of Operation Condor because it did not appear out of the blue. I therefore begin my narrative a bit early than some of the other publications by showing how there were some conferences in the early XX [20th] century between the police forces in Latin America that were already sharing information about anarchists who had been migrating from Europe to South America. From there, we see a gradual evolution that becomes much more coordinated and consolidated as a very well-oiled system during the Cold War. I start each chapter with the story of a victim and I use this as a window through which to explain the different institutions behind their repression. It's the voices of the victims that have enabled us to do our research because we have very few other sources, except for some archives. I therefore wanted to put the victims at the centre of the book.
The second part of the book is about justice. Justice is a reverse transnational effort because the crimes did not only occur in one place. We therefore needed Transnational Activist Networks (to use Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink's term) to document testimonies, build archives, and file these cases. I focus on cases in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, but also Italy which was strategically used by some of the Uruguayan human rights activists when nothing was taking place in Uruguay. They used the European courts to access the justice that they didn't have in Uruguay. This included some trials in Rome this year.
Find out more about Dr Francesca Lessa's research: https://www.area-studies.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-francesca-lessa
Locating the Anthropocene: Man's Devastating Impact Upon Earth
Tackling violence against women and girls in the UK: is a misogyny hate crime bill part of the solution?


text:
Q: How to use unix scripts to show all 'n' characters long group of strings? This IS kind of linked to another question - Code golf: "Color highlighting" of repeated text
I'm tying to figure out a way of breaking a file into all 'n' characters long groups.
Eg: If a file comprises of ONLY the following text:
ABCDEFGHIJ

And we want it broken into sets of 3, the output should be:
ABC
BCD
CDE
DEF
EFG
FGH
GHI
HIJ

No characters in the file are to be treated any differently from another. ie, a "space" is just another character which should follow the rule above...

A: sed:
echo "ABCDEFGHIJ" | sed -n ':a;/^...$/{p;b};s/.../&\n/;P;s/.//;s/\n//;ba'

A more generalized sed version:
num=5; echo "ABCDEFGHIJ" | sed -n ":a;/^.\{$num\}\$/{p;b};s/.\{$num\}/&\n/;P;s/.//;s/\n//;ba"

Bash and ksh:
string="ABCDEFGHIJ"
for ((i=0;i<=${#string}-3;i++)); do echo ${string:i:3}; done

zsh:
string="ABCDEFGHIJ"
for ((i=1;i<=${#string}-2;i++)); do echo $string[i,i+2]; done

sh (specifically Dash):
string='ABCDEFGHIJ'
count=$(seq $((${#string}-2)))
for i in $count; do b="$b?"; done
for i in $count; do b="${b%?}"; echo "${string%$b}"; string="${string#?}"; done

AWK:
echo "ABCDEFGHIJ" | awk -v num=4 '{for (i=1; i<length($0)-num;i++) print substr($0,i,num)}'

Edit: Added a more generalized sed version and an AWK version.

A: Does it have to be shell based or are you open to other scripting languages?  Here's a version in Python:
width = 3
data = open("file").read()
for x in xrange(len(data) - width + 1):
    print data[x : x+width]


I personally prefer to use CHLClient->HudUpdate ( https://github.com/VSES/SourceEngine2007/blob/43a5c90a5ada1e69ca044595383be67f40b33c61/se2007/game/client/cdll_client_int.cpp#L903-L925 ) to grab globals.
The + 2 is an exercise for the reader to figure out, I suppose. ?\_(ツ)_/?


Kyoshi after successfully completing his 50 BJJ matches for the Nashua Soup Kitchen Fundraiser.
Kyoshi Eric Menard is the owner and chief instructor of Eric Menard's Complete Martial Arts Academy in South Nashua, NH. Kyoshi Eric has been studying the martial arts for over 25 years and has chosen it as a way of life. Besides competing nationally and internationally, he has also had the opportunity to train with several nationally recognized figures in the martial arts including Steve "Mad Dawg" Curran, Bill "Superfoot" Wallace, Dan McFarland and Arlene Limas. In March of 2008 Kyoshi Eric was inducted into the World Martial Arts Federation Hall of Fame as the "Master Instructor of the Year." He continues to expand his knowledge in the martial arts in order to give his students the tools they need to be their best.


Life happens! We've all been there. You have an early meeting, or a late meeting, you had to work late, or you have to take the dog to the vet. You usually work out on the weekend and you have a dog show. And you miss a workout. Guess what? Nothing happens!
Yes, nothing happens if you miss a workout. But don't think that you can slide and miss a few! Not much happens in one to three days. According to "Tone It Up" trainers Karena Dawn and Katrina Scott, resting for a day is encouraged. Don't beat yourself up, just get back on the bandwagon and take up where you left off with your workouts.
Liz Letchford, MS, ATC, PhD candidate and personal trainer says that missing a workout for more than three days starts the spiral of "performance decrease." While this is most observable in weight trainers, all of us can experience it. That's because the connection between your muscles and your brain becomes weaker the longer you don't use it.
3 days – as long as you don't change your diet drastically, not much happens.
10 days – you'll start to lose muscle tone.
3 weeks – you'll experience a loss in anaerobic power. You'll notice it in running up the stairs or running to a building from the parking lot.
4 weeks – you'll start to lose aerobic capacity.
6 weeks and beyond – you'll notice a definite loss in power and you'll feel more tired.
Definitely take a rest day every now and then. Enjoy it! During that rest day do some stretches, or exercises on the foam roller (my personal nemesis). Don't defeat yourself with your diet on your rest days, and get right back to your regular workouts!


Questions about example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "隼"
8823(ハヤブサ)先輩 名前は翔(しょう) I'm not sure I answered your question as my chinese is not good.
メンバーは7人です。5人はパフォーマーなので歌いません。あと二人はボーカルです。まず、リーダーの名前は白濱亜嵐です。彼はパフォーマーです。そして、二人の歌手の名前は片寄涼太と 数原龍友です。残り... does this sound natural?
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "つながる"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "リーダーシップ"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "技師"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "担当"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "隼"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "隼人"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早とちり"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "はやとちり"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早寝"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早場"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早番"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早昼"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早飛脚"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "葉山"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早まる"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "速水"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早見"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早道"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早耳"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "早める"
Example sentences with, and the definition and usage of "はよう"