text:
Nick Turse, One Down, Who Knows How Many to Go?
As TomDispatch's Nick Turse reminds us today, the United States remains an imperial military presence unlike any other — not just in this moment but in the history of empire. Never has a single country had so many military bases on so many parts of Planet Earth. Consider that a striking fact of 2019, as it was, say, of the 1950s or the post-Cold-War 1990s. How many such bases? As Turse makes clear, no one really knows, possibly not even the Pentagon. And more curious yet, that vast global infrastructure, that "empire of bases" (in Chalmers Johnson's eloquent phrase), is hardly noticed in what, since 9/11, has been known as "the homeland." Few here think much about those global garrisons (although hundreds of thousands of Americans have in recent years been deployed to them); the media that cover every presidential tweet as if it were a missive from the emperor almost never mention them, much less report on them; and no one — Turse and a few scholars aside — seems to have the slightest interest in counting them up, much less considering their cost or even the global role they've been playing all these years. In domestic terms, they are essentially missing in action, which means a vision of how the United States has positioned itself on this planet is missing in action as well.
With that in mind, let's acknowledge something else in this strange moment of ours: while that massive (and massively expensive) base structure remains firmly in place, American imperial power is increasingly another matter. It should be clear enough by now that, despite The Donald's recent dark-of-night selfie drop-in on American troops at al-Assad Air Base in Iraq — as CNN put it, "the dicey security situation still restrict[ed] Trump to a clandestine visit more than 15 years after the American invasion" — he seems to be almost singlehandedly launching the process by which the American imperial system, built up over the last three-quarters of a century, could be dismantled. The Syrian withdrawal and possible Afghan drawdown of troops may just be straws in the wind — but one day, what a wind that could turn out to be!
It's obvious that the man who ran as the first declinist candidate for president, the only one willing to acknowledge in 2016 that America was no longer quite so "great," seems intent, however blindly, on beginning that dismantling process. He clearly has an urge to tear down international institutions and dismiss the network of subservient allies Washington had carefully built up for decades to bolster its global power.
Still, don't label him the dismantler-in-chief quite yet. In the end, Donald Trump may indeed prove to be the American equivalent of one of the mad emperors that helped take down the Roman empire — a Queens-born Caligula. For the time being, however, think of him instead as an envoy for and a message from the unknown gods of the twenty-first century, a symptom of a process that has been going on just out of sight for years. After all, he bears no responsibility for the fact that the self-proclaimed greatest military power ever, in fighting post-9/11 wars without end, has found itself, despite that empire of bases, ever less able to impose its will militarily or otherwise on increasingly large parts of the planet. Tom
Bases, Bases, Everywhere…
Except in the Pentagon's Report
By Nick Turse
The U.S. military is finally withdrawing (or not) from its base at al-Tanf. You know, the place that the Syrian government long claimed was a training ground for Islamic State (ISIS) fighters; the land corridor just inside Syria, near both the Iraqi and Jordanian borders, that Russia has called a terrorist hotbed (while floating the idea of jointly administering it with the United States); the location of a camp where hundreds of U.S. Marines joined Special Operations forces last year; an outpost that U.S. officials claimed was the key not only to defeating ISIS, but also, according to General Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, to countering "the malign activities that Iran and their various proxies and surrogates would like to pursue." You know, that al-Tanf.
Within hours of President Trump's announcement of a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, equipment at that base was already being inventoried for removal. And just like that, arguably the most important American garrison in Syria was (maybe) being struck from the Pentagon's books — except, as it happens, al-Tanf was never actually on the Pentagon's books. Opened in 2015 and, until recently, home to hundreds of U.S. troops, it was one of the many military bases that exist somewhere between light and shadow, an acknowledged foreign outpost that somehow never actually made it onto the Pentagon's official inventory of bases.
Officially, the Department of Defense (DoD) maintains 4,775 "sites," spread across all 50 states, eight U.S. territories, and 45 foreign countries. A total of 514 of these outposts are located overseas, according to the Pentagon's worldwide property portfolio. Just to start down a long list, these include bases on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa, as well as in Peru and Portugal, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. But the most recent version of that portfolio, issued in early 2018 and known as the Base Structure Report (BSR), doesn't include any mention of al-Tanf. Or, for that matter, any other base in Syria. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Niger. Or Tunisia. Or Cameroon. Or Somalia. Or any number of locales where such military outposts are known to exist and even, unlike in Syria, to be expanding.
According to David Vine, author of Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, there could be hundreds of similar off-the-books bases around the world. "The missing sites are a reflection of the lack of transparency involved in the system of what I still estimate to be around 800 U.S. bases outside the 50 states and Washington, D.C., that have been encircling the globe since World War II," says Vine, who is also a founding member of the recently established Overseas Base Realignment and Closure Coalition, a group of military analysts from across the ideological spectrum who advocate shrinking the U.S. military's global "footprint."
Such off-the-books bases are off the books for a reason. The Pentagon doesn't want to talk about them. "I spoke to the press officer who is responsible for the Base Structure Report and she has nothing to add and no one available to discuss further at this time," Pentagon spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Michelle Baldanza told TomDispatch when asked about the Defense Department's many mystery bases.
"Undocumented bases are immune to oversight by the public and often even Congress," Vine explains. "Bases are a physical manifestation of U.S. foreign and military policy, so off-the-books bases mean the military and executive branch are deciding such policy without public debate, frequently spending hundreds of millions or billions of dollars and potentially getting the U.S. involved in wars and conflicts about which most of the country knows nothing."
The Overseas Base Realignment and Closure Coalition notes that the United States possesses up to 95% of the world's foreign military bases, while countries like France, Russia, and the United Kingdom have perhaps 10-20 foreign outposts each. China has just one.
The Department of Defense even boasts that its "locations" include 164 countries. Put another way, it has a military presence of some sort in approximately 84% of the nations on this planet — or at least the DoD briefly claimed this. After TomDispatch inquired about the number on a new webpage designed to tell the Pentagon's "story" to the general public, it was quickly changed. "We appreciate your diligence in getting to the bottom of this," said Lieutenant Colonel Baldanza. "Thanks to your observations, we have updated defense.gov to say 'more than 160.'"
The progressive changes made to the Defense Department's "Our Story" webpage as a result of questions from TomDispatch.
What the Pentagon still doesn't say is how it defines a "location." The number 164 does roughly track with the Department of Defense's current manpower statistics, which show personnel deployments of varying sizes in 166 "overseas" locales — including some nations with token numbers of U.S. military personnel and others, like Iraq and Syria, where the size of the force was obviously far larger, even if unlisted at the time of the assessment. (The Pentagon recently claimed that there were 5,200 troops in Iraq and at least 2,000 troops in Syria although that number should now markedly shrink.) The Defense Department's "overseas" tally, however, also lists troops in U.S. territories like American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Wake Island. Dozens of soldiers, according to the Pentagon, are also deployed to the country of "Akrotiri" (which is actually a village on the island of Santorini in Greece) and thousands more are based in "unknown" locations.
In the latest report, the number of those "unknown" troops exceeds 44,000.
Official Defense Department manpower statistics show U.S. forces deployed to the nation of "Akrotiri."
The annual cost of deploying U.S. military personnel overseas, as well as maintaining and running those foreign bases, tops out at an estimated $150 billion annually, according to the Overseas Bases Realignment and Closure Coalition. The price tag for the outposts alone adds up to about one-third of that total. "U.S. bases abroad cost upwards of $50 billion per year to build and maintain, which is money that could be used to address pressing needs at home in education, health care, housing, and infrastructure," Vine points out.
Perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that the Pentagon is also somewhat fuzzy about just where its troops are stationed. The new Defense Department website, for instance, offered a count of "4,800+ defense sites" around the world. After TomDispatch inquired about this total and how it related to the official count of 4,775 sites listed in the BSR, the website was changed to read "approximately 4,800 Defense Sites."
"Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. As we transition to the new site, we are working on updating information," wrote Lieutenant Colonel Baldanza. "Please refer to the Base Structure Report which has the latest numbers."
In the most literal sense, the Base Structure Report does indeed have the latest numbers — but their accuracy is another matter. "The number of bases listed in the BSR has long born little relation to the actual number of U.S. bases outside the United States," says Vine. "Many, many well-known and secretive bases have long been left off the list."
One prime example is the constellation of outposts that the U.S. has built across Africa. The official BSR inventory lists only a handful of sites there — on Ascension Island as well as in Djibouti, Egypt, and Kenya. In reality, though, there are many more outposts in many more African countries.
A recent investigation by the Intercept, based on documents obtained from U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) via the Freedom of Information Act, revealed a network of 34 bases heavily clustered in the north and west of that continent as well as in the Horn of Africa. AFRICOM's "strategic posture" consists of larger "enduring" outposts, including two forward operating sites (FOSes), 12 cooperative security locations (CSLs), and 20 more austere sites known as contingency locations (CLs).
The Pentagon's official inventory does include the two FOSes: Ascension Island and the crown jewel of Washington's African bases, Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, which expanded from 88 acres in the early 2000s to nearly 600 acres today. The Base Structure Report is, however, missing a CSL in that same country, Chabelley Airfield, a lower-profile outpost located about 10 kilometers away that has served as a drone hub for operations in Africa and the Middle East.
The official Pentagon tally also mentions a site that goes by the confusing moniker of "NSA Bahrain-Kenya." AFRICOM had previously described it as a collection of warehouses built in the 1980s at the airport and seaport of Mombasa, Kenya, but it now appears on that command's 2018 list as a CSL. Missing, however, is another Kenyan base, Camp Simba, mentioned in a 2013 internal Pentagon study of secret drone operations in Somalia and Yemen. At least two manned surveillance aircraft were based there at the time. Simba, a longtime Navy-run facility, is currently operated by the Air Force's 475th Expeditionary Air Base Squadron, part of the 435th Air Expeditionary Wing.
Personnel from that same air wing can be found at yet another outpost that doesn't appear in the Base Structure Report, this one on the opposite side of the continent. The BSR states that it doesn't list specific information on "non-U.S. locations" not at least 10 acres in size or worth at least $10 million. However, the base in question — Air Base 201 in Agadez, Niger — already has a $100 million construction price tag, a sum soon to be eclipsed by the cost of operating the facility: about $30 million a year. By 2024, when the present 10-year agreement for use of the base ends, its construction and operating costs will have reached about $280 million.
Also missing from the BSR are outposts in nearby Cameroon, including a longtime base in Douala, a drone airfield in the remote town of Garoua, and a facility known as Salak. That site, according to a 2017 investigation by the Intercept, the research firm Forensic Architecture, and Amnesty International, has been used by U.S. personnel and private contractors for drone surveillance and training missions and by allied Cameroonian forces for illegal imprisonment and torture.
According to Vine, keeping America's African bases secret is advantageous to Washington. It protects allies on that continent from possible domestic opposition to the presence of American troops, he points out, while helping to ensure that there will be no domestic debate in the U.S. over such spending and the military commitments involved. "It's important for U.S. citizens to know where their troops are based in Africa and elsewhere around the world," he told TomDispatch, "because that troop presence costs the U.S. billions of dollars every year and because the U.S. is involved, or potentially involved, in wars and conflicts that could spiral out of control."
Those Missing Bases
Africa is hardly the only place where the Pentagon's official list doesn't match up well with reality. For close to two decades, the Base Structure Report has ignored bases of all sorts in America's active war zones. At the height of the American occupation of Iraq, for instance, the United States had 505 bases there, ranging from small outposts to mega-sized facilities. None appeared on the Pentagon's official rolls.
In Afghanistan, the numbers were even higher. As TomDispatch reported in 2012, the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had about 550 bases in that country. If you had added ISAF checkpoints — small baselets used to secure roads and villages — to the count of mega-bases, forward operating bases, combat outposts, and patrol bases, the number reached an astounding 750. And counting all foreign military installations of every type — including logistical, administrative, and support facilities — hiked ISAF Joint Command's official count to 1,500 sites. America's significant share of them was, however, also mysteriously absent from the Defense Department's official tally.
There are now far fewer such facilities in Afghanistan — and the numbers may drop further in the months ahead as troop levels decrease. But the existence of Camp Morehead, Forward Operating Base Fenty, Tarin Kowt Airfield, Camp Dahlke West, and Bost Airfield, as well as Camp Shorab, a small installation occupying what was once the site of much larger twin bases known as Camp Leatherneck and Camp Bastion, is indisputable. Yet none of them has ever appeared in the Base Structure Report.
Similarly, while there are no longer 500-plus U.S. bases in Iraq, in recent years, as American troops returned to that country, some garrisons have either been reconstituted or built from scratch. These include the Besmaya Range Complex, Firebase Sakheem, Firebase Um Jorais, and Al Asad Air Base, as well as Qayyarah Airfield West — a base 40 miles south of Mosul that's better known as "Q-West." Again, you won't find any of them listed in the Pentagon's official count.
These days, it's even difficult to obtain accurate manpower numbers for the military personnel in America's war zones, let alone the number of bases in each of them. As Vine explains, "The military keeps the figures secret to some extent to hide the base presence from its adversaries. Because it is probably not hard to spot these bases in places like Syria and Iraq, however, the secrecy is mostly to prevent domestic debate about the money, danger, and death involved, as well as to avoid diplomatic tensions and international inquiries."
If stifling domestic debate through information control is the Pentagon's aim, it's been doing a fine job for years of deflecting questions about its global posture, or what the late TomDispatch regular Chalmers Johnson called America's "empire of bases."
In mid-October, TomDispatch asked Heather Babb, another Pentagon spokesperson, for details about the outposts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria that were absent from the Base Structure Report, as well as about those missing African bases. Among the other questions put to Babb: Could the Pentagon offer a simple count — if not a list — of all its outposts? Did it have a true count of overseas facilities, even if it hadn't been released to the public — a list, that is, which actually did what the Base Structure Report only purports to do? October and November passed without answers.
In December, in response to follow-up requests for information, Babb responded in a fashion firmly in line with the Pentagon's well-worn policy of keeping American taxpayers in the dark about the bases they pay for — no matter the theoretical difficulty of denying the existence of outposts that stretch from Agadez in Niger to Mosul in Iraq. "I have nothing to add," she explained, "to the information and criteria that is included in the report."
President Trump's decision to withdraw American troops from Syria means that the 2019 Base Structure Report will likely be the most accurate in years. For the first time since 2015, the Pentagon's inventory of outposts will no longer be missing the al-Tanf garrison (or then again, maybe it will). But that still potentially leaves hundreds of off-the-books bases absent from the official rolls. Consider it one outpost down and who knows how many to go.
Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch and a contributing writer for the Intercept. His latest book is Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan. His website is NickTurse.com.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Copyright 2019 Nick Turse
Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch and a fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author most recently of Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan and of the bestselling Kill Anything That Moves.


text:
package org.thingsboard.server.service.queue;

import lombok.Getter;
import lombok.extern.slf4j.Slf4j;
import org.thingsboard.server.common.data.id.RuleNodeId;
import org.thingsboard.server.common.data.id.TenantId;
import org.thingsboard.server.common.msg.queue.RuleEngineException;
import org.thingsboard.server.common.msg.queue.RuleNodeInfo;
import org.thingsboard.server.gen.transport.TransportProtos;
import org.thingsboard.server.queue.common.TbProtoQueueMsg;
import org.thingsboard.server.service.queue.processing.TbRuleEngineSubmitStrategy;

import java.util.Comparator;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.UUID;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentMap;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;

@Slf4j
public class TbMsgPackProcessingContext {

    private final String queueName;
    private final TbRuleEngineSubmitStrategy submitStrategy;
    private final boolean skipTimeoutMsgsPossible;
    @Getter
    private final boolean profilerEnabled;
    private final AtomicInteger pendingCount;
    private final CountDownLatch processingTimeoutLatch = new CountDownLatch(1);
    @Getter
    private final ConcurrentMap<UUID, TbProtoQueueMsg<TransportProtos.ToRuleEngineMsg>> pendingMap;
    @Getter
    private final ConcurrentMap<UUID, TbProtoQueueMsg<TransportProtos.ToRuleEngineMsg>> successMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
    @Getter
    private final ConcurrentMap<UUID, TbProtoQueueMsg<TransportProtos.ToRuleEngineMsg>> failedMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
    @Getter
    private final ConcurrentMap<TenantId, RuleEngineException> exceptionsMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();

    private final ConcurrentMap<UUID, RuleNodeInfo> lastRuleNodeMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();

    private volatile boolean canceled = false;

    public TbMsgPackProcessingContext(String queueName, TbRuleEngineSubmitStrategy submitStrategy, boolean skipTimeoutMsgsPossible) {
        this.queueName = queueName;
        this.submitStrategy = submitStrategy;
        this.skipTimeoutMsgsPossible = skipTimeoutMsgsPossible;
        this.profilerEnabled = log.isDebugEnabled();
        this.pendingMap = submitStrategy.getPendingMap();
        this.pendingCount = new AtomicInteger(pendingMap.size());
    }

    public boolean await(long packProcessingTimeout, TimeUnit milliseconds) throws InterruptedException {
        boolean success = processingTimeoutLatch.await(packProcessingTimeout, milliseconds);
        if (!success && profilerEnabled) {
            msgProfilerMap.values().forEach(this::onTimeout);
        }
        return success;
    }

    public void onSuccess(UUID id) {
        TbProtoQueueMsg<TransportProtos.ToRuleEngineMsg> msg;
        boolean empty = false;
        msg = pendingMap.remove(id);
        if (msg != null) {
            empty = pendingCount.decrementAndGet() == 0;
            successMap.put(id, msg);
            submitStrategy.onSuccess(id);
        }
        if (empty) {
            processingTimeoutLatch.countDown();
        }
    }

    public void onFailure(TenantId tenantId, UUID id, RuleEngineException e) {
        TbProtoQueueMsg<TransportProtos.ToRuleEngineMsg> msg;
        boolean empty = false;
        msg = pendingMap.remove(id);
        if (msg != null) {
            empty = pendingCount.decrementAndGet() == 0;
            failedMap.put(id, msg);
            exceptionsMap.putIfAbsent(tenantId, e);
        }
        if (empty) {
            processingTimeoutLatch.countDown();
        }
    }

    private final ConcurrentHashMap<UUID, TbMsgProfilerInfo> msgProfilerMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
    private final ConcurrentHashMap<UUID, TbRuleNodeProfilerInfo> ruleNodeProfilerMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();

    public void onProcessingStart(UUID id, RuleNodeInfo ruleNodeInfo) {
        lastRuleNodeMap.put(id, ruleNodeInfo);
        if (profilerEnabled) {
            msgProfilerMap.computeIfAbsent(id, TbMsgProfilerInfo::new).onStart(ruleNodeInfo.getRuleNodeId());
            ruleNodeProfilerMap.putIfAbsent(ruleNodeInfo.getRuleNodeId().getId(), new TbRuleNodeProfilerInfo(ruleNodeInfo));
        }
    }

    public void onProcessingEnd(UUID id, RuleNodeId ruleNodeId) {
        if (profilerEnabled) {
            long processingTime = msgProfilerMap.computeIfAbsent(id, TbMsgProfilerInfo::new).onEnd(ruleNodeId);
            if (processingTime > 0) {
                ruleNodeProfilerMap.computeIfAbsent(ruleNodeId.getId(), TbRuleNodeProfilerInfo::new).record(processingTime);
            }
        }
    }

    public void onTimeout(TbMsgProfilerInfo profilerInfo) {
        Map.Entry<UUID, Long> ruleNodeInfo = profilerInfo.onTimeout();
        if (ruleNodeInfo != null) {
            ruleNodeProfilerMap.computeIfAbsent(ruleNodeInfo.getKey(), TbRuleNodeProfilerInfo::new).record(ruleNodeInfo.getValue());
        }
    }

    public RuleNodeInfo getLastVisitedRuleNode(UUID id) {
        return lastRuleNodeMap.get(id);
    }

    public void printProfilerStats() {
        if (profilerEnabled) {
            log.debug("Top Rule Nodes by max execution time:");
            ruleNodeProfilerMap.values().stream()
                    .sorted(Comparator.comparingLong(TbRuleNodeProfilerInfo::getMaxExecutionTime).reversed()).limit(5)
                    .forEach(info -> log.debug("[{}][{}] max execution time: {}. {}", queueName, info.getRuleNodeId(), info.getMaxExecutionTime(), info.getLabel()));

            log.info("Top Rule Nodes by avg execution time:");
            ruleNodeProfilerMap.values().stream()
                    .sorted(Comparator.comparingDouble(TbRuleNodeProfilerInfo::getAvgExecutionTime).reversed()).limit(5)
                    .forEach(info -> log.info("[{}][{}] avg execution time: {}. {}", queueName, info.getRuleNodeId(), info.getAvgExecutionTime(), info.getLabel()));

            log.info("Top Rule Nodes by execution count:");
            ruleNodeProfilerMap.values().stream()
                    .sorted(Comparator.comparingInt(TbRuleNodeProfilerInfo::getExecutionCount).reversed()).limit(5)
                    .forEach(info -> log.info("[{}][{}] execution count: {}. {}", queueName, info.getRuleNodeId(), info.getExecutionCount(), info.getLabel()));
        }
    }

    public void cleanup() {
        canceled = true;
        pendingMap.clear();
        successMap.clear();
        failedMap.clear();
    }

    public boolean isCanceled() {
        return skipTimeoutMsgsPossible && canceled;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
St Martin's Homepage
Books Books menu
Childrens Childrens menu
All Childrens
Gifts Gifts menu
Jumbo by Alexandra Stewart
Click here for Shipping details
Roll up! Roll up! And meet the incredible, the colossal, the world-famous ... JUMBO!Our story begins in 1860, in the mountains of East Africa, where a baby elephant struggles to his feet and takes his first shaky steps ... This is the deeply touching story of an elephant who captured the world's imagination, brought beautifully to life with enchanting storytelling and gorgeous artwork.
Follow Jumbo's amazing journey from his remote home in the rugged mountains of East Africa and the time he spent delighting visitors with elephant rides and comedy routines at London Zoo. Be amazed by his spectacular stint in P.T. Barnum's 'Greatest Show on Earth' and how he led a herd of elephants across the newly-built Brooklyn Bridge to test its strength.
Discover how Jumbo's remarkable life and legacy transformed our understanding and treatment of these magnificent creatures. With a page-turning narrative by Alexandra Stewart and breathtakingly beautiful artwork by Emily Sutton, the true story of Jumbo's incredible life will fascinate young and old alike.
Suitable for: Children from age of 6.
Every purchase you make contributes to St Martin's and the work we do.
Copyright © 2023, St Martin-in-the-Fields.
Spend another £30.00 for free shipping

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
By clicking "Accept," you agree to the storing of first- and third-party cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
Anna Karina, Radiant Actress and Jean-Luc Godard Muse, Dies at 79
Anna Karina in 1965's 'Pierrot le Fou,' directed by Jean-Luc Godard
Pathé Contemporary Films/Photofest
3:45 AM PST 12/15/2019 by Jordan Mintzer
She starred for her then-husband in such 1960s French classics as 'A Woman Is a Woman,' 'Pierrot le Fou' and 'Alphaville.'
Anna Karina, the French New Wave starlet who rose to international acclaim in films directed by her then-husband Jean-Luc Godard, has died. She was 79.
Karina died Saturday at 2:38 p.m. in Paris of cancer, her agent, Laurent Balandras, told The Hollywood Reporter. Her husband, Dennis Berry, was by her side.
She and Godard were married from 1961 to 1964, and she served as his muse in such memorable works as A Woman Is a Woman (1961) — for which she received a Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival — Vivre sa vie (1962), Band of Outsiders (1964), Pierrot le Fou (1965) and Alphaville (1965).
The actress' productive career was not limited to the movies of Godard, however. Karina accumulated more than 50 feature credits, working with other major auteurs like Jacques Rivette, Luchino Visconti, Chris Marker, Volker Schlöndorff and Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
She also headlined a number of English-language productions, including Guy Green's The Magus (1968), J. Lee Thompson's Before Winter Comes (1968), George Cukor's Justine (1969), Tony Richardson's Laughter in the Dark (1969) and Jean-Yves Prate's Regina Roma (1982), in which she starred alongside Anthony Quinn and Ava Gardner.
A former fashion model and actress in commercials, Karina had a side career as a French pop chanteuse, releasing two singles and an album for the 1967 musical Anna, with songs composed by Serge Gainsbourg. She released another album, Une histoire d'amour, in 1999, as well as two musical adaptations of classic stories by Hans Christian Andersen.
Born Hanne-Karine Blarke Bayer in Copenhagen in 1940, Karina was raised by her grandparents and her mother, who ran a clothing store. She began modeling at age 15 for Danish fashion magazines and was an extra on a few dozen movies.
When she was just shy of 18, Karina decided to try her luck in Paris. She was soon discovered by a modeling scout and began posing for such French fashion magazines as Elle and Marie Claire while also being featured in ads for Palmolive, Pepsodent and Coca-Cola.
It was during a run-in with Coco Chanel in 1958 that Hanne-Karine changed her name to Anna Karina, which the fashion designer told her sounded better. She used the moniker for her movie career, which began in earnest in 1961 with A Woman Is a Woman — just Godard's second feature to be released — and lasted until 2008 with Victoria, a road movie she directed as well as starred in.
The initial encounter between Godard, the enfant terrible of the French New Wave who was about to make his 1960 breakthrough masterpiece Breathless, and the young and unknown Danish model-actress did not go smoothly. It would serve as a preview of the fiery professional and personal relationship the two would have over the next six years.
Godard saw Karina in a commercial and tried to cast her for a small role in Breathless. When he told her she would have to take her clothes off in front of the camera, she walked off the project, telling her friends that he was nothing more than a thug.
Still, the director went after her again, offering her the lead in Le Petit Soldat (made in 1960 but not released until 1963), in which she played a young heroine, Veronica Dreyer, who falls for an undercover French agent (Michel Subor) in Geneva during the Algerian War.
Known for his orneriness on the set, Godard nearly brought Karina to tears when shooting one of the film's best sequences, where she is interrogated by her lover and subjected to an impromptu photo seance. The production of Le Petit Soldat lasted for two months and was beset with problems, yet by the end of it, Godard and Karina had fallen in love.
The two married in March 1961, with a first ceremony taking place in Switzerland and a second one in Paris that was attended by a who's who of French cinema at the time: François Truffaut, Agnès Varda, Jacques Demy, Jean-Pierre Melville, Jacques Rivette and Godard producer Georges de Beauregard. The wedding photos made the cover of the tabloid Paris Match under the headline "The New Wave Bride."
But their euphoria was short-lived. Karina, who was already pregnant at the time, lost the baby a few months later and became sterile. The remainder of their marriage was marked by an intense cinematic collaboration and a highly contemptuous offscreen relationship filled with reports of bitter disputes and extramarital affairs.
Still, some of their greatest work was done during that period: the deconstructed musical comedy A Woman Is a Woman, co-starring Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean-Claude Brialy; the stark black-and-white street drama Vivre sa vie, where Karina lights up the screen as a Paris prostitute; the tragic political pop thriller Pierrot le Fou, also with Belmondo; and the experimental sci-fi flick Alphaville.
The Godard-Karina alliance often has been compared to history's other major collaborations between filmmakers and actresses — Josef von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich; Ingmar Bergman and Harriet Andersson; Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth; and Roberto Rossellini and Ingrid Bergman, among them. The Nouvelle Vague couple was one of the more prolific of the bunch, making seven features and a short during their brief time together.
Karina branched out to other directors and countries, working with Roger Vadim (1964's La Ronde), Rivette (1966's The Nun) and Michel Deville (1966's Tender Sharks) in France; Valerio Zurlini (1965's The Camp Followers) and Visconti (1967's The Stranger) in Italy; and Schlöndorff (1969's Michael Kohlhaas) and Fassbinder (1976's Chinese Roulette) in Germany.
In 1967, she released the hit singles "Roller Girl" and "Sous le soleil exactement," both written by Gainsbourg for Pierre Koralnik's Anna, which was broadcast on French television that year. Karina would continue to work as a singer in the decades that followed, performing live and releasing a second album.
After Godard, she was married to actor Pierre Fabre, actor-director Daniel Duval and writer-director Berry, who would cast her in his features Last Song (1987) and Chloé (1996), the latter alongside a young Marion Cotillard.
More than two decades after her divorce from Godard, Karina was thrown into a surprise reunion with him on a 1987 episode of the French talk show Lunettes noires pour nuits blanches, hosted by Thierry Ardisson. Obviously caught off-guard, she froze and broke out into tears, walking off the set before returning a few minutes later to have Godard tell her, "You don't come on TV to cry."
In 2017, Karina was crowned Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. Speaking with Filmmaker magazine a year earlier, she reflected on what it was like to work with Godard, who was 10 years her senior, in the heyday of the French New Wave.
"Things have changed," she said. "But at the time, if you were a woman, you didn't really have a voice. If you were a woman it was just, 'Be beautiful and shut up.'"
Rhett Bartlett contributed to this report.
SEE MOREHollywood's Notable Deaths of 2019
Kristen Stewart Thriller 'Underwater' Hopes to Build Mystery in Its Marketing
JANUARY 9, 2020 10:23PM PST by Chris Thilk
It's not until viewers get to some of the new TV ads that any real look is given of the monsters that are terrorizing the story's protagonists, and even then they're mostly in the shadows.
Predicting This Year's Oscar Nominations Using Just Math
'Parasite' HBO Limited Series in the Works From Bong Joon Ho, Adam McKay
Lisa Vanderpump, Inc.: The Art of Leveraging Reality TV and Growing a Modern Hollywood Empire
Movies TV Business Style Tech
© 2020 The Hollywood Reporter. All Rights Reserved.
Terms | Privacy | Sitemap | About Our Ads


text:
Das 5. Arrondissement ist eines der neun Arrondissements von Lyon (Stadtbezirk). Es umfasst den Hügel des Fourvière und Vieux Lyon.

Das Arrondissement liegt im Nordwesten des Stadtgebiets von Lyon. Es wird im Osten von der Saône begrenzt. Im Norden grenzt es an das 9. Arrondissement, im Nordosten an das 1. Arrondissement, im Südosten an das 2. Arrondissement, im Süden an Sainte-Foy-lès-Lyon, im Südwesten an Francheville und im Westen an Tassin-la-Demi-Lune.

Geschichte

Das 5. Arrondissement ist eines der fünf, die durch Präsidialdekret vom 24. März 1852 geschaffen wurden. Das 5. Arrondissement ist das historische Herz von Lyon: 43 v. Chr. gründete Munatius Plancus auf dem Fourvière die römische Kolonie Lugdunum. Hier, im 5. Arrondissement, erblüte das römische und mittelalterliche Lyon ehe die Saône überschritten wurde.

Man kann den historischen Ursprung von Lyon auf einem touristischen Umlauf sehr schön entdecken: Hinter Alt-Lyon und dem Fourvière gibt es die Wohnviertel Point-duJour, Champvert, Ménival, Saint-Irénée, die zwar weniger bekannt sind jedoch die Spuren der historischen, römischen Vergangenheit zeigen.

Durch das Dekret vom 1. August 1963 wurde die Gemeinde Saint-Rambert-l'Île-Barbe dem 5. Arrondissement zugeordnet. Im folgenden Jahr wurde das Arrondissement geteilt und der Nordteil zum 9. Arrondissement (Dekret vom 12. August 1964).

Demographie

Im Jahr 2013 betrug die Bevölkerungsdichte 7.485 Einw./km².

Geografie und Einrichtungen
Das 5. Arrondissement bedeckt eine Fläche von 6,2 km²

Stadtviertel

Es besteht aus folgenden Stadtvierteln ():
 Vieux Lyon (Altstadt, UNESCO-Welterbe)
 Saint-Georges
 Saint-Jean
 Saint-Paul
 Fourvière
 Saint-Just
 Saint-Irénée
 Le Point du Jour
 Champvert
 Ménival

Bauwerke
 Kathedrale von Lyon
 Église Saint-Georges
 Notre-Dame de Fourvière
 Église Saint-Paul
 Église Saint-Just
 Église Saint-Irénée
 Théâtre antique de Fourvière
 Odéon antique de Fourvière
 Tour métallique de Fourvière
 Loge du Change
 La Tour Rose
 La galerie Philibert Delorme
 Musées Gadagne
 Maison Pauline Jaricot
 Palais de justice historique de Lyon (Cour d'appel de Lyon)
 Château de Ménival

Kunst
Im 5. Arrondissement wurde im 19. Jahrhundert, die berühmte Figur Guignol von Laurent Mourguet erfunden. Die Dekoration für seine Stücke fand er am Platz Trinité am Ende der Straße Aufstieg Gourguillon.

Straßen, Plätze, Grünflächen
Es gibt drei Hauptachsen:
 Das Fourvière-Tunnel ist bekannt für seine enorme Verkehrsstaus.
 Das Saône-Ufer entlang längs dem Stadtteil Vieux Lyon
 Die Durchgangsstraße Ost-West, die morgens und abends normalerweise verstopft ist.

Das 5. Arrondissement ist die notwendige Durchfahrt für die Pendler vom Lyoner Westen, wenn sie zur Arbeit ins Zentrum fahren. Die wichtigsten Passagen sind: Der Aufstieg von Choulans (montée de Ch.) und die Avenue 1er DFL, Avenue Barthélemy Buyer, Aufstieg zum Chemin Neuf, Avenue Point-du-Jour, Rue Joliot-Curie.

Die Straßen in Vieux Lyon sind für Fußgänger und für die Anwohner (Zufahrt, Parkplatz) reserviert, fallen also für den Durchgangsverkehr aus.

In Vieux Lyon gibt es zahlreiche Plätze: Platz Saint-Paul, Platz Change, Platz Gouvernement, Platz Baleine, Platz Saint-Jean, Platz Trinité, Platz Saint Georges, Platz Crepu. Im übrigen Teil des Arrondissements gibt es noch folgende erwähnenswerte Plätze: Platz Fourvière und die daran anschließende Vorplatz, Platz Abbé Larue, Platz Saint-Irénée, Platz Bénédict Teissier, ...

Dieses Arrondissement ist zweifelsohne das mit den meisten Grünflächen von Lyon. Es gibt zahlreiche Parks, von denen hier die wichtigsten genannt sein sollen:
 Park der Höhen, gelegen zwischen dem Friedhof Loyasse und dem Tour métallique de Fourvière
 Der Rosenpark, der die Altstadt mit der Notre-Dame de Fourvière verbindet.
 Der Park am Rathaus des 5. Arrondissement im Viertel Point-du-Jour.
 Der Park der Garde, zwischen der Rue de la Garde und den Aquädukten; der Park umfasst 12 Ha und ist jüngst neu angelegt worden.
 Der Fußweg Champvert mit 1,5 km entlang der Avenue Barthélémy Buyer. Es handelt sich um die ehemalige Gleisanlage der Eisenbahnlinie Saint-Just - Vaugneray.
 Der Park Champvert, der an den Fußweg anschließt, der zu einer Jugendstilvilla führt.

Das Viertel ist weiterhin durch viele Grünflächen, Plätzchen und Gärten aufgelockert.

Verkehrsanbindung

 Métro Lyon D, Station: Vieux Lyon - Cathédrale Saint-Jean
 Standseilbahnen in Lyon 1, Stationen: Vieux Lyon - Cathédrale Saint-Jean, Minimes - Théâtres Romains, Saint-Just
 Standseilbahnen in Lyon 2, Stationen: Vieux Lyon - Cathédrale Saint-Jean, Fourvière

Verwaltung

Weblinks

 Seite des 5. Arrondissement

5

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Title: Henry L. Stimson
Subject: Jacob M. Dickinson, William Howard Taft, Frank B. Kellogg, Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, United States Secretary of War
Collection: 1867 Births, 1950 Deaths, American Colonial Period of the Philippines, American Expatriates in the Philippines, American People of World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration Cabinet Members, Governors-General of the Philippines, Harvard Law School Alumni, Hoover Administration Cabinet Members, New York Lawyers, New York Republicans, People from Huntington, New York, Phillips Academy Alumni, Presidents of the New York City Bar Association, Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States), Taft Administration Cabinet Members, Truman Administration Cabinet Members, United States Army Officers, United States Attorneys for the Southern District of New York, United States Secretaries of State, United States Secretaries of War
45th United States Secretary of War
May 22, 1911 – March 4, 1913
Robert Shaw Oliver
Jacob M. Dickinson
Lindley M. Garrison
Governor-General of the Philippines
December 27, 1927 – February 23, 1929
Appointed by
Eugene Allen Gilmore
Leonard Wood
(acting)
46th United States Secretary of State
March 28, 1929 – March 4, 1933
Joseph P. Cotton
William R. Castle, Jr.
July 10, 1940 – September 21, 1945
Robert P. Patterson
John J. McCloy (1941–1945)
Harry Hines Woodring
Henry Lewis Stimson
(1867-09-21)September 21, 1867
October 20, 1950(1950-10-20) (aged 83)
Huntington, New York, United States
St. John Church,
Cold Spring Harbor, New York, United States
Mabel Wellington White Stimson
Lewis Atterbury Stimson (surgeon)
Candace Wheeler Stimson
Yale College
Lawyer, Diplomat, Administrator
Henry Lewis Stimson (September 21, 1867 – October 20, 1950) was an American statesman, lawyer and Republican Party politician and spokesman on foreign policy. He served as Secretary of War (1911–1913) under Republican William Howard Taft, and as Governor-General of the Philippines (1927–1929). As Secretary of State (1929–1933) under Republican President Herbert Hoover, he articulated the Stimson Doctrine which announced American opposition to Japanese expansion in Asia. He again served as Secretary of War (1940–1945) under Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, and was a leading hawk calling for war against Germany. During World War II he took charge of raising and training 13 million soldiers and airmen, supervised the spending of a third of the nation's GDP on the Army and the Air Forces, helped formulate military strategy, and oversaw the building and use of the atomic bomb.
Early career 1
Secretary of War (1st term) 2
World War I 3
Nicaragua and Philippines 4
Secretary of State 5
Secretary of War (2nd term) 6
Japanese American internment 6.1
General Patton 6.2
Morgenthau Plan 6.3
Atomic bomb 6.4
Stimson's vision 6.5
Later years and death 7
Recognition and honors 8
In popular culture 9
See also 10
Primary sources 12.1
Stimson aged 10, with Mimi the cat.
Stimson as a young lawyer.
Stimson was born in
American people of World War II
Governors-General of the Philippines
Harvard Law School alumni
Phillips Academy alumni
Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States)
United States Attorneys for the Southern District of New York
United States Secretaries of State
United States Secretaries of War
American expatriates in the Philippines
American colonial period of the Philippines
New York Republicans
United States Army officers
Presidents of the New York City Bar Association
Truman Administration cabinet members
Taft administration cabinet members
Franklin D. Roosevelt administration cabinet members
Hoover administration cabinet members
People from Huntington, New York
Cabinet of President Harry S. Truman (1945–53)
None (1945–49)
Alben W. Barkley (1949–53)
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (1945)
James F. Byrnes (1945–47)
George C. Marshall (1947–49)
Dean G. Acheson (1949–53)
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (1945)
Fred M. Vinson (1945–46)
John W. Snyder (1946–53)
Secretary of War
Henry L. Stimson (1945)
Robert P. Patterson (1945–47)
Kenneth C. Royall (1947)
James V. Forrestal (1947–49)
Louis A. Johnson (1949–50)
Robert A. Lovett (1951–53)
Francis B. Biddle (1945)
Tom C. Clark (1945–49)
J. Howard McGrath (1949–52)
James P. McGranery (1952–53)
Frank C. Walker (1945)
Robert E. Hannegan (1945–47)
Jesse Monroe Donaldson (1947–53)
Harold L. Ickes (1945–46)
Julius A. Krug (1946–49)
Oscar Littleton Chapman (1949–53)
Claude Raymond Wickard (1945)
Clinton P. Anderson (1945–48)
Charles F. Brannan (1948–53)
Henry A. Wallace (1945–46)
W. Averell Harriman (1946–48)
Charles Sawyer (1948–53)
Frances Perkins (1945)
Lewis B. Schwellenbach (1945–48)
Maurice J. Tobin (1948–53)
Cabinet of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45)
John N. Garner (1933–41)
Harry S. Truman (1945)
Cordell Hull (1933–44)
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. (1944–45)
William Hartman Woodin (1933–34)
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (1934–45)
George H. Dern (1933–36)
Harry H. Woodring (1936–40)
Henry L. Stimson (1940–45)
Homer S. Cummings (1933–39)
Frank Murphy (1939–40)
Robert H. Jackson (1940–41)
Francis B. Biddle (1941–45)
James A. Farley (1933–40)
Frank C. Walker (1940–45)
Claude A. Swanson (1933–39)
Charles Edison (1940)
Frank Knox (1940–44)
Claude Raymond Wickard (1940–45)
Daniel C. Roper (1933–38)
Harry L. Hopkins (1938–40)
Jesse H. Jones (1940–45)
Henry A. Wallace (1945)
Frances Perkins (1933–45)
Black Cabinet
Cabinet of President Herbert Hoover (1929–33)
Charles Curtis (1929–33)
Frank B. Kellogg (1929)
Andrew W. Mellon (1929–32)
Ogden L. Mills (1932–33)
James W. Good (1929)
Patrick J. Hurley (1929–33)
William DeWitt Mitchell (1929–33)
Walter F. Brown (1929–33)
Charles F. Adams, III (1929–33)
Ray Lyman Wilbur (1929–33)
Arthur M. Hyde (1929–33)
Robert P. Lamont (1929–32)
Roy D. Chapin (1932–33)
James J. Davis (1929–30)
William N. Doak (1930–33)
Cabinet of President William Howard Taft (1909–13)
Philander C. Knox (1909–13)
Franklin MacVeagh (1909–13)
Jacob M. Dickinson (1909–11)
George W. Wickersham (1909–13)
Frank H. Hitchcock (1909–13)
George von L. Meyer (1909–13)
Richard A. Ballinger (1909–11)
Walter L. Fisher (1911–13)
James Wilson (1909–13)
Secretary of Commerce and Labor
Charles Nagel (1909–13)
American Governors-General of the Philippines
Military Government
Insular Government
Yeater
Stimson
Smallcaps indicate military governors
Italics indicate acting governors
U.S. Secretaries of War and the Army
U.S. Department
of War
B. Lincoln
W. Crawford
P. Porter
Poinsett
J. Porter
G. Crawford
J. Davis
S. Cameron
A. Taft
J. Cameron
R. Lincoln
W. Taft
Woodring
Assistant Secretaries
Meiklejohn
Breckinridge
Ingraham
MacNider
McCloy
of the Army
Brucker
Stahr
Froehlke
C. Alexander
Geren
McHugh
Under Secretaries
A. Alexander
Bendetsen
E. Johnson
Slezak
Finucane
McGiffert
BeLieu
LaBerge
Rostker
Secretary of Foreign Affairs
R. Livingston
J. Marshall
E. Livingston
Washburne
Frelinghuysen
Stettinius
G. Marshall
Herter
Eagleburger
Albright
Rice (tenure)
Clinton (tenure)
Kerry (tenure)
Party political offices
Charles Evans Hughes Republican Nominee for Governor of New York
Job Hedges
Jacob M. Dickinson U.S. Secretary of War
Served under: William Howard Taft
Eugene Allen Gilmore Governor-General of the Philippines
Frank B. Kellogg U.S. Secretary of State
Served under: Herbert Hoover
Harry H. Woodring U.S. Secretary of War
Served under: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman
Obituary, New York Times, October 21, 1950
Henry Stimson Center
Annotated bibliography for Henry Stimson from the Alsos Digital LIbrary
Sherman Genealogy Including Families of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, England By Thomas Townsend Sherman
Burial site of Henry L. Stimson at Find A Grave
verbatim copy of "Stimson Diary" entries regarding Atomic Bomb, Dec 1944 to Sept 1945
Stimson, Henry and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War. (1948) (memoirs)
Bonnett, John. "Jekyll and Hyde: Henry L. Stimson, Mentalite, and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan." War in History 1997 4(2): 174-212. Issn: 0968-3445 Fulltext: Ebsco
Gerber, Larry G. "Stimson, Henry Lewis"; American National Biography Online February 2000.
Gerber, Larry G. The Limits of Liberalism: Josephus Daniels, Henry Stimson, Bernard Baruch, Donald Richberg, Felix Frankfurter and the Development of the Modern American Political Economy (1983).
Hodgson, Godfrey. The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson, 1867-1950 (1990). popular biography
Jordan, Jonathan W., American Warlords: How Roosevelt's High Command Led America to Victory in World War II (NAL/Caliber 2015).
Malloy, Sean L. Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan (2008)
Morison, Elting E. Turmoil and Tradition: A Study of the Life and Times of Henry L. Stimson (1960), scholarly biography
Newman, Robert P. "Hiroshima and the Trashing of Henry Stimson" The New England Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 5–32 in JSTOR
Schmitz, David F. Henry L. Stimson: The First Wise Man (2000)
^ see Malloy, Ch. 1, "The Education of Henry L. Stimson"
^ David F. Schmitz, Henry L. Stimson: the first wise man (2001) pp 39-41
^ Richard N. Current, "How Stimson Meant to 'Maneuver' the Japanese," Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jun., 1953), pp. 67-74 in JSTOR
^ Herman, Arthur. Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II, pp. 83-4, 90, 94, 112-15, 121, 125-6, 139, 141, Random House, New York, NY, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4000-6964-4.
^ Kieth Eiler, Mobilizing America: Robert P. Patterson and the War Effort (Cornell U.P. 1997)
^ Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made: Acheson, Bohlen, Harriman, Kennan, Lovett, and McCloy (1986)
^ Hodgson, Godfrey. The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson, 1867-1950 (New York: Knopf, 1990), p 259.
^ Atkinson, Rick, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy 1943-1944, New York: Henry Holt & Co., ISBN 978-0-8050-8861-8 (2007), p. 147.
^ Carlo D'Este, Patton: A Genius For War, New York: HarperCollins, ISBN 0-06-016455-7 (1995), p. 536
^ D'Este, Patton: A Genius For War, p. 543
^ Arnold A. Offner, "Research on American-German Relations: A Critical View" in Joseph McVeigh and Frank Trommler, eds. America and the Germans: An Assessment of a Three-Hundred-Year History (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990) v2 p. 176; see also Michael R. Beschloss, The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1941-1945 (2002)
^ Sean Malloy, Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan The Manhattan Project, Department of Energy at mbe.doe.gov]
^ HyperHistory.net http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4stimson-henrylewis.htm Dec. 22, 2009. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
^ for "revisionists" who reject use of the bomb, see Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1996) and
^ Henry L. Stimson, On Active Services in Peace and War (1948) p. 636
^ Michael Kort, The Columbia guide to Hiroshima and the bomb (2007) p. 179
^ See Bonnett, John. "Jekyll and Hyde: Henry L. Stimson, Mentalite, and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan." War in History 1997 4(2): 174-212. Issn: 0968-3445 Fulltext: Ebsco
^ McGeorge Bundy, Danger and Survival: Choices about the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (1988)
^ Robert P. Newman, "Hiroshima and the Trashing of Henry Stimson" The New England Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 5-32 in JSTOR
List of U.S. political appointments that crossed party lines
In the alternate history short story "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" by Lawrence Watt-Evans contained in Alternate Presidents, Stimson succeeded Hoover as President in 1936, defeating Roosevelt. He once again defeated Roosevelt in 1940.
Stimson has been portrayed in nearly a dozen movies and television shows about World War II and its aftermath, including Truman (1995), Truman at Potsdam (1995), Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), Day One (1989), War and Remembrance (1988), Race for the Bomb (1987), Churchill and the Generals (1981), Oppenheimer (1980), Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970), and The Beginning or the End (1947).[36]
Stimson is also commemorated by the New York City Bar Association, where he served as President from 1937 to 1939, with the Henry L. Stimson Medal. The medal is awarded annually to outstanding Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
Stimson's name graces the Henry L. Stimson Middle School in Huntington Station, Long Island; a residential building on the campus of Stony Brook University; as well as a dorm at his alma mater Phillips Academy.
The Benjamin Franklin-class ballistic missile submarine USS Henry L. Stimson (SSBN-655) was commissioned in 1966.
The Henry L. Stimson Center, a private research institute in Washington, DC, advocates what it says is Stimson's "practical, non-partisan approach" to international relations.[35]
Mount Stimson in Montana's Glacier National Park is named after Stimson, who in the 1890s hiked and assisted George Bird Grinnell in surveying the area and later supported creating the park.
Recognition and honors
Two months after leaving office, in November 1945, Stimson suffered a heart attack from which he recovered.[31] In the summer of 1950, Stimson fell and broke his leg, after which he was confined to a wheelchair. On October 20, one month after his 83rd birthday, he succumbed to complications from a second heart attack.[32] Stimson died at his estate Highhold in [34]
[30] Stimson officially announced his retirement on September 21, 1945. Afterwards, he wrote his memoirs with the aid of
Later years and death
In 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, Stimson, as secretary of state, proclaimed the famous "Stimson Doctrine." It said no fruits of illegal aggression would ever be recognized by the United States. Japan ignored it. Now, according to Stimson, the wheels of justice had turned and the "peace-loving" nations (as Stimson called them) had the chance to punish Japan's misdeeds in a manner that would warn aggressor nations never again to invade their neighbors. To validate the new moral order, he believed, the atomic bomb had to be used against civilians. The question for Stimson was not one of whether soldiers should use this weapon or not. Involved was the simple issue of ending a horrible war, and the more subtle and more important question of the possibility of genuine peace among nations. Stimson's decision involved the fate of mankind, and he posed the problem to the world in such clear and articulate fashion that there was near unanimous agreement mankind had to find a way so that atomic weapons would never be used again.[27][28][29]
In retrospect historians debate whether the impact of continued blockade, relentless bombing, and the Russian invasion of Manchuria would have somehow forced the Emperor to surrender sometime in late 1945 or early 1946 even without the atomic bombs (though not without very large numbers of allied casualties).[24] But Stimson saw well beyond the immediate end of the war. He was the only top government official who tried to predict the meaning of the atomic age—he envisioned a new era in human affairs. For a half century he had worked to inject order, science, and moralism into matters of law, of state, and of diplomacy. Once again, Stimson defied all criticism about his age by proving that he was still as prescient and on top of his game as ever. The impact of the atom, he foresaw, would go far beyond military concerns to encompass diplomacy and world affairs, as well as business, economics and science. Above all, said Stimson, this "most terrible weapon ever known in human history" opened up "the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved." That is, the very destructiveness of the new weaponry would shatter the ages-old belief that wars could be advantageous. It might now be possible to call a halt to the use of destruction as a ready solution to human conflicts. Indeed, society's new control over the most elemental forces of nature finally "caps the climax of the race between man's growing technical power for destructiveness and his psychological power of self-control and group control--his moral power."[25][26]
Stimson's vision
The Manhattan Project was managed by Major General Groves (Corps of Engineers) with a staff of reservists and many thousands of civilian scientists and engineers. Nominally Groves reported directly to General Little Boy" (the Hiroshima bomb) dropped within hours of its earliest possible availability — it was; Japan was to be forced to surrender and the bombing of Hiroshima August 6 would likely be a finishing blow for Tokyo. When prompt concession did not come, he pressed for Truman to drop "Fat Man" on Nagasaki on August 9.[23]
As Secretary of War, Stimson took direct personal control of the entire atomic bomb project, with direct supervision over General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. Both Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman followed Stimson's advice on every aspect of the bomb, and Stimson overruled military officers when they opposed his views.[21][22]
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson ready for his Truman cabinet in August 1945.
Stimson, a lawyer, insisted — against the initial wishes of both Roosevelt and Churchill - on proper judicial proceedings against leading war criminals. He and the United States Department of War drafted the first proposals for an International Tribunal, and this soon received backing from the incoming President Truman. Stimson's plan eventually led to the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-1946 that have had a significant impact on the development of International Law.
What Stimson most feared, however, was that a subsistence-level economy would turn the anger of the German people against the Allies and thereby "obscure the guilt of the Nazis and the viciousness of their doctrines and their acts". Stimson pressed similar arguments on President Harry S. Truman in the spring of 1945.[20]
Stimson strongly opposed the
Morgenthau Plan
On November 21, 1943, the news broke that General slapped an enlisted man suffering from nervous exhaustion at a medical evacuation hospital in Sicily.[16] The incident caused a storm of controversy, and members of Congress called for Patton to be relieved of command. General Dwight D. Eisenhower opposed any move to recall General Patton from the European theater saying privately, "Patton is indispensable to the war effort - one of the guarantors of our victory."[17] Stimson and McCloy agreed; Stimson told the Senate that Patton would be retained because of the need for his "aggressive, winning leadership in the bitter battles which are to come before final victory."[18]
Stimson authorized the release of Japanese Americans from camp in May 1944, but postponed allowing them to return to the West Coast until after the November elections to avoid controversy in Roosevelt's upcoming campaign.[13]
Although Stimson believed it was "quite impossible" to determine the loyalty of Japanese Americans and eventually came to support the army's incarceration program, he remained unconvinced on the legality of the policy: "The second generation Japanese can only be evacuated either as part of a total evacuation, giving access to the areas only by permits, or by frankly trying to put them out on the ground that their racial characteristics are such that we cannot understand or trust even the citizen Japanese. The latter is the fact but I am afraid it will make a tremendous hole in our constitutional system."[15]
As the Western Defense Command began circulating civilian exclusion orders, a new debate formed regarding Japanese Americans in the then-territory of Hawaii. Stimson joined other officials to push for the exclusion of all "enemy alien" Japanese from the Islands.[13] (Japanese immigrants were prohibited by law from naturalization and were therefore classified as enemy aliens regardless of their residential status.) However, Japanese Hawaiians were the largest ethnic group in the territory and the foundation of the Island's labor force; mass removal was infeasible both economically and politically, and Stimson's proposal quickly fell through.[14]
Stimson was initially opposed to the mass removal of Japanese Americans from the West Coast, but he would eventually give in to pro-exclusion military advisers and secure Roosevelt's final approval for the incarceration program. The administration was split in the wake of Pearl Harbor, with Justice Department officials arguing against "evacuation" on one side and Army and War Department leaders demanding immediate relocation on the other. At this point still opposed to the idea of wholesale eviction, Stimson spent much of January 1942 fielding calls from military advisers and West Coast politicians on the potential threat of Japanese American fifth columnists. By February, John McCloy and others from the pro-exclusion camp had won him over. On February 11, Stimson and McCloy briefed the President in a phone conference; Roosevelt gave his Secretary of War the go-ahead to pursue whatever course he saw fit, and McCloy contacted Karl Bendetsen to begin formulating a removal strategy immediately after. Roosevelt granted Stimson final approval to carry out the eviction of West Coast Japanese Americans on February 17, and two days later Executive Order 9066 authorized the establishment of military zones excluding certain persons.[13]
Japanese American internment
Stimson was 73 years old when he took the reins as Secretary of War and many critics doubted that a man of his age could tackle a job this enormous, however he defied all naysayers and plunged into the task with "an energy that men 20 years his junior could not have mustered".
After World War II broke out in Europe, President Franklin D. Roosevelt returned Stimson to his post at the head of the War Department. The choice of Stimson, a conservative Republican, was a calculated effort by the president to win bipartisan support for what was considered an almost inevitable US entrance into the war. Ten days before the Attack on Pearl Harbor, Stimson entered in his diary the following statement: [Roosevelt] brought up the event that we are likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.*[9] During the war, Stimson directed the expansion of the military, managing the conscription and training of 13 million soldiers and airmen and the purchase and transportation to battlefields of 30% of the nation's industrial output.[10] He worked closely with his top aides Robert P. Patterson (who succeeded Stimson as Secretary),[11] Robert Lovett (who handled the Air Force), and John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War).[12]
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson with Col. Kyle (right) arrive at the Gatow Airport in Berlin, Germany to attend the Potsdam Conference (July 16, 1945).
Secretary of War (2nd term)
In 1930-31, Stimson was the Chairman of the U.S. delegation to the London Naval Conference of 1930. In the following year, he was the Chairman of the U.S. delegation to World Disarmament Conference in Geneva. That same year, the United States issued the "Stimson Doctrine" as a result of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria: the United States refused to recognize any situation or treaty that limited U.S. treaty rights or that was brought about by aggression. Returning to private life at the end of Hoover's administration, Stimson was an outspoken advocate of strong opposition to Japanese aggression.
Stimson returned to the cabinet in 1929, when President Herbert Hoover appointed him Secretary of State. Both served until 1933. When he moved to Washington, D.C., Stimson lived in the Woodley Mansion. He lived there until 1946, when he resigned from office.
The U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (right) and Frank B. Kellogg, at the leaving from the State Department, (July 25, 1929).
In 1927, Stimson was sent by President Calvin Coolidge to Nicaragua to negotiate an end to the civil war taking place there. Stimson wrote that Nicaraguans "were not fitted for the responsibilities that go with independence and still less fitted for popular self-government". Later, after he'd been appointed Governor-General of the Philippines (succeeding General Leonard Wood), an office he held from 1927 to 1929, he opposed Filipino independence for the same reason.
Nicaragua and Philippines
Following the outbreak of World War I in 1914, he was a strong supporter of Britain and France, but also supported the nation's neutrality policy. He called for preparation of a large, powerful army and was active in the privately funded Plattsburg Training Camp Movement to train potential officers. When war came in 1917 Stimson was one of eighteen officers selected by former President Theodore Roosevelt to raise a volunteer infantry division, Roosevelt's World War I volunteers, for service in France in 1917. President Woodrow Wilson refused to make use of the volunteers and the unit disbanded. Stimson served the regular U.S. Army in France as an artillery officer, reaching the rank of colonel in August 1918.[8]
In 1911, President Elihu Root, improving its efficiency prior to its vast expansion in World War I. In 1913, following the accession of President Woodrow Wilson, Stimson left office.
Secretary of War (1st term)
Stimson was defeated as Republican candidate for Governor of New York in 1910.
In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Stimson U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Here, he made a distinguished record prosecuting antitrust cases. Stimson later served from 1937 to 1939 as president of the New York City Bar Association, where a medal honoring service as a U.S. Attorney is still awarded in his honor.
In July 1893, Stimson married the former Mabel Wellington White, a great-great granddaughter of American founding father Roger Sherman and the sister of Elizabeth Selden Rogers. An adult case of mumps had left Stimson infertile[7] and they had no children.
[6], a future Secretary of War and Secretary of State, became a major influence on and role model for Stimson.Elihu Root, graduating in 1890, and joined the prestigious Wall Street law firm of Root and Clark in 1891. He became a partner in 1893. Harvard Law School He graduated in 1888 and attended [5], a secret society that afforded many contacts for the rest of his life.Skull and Bones. He joined Phi Beta Kappa where he was elected to Yale College He then attended [4][3] He was a Phillips trustee from 1905 to 1947, serving as president of the board from 1935 to 1945.[2]
Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Democratic Party (United States), Alben W. Barkley
Calvin Coolidge, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, President of the United States
Harry S. Truman, Four Freedoms, United States presidential election, 1936, United States presidential election, 1940, United States presidential election, 1944
William Howard Taft, United States, United States Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, American Civil War
Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, United States Senate, Nobel Peace Prize, Minnesota
Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory
United States, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japanese Navy, United Kingdom, World War II
United States Secretary of War
New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio


Variable. Please call for information and appointments.
From your first visit to the gynecologist, through the birthing years and into menopause, the obstetricians and gynecologists at the Center for Women's Health provide exceptional and comprehensive care for all women, no matter what stage you are in your life. You'll also enjoy a patient-physician relationship built on open communication with your best care and wishes in mind.
We are dedicated to providing exceptional care for women through education, prevention, wellness and intervention. Our staff of experienced physicians, nurses, physicians' assistants and other care providers is committed to exceeding your expectations for service, access, efficiency and trust.
Located just north of Fort Memorial Hospital in Fort Atkinson, WI. Locations are also in Whitewater and Johnson Creek.


text:
Home Academics ICU Zambia School Fees Structure: 2021/2022
ICU Zambia School Fees Structure: 2021/2022
Authority of the Information and Communication University, ICU Zambia has released the amount payable as school fees for Postgraduate, undergraduate, Certificate and Diploma Programmes for the 2021/2022 academic session.
1 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY, ICU ZAMBIA SCHOOL FEES STRUCTURE FOR POSTGRADUATE, UNDERGRADUATE, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE PROGRAMMES
1.1 Certificate Programs: Duration: 2 months,
1.2 Tuition Fee: K1, 000,000,
1.3 Diploma Programs: Duration: 1.5 years,
1.4 Tuition Fee: K3, 000,000 per semester
1.5 Bachelor Programs: Duration: 3 years, Tuition Fee: K4, 000,000 per semester
1.7 Post-Graduate Diploma Programs: Duration: 6 months, Tuition Fee: K6, 000,000
1.8 Masters Programs: Duration: 1.5 years, Tuition Fee: K6, 000,000 per semester
1.8.1 Don't miss out on current updates, kindly like us on Facebook & follow us on Follow @Eafinder OR leave a comment below for further inquiries.
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY, ICU ZAMBIA SCHOOL FEES STRUCTURE FOR POSTGRADUATE, UNDERGRADUATE, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE PROGRAMMES
Check and download the amount payable as school fees by Undergraduates and Postgraduate at Information and Communication University, ICU Zambia for the 2021/2022 academic session below.
Application Fee: K50, 000,
Registration Fee: K100, 000,
Exam Fee: K200, 000
Certificate Programs: Duration: 2 months,
Tuition Fee: K1, 000,000,
Certificate in Monitoring and Evaluation
Certificate in Project Planning and Management
Certificate in Computer Hacking Forensic Investigation
Certificate in Management Information Systems
Certificate in PC Hardware Maintenance and Repair
Certificate in Internetworking Design and LAN / MAN Administration
Certificate in Website design and Database Management
Certificate in E – Human Resource Management
Certificate in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
Certificate in Research Methodology and Data analysis
Certificate in E-Commerce
Certificate in E-Governance
Certificate in Strategic Knowledge Management Technology
Certificate in Basic / High School ICT Education
Certificate in Community-Based Monitoring System / Poverty Mapping
Certificate in IT Secretarial Skills (e-Office Skills)
Certificate in IT Business Management
Certificate in Women and Gender in Development
Certificate in IT Entrepreneurship
Certificate in Network Security Administration
Certificate in Information Security
Certificate in Mobile Communications
Certificate in Technology Transfer and Management
Certificate in Social Works
Certificate in Development Studies
Certificate in HIV/AIDS Management
Certificate in Automotive Mechanics and Electronics
Certificate in Good Governance, Ethics, and Leadership
Certificate in Human Resource Development
Certificate in Environment Management System
Certificate in Climate Change and Sustainability
Certificate in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Certificate in Sustainable Development
Certificate in English Proficiency and Fluency
Certificate in IT Economics
Diploma Programs: Duration: 1.5 years,
Tuition Fee: K3, 000,000 per semester
Diploma in Monitoring and Evaluation
Diploma in Project Planning and Management
Diploma in Computer Hacking Forensic Investigation
Diploma in Management Information Systems
Diploma in Business Administration
Diploma in PC Hardware Maintenance and Repair
Diploma in Internetworking Design and LAN / MAN Administration
Diploma in Website design and Database Management
Diploma in E – Human Resource Management
Diploma in Research Methodology and Data analysis
Diploma in E-Commerce
Diploma in E-Government
Diploma in Strategic Knowledge Management Technology
Diploma in Basic / High School ICT Education
Diploma in Community-Based Monitoring System / Poverty Mapping
Diploma in IT Secretarial Skills (e-Office Skills)
Diploma in IT Business Management
Diploma in Network Security Administration
Diploma in Information Security
Diploma in Mobile Communications
Diploma in Technology Transfer and Management
Diploma in Social Works
Diploma in Development Studies
Diploma in Public Administration
Diploma in HIV/AIDS Management
Diploma in Automotive Mechanics and Electronics
Diploma in Good Governance, Ethics and Leadership
Diploma in Human Resource Development
Diploma in Environment Management System
Diploma in Climate Change and Sustainability
Diploma in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Diploma in Sustainable Development
Diploma in English Proficiency and Fluency
Diploma in Women and Gender in Development
Diploma in IT Entrepreneurship
Diploma in IT Economics
Bachelor Programs: Duration: 3 years,
Bachelor of Science in Information Security and Computer Forensics
Bachelor of Science in Computer Systems Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Information and Communications Technology
Bachelor of Science in Software Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Network Technology
Bachelor of Science in IT Business Management
Bachelor of Science in Mobile Communications
Bachelor of Science in Technology Management
Bachelor of Science in Information Systems
Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration
Bachelor of Arts in Economics
Bachelor of Arts in Development Studies
Bachelor of Arts in Human Resource Management
Bachelor of Arts in Law
Bachelor of Arts in Public Administration
Bachelor of Arts in Project Management
Bachelor of Arts in Social Work Practice and Development
Bachelor of Education (Science)
Bachelor of Education (Arts)
Bachelor of Education (Commercial)
Bachelor of Education (Technical)
Post-Graduate Diploma Programs:
Duration: 6 months, Tuition Fee: K6, 000,000
Post-Graduate Diploma in Monitoring and Evaluation
Post-Graduate Diploma in Project Planning and Management
Post-Graduate Diploma in Computer Hacking Forensic Investigation
Post-Graduate Diploma in Management Information Systems
Post-Graduate Diploma in Internetworking Design and LAN / MAN Administration
Post-Graduate Diploma in E – Human Resource Management
Post-Graduate Diploma in E-Government
Post-Graduate Diploma in IT Business Management
Post-Graduate Diploma in Strategic Knowledge Management Technology
Post-Graduate Diploma in Community-Based Monitoring System / Poverty Mapping
Post-Graduate Diploma in Women and Gender in Development
Post-Graduate Diploma in Technology Transfer and Management
Post-Graduate Diploma in HIV/AIDS Management
Post-Graduate Diploma in Mobile Communications
Post-Graduate Diploma in Software Development
Masters Programs: Duration: 1.5 years,
Master in Economics
Master in Education
Master in Business Administration – Finance
Master in Business Administration – Marketing
Master in Development Studies
Master in Public Administration
Master in Project Management
Master in Information and Communications Technology
Master in Law
Information and Communication University
Previous articleICU Zambia Application Procedure: Online Admission – 2021/2022
Next articleMidlands State University, MSU Admissions Requirement For All Courses
ALLAN KENZI SIAME November 12, 2021 At 7:41 pm
I love this university. They offer quality education


Your access to and use of the Services signifies your acceptance of these Terms and Conditions. This is a legally binding agreement between you as a ("User") of our Services and Confirmis Holdings Pte Ltd ("we" or "us" or "Faces behind ASEAN SMEs").
By accessing and/or using any part of the Service, you agree to be bound by these Terms, and that you are at least 17 years of age. If you disagree with any part of the Terms, please do not use the Service.
You represent and warrant that you have the right to grant us an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing, for any lawful purpose. You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content.
For purposes of these Terms, the term "Content" includes all materials that are included in, made available on, or are otherwise a part of the Service.
Content produced by Facesofsme.com is protected by a copyright as a collective work. The Site enables Users to distribute, copy, and perform the works with proper acknowledgement and links to original work only for non-commercial use.
If a User wishes to use Content for commercial purposes, User must submit a business inquiry. Copying, using or storing any Content for other than non-commercial use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from the Site. You shall not license, sell, rent, or otherwise use any content for commercial use.
You understand that all information and content that a user submits to the Site are collectively known as "User Content." We are not obligated to backup any User Content. It is in our sole discretion to delete, edit and reformat User Content at any time for any reason without notice to you.
We may post articles and other materials from users and contributors of the Site. We are not the author of such User Content. Accepting the terms, you agree not to post, send, and email to the Site any unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, pornographic, libellous or harmful to minor in any way. You also agree to be solely responsible for any damages resulting from any User Content you submit.
By submitting User Content to us, you automatically grant us, and our affiliates, agents, third party partners, and assignees royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive right to use, publish, reproduce, license, sublicense, distribute, sell, perform, translate, and display User Content.
All content included on this Site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of Confirmis Holdings Pte Ltd or its content suppliers and protected by international copyright laws. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of Confirmis Holdings Pte Ltd, with copyright authorship for this collection by us, and protected by international copyright laws.
Your full name, email address, your physical or electronic signature.
The URL where the allegedly infringing content is located.
Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
A statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the allegedly infringing material on the Site is not authorized.
We grant you a limited license to access and make personal use of this site and not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with express written consent from the staff of the Site. This Site or any portion of this Site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of Confirmis Holdings Pte Ltd.
Facesofsme.com shall not be, in no event, be liable with respect to the site or the services for any indirect, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages of any kind whatsoever. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitations and exclusions may not apply to user. We shall not be liable in any other matter relating to the service (including, as a result of breach of any terms of these terms), including goods and services provided by third parties, including advertisers, that are made available or advertised or sold through this service.
The information and materials published on Facesofsme.com are published without warranty of any kind whether express or implied, including but not limited to any implied warranties of satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, security and accuracy. We do not make any representations nor do we endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other material or database displayed, uploaded or distributed in this service.
You agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless facesofsme.com, its officers, directors, shareholders, affiliates, employees, consultants, agents, licensors, content providers and suppliers from any and all claims, causes of action, demands, recoveries, losses, damages, fines, penalties or other costs or expenses of any kind or nature including but not limited to reasonable legal and accounting fees, brought by your failure to comply with these terms and conditions, your negligent or wrongful conduct, your infringement or violation of any intellectual property or other right of a third party or from your violation of any applicable law.
We reserve the right to change any terms of these Terms and Conditions at any time without prior notice to you. Please review these Terms before each and any access or use of our Service. Any changes to these Terms will apply as soon as they are posted. If a revision is material we will try to provide at least 30 (change this) days' notice prior to any new terms taking effect. What constitutes a material change will be determined at our sole discretion.


text:
Thanks to Mr. D- W- for the piece below.
I have been reading a fair bit about Jutland of late –while working on a remote version game of a damaged German battlecruiser trying to get home on the night of 31st May/1st June 1916. In reading about it, it seems to have degenerated into two gangs of historians – one blaming Jellicoe for rigidity and timidity and the other blaming Beattie for ineptitude and foolhardiness. While there are mutual admissions that certain things were systematically wrong on the British side (lack of fire and ammunition storage security, initially incorrect info from the Admiralty, signalling problems) it all seems to be about the daytime battle and the virtues and vices of the two admirals' performances. There seems to be the apocryphal elephant in the room that gets relatively little coverage namely: that the British fleet had done little or no training in night actions. Neither Jellicoe nor Beatty, with two years to train up their respective commands, had apparently even apparently considered the notion that they might be in contact with an enemy fleet at night - as if at dusk both sides would blow a bugle sounding the 'Cease fire' and sportingly begin again at dawn. What was to be done if the enemy were not to be so obliging never seemed to be considered. Basically, as far as the Admiralty were they had the biggest, strongest fleet in the world but only during daylight hours
The Germans, predictably, were from destroyers to battleships well trained in night operations with an elaborate colour lights flash display for identification*, they had a system where guns and searchlights worked as one and finally they had starshells whereas the British had none. Had the Germans on the night of May31st/1st June not bent all their efforts in getting to the Horns Reef before daybreak their destroyers and light cruisers could have wreaked havoc on the capital ships of the British Grand Fleet. The fact that the Royal Navy began intense training in night actions in July 1916 is presumably a tacit admission that a right bollock had been dropped somewhere. *The British had a simple two letter morse searchlight code which the Germans picked up on almost immediately it got dark and used thereafter, to their advantage, during the course of the night.


text:
Диарсенид неодима — бинарное неорганическое соединение
неодима и мышьяка
с формулой NdAs,
кристаллы.

Получение
 Сплавление стехиометрических количеств чистых веществ:

Физические свойства
Диарсенид неодима образует кристаллы
моноклинной сингонии,
пространственная группа P 2/c,
параметры ячейки a = 0,41081 нм, b = 0,68201 нм, c = 1,04431 нм, β = 106,72°, Z = 4.

Литература

Соединения неодима
неодима


Special Policing Powers for Pakistan Rangers (Sindh): A Brewing Political or Constitutional Crisis?
The development presents itself as an interesting anomaly in the Constitutional landscape of the country. The legal provisions under play here are Article 142 (Subject Matter of Federal and Provincial Laws), 147 (Powers of Provinces to Entrust Functions on the Federation), and 148 (Obligations of Provinces and Federation) of the Constitution, along with Section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 (Calling in of armed forces and civil armed forces to prevent terrorism of civil powers), and article 11EEEE (Special Powers of Detainment and Formation of JIT) of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2014.
Is Article 147 of the Constitution2 relevant when it comes to granting special policing powers to Pakistan Rangers (Sindh) under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, and as amended in 2014?
Will the issue manifest itself again when the next deadline of the expiration of the special policing powers of the Rangers approaches?
In a snapshot, the issue has seen numerous political vicissitudes during the past month. These came to the fore when the deadline for special policing powers granted to Rangers expired on December 06, 2015. The Sindh Government chose to approach the issue in a different manner, unlike in the past, by referring the matter to the Provincial Assembly of Sindh. This is the first time the Sindh Government took this stance since the start of the Karachi Operation in October 2013. Interestingly, Article 147 states that the concerned matter should be brought to the Provincial Assembly for ratification within 60 days. However, the Chief Minister gave approval for requisitioning of the Rangers in the Karachi Division on July 16, 2015, whereas the matter was brought in front of the Assembly with a delay on December 09, 2015.
A summary was moved by the Sindh Government, extending Rangers' powers in the province for another 60 days, however with curtailed powers and the requirement of the Chief Minister's nod in particular domains. The Federal Government, however, rejected the summary, and restored complete policing powers to the Rangers stating that a Resolution of the Provincial Assembly could not amend a Federal law.
Given that the PPP-led Sindh Government has made the decision to pursue the matter politically, rather than through legal channels, it may be construed that its position remains weak with regards to the issue. However, for the sake of the Karachi Operation, and the recent success it has achieved, it is hoped that the matter is de-politicized and the Federal and Provincial Government come to a consensus over it. It has become increasingly clear that especially in Sindh, criminality has often taken refuge in politics.
Major Terrorists Attacks on Security Installations: Wither Accountability?
All too often, when accountability and national security are mentioned together, there is a tendency in some quarters to deflect the serious questions. The questions themselves are alleged to be unpatriotic or anti-institution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Inquiries properly done-transparently, independently and in a non-partisan manner-can shed light on everything from policy failures to operational issues. Inquiries make reforms possible and can help prevent catastrophes from being repeated. Yet, the institutional aversion to accountability and transparency appears to dominate the true national interest here… A year on from the APS attack, precious few facts are publicly known, even though four individuals have already been executed after convictions in military courts for ties to the attack…. What went wrong? When failures, lapses and oversights are identified, institutions can be strengthened. When errors are covered up, future catastrophes become more likely.
Since October 2009, at least 11 major attacks have taken place on major security installations, on which the inquiry report has never been made public; neither have those who were responsible held accountable publically. These attacks have included not only the one on the GHQ on October 10, 2009, but also on the PNS Mehran Base and the PAF's Minhas Base at Kamra. This opacity permeates to such an extent that the Abbottabad Commission Report was leaked by Al-Jazeera and still has not been made public by the Government of Pakistan. Similarly, with regards to the Peshawar Tragedy of December 16, 2014, it has only been reported that 4 terrorists involved in the attack have been sentenced to death by the Military Courts, as informed by the ISPR. However, the security lapses that occurred have not been highlighted and neither has any accountability, apparently, been held in this regard.
November 2015 saw a spate of competing public statements emanating from both the civil and military leadership regarding implementation of the National Action Plan (NAP).7 This highlighted that that there is hardly any fact-based discourse on the implementation of the NAP, primarily because there is no defined institutional mechanism to monitor its implementation.
There is no question that a public statement by the ISPR commenting on the governance by the elected government is not the most desirable way of communication. Such public statements create the impression that perhaps the official channels of communication in our national security management are non-functional and, more seriously, as if the institutions lack coordination and unanimity.
A cloak of opacity has also shrouded the deliverables and the progress achieved on them vis-à-vis the NAP. Only paltry figures, shared for a total of five times by the Prime Minister Office, constitute public reports on the implementation of the NAP detailing crackdown against hate speech, combing operations carried across Pakistan, number of executions, etc.
Although Apex Committees were formed both at the Federal and Provincial level to monitor progress, they hardly serve as a replacement for constitutionally mandated institutions such as the Cabinet, the Parliament and the Parliamentary Committees. Although the Prime Minister and the COAS have met at least 73 times in the past 28 months, there appears to be a preference for informal, unstructured and un-institutionalized interaction, without any reliable mechanism for follow-up on decisions. No meeting of the National Security Committee (NSC), 'the principal decision-making body on national security', has been convened to discuss implementation of the NAP, with the last meeting held on October 10, 2014.
The Parliament as well has shied away from playing an effective role in this regard. Although the Senate's Committee on Defence has convened two meetings on Operation Zarb-e-Azb, not a single meeting has been convened on the National Action Plan (NAP). Similarly, the NA's Standing Committee has also not convened a meeting on the NAP. Both the Standing Committee on Interior of the National Assembly and Pakistan Senate have also not convened a meeting on the National Action Plan. We believe that the two should develop a Plan of Action to critically engage in regular oversight of implementation status of the National Action Plan, Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the National Security Committee (NSC), which has not met for a year now, and, as was its mandate, not come up with a National Security Policy.
An increasing international profile of the COAS, and persistent diplomatic efforts by the Military leadership to secure support for our fight against terrorism, have become a permanent feature of Pakistan's foreign policy. However, these endeavors may be anomalous for civil-military protocols considering the COAS' regular interaction with the heads of various states and foreign political leadership, in the absence of either the Federal Minister of Defence, or the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs. COAS' visited Turkey in October 2015, which saw him interacting with the Turkish President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defence Minister.
The COAS not only took a trip to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where he called upon Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud on November 04, 2015, but also to Brazil where he called upon the Defence Minister of Brazil on November 25, 2015 along with being awarded the Order of Merit by the Brazilian Government.
The COAS also undertook a trip to the United States from November 15-21, 2015..10 He not only held interactions on the Capitol Hill, but also called upon the Secretary of State, United States of America, Mr. John Kerry on November 18, 2015, and the American Vice President, Mr. Joe Biden on November 19, 2015.
The COAS' foreign engagements for the period under consideration ended with his visit to Kabul on December 27, 2015 where he met not only with the President of Afghanistan, Mr. Ashraf Ghani, but also the Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah.


I was inspired by a TLNT wrap-up written by John Hollon discussing the demographics of people participating in flex work and questioning why there is a lack of women teleworking. For more on what he said- read here.
As someone who considers herself fortunate to work flexibly, I can tell you that merely referring to the arrangement as "fortunate" is part of the problem. You see there are many employers that still see this flex work as the ultimate privilege. It is almost as though they should be crowned best employer and have employees kneel before them for bestowing such an honor. They put unnecessary and onerous hurdles in front of employees that are afforded flex work and in turn it becomes a less desirable option.
Women in particular have been made to disclose every nook and cranny of their home arrangements. Some are subjected to presumptuous questioning regarding whether or not they have a nanny to watch their kids during telework time. While other flex work infractions have to do with being exclusive to a certain subsection of employees- leaving those with other non-familial obligations feeling singled out from the possibility of teleworking.
When the strategy becomes this entitled – all or nothing process, you have to ask yourself are companies really all-in regarding flex work or are they slapping a policy together to appear as though they are a part of the growing trend?
If you have a flex work option for your employees, is it being treated as an operational strategy or is it a wild-card policy that you pull out of your bag-of-tricks to appease employees?
It needs to be an operational strategy. Your employees both men and women are stretched at home and at work; with or without children. If the job lends itself to some flexibility- give it to them. Like most concepts of giving- try to give flexibility without ultimatums and ridiculous demands in return for this alternative.
1) Focus on results. It is none of your business who watches their kids, if a nanny is present during telework hours, spouse's work hours etc. As long as you are receiving their work and it is quality, focus on the results; not how they got there.
2) Trust your employees to do the right thing. If you don't ask your employees to document what they do every minute of the day in the office, why would you do it when they flex work? Trust your employees to do the right thing unless you find out otherwise.
3) Do not offer flex work unless you believe in it as an "operational strategy". Everyone wins when trust and flexibility are given. The second you start to micromanage or make your flex work policy an elitist offering it will do more harm than good for the company and your brand.
According to a recent infographic by Flex+Strategy Group, 31% of workers are working from home, a business center or another location. Employers can expect decreased absenteeism and tardiness, less employee burnout, increased employee productivity as a result of offering flex work.
As of 2015, 34% of the working population is considered contingent ( temporary, part-time, freelancer etc.). That number is slated to jump to near 40% by 2020. I think it is time that we accept flex work arrangements as the new norm.
So I ask employers that are still hesitant about flex work- what are you really losing?
*This post was originally posted on "The Aristocracy of HR" blog.


WELCOME TO DEMONTROND AUTO COUNTRY.....HOME OF LIFETIME POWERTRAIN WARRANTY.....FAMILY OWNED AND OPERATED SINCE 1953...JUST NORTH OF HIGH PRICES.....This vehicle won't be on the lot long! Offering an alluring bundle of luxury while maintaining efficiency, safety and style! This model accommodates 5 passengers comfortably, and provides features such as: an outside temperature display, a roof rack, and more. Our team is professional, and we offer a no-pressure environment. They'll work with you to find the right vehicle at a price you can afford. Call now to schedule a test drive.