In the additive RGB color model, color #666349 (hexadecimal – hex triplet) has values of 102 (40% red), 99 (39% green) and 73 (29% blue). In the CMYK (subtractive color model), color #666349 has values 0% cyan, 3% magenta, 28% yellow and 60% black. In the HSL model, it is represented by 54° hue, 17% saturation and 34% lightness. Win32 representation: DWORD COLORREF C=0x00943666. Decimal value is 6710089.
#666349 is not web-safe (Netscape). Nearest web-safe color is #666633. #666349 isn't X11 color, closest X11 color is DarkOliveGreen (#556b2f).
Related colors (alternatives): RAL 080 40 20, RAL 110 40 20, RAL 060 40 10, RAL 050 40 10, RAL 8025, Grayish Olive, RAL 080 40 05, RAL 060 40 20, RAL 040 40 10, RAL 050 40 20.
This table contains information about #666349 color values in the most popular color spaces: RGB (additive color model), CMY, CMYK (subtractive color model), HSL, HSI, CIE XYZ. This data can be downloaded in JSON (666349.json) and CSV (666349.csv) formats.
Share your experience with #666349!


text:
Advisory Groups, Boards & Commissions
Business and Economic Development Advisory Group
Board of Fire & Police Commissioners
Cultural Arts Advisory Group
Firefighters Pension Board
Historic Preservation Awards
Architectural Surveys
Human Relations Advisory Group
Joint Plan Commission
Liquor Control Commission
Plan and Design Commission
Sustainability Advisory Group
Transportation Advisory Group
Wolters Field Advisory Group
Home Government Advisory Groups, Boards, and Commissions
Select a board, committee or commission to view contact and term information for its members.
HPHS Advisory Group
Neighborhood Meetings
The City partners with sister governments and other Highland Park organizations to host neighborhood meetings throughout the year.
These groups are not subject to the Open Meetings Act. Although the meetings are open to the public and agendas are posted.
Ravinia Festival Neighborhood Meeting
Student Commission Application
The City of Highland Park and local high schools are working together to expand real governmental experiences for our students by having student members on our Advisory Groups, Boards and Commissions. Student members will be asked to apply to serve as an ex-officio member of a City Advisory Group, Board or Commission. Each member selected will serve on the Commission or Task Force he/she is interested. The student shall be a high school Junior who resides in the City of Highland Park. The City is hoping to work with students who demonstrate an interest or passion for the Commission and can clearly articulate their ideas in an adult forum. Student members shall meet the same expectations as other members on the respective Advisory Group, Board, Commission, or Board - except participation in formal votes. The deadline for 2021 applications is November 30, 2020.
The Open Meetings Act requires the members of the boards and commissions to discuss public business in an open, public forum. This law requires that whenever a gathering of three or more commissioners occurs during which public business is discussed, such meetings must be advertised (through a posted agenda) and be open to the public.
Highland Park residents may complete an interest form in order to be considered for Advisory Group, Commission, or Committee. Residents may submit a form that will be kept on file in the event of a future vacancy. Please email your interest form and resume to jdotson@cityhpil.com.
For more information, please contact Jennifer Dotson in the City Manager's Office at 847.926.1006 or via email at jdotson@cityhpil.com.
Per state statute, all elected and appointed officials and local government employees who have authority to authorize the expenditure of public funds, execute contracts and issue licenses and permits must file a statement of economic interest with Lake County. Please visit the Lake County website for more information about this procedure.
The City of Highland Park's Ethics Guidelines establish ethical standards of conduct for all City officials, be they members of the City Council or members of a City agency, board, or commission.
Please note that e-mail and all other forms of electronic communication you send to the City becomes a public record subject to release under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Please anticipate that all information you send to the City will be made public. By sending information electronically to the City, you are automatically agreeing that the information may be made public. If you do not want your information to be made public, then do not send information electronically to the City and instead contact us by telephone at 847-926-1000 or visit City Hall in person. If you have any questions about this or other FOIA matters, then please call the City's Primary FOIA Officer, Deputy Clerk Ashley Palbitska at apalbitska@cityhpil.com or call 847.926.1034.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home > United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is one of the foremost institutions of the world engaged in Holocaust-related research and education. The Museum's International Archival Program Division conducts research and acquisition programmes across 53 countries worldwide. In the past two decades, close to 70 million pages of Jewish- and Holocaust-related documents have been acquired for the Museum's Archives.
USHMM performs research as a member of the Yerusha network in three countries: Ukraine, Greece and Serbia. The Ukrainian project focuses on public collections in the Khmelnitsky, Chernivtsi and Volyn regions. In Greece, holdings of state, central and regional archives are surveyed as well as private collections and repositories of Jewish communities. In Serbia, the research focuses on the surviving records of two major Jewish communities: Novi Sad and Subotica.
The USHMM's Yerusha research is led by historian and archivist Vadim Altskan, Senior Project Director for the International Archival Programs Division at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies. Vadim's research interests are modern Eastern European, Balkan, and Jewish histories, as well as the Holocaust. He has published several works on Russian Jewish history and on the Holocaust in the Soviet Union.
Letter from the Athens Jewish Community to the Jewish Community of Larissa 1947 (Jewish Community of Larissa)
Yerusha Project Summary
Yerusha data set resources
Yerusha poster
Securing our inheritance
Gesher L'Europa is live! https://t.co/Cpx9DAXNsG https://t.co/Tyg0rVVvQU, 3 Aug
© Copyright Yerusha 2015


text:
Q: How to use Laravel app in subfolder of Apache User Directory I'm trying to get a Laravel 4 app installed in a subfolder of the web root directory for one of my users. I know there are major security concerns having the entire framework accessible via the web. I plan to address those separately after I understand how to get this working.
I've tried every combination of Apache Aliases, and Rewrite rules I can think of, but nothing seems to work. Here's my directory structure:
/home/username/public_html
    .htaccess
    my_laravel_app/
        app/
        bootstrap/
        public/
            .htaccess
            index.php
            robots.txt
            ...etc (standard Laravel 4 public folder contents)
        vendor/
        ...etc (standard Laravel 4 files and folders)

The first .htaccess file, the one listed directly under the users public_html directory, contains the following:
AuthType Basic
AuthName Private
Authuserfile /path/to/.htpasswd
Require valid-user

The second .htaccess is a standard Laravel 4 .htaccess file. It contains the following:
<IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
    <IfModule mod_negotiation.c>
        Options -MultiViews
    </IfModule>

    RewriteEngine On

    # Redirect Trailing Slashes...
    RewriteRule ^(.*)/$ /$1 [L,R=301]

    # Handle Front Controller...
    RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
    RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
    RewriteRule ^ index.php [L]
</IfModule>

I would like to essentially treat this my_laravel_app/public directory as a webroot, so that the Laravel app functions the same way it would if for a normal Laravel installation directly on a domain.
I believe I just need to edit the first .htaccess file to contain rewrite rules that send any request to /my_laravel_app to my_laravel_app/public, but I can't seem to get this working. Can anyone help?

A: This may be different depending on your setup, but the base config is:
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/my_laravel_app/public/%{REQUEST_URI} -d [OR]
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/my_laravel_app/public/%{REQUEST_URI} -f
RewriteRule . public/%{REQUEST_URI} [L]

RewriteRule . public/index.php [L]

And put inside your my_laravel_app as an .htaccess to limit the complexity of the conditions.  You get the idea hopefully.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


we've all been there before. We get a new printer, wireless router, mobile device, laptop, or desktop pc and we bring it home to connect it to our home network and then it will not connect. we've been there and we hate when it happens. the last thing you want to do is call someone for help. we get it. but, luckily, that's what we're here for. we can come and install your printer, wireless router, mobile device, laptop or desktop connected to your network. or, we can come install the whole gambit of devices you have. we love help our residential clients. nothing is to far fetched for our team of expert computer repair & PC repair guru's in birmingham, al. give us a call today and let us help you with adding that pesky wireless printer, adding an access point, installing a new laptop or desktop pc to your network. we'll get ya fixed up. we promise.
Yes, you read that correctly. On-Site. Flat Rate. Virus Removal. You see, unlike other Computer Repair & PC Repair Service companies here in Birmingham, AL Central I.T. LLC will come to your home or office and only charge you one LOW FLAT RATE virus removal. Most other companies will have a minimum "One Hour" price then charge you additional hours or increments for however long they're there. WE only charge you one FLAT RATE PRICE of $95 for a Full Virus Removal if we come on-site. Yep, that's right. No additional hourly charge. Or, if you want us to remote in - we us a safe and secure method of Go To Assist - (But, you must have internet access). Then we can remotely remove the virus from your computer or PC for $75. We will not have access to your PC after we are done and you can go about your business Free & Clear. We've been removing viruses and malware from computers for over 15 years. We have a complete understanding of how to remove them. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us before hand and we'll explain everything in more detail.
Flat Rate Virus Removal. You read right. One Price. One Flat Fee at your home or office. Or, remotely.
We'll even give you a 30 day warranty on each fix. Some exclusions apply.
We can upgrade your RAM, Hard Drive, or anything else you may want.
Wired Networking (ethernet connection in additonal rooms on site) $95 per location.
Central I.T. LLC's flat rate computer repair or pc repair service has no hidden charges and no small print to trick you into paying more for services you need. If you're home is in need of a flat rate virus removal or computer repair service Central I.T. LLC has the IT tools and protection you need at affordable prices. We'll work hard to keep you satisfied and make sure your data is safe, protected, and accessible. Flat Rate Computer repair services for residential clients in Birmingham, AL is perfect for everyone. Don't let an computer repair disaster or virus scare you. Save money with central i.t. llc's computer repair & PC Repair by hiring an expert from central I.T. computer repair & pc repair and see why we're the BEST COMPUTER & PC REPAIR GUYS IN BIRMINGHAM, AL. for remote virus removal we will log in and determine if we need to come on-site. if we need to come on-site there will be no remote session charge. We love saving our customers money! Check us out and see why we're the best computer repair & pc Repair guys in birmingham, AL!


text:
"Stick to Sports" is a Losing Strategy
Michael Geiger
For a long time, I was a firm believer in the "stick to sports" mantra. Whenever an athlete, coach, or sportswriter made a liberal political statement, I immediately dismissed it. Whether it was the Heat wearing the hoodies for Trayvon Martin, Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the anthem, or Gregg Popovich labeling the US a "racist country," I refused to grant their point of view any credence.
However, following the aftermath of Laura Ingraham's comments advising Lebron James to "shut up and dribble" I realized that my philosophy was wrong. "Stick to sports" is a losing strategy.
Following a video James did for Uninterrupted with fellow NBA superstar Kevin Durant and SportsCenter anchor Cari Champion, in which he claimed Trump doesn't "give a fuck about people," Laura Ingraham responded with this heated statement, "This is what happens when you attempt to leave high school a year early to join the NBA. And it's always unwise to seek advice from someone who gets paid 100 million dollars to bounce a ball."
First off, the idea that the manner in which Lebron earns his income harms his credibility in any way is asinine. I'm old enough to remember a time when conservatives applauded merit-based economic success and cited it as proof of capitalism's credibility. Instead, Ingraham uses it as justification to silence the opinion of someone she disagrees with.
By the way, LeBron is currently using $41 million of that money he got for bouncing a ball to put 1,100 kids through college. Ingraham is worth a reported $45 million, and I have yet to see what critical benefits she provides to society.
Ingraham later continued to discredit James based on his career choice, "So, keep the political commentary to yourself, and as someone once said, shut up and dribble." This line of reasoning fails on multiple levels; the most blatant is that Fox News often fails to follow Ingraham's advice when bringing on right-wing celebrities like Jon Voight, Kid Rock, and Chuck Norris. Shouldn't Jon Voight just shut up and act? Shouldn't Kid Rock just shut up and sing? Shouldn't Chuck Norris just shut up and kick ass? Maybe the reason the Right doesn't have a cult of celebrity like the Left is lack of supply, not lack of demand.
For the record, I disagree with LeBron James on just about every political stance he's ever made public. I thought Colin Kaepernick's protests were misguided. Gregg Popovich's comments about our "racist country" made me just as angry as the next conservative. I'm not saying these people are astute political commentators. I'm not even saying we have to listen to them. All I'm saying is that we should under no circumstances shut them up.
How often are conservatives under attack on the free speech battleground? The Left uses everything in its playbook to stop expressions of liberty: black bloc riots, safe spaces, biased university administrators, etc. Their constant assault on the first amendment is reprehensible, but the solution isn't to try and beat them at their own game.
Obviously, conservatives have been dealt a bad hand. Constant vilification in both the political and cultural arenas is more than enough to piss some people off. I understand Laura Ingraham's anger. I agree with her that LeBron James was incorrect in his analysis of the president. But in order to maintain the moral high ground, we can't run any trick plays; we've got to win this game at the line of scrimmage.
The pursuit of truth isn't easy for conservatives; we're not afforded the same luxuries as the Left. We don't have a war chest of famous athletes, actors, talk show hosts, comedians, and musicians at our disposal. All we have is one another, each of us armed with the knowledge that the battle we face will be long and painful. The shining city on the hill is burning, but we must do as Andrew Breitbart said and walk towards the fire.
Michael Geiger, Opinion Editor
NFL Pre-Playoff Divisional Analysis
NBA regular season preview: All things Minnesota


OLYMPIA – April 19, 2017 – Washington State Parks is overseeing crews working throughout April and May to reduce wildfire risk on the Long Beach Peninsula.
The crews will be pruning low branches, removing some small trees and trimming brush on State Parks property adjacent to homes and businesses.
The project is following guidelines set out by the nationally recognized Firewise™ program. Goal of the activities is to help create a defensible space around homes adjacent to the Seashore Conservation Area, which is managed by State Parks. Defensible space, sometimes called "survivable space" is the area that lies between a building and an oncoming wildfire, where the vegetation has been modified to reduce wildfire intensity and provide an opportunity for firefighters to effectively defend the building.
For greater effectiveness in lowering wildfire risk, property owners are encouraged to create and maintain defensible space on land that they own. Learn more at www.firewise.org.
State Parks has contracted with the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) to initiate the work. Crews can be identified by the WCC logo on their trucks, clothing and equipment. State Parks staff and uniformed rangers also will be in the area while the project is under way.
Cass said work will be done on State Park land that is within 100 feet of homes and businesses on the Peninsula. Crews will use GPS units to ensure they stay within the bounds of State Parks land and will not work on private land or on other public land.
Property owners with concerns that crews may be working on their land are encouraged to share their concerns directly with the crew. Questions about the work can be directed to Park Manager Evan Roberts at Cape Disappointment State Park, (360) 642-3078, or by emailing the State Parks Stewardship Program, at stewardship@parks.wa.gov.


Bronchosan is a traditional herbal medicinal product used for the relief of coughs. This is based on traditional use only.
5 ml (6.95 g) of oral liquid contains 1,445 mg of extract (as soft extract) from fresh Picea abies (L.) Karsten (spruce) shoots (0.9-1.2:1). Extraction solvent: water.
The other ingredients used for the liquid are raw cane sugar, honey, concentrated pear juice and pine oil.
This product contains sugars (5.25g of carbohydrate per 5ml dose).
See patient information leaflet for further information.
Adults and children over 12 years: Take 5-10 ml (1-2 teaspoons) two to four times daily.
Do not use if you are allergic to Spruce (Picea abies), Pine species, colophony or any of the ingredients, or are pregnant or breast-feeding.


The School and District Improvement Plans have been assigned in ASSIST. Each task has multiple components such as Stakeholder Involvment and Executive Summary. These "diagnostic" reports may be copied, updated and re-submitted. See the SIP Components for more details or the ASSIST Guidance for technical videos for navigating the system.
The new SDA will not allow for copying, schools will need to complete the new template in ASSIST. Guidance available on the SDA page.
Reminder: District Improvement Plan (or Single Building District) and Program Evaluation must be "submitted" in ASSIST by June 30, 2015. The School Improvment Plan, although not due until September 1, should be submitted in June to inform the District Plan.


text:
Community Care Social Work News & Social Care Jobs
Careers Zone
Ofsted news and ratings
Social work leaders
Jobs Live Inform
NSPCC chief executive: 'More children should be taken into care'
By Mithran Samuel on April 6, 2009 in Child safeguarding, Family support, Looked after children, Mental Health
'More children need to be taken into care'
Too many children at risk of serious neglect or abuse are being left with their parents because the care system is considered such a poor alternative, the head of the NSPCC has said.
Andrew Flanagan, the new chief executive of the charity, said that after the Baby P tragedy the debate should shift to why foster and residential care were considered "not a good option" and the steps needed to improve the system so that it was not used as an excuse to leave children in danger.
Read more on this story in The Daily Mail
Girls are too protected to spot online dangers, says Girlguiding UK
Young girls are too wrapped up in cotton wool to understand the dangers of meeting strangers online and street safety, research by Girlguiding UK suggests.
The poll of 986 Guides aged between 10 and 18 found a fifth have considered meeting someone that they contacted via the internet, even though the same proportion had encountered people lying online.
Read more on this story in The Daily Telegraph
Third of children eat a takeaway a week
Children as young as nine months are eating a diet of takeaways, fizzy drinks, crisps and sweets, according to an independent group of health professionals with an interest in children and nutrition.
A survey of 1,000 parents by the Infant and Toddler Forum found that nearly a third of under-threes eat at least one takeaway a week and 19% are given takeaways or adult ready meals every day.
Read more on this story in The Guardian
Flexible hours for parents of under-16s
Millions of parents with children up to the age of 16 will be able to request flexible working from their employers from today, under a change to the law which will dramatically increase the number of people entitled to ask for more family-friendly conditions.
Legislation introduced in 2003 allowed parents with children under the age of six to request flexible working from employers who were obliged to "seriously consider" any application and only reject it if there were "good business reasons for doing so".
More from Community Care
Universities and employers use new tactics to attract more people to social care-related courses
Social worker struck off after own children put on at risk register
Clinical Therapists – Salary based on qualification and experience £45,585- £47,511 pa
Harnessing the benefits of flexible working through West Sussex's casual bank service
Fostering better relationships with social workers
Fostering a culture of learning and development that supports your social work journey
How a flexible working culture has transformed the lives of social workers in Hampshire
Encouraging a better work-life balance in a rural setting
Building strong communities to promote independence
'We have permission from our senior leadership team to do things differently'
Employer zone – showcasing a selection of the sector's top recruiters
Community Care Inform
How the law on authorising deprivation of liberty will change
Child to parent violence and abuse: new podcast
Care Act analysis: what must be considered when setting personal budgets
Council breached Care Act by setting arbitrary upper limit for woman's live-in care
Children's minister's call for directors to prioritise adoption lambasted by sector heads
NHS to map mental health social work provision to shape investment
Find out how to develop your emotional resilience with our free downloadable guide
Develop your social work career with Community Care's Careers and Training Guide
How writing great job adverts can be your first step to solving staff retention in the care sector
Recruiting care workers: 4 tips for hiring the right people
How to keep care staff happy: investment, involvement and keeping an eye on morale
How we can help your organisation
The best social work and social care jobs
The online resource for social care professionals
The biggest and best social care event
© MA Education 2018. St Jude's Church, Dulwich Road, Herne Hill, London SE24 0PB, a company registered in England and Wales no. 04002826. MA Education is part of the Mark Allen Group. All Rights Reserved
Our website uses cookies, which are small text files that are widely used in order to make websites work more effectively. To continue using our website and consent to the use of cookies, click click 'Continue'. Find out more.


It's not nectar exactly but I've seen House Sparrows pecking at the tubes on the top of sugar dispensers at a local coffee house.
Also several records of them feeding on Silky Oak - Grevillea robusta - flowers.
They are just one of the exotic species that are attracted to this lovely tree, an alien in these parts.


text:
Review Books and More
← Books Available for Pre-Order Coming 1/28/14
Pre-Order Books Available 2/10/14 & some 2/3/14 Awesome Books. →
Saturday Steals 1/18/14
I have some wonderful books to recommend with fantastic pricing.
The Rosie Project: A Novel By Graeme Simison. The E-book is a STEAL at $1.99. Hardcover is $15.95 and paperback $12.31.
Meet Don Tillman, a brilliant yet socially challenged professor of genetics, who's decided it's time he found a wife. And so, in the orderly, evidence-based manner with which Don approaches all things, he designs the Wife Project to find his perfect partner: a sixteen-page, scientifically valid survey to filter out the drinkers, the smokers, the late arrivers.
Rosie Jarman is all these things. She also is strangely beguiling, fiery, and intelligent. And while Don quickly disqualifies her as a candidate for the Wife Project, as a DNA expert Don is particularly suited to help Rosie on her own quest: identifying her biological father. When an unlikely relationship develops as they collaborate on the Father Project, Don is forced to confront the spontaneous whirlwind that is Rosie—and the realization that, despite your best scientific efforts, you don't find love, it finds you.
Arrestingly endearing and entirely unconventional, Graeme Simsion's distinctive debut will resonate with anyone who has ever tenaciously gone after life or love in the face of great challenges. The Rosie Project is a rare find: a book that restores our optimism in the power of human connection.
When I Found You By Catherine Ryan Hyde. A STEAL! E-book is normally $9.99 now available for $1.99. As a lover of author, I read this book when it was released and yes, I recommend!
While duck hunting one morning, childless, middle-aged Nathan McCann finds a newborn abandoned in the woods. To his shock, the child—wrapped in a sweater and wearing a tiny knitted hat—is still alive. To his wife's shock, Nathan wants to adopt the boy…but the child's grandmother steps in. Nathan makes her promise, however, that one day she'll bring the boy to meet him so he can reveal that he was the one who rescued him.
Fifteen years later, the widowered Nathan discovers the child abandoned once again—this time at his doorstep. Named Nat, the teenager has grown into a sullen delinquent whose grandmother can no longer tolerate him. Nathan agrees to care for Nat, and the two engage in a battle of wills that spans years. Still, the older man repeatedly assures the youngster that, unlike the rest of the world, he will never abandon him—not even when Nat suffers a trauma that changes both of their lives forever.
From the bestselling author of Pay It Forward: A Novel comes When I Found You , an exquisite, emotional tale of the unexpected bonds that nothing in life can break.
Following Atticus By Tom Ryan. Another STEAL at $1.99. You know as an animal and dog lover I can't pass this one by.
The remarkable true story of a man and a dog embarking on the challenge of a lifetime. This is author Tom Ryan's inspiring tale of how he and his miniature schnauzer companion, the "Little Buddha" Atticus M. Finch, attempted to scale all forty-eight of New Hampshire's four thousand foot White Mountains twice in the dead of winter.
It is a story of love, loss, and the resilience of the human and animal spirit that's as thrilling as Into Thin Air and featuring the most endearing and unforgettable canine protagonist since Marley & Me – also a STEAL at $1.99.
We the Animals: A novel
By Justin Torres. This book is in my TBR. Normal E-book price of $12.95 is now a STEAL for $2.99.
Amazon Best Books of the Month, September 2011: We the Animals, Justin Torres's sparse debut novel–at just 125 pages–is brimming with delicate stories of family, of growing up, of facing reality, and of delaying it. Narrated by the youngest son of a Puerto Rican father and white mother from Brooklyn raising their three young sons in upstate New York, the novel is comprised of vignettes detailing moments spent in the eye of the ferocious bubble of home. Torres paints a large picture through diminutive strokes, evoking envy for the couple's passion and fear for just how easily that passion turns to rage. The brothers wrestle, fight, cry, and laugh as their family is torn and repaired over and over again. Torres's prose is fierce, grabbing hold of the reader and allowing him inside the wrenching, whirlwind of a life lived intensely. —Alexandra Foster
Shut Up and Kiss Me By Carolyn Hughley. Normally $2.9, now a STEAL at $.99. We all need to read some romance and with a great title Shut Up and Kiss Me how can your pass this book up?
What's hotter than a summer in New York City? Two sexy Italian chefs fighting over you, of course!
Ellana Licari, a hopeless romantic, has her sights set on the tall, dark, and handsome chef Nick Soranno. With the help of the two meddling mamas, she's determined to show him she's 'The One' not that scrawny redhead who's rapidly becoming more than his casual 'flavor of the month.'
Convincing Nick to stop thinking of her like his sister won't be easy, but Ellana's canoodling with the Italian Stallion, chef Giovanni Cavallini, to make Nick jealous. Of course, Giovanni's only too happy to oblige he's got his own agenda but now that she has Nick's attention, is it too late? With the matchmaking mamas doing their best to interfere, Ellana's stuck in a quandary: Which one of these tempting chefs will she choose?
I Recommend Amazon Prime!
Filed under Books, Recommended, Saturday Steals
Tagged as bargain books, recommended books, saturday steals
Comments Welcome Cancel reply
Fav Reads
Candace Havens Books October 27, 2014
Recommended New Releases 10/27/14 October 26, 2014
Author Interview: Candace Havens October 24, 2014
Recommended Books Available 10/20/14 October 17, 2014
New & Recommended for the Week of 10/14/14 October 7, 2014
Books Coming Soon Fiction Meme Non Fiction Pre Order Reading Recommended Reviews Saturday Steals
Crazy Green Thumbs
Journey Through the Pages
Oliviareadsalatte
By Hook Or By Book
The Blurred Line
kylascott
jaspersdoggyworld
chrismcmullen
Set Sonny and Friends Free
A Platform of Sorts
H.J. Ruiz - Avian101
Buzy Day
Squirrel Picnic
Review Books and More · Book and Product Reviews
Chronicling a delusional gardening experience.
A million books & a coffee addiction
A look inside the mind of a writer who loves comic books, vinyl records, chocolate, and a good film.
Book Reviews, News, and Other Stuff
It's the thin line between reality and fantasy. It's the thin line between sanity and madness. It's the crazy things that make us think, laugh and scream in the dark.
I'm a parrot curmudgeon
Adventures of a Maremma dog
Writing, Publishing, and Marketing Ideas
The unexamined life is not worth living.
Two women's quest to free dog from Forks, Wa 'sanctuary'
"My Backyard Visitors" - All about birds - The world is my backyard!
The adventure of NikkiM
Handmade with Love and Stuff


ENABLE SAP BASED DECISION MAKING AT THE SPEED OF BUSINESS.
Eliminate the time, cost and complexity of analysing SAP and non-SAP data.
Leveraging SAP data is always difficult, however, we understand the challenges and can assist clients to analyse, plan and execute on projects involving SAP systems. The Tridant team works with clients to develop the best approach to utilising SAP data without compromising performance. As SAP integration specialists, Tridant provides organisations and departments with empowered capabilities to perform their job functions effectively & independently.
Learn more about how Tridant can help leverage this information for better insights and decision making.


text:
Can someone be penalized for an "unlawful" act if no penalty is specified?
If a US federal statute specifies that an act is unlawful without specifying a penalty, without using any of the words "misdemeanor," "felony," or "crime," and without invoking Title 18 CFR, can a penalty be imposed?
Asked another way, is there some provision of US law that provides for a blanket penalty that could apply in such a case in the absence of a specific penalty in the statute that makes the act unlawful? Alternatively, could a judge impose a penalty without a statutory basis (beyond the designation of the act as unlawful)?
The specific statute that prompts this question is subsection 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 USC 1185(b):
(b) Citizens
Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport.
Between 1978 and 1994, the last clause read "unless he bears a valid passport." Before 1978, the original version of section 215 was in force, which provided for a requirement to bear a valid passport only during times of war or national emergency when invoked by presidential proclamation. The section specified that willful violators would be subject upon conviction to a fine of up to $5000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years.
Furthermore, this question was prompted by a comment discussion on my answer to a question at Travel: What is the penalty for US citizens entering/leaving the US on a foreign passport?, here in summarized form:
Q: I'm not facile with US federal law, but there are often provisions in State law that provide if act x is deemed criminal by the code and a penalty not specified, then the penalty will be y. So even though there's no penalty in 8 USC 1185(b), there may be a penalty specified by another section of the USC.
A: The section in question only makes the act "unlawful," however, not criminal. I am unaware of a default civil penalty.
Q: I acknowledge the difference between saying something is "unlawful" and saying it's a "crime." I don't know federal law; in that arena, however, the two terms may be construed the same. At random (I searched for "federal crime"), I pulled 21 USC 841(a). It begins "(a) Unlawful acts. Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally..." So it's not clear that use of the magic word "crime" is required.
A: Note how 841(b) provides explicit penalties for violations of subsection (a). The provision of penalties makes those unlawful acts criminal. The 1978 repeal of the penalties related to 8 USC 1185(b) meant that violations were no longer criminal. I've yet to encounter an analysis that holds otherwise, including in reported opinions. The magic word "crime" is not required, but if it is not mentioned then mention of "felony," "misdemeanor," "sentence," or "Title 18" will do. See 8 USC 1325 and 1326 for further examples.
Q: The conclusion in your second sentence might be true, but I don't know enough about federal practice to agree that there is a federal law distinction between "unlawful" and "criminal." Maybe there is. Absent a more sophisticated understanding of how the USC is drafted, or a section-by-section examination of the USC to demonstrate there are no USC sections that prescribe punishments for "unlawful acts," or a citation discussing the distinction, however, I can't (yet) agree.
united-states us-federal-government
phoog
phoogphoog
Do you specifically mean "if the statute specified a particular penalty"; or are you asking "if it is declared unlawful, can a judge make up his own penalty"? – user6726 Apr 10 '19 at 18:47
@user6726 I mean either (1) is there some statute somewhere else that generally specifies penalties for "unlawful" acts, or (2) can a judge make up a penalty. I assume that a repealed former penalty could not be applied, but if I am wrong I would be happy to be told so. – phoog Apr 10 '19 at 18:51
There are some statutes that have a section that says "any violation of this action is punishable by . . . ." but the INA is not one of them. Generally speaking, the way it would be imposed would be:
(1) to deny entry on a departing commercial airplane flight or ship (which is enforced by the private enterprises involved pursuant to Transportation Department regulations that the private enterprises may be sanctioned for not obeying) and
(2) to set up presumptions about the reasonableness of, for example, laws requiring someone to have brought a passport to secure embassy access.
One of the reasons that no penalty is stated is because the constitutionality of this statute is doubtful. Geographical restrictions on travel in some cases have been upheld as constitutional with regard to specific countries and in war time, but are even then strictly construed. But, no case has upheld the restriction as applied to travel to a country to which geographical restrictions do not apply.
Likewise, I doubt that the provision denying entry to U.S. citizens without a passport, even during times of war, would be upheld today.
For example, 215(b) was given a narrow construction (disallowing criminal prosecutions when someone went to Cuba and returned via a third-country while holding a valid U.S. passport) in part out of concern for the constitutional right to travel. U.S. v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475, 481 (1967). See also See L. Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 15-15, at 957 n.22 (1978) (arguing that 'the power approved in Zemel must be limited to the most extraordinary situations'). For background see, e.g. Right to Travel Abroad, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 184, 195 (1984) (student note published anonymously) and Thomas E. Laursen, Constitutional Protection of Foreign Travel, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 902 (1981).
The fundamental right of a citizen is to enter his own country so that he is not stateless with no place he can lawfully be, and that analysis has been developed more in the law now than it had been in 1967.
Alternatively, could a judge impose a penalty without a statutory basis (beyond the designation of the act as unlawful)?
Historically, some U.S. states provided this authority which was called the power to impose punishment for "common law crimes", and there are some that still do and there are others, such as Michigan that don't define key crimes that were crimes at common law, such as murder, other than in case law and simply set punishments by statute for these otherwise undefined crimes. As recently as 1947, a majority of U.S. states had at least some common law crimes. Many states codified their criminal laws in the wake of the Model Penal Code in the 1960s even though all states adapted it to their local needs and only a minority of states adopted a penal code close based upon it. The Model Penal Code made it easier to think of what had previous been an ill defined and massive legislative task into a more manageable and finite project for ambitious reformist legislators (an attitude and approach that was common in the U.S. in state legislatures in the late 1960s and early 1970s).
But, the federal judiciary has never had this authority (as formally determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1812, just 23 years after the current constitution was adopted), in part, because the federal government does not have plenary legislative authority on all matters and federal courts are likewise courts of limited jurisdiction (while all or almost all states have at least one court of general jurisdiction that can handle any matter that no other court has jurisdiction to handle).
The notion that common law offenses could be enforced in federal courts was found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). Some have argued that they are inconsistent with the prohibition of ex post facto laws.
At the state level, the situation varies. Some states, such as New Jersey, have abolished common law crimes (see State v. Palendrano), while others have chosen to continue to recognize them. In some states, the elements of many crimes are defined mostly or entirely by common law, i.e., by prior judicial decisions. For instance, Michigan's penal code does not define the crime of murder: while the penalties for murder are laid out in statute, the actual elements of murder, and their meaning, is entirely set out in case law.
The constitutionality is not doubtful. What do you base that on? – Putvi Apr 10 '19 at 18:54
"I doubt that the provision denying entry to U.S. citizens without a passport, even during times of war, would be upheld today": Nothing in any version of the statute requires denying entry; they could be allowed to enter, but fined and/or imprisoned. I'm interested in this statute because it comes up frequently in discussions of dual citizens traveling internationally. So the case of a US citizen arriving in the US with (only) a passport issued by another country is of interest. – phoog Apr 10 '19 at 19:07
I've edited the question to try to make it clearer that it's more about the technical legal implication of "unlawful" in federal law than about the practical effects of the statute. As a practical matter, US citizens arriving in the US without a US passport are generally, it seems, given a lecture about the need for a passport and then admitted after the CBP immigration inspector waives the passport requirement. – phoog Apr 10 '19 at 19:09
The reason the law you mentioned provides no penalty is that it's ideas are part of those of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and there are further laws that address passports that do establish punishments. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizens/western-hemisphere-travel-initiative
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative mandates that all United States citizens and residents leaving the country present a valid U.S. passport to U.S. customs officials upon their return trip. https://traveltips.usatoday.com/passport-requirements-leaving-us-21007.html
The goal is to track who is coming into the U.S. ,and the government can question you or detain you long enough to verify that you are citizen when you re-enter the U.S.
If the person trying to enter is actually a citizen, likely, no further action will be taken, but if there were no laws about it, the government would not have the right to screen people and weed out those who do mean harm. See the answer provided by Mr. Jairam that quotes the law you quoted here: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/do-i-need-the-us-passport-to-leave-the-country--1971846.html
Also, see this answer in the Travel section of Stack Exchange that also quotes the law you did.
What is the maximum prescribed penalty for violating these rules?
There is none. https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/85389/what-is-the-penalty-for-us-citizens-entering-leaving-the-us-on-a-foreign-passpor
(Yes I know it's you. ;) )
After reading the comment that was not there when I began my original answer, I see you wanted a general overall view of whether a punishment can be levied in criminal law if the law does not specify a punishment.
The laws that do not offer a specific punishment are not criminal offenses. To be considered a criminal offense under federal law, the offense must be classified in one of the categories listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_offenses_under_United_States_federal_law
In the federal courts you are charged by Indictment. That means that the case is presented to a grand jury and the grand jury decides if you can be charged. To present a case to the grand jury, the prosecution has to allege a violation of a specific criminal offense, so the prosecution is not allowed to present violations of other laws, like the one with no punishment you quoted. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging
Some states allow charging by Information, which means that the judge decides if there is enough information to charge you, but the judge is still only allowed to base his decision on whether you committed a specific offense.
PutviPutvi
"there are further laws that address passports that do establish punishments": can you cite those laws? I do not see any. – phoog Apr 10 '19 at 19:20
The main method of dealing with it would be deportation. A punishment does not have to be imprisonment or fines. That does not apply to actual citizens though. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is not meant to punish actual American citizens, but fines have been suggested. passportinfo.com/blog/new-passport-fines-on-us-border-crossing – Putvi Apr 10 '19 at 19:27
Your citation for passport laws is not law, it is policy-related rhetoric. I could not be used in court to establish that a law was violated. We need a citation with USC or CFR in it. – user6726 Apr 10 '19 at 19:30
Also, some infractions give you a lifetime ban if you are not a citizen.. See dyanwilliamslaw.com/tag/form-i-860 – Putvi Apr 10 '19 at 19:30
The part where you claim "there are further laws that address passports that do establish punishments". You did not show that there source in law for this claim. – user6726 Apr 10 '19 at 20:21
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged united-states us-federal-government or ask your own question.
False advertising against seller's interest
Canadian Equivalent to 18 USC 1831/1832/1837?
Status of the Act for the Protection of the Industries of the Indians of New Mexico
Can a refugee use the Refugee Convention to defend against a charge of illegal entry?
Can a Federal Actor, through coercion, or by the omission of information, force a U.S. citizen to waive a state-given Constitutional right?
Criminal Liability for judges under 42 USC 290-dd2(f) and 42 CFR 2.63 [Confidentiality of Substance Abuse Patient Records]


text:
Patty Murray on Abortion
Democratic Sr Senator (WA)
Let women resolve with partner, doctor, and religion
On where she draws the line on abortion's legality, Murray says, "I believe this is an issue that should be resolved between a woman and her partner and her doctor and her religion. I do not believe the government should be dictating this decision. I can't think of a circumstance where the government should be telling a family what they should be doing on their own personal religious decisions."
Later, Murray's spokesman clarified that Murray was referring to the limitations of Roe v. Wade specifically, and has previously expressed willingness to support partial-birth abortion restrictions if they included protections for the life and health of the mother. Source: Pacific Northwest Inlander on 2016 Washington Senate race , May 12, 2015
Nethercutt's voted against expanding stem-cell research
NETHERCUTT: I support stem-cell research. Murray's got an ad out saying I oppose it. Had my dear daughter, who has diabetes, get on television to say that's not true. Murray is deceiving the public and that's unacceptable. So I support embryonic stem-cell research. I do not support it without restriction. I draw the line at cloning. I think it's wrong to clone human beings.
MURRAY: Embryonic stem-cell research is an extremely important area of research that provides hope to thousands of families with Parkinson's disease, with multiple sclerosis, that scientists tell us holds tremendous potential. But they tell us that the policies that are in place today are prohibiting them from moving forward. This is another area where what Nethercutt says here is different than what he does in Washington DC. Unless he's changed his position, in 1996, when he had the opportunity to vote for expanding stem-cell research, both in committee and on the floor of the Congress, he voted no. Source: [Xref Nethercutt] WA Senate Debate , Oct 20, 2004
Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.
Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.
Opponent's argument to vote No:None spoke against the amendment. Reference: Wicker Amdt.; Bill S.Amdt.607 to H.R.1105 ; vote number 2009-S081 on Mar 5, 2009
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52 Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent) Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.
Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.
Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.
Letter of Support from Family Research Council:
Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.
Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea. Reference: Vitter Amendment to HHS/Education/Labor Appropriations; Bill S.Amdt. 3330 to H.R. 3043 ; vote number 2007-379 on Oct 18, 2007
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34 Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ. Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Increase funding and access to family planning services
Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy. Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. Reference: Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000
Voted NO on banning human cloning.
This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)42; N)54; NV)4 Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998
Murray is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC:
EMILY's List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY's List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY's List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. "Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics," said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. "In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women." Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001
Murray scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
Expand embryonic stem cell research.
Murray signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping. Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004
Expand contraceptive services for low-income women.
Murray co-sponsored expanding contraceptive services for low-income women
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:
prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory "categorically needy" group for family planning services purposes.
EXCERPTS OF BILL:
Congress makes the following findings:
Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
Contraceptive use reduces a woman's probability of having an abortion by 85%.
Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.
The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES -- a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote. Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.
Murray introduced for emergency contraception for rape victims
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:
accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
emergency contraception on her request; and
does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.
Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.
By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.
The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote. Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006
Murray scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
Supports both federal abortion funding & judicial activism.
Murray supports the CC survey questions on abortion & strict interpretation
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topics:
Public funding of abortions, (such as govt. health benefits and Planned Parenthood)
Appointing judges that will adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution [vs. accepting judicial activism]
Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q1 on Aug 11, 2010
Opposes prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research.
Murray opposes the CC survey question on banning stem-cell research
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research". [Supporting this statement means the candidate would ban such research; opposing it means the candidate would allow such research]. Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q1a on Aug 11, 2010
Let military perform abortions in cases of rape or incest.
Murray signed MARCH for Military Women Act
Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health for Military Women Act or the MARCH for Military Women Act - Amends the prohibition on using funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to perform abortions by adding an exception for cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. (Current law provides an exception only where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.) Repeals a statutory restriction on using a medical treatment facility or other facility of the DOD to perform an abortion.
[Explanatory note from campusprogress.org "Military Reproductive Rights Bill", 7/5/11]:
Currently, the health coverage U.S. servicewomen have doesn't cover abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. U.S. servicewomen are also not permitted to use their own money to pay for an abortion at a military hospital. Military women stationed abroad are most affected by this regulation, as they would be forced to seek abortion services at foreign hospitals, which may be unsafe, or request permission from a supervisor to leave the country, which forces them to divulge that they are seeking an abortion. Most other American women who receive health care from the government but are not in the service can receive abortions in the case of rape, incest, or to the save the life of the mother. The MARCH for Military Women Act would give servicewomen coverage for abortion in the case of rape or incest and allow them to use their own funds for abortion at a U.S. military facility. NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood are among many organizations that support this legislation. Source: HR2085&S1214 11-S1214 on Jun 16, 2011
Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions.
Murray signed Access to Birth Control Act
Access to Birth Control Act: Amends the Public Health Service Act to require pharmacies to comply with certain rules related to contraceptives, including:
providing a customer a contraceptive without delay if it is in stock;
immediately informing a customer if the contraceptive is not in stock and either transferring the prescription to a pharmacy that has the contraceptive in stock or expediting the ordering of the contraceptive and notifying the customer when it arrives, based on customer preference, except for pharmacies that do not ordinarily stock contraceptives in the normal course of business; and
ensuring that pharmacy employees do not take certain actions relating to a request for contraception, including intimidating, threatening, or harassing customers, interfering with or obstructing the delivery of services, intentionally misrepresenting or deceiving customers about the availability of contraception or its mechanism of action, breaching or threatening to breach medical confidentiality, or refusing to return a valid, lawful prescription.
Provides that this Act does not preempt state law or any professional clinical judgment. Sets forth civil penalties and establishes a a private cause of action for violations of this Act. Source: HR2659&S1415 11-S1415 on Jul 26, 2011
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
Murray co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans. Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013
Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.
Murray co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448
Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:
Access to safe, legal abortion services has been hindered in various ways, including blockades of health care facilities; restrictions on insurance coverage; restrictions on minors' ability to obtain services; and requirements that single out abortion providers.
These restrictions harm women's health by reducing access to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services.
The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been that a woman's ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.
It is the purpose of this Act to protect women's health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions
Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(National Review, July 17, 2014): During hearings on S. 1696, Senators heard many myths from abortion proponents about the "need" for the bill's evisceration of all life-affirming legislation.
Myth: Life-affirming laws are enacted "under the false pretext of health and safety."
Fact: Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.
Myth: "Where abortion services are restricted and unavailable, abortions still occur and are mostly unsafe."
Fact: Where abortion is restricted, maternal mortality rates have decreased.
Myth: Admitting privileges laws are "not medically justified."
Fact: Women with abortion complications are told to go to an emergency department. This would constitute malpractice in any other scenario.
Myth: Ultrasounds and their descriptions are "cruel and inhumane."
Fact: Allowing women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds serves an important role in providing informed consent, enabling women to exercise true choice.
Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_S217 on Jan 21, 2015
Keep federal funding for family planning clinics.
Murray signed keeping federal funding for family planning clinics
Excerpts from Letter to the Senate Majority Leader from 46 Senators: The recent vote in the House to overturn rules protecting Title X health centers would deny women access to care. In 2015, Title X provided basic primary and preventive health care services such as pap tests, breast exams, and HIV testing to more than four million low-income women and men at over 4,000 health centers. In large part due to this work, the US unintended pregnancy rate is at a 30-year low, and rates of teenage pregnancy are the lowest in our nation's history. The success of the program is dependent on funding. Family planning services, like those provided at Planned Parenthood and other family planning centers, should be available to all women, no matter where they live or how much money they make.
Opposing argument: (Heritage Foundation, "Disentangling the Data"): Planned Parenthood received approximately $60 million of taxpayer money under Title X, and $390 million through Medicaid. To ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize America's number one abortion provider, Congress should make Planned Parenthood affiliates ineligible to receive either Medicaid reimbursements or Title X grants if they continue to perform abortions. Taxpayer money from these programs should instead be redirected to the more than 9,000 federally qualified health center sites that provide comprehensive primary health care for those in need without entanglement in abortion.
Supporting argument: (ACLU, "Urging Title X"): Title X services help women & men to plan the number and timing of their pregnancies, thereby helping to prevent approximately one million unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which would end in abortion. However, current funding is inadequate. Had Title X funding kept up with inflation it would now be funded at nearly $700 million. We ask that Title X be funded at $375 million, which is $92 million above its current funding level. Source: Letter to the Senate Majority Leader from 46 Senators 17LTR-TITX on Mar 1, 2017
Protect the reproductive rights of women.
Murray co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women
Provides that a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy:
before fetal viability; or
at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
Allows a State to impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of such women.
Declares that this Act shall not be construed to prevent a State from:
requiring minors to involve responsible adults before terminating a pregnancy; and
protecting individuals from having to participate in abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed. Source: Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.25) 1993-H25 on Jan 5, 1993
Murray co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
Murray signed Prevention First Act
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women.
Murray is endorsed by Congressional endorsement list
EMILY's List is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office:
EMILY's List looks for viable political opportunities and recruits strong pro-choice Democratic women candidates to run.
We tell our community of members about these women, and ask them to give directly to the campaigns.
We provide extensive training for candidates and staff so they can make the most of limited resources.
We conduct in-depth, ongoing research into the minds and moods of women voters, a critical bloc for Democrats.
Finally, our WOMEN VOTE! project reaches out to women voters to go to the polls and cast their ballots for progressive Democrats--because When Women Vote, Women Win!
EMILY's List's motto is "win today and build for tomorrow."
Our immediate focus is to protect our gains from 2008 and make sure President Obama has strong Democratic majorities in Congress. Its name? EMILY's List--an acronym for "Early Money Is Like Yeast" (because it makes the dough--campaign funds--rise). Source: 2010 Congressional endorsement list 2010-EML on Sep 1, 2010
Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Patty Murray.
Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Patty Murray.
Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Patty Murray.
Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Patty Murray.
Click here for MyOcracy quiz answers by Patty Murray.
Click here for Huffington Post quiz answers by Patty Murray.
Click here for a summary of Patty Murray's positions on all issues.
Click here for issue positions of other WA politicians.
Click here for issue statements from WA archives.
Other candidates on Abortion: Patty Murray on other issues:
Retiring in 2014 election:
GA:Chambliss(R)
IA:Harkin(D)
MI:Levin(D)
MT:Baucus(D)
NE:Johanns(R)
SD:Johnson(D)
WV:Rockefeller(D)
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
AZ:Kyl(R)
CT:Lieberman(D)
HI:Akaka(D)
ND:Conrad(D)
NM:Bingaman(D)
TX:Hutchison(R)
VA:Webb(D)
WI:Kohl(D) Senate races 2017-8:
AL:	Strange(R) ; no opponent yet
AZ:	Flake(R) vs.	Ward(R)
CA:	Feinstein(D) vs.	Eisen(D) vs.	Sanchez?(D) vs.	Garcetti?(D)
CT:	Murphy(D) ; no opponent yet
DE:	Carper(D) vs.	Biden?(D) vs.	Markell?(D)
FL:	Nelson(D) vs.	DeSantis(R) vs.	Jolly(R) vs.	Lopez-Cantera(R)
HI:	Hirono(D) ; no opponent yet
IN:	Donnelly(D) vs.	Hurt(R)
MA:	Warren(D) vs.	Ayyadurai(R)
MD:	Cardin(D) ; no opponent yet
ME:	King(I) vs.	LePage?(R)
MI:	Stabenow(D) vs.	Bouchard?(R)
MN:	Klobuchar(D) vs.	Paulsen?(R)
MO:	McCaskill(D) vs.	Kinder?(R)
MS:	Wicker(R) vs.	McDaniel?(R)
MT:	Tester(D) vs.	Racicot?(R)
ND:	Heitkamp(D) vs.	Becker?(R)
NE:	Fischer(R) ; no opponent yet
NJ:	Menendez(D) vs.	Chiesa(R) vs.	Codey?(D) vs.	Chiesa?(R)
NM:	Heinrich(D) vs.	Sanchez(R)
NV:	Heller(R) vs.	Sandoval?(R)
NY:	Gillibrand(D) vs.	Kennedy?(D)
OH:	Brown(D) vs.	Mandel(R)
PA:	Casey(D) vs.	Saccone(R)
RI:	Whitehouse(D) ; no opponent yet
TN:	Corker(R) vs.	Crim(I)
TX:	Cruz(R) vs.	Bush?(R)
UT:	Hatch(R) vs.	McMullin?(R) vs.	Romney?(R)
VT:	Sanders(I) vs.	Giordano(D)
VA:	Kaine(D) vs.	Cuccinelli?(R) vs.	Fiorina?(R)
WA:	Cantwell(D) ; no opponent yet
WV:	Manchin(D) vs.	Raese(R) vs.	Goodwin?(R)
WI:	Baldwin(D) vs.	Grothman?(R) vs.	Gallagher?(R)
WY:	Barrasso(R) ; no opponent yet Abortion
Other Senators


StreetDance 3D review - Though it should've been seriously naff, this British hip-hop hoofer hits the right groove.
The likeable Nichola Burley stars as Carly, a dancer who must lead her crew to glory via collaboration with a posh ballet school.
Familiar plot moves, then, but StreetDance impresses with choreography that synchs with the 3D effects and fashion/music choices that chime with real teen tastes.
Those who think N-Dubz is a lime scale remover can still enjoy Charlotte Rampling's regal turn as the ballet teacher.
Skillfully pitched at its market, this is joyful in a way only the professionally grumpy (dads, film critics) could object to.


To get this achievement, you must be playing co-op as Lynch. It takes place in the chapter "Exchange" (the 6th one), which begins with Kane walking through the park to the pagoda to meet Retomoto while Lynch is up on the overpass guarding Retomoto's daughter. After a cutscene where Kane speaks to Retomoto on the phone and Lynch flips out and shoots the hostage, the action begins. There are two snipers who are part of Retomoto's ambush for you... the achievement is for Lynch, who has a sniper rifle, to kill both of them within 15 seconds of the end of the cutscene.
To fire the sniper rifle, hold LT to sight and then while holding press UP on the D-pad to zoom in. If we imagine the circle of the overpass as a clock face, where Lynch's position on the dial is 6 o'clock, then the snipers are located at 9 o'clock and roughly 2 o'clock (this one is very close to a van which makes him much easier to spot than the other one). Have your buddy playing Kane just crouch down in the pagoda hiding from damage so he doesn't ruin the achievement by dying. No need to try for headshots while sniping them, a shot to the torso seems to kill them 90% of the time and you risk wasting time and/or missing by going for the head.


I am enjoying exploring printmaking and am a member of York Printmakers.
I have also visited several print fairs at Leeds and Wakefield and have travelled to Edinburgh Printmakers to participate in discussion over the future of printmaking.
Latest prints, dry point etching, made at Crescent Arts Scarborough with print-maker Dawn Brooks. Really enjoyed the six week course and am pleased with my work.
Images below show examples of experimental printmaking from courses on print /book making, and crecyanotypes.
Since exhibiting my digital prints in my final MA in Fine Art Degree Show in 2016, I keep reflecting on.. what is a print? In the past I have dabbled in various types of printmaking, but never with a purposeful intention. Since the start of 2017 I have visited a number of print/book fests and signed up for several local courses. I also become a member of York Printmakers, taking along some very experimental pieces created using metal tomato puree tube and a pasta maker for a press!
Work coming soon from other print workshops.


We all love a good story, and some tales are bigger than others. Such is the case with Spreckels Theatre Company's production of the Broadway musical Big Fish (running from August 12 – 28). If you've seen the Tim Burton movie, you're sure to love the play. And once you've seen the play, you'll want to see the movie again. Emotional and heart-warming, the story focuses on the relationship between father and son.
Edward Bloom is a traveling salesman who has a propensity for spinning stories to mythological proportions. The production revolves around his son Will's yearning to to truly know his father, to uncover what is truth and what is fiction.
The story shifts through two timelines, past and present. In the present, the audience watches an older Edward interact with his frustrated adult son. In the past, the audience relives a young Edward's adventures involving a mermaid, a witch, a giant, a circus, and falling in love at first sight. Through it all, the audience begins to find glimpses of truth in the impossible, and the hero that is kept secret.
Darryl Strohl-DeHerrera, Mark Bradbury and Heather Buck star in this musical expertly directed by Gene Abravaya. When you go, prepare to experience a full range of emotions, from laughter to tears. The entire cast worked as a great team to deliver fine performances. Some of my favorite moments were Buck in the musical numbers "Time Stops" and "I Don't Need a Roof." Buck did a stellar job as Mary Poppins at Spreckels last season, and her star quality continues to shine. Once again, I was captivated by her ability to make the story poignant and intimate on stage.
Choregrapher Michella Snider and Costume Designer Pamela Enz worked their magic again. I especially loved the Witch Sequence. The blend of powerful singing by Serena Elize Flores with actors dancing and camouflaged as trees was remarkable. Once again, Bobby Finney delighted audiences as Karl the Giant.
Some of the funnier aspects of the play were brought to life by clever use of Spreckels' specially developed Paradyne projection system. This system combines still images and animations to create multiple backdrop effects. When you go, be sure to watch for the human cannonball scene—it's a hoot!
In its 22nd year and with over 20 awards from the San Francisco Bay Area Theater Critics Circle, Spreckels offers award-winning theatre, music and dance. More than 20,000 people attend plays at Spreckels every year from all over the bay area. The theatre company was especially pleased with record-breaking attendance for the production of Disney's The Little Mermaid last season.
Big Fish opens the Spreckels 2016 to 2017 season. Just like Big Fish, all the following productions are also North Bay Premiers, shows that have never been done in this area because of their magnitude and particular demands. Audiences can look forward to Baskerville; A Sherlock Holmes Mystery; Titanic, The Musical; Peter and the Star Catcher; 1776; The Sugar Bean Sisters; and Disney's Tarzan.
To buy tickets for Big Fish or for upcoming productions at Spreckels Performing Arts Center in Rohnert Park, visit www.ci.rohnert-park.ca.us/city_hall/departments/spreckels_performing_arts_center or call (707) 588-2226.


text:
Wordyard / Politics / The U.S. attorney purge and Watergate
The U.S. attorney purge and Watergate
During Watergate, one would sometimes hear a certain volume of complaint: Sure, there was a petty burglary at the Democratic headquarters — but why was that such a big deal? Didn't the government have more important things to worry about? Didn't we know there was a war on?
Of course, as eventually became clear, the little breakin at the Watergate Hotel was the tip of an iceberg of corruption and fraud. And that lawbreaking wasn't random or motiveless; it was centered on the aggressive rigging of a national presidential election. Watergate's collective menagerie of petty evils insured that Nixon would be re-elected. That was the grand crime: subversion of the democratic process.
As the implosion of the Gonzales Justice Department continues, it's important to keep that history in mind. Right now we're still hearing the protests: This was just about firing a few political appointees! They weren't following the White House's wishes! Bush wanted them to root out election fraud, and they weren't getting with the program! Why are we troubling ourselves over this stuff? Don't we know there's a war on?
In the U.S. attorney purge scandal as with Watergate, the "it's just not a big deal" defense is collapsing — only faster this time. To understand why you only need a handful of facts.
Every president appoints U.S. attorneys, and some (like Clinton) have fired the previous administration's appointees en masse and replaced them. But the selective firing of a large group in the middle of a president's term is unprecedented, sowing doubt about motives. And the Justice Department's Keystone-Kops-like effort to justify the dismissals, using multiple contradictory reasons, has only fed suspicions.
U.S. attorneys are prosecutors who have enormous latitude and power to go after potential wrongdoing. They operate under the Justice Department's direction but they have a tradition of independence, and both parties agree that they should be insulated from political pressure. They are political appointees — not political operatives.
The evidence continues to mount that the purged attorneys — loyal Republicans and Bush appointees all — were fired because (a) they weren't aggressively pursuing an agenda of "cracking down on election fraud" that was a cornerstone of Karl Rove's long-term strategy and (b) Rove wanted to ease them out so some of his young-turk up-and-comers could pad their resumes before the Bush administration sinks into its terminal mire.
At this point it sounds like we're just dealing with some ugly political hardball. But as Josh Marshall (whose site has been a font of reporting and insight on this story from the beginning) has argued, the whole "election fraud" dimension has fouler partisan implications.
"Cracking down on electoral fraud" is a GOP code phrase; in practice, it means finding ways to keep poor and minority voters away from the polls. Two lengthy New York Times pieces — yesterday's and today's — have chronicled how little fire there is behind the GOP "election fraud" smoke. Gonzales and Rove kept pushing their U.S. attorneys to trump up election fraud cases, even as impartial or bipartisan investigations poking into these charges kept coming up empty.
We don't know at this point whether the hit list of fired attorneys actually included prosecutors who'd been pushed to pursue such cases and refused — or whether the charge of "failing to crack down on election fraud" was simply an entirely fabricated excuse for a political purge. Conveniently, the same hit list included other attorneys, like San Diego's Carol Lam, who were successfully prosecuting Republican officials in cases of appalling corruption and fraud. Under these circumstances, one shudders to think what we're going to learn about what the "loyal Bushie" prosecutors had to do to keep their names off the hit list.
Notice the priorities: Under Rove and Gonzales, your job as prosecutor was to go after the indigent and the illiterate who goofed somewhere on their election registrations. But if you went after actual extortionists and bribe-takers like disgraced former congressman Duke Cunningham, you faced the ax.
Or maybe it's not that simple: the typical prosecutor handles a vast caseload. It's quite likely that each name on the purge hit list will ultimately prove to have its own set of complex circumstances. It's even possible — though I think highly doubtful — that the reasons for Lam's firing aren't as nefarious as they look.
The point is, we can't and won't know until we have the facts. And now the White House is digging in its heels, invoking executive privilege and conveniently losing e-mail troves in what is increasingly looking like a vast cover-up. So we're in for a long fight. But it's worth the effort given what's at stake.
The damage is already done: the selective U.S. attorney purge means that for years to come a cloud will hang over every federal prosecution that involves either party. Thanks to what Gonzales and Rove have achieved — the abject politicization of the American justice system in pursuit of partisan goals — we'll always be wondering: Were those charged brought because a prosecutor found evidence — or because a political campaign needed help?
So the next time you hear someone carping that the attorney scandal is overblown? Remember that, like Watergate before it, its small details add up to something significant: a White House-led assault on the integrity of elections.
UPDATE: Marshall has much more on the election-fraud fraud here:
Republican party officials and elected officials use bogus claims of vote fraud to do three things: 1) to stymie voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts in poor and minority neighborhoods, 2) purge voter rolls of legitimate voters and 3) institute voter ID laws aimed at making it harder for low-income and minority voters to vote. This sounds like hyperbole but it is simply the truth.
[tags]u.s. attorneys, alberto gonzales, karl rove, election fraud[/tags]
Filed Under: Politics
it's all unraveling but who replaces Gonzo ? Some Rove Pick no doubt. My bet is not on Fitz. Someone will gladly take it for the resume perk. Look around for a very conservative and Ultra Christian value State Attourney General. Thye never seem to run out of patsies.
Scripting News for 4/12/2007 « Scripting News Annex says:
[…] Scott Rosenberg has taken a hiatus from writing political essays, but he just published another great one, about why we should pay close attention to the coverup of the firing of the nine US attorneys. Whether the President was a Republic or Democrat, makes no difference, if the US attorneys were fired to subvert with the election process, it's a scandal of huge proportion, that undermines the fairness of the US justice system. […]


Stockbrokers buy and sell stocks on behalf of investors. Many investors use online stockbrokers to trade stocks and other investments.
A stockbroker is a person or company authorized to buy and sell stocks or other investments. If you want to buy stocks, you will almost always need a stockbroker — essentially, a middleman — to place those orders on your behalf.
These days, many people open a brokerage account with online stockbrokers rather than working with a person. Often called discount stockbrokers, online brokers are typically less expensive and allow you to buy or sell stocks and other investments directly through their websites or trading platforms.
To understand what a stockbroker does, it helps to have some quick background about the stock market.
Stocks are traded through market exchanges, like the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq. These exchanges are like a supermarket for stocks: Companies list their stock with an exchange, and the exchange connects buyers and sellers, imposes rules and regulations, and tracks the demand for each stock, which influences the stock's price.
But the average investor can't just walk into an exchange and pluck a stock off the shelf. Instead, you need a stockbroker, a company or person who is licensed to execute trades with the exchange. Brokers generally must be registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In some cases, stockbrokers also provide advice on which stocks you should buy and sell.
However, stockbrokers should not be confused with financial planners, who tend to offer more holistic guidance on your financial situation.
How do stockbrokers make money?
Stockbrokers are typically compensated through a commission on each trade. That means you'll pay the broker a commission when you buy or sell a stock.
You'll pay more to work with a human stockbroker at a full-service brokerage firm, and less to manage your own brokerage account and execute trades through a discount broker like E-Trade or TD Ameritrade. Most discount brokers charge between $5 and $7 per trade.
How do you find a stockbroker?
These days, it's easy to find a stockbroker. Most investors should opt for a discount broker, due to the cost savings and ease of placing online orders.
To find the best online broker for you, look for discount brokers that require a low minimum investment and charge no ongoing account fees. If you're new to investing, consider choosing an online broker that offers educational resources — many have libraries of how-to content on their websites to help you get started.
If you need more guidance, consider the brokers below. All are on our list of best brokers for beginners.
For more options, you can see all of our top picks here.