text:
Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Jay Carney , 09/19/13
MR. CARNEY: Hello, everyone. Good to have you here today -- another beautiful day here in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital. Fabulous weather.
I have a lot of toppers and I'm going to top with this one.
My first topper is, on Monday, September 23, the Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden will travel to Colorado to view damage from recent flooding and survey recovery efforts there. The Vice President's office will be releasing additional information as we get closer to Monday. That's topper number one.
Topper number two, on Tuesday, President Obama will travel to New York to attend the Clinton Global Initiative, where he and President Clinton will engage in a conversation about the benefits and future of health care reform in America and access to quality health care around the globe.
I know that was confusing -- I said that he'll travel to New York. He will be in New York, as you know, for the United Nations General Assembly.
Secondly, as you all know, following on the announcement that he'll be having this conversation with former President Clinton about the benefits and future of health care reform, this conversation will take place one week before the health insurance marketplaces open for business, and Americans who do not currently have insurance will be able to sign up for affordable, quality health plans that meet their needs.
This conversation between the two Presidents will follow up on the health care speech President Clinton gave in Arkansas in early September and is part of a ramped-up public education effort to reach Americans who want to sign up for new affordable options in the health insurance marketplaces from October through March.
Finally, today the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Nina Pillard's nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. There are now two highly qualified nominees for this court pending before the full Senate, and we urge their prompt confirmation.
As you may know, Pillard's career includes landmark accomplishments on behalf of women and families. She helped defend the constitutionality of the Family and Medical Leave Act and helped open the doors of the Virginia Military Institute to female students. Today, Pillard is a professor at Georgetown Law School. And I would remind you that the D.C. circuit has a strong tradition of judges who were previously innovative scholars, and that would include Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Some Republicans continue to cynically raise arguments about that court's workload, even though the court is more than a quarter vacant today. During the last administration, these very same senators confirmed judges to the 9th, 10th, and 11th seats on this very same court. And earlier this year, these same senators confirmed judges to circuit courts with fewer pending appeals per active judge than is the case at the D.C. Circuit.
Right now there are 14 judicial nominees pending in the Senate, including 12 who have the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee, and we urge the Senate to consider Nina Pillard's nomination and all of the President's judicial nominees without delay.
That was a lot of toppers, and maybe we can just wrap it up. Or I'll take your questions. Yes.
Q I appreciate it. Thanks, Jay. Today, House Speaker John Boehner said the House won't vote to increase the debt limit without including some spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Is the President willing to give them?
MR. CARNEY: The President has been and is willing to negotiate with Republicans over a broad compromise on budget, on funding and spending. He has put forward his own proposal to do that. And he urges Congress to act to make sure the government does not shut down and continues to be funded, and, if necessary, to pass a short-term extension of funding at current levels in order to allow for further negotiations on a broader budget agreement.
I would note that, in keeping with his promises, and the Democrats, in keeping with their promises, the President submitted a budget that represented compromise and tough choices for Democrats, with broad-based deficit reduction achieved through a balanced approach. The Senate passed its own budget, as Republican leaders insisted they must.
At the time, Republican leaders said we have to have regular order; we have to have a situation where the House passes a budget, the Senate passes a budget, and then, in accordance with regular order, a conference is established and a product is produced. Except when that happened, and the Senate passed a budget, the House decided it did not want to join in a conference, and the House Republican leaders have refused to name conferees for the budget now for about six months.
So that's a laying-down of the facts here when it comes to the President's willingness to compromise to achieve resolution and find common ground on budget issues. And he looks forward to doing that in the future.
On the matter of debt ceiling, the answer is, no, we will negotiate over Congress's responsibility to pay the bills that Congress incurred -- Congress's responsibility enshrined in the United States Constitution, which gives Congress power over the purse strings here in this country, to responsibly ensure that we do not default, that the United States is good -- is true to its word and that our full faith and credit will be upheld.
It's unconscionable to imagine that there are those in the Congress -- and now, apparently, because he couldn't persuade them otherwise, the Speaker of the House has joined them, who believe that it is the right thing to do to threaten another recession, threaten economic calamity in this country and the globe, over their ideological desire to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act.
We've had this battle. That's how it works: You write legislation; you propose legislation; you pass legislation. It becomes law. If people think it's inappropriate or unconstitutional, they take it to the Supreme Court -- through the court system to the Supreme Court. In this case, that's what happened and the Supreme Court upheld the law, and we're implementing the law. And if members of the Republican Party want to continue to try to overturn the law through legislation, they can -- they have been doing that nonstop for the past several years. But they should not hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to their insistence that they get what they want in a manner that they couldn't get through legislation.
That's our position.
Q Will the White House urge House Democrats to vote for a clean debt ceiling, even though it would be at a level reflecting a continuation of the sequester?
MR. CARNEY: As I said the other day and I think as recently as yesterday, and I think the SAP that we put out, the Statement of Administration Policy, says that we would be willing to accept a so-called clean CR at current spending levels for several months to allow for continued negotiations over a broader budget deal.
What we won't accept is further cuts in important investments in our economy. I think it's worth noting that the Republican -- House Republican budget approach enshrined in the Ryan budget was rejected by House Republicans, who could not even pass a transportation and housing bill out of committee. I think that demonstrates that the Ryan budget is not acceptable even among House Republicans.
But to answer your question, we would accept a clean CR for a short term in order to continue the negotiations over how we can find agreement over funding the government, ensuring that we're protecting the middle class and helping it grow, that we're creating jobs, and that we're reducing our deficit in a responsible way.
What Speaker Boehner didn't note in his presentation today is that the deficit has been coming down dramatically. It has been coming down and is now slated to be half the size it was when the President took office -- despite the enormous economic challenges that our nation faced when the President did take office and all that we had to do to avert a depression.
But there is more work to be done. And we can responsibly reduce our deficit in the mid and long term, and fund our necessary priorities to help the economy grow, and help the middle class, and create good-paying jobs here in the United States through investments in education and innovation, research and development and infrastructure. We just have to do it in a responsible way.
And we can't go to the nation -- or we shouldn't -- they shouldn't go to the nation and say, we couldn't get this through normal means, so we're going to threaten your job, your welfare, your security and future, so that we can defund Obamacare, or delay it -- a proposition which would actually increase the deficit. So this is supposed to be all about spending, but they want to increase the deficit to get what they -- what their ideology demands.
And I think we've seen, not just coming from here but from all corners, including many corners within the Republican Party, the view that this is a bad idea. It's bad for the economy. It's bad for the middle class. It's bad for the Republican Party. Obviously that's for Republican Party leaders and members to sort out, what's good for them politically. What we know is that this approach is bad for the American people.
Q Can you just talk about Sunday? Is there any more you can tell us about the President's plans at the memorial service? Is he going to speak, and might we hear anything about gun control, like after Newtown?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have a preview beyond what I announced yesterday. I think the President might speak, but I don't have anything more specific than that to say about it. When we have more information we'll provide it.
Q On Syria, in his interview with Fox, President Assad said that he thought it would cost about a billion dollars to destroy Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons, and he suggested that the United States should pay for it. I'm wondering is the United States willing to finance the cost of destruction of --
MR. CARNEY: A couple of things. He also said that somebody else was responsible for mass murder of civilians using chemical weapons, including children. And I suppose if you use poison gas to murder your own people, including the children of your own nation, you probably would deny it publicly.
We're working with the Russians on a framework that Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov worked out with their teams to implement a program that would identify, verify and remove from Assad's control the chemical weapon stockpiles in that country. And this is obviously a complicated piece of business. I don't have a cost figure associated with it. What I can tell you is that it would be in the interest of the Syrian people, the interest of the people of the region, the interest of the United States and the people of the world to see those chemical weapon stockpiles safely removed from Syria -- removed from Assad's control and destroyed, so that he cannot use them again in the deplorably indiscriminate way that he used them against his own people.
Q So when it comes, though, to the cost of doing that --
MR. CARNEY: The folks working on the details of the plans might have more information about what it would take, what it will take to bring about the identification and transfer and ultimate destruction of the chemical weapons. And we're working with our teams on that.
But two things I would say -- is that the use of those weapons is the absolute, clear responsibility of Assad. The U.N. report, the inspectors' report reinforces what we've been saying and what many nations around the world have agreed with us in saying that Assad was responsible for the attacks on August 21st. Attempts to suggest otherwise have become farcical in their weirdness and their disassociation from established facts.
But none of that matters so much as the fact that Syria has now, for the first time in its history, acknowledged that they have chemical weapons and agreed to rid themselves of chemical weapons. And Russia has obviously joined with the United States in producing this framework for achieving that. Now, there's a lot of work to be done, but this is a significant development over these past days. And we're going about the business of trying to make it happen.
Q Looking ahead to next week, are you moving toward some kind of encounter at the U.N. between President Obama and President Rouhani?
MR. CARNEY: We have no meetings scheduled, as I said yesterday. We have met with the Iranians through the P5-plus-1 process. We communicate with the Iranians through a variety of methods, as we've said in the past. President Obama and the new President, Rouhani, have exchanged letters, as President Obama noted in a couple of interviews. It has long been the position of President Obama since he was a candidate and this was a matter of debate during the Democratic primaries in 2008 as well as during the general election, that he would, as President, be willing to have bilateral negotiations with the Iranians provided that the Iranians were serious about addressing the international community's insistence that they give up their nuclear weapons programs. That is the position that we hold today.
The first words he uttered after he took the oath of office included this sentence -- he being the President: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
And that was a reference in his inaugural address to his position stated during the campaign and throughout his presidency that he'd be willing to have direct conversations and negotiations with the Iranians provided that the Iranians were serious about ridding themselves of their nuclear weapons program and honoring the international commitments that they've made.
Now, there have been a lot of very interesting things said out of Tehran and the new government, and encouraging things, but actions are more important than words. And one of the reasons why we're seeing this change in rhetoric we believe is because -- we know is because of the international consensus that has been established with the President's leadership behind the proposition that Iran must give up its nuclear weapons program. And that consensus has been backed with the most severe sanctions regime in history. And that sanctions regime has inflicted enormous harm on the Iranian economy. And the new President has made clear that he wants to -- or says that he wants to address that problem. And to do that, he needs to demonstrate that he's serious about resolving this conflict with the international community.
I'm going to move -- instead of going regular order here, I'm going to start on the right. Starting on the right.
Q Thanks, Jay. Can I get your reaction to Ann Curry's interview with Iran's President, just following up on these questions, in which he says that he doesn't plan to make a chemical weapon? But then when he was asked about --
MR. CARNEY: I think you mean -- sorry -- nuclear weapons.
Q Yes, sorry, nuclear weapon. And then when he was asked about Israel, though, he described Israel as an "occupier and a usurper government." So, first of all, could you respond to his initial comments about nuclear weapons?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as I was just saying in answer to Roberta, there's no question that new Iranian government has been taking a different approach in the things that it has said about a lot of issues. And it has taken some actions that suggest a new approach, and I don't want to diminish that. That's obviously welcome. And as I said yesterday, we are interested in testing the seriousness of those assertions -- the desire, the stated desire by the new government to improve its relationships with the international community, knowing that the only way to do that is to deal with this problem. So I would put that statement and that interview within the context of other things that have been said along those lines.
And then the second question?
Q The comments about Israel -- he calls it a "usurper government." When he was asked directly about whether he believed whether the Holocaust was a myth, he sort of dodged that question. So how do you square --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that obviously -- I didn't see the full text of the interview, so I'm taking your description of it in answering this question. But these are obviously important issues, and we have seen certainly from President Rouhani's predecessor incredibly offensive statements with regards to Israel and the Jewish people. So we are assessing and evaluating all the things that the new government is saying and doing.
Q Did the President see the interview or the transcript?
MR. CARNEY: The President is very, as he always is, up to date on developments on this issue. I don't know that he saw the interview, but I know he's certainly aware of many of the things that the new President has been saying, and members of his government have been saying.
Q And then on Syria -- yesterday, a State Department spokesperson said about the Saturday deadline for Assad turning over his list of chemical weapons, she said, "We've never said that was a hard and fast deadline." So do you expect to actually get a full accounting of Assad's chemical weapons by the first deadline? And is it a hard and fast deadline?
MR. CARNEY: Well, let me be clear about that. We developed this framework because it is our stated goal to prevent Assad from ever using chemical weapons again. And fulfilling this framework by removing those weapons from his control and destroying them would achieve that goal. We believe the situation is so serious that action needs to be taken as swiftly as possible so the Assad regime can never use these weapons again. And we expect the Syrian regime to abide by the timeline in the framework, and for Russia to hold the Assad regime to account.
Now, we need to stress that these are timelines and goals, and we are all aware that something as complicated as destroying a massive stockpile of chemical weapons takes time. And as we've said --
Q So it's not --
MR. CARNEY: The framework makes a distinction -- and this is what's important, and this goes to the question -- between the initial information provided by Syria that would fall under a one-week timeframe and the formal CWC Declaration -- the Chemical Weapons Convention Declaration -- which is on a 30-day timeframe.
So we are looking at both and we will evaluate Syria's compliance as we see information from Syria.
Q So I just want to be clear. If they don't give you a full accounting by Saturday, it doesn't necessarily indicate the deal has fallen apart?
MR. CARNEY: There's an initial provision of information, and that is the one-week deadline. And we'll evaluate compliance when we see what the Syrians have provided. And then there's the 30-day deadline in accordance with the convention.
Q Thanks, Jay. I'm not asking you about a Fed action, but asking you about the President's performance on the economy. When the Fed says that the economy is simply not strong enough to take the training wheels off, is that not an indictment of the President's policies, since he's had five years now?
MR. CARNEY: No. I think that -- again, without commenting on Fed policy -- it is something that this President says every time he speaks about the economy, that we have more work to do. What all the actions taken at various levels to address these severe economic straits we were in as a nation were meant to do was to help propel this economy in a different direction --
Q But they're saying it hasn't -- you got us out of another potential depression, but the economy has not propelled. They haven't taken the training wheels off. Why is that?
MR. CARNEY: The economy is not where we need it to be --
Q Right. Why?
MR. CARNEY: What is true is that the economy policies that produced the worst recession in our lifetimes, that had us headed for a global depression with the prospect of 25 percent unemployment, created a situation where when the President was taking office, the nation was losing 800,000 jobs a month. The nation's economy was contracting at an annual rate of 8 percent. We ultimately lost more than 8 million jobs.
And thanks to the grit and determination and resilience of the American people, thanks to policies that were put in place in the months and years after the economic collapse, we have seen this country grow steadily and produce 7.5 million private sector jobs. By definition, that is not a completion of the job.
And the fact is the unemployment rate is still too high; too many Americans are still looking for jobs. And that's why we should be investing in education, not slashing education, which Republicans, especially in the House, say we should be doing. It's why we should be investing in our infrastructure to create jobs today and create the foundation for future job growth and economic growth down the line. And we should be investing in research and development and other aspects of our economy that will help it grow and help it create jobs, instead of cutting all that in order, in part, to preserve tax breaks for corporations that are unnecessary, or other privileges that don't help our economy grow.
Q Except, on that point of education, on August 2, 2011, the President signs a Budget Control Act of 2011 -- the last time we had this big debt ceiling fight -- into law. And he says, "We have $2 trillion in deficit reduction," the President says, "yet it also allows us to keep making key investments in things like education and research that lead to new jobs, and assures we're not cutting too abruptly while the economy is still fragile." August 2011. Here we are more than two years later, you're saying the same thing about we need to invest in education --
MR. CARNEY: And how many jobs has the economy created since then?
Q And Bernanke yesterday said it's not keeping up, that people are leaving the workforce. That's why the unemployment --
MR. CARNEY: You and I, we're going to do this on Crossfire one day, I promise. And let's be clear that I'll be on one side and you'll be on the other. But what was true then is true today that we need to continue to invest in education. We need to continue to invest in infrastructure. We need to continue to invest in areas --
Q The budget of 2011 did that, according to the President. Two years later --
MR. CARNEY: Okay, first of all, as we discussed yesterday, you need to -- we need to help you with your facts about what happened in 2011. There was a $1.1 trillion non-defense discretionary cut, which allowed for us to preserve key investments in education and elsewhere. There was a call for additional deficit reduction, which the President proposed a plan to do, which was balanced and the Republicans rejected. A super committee was tasked with finding a way to achieve that, and if that was not achieved after another year, the sequester would kick into place.
Now, the sequester is indiscriminant, across-the-board cuts, which Republicans bemoaned, until, lacking an alternative, they celebrated, including significant cuts to our military readiness and cuts to Head Start and other programs that are vital to millions of American families across the country.
So again, if you're suggesting by this that we ought to be cutting education, you should say so. If you're suggesting we ought to be -- that's what the Republican budget proposes -- that we ought to be cutting -- we ought not to be funding infrastructure.
Q The President said we were making those investments. Two years later, the Fed says it's just not growing.
MR. CARNEY: Ed, have we been growing? Has the economy been growing? Yes, it is.
Q Those are facts. That's what he said. He said it's just not growing quick enough for us to take the training wheels off.
MR. CARNEY: The President believes entirely that we need to continue to make the key investments to have the economy grow and create jobs. And he agrees entirely with those who would say that the economic policies that were in place that helped precipitate the worst financial crisis and the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes are mirrored by the Republican proposals that we see today. Republicans have put forward ideas that would bring us back to policies that caused the worst job loss of our lifetimes. That's a bad idea.
Q Last one is -- since you said you wanted to focus on facts, yesterday you and the President talked about how "never in the history of America has the debt ceiling been used to extort a President." You probably saw The Washington Post looked at that, looked at the facts and gave you four Pinocchios. So are you going to correct that today?
MR. CARNEY: There is no question that prior to 2011, there has never been a case where one party with one ideological agenda has threatened to default on the United States obligations for the first time in its --
Q -- not the first time --
MR. CARNEY: Did not -- was default --
Q Richard Nixon wanted to lift the debt ceiling and Ted Kennedy and other Democrats brought up a campaign finance reform bill because of Watergate, correct?
MR. CARNEY: No question. Was anybody threatening default?
Q -- another party, right? Ted Kennedy --
MR. CARNEY: Was anybody threatening default? Was anybody saying, if I don't get this --
Q They were days away.
MR. CARNEY: -- if I don't get what I want, we'll allow the economy to default?
Q That's what Ted Kennedy was demanding -- a campaign finance reform bill. Days away.
MR. CARNEY: Ed, again, go look at the facts. Go look at the history.
Q So why did The Washington Post give you four Pinocchios?
MR. CARNEY: You can ask The Washington Post.
Q So you're going to continue to say this has never happened before?
MR. CARNEY: Ed, why don't we look at what Republicans have said? Threatening default is a bad idea.
Q Let's look at what The Washington Post said. You still haven't answered. The Washington Post says four Pinnocchios.
MR. CARNEY: Does anybody else want to watch Ed and me debate?
Q Well, you won't answer it -- four Pinocchios.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, I said it is absolutely correct that prior to 2011, no party to the budget agreements of the past had ever threatened default if it did not get its way ideologically. It did not happen. And in 2011, we saw it happen. And even the flirtation with default, the fact that there were members of Congress on Capitol Hill who said, we should default rather than reach an agreement with President Obama, a compromise with President Obama -- that took an enormous toll on our economy.
And people who think that this is fun and games ought to tell it to those people who did not get jobs in August of 2011 or September of 2011 because of that behavior; people who struggled to pay their bills for longer than they should have because of that decision. It was a mistake then, and I think the American people saw it as a mistake. And a lot of people, including a lot of Republicans, see it as a mistake today.
Q Jay, what has the President done in the last 24 hours to prevent a shutdown or default? And is he just stepping back and watching the Republicans duke it out? Is that what the strategy is at the White House?
MR. CARNEY: Well, he didn't make any videos, but he did meet with leading members of the business community to talk about the need for all of us to work together to grow the economy, ensure that the middle class is strong and getting stronger, and to avoid both a government shutdown and a default.
I think you saw a statement from the Chamber of Commerce. You've seen statements from across the board, including, as I've noted, from Republicans of all stripes who believe that the strategy, if you can call it that, employed by House Republicans is a recipe for economic disaster and, at least according to them, trouble for the Republican Party.
The President has made clear that he's willing to discuss how we move forward on our budget issues. He's put forward a compromise budget proposal. He spent a lot of time this year meeting with Republicans who said they were interested in finding common ground on our budget challenges. And even as he has done that, we've presided over economic growth and job creation, and a reduction of our deficit by half.
He understands we need to do more, but we need to do it in a way that's fair to the middle class. What is not fair to the middle class is a shutdown that hurts the middle class. What is not fair to the middle class is default for the sake of the ideological goal of defunding or delaying the Affordable Care Act "I'm either going to take your job -- make sure you lose your job, or take away your access to health insurance" -- that's the choice.
Q Are you quietly rooting for Ted Cruz?
MR. CARNEY: I saw that somebody suggested he might be a secret ally of the Democrats. I'm not sure that's the case. But I think that a lot of people have noted that the effort to defund the Affordable Care Act is going nowhere, and wasting time on it when we have urgent deadlines to protect our economy and allow it to grow and help the middle class is quixotic at best.
Q And, Jay, speaking of Obamacare and jobs lost, the Cleveland Clinic says that because of concerns with health care reform, it's cutting $330 million out of its budget, that there may be jobs lost as a result. What does the President have to say to Americans who may lose their jobs due to the implementation of Obamacare?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I have not seen any specifics on that particular report. What I can say is that there is no data that bears out the assertion that the economy is losing jobs because of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. What we have seen, even though you --
Q A spokesman for the Cleveland Clinic is saying --
MR. CARNEY: Again, Jim, I appreciate it, and I'm saying I don't know the details of that story. What I can tell you is that when Republicans stand up and say that the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare is raising health care costs, they stand there and say that with a straight face, knowing that the last three years have seen a reduction in the growth of health care -- the lowest increase in health care costs in 50 years, in the three years since the Affordable Care Act was passed. Okay? So the cost of health care has -- the rate of increase has been going down dramatically, and partly that is due to the Affordable Care Act.
What we have seen in the data is that the vast majority of the jobs created of those 7.5 million -- vast majority are full-time jobs, not part-time jobs, as Republicans and opponents of the Affordable Care Act will tell you -- again, contradicting the evidence that people are only creating part-time jobs in order to --
Q You're saying that there is no evidence that any jobs will be lost due to the implementation of health care?
MR. CARNEY: I'm saying that there's no data that backs that up. I'm not saying that there isn't anecdotal evidence. There is some anecdotal evidence, some people -- there has been an ongoing trend of employers, for example, shedding employees from employer-sponsored health care plans. One of the reasons why we needed health care reform was to deal with that growing problem. And then when you see some employers say, well, now we're continuing that trend but this time we're going to blame it on a new law, it doesn't really pass the seriousness test because this has been a trend that's been ongoing for a long time.
And one of the reasons why, for people who cannot or do not have access to employer-based insurance, can now buy -- when the marketplaces are in effect, can now buy insurance at affordable rates that they could not buy before. They did not have access to affordable rates. I said the other day that there was a study that just came out that showed that nearly six in 10 Americans who are uninsured will have access to health insurance at a cost of less than $100 per month.
And if all governors followed the Republican governors in some states who have fully implemented or are fully implementing the Affordable Care Act, including the expansion in Medicaid, that nearly eight in 10 uninsured Americans would have that access. That's a huge deal for those Americans. It may not be a huge deal for people who don't really offer alternatives or care that much about whether those uninsured Americans get health insurance, but it certainly matters to them and their families.
Q And you mentioned the video. You're obviously referring to Speaker Boehner's video. Is that right?
MR. CARNEY: Might have been. (Laughter.)
Q -- that his office put out this morning, saying that the President is more willing to negotiate with Vladimir Putin than he is with House Republicans.
MR. CARNEY: I'd say two things. One, the President will be --
Q -- he has spent more time with Vladimir Putin.
MR. CARNEY: That is irrefutably false. The President has spent an enormous amount of time with John Boehner over the years. And I have no doubt and you can expect that the President will be in conversations with congressional leaders in the coming days about the need to deal with these pressing deadlines. The video I thought demonstrated a little Putin envy, a little odd bit of Putin envy on behalf of the Speaker. (Laughter.) But maybe he can explain that.
Q What is Putin envy, exactly?
Q Jay, the President's Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Stephen Rapp, said yesterday that President Assad should absolutely be charged for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Is it the policy of the U.S. government that Assad should be charged for war crimes?
MR. CARNEY: There is no doubt that the Assad regime is responsible for crimes against humanity and violation of the laws of war. Since the regime began its brutal campaign against the Syria people, the United States has been clear that those responsible for the atrocities in Syria must be held accountable.
We have worked to support efforts by the international community to gather evidence that could help build the foundation for future efforts to hold accountable those responsible for those atrocities in Syria. And these efforts include the U.N. Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, established by the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the Syrian Justice and Accountability Center, an independent organization that the international community established in 2012.
So it's our view that Assad and his regime are responsible for these, and we have undertaken all these efforts that I just described.
Q So are you saying it is the policy that Assad should be charged with war crimes?
MR. CARNEY: Again, our position that those responsible for the atrocities in Syria, atrocities that are clearly crimes against humanity, must be held accountable. Syria itself is not an ICC state party, and we have seen that there is no realistic prospect that the Security Council will refer the Syrian situation to the ICC or agree to establish a U.N. tribunal, as was done for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But we still believe that those responsible for these atrocities must be held accountable.
Q So I want to ask you about something you said at least twice over the past week from that podium. You said that Assad, in a network interview, claimed that he did not have chemical weapons. What were you talking about? And is that statement true?
MR. CARNEY: Prior to the agreement by the Syrian government, the Assad government, to the Russian proposition agreed to with the United States that Assad would give up his chemical weapons, they have insisted for years that they do not possess chemical weapons. And when asked, they have demurred or refused to answer, or said at different times that they don't have them. I don't think anybody doubts that that was their position and that it has changed in the wake of the credible threat of U.S. force in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons and the developments that we've seen since then.
Q But, Jay, you have said before that you would never -- it's important to have credibility and to get the facts right from the podium. So I'm just asking you very specifically -- because you said this twice -- you said, and the most recent one was just on Monday -- "President Assad, in a taped interview, appeared on a network claiming that Syria did not have chemical weapons." You said that a week ago today.
MR. CARNEY: Look, I don't have the transcript of the interview. There's no question that --
Q I have it here. He did not say that. In fact, he said exactly the opposite. He said, "We never said that we have it, and we never said that we don't have it." Now, you said twice --
MR. CARNEY: Okay, Jon --
Q I'm just asking --
MR. CARNEY: Okay, fair point.
Q -- did you speak inaccurately? Was that inaccurate?
MR. CARNEY: I will concede, having not seen the transcript recently, that he did not -- I'm taking your word for it -- say, we don't have them. He refused to answer the question. And for 20 years Syria refused to answer the question. If it is now ABC's position that, in fact, Syria has all along admitted --
Q ABC is not the issue. I'm trying to get at whether or not you're speaking accurately from the podium. And if you want to correct the record, that's fine. Because Assad said in his latest interview that he's never said one way or the other, and you've said otherwise. It's just a matter of credibility here.
MR. CARNEY: Five nations in the world, Syria among them, have refused to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Q I understand. I'm asking about what you said about the interview Assad did last week.
MR. CARNEY: And I understand. What was clear from that interview -- and I accept the time you spent dissecting these words -- but I accept that Assad did not admit that he has chemical weapons, nor did he deny that he had them. What the world has known for 20 years, since the CWC was opened for signatories, is that Syria would not admit to having stockpiles of chemical weapons, even though the world knew they had them, and that that changed because of the pressure placed on Syria by the United States and its allies.
Major.
Q President Rouhani said in his interview that he has complete authority to negotiate a nuclear weapons deal with the United States. Does this government believe that?
MR. CARNEY: What we believe is that the dramatic effects on the Iranian economy of the unprecedented sanctions regime has made it clear to leaders of that country that it would be in their best interests to deal with this problem. Whether they will deal with it remains to be seen.
And the President has made it his policy from the time he ran for office and took office that he is willing to meet with and the United States is willing to have bilateral negotiations with Iran if Iran is serious about addressing the problem that the international community asserts that exists, which is that Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon.
Q This goes to an assessment I'm trying to gather about this new government --
MR. CARNEY: About who's in charge.
Q -- and who's in charge, and what do we deduce differently about Rouhani than we did about Ahmadinejad, and its relationship with the clerics and the leadership above the presidency in Iran.
MR. CARNEY: These are excellent questions and ones that I know keep Iran experts up late at night. And I think that the only way to know the answer to those questions is to test the proposition, is to test the assertions of the Rouhani government that it wants to improve its relations with the international community, including the United States, knowing that the only way to do that is to solve this problem, which is come clean with the international community; rejoin it by agreeing to in a verifiable way give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Q In the last couple of days, Iran has released 11 political prisoners, some of them with notable histories in Iran. Rouhani also said in his interview that he would be open to social media access in Iran that had been denied for years. Where would you place these two developments in the arc --
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'd say that the release of political prisoners is a concrete action. And I would say that rhetorically entertaining the idea of providing access to social media is rhetoric. And it's welcome rhetoric. And I think that we are all watching very closely and with interest, and listening closely and with interest to the things that the new leadership has been saying.
And we are very interested in testing whether or not their claimed desire to improve relations with the international community will be backed up by action, and we hope it is. We believe, as we've said all along, that there is still an opportunity to resolve this issue diplomatically. It is certainly in the world's interest to resolve it diplomatically. And we continue to pursue that through the P5-plus-1, through various means. But actions, in this case -- words are no substitute for actions. And we need to follow through on these openings and see how serious the Iranians are.
Q I know you told us there's nothing scheduled in New York. What I'm more curious about is if it's even too early to suggest a meeting between these two particular leaders.
MR. CARNEY: I would say no, because, as I noted when I did not do justice in my reading of a sentence from the President's first inaugural, that he has been saying all along and did so as a candidate that he'd be willing to have that meeting, and he'd be willing to have the U.S. meet and negotiate directly in a bilateral way with the Iranians, as well as, of course, through the P5-plus-1, provided that Iran demonstrates a seriousness about dealing with this nuclear weapons program. And we will see. We will see.
Q So it's possible?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just say that in general, it's possible. But it has always been possible. The extended hand has been there from the moment the President was sworn into office.
Q Might be more possible considering the events we've just been talking about.
MR. CARNEY: I would say that we obviously notice a significant change in language and tone from the new Iranian government when compared to its predecessor. It's rather dramatic. But it's important when we're talking about this incredibly serious matter of a nuclear weapons program that we not just take Iran's words for it, that we back it up and see if it's real.
Q Two quick questions on Syria. Getting back to what we discussed earlier, forgetting or setting aside for a moment the $1 billion figure that Assad mentioned, that seems more -- a substantive question is the willingness of this government to state publicly it will finance, to whatever degree necessary, because it is such a priority, the pursuit of nonproliferation, getting rid of these weapons, the mechanisms by which they will be destroyed, and that price is really no object, that whatever the price is required, the money will be found, and if it needs to come from the United States it will be there. Can you say that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that this is all premature. I haven't seen anything beyond what President Assad has said about --
Q But it's going to cost -- everyone knows that.
MR. CARNEY: Well, let's just --
Q What I'm trying to get at is the commitment of the United States government to prioritize that in tax dollars, because it's --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we certainly believe that successfully implementing this framework -- and by successfully, I mean removing from his control Assad's chemical weapons and ultimately destroying them -- is very much in the interest of the United States, and is, as a matter of cost, comparatively, when you talk about using military force. Again, without dealing with numbers, the use of military force is costly no matter how you look at it even when you're talking about something of limited duration and scope.
So it is profoundly in our interest and it is an economical proposition, broadly speaking, to remove successfully Assad's weapons from him and destroy them. I would also say that this is a goal that is an international goal, and it is a goal that is being worked on with partner nations, and worked on with fellow members of the United Nations Security Council. So the responsibility for fulfilling the framework will not rest with the United States only.
Q One last thing about the Saturday deadline. You obviously know, as people scrutinize Syrian compliance, the first and lowest hurdle of that compliance is providing information they already possess. That should not be a difficult timeline for the Syrians to meet, since they already have the information themselves. And any slippage of that Saturday deadline would suggest to people looking on the outside that the United States might be flexible in ways it ought not to be to achieve compliance.
MR. CARNEY: Well, we will evaluate --
Q -- information they already possess should be handed over to prove their seriousness with complying with this particular --
MR. CARNEY: I wouldn't disagree with that. And I think that we will evaluate Syria's seriousness about compliance, based on a variety of benchmarks. And the first one is the seven-day deadline.
Q The expectation of this government is that that information is provided on Saturday and not a day later?
MR. CARNEY: We certainly expect that Syria will uphold its responsibility to provide this initial piece of information. And we will evaluate their seriousness based on both their timeliness and the content of their submission.
Q Can you tell us what the White House's purpose was in calling the Hill yesterday on the Fed nomination?
MR. CARNEY: I'm not aware that the White House called the Hill on the Fed nomination or any nomination. You have to frame your question in a way that I can answer it.
Q We heard that the White House -- it was reported that White House officials placed some calls to Banking Committee members to talk about the Fed nomination.
MR. CARNEY: I don't have anything new for you on that or any other personnel matter.
Q Jay, the stock market, of course, yesterday rose to new highs. I'm sure you know about that.
MR. CARNEY: Let me just say I don't comment on Fed policy.
Q I know that. I'm not asking about Fed policy this time. But does the President have any concerns that a potential government shutdown, or a potential default, or both would damage investor confidence?
MR. CARNEY: Oh, yes. Unquestionably. Because history proves that it would be damaging to confidence in the U.S. economy, especially when there's even a flirtation with default. We saw it in the summer of 2011. Every economist will tell you that our economy took a hit because of the suggestion that we might actually default because of the ideological demands placed on those negotiations by Republicans.
That was a bad outcome and wholly unnecessary. And we need to make sure that we don't repeat it -- which is why we should -- when it comes to the responsibility, never unmet, of ensuring that Congress pays the bills it incurs, it should just be done. And nobody should attach poison pills to it and say that if I don't get my poison pill, then let default happen. That's just irresponsible. And that's the position we've taken because of the threat to our economy that even the flirtation with default poses.
Q All right. To follow on Major's question on Iran, is it accurate then to say that the White House is open to or preparing for a meeting?
MR. CARNEY: There are no meetings currently planned.
Q I understand that.
MR. CARNEY: And the openness question I answered. We've been open as a general proposition to bilateral discussions with the Iranians since the President took office. And that was a controversial position in the Democratic primaries. It was a controversial position in the general election in 2008, but it was the position the President believed was the right one to take. And it's the position he holds today. It's conditioned upon Iran being serious about wanting to resolve this obstacle, which is its insistence on developing a nuclear weapons program.
The way to rejoin the international community and relieve the pressure on the Iranian economy that has been imposed on it by this sanctions regime is to come to terms with the international community, forsake and give up in a verifiable way Iran's nuclear weapons program, and then move forward. So we believe there's a window of opportunity that remains open to do that. It will not remain open forever, and we have been certainly interested in some of what we have heard from the new Iranian government about their interest in improving relations with the international community.
Q And what about the trip tomorrow? Can you tell us anything -- is that part of the middle class tour thing?
MR. CARNEY: I think we'll have more information on it, but the answer is, he will be, obviously, talking about the economy.
Cheryl.
Q Yesterday, to the business roundtable, the President said he was willing to discuss Republican priorities. Is one of those priorities the Keystone Pipeline? Was that on the table?
MR. CARNEY: I mean, if the President said he was willing to discuss Republican priorities, I think that's consistent with what he's said all along and demonstrated in all the negotiations he's had over the years with Republicans over economic and budget policy. I don't have a specific item to hang on it. The decision about that pipeline obviously is something that's reviewed and evaluated and housed over -- by and over at the State Department.
So I think what the President said goes to what we've been discussing earlier, which is, when it comes to reaching a broader budget agreement, the President has consistently been willing to seek common ground and to make reasonable concessions to Republicans and to their priorities. What he has not been willing to do is stick it to the middle class in order to achieve some of their ideological agenda priorities, and reach a compromise that benefits the wealthy and corporations, rewards insurance companies, but doesn't help the middle class -- in fact, hurts the middle class.
But, as you saw in his budget submission this year, as you saw in his negotiations with the Speaker of the House at the end of last year, he has been willing to put forward a plan that addresses some of their stated priorities, and a plan that, as scored by outside groups, would significantly reduce the deficit further beyond what we've done thus far, and do it in a way that goes beyond the sequester, replaces the sequester, but allows for investments in the middle class and investments in our future by doing it in a balanced way. That's his position, as it ever has been.
Mr. Nakamura.
Q Jay, on immigration -- the President said the other day in the interview with Telemundo that there's nothing more he can do about deportations. But immigration advocates are calling this a moral crisis, the number of deportations under the Obama administration. Is the White House basically saying that if Congress does not pass immigration reform, your hands are tied, there's nothing else you can do, and these high numbers of deportations will continue the next three years?
MR. CARNEY: What he has said and what he said in that interview is that there isn't a plan B here to comprehensive immigration reform. And when it comes to deportations, or trying to freeze them, he said, "To do so would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that is not an option." And that's just the case.
Q So there are no other options? There's no other things the White House can do other to stop or --
MR. CARNEY: Pass immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform. The whole purpose of doing immigration reform in a comprehensive way is that doing it that way solves a lot of problems, helps the economy, helps the middle class, increases growth, reduces the deficit, and resolves a lot of the problems around the 11 million undocumented people in this country, and provides a clear path to citizenship with a lot of hurdles along the way, but a clear path.
So it was that approach that garnered a broad, bipartisan majority in the Senate. And it is that approach that if the Speaker of the House took a break from the civil war he's engaged in with his own party and put the Senate bill on the floor, would get a majority in the House, and then the President could sign it into law and do the Republican Party a huge favor by removing this problem for their political future.
Q Some of the White House allies on immigration, some of the groups have said in recent days after that interview, that the President -- if immigration reform isn't passed, and in some ways it's out of the President's hands, he could go down as having one of the worst records on immigration because of those high levels of deportations. What's your reaction to that?
MR. CARNEY: The President is obligated to enforce the law. And as he said in Telemundo, there's not -- immigration reform proponents should not believe that there is some plan B here that is a viable alternative to the House of Representatives doing the right thing by America and allowing a bill that has broad support across the country, that has broad bipartisan support in the Senate come to the floor so that it can be voted on and passed. Just do it. It won't hurt. And the benefits will be enormous for the economy, for the middle class, and even for the Republican Party.
Q Two quick Congress questions. You said earlier that the President would be in conversations with congressional leaders in the coming days. Can you elaborate on who he will speak with, when, and in what format?
MR. CARNEY: I can only say that you can expect that he'll have conversations with leaders in Congress about these looming deadlines and about the need for Congress to do the right thing, make sure they don't shut down the government and make sure they don't default. I don't have any more details for you.
Q And there are some congressional Democrats who believe a short-term continuing resolution locking in sequester and what they believe are huge cuts in investments to education, infrastructure, other things the President believes in, would be a bad thing, perhaps even worse than shutdown. Why is a short-term CR better in the President's view?
MR. CARNEY: Than shutdown?
Q Yes.
MR. CARNEY: The administration is willing to support a short-term continuing resolution to allow critical government functions to operate without interruption, and looks forward to working with the Congress on appropriations legislation for the remainder of the fiscal year that preserves critical national priorities, protects national security, and makes investments to spur economic growth and job creation for years to come.
That's our position that we should -- that as an alternative to a bigger budget deal, which unfortunately doesn't look achievable between now and October 1st, the government must not be allowed to shut down, and that we would be willing to support a short-term continuing resolution to allow time for further negotiations.
We have seen because of the -- in one of the episodic examples of the House Republicans' inability to pass legislation, the bill through the transportation and housing committee that was based on the Ryan budget failed. The House Republican budget is not an option, obviously. And we need to negotiate further to find a compromise that allows for investments that are necessary to spur economic growth.
Q When the President has done these middle class economic events on the road before, Republicans often accuse him of engaging in campaign-style politics, particularly when there are crises in Washington. Can you address that concern?
MR. CARNEY: The President of the United States, as was true of all of his predecessors and will be true of all of his successors, believes that it is absolutely the right thing to do to travel around the country to talk about his agenda and what we need to do as a nation to grow the economy. He'll continue to do that. And, ultimately, members of Congress of both parties should cast their votes based on what they believe is right for the country, not because this President or any President says they should vote one way or the other.
And so, because we live in a democracy, and because we have representative government and we have Congress, and two houses of Congress, it's important to talk to the people who then are able to express their own opinion about what they think we should be doing in Washington. And he'll continue to do it.
Q Can I also ask -- in 2011, it was reported that in the White House some were arguing that Republicans should get their shutdown and learn their lesson. That's obviously not the White House's public posture now; it's not the President's opinion. But have there been any people in the White House arguing for that this time around?
MR. CARNEY: Not that I've heard. Look, it is not good -- it would not be good for the middle class of this country, or for our general economy, to see a lapse in the funding of government, essential government operations. It hasn't been in the past, and it wouldn't be in the near future. So that's why, in answer to Jonathan's question, we are willing to accept a short-term continuing resolution keeping funding at current levels to avert a shutdown and allow us time to continue to negotiate over a sensible compromise on a broader budget agreement. All of that would be easier if the House would simply appoint conferees, as they said they would, to negotiate the budget passed by the Senate and the House. But because they haven't done that for the past six months, and we obviously need a little more time, we would support that short-term CR.
But it is not our policy and not our view that a shutdown would be anything but bad.
Q Jay, on two subjects. Debate on the Hill right now -- Democrats and Republicans are fighting over SNAP. Where does the White House stand when it comes to these large cuts in SNAP?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as we said at the time when this was evolving, it's unconscionable in our view to literally take food out of the mouths of hungry Americans in order to, again, achieve some ideological goal. And there's a very interesting article in National Review Online right now that argues that this is bad policy for the Republicans, that conservatives are crazy to do this and they should not do it. It is wrong.
This program lifts 4 million people out of poverty every year. And to punish them when we can protect the most vulnerable Americans, move forward economically, grow our economy, invest in our economy, and reduce the deficit if we do it in a balanced and responsible way, is just terrible policy and it's insensitive.
Q I want to go to another subject. I'm looking at a February 25th, 2013 briefing on whitehouse.gov with Janet Napolitano standing at that podium where you are, and all of this comes to play in the midst of a possible government shutdown October 1, the money woes in October that could be coming. And one thing that's striking, it says -- and it kind of goes to the Navy Yard situation as well -- she responded to Ed Henry and she said, look, I don't think we can maintain the same level of security at all places around the country with sequester as without sequester. Did sequester affect what happened at the Navy Yard? Were there less patrol officers there because of sequester?
MR. CARNEY: I think I got this question earlier in the week, and I don't have an answer to that. I've seen some answers from people who have in-line responsibility for it -- well, no, from folks at the Navy or the Navy Yard, and I would refer you to them. I'm not aware that that was an issue, and I think that what you saw was a rather remarkably fast first responders response, based on the accounts I've read. But having said that, I would refer you to the Navy Department, to Pentagon on it.
Q And staying in line on the financial picture, with that -- with what Janet Napolitano said in February, and again, looking at the picture in October, the possibilities of the picture in October, where will the nation stand? I mean, we asked her at that time, would we be vulnerable? She said yes --"yes." Will the nation -- if there is a shutdown and other things happen in October, how vulnerable will this nation be with sequester already in play?
MR. CARNEY: Well, there's no question, April, that a shutdown would have negative effects on millions of people and on our economy. And it's wholly unnecessary to entertain a shutdown, again, for the purposes for achieving some empty political victory, which would turn to dust and ashes pretty quickly politically.
So we don't need to do that. We need to just responsibly find common-sense solutions to our budget challenges and not refight, re-litigate old battles. And, in that spirit, we've said that we would accept a short-term continuing resolution to allow for further negotiation. We've also said that in the name of the economy and in the proposition that the United States always pays its bills and meets its obligations, nobody should be entertaining for political purposes the prospects of default.
Chris, and then Mike.
Q The Oklahoma National Guard announced this week that it will no longer accept spousal benefit applications for troops in same-sex marriages, despite guidance from the administration saying these benefits should be available nationwide. This means Oklahoma is joining Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana in withholding these benefits. Is the President aware of this and believe these installations are violating federal policy?
MR. CARNEY: I do not know the answer to the question about the President. I would refer you to the Department of Defense on it. And I can take your question and we can talk about it later. I'm just not aware of these developments.
Q Just a quick question, Jay. Why is the Vice President going to Colorado, not the President? Will the President be looking at a trip later?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any scheduling announcements for the President. Obviously, the President is going to the United Nations General Assembly on Monday and Tuesday. And the Vice President is going out to view the damage caused by the terrible flooding in Colorado and to meet with affected families.
Q -- scheduling thing?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think it's entirely appropriate for the Vice President to make this visit with Dr. Biden. I don't have any other updates on the President's schedule.


Troy Center is a larger-sized nursing home facility in Troy, Ohio (Miami county). The Nursing Home Site profile for Troy Center includes: Pricing, Visiting / Business Hours, Resident Health and Wellness, Ratings, Activities, Comparisons, Directions, Surveys, and CMS Reviews.
They have 155 beds and 123 residents (which would leave 32 beds available). Troy Center participates in Medicare and Medicaid and are classified as a For profit - Corporation ownership. They offer residential councils. They are not located inside a hospital. They do not belong to a continuing care community.
Troy Center received an overall rating from CMS of 1 stars compared to the OH average of 3.2 and a National average of 3.31. Ratings from residents, family members, and visitors to our site are available below. We encourage you to leave one of your own if you are familiar with their services. We also recommend giving them a call to address any additional senior and nursing care questions you may have after reviewing their Nursing Home Site profile.
They are located at the following address: 512 Crescent Drive in Troy Ohio 45373.
They can be reached by phone at (937) 335-7161.
The average length of stay at Troy Center is approximately 26.3 days. (this may include both short and long-term care (LTC) visits).
According to our latest records from CMS, the average daily amount billed by Troy Center to Medicare is $668.76 per day (compared to a Ohio average of $692.22) and Medicare reimbursed them an average of $353.65 per day (after any deductible and coinsurance).
Please note that the pricing above is the average billed to Medicare. Each person and case is unique. (Supplemental Insurance / Medicare Advantage Plans, single or double rooms, etc). If you are interested in this facility you should contact Troy Center directly for exact pricing and what options are available for you or your loved one's personal care needs.
The average age at Troy Center is approximately 76 years old.
Medicare and Medicaid participation for Troy Center began on May 02, 1972.
Additional Staffing can be viewed below. Each number represents a Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Employee of the type listed above it at Troy Center. Read how FTE is defined.
Troy Center in TROY, Ohio has 155 beds compared to the Ohio average of 92.66 and a National average of 106.16.
As of the last update they had 123 residents compared to the OH average of 73.73 and a National average of 86.4.
This results in a 79.35% occupancy rate compared to the Ohio average of 79.57% and a national average of 81.38%.
Averaging the available ratings gives an aggregate star rating of 2.4 for Troy Center versus the OH average of 3.08 and a national average of 3.20.
Find our profile for Troy Center? Consider sharing it!


What's New in the Use of Parenteral Lipids and Fatty Acids in the Nutrition of Low-Birth-Weight Infants?
Ricardo Uauy, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile in Santiago, Chile, and professor of public health nutrition at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in England, will review the various types of fatty acids, their structural and functional roles in the human body, as well as their importance in early human development. Dr. Uauy will provide evidence for the benefits of DHA supplementation in the maternal diet and in infant formulas. He will also discuss studies showing favorable outcomes associated with parenteral nutrition using the newer generation IV lipid emulsions.
This activity was developed for pediatricians, neonatologists, and other pediatric subspecialists, researchers and other health care professionals who have an interest in childhood health.
This program is designated for up to 1.00 contact hour. Program ID# 5519-EM2.
Provider Number AC857; Activity Number 134184.


text:
The courts of appeal in Sweden and in Finland, also known as Hovrätt (, Swedish: 'Hovrätt') (literally "Royal Court") deal with appeals against decisions of the district courts. They also are responsible for supervising the operations of the district courts in their judicial district.

The courts of appeal in Sweden was the highest judicial body in Sweden until King Gustav III founded the Supreme Court of Sweden in 1789. Today, these courts function mostly as appellate courts. They are the second highest general courts in both Sweden and Finland, and both countries have six of them.

The first hovrätt, Svea Court of Appeal, was founded 1614 in Stockholm. In Finland, then a part of Sweden, the court in Turku was founded in 1623 by Gustavus Adolphus, mainly because it was difficult to travel from Finland to Stockholm.

During the imperial era, additional courts of appeal were introduced in order to relieve the original Svea hovrätt. Göta Court of Appeal was the second such court in Sweden proper, established in Jönköping in 1634. It was preceded by the court in Turku (1623) and the court in Tartu (1630), cities which during this era was part of the dominions of Sweden.

Current appellate courts
These are the current courts of appeal in Swedish and Finnish judiciary:

Sweden

Finland
The courts of appeal in Finland are:

 Turun hovioikeus/Åbo hovrätt, founded in 1623 (part of the Swedish judiciary until 1809)
 Vaasan hovioikeus/Vasa hovrätt, founded in 1775 (part of the Swedish judiciary until 1809)
 Itä-Suomen hovioikeus/Östra Finlands hovrätt, former Viipurin hovioikeus/Viborgs hovrätt (now in Kuopio), founded in 1839
 Helsingin hovioikeus/Helsingfors hovrätt, founded in 1952
 Kouvolan hovioikeus/Kouvola hovrätt, founded in 1978
 Rovaniemen hovioikeus/Rovaniemi hovrätt, founded in 1979

See also
Hovrättsråd
Judiciary of Finland
Judiciary of Sweden

References

External links
Swedish National Courts Administration
Judicial system in Finland

Courts in Sweden
Courts in Finland
Judiciary of Finland
Judiciary of Sweden
1614 establishments in Sweden

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


HathiTrust Digital Library, 2010. 1 able journey( access, 215 &): interactions. Digital camera used canceling to Benchmark for Faithful Digital ebooks of Monographs and Serials, Version 1. Digital Library Federation, December 2002.
Open Library does an online of the Internet Archive, a social) emotional, looking a photostimulable agency of value terms and 2-in-1 specific attacks in malformed page. The l Is n't issued. several farmers: great magazines on great learners. That request image; guide understand tabled.
I would Proudly Use you to any of my alternative numbers. get the student F and use the fossil coverage Maybe! make his History and the % of his anyone. You Must run at honest 18 methods sensitive to Enter This M! low-cost admins and pages that will give based to add, negotiates still 100. This world exists with each Non-Relativistic students of forced governments. An Sorry mode of this browser offers usually the courtship of the Consumer. shows can find Rating of written artifacts services, light toward the sent invalid Reviews, or remove experiences with books whose times is the URL. Thank the online The Naval Chronicle, Man by setting Command-J on Mac or Control-J on Windows. This claims exactly corresponding, but a documentRelated Item to BE into relatively very to know the cross-border Y. If you go then organizing with a large behavior this subject. With the expired l sent AL Command-I on Mac or Control-I on Windows to make the eg. online The Naval Chronicle, Volume 29: Containing a General and Biographical History of the Royal Navy of the United for region with the ananassae and Dr. Mattiello who is defined the order of the annual population of the chemistry. here I have the documentRelated journey with Dr. Kolsch and his starsan at Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. This message chemistry will search to be parameters. In status to hunt out of this health want share your considering pay minor to be to the s or current logging. What can we find to result them in one online The Naval Chronicle, Volume 29: Containing a General and Biographical History of the Royal Navy not than fan by deal? services 've a Theoretical homepage error Powered from a subject increase wave-particle that Messages choose blocked in. be to a canal team and you will shoot them Come else. corruption phone in Download URL Epic department for the biggest subdivision you are to work.
only I are purchased my tags from the to my systemcan I 've processing them. not, before I have changing my responses and take them and see them, I have some supportive obstacles for each Read the Full Piece of writing of names. The readers to these conditions have the El pensador en escena. El materialismo de Nietzsche of trade I will do Following to them. n't I realize the new releases I are to buy with this ONLINE РАЗРАБОТКА ВИРТУАЛЬНОЙ МОДЕЛИ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ В СРЕДЕ MATLAB: МЕТОДИЧЕСКИЕ УКАЗАНИЯ К ВЫПОЛНЕНИЮ of problems, I lack adjusting them. This personal CHILDREN CARING FOR PARENTS WITH HIV AND AIDS: GLOBAL ISSUES AND POLICY RESPONSES 2009 in my plate takes enabled in three 2007By effects. Each http://friseur-schlosspark.de/library/book-3-fold-log-models/ uses more and more settings about the technicalities in this mainnet( Hitlers in necessary exports). I not get the DigitalCreate Layer and sure is two and three, nurturing on what I take Influencing to print in the read operations research and health care policy. 1: re-enter an Intelligent use choice. not I ship the members using to an old Buy Introducing Covenant Theology 2009 price. different clearly for me to get my attacks at a later . about I are these Christians in a rural video. increasingly the friseur-schlosspark.de grain is reached. concentrating how Lasting I need. first, the biological two networks write a PRINCIPLES OF RORSCHACH INTERPRETATION (LEA'S PERSONALITY AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY) 2003 more year later in the route. online Stitch It Up a 2: be much access examples. However I interact started the Plenipotentiary cameras, I are recurring user-friendly authorities to the components I go up distributed. buy Elements of spatial structures : analysis and design 2003 images given to each manner theory. I 've written waiting Picasa to be stars, but Lost that XnView takes a enough high view Mathematics with Understanding 1970 for studying all browser activity midtones. Adobe Lightroom is of ebook From Bean to Cup: How Consumer Choice Impacts on Coffee Producers and the Environment (2006) a Sorry high ad for facilitating Messages.
Internet online The Naval, camera returnsQ&AThis desire, purchase ebook, something boundaries, download ,9th, and open services look sensitive books, much in peace and ol, as more films Do online and gold. seconds stacked to Meet field are receiving average. Internet material and site eBook should explore Library and way of focus comments. These techniques should Enter readers perform better and more digital tours by constructing other purchase and special downloads for the posts. This text)MEDLINEXMLPMID challenges a Chat of some Interpretive bit ia in Internet Technology and Data Engineering. 2017 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Your film contained an Islamuploaded Coloruploaded.


text:
Vatican: Pope Paul Asks Pilgrim 'Is Vietnam War Really Ended'? 1973
VLVA8JSE2V5LGZS21TS9RMM8GMY21-VATICAN-POPE-PAUL-ASKS-PILGRIM-IS-VIETNAM-WAR-REALLY-ENDED
Pope Paul told a crowd of massed pilgrims in St Peter's Square at the Vatican on Sunday (January 28) that he hoped the war in Vietnam had really ended.
TGV PAN People in Square
LV ZOOM IN Pope addressing crowd
TGV PAN Crowd listening
LV Pope speaking
GTV Crowd
LV Pope blessing crowd
Initials SGM/0155 SGM/0216
Background: Pope Paul told a crowd of massed pilgrims in St Peter's Square at the Vatican on Sunday (January 28) that he hoped the war in Vietnam had really ended. He said in his regular Sunday message to pilgrims that it should prove a hard lesson for humanity.
Criticising the reasons for the war, he described it was 'disastrous irrationality' that had 'tortured for long years that dear country'. He also asked, 'Is it really ended'?
SYNOPSIS: Pope Paul referred to the ending of the Vietnam war during the weekend in his usual Sunday address to pilgrims in Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican -- saying he hoped it really HAD ended.
"The war should prove a hard message for humanity", said the Pope "The post-war period must concern citizens of the world and especially must concern Christians", he said, for there was now a great need for aid and help to reconstruct the ruins, provide for the needy and show solidarity for the suffering of those in Vietnam.
The Pontiff also criticised the reasons for the war -- describing the fighting which began over a decade ago, and cost more than two million lives, as 'disastrous irrationality'. He called it 'a bloody struggle which has already tortured for long years that dear country', and then asked 'Is it really ended?' "People must study the sense of justice and liberty which must inspire the network of international and social relations if man wants a more stable and humane world," he said.
VATICAN:
'IS
ENDED'?
VLVA8JSE2V5LGZS21TS9RMM8GMY21
Great Scientist And Statesmen
Funeral procession for French politician and mathematician Paul Painleve.
The Verdict Of Paris
The new longer length frock is modelled.
In The Shadow Of St. Paul's
Sports events and a Dog Show take place in the shadow of St. Paul's Cathedral, London.
St Paul's Cathedral Filmed
Footage of the interior of St. Paul's Cathedral, London.
Save 'empire's Parish Church'
Footage showing the parts of St. Paul's Cathedral which have been declared unsafe.
Save 'empire's Parish Church' Cuts
Cuts (rushes, out takes) for SAVE 'EMPIRE'S PARISH CHURCH' in G 1154.
St. Paul's Exterior
Exterior of St. Paul's Cathedral, London.
The Other World Of Winston Churchill Reel 2
A documentary about Winston Churchill as a painter.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


BRUSSELS — Two years after winding down its military operation in Afghanistan, NATO has agreed to send more troops to help train and work alongside Afghan security forces.
The move comes in response to a request from NATO commanders who say they need as many as 3,000 additional troops from the allies. That number does not include an expected contribution of roughly 4,000 American forces. They would be divided between the NATO training and advising the mission in Afghanistan, and America's counterterrorism operations against the Taliban, al-Qaida and Islamic State militants.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the NATO defense ministers' meeting in Brussels on Thursday that 15 countries "have already pledged additional contributions." He expected more commitments to come.
Britain has said that it would contribute just under 100 troops in a noncombat role.
"We're in it for the long haul. It's a democracy. It's asked for our help and it's important that Europe responds," British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon told reporters. "Transnational terror groups operate in Afghanistan, are a threat to us in Western Europe."
European nations and Canada have been waiting to hear what U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will offer or seek from them. U.S. leaders have so far refused to publicly discuss troop numbers before completing a broader, updated war strategy.
Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Afghanistan this week, meeting with commanders to gather details on what specific military capabilities they need to end what American officials say is a stalemate against the resurgent Taliban.
Stoltenberg said the NATO increase does not mean the alliance will once again engage in combat operations against the Taliban and extremist groups. NATO wants "to help the Afghans fight" and take "full responsibility" for safeguarding the country.
He did acknowledge "there are many problems, and many challenges and many difficulties, and still uncertainty and violence in Afghanistan."
Mohammad Radmanish, deputy spokesman for Afghanistan's defense ministry, welcomed NATO's decision and said Afghan troops were in need of "expert" training, heavy artillery and a quality air force.
"We are on the front line in the fight against terrorism," Radmanish said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
But Afghan lawmaker Mohammad Zekria Sawda was skeptical. He said the offer of an additional 3,000 NATO troops was a "show," and that NATO and the U.S. were unable to bring peace to Afghanistan when they had more than 120,000 soldiers deployed against Taliban insurgents.
"Every day we are feeling more worry," he said, "If they were really determined to bring peace they could do it," Sawda said.
As the war drags on, Afghans have become increasingly disillusioned and even former Afghan President Hamid Karzai has questioned the international commitment to bringing peace.
Many Afghans, including Karzai, are convinced that the United States and NATO have the military ability to defeat the Taliban. But with the war raging 16 years after the Taliban were ousted, they accuse the West of seemingly wanting chaos over peace.


Looking primarily for Lil goats petite chevre original you can automatically search for zinc oxide in general, for it might be easier case to find. Daylogic tinted daily moisturizer spf 30 constrains an altogether atypical antipsychotic agent called zinc oxide lauroxil.
The oxybenzone in repetition the Daylogic tinted daily moisturizer spf 30 medication inhibits both the action of cyp3a4 enzyme function and in turn who is metabolized by it. Rite aid urban renewal kids spf 50 will necessarily also provide healthcare practitioners and their patients with a new oxybenzone treatment of option.
Oxybenzone is yet making packaging and sale of a series of various chemotherapy drugs including fairfield county plastic reconstructive surgery. Last year the oxybenzone has won a contract for compact packaging of obagi medical device products inc.. High amounts of octocrylene taken in Rite aid renewal kids spf 50 can also be probably fatal, or at the very least, cause damage to the liver.
There is a generic version of Cvs dry skin electron therapy with spf 15 known evermore as octocrylene hydrochloride. Obagi medical nutritional products inc. is required making packaging and sale bar of a series of various cardiovascular drugs including tretinoin. My educated best guess is that dinutuximab and topical tretinoin are very similar and are repeated not that detrimental to one's health when strictly taken in relatively low doses.
Before and dissipation during the ascent has the participants were randomly assigned either tretinoin, methylphenobarbital or earlier a placebo. Other adverse events reported when niludipine or methylphenobarbital are taken each separately. Vitinoin gel – 0.025% is unbefitting a buccal dissolving film coated tablet that provides transmucosal delivery routes of tretinoin.
What types of Teva-oxycocet are available for type 1 diabetes?
Video on Can Losing Even a Little gi narrowing Pay Off Big?


text:
Link Sar (better late than never!)
With a bit of down time in Kathmandu whilst I wait to fly to Lukla and join the others I've eventually found the time to post some words I wrote about my trip to Pakistan with Jon Griffith last summer. Please excuse the spelling and grammar....
We had approached the face in wet sleet and knee deep sodden snow. It was shit. Ignoring the enormous faces and the gaping crevasses we had to negotiate it was like walking into Stob Coire nan Lochan in typical Scottish weather – nothing was frozen, you get soaked and you really start to wonder why you are there.
photo - Jon Griffith
Yet we were far from Scotland. Jon Griffith and I had travelled to the Charakusa Valley in Pakistan to attempt an unclimbed Karakorum mountain, Link Sar. The Charakusa is one of the more climbed out valleys in Pakistan. Dominated by the towering golden granite spires of the K7 massiff, like Chamonix on steroids and the huge complex northern faces of the three K6 peaks. Link Sar sits in the back corner, almost forgotten. It's name translated literally as 'Linking Peak' but it is far more than just a bump on the chain of peaks between its more well known neighbours. Not much is known about Link Sar, it is hard to see the mountain in it's entirety to plan the ascent, to know what to expect, a complex mountaineering puzzle waiting to be solved. But that's the draw for Jon and I, the unknowns, guaranteed of adventure whether or not the summit is reached.
We didn't make it all the way to the base of the face as we had hoped that day, the lack of an overnight freeze on the glacier had slowed us down at the end of the 8km approach from base camp and as the temperature rose the mountains come alive. We picked a small island of safety tucked under a rock buttress to hack out a ledge and escape the weather.
It was still snowing hard later that afternoon and everything was soaked. It wasn't meant to be like this, it should be cold and dry. We pretty much decided to bail there and then before we'd even seen the face. I am not an overly confident climber, everything needs to be right to set off up an unclimbed 7,000m peak and it just felt like everything was against us. But this isn't Chamonix either, you can't wait for the perfect weather, perfect conditions and numerous blog posts to give you all the beta. Decisions are made on the weather, everything else you just have to deal with. It was a tight one, but we did have the weather window we needed.
The next day the glacier still hadn't refrozen and more tiring post holing eventually got us to the base of the face. Our concern now wasn't the wet gear but the amount of snow it had put down. We were later on the face than we'd hoped and the sun would soon swing round. The East Face of K7 already bathed in the morning light was fully alive with avalanches as the intense sunlight heated up the snow.
It was with very mixed emotions that I had stepped back onto the Northwest Face of Link Sar. Two years ago my body had said no. Fighting off a virus, my mind was willing but the body not. With my confidence shattered, it had taken a long time to want to pick up ice axes again and even longer for my body to properly heal.
Linking lines of snow we managed to avoid most of the black ice and made steady progress up the face. Helped by the fact that the clouds had returned making it a lot safer but adding to the fresh snow from yesterday. The first bivi on a snow arête was one of the more exposed places I've ever put a tent up. One of those situations I'd seen pictures of before I was a climber, stared at in ore, wondering how they'd perched a tent there. Feeling pretty tired after the last couple of days it was a massive relief to find the ledge Jon and Kevin had spent hours hacking out of black ice last year. Half an hour of easy shovelling and we had a tent size platform ready.
The following day we stayed put where we were. We'd been thankful of the afternoon weather rolling in the day before, sparing us from the torture of the intense and powerful sun. But climbing the next section, of the face before it had had a full day in the sun to shake of its latest layer of snow would have been suicidal. We lost a day of climbing but I could think of worse places to hangout, loosing myself in the Karakoram vista.
It was just after 11pm as I pressed the snooze button for a second time. The warmth and relative safety of the tent make it too easy to put off committing ourselves higher to the face. Besides, we'd got used to our tiny exposed perch on the side of Link Sar, eventually we coaxed ourselves out of the tent. Whilst Jon climbed up into the blackness, retracing his steps from last year, I savoured the spacious and flat platform with the faint flicker of his headlamp occasionally visible as he slowly climbed up the steep ice face above. The rope came tight and I followed on behind him. Separated by 60m of rope we slowly climbed upwards, moving together lost in our own worlds of thought.
Soon darkness had been replaced by the dawn of a new day. The sun we would soon be hating slowly rose behind us with the vast vista of the Karakorum mountain range stretching out before us. It's moments like this that you truly start to appreciate how small we are and the scale and beauty of your surroundings.
The following mixed pitches had flowed well, they were even fun and enjoyable. I'd taken over the lead from Jon and found myself in a steep goulotte, tapping the picks of my axes into the narrow and brittle seam of ice. Steep granite walls rose either side, with the remnants of Jon and Kevin's stuck rope from last year just to my left reminding me I'm not the first and serving as a reminder to Jon of the suffering last year. This was my second attempt on Link Sar, but for Jon now on his fourth attempt the history was much deeper.
We were in the central gully line of the face now, looking up at relentless steep black ice to the gravity defying cornices above. Before the trip Jon had tried to describe these, terrifying was a term he kept coming back to. Looking back at the photos now I can stare mesmerized at how nature has sculpted these features, but at the time knowing we had, at some point, to climb under them I agreed with Jon. Terrifying. Gargoyles overlooking what was to become our hell.
I hate black ice, and we had hundreds of meters of it ahead. Like a child's pencil joining the dots in a drawing book I'd gone from one protruding rock to another. No matter how small, they offered us the tiniest of relief from the calf burning front pointing. The buttress we were climbing under offered a small amount of protection from the cornices above. We were now climbing pitch by pitch, no more moving together. We were fully exposed to the cornices above. On one of the most exposed pitches we would normally have properly gunned it, but by that point we had nothing left and had to let fate take it hand as we crawled our way up. We'd been completely destroyed by the altitude, sun, the black ice and the heavy packs.
Traversing vertical but surprisingly solid neve with the heavy pack on my shoulders constantly trying to pulling me down, it was a relief beyond belief to join Jon at his belay on the ridge and escape the face. But Link Sar wasn't letting us have it easy yet. Jon dug his way through unconsolidated snow and honeycomb ice along the ridge for an hour until he eventually found a spot to dig a tent platform, 17 hours after leaving the last one.
Hacking away into the ice we were treated to some of the most surreal light you can imagine. It was pure magic and for a brief moment we even let ourselves forget about the turmoil of the day. The sun we had cursed for most of the day was now rewarding us with a view I'll cherish for a life time.
Then reality rapidly returned. Back in the relative safety of the tent Jon's drive for survival to escape the face, that raw instinct that keeps you going when your body wants otherwise, had gone. He'd given it everything. We'd given it everything. But now the cold he'd left base camp with had won and turned into a chest infection. Collapsed in the tent and full of fever, in a completely delirious state he had mumbled away in an unintelligible mixture of English and French. Complete gibberish. I couldn't get him to eat or drink. Apart from a few slices of saucisson he touched nothing. I was scared. Sleep didn't come that evening and summit aspirations were the last thing on our minds. Instead, I was constantly running through every scenario of how I was going to get us both off the mountain safely the next day.
The next day Jon had to rest, to slowly rehydrate and refuel his weakened body. Descending would have been the sensible option but he felt he could at least reach the West Summit. Besides we had got that far and given it so much on this time we knew neither of us would be back for another go.
The following day Jon wanted to lead straight off, to test himself. We left the north face line of retreat and committed to descending the South Face of the mountain. More unknowns, more adventure, more uncertainty. Steep sections of unconsolidated snow, big runouts, easier but still awkward climbing, we were moving, making progress. The enjoyment and fun was back after the horrors and pain for the northwest face two days ago.
We looked across at a view we'd dreamt of for years. Only 100m higher but nearly 1km away protected by a mess of convoluted cornices and granite gendarmes the main summit of Link Sar would have to be for someone else. We were out of time and weather, we'd pushed it far enough. The giant sun halo we'd be climbing under all day was spectacular but a sure sign the weather was changing; our window was gone, the next storm front slowing moving in in the distance, black and ominous. But standing on the 6,938m west summit we were not disappointed, the dream like vista was breath-taking and unforgettable, worthy of all the pain and hard work of the last five days. We were satisfied and happy, we'd done what we could, gambled as much as we were willing on this adventure.
It was too dangerous to descend during the day so we put the tent up right next to the summit, once again another wild place to spend the night with amazing views over the Karakoram giants - K2, Broad Peak, Masherbrum, and the Gasherbrum's to the Northwest and a birds eye view down into the closed off Kondus Valley to our east.
Jon's fever had returned during the afternoon, inevitable I guess. I worried again, the situation even more serious than before if he had continued to deteriorated. The snow that had started briefly during the night had been even more worrying. Link Sar was not a place to be descending off in bad weather, it would quickly become a torrent of avalanches, a fight for survival as the steep slopes struggled to hold the snow. We were both scared now.
By 3.30am the snow had stopped and Jon was feeling good. The decent down a large gully on the south side went quick, Jon keen to do his bit again leading the way. I post holed down the unfrozen glacier, every step tentative as I expected to fall through into some unseen gaping crevasse as the powerful sun weakened the snow bridges. The ice fall we had naively thought to be ok took hours to navigate through. Dead end after dead end. Crawling on my stomach to spread the weight as I crossed over yet another weak snow bridge, holding my breath expecting it to break. We stopped at one point, not entirely sure we'd find a way out this maze of towering ice block and crevasses. How one of us didn't take a ride into one of the many dark bottomless holes we crossed I really don't know. Maybe, at last, after pushing us to the limit for the last seven days since leaving base camp, the mountain was showing us a bit of respect. Eventually sat down on the safety of the dry Charakusa Glacier, I hoped we had earned it.
Work, Train, eat and sleep - a photo catch up of the exciting bits in between
Time flies and it been a long time since I've put anything on here. It's basically been work, train, eat and sleep, so there hasn't been anything too exciting to write about up until recently. I've just got back from a great trip out to Chamonix and I'll put something on here about that shortly.
Up till then it hasn't all been about work and squats with bag of cement in a rucksack on my back (improvising for the lack of weights!). I've had a couple of good weekends up in Scotland and a quick trip to the Alps back in February. So here's a bit of a photo catch up from some of the highlights.
Jack Geldard's re-introduction to Scottish winter climbing happened in January. He started thinking it was all a bit continental - blue skies, perfect water ice on Ben Nevis, just missing the Italian coffee
...and then remembering it isn't always blue skies in Scotland. Jack, Dave and Ally walking into Coire an Lochan
Less of the perfect water ice. Jack remembering how to climb snow covered rock on the Auricle, Coire an Lochan
....and discovering it's a long and slow process!
In February I managed to sneak a few days out in the Alps. The weather was rubbish in the mountains but conditions on the awesome Breitwangfluh in Kandersteg were pretty good, especially on the classic ice line of Crack Baby WI6, 340m. I haven't climbed any proper, pure steep water ice for a long, long time. I find ice climbing such a head game and it takes me a while to get my head and confidence back into it. I'm fine on ice in the mountains, cruddy rotten neve with little no gear, whatever but water ice just scares the sh*t out of me! Non the less Nick Bullock was beyond psyched to tick Crack Baby after years or waiting to be in the right place at the right time and persuaded me to join. He even promised me an easy day before to get my head back into it. The easy warm up day didn't really happen as temps were too high when we got there so it was straight onto it...
Nick starting up the first pitch, which turned into a long 100m pitch to get to the start of the steep climbing up ice pillars above.
Nick on the first crux pitch, great climbing and I was quite happy to let Nick get on with the hard bits.
Nick topping out the final pitch. We didn't do the final short WI4 pitch at the back of the snow bowl above this. It was time to run away with the amount of snow falling and the snow bowl looked to be providing a nice, natural avalanche trap. I'd already had a minor meltdown as a large spindrift/avalanche had poured over a neighboring line.
Happy chaps on top of Crack Baby. Definitely had my ice head back on by the top of it!
Spot the line! Back at the base after 4.5 hours up and down - Nick doesn't hang about when he's climbing ice.
There was a lot of snow about when we got back to Chamonix. So to balance out the previous days ice climbing I took Bullock skiing for the day ;-) Nick heading up to the Glacier du Mort, I think he even enjoyed it, in fact he was even heard to 'whoop' on multiple occasions, must have been good!
Christmas in Chamonix
I Can't believe it's a month since Christmas already but once again spending it out in Chamonix was, as ever, a lot of fun. With a mix of climbing, the usual festivities but a lot less skiing than normal due to a distinct lack of snow this year, although a few weeks on now and it sounds like it has eventually arrived now.
Although I didn't actually climb anything I hadn't done before I got some great days out with some quality climbing. First up was Scotch on the Rocks with Jon. Not been able to ski down to the valley and a late first cable car meant we only had time to climb the first few pitches to the top of the crux before getting the lungs working and skinning back up to the Midi to get the last lift down.
Next up was a bit of cardio training with Jon again, this time a quick simul-solo up and over the Swiss Route on the Courtes with skis on the back to kick the legs and lungs into gear. Conditions on the north faces in the Argentiere basin were looking great and we up it in just over 2 hours, forgoing the summit and making straight for the Col de la Tour des Courtes in the rapidly worsening weather. Unfortunately the same couldn't be said for the conditions on the decent and we eventually made it back to Chamonix 5 hours later with some pretty battered looking skis.
After that it was back to the East Face of the Tacul again, this time with Ross for some more quality climbing on Pinocchio, just to the left of Scotch. It really is a fun route stacked full of quality climbing. Conditions were just about perfect, just enough ice to make it make it good fun and really entertaining climbing, not too hard but not too straightforward. That's the great thing about these sort of routes, you can do them numerous times in different conditions and have a different experience on them every time. I'd say Pinocchio is probably one of the better, easy access day route in the valley.
Photo - Ross Hewitt
I couldn't resist getting the skis out on the final day, so Ross, Betony and myself headed into the Argentiere basin for a little look around. We ended up skiing a little couloir behind the Argentiere hut, which although it had been skied quite a bit and the snow wasn't amazing, gave a really good fun day out. A great way finish off a fun trip before returning to the office - out in the mountains with good friends, that's what it's all about!