text:
NIAC inSight
Washington insights for the Iranian-American Community
NIAC Homepage
About NIAC
Posted By Ala Hasemi-Haeri
Congress, Diplomacy, Iran War related legislation, Nuclear file, Sanctions, US-Iran War
Administration Seeks Support for Iran Deal in Contentious Hearing
Secretaries Kerry and Moniz testify. Photo courtesy of AP.
With only seven weeks left until the September 17th deadline for Congress to vote to approve or reject the Iran deal, it is increasingly looking like a deal will rest on the support of a handful of key Democrats. Last week, in a contentious hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that stretched into a fifth hour, senior Obama administration officials mounted a spirited defense of the Iran deal in the face of near-unanimous Republican opposition. Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew all testified in their first public appearance before Congress since the announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Committee chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) set the tone for Republican attacks by accusing Sec. Kerry of being "fleeced" by the Iranians. He was later followed by his colleague Sen. James Risch (R-ID) who declared "you guys have been bamboozled." Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a Republican Presidential candidate, charged that the agreement was "fundamentally flawed" and left the hearing shortly thereafter. Other Republican members of the committee were equally, if not more combative, with the exception of Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA).
While Sen. Isakson was not as aggressive as his Republican colleagues, only inquiring as to why American nationals are not allowed to be part of the IAEA inspection teams, his previous statements have caused some to put him in the "No" camp.
Sen. Flake, on the other hand, is one of the lone Republicans in the Senate that is neither outright opposed nor leaning in opposition to the Iran deal. He reiterated his support for the negotiations and indicated he wasn't looking to ask any "gotcha" questions. "I understand the problem of having 535 secretaries of state," Flake said of the Congressional push to have a say on the Iran deal, but in order to have a lasting deal he added "it is best to have Congress involved."
With Republicans largely united in opposition, the administration is forced to pin its hopes on convincing Congressional Democrats to block a possible vote of disapproval during the 60 day review period.
Outside of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a longtime opponent of the administration's negotiations with Iran, the rest of the Democrats on the committee asked largely helpful questions about specific parts of the deal. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) chastised her Republican colleagues for personal attacks on Sec. Kerry and the other witnesses, calling it "ridiculous and unfair and wrong" to say that they had been "bamboozled" or "fleeced." The United Nations Security Council had earlier in the week unanimously passed a resolution approving the Iran Deal. Sen. Boxer alluded to this when she remarked "so my colleagues think you [Sec. Kerry] were fleeced and bamboozled, and that means everybody was fleeced and bamboozled, everybody, almost everybody in the world."
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), the ranking member of the committee and one of the key swing votes in the Senate, claimed "our negotiators got an awful lot, particularly on the nuclear front," adding that many areas "have been strengthened since the April framework," though he was noncommittal on how he would ultimately vote.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) did indicate that he was worried about what happens as the most intrusive elements of the agreement expire but he struck a supportive note when he said "this is a deal that produces a dramatically better position for 15 years than the status quo."
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) was another supportive voice on the committee, adding that he trusted the expertise of the nuclear scientists at the national labs in New Mexico who helped craft the inspection and verification regime. On the question of ensuring timely access to suspicious non-nuclear sites under the deal, which has emerged as a key point of debate, Udall asked, "do you believe we have the technical capabilities to determine if enrichment is being done outside the JCPOA?" Sec. Moniz answered affirmatively, pointing to the example of an Iranian site in 2003 where traces of uranium were detected after six months, "despite major efforts to disguise it."
In the coming weeks, the Obama administration will continue to defend the Iran deal during the Congressional review period while shoring up support among Democrats and any fence-sitting Republicans to stave off Congressional rejection. Sec. Kerry and Sec. Moniz will head to the House Foreign Relations Committee today in what is expected to be a similarly contentious hearing.
Posted By Jamal Abdi
Congress, Diplomacy, Nuclear file, Sanctions, US-Iran War
War is Only Alternative to Iran Deal, Warns Top Lawmaker
Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY) questions Secretary of State John Kerry during a hearing about the tentative deal for Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program and end sanctions against Iran on December 10, 2013. John Shinkle/POLITICO
Washington, DC – Congress must "come to grips" with the reality that failing to seal an Iran nuclear deal would mean war, according to the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
As Secretary of State John Kerry announced that negotiations with Iran would continue past today's deadline, Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) put the prospect of diplomatic failure into stark context at a hearing in the House of Representatives.
"The alternative to a deal would surely mean some kind of military strikes on Iran's nuclear plant," said Engel, who has given the Obama administration room to negotiate but has also been skeptical of the negotiations and a strong supporter of Israel.
"We have to look at the choices that we have, and the way I see it right now, we have a choice to accept the deal that the administration negotiates, or we don't," Engel observed. "And if we don't, then we need to look at the alternatives."
His comments suggested that, despite some misgivings about the negotiations, some of the more hawkish Members of Congress acknowledge the imperative of reaching a deal as a matter of war and peace.
"It's not just accepting the deal or nothing," Engel said at the hearing. "There are things we're going to have to come to grips with, and I believe one of them is bombing the nuclear reactor."
Some in Congress have bristled at the notion that opposing a deal is the equivalent of pushing for war, but critics of the talks have largely avoided discussing what alternatives would look like if not military action. The public debate has thus regularly focused on areas of perceived weakness in the envisioned agreement, raising concerns that Congress may avoid debating the far greater costs of the alternatives.
"If we are able to sustain the sanctions regime and have a bombing of their plant that sets them back two years or three years, is that really a viable alternative?" Engel asked panelists at the hearing.
The willingness of the committee's ranking Democrat to discuss the negotiations in such stark terms contrasted with the overall tone of the hearing which, like past hearings in the House and Senate on the Iran talks, featured witnesses that were almost exclusively opposed to a deal.
Three of the panelists served under the Bush Administration when the decision was made to invade Iraq and one–Stephen Rademaker–implored lawmakers to recognize that "any deal is a bad deal."
Congress will now have 60 days to review a deal if an agreement is secured, and to decide whether to approve it or reject it. A rejection would almost certainly nullify the deal–freeing Iran from nuclear constraints under the agreement and likely unraveling international enforcement of the U.S.-led sanctions regime.
>> Take Action: Urge your lawmakers to support a deal and Vote For Peace
Congress, Diplomacy, Sanctions, US-Iran War
A Comedy of Errors
Senator Cotton Keeps Repeating the Same Erroneous Iran Arguments at Security Conference
"With all due respect Senator," said the Center for a New American Security's (CNAS) Ilan Goldenberg addressing Arkansas' Tom Cotton, "I don't think the president's objective is to give the Iranian regime nuclear weapons," a retort which drew a huge applause from the capacity crowd present at the CNAS conference in downtown DC.
The conference titled A World in Turmoil: Charting America's Course, evoked in the attendees a sense of the chaos around them by displaying pictures of war and blight everywhere from Ferguson to the Gaza Strip. However, amidst these images of havoc, a rational and pragmatic discussion about the potential benefits and pitfalls of a nuclear deal with Iran was taking place, ably moderated by the Washington Post's David Ignatius.
Well, relatively rational.
While most of the panelists were discussing the deal in terms of US strategic goals and interests and negotiating tactics, Sen. Cotton kept repeating his talking points from the past two years with little regard for the actual facts.
When David Ignatius asked him about the appropriateness of the letter the Arkansas Senator and forty six of his Republican colleagues sent the Iranians, Cotton repeated his condescending assertion that he wrote his now infamous letter because the Iranian leadership "doesn't understand our constitutional system." This despite the fact that the Rouhani administration has more cabinet members with doctorates from American universities than any other government in the world.
The Senator also insisted his letter was meant to bolster the administration's bargaining position, despite his many past acknowledgments that his efforts are intended to kill a deal. Senator Cotton finally said that our goal should be regime change, and not negotiation, something Amb. Burns, a fellow Republican vehemently disagreed with.
Cotton also stated that 70% of Americans oppose the deal when in reality surveys show consistent support for the negotiations, often by a 60-70% margin or a 2:1 ratio. He then went on to repeat his maximalist demand that the only acceptable deal is one where Iran dismantles its nuclear industry completely, an unrealistic stance to say the least that even our closest allies don't support.
Senator Cotton chastised the Obama administration for not supporting the 2009 Green Movement in Iran even though the leaders of that movement did not want any outside interference because it would have given the regime an excuse to crack down even harder. Or that regardless of political affiliation, Iranians view having a civilian nuclear industry as their right.
He said we shouldn't trust Iran because it is run by "crazy Ayatollahs" (a comment that drew a derisive chuckle from the audience). However, even the most hardline elements of the Iranian regime have proven again and again that they are willing to act rationally to preserve and enhance its position in the region, even cutting deals with its worst enemies.
Citing Iran's destabilizing activities, he said "you don't cooperate with the world's leading sponsor of State terrorism, you don't cooperate with the government with the blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands. You confront it in at every effort it makes to challenge the West." But Goldenberg pointed out that we were more than willing to negotiate with the "Soviet Union which was sponsoring proxy wars which killed thousands of Americans at the time, was trying to subvert many of our allies" because it was in our national interest.
Quoting Yitzhak Rabin, Amb. Nicholas Burns said that "you don't negotiate with your best friends, you negotiate with your worst enemy." Ilan Goldenberg added that even though the Iranian regime is a "nasty regime" and we shouldn't "bank on this agreement on changing that," we should pursue the American interest of "preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon" by negotiating the same way we did with the Soviet Union.
Instead of focusing on the merits of an emerging deal, like the more reasonable critics of the Iran negotiations, Sen. Cotton keeps regurgitating his tired talking points about regime change. If a deal fails because of intransigence by the likes of Sen. Cotton, it would be very hard to keep the sanctions regime intact and Iran will have a free hand to pursue whatever nuclear technology it wants.
Cotton's repetitive, almost robotic delivery of these fallacious talking points makes it difficult to tell if he actually believes what he is saying or if he is just trying to score political points. Either way, the fact that he might be able to derail a deal with Iran, and drag the US into another needless conflict, is a prospect more frightening than any of the horrifying pictures of war and devastation that were on display outside the conference hall.
Posted By Parsa Ghahramani
Diplomacy, Sanctions, US-Iran War
Top Books to Read Before the July 7th Deadline for an Agreement with Iran
Top Books to Read Ahead of the July 7th Deadline for an Agreement with Iran
A day doesn't go by that Iran is not mentioned in the news. But for the majority of Americans, U.S.-Iran relations remain a mystery. With the deadline on a nuclear deal fast approaching, I've compiled a list of books that I find most useful in explaining the major sticking points in relations, and point out opportunities in moving forward.
Iran and the United States: An Insider's View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace, by Seyed Hossein Mousavian
There is no book that tells the troubled story of U.S.-Iran relations from the Iranian perspective better than this insightful account by Seyyed Hossein Mousavian. An Iranian diplomat with over 30 years of experience in U.S.-Iran relations, Moussavian offers a thought-provoking account of missed opportunities and mutual mistrust. His own experiences add a rich and personal dimension, and Mousavian remains hopeful that the two countries can bury the hatchet. Clearly outlining what each side stands to gain from an improvement of relations, Mousavian prescribes a way forward.
Iran in World Politics: The Question of the Islamic Republic, by Arshin Adib-Moghaddam
If we are to understand the worldview of Iran's leaders, the environment that informs their relationship with the west, and their sense of Iran's role in the world, Adib-Moghaddam's book is a critically important one. This in-depth analysis warns the reader against dangerous simplifications and caricatures of Iran, and goes beyond the surface in explaining Iranian foreign policy. This book is central to any productive discussion of U.S.-Iran relations.
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S., by Trita Parsi
The history of cooperation, alliances, and sabotage between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. are exhaustively examined in this book by Trita Parsi. In order to understand Washington's antagonistic relationship with Tehran, it's important to cut through to the important Iran-Israeli rivalry for dominance in the region. Parsi argues that antagonism between Iran and Israel is not ideological but a practical one regarding dominance of the Middle East. This book is important in showing that cooperation between the two countries is not only eminently plausible, but to the benefit of both.
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle Eastern Terror, by Stephen Kinzer
The United States' support for authoritarianism has landed it in trouble across the world. Nowhere is this more evident than in Iran. The U.S.-orchestrated coup that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953, and its subsequent support for the Shah planted the seeds of mistrust between the two nations. The revolution that overthrew the Shah brought about a government that took as its rallying cry independence from foreign intervention. This episode haunts U.S.-Iran relations to this day, and contains the roots of current hostilities. America's role in Iranian politics during the coup and its support for the Shah's authoritarianism is critical in understanding the relationship between the two countries. Kinzer's authoritative account illuminates this critical period of relations between the two countries.
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iranian Nuclear Scare, by Gareth Porter
This book addresses the elephant in the room regarding U.S.- Iran relations: Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Porter does an important job in this book of examining the veracity of allegations that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing a nuclear weapon, providing detailed documentation to the contrary. Anyone who advocates for war with Iran because of its nuclear program must read this book.
Posted By Behbod Negahban
Nuclear file, Sanctions
U.S. Companies Could Lose Out on Lucrative Business Opportunities in Iran, Report Finds
Photo via Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON, DC — In a recent piece for Politico, Chris Schroeder describes an exciting new generation of Iranian entrepreneurs who are ambitious, highly educated and already "see the world outside of Iran every day—often in the form of global news, TV shows, movies, music, blogs, and startups." As the Iranian economy prepares to open up to the world as part of an anticipated nuclear agreement, US companies could profit tremendously from engaging with this staggering trove of human capital.
But in a report issued by the Center for a New American Security, former Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the U.S. Treasury Department, Elizabeth Rosenberg, suggests that U.S. companies may still miss out on these opportunities, even if nuclear-related sanctions are lifted with an agreement. They will remain bound by "a comprehensive trade and investment embargo, the architecture of which is not widely viewed as nuclear-related."
Absent U.S. commercial competition, the report claims, European, Asian, and Middle-Eastern businesses, "less deterred by the prospect of violating sanctions," will be poised to fill that void.
The report recommends that the Treasury department allow U.S. companies to bypass these non-nuclear restrictions, putting them "on an equal footing with global businesses" to compete for "lucrative business opportunities."
It also notes that "creating opportunities for U.S. companies to engage in Iran" by easing these restrictions "would constitute a form of constructive, commercial diplomacy." This, according to the report, would encourage "productive engagement between Iran and the United States on areas of continuing security concern."
The report also emphasizes the need to keep "the incentives for Iran's continued adherence in place" by intensifying the economic benefit Iran receives through compliance. Even without nuclear sanctions, the report explains, international businesses may avoid engagement with Iran to avoid unknowingly falling into the tangled nets of the U.S. sanctions regime. American and European officials should mitigate this confusion by offering "an unprecedented level of specific detail on the degree of continuing exposure to U.S. sanctions for non-U.S. banks and companies," thereby minimizing confusion and maximizing clarity.
To address the "substantial new requirements associated with the removal of sanctions," the report also recommends that the US Congress give both the State and Treasury Departments the resources they need to "create a robust group of officials" dedicated to "engaging the public and the private sector about the changes in Iran sanctions." This work would also include enforcing remaining sanctions imposed on Iran and issuing license authorization for parties to trade with Iran when it fell within the U.S.'s foreign policy interest.
Preserving the deal is a matter of making the benefits of cooperation startlingly vivid, and the consequences of defiance even more so. With that in mind, the report concludes, "the lifting of sanctions may be the best insurance policy in nuclear diplomacy."
Posted By Nishaat Shaik
Congress, Diplomacy, Nuclear file, Sanctions
New Poll: Majority of Americans Favor Iran Nuclear Deal
A wide majority of Americans favor a nuclear deal with Iran that limits Iran's nuclear enrichment in return for phased sanctions relief, according to a new poll conducted by the Program for Public Consultation and the Center for International & Security Studies at the University of Maryland.
Following extensive briefing on the arguments for and against a nuclear deal with Iran, 61% of those polled – including 62% of Republicans and 65% of Democrats – signaled "support [for] a U.S. decision to reach a long-term [nuclear] deal" with Iran." Such a deal would include limits to Iran's uranium enrichment; an intrusive inspections regime of Iran's nuclear program; and the gradual easement of U.S. sanctions on Iran. The United States and Iran are in the midst of marathon talks to reach such a nuclear deal right now.
Far fewer Americans – 35% — favored the imposition of "additional sanctions" at this time and an end to negotiations that would permit limited enrichment in Iran. This position is endorsed by hawks in Congress, who have long favored to cut off the present negotiations and impose new sanctions on Iran. The White House has so far been successful in blocking the push for new sanctions.
Beyond the nuclear issue, the poll also highlighted how Americans favor greater outreach and increased ties to Iran. Asked whether they would support the "U.S. government engag[ing] in direct talks with Iran on issues of mutual concern," 82% of those polled favored such engagement. Moreover, 61% of Americans favored increased cooperation with Iran in Iraq, especially to fight back against the gains of the Islamic extremist group, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams.
According to the poll, Americans also support increased trade and cultural ties with Iran. Despite a two-decade-old trade embargo with Iran, 55% of Americans favored "greater trade" between the two countries, and 71% of Americans supported "greater cultural, educational, and sporting exchanges" with Iran. Increasing trade and expanding cultural and educational ties have long been contemplated as a means to bridge the divide that has separated the US and Iran these past three-plus decades.
The poll comes at a timely moment in US-Iran relations. As the July 20 deadline for P5+1 and Iran talks rapidly approaches, the White House will need to sell any prospect nuclear deal to a skeptical Congress. Based on this polling data, that sell might be a lot easier than imagined.
Posted By Tyler Cullis
Congress, Diplomacy, Sanctions
Don't Let Congress' Inaction Kill a Peaceful Iran Deal
To get a final deal with Iran, Washington is going to have to be ready to trade in nuclear-related sanctions in exchange for Iranian nuclear concessions. But unless Congress gives the President the authority to lift sanctions, the President will be limited to extending temporary waivers for the sanctions for successive four-to-six month periods ad infinitum.
To see why this is a problem, just read this piece in the New York Times this morning showing just what happens in negotiations when the President does not have the appropriate authority from Congress. The Times discusses President Obama's failed attempt to procure a trade deal with Japan on his recent trip there because he does not have necessary authorities from Congress to conclude an agreement:
"…analysts faulted Mr. Obama, saying his decision not to fight for the legislative authority at home to pass major trade deals had robbed him of leverage with the Japanese, who are reluctant to make concessions for a deal that may not survive Congress.
"'Their strategy was to get the Japanese to do the deal, then go to Congress and say, 'Look what a great deal we got, now give us the authority,'' said Michael J. Green, an Asia adviser to President George W. Bush. 'He made a decision to go into this with one hand tied behind his back.'"
In other words, President Obama entered trade negotiations with Japan hobbled by a Congress reluctant to delegate to him the requisite trade authorities. And instead of pushing Congress to grant him such powers, the President figured to reverse the order and first get a good deal with Japan and then leverage that deal to get a similar one with Congress.
Regardless of the merits of a trade deal, this is a priority for Obama. And the problem is this: Without authority from Congress, the President lacked leverage to get an agreement with Japan to deliver on this priority. As soon as Japan's negotiators understood the limits of the President's ability to make good on promises he offered during negotiations, they chose not to show their hand in trade talks absent a more concrete indication that America would follow-thru on its promises. Thus, no deal.
Here, the parallel to another major priority for Obama–getting a strong nuclear deal with Iran– should be obvious. Just as the President entered talks with Japan hamstrung, so he has entered negotiations with Iran lacking the authorities to provide Iran the kind of sanctions relief that they will expect should a final deal be reached. Unless there is confidence that the President will get the necessary authorities from Congress to implement sanctions relief as promised, the US side has far less leverage to put sanctions on the table to get strong concessions from Iran.
This is not the position in which the United States should find itself, especially on the eve of a potential historic diplomatic win over Iran's nuclear program.
While it is likely infeasible for the President to get Congress to provide him the requisite authorities to lift sanctions before an Iran deal is struck, there must to be a viable plan in place to get Congress to do so once a deal is agreed. That plan must also be signalled at the negotiating table, so as to inject confidence between the negotiating parties and to bolster the US hand in the talks.
Instead of playing the perpetual "bad cop" and threatening to scuttle any final deal, Congress could improve the position of US negotiators dramatically if it signals its preparedness to give the President the power to relieve sanctions in order to implement a strong nuclear agreement. And the President can strengthen his negotiators' hands by ensuring that the groundwork to get a deal is laid now, rather than waiting until we get a deal with Iran only to see it blocked by Congress.
Posted By Shervin Taheran
Partisanship at Its Worst
Less than a month ago, Senator Menendez [D-NJ] conceded in a floor speech that his new Iran sanctions bill, S. 1881, should not be brought to the floor after 42 Republican Senators demanded a vote. "I hope that we will not find ourselves in a partisan process trying to force a vote on this national security matter before its appropriate time," said Menendez at the time.
This is a good thing considering that we now know that one of the key claims of AIPAC and other supporters was not true. They said that the bill would require sanctions be imposed, in violation of the preliminary nuclear deal with Iran, only if Iran first violated the deal. But in reality, the bill would have imposed sanctions for a variety of actions beyond what was required in that deal. And Republican staffer recently admitted as much, telling Wall Street Journal, "Had our bill been in law, the latest [Iranian ballistic missile] tests would have triggered a re-imposition of sanctions." So Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that the mantra of "the sanctions will be imposed only if the talks fail" was thoroughly misleading.
One would think that the discussion was finally put to rest, that sanctions were not the answer, and that we could now focus our attention to achieving a pragmatic, realistic, and concrete deal with Iran.
However, just this past Monday, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) blocked a bid to vote on bills to combat sexual assault in the military, demanding a vote on S. 1881 in return for allowing the Senate to debate an issue which affects about 26,000 men and women in the military per year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated it most diplomatically when he said, "I'm terribly disappointed that my Republican friends are trying to turn this vital national security concern into a partisan issue by trying to inject [it] into a setting where it's clearly not relevant."
Posted By Ryan Costello
Congress, Diplomacy, Iran War related legislation, Nuclear file, Sanctions, Uncategorized, US-Iran War
Feinstein Delivers Strong Defense of Diplomacy on Senate Floor
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) added to her credentials as a champion of diplomacy with Iran with a remarkable speech on the floor of the Senate last night. Sen. Feinstein warned that S.1881, a sanctions bill from Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) that has garnered 59 cosponsors, would "collapse negotiations" and be a "march toward war."
Her speech came at a critical time. On Sunday, the P5+1 and Iran announced an agreement to implement the first phase nuclear deal struck in November. Further, a number of Senators are voicing their strong opposition to the new Iran sanctions, including Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East, and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). Despite the growing opposition, the bill still retains the support of a majority of U.S. Senators.
Feinstein began her speech by noting that countries can change direction, citing the examples of post-war Germany and Japan, Spain, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and South Africa. Further, she noted that several nations have abandoned the pursuit of nuclear weapons, including Sweden, Argentina and South Korea. Citing robust diplomatic engagement and steps to curb Iran's nuclear program, Feinstein suggested that Iran could be on the cusp of a similar change "and that it is the job of diplomay to push for that change."
Feinstein highlighted the strong security benefits of the first phase nuclear deal, including that it will require Iran to cap its enrichment at 5% and eliminate its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, all while instituting "the most intrusive international inspection regime ever" to verify compliance.
According to Feinstein, Senate passage of S.1881 would kill the deal and ongoing talks with Iran, "and, with it, the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior—a change that could not only open all kinds of economic opportunities for the Iranian people, but help change the course of a nation. Its destiny in fact could be changed. " Further, Senate passage would "play into the hands of those in Iran who are most eager to see diplomacy fail." Those Iranian hardliners would argue that Rouhani and Zarif "exchanged a freeze of its nuclear program for additional and harsh punitive sanctions."
"Above all," Feinstein added, "they will argue that the United States is not interested in nuclear diplomacy–we are interested in regime change. " Nuclear negotiations would collapse, Iran's nuclear program would be unconstrained, and the U.S. would only be left with military options.
Feinstein, citing Secretary of State John Kerry's formal request that the Senate hold off on new sanctions to allow the negotiators time and space to do their jobs, argued that the Menendez-Kirk bill "is an egregious imposition on the Executive's authority to conduct foreign affairs."
Citing the fact that new sanctions would collapse the agreement, Feinstein asked, "How does that (passing new sanctions) make any kind of common sense? It defies logic, it threatens instant reverse, and it ends what has been unprecedented diplomacy. Do we want to take that on our shoulders? Candidly, in my view, it is a march toward war."
Sen. Feinstein concluded by stating that the first phase nuclear deal with Iran "is strong, it is tough, and it is realistic. It represents the first significant opportunity to change a three-decade course in Iran and an opening to improve one of our most poisonous bilateral relationships. It could open the door to a new future which not only considers Israel's national security, but protects our own. To preserve diplomacy, I strongly oppose the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act (S.1881)."
Sen. Feinstein's strong speech could weaken support for the sanctions bill at a critical time, encouraging other Senators to make their opposition to the bill public. Currently, two dozen Senators have yet to take a formal public position on the bill.
Sen. Rockefeller Supports Deal, Opposes New Sanctions
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), a senior Democrat and the former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, delivered a strong defense of the nuclear deal with Iran on the floor of the Senate this afternoon while warning that new sanctions would jeopardize the deal.
According to Sen. Rockefeller, "The question is how – not whether – we prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. For the first time in years, there is a real opportunity to verifiably eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons capability through tough negotiations rather than by acts of war."
The speech comes at a critical time as Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) are seeking to rally support to push new sanctions through next week — the last week the Senate will be in session in 2013. The Obama administration has strongly warned against new sanctions, which would violate the terms of the nuclear deal, including in Secretary of State John Kerry's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. Secretary Kerry also briefed Senators in a closed-door briefing today.
"The initial interim agreement between the P5+1 and Iran is an encouraging first step, and I urge my colleagues not to put it at risk by passing new sanctions right now," Sen. Rockefeller warned. "Instead, we should simply state the obvious: If Iran reneges or plays games, we will quickly pass new sanctions the very moment the need arises."
New sanctions would also risk unraveling the sanctions regime by undermining international faith in the U.S. approach, according to the Senator. "New sanctions now could be criticized as a violation of the interim agreement. Such a move could separate us from our negotiating partners in the P5+1, and it could further complicate the already difficult negotiations of a final agreement."
Raising the specter of military conflict as the likely outcome of failed diplomacy, Sen. Rockefeller asked his colleagues, "Why would we risk an opportunity that may well be the only chance we have to resolve this without using military force?"
"All of us have lived with war for the past 12 years. We have seen up close the incalculable financial and human cost that has come with these wars, and the burden that the wars now put on our troops, their families, and our economy."
Sen. Rockefeller also implied that more of his colleagues should take to the floor in support of the agreement. A number of lawmakers have issued positive statements, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), though Sen. Rockefeller is the first to do so on the Senate floor.
You can view a video of the speech below and and the full text of his speech here.
New Entries »
Tell Google: Stop playing Persian Gulf name games!
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Dear Mr. Page:
It has come to our attention that Google has begun omitting the title of the Persian Gulf from its Google Maps application. This is a disconcerting development given the undisputed historic and geographic precedent of the name Persian Gulf, and the more recent history of opening up the name to political, ethnic, and territorial disputes. However unintentionally, in adopting this practice, Google is participating in a dangerous effort to foment tensions and ethnic divisions in the Middle East by politicizing the region's geographic nomenclature. Members of the Iranian-American community are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts, particularly at a time when regional tensions already have been pushed to the brink and threaten to spill over into conflict. As the largest grassroots organization in the Iranian-American community, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) calls on Google to not allow its products to become propaganda tools and to immediately reinstate the historically accurate, apolitical title of "Persian Gulf" in all of its informational products, including Google Maps.
Historically, the name "Persian Gulf" is undisputed. The Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy referencing in his writings the "Aquarius Persico." The Romans referred to the "Mare Persicum." The Arabs historically call the body of water, "Bahr al-Farsia." The legal precedent of this nomenclature is also indisputable, with both the United Nations and the United States Board of Geographic Names confirming the sole legitimacy of the term "Persian Gulf." Agreement on this matter has also been codified by the signatures of all six bordering Arab countries on United Nations directives declaring this body of water to be the Persian Gulf.
But in the past century, and particularly at times of escalating tensions, there have been efforts to exploit the name of the Persian Gulf as a political tool to foment ethnic division. From colonial interests to Arab interests to Iranian interests, the opening of debate regarding the name of the Persian Gulf has been a recent phenomenon that has been exploited for political gain by all sides. Google should not enable these politicized efforts.
In the 1930s, British adviser to Bahrain Sir Charles Belgrave proposed to rename the Persian Gulf, "Arabian Gulf," a proposal that was rejected by the British Colonial and Foreign offices. Two decades later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company resurrected the term during its dispute with Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister whose battle with British oil interests would end in a U.S.-sponsored coup d'état that continues to haunt U.S.-Iran relations. In the 1960s, the title "Arabian Gulf" became central to propaganda efforts during the Pan-Arabism era aimed at exploiting ethnic divisions in the region to unite Arabs against non-Arabs, namely Iranians and Israelis. The term was later employed by Saddam Hussein to justify his aims at territorial expansion. Osama Bin Laden even adopted the phrase in an attempt to rally Arab populations by emphasizing ethnic rivalries in the Middle East.
We have serious concerns that Google is now playing into these efforts of geographic politicization. Unfortunately, this is not the first time Google has stirred controversy on this topic. In 2008, Google Earth began including the term "Arabian Gulf" in addition to Persian Gulf as the name for the body of water. NIAC and others called on you then to stop using this ethnically divisive propaganda term, but to no avail. Instead of following the example of organizations like the National Geographic Society, which in 2004 used term "Arabian Gulf" in its maps but recognized the error and corrected it, Google has apparently decided to allow its informational products to become politicized.
Google should rectify this situation and immediately include the proper name for the Persian Gulf in Google Maps and all of its informational products. The exclusion of the title of the Persian Gulf diminishes your applications as informational tools, and raises questions about the integrity and accuracy of information provided by Google.
We strongly urge you to stay true to Google's mission – "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" – without distorting or politicizing that information. We look forward to an explanation from you regarding the recent removal of the Persian Gulf name from Google Maps and call on you to immediately correct this mistake.
Design by: llowit
2020 NIAC inSight © National Iranian American Council (NIAC)


Two times in our lives we have had reality smack us in the face when it came to realizing how much money a month we were spending on food. The first time was when we first discovered Dave Ramsey years and years ago, and the second time was last year when we discovered the FIRE Community (Financial Independence/Retire Early). I thought I had it all together when it came to our food budget. I knew all the rules. I used to lead Financial Peace classes for Goodness Sake! I was careful about our spending. When we made the commitment last year to begin saving for retirement I didn't know where we were going to get the extra money to do so. So, I began cutting expenses wherever I could. Imagine my shock when I took a good hard look at our banks statements and realized we were actually spending more than double what we had budgeted every month for food. Whoopsie-doodle…..life had certainly crept back up on us and we didn't even realize it.
Several years ago, I decided to make shredded barbecue pork sandwiches. The recipe called for the pork to be topped with coleslaw. I HATED coleslaw growing up. I thought the soupy-milky stuff my grandpa got from KFC (It was still called Kentucky Fried Chicken then) was how coleslaw was supposed to taste. NO THANK YOU. Blegh.


Microchip Technology's SST12CP21 high-power amplifier offers low EVM and current consumption for 256-QAM and IEEE 802.11n systems.
Microchip Technology's SST12CP21 is a 2.4 GHz 256-QAM RF high-power amplifier. It offers low EVM and current consumption for 256-QAM and IEEE 802.11n systems. The SST12CP21 delivers linear output power of up to 23 dBm at 1.75% dynamic EVM, with MCS9 HT40 MHz bandwidth modulation at 5V and 320 mA current consumption. The SST12CP21 delivers 25 dBm linear power at 3% EVM with only 350 mA current consumption for 802.11g/n applications. This performance extends the range of 802.11b/g/n WLAN and MIMO systems, while consuming low current at the maximum 256-QAM data rate. The SST12CP21's spectrum mask compliant up to 28 dBm for 802.11b/g communication. Board space is reduced by the small 3x3x0.55 mm, 16-pin QFN package that matches a popular pin-out.
The SST12CP21 power amplifier has a low operating current of 320 mA at 23 dBm and 350 mA at 25 dBm, which enables multichannel and higher data rate WLAN systems. This amplifier features 50 ohm on-chip input match and simple output match. The integrated linear power detector provides accurate output power control over temperature and 2-to-1 output mismatch.
– Edited by CFE Media, see more Control Engineering energy and power products.


Motswiri Walking Safaris operate in the western quadrant of the Selinda Reserve, which abutts the north-eastern floodplains of the Okavango Delta, and are based around two very high quality camps – Motswiri camp itself, which overlooks the Selinda Spillway and is small and personal, and a more rustic, "basic-but-comfortable", seasonal fly-camp, located deeper in the reserve. Walking groups are small (maximum 6), and itineraries are built around you and are very flexible. You have exclusive access to over 120,000 acres of wilderness, and habitats are very varied, ranging from riverine forests, pans and tree islands lining the Spillway, to the more open floodplains, channels and swamps of the delta proper. In all, a superb walking experience.
This is a superb area for walking, and includes the lush riverine forests of the Selinda Spillway, a floodwater channel which connects the Okavango Delta to the Kwando and Linyanti River systems, as well the floodplains, channels and swamps that typify the Delta. On a Motswiri walking safari you'll get involved in tracking spoor, searching for specific game, bird watching, detailed studies of flora and fauna - whatever you want! You will be accompanied by an armed, professional guide who will tailor his activities to your specific areas of interest and will know the answers to most of your questions!
Groups are small, no more than 6, and you can choose whether to walk on dry land, wade in shallow flood plains, explore the floodplains by mokoro or the Spillway in a larger boat. Walking activities can be interspersed with fishing and swimming, or by taking up watch on some of the spectacular pans within the reserve and observing the birds and animals coming to drink.
Motswiri does not offer set departures and prefer to be flexible, which actually works very well. A minimum of 3 nights is recommended, and an optimum stay is 5 nights, including nights out in the fly camp.
Motswiri is a small, very personal camp, which has been stylishly and comfortably rebuilt in 2010. It meets the latest, exacting environmental standards and is largely solar powered. The camp prides itself on its personal service, attention to detail and ability to tailor activities to suit individual ambitions and interests.
Sited on the raised banks of the Spillway, the five tents are airy, spaced well apart, and each has its own self-contained shower, loo and large decked veranda. The camp also welcomes families and has a specially designed family tent.
The fly camp at Motswiri is a more rustic affair, though tents and beds are perfectly comfortable, with ample space to stand up and move about. In fact, tents and camp furniture are a cut above those typically found on a fly-camping safari.
Each tent is equipped with a long drop loo and bucket shower. A trip to fly camp enables access to the more remote areas of the reserve, where you will encounter differing landscapes and game viewing experiences.
Fly camp closes during the rainy season, typically from December to March each year, though the precise beginning and end of the rainy season does vary.
Motswiri camp is open all year round. The fly camp is open between March and October, and the this is when walking safaris are run.


Designed with guidance from educators and IT professionals, the STM Dux Plus Duo case with integrated storage for Apple Pencil or Logitech Crayon wraps your iPad in superior protection that can withstand the unique rigours of the classroom or workplace. The Dux Plus Duo offers a patented magnetic closure, reinforced corners and a transparent back panel to safeguard your iPad from inadvertent drops.
These Other Folks Are Crazy! Great Case!
I am not trying to start drama, but some of these 1-star reviewers have impossible standards, it seems. The case fits my 6th gen 9.7" iPad perfectly and is qui I am not trying to start drama, but some of these 1-star reviewers have impossible standards, it seems. The case fits my 6th gen 9.7" iPad perfectly and is quite snug. It's a great case if you have a 9 y/o using your tablet. The one reviewer who said the iPad "fell out" when the toddler shook it, I'm just not sure. I had this case in an Apple Store on a display iPad and the Apple Genius shook the device like crazy and the iPad stayed snug and safe. To the 1-star reviewer who said it was 'too heavy,' give me a break; the rubber sides, the magnet, and the cover itself add a NEGLIGIBLE amount of weight, at best. This is a solid buy!
Is this review useful?These Other Folks Are Crazy! Great Case!
Great case once again from STM!
This is a great case for the iPad (6th Gen). It gives complete piece of mind about the safety, as it is rugged: really rugged. I love the secure folio screen pr This is a great case for the iPad (6th Gen). It gives complete piece of mind about the safety, as it is rugged: really rugged. I love the secure folio screen protector, which I find many iPad cases lack these days. The Apple Pencil holder is very useful and practical and nonintrusive . In addition the lightening female to female adaptor has a got its own little storage slot in the case, one of those small things that one is certain to loose unless stored somewhere.
Is this review useful?Great case once again from STM!
This case is very durable and comfortable. Quality construction throughout. Only thing I would add is a strap in the back for my hand. Will buy again!
Does not meet any of its functions other than simply covering the iPad. It is hard to use buttons through it and it is useless at supporting the iPad at any ang Does not meet any of its functions other than simply covering the iPad. It is hard to use buttons through it and it is useless at supporting the iPad at any angle. It collapses when you try to type. Don't waste your money. I have visited the Apple store to bring this to their attention but they seem totally uninterested. The sales assistant I told tried to seek it to someone else in the same breath as thanking me for my feedback.
Sure if the IT folks could fix the issue with my work app I would dislike this case so much. However, the areas that line up with buttons to control then are no Sure if the IT folks could fix the issue with my work app I would dislike this case so much. However, the areas that line up with buttons to control then are not great. It is snug and sturdy on the ipad...but it is a struggle then to get the corner of the ipad out of the case to power on and off. I figured it must be a case Apple wouldn't even carry. But looking for a new case I saw this one and felt like I needed to say something. I do not recommend it to anyone unless you never plan on turning it off and on.
Is this case for the new iPad Mini 5?
Does the cover for the screen come off magnetically for easy use of the camera?


text:
Last Sundays – December 31, 2017, ft. Nexus
December 21, 2017 by nationalgalleryofjamaica	in Engaging Abstraction, Exhibitions, Explorations, Nexus, Portraits in Conversation and tagged Engaging Abstraction, Explorations, Last Sundays, Nexus, Portraits in Conversation
Ocean Boulevard, which is the normal access road to drive to the NGJ on Orange Street, will be closed on Sunday, December 31, in preparation for the New Year's fireworks that night. UDC has kindly made complimentary parking arrangements for visitors to our Last Sundays programme in the parking garage across from the NGJ main entrance, with the understanding that those who park there will leave by 4 pm (or moved to paid parking for those who are staying for the fireworks). To access the NGJ, please proceed on Port Royal Street (or Harbour Street, if coming from the West) and turn on Orange Street, where there will be crowd control barriers. Please indicate to the security guard on duty that you are a guest of the NGJ Last Sundays programme and you will be directed to the parking garage. Feel free to call us at 922-1561 or -3 if you need any assistance.
The National Gallery's final Last Sundays event for 2017 will take place on New Year's Eve, Sunday, December 31 from 11 am to 4 pm, with the featured performance starting at 1:30 am. Visitors will have the opportunity to view the National Gallery's current exhibitions, Explorations V: Portraits in Conversation and Explorations VI: Engaging Abstraction. The featured performance will be by the Nexus Performing Arts Company.
The Explorations exhibition series, which was launched in 2013, explores big themes and issues in Jamaican art and features mainly works from the National Gallery Collection, which are reinterpreted in these thematic contexts. Explorations V: Portraits in Conversation examines the significance and conflicted politics of artistic portraiture in the development of Jamaican art from the 18th century to the present, looking at issues such as race, class, gender, as well as the ideas about art and the artist that are reflected in the portrait. Its counterpart, Explorations VI: Engaging Abstraction, examines the at times contentious role of abstraction in modern and contemporary art from Jamaica and the Caribbean. Abstraction became an established part of the local art practice in the 1960s but is often dismissed as alien to Caribbean culture, which has a strong focus on content and iconic local subject matter. More recently, abstraction has also found new life in the age of time-based, digital media. A special feature in the Explorations VI exhibition is the Kingston staging of David Gumbs' Xing Wang interactive video installation, which was originally shown as part of the 2017 Jamaica Biennial at National Gallery West in Montego Bay. David Gumbs is an artist from St Martin who lives and works in Martinique.
In what is now an established Holiday Season tradition at the National Gallery, the featured performance on Sunday, December 31 will be by the award-winning Nexus Performing Arts Company. The Nexus Performing Arts Company was formed in 2001 by Hugh Douse, Artistic Director, voice tutor, singer, actor, conductor, songwriter, and a former Director of Culture in Education. The group has a broad musical repertoire that draws on Gospel, Negro Spirituals, Semi-classical, Popular music including Reggae and show tunes, African and Classical music of the European and African traditions. The performance by Nexus will take place in the exhibition galleries, presented as a musical tour, with selections inspired by the Portraits in Conversation and Engaging Abstraction exhibitions.
Admission on Sunday, December 31 will be free and free guided tours will also be offered. The gift and coffee shop will be open for business and contributions to the donations box are welcomed. Revenues from our shops and donations help to fund programmes such as the Explorations exhibitions and our Last Sundays programming.
← Explorations V: Portraits in Dialogue
Explorations VI: Engaging Abstraction →

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Judith M. Rose is a December 15, 1973 graduate of the University of Wisconsin, Stout. She was a Home Economics Education major, with a minor in Extension Education.
She is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Weigel of R. 1, Marshfield, and wife of Harlan Rose, Granton (Clark Co., Wis.).
She is completing her teaching internship at Greenwood Junior and Senior High School on January 18, 1974.


I published a data extract and set permission to allow all everybody to do everything.
but another user was also having publish rights to that site and as I granted my datasource to be modified by all access, yet that user cannot see the Run Now button.
Do you know why? How can another user able to manually trigger my extract?
I have role of publisher to site & another user also role was publisher to site.
yet I cannot runnow her extract & she cannot runnow my extract.
thanks for that page, although it does not say if publisher can manually Actions > Run Now for other person's extract.


Allergy Services for the Entire Family!
Our spa now offers an on-site allergy clinic to better diagnose and treat allergies. We can test for the cause of that persistent running nose, cough, or that rash that you, your child, or a friend gets every spring.
We will discuss with you the types of symptoms you are experiencing and then perform allergy testing to verify the allergens causing the symptoms. We utilize percutaneous skin tests as the gold standard for allergy testing. Percutaneous testing involves making a small (painless) scratch on the skin and exposing a minute amount of an allergen directly to this scratch. We then wait approximately 15 minutes to see which allergens have created red bumps on the skin. Those that create bumps are your allergens and the larger the bump, the greater the sensitivity to this allergen.
You may watch a video or listen to soothing music during the testing. The test is painless, and all you may feel is a little itching, relieved by a cool Aloe Gel.
Once we know the cause of your symptoms, we can work on treating the allergies and increasing your family or friends' quality of life.
Allergies are increasingly common in the Dallas area, and tend to worsen with age. Symptoms can range from a stuffy/runny nose, skin rashes, stomach cramps, nausea and insomnia, as well as more intense issues like trouble breathing and asthma. Whether you or you are suffering from seasonal allergies, food allergies, or any other form of allergies, we can help the whole family.
Food allergy – such as eggs, nuts, milk, etc.
Outdoor allergies – such as pollen, grass, bug bites or stings, etc.
Indoor allergies – dust, dust mites, feathers, pets, etc.
Other irritants – perfume, car exhaust, cold air etc.
Hold antihistamines, montelukast, antidepressants or high-dose long-term steroids for three to five days before the day of testing.
Asthma medications, nebulizer therapy, or short bursts of oral steroids may be continued, as they will not affect the results.
Nasal sprays may be continued with no affect.
Do not wear any scented products to the spa on the day of testing.
Provide a list of medications you're taking.


Infab's Revolution "Lumbar" Vest/Skirt with Built In Black Belt.
INFAB'S "Revolution" series lead apparel, available scatter absorbed dose protection; KiArmor.
The Revolution Vest/Skirt in "Lumbar" is redesigned to offer not only the best X-ray protection apron but now with excellent Lumbar Support for those long procedures.
Built-in "Black Belt" in Vest for better lumbar support (Revolution"Back Flap" not included on apron).
Each Front Vest panel is 0.50mm giving a solid front body protection giving 1.0mm at overlap.
16 different "Color Blocking" colors, in 4 different pattern options.
Every "Revolution" series apron comes with Cool Wear Moisture-Wicking fabric standard. Its an add on option for the "Base" series.
Flame Resistant. Abrasion Resistant. 100% Waterproof.
Black Belt built inside Vest.


text:
Wie man investiert
This Complaints Policy forms part of the Terms and Conditions for Use of the Crowdfunding Platform of Crowdfunding Service Provider (Crowdestor OÜ (a company registered in the Republic of Estonia with registry code 14388462, located at Roosikrantsi tn 2, Tallinn city, Harju county, 10119, Estonia)). Capitalized terms used in this Complaints Policy, have the same meaning as defined in the Terms and Conditions for Use of the Crowdfunding Platform.
The purpose of this policy is to inform Clients (including Investors and Borrowers) regarding Crowdfunding Service Provider's complaint review procedure, means of submitting a complaint, communication channels and information that must be indicated in the complaint. Furthermore, this policy explains how and when Crowdfunding Service Provider will respond to the submitted complaints.
For the Client to receive an official written reply from Crowdfunding Service Provider, the Client must submit a written complaint to Crowdfunding Service Provider via e-mail address complaints@crowdestor.com. The Client must indicate in the written complaint following information:
Name and surname.
If the person is representing a legal entity, please indicate the name of the company and the position in the company.
Personal identification code or date of birth.
If the person is representing a legal entity, please indicate the country of registration and registration number of the legal entity.
The Client identification number (if such has been given to the Client by Crowdfunding Service Provider).
Contact information (phone and e-mail address) in case Crowdfunding Service Provider will need to obtain further information regarding the complaint.
A written description of the complaint.
Means of delivering the reply.
Please indicate an e-mail address if a reply should be sent via e-mail or postal address if the reply should be sent via post. Please make sure to indicate an accurate e-mail or postal address so that the reply reaches the person submitting the complaint. Crowdfunding Service Provider accepts no liability in case the contact information is incomplete or inaccurate.
Only complaints submitted in writing and containing all the information indicated above will be reviewed by Crowdfunding Service Provider according to this policy. Submitting a complaint to Crowdfunding Service Provider is free of charge, the Client shall bear its own expenses (including obtaining external advice) in relation to submitting complaints.
Depending on the nature of complaint, one or more Crowdfunding Service Provider's employees will be assigned to review the complaint and communicate with the Client. Crowdfunding Service Provider will ensure assigning appropriate resources and required involvement of senior management in reviewing the complaint.
Crowdfunding Service Provider will review and reply to all written complaints within 30 days. In specific or complicated cases, or when Crowdfunding Service Provider is unable to reply within the 30-day term, Crowdfunding Service Provider will inform the Client regarding the extension of the said deadline and the final terms when the reply will be sent to the Client.
Crowdfunding Service Provider will keep records of all written complaints submitted by the Clients and measures taken in connection to each written complaint.
Crowdfunding Service Provider will act with utmost effort to address all complaints of the Clients submitted via phone, social media or other communication channels, however, Crowdfunding Service Provider gives no guarantees and assumes no liability for failing to reply to each and every complaint or question which is not submitted in the written form according to this policy. Please note that only written replies to written complaints received by Crowdfunding Service Provider shall have any legal consequences to the Crowdfunding Service Provider.
E-mail address for sending complaints: complaints@crowdestor.com
Alle Rechte vorbehalten @ 2023 crowdestor.com
Datenschutzregeln


Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) offers many advantages over dedicated network devices including potential reduction in costs for network and data center operators and increased revenue opportunities with the agility it affords. However, the agility potential also introduces more performance, reliability and security uncertainty with so many alternatives in the manner in which the infrastructure is designed. Holistic and continual validation across all the boundaries in a software-defined cloud stack is required for NFV to achieve successful deployments by operators.
This white paper addresses the complex layers that require a validation solution capable of emulation and orchestration allowing the NFV infrastructure to be integrated and validated as a system.


Massey celebrated getting off the mark for the season with a brilliant individual goal in Wednesday night's 3-0 win over Stoke, while QPR were still licking their wounds from two heavy defeats.
While Latics have impressed against heavyweights Sheffield Wednesday, Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest, losing just the once, QPR were stung 7-1 last weekend by West Brom before a 3-0 defeat to Bristol City on Tuesday.
And Massey is expecting a response at Loftus Road when Latics rock up tomorrow.
"It's a difficult one to say, because obviously they'll be coming in off the back of two big defeats, and they'll be thinking they have to get a result against us," he said.
"But at the same time they won't be stupid, they'll have seen how well we've played in the first four games and they'll know we'll be a threat.
"We'll also recognise the threat they'll bring, they'll be looking for a reaction, and the manager will want a performance from his players.
Massey, who joined Latics last year following his former club Leyton Orient's relegation to the National League, knows their strong start to the campaign is no guarantee of success, but the 25-year-old insists they are confident of challenging anyone they face.
"We've got some quality players in the team, you saw that last season," he said.
"There's always going to be a question mark stepping up, and people wondering whether we'll be able to keep it going.
"This is only the start, we're only four games in, but I think we've proved we'll not be a rollover for anyone.
The early signs are good, though many will be in agreement with Massey that Latics could have even more points on the board given how they have played so far this season.
"I think you can see with our performances of late we've deserved this win," he said after the Stoke match.
"We should really be sitting there with at least nine points never mind seven.
account in the Championship was a worry.
"It's nice to get off the mark for the season so early," he said.
"I've tried to play a one-two with Powelly, it didn't quite come off, but I just found myself through on goal.
"It's funny because I get myself into those positions quite frequently, I had a few against Sheffield Wednesday, and I know I can make openings for myself.
"It's all about staying confident, and keeping the ball low and hard.
But scoring wasn't the only satisfaction for Watford-born Massey in the win over Stoke, though he admits engineering scoring opportunities is made easier by Grigg and Nick Powell.
"It was nice to get the assist for the first goal," he sid.
"As a winger, you know that if you put the ball into those areas, then the likes of Powelly or Griggy will get on the end of it and get you goals.
"We do work on it training, but it's not so much look up and seeing where they are, as just putting it in because they will be there.


When we are on a music cruise, we are fortunate to spend time not only with fans, but other artists and their families as well. That was the case when Little River Band was a part of the 70's Rock and Romance cruise this year.
America was one of the groups performing and I was able to have Glynnis, wife of Rich Campbell, bass player, share a little insight into her life with Rich. Getting to know both artist and their spouse is always a treat. More often than not, if a show consists of multiple artists, there's little time to enjoy their company and many times their spouses aren't on the road with them. Having that extra time to get to know them on the cruise is special. In speaking with Glynnis, I learned she's been a ballerina, a typographer, a film composer, a piano player, a singer in an all-girl rock band, and a voice in video games. Here's what she had to say about living life with a touring musician.
RHONDA: Did you really have any idea of what you were getting into before you became the wife of a musician?
Glynnis: I had a good idea of what to expect from the music life because Rich and I were in bands together for years! Though I gave up my own music career and moved into writing, I've always understood the creative passion that drives a person to pursue the arts. It's a given that you'll always share your partner with another mistress—his or her Muse.
I knew Rich would be on the road a lot, though fortunately, it was almost never for more than a few weeks at a time. I knew we'd sometimes have to celebrate holidays on a different schedule. I knew his hours would be messed up from traveling. But there was no way I was going to stand in the way of his dreams, and thankfully, he feels the same way about mine.
RHONDA: Do you have children and if so, did you make the decision to stay home and take care of them while their dad toured? And what were the challenges when traveling with kids on the road?
Glynnis: We have two kids. Taking them on the road was never really an option. They were happy in school and I was working part-time. But since Rich wasn't going on six-month-long tours, his being gone for three or four days every week wasn't a big issue.
RHONDA: Were you a fan of his or the band before you met?
Glynnis: In high school, Rich and I were in a cover band together. Two of our favorite songs were "Horse With No Name" and "Sandman." When we got married and combined our record collections, the only LP we had in common was America's Greatest Hits. He was in other bands along the way—Natalie Cole, Three Dog Night, Edgar Winter, Chuck Negron, Dave Mason—but when Dave warmed up for America, I told Rich I thought he should be the bass player for that band. A year later, he was!
RHONDA: Are you ever part of his creative process? How?
Glynnis: Probably what I do to contribute the most to his creative process is stay out of his way and give him space. If he asks my opinion, I'll always offer it, and I like to think our life adventures and philosophical discussions inspire him in some way. But mostly I just understand and respect his Muse and leave him to it.
RHONDA: Your husband's band has a place in music history. Do you feel that you share in that?
Glynnis: I feel totally honored and amazed to be part of his musical family. Once in a while when I'm hanging out backstage or on the tour bus, Younger Me has to pinch myself. Never in my wildest dreams would I have believed that I'd one day be friends with America. That my high school sweetheart and husband is touring with the band is nothing short of awesome!


Need more than Premium? Contact us to create a Annual Support Package for your company.
Video Support: Our team will record you custom video answers, walk-throughs, and guides on any support subject.
Access to epicUniversity: Get access to our one of a kind knowledge base and training suite. Learn how to do anything the professionals do, step-by-step.
Bug Fixes: The ultimate code warranty, all support agreements come with the assurance that we will fix any bug you find in any work that we've done.
Platform Training: Get quick answers to your questions from the team that knows your site the best. Our team will supply you with videos, calls, or epicUniversity links to get your question answered.
Quality Control: Rest easy knowing our experienced technical staff review the critical function and appearance of your site routinely, looking for anything out of place.


A-List Actor Mark Ruffalo has supported Fox and joined forces with other celebrities including Susan Sarandon, Debra Winger, and many others to extend the reach of Fracktivism.
Yoko Ono, who also owns property in upstate New York, founded Artists Against Fracking with her son Sean Lennon.
Their activism, along with the efforts of many unsung eco-heroes led to the recent passage of a two-year moratorium on hydrofracking in the New York State Assembly, with strong support for a positive vote in the State Senate.
Matt Damon starred in a narrative film about fracking, "Promised Land," (2012) which did not have a long stay at theaters, but contributes to the overall amplification of the Fracktivism movement.
With the end to peak oil, corporations seek more invasive ways to extract these dwindling resources from the earth.
What do you think will be the role of celebrities in these movements going forward?
Will celebrity actions be adequate?
How important do you think visual "click moments" and tweetable hashtags like #nofrackingway and #fractivism have on furthering the effectiveness of eco-messages and movements?
I think the roles of celebrities is to further inform the public. The movies are great but I think that it has limited reach. Not everyone is going to want to watch a documentary over a high budget action film. I think it would be good to try to inform the "non-activists." I think a good way to do this is via twitter/Facebook posts or a viral video & even a "funny" or commercial with enough info to get the audience informed but not bored or make them forget.
I love the hashtags! I think the #nofrackingway is easy to remember & would make an impact if used correctly. I think if a celeb were to tweet it with a bit of info or a link it could work.
I believe that celebrities, whose actions or talks always get attention from the public, have completely strong impact on social media, especially nowadays. I think those celebrities' roles in such movements consist of spreading them out to the public as well as increase awareness; they are the ones who could widely yet not really formally deliver important messages to public.
As social networking platforms nowadays are most active and effective tools to deliver information to public, the way of introducing such movements through those social media forms would be most effective much more than those long films. I think it is more essential to focus on how to deliver the message in an interesting way that could grab attention from a wide range of people rather than how specific the message can inform about itself, especially for those important yet somehow boring areas of topic. Also, having such interesting names for hashtags seems completely successful in informing people in a very easy and effective way; those hashtags would then be able to help enhance audiences' knowledge about and potential actions forward movements.
Celebrities make movements cooler and bigger, but sometimes, celebs become bigger than the movement itself, which make it really hard support the cause. They have the money to push their causes, but the heart of the matter can get lost, which is why "click moments" are awesome to me.
Celebrity actions are adequate for what they're worth, but it's nothing like getting the support of ordinary people with big hearts!
I think social media brings everyone a little closer to normalcy. I think about when Paul Walker passed away, everyone would hashtag their condolences and feelings. It wasn't just a "Fast and Furious" movie star moment, but we were all able to express our feeling to the masses! Celebrities aren't really celebrities anymore. I can get famous on Youtube doing absolutely nothing, or have a reality show that is as false as the teeth in my grandmothers teeth jar on the night table. Ordinary people are the new celebrities!
I agree with Deisy that the role of celebrities is to further inform the public about issues and problems within society that need more support and attention. Celebrities have a great influence on social media, and even a celebrity's simple endorsement of a product or issue can go a very long way. Additionally, within our culture specifically, celebrities are idolized and glamorized by the media, and therefore a lot of people trust the views and would probably be more willing to support a cause if one of their favorite celebrities is endorsing it. However, I think reality can be seen as a double edged sword. Maybe we idolize celebrities too much and are too trusting of what they have to say and the products that they promote. Furthermore, a lot of times when celebrities support and endorse a product/cause, it is clear that they are just doing it for the publicity/money, and therefore their involvement becomes counterproductive. Based on my experience, I think it is clear that there are very few celebrities who voluntarily support different causes and try to raise awareness for issues on their own time/dime. I feel like most celebrities who engage in commercials to endorse/raise awareness for societal issues are clearly doing it for the money and the media attention.
I think hashtags are a great way to gain attention for specific issues/causes because it allows people to search the given tag and learn about more that way. Also, it allows people to connect to specific hashtags and terms when discussing different issues within society. I think hashtags are only going to be more widely used in the future among various platforms. ( I remember when hashtags were only used on Twitter, exclusively, but now they are widely accepted and encouraged on most platforms, i.e. Facebok, instagram, pinterest).
Overall, I believe that celebrities will always have a hand in economic, social, and political issues, though I do not know how credible nor effective this is. Although it may sound trivial, I argue that it depends on the celebrity and the cause they are paired with. For instance, I do not think Sean Lennon protesting against fracking for the sake of his father (in essence) will have as much of a pull as say Lady GaGa has on the fight for human (and in particular — gay) rights. To me at times, the whole point of celebrity endorsements can seem pointless; we need more than a few household names coming together to start a revolution. It needs to start in the people, the society altogether and trickle downward from there.
On the contrary, I find "click movements" and hashtags much more effective. I can remember a few instances where I (rather embarrassingly) was not up on any form of current events and had no clue what people's hashtagging meant. Because I felt so out of it, I went out of my way to research the hashtag for more information. The value of a community aspect of something like this — be it cultural, societal, economic, political — is wildly important. Although social media can often be detrimental, it has also been very influential in times of human crises.
In addition, I believe documentaries can be invaluable and absolutely spur momentous movements.
Celebrities impact on social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. These days, celebrities are easily idolized and people tend to follow them both in a good way and a bad way. However, they are more like to make money and get attention from the public rather than engage themselves into the issues to try to be aware of the issues. Yet, it is true that celebrities have more power to reach people in terms of spreading words than we do.
As a non-twitter or Instagram user, I honestly do not see how effective the hashtag works. I saw many friends hashtaging when they want to say something indirectly on their own SNS, and it was interesting at first and was rememberable to me. If the hashtags are used in appropriate ways, celebrities will prove the effectiveness of eco-messages and movements.
I believe that celebrities will have a role moving forward in this type of movements as once again it is a way for people to become aware of different issues that are happening around the country and the world. Their role is to let people know that this is happening, they have to use their 'influence' and exposure to tell the world that something must be done and something could be done.
I feel as if all actions are adequate as long as you believe in what you are preaching. Therefore as long as celebrities are doing this honestly and because they truly believe in the cause, then people will reach positively to it. However if there was to be any type of monetary endorsement, then it would be a very negative thing, as it wouldn't be 'honest' and people wont believe them.
Overall I believe that the click moments are very important because by becoming the most used hashtag or most popular topic, it makes people look at it, it brings attention to the issue and people are aware and therefore more and more will join the cause.
Celebrities have strong influence on public because people always keep their eyes on them. Every single word they say gets attention and every single action they do is under the spotlight. I think the celebrities are acting as a bridge in informing the problems to the society. Because through them, messages are spread out much friendlier. Since people are familiar with these celebrities, there is a great impact in delivering messages to the society especially serious messages such as global issues. Some celebrities are doing adequate actions because they are trying to communicate with the society through media to raise awareness of the people.
I think hashtags are working very well because it makes the people to get the idea immediately by just looking at it. Since hashtags are the key words, it is easier for them to search for more information.
"When the oil and gas industry comes to town, they like to brag about the benefits fracking will bring to the local economy.
We've seen this myth unravel again and again. Whether it's Chesapeake Energy stiffing folks on royalties or local Pennsylvanians telling us there were a few jobs for them at first in the oil and gas fields being drilled in their own backyards but they quickly got phased out by guys from Texas, it's clear fracking is not the local economic savior the industry makes it out to be.
The role of celebrities in these movements is essentially PR. They are recognisable and (for the most part) widely respected. And if they're genuine about the cause they are promoting (i.e. putting in the hours, showing their commitment through actions more than words, etc.) then they're impact is greater.
That being said, there is still that aspect of "yeah, but he's an actor, he's not a specialist in this field so why should I listen to him." So whilst I think celebrities are a great tool for getting people's attention, there isn't much longevity for their use for promoting causes like tracking. There needs to be a moment where they step back and invite people to listen to the professionals.
Visual "click moments" are essential, particularly short, succinct and shareable ones. It seems that everyday there's a new cause to fight, or a new charity to support, so ensuring yours gets out there and is watched by a large audience is vital (here's where utilising celebrities is a huge help). Tweetable hashtags are another effective tool, but it's more of a way for companies to measure their audience than anything else.
In the olden days people were not as aware of social causes such as fracking as they are now. The only thing that makes it easier for people to gain knowledge about these issues today is the power of media. More than even the television, the reach of the internet to millions of people around the world makes it easy for issues like fracking to be known about.
The role of celebrities in movements like nofrackingway is to spread further awareness of the issue to the public. However I believe without the internet and social media that is not possible. With the use of forums such as Facebook, twitter and instagram celebrities are able to reach many people across the globe. I believe the reason celebrities have the power to spread the world to the public is because their voice is heard louder than others. However I do not think that the actions of celebrities are enough as there are only a handful of celebrities in the whole population compared to the millions of other people who are not famous. I think it is important for people other than just celebrities to make an effort towards spreading knowledge and doing something about issues like fracking. I believe it is definitely beneficial having visual 'click moments' and tweetable hashtags because it attracts the attention of a lot more people and it also keeps people engaged in the issue as people tend to remember movements through hashtags etc.


Cutting means deliberately slicing the skin with a sharp object, such as a razor blade or knife. Cutting is a form of self-abuse and is referred to by mental health professionals as non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). People who cut are trying to injure themselves, but they do not intend to commit suicide. Unfortunately, cutting can cause death if the person cuts too deeply and opens a vein or if the wounds become infected.
What Is Self Destructive Behavior?
People may start harming themselves for many reasons. GirlsHealth.gov suggests that there are some common motives.
Sometimes emotional pain such as depression, anxiety, or flashbacks to a previous trauma can be so intense that it is easier to deal with physical pain instead. Cutting can be a way to distract oneself from feelings that hurt too much.
Some people who cut say that they feel emotionally and physically numb, as if they don't really exist in the world at all. Dr. Alvera Vayzer Milberg, a clinical and school psychologist who is experienced in working with teens who self-harm, explains that this phenomenon is called depersonalization and can be described as an upsetting feeling of detachment. Cutting brings blood and pain. It is a way to feel something, even if the feeling is negative or unpleasant.
Some people who cut were victims of physical or sexual abuse as children. They may have learned that they don't deserve to feel anything but pain. Some people feel the abuse was their fault, so they self-injure as a form of punishment. According to Dr. Milberg, other traumas that spark cutting include severe neglect or rejection from significant others.
Years ago, mental health professionals thought that cutting and other forms of non-suicidal self-injury were manipulative acts, done to get attention. However, far from seeking attention, people who cut usually try to hide the evidence of their self-abuse. For instance, they may wear long sleeves to conceal wounds on their arms.
Remember that cutting is a sign of emotional distress. Your friend is not cutting herself to be manipulative or to upset you. As her friend, there are a few things you can do to help the situation.
Express concern about what she is doing and encourage her to talk to a trusted adult.
Offer to go with her when she talks to the adult, if possible.
Remind her that there are many different types of counseling and treatment that can help her deal with her feelings, so she won't have to hurt herself anymore.
If your friend is not willing to reach out for help, it is okay reach out on her behalf. Talk to someone you trust about the problem. Keep on reaching out to people until you find someone who is willing and able to help you and your friend.
If your friend is an adult, encourage her to seek help from her doctor or from a mental health professional. You cannot force her to get help, but you can support her in doing so. As frustrating as your friend's behavior may be, try to avoid losing your temper or breaking off the friendship.
It can be really hard to come forward and talk about injuring yourself, but it's much easier to learn to stop cutting if you have a counselor or another mental health professional in your corner. A mental health professional can help you explore why you cut and find healthier ways to express your emotions and deal with your pain.
Dr. Milberg recommends speaking with someone from the program Self Abuse Finally Ends (S.A.F.E. Alternatives). You can reach them online or by calling 1-800-DONT-CUT (1-800-366-8288).
There are also many activities you can try to stop self-injury.
Confide in trusted family members and friends as well. They can help to support you as you work to end self-abuse.
Cutting can be physically and emotionally shattering for the person doing it. The loved ones who watch helplessly also experience great pain. The good news is that mental health treatments such as individual psychotherapy, family therapy, and support groups can help end self-abuse for good. If you cut, or if you have a loved one who is cutting, don't give up. Keep looking until you find the help you need and deserve.
Personality Traits of Addiction By Beth S, M.D.


text:
Conclusion of Part One
Pastor Mark Ryman - March 21, 2015
Click for a recording of today's Sola Devotion.
From the Confessions: The Chief Articles of Faith in the Augsburg Confession
This is a fairly comprehensive account of the doctrine preached and taught in our congregations. As can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers should be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without proper authority. Yet even in these, if there were some difference, there should be gentleness on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed. Even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere. The rites of all churches have never been the same at any time, although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. It is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies and traditions have been abolished in our churches. Still, it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. Those that could be approved with a good conscience have been corrected to some extent.
Before going on Melancthon offered a closing summary of the Augsburg Confession up to this point. He restated what was said earlier in the articles, that Lutheran doctrine is based firmly upon the Scripture. Since it has been shown that the Church Fathers also agreed with their teachings, it must be noted that the Wittenbergers were also in accord with the whole Church. The Church in Rome should note that the principal differences between it and the Church in Wittenberg were over matters of tradition and ceremony. These issues should be handled with Christian kindness and love, as befits brothers in the faith. The Lutherans had already shown their willingness and desire to correct some of these, as far as the Word of God and conscience had allowed.
The emphasis of the Confession remains upon Christ rather than tradition, in the authority of God instead of human invention. The Lutherans have shown in their Confession thus far that they did not object to any article of faith that the Church had believed since its earliest days. Their protests were against newer practices and teachings that had crept into usage without the authority of Scripture. These will be treated one-by-one, as we move toward the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession.
Prayer: Hold me, Lord; embrace and keep me from all missteps and forgive me of my sins. Amen.
We Still Believe is offered as a resource for reflecting on key themes in biblical, Lutheran doctrine that are at risk in the Church today. It is offered in the hope that it will inspire individuals and congregations to examine the core beliefs of traditional Lutheranism and how these beliefs apply to our own present context. Written in a question and discussion style, the participant's book includes an introduction to and copy of the faith statement known as the Common Confession.


DriveLock provides an intelligent data protection software that provides highly flexible security for enterprises as well as instant security for medium-sized businesses. DriveLock is used worldwide in more than 30 countries to protect endpoints. We have been working with the company since 2015 on improving the outcome of digital marketing activities.
The first step being a complete website relaunch with a strong focus on conversion rate optimisation opportunities and a SEO friendly information architecture.
In a second step Google AdWords and continuous SEO efforts were identified as the channels with the most traffic potential.
Before starting to invest in traffic campaigns we designed and implemented a web platform focused on generating leads through various sources like test downloads, whitepapers or webinars. Since then the website has been continuously updated and optimised and overall customer feedback has been very positive.


Welcome to Gale Medical Library, Littleton Regional Healthcare community's health sciences library. We are located across from the cafeteria in the H. Taylor Caswell, Jr. Physician's Office Building. Please let us help you find the resources to support your needs.
ALEXANDER'S CARE OF THE PATIENT IN SURGERY, 16th ed.


The Child Nutrition Services department is made up of a team of Food and Nutrition Professionals that are dedicated to students' health, well being and their ability to learn. We support learning by promoting healthy habits for lifelong nutrition and fitness practices.
Meals, foods and beverages sold or served at schools meet State and Federal requirements which are based on the USDA Dietary Guidelines. We provide students with access to a variety of nutritious and appealing foods that meet the health and nutrition needs of students.
"Score big with a healthy Texas lunch"
The goal of Child Nutrition Services is to provide students, faculty and staff with nutritious, appetizing, quality meals that are prepared and served by caring professionals in a pleasant environment.
Welcome Back to the School Year 2018-2019!
The Child Nutrition Services Department wishes you an amazing school year 2018-2019!


text:
Teens Arrested in Slaying of Young Mom in Mount Eden
November 11, 2020 Kevin Deutsch Bronx, Homicide Investigation 0
By Kevin Deutsch
kdeutsch@bronxjusticenews.com
A 15-year-old boy and girl have been charged in the homicide of a 20-year-old mom stabbed to death in her father's Bronx apartment building last week, authorities said.
Nyla Bond, 20, was stabbed in her chest by an unidentified killer at the Mount Eden property Nov. 2 around 6:45 p.m., an apparent act of revenge for sharing explicit photos of the female killer, authorities said.
The pair of teens are charged with both murder and manslaughter in the homicide.
Their names were not immediately made public by police.
Investigators believe Bond and the teen girl had a relationship. When she learned explicit photos of her were making the rounds, she blamed Bond and brought the teen boy along to confront her.
It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether the teens had legal representation.
Nyla Bond
About Kevin Deutsch 265 Articles
Kevin Deutsch is a Staff Writer for Bronx Justice News covering the criminal justice system, drugs, and DNA use by law enforcement. An award-winning journalist, Deutsch is the author of the true crime books "Pill City" and "The Triangle." He has worked on staff at the Daily News, Miami Herald, Newsday, The Palm Beach Post, and The Riverdale Press. His work has also appeared in Newsweek, Columbia Journalism Review, The New York Times, The Village Voice, The Forward, The Independent, Huffington Post, Orlando Sentinel, and the New York Post, among other publications. His numerous television appearances include spots on CNN, MSNBC, and C-SPAN's BookTV. He has also been featured in The New Yorker. A Bronx resident, Deutsch hosts the true crime podcast "A Dark Turn" on the Authors on the Air Global Radio Network.
Corpses of Infant Boys Found Wrapped, Discarded in the Bronx
Thirteen-Year-Old Girl Shot in Soundview


text:
Munster Cheese or Munster-géromé, is a strong tasting, soft cheese made mainly from the milk of the vosgian countries between Alsace, Lorraine and Franche-Comté in France.
The name munster may come from the little town of Munster, where, among Vosgian abbeys and monasteries, the cheese was conserved and matured in monk's cellars. It may also refer to the Latin word for monastery, monasterium.
This cheese is a heritage of the Admodiation, an area of vast open and herbous land on the top of the Vosgian mountains, named "Les Chaumes" or "Les grandes Chaumes". Calvomontensis is the Latin word that describes mountaintops without woods.
As early as 1371, and possibly before, these territories were occupied by cattle herds driven by men, called "marcaires". The herds are pastured between May and September. When they return to their valleys, families or herdsmen with cattle have to first give to the religious and political protectors, owners of this upper open land or simply financiers of this transhumance. During feudal times these powerful masters possessed all goods, living creatures, rights of pasture and cattle. The herdsmen and herdswomen were know as serfs.
This mountain population paid their debts with cheese and jars of butter. The lords were the first religious establishments, nominally ladies like chanoinesses from Remiremont or from Andlau, or sires like chanoines or canons from Murbach or Saint-Dié, benedictins from Munster, Senones, Moyenmoutier, Honcourt, moines Premontrés from Etival ou Bongart... Then the political protectors, duke of Lorraine, count of Salm, count of Ribeaupierre, sire du Villé, Alsatian aristocrats, and nonetheless Bourgeois of Alsatian towns...
During the seventh century, this disappearing tradition was always respected in two special places, Gerardmer for the west and Lorraine part of the main range and Munster for the east and Alsatian part. Hence the two names of this cheese, gérômé and munster written with little type.
This cheese is protected by an Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée (AOC). This certification places under control the main steps of the cheese process. The producers are required to inspect rigorously :
It is made from unpasteurized cow's milk called crude milk, from the above described zone d'appellation contrôlée. This then white cheese of soft pasted has typical form of flat cylinders, but with practically two common dimensions: little munster gérômé of 7-12 cm diameter, big munster gérômé or munster 13-19 cm diameter.
The cheese's crust must be washed regularly. They are matured in damp cellars for five weeks for the smaller formats (300 g) and up to 2 to 3 months for the larger ones (1500 g). During this period the rind is periodically washed with brine. The added moisture helps the development of bacteria that gives this cheese its particular taste and color.
A commission organized by the syndicat interprofessionnel du fromage de Munster, a professional committee for munster cheese supervised all the preceding steps. In 1982, 8027 tonnes were produced, and only 10 % was exported. 95 % in weight was making in milkery with controlled process, only 5 % comes from farms. The successive operations implicate then 4727 milk's producers, and only 16 endless process operators affineurs. These hegemonic actors could too take, if they bought, white cheeses from 252 farmers who were able to pursue the making at his end.
The cheese munster géromé is at its best in the summer and the autumn, when it is made from milk from the haute chaumes ("high stubble") of pastures that have already been mowed for midsummer hay in the Vosges mountains. The best cheeses come from the haute vallée de Munster itself, but this cheese is also made in Lapoutroie, Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines, Villé, and other villages practically or in western Vosges, in Lorraine. Now the touristic industry has supplanted farming near the lake's Valley near Gérardmer.
In 2008 inhabitants of Vosgian towns could buy munster-gérômé in groceries or supermarkets. These AOC cheeses made with crude milk are affinated in Sainte-Croix-aux-Mines, Huttenheim in département Bas-Rhin, Lapoutroie in Haut-Rhin... But surprisingly exist other cheeses called munster with pasteurized milk, because the milk comes from a zone AOP or appellation d'origine protégée, indicated in the charts of the AOC munster-géromé. They are made in industrial cheese factory in Bulgnéville, in Blamont... Even little munster, defined with label AOC, indicated pasteurized milk because they have a derogation to use partially or totally for hygienic purposes. So the choice without eating a piece, as every time in France, because the prices are practically the same, is very confused...
This authentic cheese goes well with a late harvest Gewürztraminer or with young or strong red wines when more mature like Côte-Rôties, Corton, Haut-Médoc, Pinot rouge d'Alsace. In France it's common to appreciate munster-géromé with caraway seeds inside.
There is also an industrial Munster, not protected by an AOC, made from pasteurized milk and exported over the English Channel and over the oceans. Although less expensive, this cheese will never develop the goût du terroir ("local flavor") that is so sought after by connoisseurs. The American version is Muenster cheese, a similar but less distinctive cheese.


SCIS graduate program students can register online by completing the Registration Form and submit the form along with the course fee. If you are not currently a SCIS graduate program student you can apply to the program as either a program or non program student. You will need to apply prior registering in the courses listed above.
Individualized courses are also available throughout the year. Please view our Individualized Study Course Offerings page.