text:
Molecular Robots Intelligently Interact with DNA Origami
Medgadget Editors Nanomedicine
An interdisciplinary group of researchers from Columbia, University of Michigan, Caltech, and Arizona State University has created and programmed a nanoscale robot that can decide which way to move along a specially prepared DNA origami surface. The technology that uses these spider-like molecular robots to intelligently interact with their environment may one day lead to precise cancer therapies that would identify tumor cells and destroy their DNA or other intracellular machinery, as well as provide a generalized tool for nanomedicine.
Details from a Caltech press release:
"In normal robotics, the robot itself contains the knowledge about the commands, but with individual molecules, you can't store that amount of information, so the idea instead is to store information on the commands on the outside," says Walter. And you do that, says Stojanovic, "by imbuing the molecule's environment with informational cues."
"We were able to create such a programmed or 'prescribed' environment using DNA origami," explains Yan. DNA origami, an invention by Caltech Senior Research Associate Paul W. K. Rothemund, is a type of self-assembled structure made from DNA that can be programmed to form nearly limitless shapes and patterns (such as smiley faces or maps of the Western Hemisphere or even electrical diagrams). Exploiting the sequence-recognition properties of DNA base pairing, DNA origami are created from a long single strand of DNA and a mixture of different short synthetic DNA strands that bind to and "staple" the long DNA into the desired shape. The origami used in the Nature study was a rectangle that was 2 nanometers (nm) thick and roughly 100 nm on each side.
The researchers constructed a trail of molecular "bread crumbs" on the DNA origami track by stringing additional single-stranded DNA molecules, or oligonucleotides, off the ends of the staples. These represent the cues that tell the molecular robots what to do—start, walk, turn left, turn right, or stop, for example—akin to the commands given to traditional robots.
The molecular robot the researchers chose to use—dubbed a "spider"—was invented by Stojanovic several years ago, at which time it was shown to be capable of extended, but undirected, random walks on two-dimensional surfaces, eating through a field of bread crumbs.
To build the 4-nm-diameter molecular robot, the researchers started with a common protein called streptavidin, which has four symmetrically placed binding pockets for a chemical moiety called biotin. Each robot leg is a short biotin-labeled strand of DNA, "so this way we can bind up to four legs to the body of our robot," Walter says. "It's a four-legged spider," quips Stojanovic. Three of the legs are made of enzymatic DNA, which is DNA that binds to and cuts a particular sequence of DNA. The spider also is outfitted with a "start strand"—the fourth leg—that tethers the spider to the start site (one particular oligonucleotide on the DNA origami track). "After the robot is released from its start site by a trigger strand, it follows the track by binding to and then cutting the DNA strands extending off of the staple strands on the molecular track," Stojanovic explains.
"Once it cleaves," adds Yan, "the product will dissociate, and the leg will start searching for the next substrate." In this way, the spider is guided down the path laid out by the researchers. Finally, explains Yan, "the robot stops when it encounters a patch of DNA that it can bind to but that it cannot cut," which acts as a sort of flypaper.
Press release: Spiders at the Nanoscale: Molecules that Behave Like Robots…
Abstract in Nature: Molecular robots guided by prescriptive landscapes


The Terri and Lisette Top was designed for 3 times World Champion winners and Britain's Got Talent contestants Terri Walsh and Lisette Krol. This Halterneck style is their signature look and has been designed by Terri and Lisette with a funky wide diamond net or lace upper panel. The top also features elastic rushing on the front and 4 thick straps on the back. Made from Meryl/Lycra Sport fabric with anti bacterial and moisture wicking properties that leave you feeling fresh and dry. Double fabric layer on bust with elasticated bottom for added support.


Last Tuesday evening at The Porazzo Rink on East Boston's Constitution Beach the 2013 EBMHL Playoffs got underway in grand fashion. After a long and grueling 4th installment that saw many ups and downs, as well as a repeat regular season champion in Lightning Express, the 6 squads were playoff ready. 5 of the 6 teams are eager to put a stop to the 3 year reign of Charlie Daniels and Chris Grossmann, whose East Boston Yacht Club squad earned a first round bye with their 2nd place finish behind Lightning Express, who also earned the bye clinching the regular season title.
First game of the evening, saw 3rd Place Chiara's Auto, the early season favorite to take the title home, pitted against 6th place squad The Squire. From the moment the puck dropped, the boys from the Squire were poised to make a very loud statement to the rest of the league, and they certainly did just that behind the fantastic play of Mike Mondello, David Berardinelli, and Chris Prew as well as the fantastic defensive efforts of Sal Santostefano and the goltending of Brad Watkins earning the 5-1 victory over the perrenial favorites Chiara's Auto and eliminating them from contention. Game 2 we saw 4th place Milano's Deli take on 5th place Royal Roast Beef, a team riddled by a lack of numbers and a huge season ending injury to the leagues second leading scorer, Darrell Interbartolo, but were still poised to shock Eastie with a playoff win. It was not meant to be this evening for Royal as Peter Hanlon, Mike Burri, and Rob Bulla were not going home losers this evening taking home a 5-2 win over the hapless Royal Rost Beef squad. Setting up a semifinal matchup with the defending champs, EBYC. Tuesday evenings semifinal matchups are as follows: #1 Lightning Express vs. #6 The Squire at 8:00pm followed by #2 EBYC vs. #4 Milano's Deli at 9:00pm. The winners will square off in the 2013 EBMHL Championship Game, which is now a best of 3 series that will begin on March 19, 2013 at 8:00pm at the Porrazzo Rink. We invite any and all to come on down and enjoy what is sure to be an amazing championship series for the EBMHL Cup. We look forward to seeing you ll at the rink.


Enquiry from Online Galleries regarding "17th Century Silver-Gilt Dutch Console Table with Marble Top"
A magnificent Dutch late 17th century silver-gilt console or centre table. On lion paw legs with intricately carved Baroque stretchers panels. The silver gilding beautifully aged and muted. The Brocatello top thickly hewn from a solid and beautifully veined piece of marble, Baroque, circa 1680.


text:
Daffy Donald Alienates Our Friends and Embraces Our Enemies
May 30, 2017 Uncategorizedmtc9393
There was Donald Duck and Daffy Duck and now we have Daffy Donald. Who would ever think a cartoon figure would be in charge of the American policy. Thanks to millions of begrudgers America has entered into the comic book era.
Daffy Donald (DD) recent budget proposed major cuts in food stamps and other programs to help the poor. He wants to cut the taxes on the rich. Meanwhile we were treated to Melania-Antoinette's response not with the verbal "let them eat cake" but its equivalent when she took her first outing in the Sicilian sunshine in a colorful floral applique jacket by Dolce & Gabbana that sells for $51,000.
She and her husband have the attitude of Leona Helmsley:"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people do." Is Melania-Antoinette taking over as "the queen of the mean"? Trump said about Leona, "Leona always liked having me around. . . . I was always asked to be [at her parties] and was always given a seat, usually right near her."
Ah, yes, we've put a couple of beauties into the White House. They flaunt their wealth while working hard with the Republicans to take away from the poorest among us (afflicted by poverty by their state of mind). Strangely they are hugely popular among the Evangelical Christians who apparently like the old WASPs suggest that favor in God's eyes can be judged by the amount of money a person accumulates. The secret of the Evangelicals, and some other Christians, love for the president is not so much that they believe he lives a Christian life (even they know better). It is that he sticks his fingers in the eyes of others who they do not like. How they consider themselves Christians escapes me but I console myself thinking as G.K. Chesteron said: "the trouble with Christianity is that it has never been tried."
We're now at the point with DD has returned to from a trip abroad where he showed his fondness for people who sucked up to him and his disdain for our long-term allies. Why is he Daffy? During the trip he spoke these words: "We are not here to lecture — we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship,. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all."
Our shared interests and values with our European allies are well know but Trump was not speaking to them. He was talking to the Saudis and other Arabs in the region where Christians are routinely executed and prohibited from building churches or openly worshiping. He was in a nation that bars Christians from going into the holy parts of it. He was talking to people who demean women and treat them as lesser people.
Then he went to Europe to where the people share the values that made this country into what it is: after all the people who founded it were Europeans who came here with the ideas developed in those nations. There he lectured the people. There he scolded them over money. There, like some who write comments here, he acted as if NATO had no part in America's defense against the Soviet Union as if had we not had bases in NATO countries the Soviets would have stayed their hands on grabbing more countries than Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
He fails to openly commit America to its obligation under NATO article 5 as every president since Truman had done. He spurns the call for backing the Paris initiative on Global Warning a subject all recent American presidents and the rest of the world have backed. He went over among the free European leaders as well as Putin would have done. It seemed he was reading from a script handed to him by Putin.
That he has alienated our good European allies is clear. Angela Merkel had announced that Europe must plan to go it alone without consideration of American desires. She said the former relationship was "over to a certain extent. This is what I have experienced in the last few days."
DD is giving us new allies: China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. I suppose I shouldn't call that daffy. There must be a worse word to explain it.
← It Takes a Troubled Man to Sing a Troubled Song. Trump's Fear of Democratically Elected Leaders	Undermining America. →
53 thoughts on "Daffy Donald Alienates Our Friends and Embraces Our Enemies"
hutch says:
The Irish propensity for internecine blood-letting continues. In the early 90's I met a man who was a leader of the "Free Derry" partition of the city. At that time he had one son murdered by the IRA and another confined to Long Kesh for life as an IRA soldier. Go figure.
I would rather have former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford (RIP) as President than Donald Trump.
Honest Abe says:
With Ford you had a coke snorting, booze drinking, irrational, womanizing, ignorant, out of touch, egotistical, half-wit. With Trump you get all of those things but without the coke and the booze.
Now where is that little smiley thing so I can make sure all the creodonts on here know its a joke?
Kinzer's book is a good read. Exposes the CIA's wrongdoing in the 50s. Kinzers comments on the media coverage of the Syrian civil war are noteworthy. A total misrepresentation of what is really happening.
In Boston lore, is the story of those charitable Yankee Bostonians who sent ships laden with food to Ireland during the Famine. Some said British bureaucratic bungling caused some relief ships to halt off-shore Cork, and the food rotted. But here's the edifying true story of the most famous ship that got through:
http://www.history.com/news/the-warship-of-peace-that-fed-famine-stricken-ireland
Remember the good people!
Henry Barth says:
Robert Erskine Childers' yacht Asgard is a more recent and famous Boston boat with an Irish connection. Childers received the yacht as a wedding present from his wife Molly's father, Dr Hamilton Osgood, who arranged for a fine 28-ton yacht, Asgard, to be built for the couple.
"In autumn 1903 Childers had travelled to the United States as part of a reciprocal visit between the Honourable Artillery Company of London and at the end of the official visit he elected to remain and explore New England on a hired motor cycle. One day by chance the machine broke down outside the Beacon Hill home of Dr Hamilton Osgood, a prominent physician in the city. Childers diffidently knocked to borrow a spanner and was invited in for dinner and introduced to Dr Osgood's younger daughter, Mary Alden Osgood. The well-read Republican heiress and Childers found each other congenial company. Dr Osgood organised the rest of Childers' stay, with much time shared with Molly, and they were married at Boston's Trinity Church on 5 January 1904."
"In June 1914, The Asgard was used to smuggle a cargo of 900 Mauser Model 1871 rifles and 29,000 black powder cartridges to the Irish Volunteers movement at the fishing village of Howth, County Dublin. (The Asgard was acquired by the Irish government as a sail training vessel in 1961, stored on dry land in the yard of Kilmainham Gaol in 1979, and is now exhibited at The National Museum of Ireland.
Childers was executed by Eamon de Valera, but that's another story.
Is it because the upper-crust WASPS of Harvard cringed at the thought that a bog-Irishman was now a member of the Harvard Corporation by virtue of his office and could tool around the "Yard" in his decked-out carriage?
I have heard it said that they hated Joe Kennedy because he amassed more money in several decades than they did in several generations. I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that.
I'm sure they preferred him tooling around the " Yard " at Danbury . Your offset of Yard in quotes indicates that you might agree. He stuck in their craw in a major, major way !
" There is an unlimited fardel of stories about Harvard's collisions with Curley ."
Above is a sentence from that Crimson article . Fardel is a word Hamlet readers recognize as describing a burden . Its common usage though defines a fardel as a bundle . An " unlimited " bundle of stories seems awkward and redundant . It is more likely, giving the benefit of doubt, that the more obscure " burden " was indicated in a clever word play illustrating just how illimitably burdensome James Michael Curley was to bear for Harvard and their ilk.
There was mutual antagonism . There was also mutual respect . That's the real paradox of Boston Irish and Boston Anglo-Saxon relations . It must always be kept in mind .
Didn't the antagonism outweigh the respect between the WASP and the Irish?
I lived on the estate of E.O. Baker for nine years. He was a Harvard class of 1917 guy and claimed to be about a tenth generation American. He and many of his cronies hated the Irish and never said a single positive word about any of them. Apes, the called them. Hod carrying Niggers, they all agreed. They hated Jews, Blacks, Italians and Irish and really only cared for their own.
When I was sixteen I remember this old South End monied WASP remarking to a friend who introduced us that it was more or less to my detriment that I was Irish . This was in 1975. So, I will not argue a good point on your part . I do note though that antagonism and respect are dualities. To approach one does not necessarily preclude the other . I can hate someone and yet still respect them ; I can respect a person and yet find elements of their personality antagonistic to my own. The Empire connection between the Irish and English pre- dates the Boston connection. It is a Family Affair .
"I do note though that antagonism and respect are dualities. To approach one does not necessarily preclude the other . I can hate someone and yet still respect them ; I can respect a person and yet find elements of their personality antagonistic to my own."
So true. In the heat of debate someone will say to me, "I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it." No. You respect my right to have an opinion. If I disagree with something someone says I do not respect their opinion. But I certainly can respect them.
That's like this horrible, catch-all phrase that has infected our world; "I guess we will have to agree to disagree." Again, no. We can drop the subject but leave the word agree out of it. Its saying, "OK. We hate each other's guts and can't find common ground, but lets play make-up and make it look like we agree on something." Just end the conversation or get on with the debate.
Abe,
I'd say good will predominated and triumphed, even early on. Boston College is a prime example. (see below).
There were bigots and there was an unwelcoming No Nothing Party (1840s-1850s) during the height of the Great Famine, but many Yankees employed and assisted the Irish. We forget the good and linger on the bad apples. We look at large families crammed into slums and forget the hell holes they came from: lands beset by Famine, War, Persecution. At least they got a fair shake in America, and the opportunity to rise, and the vast majority within a generation or two did. True of all ethnic groups!
Remember: There is good and bad in all of us and in all peoples. The ancient animosities dissipate in the weight of the overall goodness of most folks. Peace even came to Northern Ireland.
Boston College, founded in 1863, was opposed by some No-Nothing-types who called the Jesuits' quest for a small parcel of land in the South End, an inordinate land grab, a "colossal" grasp for power. But scores of powerful Yankees supported the Jesuits, and about 20 of the most prominent families (Peabodys, Arnolds, Lawrences as I remember the names) were pro-active in assisting BC get its start in Boston.
The "haters" were few and far between, even back then.
Look forward to the day when old world ethnic antagonisms and religious bigotries end. Leave then back in the Old World.
Politics is another matter. I look back with fondness on the good old days when liberals and conservatives (Hitchens and Buckley, for example) simply disagreed. Today, it seems, the MSM and Academia inculcates "hatred" and "intolerance" for opposing views.
Anyway, thanks to all for the good food for thought.
Screw the bookmarks. Google : The Harvard History Of James Michael Curley
http://www.thecrimsom.com/article/1958/11/22/the-harvard-history-of-james-m/
http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/1958/11/22 the-harvard-history-of-james-m/
And how the Empire struck back ! Harvard called him a freebooter . They hated him . He was the brilliant diamond in the center of the Crown .
Curley's guys threatened my uncle Ed when he was running for either the council or the rep. and couldn't help Curley. "I'm in a tough fight and have no time for your campaign". Ed won, but Curley must not have vindictive because he helped another relation to be made a fire captain, even though he was eighth on the list. (In typical Curley fashion he decided the department needed eight more Captains.)
The Curley Effect : The Economics Of Shaping The Electorate … Harvard historians Edward L.Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer
Ordered I'D DO IT AGAIN a few hours ago off Amazon . I noted that the book has a plain sea green fabric cover. It looks as if the title is proud of the book in a thin , golden stencil. It is compelling, that sea green . It is humble, that thread of golden stencil .
Speaking of reading real books, I am about to settle in with 'The Brothers,' by Stephen Kinzer. Are you familiar with it? I'm working on a condo owned by an old Langley guy that recommended it. He hated both Dulles brothers and thought I might like discovering what spectacular monsters ruled our intelligence community in those Cold War days.
Speaking of real books , Abe . Try HARLOT'S GHOST by Norman Mailer . James Jesus Angleton was the model for Harlot . JJ was the OSS guy who was with the Italian Commies when they snarfed a fleeing Benito and girlfriend Clara Petacci out of a retreating troop convoy,. placed them together facing a gas station wall and shot them in the backs of their heads . To shoot them this way was considered the condign ignoble form of execution. Angleton was not revealed to have officially been there for several decades. The book has a lot of intriguing material on DCI Allen Dulles . His brother, John Foster Dulles was, of course , Eisenhower's closest adviser .
Somewhere I have an autographed copy of James Michael Curley's book "I'd Do It Again – Autobiography of James Michael Curley," given to me by the last of his children, Francis Xavier, a Jesuit priest who died in 1992.
But as I recall, Curley wrote that book to refute much of what he thought was wrong in Dineen's book, despite Dineen's book being subtitled 'An authorized biography.'
Perhaps the final words are in a book I've yet to read:
Bulger, William M. "James Michael Curley: A Short Biography with Personal Reminiscences." Commonwealth Editions 2009.
That's the One . The Commonwealth edition . Knew it was out there. That has got to be fascinating reading. I will find out , perhaps , what Billy's take is on how Curley took him . Tx !
★ William, Spelled … Dineen .. Joseph F. … Let us give Grandma her propers . She was a stickler for details like that .
Curley and Trump can be compared thusly: Both were hated by the Establishment (Proper Bostonians, the Roosevelts, the Kennedy's and Honey Fitz); both were vilified by the Press; both were supported by the hoi polloi, "the deplorables", the salt of the earth; and both could be defiant, rascally, intemperate; and non-conventional
Curley was Honey Fitz's archrival (Fitz, the Kennedy's grandfather).
"The Kennedys and Fitzgeralds hated Curley, but secretly helped him win the mayoral race so the much coveted Congressional seat would open up. (for young JFK elected 1947). " from the book: The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster.
Here is an interesting brief bio of Curley written in 1959:
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/last-bosses
A quote from above:
"After Curley got out of Danbury, he had complained to a Boston newspaperman named Joseph Dinneen that the press had always been unfair to him. Dinneen then offered to write Curley's life story honestly and objectively as Curley told it to him. Curley agreed, and with his collaboration The Purple Shamrock was written. It appeared in 1949. Curley was proud of the book at the time and used to give away autographed copies to City Hall visitors."
Another quote from the 1959 bio:
"Democratic House Leader John W. McCormack circulated a petition for Curley's release signed by all the Massachusetts delegation in Washington except Senator Kennedy. Finally after five months President Truman pardoned Curley—because, the President said later, "he was innocent."
"He was innocent!"
You could spend a lifetime studying the ever fascinating life and times of James Michael Curley. (1874-1958). His parents were born in Galway, Ireland, in the midst of the Irish Famine (1846-52)and came to America when she was 12 and he 14. They met in Boston. What momentous events unfurled before their and their son's eyes!
Great reflections upon a Great Man , William. You fleshed out the genesis of THE PURPLE SHAMROCK ; I was unaware of the the intimate bond that Curley and Dineen shared right from the get. From my Grandmother's warm praise of Joe Dineen I knew that she , not given to fulsome praise, sort of idolized him as a young stenographer on the Globe teletype that Dineen filed on daily from Norfolk Superior during a celebrated murder trial of two brothers . Curley and Dineen were tight with each other . You don't write an apologia for a casual acquaintance. They were each " Salt Of The Earth " individuals . Talented, ambitious , tough , and with a bone handled knife in the teeth when it came to filleting the intellectual and moral complacency of the Boston WASPS .
What an ironic moment! Curley, who came from poverty and championed poor immigrants, is being compared to Trump, the rotund rich boy who wants to drop a hammer on immigrants. Curley must be turning over in his grave.
Curtis Lemay and Trump during the missles of October. What a scenario.
Lemay was my father-in-laws B-29 wing commander on Saipan. Boy, do I have stories.
Bombs away!!!!!!
Best Curley quote (?) "When I die, bury my mortal remains within the political confines of Boston that I may stay active in politics."
Best Curley quote (?) When he described the Anglo Saxons of Boston as " A strange and stupid race . "
That's some good stuff !
Using cops for caddies. I like it.
She was about to say, "…..and ice cream!" but the blade came down too soon.
If they only knew. If only.
Thank you Mister Larsen.
Here's a salute to all of our veterans on Memorial Day plus one!
Also, got to say I prefer Angela Merkel to Trump's new boy toy , King Salman.
"Root, Hog, or, Die" is the title of the second chapter in JMC's autobiography. Interesting guy, that Curley.
Ancient phrase.
Gov. James Michael Curley Was the Prototype for President Trump
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/02/10/james-michael-curley-donald-trump/
Trump couldn't wipe up Curley's spit. There's no comparison.
Root, hog, or die is popular down in North Carolina also. " Every knock a boost ! " was another JMC favorite. Writer Jack Beatty's THE RASCAL KING is a rightly acclaimed superb Curley bio. Senate President Bulger wrote a Curley bio entitled WHEN THE MUSIC STOPS which I have to acquire. His take on James Michael Curly is one that must be read as authored by a Boston Irish Pol who felt the jig in the floorboards through the bottom of his feet wherever he stood. He was not so much Curley reincarnated as Billy Bulger incarnate. That is their one off charm . Curley's mom was a cleaning woman. He raised the largely Irish State House contingent of chairwomen off their knees as they polished the Dome's marble floors . Sure, the graduation was to mops, but the action was symbolic as well as practical. The WASP/ BOSTON IRISH enmity was real. Any Irish politician of the day, especially Curley, understood that .
Edwin O'Connor's THE LAST HURRAH was a plagiarized version of Boston Globe reporter Joe Dineen's THE PURPLE SHAMROCK according to my Grandmother ,who worked with Joe on the Millen brothers' murder trial in Dedham in the 40s. I recommend it highly. I gave Counselor Finnerty a copy I happened across in the Brattle Street Bookshop in 2004. He has a very comprehensive sense of the Boston Irish and their political sons. Grandmother was perhaps a little tough on O"Connor. I believe Tom would agree that each book has its merits . THE PURPLE SHAMROCK is not perhaps as sentimental. But, I digress .
* Charwomen
★WHILE THE MUSIC LASTS : My Life In Politics ….. This is the title of Senator Bulger's autobiography, not WHEN THE MUSIC STOPS . I gather he talks a good deal about James Michael Curley , but it is not a Curley bio. I am not surprised that I remembered the title the way I did. I confess to feeling a great empathy for this man. He led an exemplary life. How does he go to the FBI and say " How do I get my reputation back now ?" He is an extremely tough nut . He keeps it all together, but he suffers. I am sure of it . And he never really had it coming.
Fake new!
Marie-Antoinette probably did not say "let them eat cake":
https://www.britannica.com/demystified/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake
"What was, will be again, what has been done, will be done again, and there is nothing new under the sun!
Take anything which people acclaim as being new: it existed in the centuries preceding us." – Ecclesisastes 1:9-10
Reagan said the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. Long after their mission is over they strive to exist. NATO falls into this category. It's prime mission was to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe. In 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Red army went home it's mission was accomplished. Yet it didn't expire. It changed it's character from a defensive alliance to an aggressor. It was never attacked by Serbia or Libya yet it waged aggressive war against them, which is a war crime. Today it is totally passe. Three years ago Sec of Defense Bob Gates gave his last address to NATO in Brussels. He told them it was unfair for them to not pay their agreed contributions. That the American taxpayers wouldn't put up with this arrangement for much longer. He was praised for his candor. Trump is criticized for giving the same speech. America needs NATO to the same extent they need the Bolivian army. 2. Fantastic Lies was an ESPN program about the Duke Lacrosse case. It exposed the whole case as a fabrication. It showed the media frenzy and media wilding attendant thereto.. The players were presumed guilty by every race baiter and crackpot in the land. The press promoted the false claim. It lasted over a year until the truth came out that it never happened. A totally manufactured story. It closely resembles the Russia-collusion story.
The "All 17 Intelligence Agencies Concluded That Russia Is Responsible" Myth
JEFFREY CARR
The "All 17 Intelligence Agencies Concluded That Russia Is Responsible" Myth that originated with Hilary Clinton is wrong, has always been wrong, and was confirmed as wrong by former ODNI James Clapper in his May 8, 2017 testimony before the Senate Subcommittee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election [1].
SENATOR AL FRANKEN: "The Intelligence Communities [sic] concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with the election."
GENERAL JAMES CLAPPER: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, there were only three agencies directly involved in the assessment (CIA, NSA, FBI).
SENATOR AL FRANKEN: "But all 17 signed on."
GENERAL JAMES CLAPPER: "We didn't go through the process. It was a special situation because of the time limit, and I knew who could contribute to it and it was a conscious judgment to restrict it to those three."
Further, all anyone would have to do is look at the list of 17 agencies [2] and then ask yourself, did the U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence Agency really have sources and methods that would provide data relevant to an investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election?
What about the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence which concerns itself with nuclear weapons and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – did they drop what they were doing to evaluate Crowdstrike's report on the DNC hack? I'm guessing no.
Or maybe the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence who has its hands full with money laundering by drug cartels and tracking terrorists through the global financial network decided to put all that on hold while they throw every available resource at determining if Guccifer 2.0 was just pretending to be Romanian but was really Russian!
Finally, everyone on this list who has any background in working with a U.S. or foreign intelligence agency will agree with me when I say that assessments are called assessments because the facts aren't known. When dealing with so many unknowns, there is never universal agreement among analysts at the same agency let alone different agencies.
[1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?427577-1/white-house-warned-general-flynn-compromised&live&start=8277 at the 02:18:27 mark.
[2] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic
Ok so 3 major ones did….at a certain point it gets redundant. What is your point? 3….17….1? 1 was Trump's argument during the campaign was all it took for him to declare HRC unfit for office. All while he was being investigated behind the scenes.
Don't examine Saudiyya through the lens of Western values. It distorts your argument. Better to leave go of all modern presupposition, and, unencumbered by the weight of Western secular philosophy, cross into the realm of the theo-centric universal, a parallel consciousness.
Like in Iran. Best to consider Saudi Arabia through Iranian theo-centrism.
Yes, like in Iran, but, Sunni, rather, than, Shia. The Shia are much more philosophical in their approach to Islam. They retained Kalam, religious argument, which is condemned as anathema by the Sunni schools of fiqh. Ibn Wahhab, founder of the predominant sect in Saudiyya, was an extreme orthopraxist iconoclast . He sought to strip away all the obscuring accretions history had added to Allah's original message to humanity. For modern Salafists, hewing to the purified behavioral paradigm is the road to Salvation. They pattern themselves on the example of the Prophet and his Sahaba.
` says:
In the early to mid 20th century there were Boston Irish politicians who prospered by exploiting a racial divide between the Yankees and the Irish. James Michael Himself was the most notable. The hatred and the justification for it was was two sided. It was hate given for hate received.
Today, most of society has moved on. New alliances reflect new, on the ground, realities. Matt, you have not. You are mired in the hates of your grandparents. Oddly you are wedded to the daftest heirs of Puritan fanaticism – Harvard multicult fruitcakes. But the Irish produced plethora of Gypo Nolans. It kept them down for nearly a thousand years.
Trump is on the side of your folk. Wake up.
Bill Fitzgerald says:
Skipped over the prose..was saddened as I thought this might have been a tribute to the great Mel Blanc whose birthday we celebrate today…have a great summer!
1. It's funny how the same facts are reported differently. Those suffering from TDS and the DTs (Delirium Trumpens) cast stones at Melania for "flaunting her wealth." Others noted she dressed just like Jackie Kennedy, stylishly and modestly.
2. But, we all remember how often the liberals criticized Jackie and the Kennedys for flaunting their wealth aboard those yachts off Hyannis Port? Or criticized John Kerry and Theresa Heinz for flaunting their wealth! Remember the hue and outcry about the Clintons, public servants, accumulating $150,000,000 in wealth? Or the Clintons and Obama receiving $400,000 speaking fees? Greedy Republicans!
3. As far as the poor, the Democrats' Great Welfare State entrenched poverty in America, broke up families, dramatically increased the illegitimacy rate, and fostered dependency on government.
4. When Bill Clinton passed Welfare Reform he was condemned; "Shame" the liberals shouted.
5.When Reagan reformed Welfare: NYT: "Reagan's War on Poverty", simultaneously the Heritage Foundation proclaimed: "Reagan's Bold Welfare Initiative Offers Hope for the Poor."
6. When Bush cut HUD funding, the press responded: " the White House is trying to gut federal programs for the poorest Americans to make way for tax cuts . . .through all those years the poverty rate fluctuated between about 13% (better at end of Reagan) and 15% (highest in Obama, then decreasing by the end of his Presidency.)
7. Obama redefined the poor, expanding some Medicaid benefits to those 400% above the poverty line, essentially making some middle class persons eligible. Trump's proposals are cutting the rate of growth in Medicaid funding.
8. You know the study that showed 34% of Republicans give $1,000 or more to charity each year, and only 18% of Democrats do? Greedy Republicans!
9. Neither Evangelical Christians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Congregationalist, nor any other main stream Christian denomination measures worth by wealth. Nor do WASPS. I think your referring to an archaic interpretation of Calvinism. WASP is a term referring to the top 1% of white anglo-saxon Protestants, 99% of whom share the same economic strata as most white Americans. I don't understand your negativity toward Evangelicals and WASPS. Anglo-Saxon Protestants were the foremost ethnic-religious group in founding and building the United States, and they laid the foundation for all those disparate groups that followed to prosper.
10. Europe once shared American Judaeo-Christian values; Some say, "No longer! Europe is wandering into a moral wasteland, rejecting Christianity." At least Sweden has rediscovered capitalism.
11. Trump is right: (a) NATO members must pay their fair share and (b) The US should not suffer a trade deficit with the European Union. Trump's tweet: ""We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change."
12. Angela Merkel correctly perceives that Europe must stand on its own two feet: "We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands — naturally in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain, as good neighbors, also with Russia and other countries."
Norwood Born says:
Would you conclude that based upon what you have read to this point has President Trumps behavior both prior to election and since that time been grounds legally to be impeached as President of the United States of America?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Week of December 5th. The ptownie Dispatch!
Support the Center for Coastal Studies by taking part in its online holiday auction with something for everyone, from original art, jewelry, and home goods to luxury vacations and even exciting opportunities to accompany CCS scientists on unique outings.
There are over 40 items on whih to bid at www.biddingforgood.com/coastalstudies. 100% of the proceeds goes directly to the Center for Coastal Studies benefiting research, rescue, and education programs.
Swinging the Outer Cape into the holiday spirit, the Provincetown Theater opens its final major production of the 2018 season on November 29th. Based on a true story and featuring 27 hit songs from the country-music icon, Always… Patsy Cline follows the special friendship between Patsy Cline and her devoted fan Louise Seger.
The Outer Cape Chorale and Chamber Singers present their winter concert this weekend: the Gabriel Fauré Requiem, also featuring John Rutter's When Icicles Hang. Friday December 7th & Saturday December 8th at 7:00pm, Provincetown Town Hall, and Sunday December 9th at 3:00pm, Nauset Regional Middle School, Orleans. Admission is free with donations gratefully accepted.
Join staff, volunteers, and friends of Cape Cod's only community radio station in celebrating the holidays in WOMR style! Bring a favorite dish and meet the DJs! Everyone is welcome.


text:
Tour Players Foundation
Fred Olsen Challenge de España
Tecina Golf
La Gomera, Canary Islands, Spain 29 Sep 2011 - 02 Oct 2011
Baldwin breaks his drought in Spain
Matthew Baldwin ()
England's Matthew Baldwin captured his debut Challenge Tour title after overcoming Frenchman Julien Guerrier in a tense play-off at the Fred Olsen Challenge de España.
The 25 year old – who hails from Southport, the same town as current Rankings leader Tommy Fleetwood – kept his cool in the searing heat of the Canary Islands to see off Guerrier with a par at the third extra hole, after both players had finished on 21 under par at Tecina Golf, in La Gomera.
Baldwin's victory secured him a maiden campaign on The European Tour next season after the €24,000 winner's cheque catapulted him to seventh place in the Challenge Tour Rankings.
Baldwin had started the day one shot behind Lloyd Kennedy, but soon overtook his compatriot with birdies at the third, seventh and ninth holes to turn in 33. His only bogey of the day, at the long par three 14th hole, briefly checked his momentum. But he rallied with a birdie at the 17th hole, and sunk a ten footer for par on the last to sign for a round of 68 and join Guerrier on 21 under par.
Both men made steady pars at the first two play-off holes, but after Guerrier had flown the green with his approach shot on the third extra hole and lipped out with his par putt, Baldwin was left with two putts from 15 feet to secure his maiden victory.
He said: "This feels great, I'm absolutely over the moon. It's been a tough day, but I'm delighted with how it's finished. I started holing some really good putts at the beginning of my round, then they stopped dropping and I thought I might have missed my chance. But I holed a great putt for birdie on the 17th green, and another great one for par on the 18th to get me into the play-off.
"The play-off was obviously fairly nerve-wracking, but I'm just so pleased I managed to hold my nerve and come through it. I'm not sure if I'm more excited about the winning the tournament, or getting my European Tour card for next season. I can't wait to get out there now."
Guerrier was pleased to have shot the joint lowest round of the day, a flawless 65, but disappointed to have missed out on the chance of securing his debut win.
The Frenchman, who climbed to 36th in the Challenge Tour Rankings, said: "At the beginning of the round I was short of confidence, but after I made some birdies my confidence started to grow again. I also holed a great putt for par on the 14th hole, which was very important for my momentum.
"Last week in Toulouse I spoke with Jean Van de Velde about how you can win a tournament in the last six holes, and even though I didn't manage to win in the end, I was still very pleased with how I played down the stretch.
"I'm upset with a really short putt I missed in my second round, because that made all the difference in the end. But this result has still given me a lot of confidence, and hopefully I can use it to get back onto The European Tour now."
Kennedy (70), Belgium's Pierre Relecom (67) and Italian Alessandro Tadini (68) all finished in a share of third place on 20 under par.
1 BALDWIN, Matthew ENG 18 -21
2 GUERRIER, Julien FRA 18 -21
T3 RELECOM, Pierre BEL 18 -20
T3 TADINI, Alessandro ITA 18 -20
T3 KENNEDY, Lloyd ENG 18 -20
6 LLOYD, Chris ENG 18 -19


text:
Ken Lazarus
Ken Lazarus was Associate Counsel to President Gerald R. Ford. He began his career as a trial attorney and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as Chief Minority Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ken Lazarus was interviewed for the Gerald R. Ford Oral History Project on July 14, 2010 by Richard Norton Smith.
Smith: I guess the obvious place to begin is, how did you find yourself in the Ford White House?
Lazarus: At that time, most of the young Republican lawyers in the city were discredited, as you know.
Smith: By Watergate?
Lazarus: Yeah. So, I was approached by three fellows who were assigned the task of finding some lawyers to work with Phil Buchen. That was Jerry Morgan, who worked in the Eisenhower administration, Ed McCabe, who also worked there, and Bryce Harlow.
Smith: Legendary figure.
Lazarus: But I talked to McCabe and Jerry Morgan. Jerry Morgan was, I think, the first legal counsel to President Eisenhower and then after Sherman Adams, everybody got bumped up and then, I think, McCabe became legal counsel. So, they recruited me.
Smith: Do you know where they got their authority?
Lazarus: I believe they were on assignment from the president, basically. He had some sort of informal group put together to take care of staff and they were part of it.
Smith: It's interesting that he would go back to Eisenhower people. Harlow was, as I say, a legendary figure. Ford has been described as Eisenhower without the medals. So, you came into the White House when?
Lazarus: Almost immediately after President Nixon's resignation, which I think was August 9th.
Lazarus: Shortly after that. I was, at that time, chief counsel to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And very shortly after that, I spoke with Ed McCabe and was then put in touch with Phil Buchen. I worked with him briefly before I went on to the White House staff. And I think I went on to the White House staff in September.
Smith: Tell me about Phil Buchen.
Lazarus: Phil was a fine man and a good lawyer, but he had no background in Washington. He was basically, I think, a trust lawyer transposed into Washington. So, he had good legal analytical skills, but he had no background or training experience in all the kinds of issues that come up here.
Smith: It's interesting you characterize it that way, because there is this school of thought, maybe caricature, that Ford brought with him all of these Capitol Hill and Grand Rapids types – that was said with a certain degree of condescension – but clearly they were people he trusted and had worked with for some period of time. Buchen being at the top of the list. I detect, from what you say, Buchen had the skill, the raw talent, and he had the instincts or the character or whatever the job called for, but he didn't have experience in this town that is uniquely valuable if you're going to be in the White House.
Lazarus: That's right. And, also, Phil didn't have any of the gangster about him. He was so close to the President at the outset that he could've preempted substantial segments of the White House operation, but never did so. He wasn't interested in that. He was more interested in working with the President one on one in deciding matters, so he didn't go out and do a lot of work, analytical work, or anything relevant to the questions that came up. Other people would tend to do that and then he would sit with the President and talk them through.
Smith: Was he a sounding board for the President?
Lazarus: I think the President trusted his instincts.
Smith: One of the recurring issues that we've encountered in the course of this project is that among the challenges Ford confronted was providing the right mix of change and continuity. In terms of just administrating the White House, deciding what to do with the Nixon holdovers. Clearly most of them had nothing to do with Watergate. and our sense is that he wanted to be fair to them. Many of them were very talented and he needed that talent to keep the place running. At the same time, Rumsfeld has said, and others have confirmed, he was strongly urging Ford to clean house early for the symbolic value. Did you sense tension between, for lack of a better word, the holdovers and the newcomers?
Lazarus: I think you described it very well. I think, in terms of the tension that existed, the President, as you know, is a very fair man and went out of his way to be decent with people. I sensed the frustration on the part of Rumsfeld and other people with getting rid of the old people. Several of the Nixon people did stay over and became central to Ford's White House operation. I'm thinking of Mike Duvall, Jerry Jones, they all stayed over.
Smith: Terry O'Donnell.
Lazarus: Well, I don't know what he did in the Nixon administration, but the other people, certainly Mike Duvall, was an active member of the Nixon administration. He wasn't the very top level, but he eventually became quite close to the President.
Smith: While Ford was vice president, clearly there were those in the White House who questioned whether he was up to the job. Was there any of that, again, for lack of a better word, condescension detectable in any of the holdovers, people whose loyalty to Richard Nixon was such that they questioned Gerald Ford's capacity or even legitimacy?
Lazarus: I don't think so. If it did exist, I think it was there in absolute minimum. Obviously, a lot of those people who felt an allegiance to President Nixon were upset by the circumstances and that might've been reflected in their thinking and their actions. But I don't think that was any part of it. When you work up close with a person, you see the real person. When President Ford came into office, he looked more like a congressman from Michigan than a President of the United States. He had not gone through the crucible of primaries and obtained that patina that presidents have. He obtained it later.
Smith: The trajectory of the Ford presidency is of someone coming into the office, in many ways unprepared, and learning how to be an executive as opposed to a congressman without ever jettisoning, totally, his congressional instincts. The first day that they're actually living in the house, he's walking up to the West Wing and – classic Congressman Ford – the Marine opens the door and the President walks over and sticks out his hand and says, "Hi. I'm Jerry Ford. I'm going to be living here. What's your name?" Now, that's a congressman speaking.
Lazarus: There's also, in the beginning and throughout his term, that he suffered fools far too much.
Smith: What do you mean?
Lazarus: He would let people go on and discuss things after he had decided them, just because he was polite and he didn't want to shut people off. So he would listen to them.
Smith: In what kind of context?
Lazarus: I can remember one example.
Smith: Sure.
Lazarus: Ford decided that he wanted a swimming pool at the White House and we had endless meetings on this topic. They were all trying to disabuse him of this pool because these were difficult economic times. But this was a very modest cost and I think it was being funded by minor contributions from children or some such. And Ford sat through three or four meetings where a number of people tried to talk him out of this, said this wasn't anything more than a backyard pool. And before, he used more colorful language, but then he finally said, "Let's go ahead and do this."
Smith: Did you ever see his temper?
Lazarus: That was the only time I ever saw him get angry with anybody. Mind you, I was a very young man at that point in time, so Ford was the same age as my father. So I wasn't chummy with the President. I saw him frequently, but I wasn't chummy with him.
Smith: Were you there when the pardon occurred?
Lazarus: No, I was there afterwards, but I wrote the President's testimony, at least the drafts. And briefed him on the pardon power and did his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and things related to that. So, I came to understand what had occurred, I think.
Smith: Was there an internal debate about the wisdom of breaking that historical precedent and going up on the Hill as he did to testify before the House?
Lazarus: I think there was, but I wasn't privy to that. I know, myself, I commented to several people, probably Jack Marsh and Phil Buchen, that I thought that they allowed too much time up there for questioning. I thought it was too drawn out and they seemed to agree with that kind of stuff. And I wouldn't have been surprised if people had tried to talk him out of that, but he felt very comfortable doing that.
Smith: Is that, again, part of the transition from the congressman to the President? I mean, that was his backyard.
Lazarus: I think it was just his open nature. He felt he had nothing to hide and he had done the honorable thing and he wasn't afraid to go and talk about it.
Smith: Did you have a personal opinion about the pardon?
Lazarus: I thought it was the wise thing to do when it was done and I continue my view today. Mind you, I had worked on the Hill and I participated in the Saturday Night Massacre hearings and all that kind of stuff and I had seen some of the ugliness underlying the President's resignation. So, I readily agreed that things had gone on too long.
Smith: It's hard to make people today in this instant, 24/7 news cycle – can you imagine Watergate going on for, what, two years?
Lazarus: Right. No, I think a lot of it was a result of the personalities involved and a lot of other factors as well. I couldn't see it occurring again.
Smith: When you went in there, how was the counsel's office organized. Was it re-organized as a result of Ford's becoming president?
Lazarus: When I was approached by McCabe and Morgan, they originally described to me an office that was different than what I saw. They advised me that Phil was going to be the counsel to the president and told me about his relationship with the president. Phil Areda was to be deputy counsel to the president and my understanding was that he had been given assurance that he would take over the Domestic Council in that capacity as deputy counsel to the president. I would be the associate counsel to the president and I would be relied upon to provide assistance relevant to Constitutional types of issues that I had worked on the Hill, legislative enactments, and all that sort of stuff. When I got in there, I don't recall a lot of discussion about that. Events took over. Vice President Rockefeller, in effect, was given the domestic counselor's staff and things changed. Phil Areda left. So, things changed in terms of what my original understanding was.
Smith: It's our sense that Areda left, in effect, was driven away by Rockefeller. It's not altogether clear whether that simply was musical chairs – that Rockefeller had been promised a role in domestic policy not dissimilar to what Henry Kissinger played in foreign policy, which also planted the seeds for all kinds of problems down the road. Again, is very much a congressman splitting the baby. Did you know Areda?
Lazarus: Yeah, I worked very closely with Phil when I was there. It wasn't a long time. And then, periodically, throughout Ford's presidency, on a regular, maybe bi-monthly basis, Phil would come through town and he usually would come to see me.
Smith: Tell us about him because I know very little about him aside from this apparent tug of war.
Lazarus: Areda, as I understand it, had the job that I had in the Ford White House in the Eisenhower White House. He was the young guy who was supposed to do the paperwork and the analysis and that kind of stuff. He was very, very bright. Rumor has it, I don't know if it's true or not, that Phil had the highest grade point average ever at Harvard Law School and that remains the case to this day, I'm told. He was very bright, a very good student. His expertise was in economic areas and anti-trust, as you know, but he also had very high standards. He was very likeable and decent. I thought he was absolutely first rate and I was sad to see a really first rate guy leave.
Smith: Did he make it clear that he was leaving because of the Domestic Council?
Lazarus: No sour grapes or anything like that. I think once his understanding of the position changed, he just left in a very pleasant way.
Smith: We talked to Bobby Kilberg. How was the office organized at that point? Who did what? And, did it evolve over the two and a half years?
Lazarus: Yeah, well, it evolved in terms of people leaving over a period of time.
Smith: Were some of those Nixon folks?
Lazarus: No, no. Well, when I came in, it was my understanding, as I've told you, that it was going to be Phil Buchen, Phil Areda and myself and maybe a couple of people who weren't presidential appointees.
Smith: Would that be the typical size of the counsel's office?
Lazarus: A half dozen or so?
Lazarus: It's certainly not the case any longer, but that's about what was needed, I think. Half a dozen, maybe ten. And Bill Casselman had been the president's counsel when he was vice president and Bill was going to leave and go out into private practice. He stayed on for a short period of time. So, he was transitional, sort of.
Smith: Is he still around?
Lazarus: Bill Castleman is still around, I think. I think he's out in Middleburg. I kept in touch with him until about a year or two years ago. Bobby Kilberg came in later. I don't remember exactly when. And Bobby handled a number of assignments but I didn't see Bobby's work as sort of day-in, day-out kind of work. It was more project-oriented.
Smith: Was she the first woman in the Counsel's office?
Lazarus: I don't know. I don't know of any other woman who worked there, but she might well have been. There was another fellow there named Jim Wilderotter who worked exclusively on the Watergate stuff. And then there were a whole succession of people who went into the sort of number two slot after Phil left. Not a whole succession, but Rod Hills and then Ed Schmultz.
Smith: So, there was a, for lack of a better word, Watergate hangover? I mean, a continuing need to deal with Watergate related issues?
Lazarus: Well, dealing with the tapes was pretty much Wilderotter's work. He reported to Phil on it to the extent he needed guidance. But I don't think it was any hangover to speak of. Basically, the tapes were there and they needed to be reviewed from time to time for various purposes.
Smith: Maybe this doesn't fall under your domain, but I'm confused over the process whereby ultimately the tapes became the property of the federal government.
Lazarus: Yeah, I don't really know. I mean, there was some legal analysis that led to that. I don't recall what it was at the moment, if I knew at the time.
Smith: So, what kinds of things would you be working on?
Lazarus: The things that were the most fun that I worked on and those that stay with me is the appearance before the House Judiciary Committee and everything associated with that.
Smith: That was sort of high drama.
Lazarus: I think Ford did a bang up job on that. If you've looked at it or recall it, I think Elizabeth Holtzman was the one who went after him the most. I don't think she succeeded. I think he did quite well. As a matter of fact, I remember him bouncing in the polls at the time by about five or ten points after his appearance. I liked that. I handled the nomination of John Stevens to the Supreme Court.
Smith: It's funny because we talked to Justice Stevens, and there are so many things that are amazing in light of what we're going through right now. The fact that the President never interviewed him.
Lazarus: I might say I wasn't involved in his selection. I did have the lead in terms of handling his nomination. As I understand it, I remember Ed Levi saying that the President wanted to find the best person for the job. That's what he told Levi. And Levi told the President that he had read all of Stevens' opinions and that each of them was like an individual pearl in a necklace of excellence. That's how he put it. I think he sold Ford with that idea. I know, originally, I'd heard when the vacancy first occurred, the President mentioned favorably that he thought Barbara Jordan would make a great Supreme Court Justice. He said that, but just said it in passing. I'm not aware of any further review of that as a possibility. But he mentioned that originally. As far as I know, it came down to Arlen Adams, who was a judge on the court of appeals in Philadelphia at the time, and Stevens. And Levi recommended Stevens and the President went with it.
Smith: It's also fascinating that in his confirmation hearings, nobody asked him about Roe v. Wade.
Lazarus: I didn't remember that.
Smith: No doubt that's the last time that will happen.
Lazarus: I think he was approved unanimously and he had a fairly easy go of it.
Smith: In later years, people assumed – given the story line of Presidents being surprised by their appointees – that somehow the President was disappointed. To the contrary, he was very proud of that appointment.
Lazarus: Yeah, and I think rightly so.
Smith: It's really one of the last appointments made for sheer talent, sheer ability, apart from ideological considerations.
Lazarus: Well, Stevens, I thought, was the best writer on the Supreme Court. He had superb analytical abilities and he was no doubt the most knowledgeable in terms of anti-trust and other economic and business areas. And, even in dissent, I think it was his dissent in Hallorby (?) case recently – I think Scalia wrote the majority – and you read his dissent, I don't think it indicates that he's a screaming liberal or anything like that. I mean, any good lawyer is a conservative lawyer in that he looks for a reason to put further gloss on the law if necessary and his analysis is solid, conservative analysis.
Smith: My sense is, he's always felt a little bit surprised that people label him as a liberal, because he doesn't think of himself as a liberal.
Lazarus: He doesn't think he's changed he thinks the rest of the world has and I tend to agree with that. Some of the other areas I enjoyed, I've been teaching for a number of years at Georgetown. The course I've been teaching in recent years is called Constitutional Aspects in Foreign Policy. It's basically a separation of powers course. And Ford was, I think, a first rate defender of the presidency in terms of separation of powers. And, so, he often would stay the course with things like legislative vetoes. He laid the groundwork, really, for the Chada case that came later in the Supreme Court.
Smith: Which is…?
Lazarus: Legislative vetoes are a way in which Congress used to enact law where they would keep the string on the law afterwards. For example, what you would find is Congress would write a law and implore an agency to do good and avoid evil and give them some general guidance. But then they would say that regulations, for example, wouldn't take effect until they were proposed, laid before the Congress. The Congress would have the chance to veto them and all that sort of things, where they would try to keep controls and extend their control over what was normally executive authority.
Smith: The administrative realm.
Lazarus: Yeah. And the Chada case in the Supreme Court changed that and knocked out legislative vetoes which had been in practice in thousands of pieces of legislation. Every time a legislative veto came up, Ford would speak against it and indicate that he was fighting against it every chance he had. It wasn't until sometime later, I think it was during Reagan's presidency, that the Supreme Court held it. Another thing he did was in the area of foreign affairs. I think it was Congressman Dingle at the time and a number of other people on the Hill wanted to dictate to the President whether he should use treaties or executive agreements in certain situations. They wanted to prescribe which situations in which you'd use executive agreement and the other where you'd use treaties. By law, it's the president's choice. They're fungible. You can use either one. And Ford fought against that. Whenever a principle basis of presidential power came up by my perception, he was Johnny on the spot.
Smith: It's ironic because, here you have someone who was a child of the Hill, who suddenly finds himself pitch forked into this office that he never aspired to and forced to defend its prerogatives against his former colleagues. The War Powers Act – my sense is that he and those around him (and indeed, I suspect, other presidents as well), strongly questioned its constitutionality, but did not want to test the issue.
Lazarus: It's funny. I have another little funny anecdote about the War Powers Act. You're absolutely right in what you said. Phil Buchen could never remember how the War Powers Act worked. It required you to notify certain people in the leadership. Now, Ford, you're absolutely right, questioned, challenged, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and he was right. The War Powers Act is and was unconstitutional. But Ford used to observe the notice requirements in the statute which required you, upon the shifting of substantial numbers of troops, to advise certain leadership people on the Hill. He would do that, but they couldn't keep straight who you had to advise and what the nature of the thing was and the section number and that sort of thing. So, I could always tell when something was cooking. For example, Mayaguez and these other things. Phil Buchen would tell me to make sure to be around or by the phone at home or whatever. He put me on alert, so to speak. He wouldn't say what was cooking, but he would let me know so I would guess that there was something going on that they might want to alert Congress about.
Smith: What was the mood around the White House that April when Saigon was falling?
Lazarus: Very sad.
Smith: Did it just permeate the place?
Lazarus: I think so, yeah. It was very sad. Now, I don't mean everybody was in a funk for a long period of time, but from the President on down, everybody was very sad about that.
Smith: We've been told that when it came to budget issues, but others as well, he liked to have differing viewpoints, liked to hear people argue out an issue. Which is not something, for example, that one would associate with, say, Richard Nixon, who I think tended to be much more isolated. Did you see that or take part in that?
Lazarus: Again, I think the best way I can describe it is to give you an example. I remember one weekend day, I don't remember if it was a Saturday or Sunday, but the subject of no-fault insurance came up. Secretary Coleman had to go to the Hill to testify on the subject the following Monday or Tuesday, so we're meeting on the subject. Ford had never addressed his position on no-fault insurance. And there was a big legal aspect of the discussion because this would've compelled states to perform, to enact certain laws. Not the normal carrot and stick of 'if you don't enact this, you lose this subsidy' or whatever, but to just compel them to try and force the states to do something by executive fiat. Secretary Coleman thought it was constitutional and there were a number of other people on the other side. I remember Levi being there, Don Baker from the anti-trust division, there were perhaps six or seven people there and it was a Saturday. The President, after half an hour or so of the discussion, was pretty clear that he didn't want to support it. But we stayed there for another 2 or 3 hours giving everybody a chance to come back at him as many times as they wanted to. Eventually, Secretary Coleman ran out of arguments to make. He had a chance to make every single one and he wasn't getting anyplace with the President. Finally, he said, "Well, Mr. President, I realize that I've lost this and maybe if you buy me a beer, we'll call it quits." But he ended it. President Ford was willing to sit and talk with him as long as he wanted to.
Smith: Did he ask questions?
Lazarus: Oh, yeah, he was involved. He wasn't just sitting there. He was participating in the discussion.
Smith: That's wonderful. Secretary Coleman told us that he weighed in at the time of the Boston bussing issue and as he recounted it the President's position was, "You know, Bill, I'm just opposed to bussing any kid further than they can walk to school." A view grounded in his own experience of the neighborhood school. What kind of conservative was Gerald Ford?
Lazarus: I think he's what we used to call a 'country club conservative'. He was basically moderate, perhaps somewhat liberal on social issues.
Smith: Including civil rights.
Lazarus: Yes. And his instincts all went in that direction. And very frugal in terms of money. And strong national defense and very much an internationalist.
Smith: Pretty much a product of the war in that sense. It's a double-consensus. You have a consensus of the generation that fought in the war, and then found itself in the Cold War.
Lazarus: Exactly.
Smith: Do you think the combination of those things contributed in any way to a kind of maybe unnatural consensus? I mean, people look at politics today and it's ugly and divisive and yet there is a debate as to whether maybe it's not more typical of the broad sweep of American politics than the '50s and '60s consensus that people remember fondly. I wonder whether looking back, the '50s and the '60s were not in some ways aberrational. You had these preexisting conditions, both the common experience of fighting World War II and before that, the Depression, and then the unifying reality of the Cold War.
Lazarus: I think you put your finger on something, but I think also that the fly in the ointment as I see it is that today there is no incentive for politicians to appeal to the reasonable nature of the population as a whole. And that the real fly in the ointment is the redistricting. People are more and more concerned about creating safe districts, so that you have districts that are 75% conservative or 75% liberal. And the only way people get beat is the conservative gets attacked from his right and the liberal gets attacked from his left. So, consequently, there's no reason to pitch the reasonable man and that leads to all this exaggerated rhetoric.
Smith: Of course. And the media pouring kerosene on the fire because they need confrontation, and the 24/7 news cycle demands a new story line every day. When he was in office, Gerald Ford was described as the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. Then in very short order, he became this liberal marooned in his own party because Reagan conservatism redefined the party. At the same time, Ford was the last president willing to use whatever political capital he had, plus the veto pen, to try to restrain federal spending.
Lazarus: That's right. He certainly used it, didn't he?
Smith: Frank Carlucci told us a wonderful story about going in to see the President. There was something he wanted to talk to him about, this bill. And Carlucci said, "It's a terrible idea, but I guarantee you it's politically popular and if you were to veto it, it would be overridden in a minute." And Ford said, "Well, that's alright, if it's the right thing to do." So he did veto it and, of course, it was overridden in a minute.
Lazarus: Yeah, as I say, he just had a very nice – he tried to do the right thing. I don't think he gave a moment's thought to what was political, necessarily.
Smith: Did that hurt him? There is a school of thought that the White House was very slow to anticipate the Reagan challenge. Either to believe that he would run, or to take him as seriously as he warranted. I realize you were presumably insulated from politics. But you were also in the middle of it. Did you ever sense that this was an apolitical White House long after it should've been if they wanted to get reelected?
Lazarus: Well, you know, the White House reflected the boss and he was the boss. I don't think it was a-political, but I don't think that they focused on the election until they were in the midst of it. I don't know if that would've changed anything in terms of the significant things that Ford decided.
Smith: Do you think that's in part a reflection of what we talked about earlier? This learning process?
Lazarus: Yeah, I do.
Smith: Plus he had such an incredibly full plate.
Lazarus: Right. And I think when he came into office the furthest thing from his mind was election. I'm quite confident that that's the case. As he grew in the job and he thought he was pretty good at it, figured he ought to stay around, it was in the country's best interest to do that. And he went after it. But I don't think he ever went in there with the idea of getting elected and continuing in office.
Smith: How would you describe/define his growth in office? You say 'as he grew in office.' What did you see that leads you to that?
Lazarus: Well, you could see it in all ways. I mean, if you just took pictures of him in the early days and then took pictures of him later on, you'd see the difference. Better turned out, better groomed.
Smith: More relaxed?
Lazarus: More polished presentation in all respects. His delivery improved considerably. And a lot of it was, just as I say, going through the crucible, combat. Political combat improves your situation and he went through that.
Smith: Do you think in the process, he discovered, "Hey, guess what? I can do this job."
Lazarus: Right. "I'm pretty good at that." And he was always interested in substance and he was pretty good at the substance and going through all of the combat that the President goes through, political combat. He became better at it.
Smith: I think the Hill would have given him, if he didn't already have, a very thick skin. We were talking to someone who was not very politically sophisticated, a young staffer who had gone into the White House. The President had just met with Tip O'Neill in the Oval Office and had had a great meeting. And then Tip went out and beat his brains out on the north lawn for the cameras. And this guy only saw the sequel. Anyway, he told the President, "Tip O'Neill's saying all these horrible things about you." The President was sort of rocking back and forth, pipe in hand. He said, "Oh, that just politics."
Lazarus: Well, I always thought the President got a bum wrap in people trying to trivialize his abilities. I've been around a lot of big league politicians. Ford was a bright man. A brighter man than Tip O'Neill. And I don't think that O'Neill ever saw anything political that Ford didn't see coming either. Ford was a more generous spirit, I think, and just tended not to get down there. He was a very charitable man, you know, all those Midwestern values and everything else are true.
Smith: I spent a lot of time in the Midwest. And my sense is there is a bias against Midwesterners or a caricature, maybe, because some of them talk slow; the assumption is, they must think slow.
Lazarus: Exactly. I understand that on a personal level. I grew up in the New York area and when I came down to Washington, it took me a long time to transition in my speech and otherwise from the New York style to the D.C. style. Ford not only had it stylistically, but that reflected his essence, too. That's who he was. A very decent, fair-minded person.
Smith: And yet, the least self-dramatizing.
Lazarus: Right.
Smith: Which, in some ways, is the part of the presidency that he never mastered. The theater of the job.
Lazarus: I think that's right.
Smith: Which tells you more about us than it does about him.
Smith: A couple quick things. Deregulation. Were you involved at all in that? Because, clearly, that was a significant policy initiative of the administration.
Lazarus: I was involved in it to some extent, but I wasn't at the core thing. If you're talking about deregulation of the airline in particular, which took a substantial amount of time in our office, Ed Schmaltz did most of that and he was assisted by Dudley Chapman, who was another lawyer in the office.
Smith: Are they around?
Lazarus: I think Dudley's deceased and I think Ed Schmaltz is retired and living in Maine, I think. Ed was deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration.
Smith: Oh, sure, that's where I recognize the name. You went through more than one attorney general. Would Saxbe have been attorney general when you started?
Lazarus: Yeah, I also handled the nomination of Ed Levi.
Smith: Tell us about Levi because he is to some degree an unsung hero in all of this. Presumably, Ford had a very keen awareness of the need to restore confidence in the Justice Department. Where did Saxbe fit into all of that?
Lazarus: I don't think Saxbe ever really fit into the office. When I first got out of law school, I went into the honors program at Justice for four years. I enjoyed it very much because it was like an extension of law school. You got to go out and talk with people about all kinds of legal matters that went on, a lot of the young fellows and some seasoned people and whatnot. Saxbe just didn't fit, especially given the times after Watergate. Levi was perfect because what he was, the dean of this law school now at the Justice Department, (where) you don't need to supervise people on every little task that goes on, but you need to set the tone and all that sort of thing. And Levi was just perfect at that time. Couldn't have found anyone better.
Smith: Was he a Rumsfeld recommendation?
Lazarus: I never saw the selection process of Levi. I know that Buchen supported him. My guess is that Rumsfeld selected him and, if so, it was a very good selection.
Smith: Classy.
Lazarus: I worked on his nomination. I worked with him. He tried to recruit me to the department. And the fellow who was my assistant on the Hill became his chief of staff. So, I worked very closely with him. I really liked him and I admired him. He was a fine person.
Smith: We've been told initially he had some problems with Eastland and – would Hruska had been the ranking Republican?
Lazarus: Yeah.
Smith: Eastland referred to him as 'The Bow Tie'. He thought a bow tie was a dangerous liberal affectation.
Lazarus: Well, what happened was, when his nomination went forth, normally you let people know a day or two in advance just so that they can feel like they're part of the insiders group or whatnot. And that hadn't been done properly with Eastland and Hruska and some of the older fellows on the committee at that time. Another part of the problem was, Levi in his youth had been a member of something called the Lawyers Guild. And that always raised a problem with the old guys because a lot of the people in the Lawyers Guild went on to become members of the Communist Party back in the early days, et cetera, et cetera. Although, a lot of very bright, young academicians also participated and never went in that direction. Nonetheless, it tar brushed them to some extent. So it was really a mismanagement of the nomination when it was first announced that led to that problem. He had no problems with people on the Hill after that. As a matter of fact, we had breakfast with Chairman Eastman. Do you know who Tom Korologos is?
Smith: Yes.
Lazarus: Tom and I went up there with Levi and I remember that Korologos did something that was really funny. We were having breakfast and Eastland served grits to everybody, including Levi. And Eastland went out to take a phone call during our breakfast and Levi had been pushing these grits around the plate and he turned to Korologos and said, "Do I have to eat these things?" And Korologos said, "You want to be attorney general?" Levi ate a couple spoons of it.
Smith: My sense has always been this was not a job Levi particularly coveted. I mean, he had a very distinguished career going out at the University of Chicago. Did he have to be persuaded?
Lazarus: I don't know. He was a very taciturn person. I don't know if you know him at all, but he would never let on how he was feeling. He was just very much his own man.
Smith: Was he intimidating?
Lazarus: He was never intimidating to me. He had a first rate intellect, of course, but no, he wouldn't push people around. He wouldn't do that and didn't work that way. He had a wry sense of humor and was a very laid back kind of person. I remember one time he criticized somebody at a meeting with the President and the way he criticized them was he said to the fellow, "I don't understand how a person as obviously bright as you could reach a conclusion like that." But that was as rough as he got. Ford assumed that Levi knew all law, almost, so at a cabinet meeting every once in awhile, he would say to Levi, "Ed, didn't the Supreme Court of Michigan decide something on that issue?" And Levi was "Darn it. He got me again." He liked the President and the President liked him, but they were very, very different types of personalities. Levi was a very private person and Ford was a very public man.
Smith: It tells you a lot about Ford, that he was comfortable with high-power intellects, high-power egos in some cases. He seemed to be completely comfortable.
Lazarus: And Levi was very comfortable with him, too. They communicated effectively.
Smith: I know he had enormous respect for Levi. What haven't we covered?
Lazarus: I don't know. I think you've pretty much covered everything.
Smith: Again, I realize you were not part of the campaign, but did you think at the end of the '76 campaign that he'd caught up? Did you think that your lease might be renewed?
Lazarus: I didn't think we were going to make it, but I was hopeful that we would. I remember being very disappointed when we lost. But, I was still always proud. There's one other thing I'd like to say. I was always proud of being part of President Ford's White House staff and I was so happy that he lived long enough, to understand that the American people took pride in him as well.
Smith: Time was good to him. He lived long enough to know that most people had come around to his way of thinking on the pardon and, in fact, honored him for the political courage that it took.
Lazarus: His whole life was outstanding. He was an Eagle Scout. Wouldn't you have loved to have a son like that? You know?
Smith: Lots of people were saying I wish he was my next door neighbor.
Smith: Do you remember the last time you saw him?
Lazarus: I think the last time I saw him was at some golf tournament. I was in the audience. I think it was in Ohio. I went to some golf tournament and I was walking around and he was playing in this tournament and I went up to him and saw him at the tee and said 'hi' to him and he said 'hi' to me and asked me how I was doing and stuff like that. The last time I had any involvement with the presidency was when I went out to the University of Michigan a couple of years ago when they dedicated a building in his honor. And, earlier, his funeral here in town. As I say, I was never the President's buddy. I was a young guy and I did legal work there. But I always admired him.
Smith: What a great experience to have, particularly early in your career.
Lazarus: Yeah, I remember the first time you go into the Oval Office. You know, he would let the legal staff use Camp David and took people on Air Force One when he had a chance and stuff like that. He was really very generous to people.
Lazarus: I think as a very decent and honorable man who rose to the challenge.
Smith: That's perfect.


text:
Q: Rails: What's generating the view in this example? Sorry if this is basic, but I've been thrown in the deep end at a job where nobody has ever written anything in RoR, including me, and asked to "fix" something.
I'm looking at a page in my web browser which is domain.com/collect -- and I've found that in the routes.rb file:
get '/collect' => 'payments#index', :as => :collect

And so I've assumed this means the index method in the PaymentsController class. I've found that method and its:
def index
end

And that's it. There's a parent class -- PaymentsController < AppController but the super method is never called, and if it was ... well, its not there, either.
So, what's generating the view here?

A: The view is at app/views/payments/index.html.erb, and it's layout is likely at app/views/layouts/application.html.erb

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Caterina Vannucci is an Italian violinist with 15 years of extensive experience in symphony and chamber orchestras, opera and violin education. After receiving her BA in violin from the Istituto Pietro Mascagni in Livorno in 1999, she debuted in the Orchestra Giovanile Italiana directed by maestri Carlo Maria Giulini, Eliahu Inbal, Massimo De Bernart, Daniele Gatti, and played chamber orchestra under the lead of Andrea Nannoni, Antonello Farulli, Manuel Zigante, Renato Zanettovich and Angelo Bartoletti. Concertino and section violin at the Florence Symphonietta, in Firenze, directed by maestro Pietro Bellugi. She joined the orchestra of the important Festival Pucciniano in Torre del Lago, Viareggio (Lucca) specializing in opera repertoire.


Benefits:- Green Gram Makes Your Skin Bright And With Prevents Acne And Black Heads. It Good For Dry Skin To Get A Glowing, Flawless Complexion. Green Gram Rejuvenates The Skin By Nourishing And Exfoliating.
The company is a well-known Exporter and Supplier of premium Roasted Gram in India. The Roasted Gram is an Indian snack, which is made by roasting grams and adding small or large amount of spices for enhancing the taste. The Roasted Gram is consumed with tea, coffee and even alcohol. The Roasted Gram is crunchy and delicious.
Being counted among the top Exporters and Suppliers of Green Gram , we procure it from the reliable vendors of the market. Longer shelf life, high nutritional value and purity are some of the attributes of Green Gram. When it comes to delivery, we choose those shipment modes that enable us to reach buyers on time. Buyers prefer to buy Green Gram from us we make it available at a very reasonable price.
We are the leading importer, exporters and suppliers of Roasted Grams . Our Roasted grams are just not delicious, but also hold high nutritional value. The contamination is prevented by doing the packaging hygienically. The delivery is made in the given timeframe owning to the work of our brilliant logistics network. Bengal grams are also available with us and that too at reasonable prices.
T. T Paul Merchants And Commission..
Black Gram that we offer is free from all kinds of impurities, contaminants, adulterants and colorants. We are one of the leading Exporters and Suppliers of Black Gram. It is sourced from the trustworthy vendors of the market. The final dispatch of our Black Gram is done using those shipment modes that ensure its timely and prompt delivery. Obtain from us, Black Gram in small as well as bulk quantities.
100% pure Bengal Gram is available with us. It is processed using the latest techniques at our vendors' end. We are named among the renowned Exporters and Suppliers of Bengal Gram. By always delivering Bengal Gram on time, we have become the first choice for the buyers when it comes to buying it. One can place retail as well as bulk orders for Bengal Gram with us.


Unusually, the whole Lake Mburo National park is open to walkers as long as they are accompanied by a ranger guide. At Rwonyo, a guided walk leads to a salt lick where many animals are attracted to the salty rocks. Locations include the salt lick at Rwonyo, the lake's banks, Rubanga Forest and a hilltop with gorgeous lake views.
All walks should be booked in advance. For more information on fees and booking, consult an Africa Sceneries consultant.
A hike through the forest to the deep Sabinyo Gorge - a massive gash in the flank of Mount Sabinyo - provides good birding opportunities and the chance to find the Ruwenzori Turaco. This walk takes four hours, and passes through the Rugezi Swamp which is fantastic for bird watchers.
The golden monkey track is a gentle steep but an interesting two-hour trek through former farmland to the bamboo forest. On a clear day, you may view the Virunga Volcano range and come across a buffalo and duiker.
Walking from Mutinda to Bugata Camp, in the burnt area along the Kilembe Trail in Rwenzori National Park. Deep mud!!
The Rwenzori Mountains National park provides opportunity for nature walks within the central circuit zone. These include trails up to Lake Mahooma and Buraro chimp forest; walks through the communities of Kichamba to reach the Karangura ridge; and hiking to Bundibugo area through Bwamba pass.
The communities of Ruboni and Turaco View also offer guided forest walks of various lengths just outside the park. Visitors can follow the River Mubuku, and glimpse views of Baker and Portal Peaks as they hike up to 2,300m above sea level. On a clear day it is even possible to view the snowcapped Margherita Peak - a truly spectacular sight. Along the way, keep an eye out for chameleons, squirrels, vervet monkeys and many birds.
Bwamba Pass: Before a road was built in 1938 to link Fort Portal with the remote town of Bundibugyo, local people followed the most direct route between these settlements - a tough, 1,500m high trek over the steep north Rwenzori ridge, known as the Bwamba Pass. The Abanya Rwenzori community group leads visitors over the mountain through isolated mountain villages to visit the bamboo forest and enjoy superb rift valley views.
Muyanga Waterfall Walk departs from Buhoma along the River Ivi-Nkuringo trail and culminates in the sensational sight of the falls plummeting 33 meters. Rushura Hill Walk passes through one forest shared by two countries. On a clear day you can view Lakes Edward and George and the Rwenzori Mountains as well as the conical peaks of the Virunga Volcanoes.
The Ivi River Walk is 14km and takes around seven hours. The trail passes a place known as Mukempunu - meaning "a place of pigs" - where wild pigs can often be found.
The Buhoma-Nkuringo Trail takes three to four hours, and crosses right through the park, connecting the two villages and offering impressive views of the misty hillsides as you ascend the hills towards Nkuringo. You can leave our luggage with your driver, who will meet you at the other side. This trail can also be completed as part of the Ivi River Walk.
The Habinyanja (Railegh) Trail takes 4-6hrs. After crossing the Munyaga River, it takes in a fairly steep ascent of the Habigorogoro and Riyovi Ridge overlooking Buhoma River. Found along this trail is the legendry "African Corner" named after a rock piece depicting a map of Africa. Following the steep ascent, keen hikers can enkoy a more relaxed gentle slope to the mighty Habinyanja swamp. Birders on this trail should watch out for the Pel's Fishing Owl, African Black Duck and Black Bee Eaters, among others.
When chimpanzees and other forest residents rest up at dusk, a nighttime shift of rarely seen creatures becomes active. Night walks though the darkened forest use powerful torches to seek nocturnal creatures such as the potto, bush-baby, nightjar, cricket and tree hyrax, with its chilling shriek, as well as the occasional civet or serval cat. Night walks leave the camp at 7.30pm and last between one and a half and two hours.
Hike to the Lomej Mountains, take leisurely walks through the Narus Vally, meet members of the endangered IK tribe and wander the splendid Kidepo River Valley between banks of borassus palm forest.
Visitors can also wander along the splendid Kidepo River Valley between banks of attractive borassus palm forest. Namamkweny Valley can be reached in one hour from Apoka. Visitors can also meet members of the IK tribe during pre arranged hikes to the Morungole Mountains outside the park.
Nature treks are one of the more active ways to explore the landscapes and wildlife of Queen Elizabeth National Park. Locations include the shady Maramagambo forest; Mweya Peninsula with its scenic views; and Ishasha River, where you may spot a variety of forest and savanna species as well as having a unique opportunity to get extremely close to hippos - on foot!


Have You Suffered a Motorcycle Crash Shoulder Injury?
Motorcycle crash shoulder injuries are fairly common. In fact, injuries to the shoulder joint and upper arm represent a significant portion of the injuries that ER doctors and surgeons see after collisions involving automobiles. These types of injuries are usually caused by our natural knee-jerk reaction to try to catch ourselves as we fall. Unfortunately, when you're traveling at a high rate of speed, the amount of force that's delivered to your arm upon impact is too much for the joint to handle.
A significant amount of those shoulder injuries are serious. Because the joint is so complex mechanically, any motorcycle accident shoulder injury can cause serious problems.
Below you'll find a list of common motorcycle crash shoulder injuries, their symptoms, treatments, and more. Additionally, you'll also find some great advice for getting the compensation you deserve after a motorcycle accident and resources you can use to help expedite your recovery process.
The shoulder is a fairly easy joint to dislocate. Because it is a "ball and socket" joint, the only things actually holding the arm and shoulder together are muscles, tendons, and ligaments—all of which stretch.
When a tremendous amount of force is placed on this joint (such as during a fall immediately after a motorcycle crash) or when the joint is bent the wrong way, those soft tissues stretch or tear and that "ball" can easily pop out of the "socket."
Dislocation often results in pain, swelling, and the inability to move your arm.
Thankfully, as painful as dislocations are, they're also often very easy to repair. Usually all that's required is to pop the joint back into place, immobilize the arm for a few days, and use ice and pain relievers to help with the swelling.
More serious dislocations may require surgery but the long-term prognosis for dislocated shoulder injuries caused by motorcycle crashes is usually good.
When you are forced to brake suddenly, cut off by an oblivious motorist or hit a car door that flies open, you will likely go flying over the handlebars. This typically results in serious hand, wrist and arm injuries. But it also is a common cause of a broken collarbone (or broken clavicle.) This is one of the most common injuries we see in motorcycle accidents.
The clavicle is more commonly known as the collarbone. It extends from the top of your chest to the top of your shoulder and is comparatively fragile. Clavicle fractures result in pain (though it's not often debilitating), swelling, and limited range of motion. Some patients will also see a bump under the skin if the broken ends of the bone are misaligned.
When you suffer a broken collarbone, there are typically two effective treatment options – surgical and non-surgical. If you are one of the lucky ones has a broken collarbone that does NOT need to be surgically repaired, you will have to wear your arm in a sling for several weeks and remain immobile.
If you're broken collarbone, on the other hand, does require surgery for it to heal in place, it's a different story. You will be placed under general anesthesia and undergo surgery. Often during this procedure, a plate and some screws will be implanted to hold your collarbone together in place. Some people have to endure yet another surgery to have the hardware removed, because it can cause too much pain and restriction during some activities. However, many people can live forever with the hardware remaining. Obviously, this is something you would need to discuss at length with your orthopedic surgeon to ensure you made the right medical decisions.
With either the surgical and non-surgical treatment options, you will have to participate in a strict physical therapy and rehabilitation program to regain your strength and mobility. If you try to "cheat" your recovery, you may sadly suffer lifelong pain and discomfort. We always encourage our motorcycle accident clients to vigorously work to optimize their physical recovery.
The two most common types of fractures associated with motorcycle crash shoulder injuries are clavicle (collarbone) fractures described above and proximal humerus fractures.
The humerus is the large bone that makes up the upper portion of your arm. At one end there is a "ball" that fits into the "socket" at your shoulder. This type of joint allows us a tremendous range of motion but creates a joint that's prone to injury.
Because most bikers tend to land on their hands and arms when ejected during a motorcycle crash, this type of arm and shoulder injury is common. Proximal humerus fractures often result in severe swelling, severe pain, and severely decreased range of motion. When you've suffered this type of fracture, you definitely know there is something wrong.
Treatment for these types of injuries may be as simple as immobilizing the joint for a period of time but may require extensive rebuilding of the joint through multiple surgical procedures. Sometimes (in rare cases) it's necessary to replace the entire "ball" at the end of the bone with an artificial component.
Your rotator cuff is actually comprised of four separate muscles that wrap over the head of your shoulder and provide the normal range of motion that we are all accustomed to. When any one of those muscles is torn (due to blunt force trauma such as that caused by a motorcycle crash) that normal range of motion becomes impossible to achieve.
Any of these symptoms may lead your doctor to order an X-Ray or MRI in order to get a better look at any potential injury.
Many times rotator cuff injuries go untreated for weeks, months, or even years. While it may be easy enough to adapt your daily life to a decreased range of motion, you may do permanent, irreversible damage to your shoulder joint if you don't seek medical attention right away. Indeed, putting off treatment (because of the cost, fear, or any other reason) is one sure way to prolong the recovery process and increase the total cost associated with your injuries.
Treatment for rotator cuff injuries often requires surgery. However, such procedures are fairly common and while they may be involved, often result in a significantly improved quality of life.
While most nerve damage is only temporary and will resolve itself once the swelling decreases, serious cases may require surgery in order to fix the problem. However, it's never advisable to "wait and see" if things will get better. Always see a doctor immediately and explain all of your symptoms. Waiting may increase the severity of your injury and could lead to permanent damage and the loss of sensation in your arm, hand, or fingertips.
There are several ways doctors can pinpoint exactly what's wrong inside your joint if you've suffered a shoulder injury in a motorcycle crash.
Simply looking at the joint and listening to your symptoms may be enough to diagnose simple injuries like strains or dislocations.
X-Rays are one of the least expensive imaging options available to doctors and ER technicians. This type of medical imaging can spot bone fractures but doesn't provide high-resolution scans. X-Rays can also often miss soft tissue injuries.
CT scans can spot soft tissue injuries that X-Rays can miss but are often significantly more expensive and may require that patients travel to off-site locations as some small and/or rural treatment centers don't have CT machines onsite.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging is the most detailed but most costly imaging option available and can pinpoint even tiny injuries. MRIs are often used to spot areas which may be suffering from decreased blood flow which can signal more serious problems and prolong the healing process.
Shoulder injuries aren't cheap. Take the initial ER visit, add in surgery, medication, physical therapy, and ongoing office visits and even a simple dislocation can cost you thousands of dollars. But, if your motorcycle crash shoulder injury was caused by another person's recklessness or negligence, the law may hold them financially responsible for your medical expenses.
While you don't have to hire a motorcycle accident lawyer to proceed with an insurance claim, doing so may result in a significantly larger settlement in a significantly shorter amount of time. More money faster puts you on the road to recovery sooner and gets your life back to normal with minimal interruptions.
Contact us today to see what our motorcycle accident attorneys can do for you.