text:
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Iraq. Will more U.S. troops stop the violence? Will the Iraqis ever be able to secure their own country? And what kind of country will the U.S. eventually leave behind?
With us, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York; Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana; former Bush speechwriter, now with the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael Gerson; and former Clinton foreign policy adviser, now with the Brookings Institution, Ken Pollack.
But first, the 2008 race for the White House has begun. Sixteen candidates have already formed presidential committees. And this morning, it's decision time for our guest, the former Republican governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee.
Governor, welcome.
FMR. GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AR): Thank you very much, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you running for president of the United States?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Tim, tomorrow I'll be filing papers to launch an exploratory committee, and yes, I'll be out there.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think America needs positive, optimistic leadership to kind of turn this country around, to see a revival of our national soul, and to reclaim a sense of, of the greatness of this country that we love, and also to help bring people together to find a practical solution to a lot of the issues that people really worry about when they sit around the dinner table and talk at night.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's try to define who you are. The last time we talked it was on a—my CNBC show. I asked you about George W. Bush, and you said this, "I think the president has done a magnificent job. And generally, you know, I don't find that many areas where I would disagree with him." You still hold that view, Bush has done a magnificent job?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I think he's had a lot of struggles, particularly in managing the, the war in Iraq. We did a great job of going in and toppling Saddam Hussein. The tough part has been bringing some sense of stability there. And so it's been a struggle for the president. I think the domestic agenda has also been something that's almost been ignored and overlooked because we have spent so much of a time on Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: If you were in the Senate or the House, would you vote to oppose the president sending more troops to Iraq?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think that's a dangerous position to take, to oppose a sitting commander in chief while we've got people being shot at on the ground. I think it's one thing to have a debate and a discussion about this strategy, but to openly oppose, in essence, the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops.
MR. RUSSERT: Is there one area you disagree with President Bush?
GOV. HUCKABEE: On Iraq or on...
MR. RUSSERT: On anything.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I think we need to be very careful about the overuse of the Guard and the Reserve in our military. As a governor for 10 ½ years and commander in chief of our Guard, I've seen 80 percent of our Guard forces deployed to Iraq. Now we're talking about sending them back yet again and again. These are citizen soldiers. They didn't sign up to be gone all the time. They signed up to be soldiers called upon for extraordinary duty, and they'll—they've done it. They're willing to do their duty, but the toll that it's taking on their families, their employers and their communities is—it's beginning to really wear.
MR. RUSSERT: You were governor of Arkansas for 10 years plus. The Cato Institute, conservative think tank...
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: ...analyzed your performance, and this is what they said:
"Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, Republican, final term grade: F. Mike Huckabee ... receives an F for his current term and a D for his entire tenure. The main reason for the drop was his insistence on raising taxes at almost every turn throughout his final term." And The Club for Growth, another conservative think tank, wrote this: "About Gov. Huckabee, the Club for Growth ... is adamant. ... They say he raised taxes five times—a gas tax increase in 1999, the cigarette tax hike, tax increases in 2004, a tax on beer and a tax on nursing homes." That's a tough record to sell to a Republican audience in primary states.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, it shouldn't be if they look at the real record. I—I've said, and I think one of the reasons they're mad at me is because I said I gave them an F on their grading capacity. I was the first governor in the history of my state to ever lower taxes, the first one in 160 years. We lowered a total of 94 different taxes and fees. We did things that streamlined and made government more efficient. But we were under a Supreme Court order to raise revenue for our schools. We did it, but with the insistence that we wouldn't just raise money, we would raise standards and expectations, and we did. And Education Week now says that we have some of the most improved schools in the nation. That's real progress, Tim, and I make no apology for wanting to improve education for the kids of our state. Did we raise taxes on fuel? Yes, but 80 percent of the people voted on it because it was on the ballot. So it wasn't that I raised it. I joined with 80 percent of the people in my state to improve what was the worst road system in the country. Now we're rated as having one of the best. Those are the kind of things that I'm being criticized for, but no one can question the conservative record over 10 ½ years when you look at what we've done in terms of not only restructuring but also in, in trying to bring some level of responsibility, except for those areas we couldn't control: Medicaid, prisons and, and, and then education funding that was court ordered.
MR. RUSSERT: And if need be, because of the war in Iraq, because of the deficit, because of health care, because of infrastructure, would you keep raising federal taxes on the table?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I don't think taxes is, is really where we need to go. It's not that our taxes are too low, it's that our spending is too high. Arthur Godfrey once said that "I'm proud to pay taxes in American, but I could be just as proud for about half the money." I think that the real issue is getting our spending under control, making our priorities where they work for the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: So "read my lips, no new taxes"?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think you got to be very careful. I, I wouldn't propose any new taxes. I wouldn't support any. But if we're in a situation where we are in a different level of war, where there is no other option, I think that it's a very dangerous position to make pledges that are outside the most important pledge you make, and that is the oath you take to uphold the Constitution and protect the people of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: I was reading a lot about you, an ordained Baptist minister.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you a couple things that you said earlier in your political career. "Huckabee ... explained why he left pastoring for politics. 'I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.'" And then this: "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." Would you, as president, consider America a Christian nation and try to lead it as—into a situation as being a more Christian nation?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think it's dangerous to say that we are a nation that ought to be pushed into a Christian faith by its leaders. However, I make no apology for my faith. My faith explains me. It means that I believe that we're all frail, it means that we're all fragile, that all of us have faults, none of us are perfect, that all of us need redemption. We are a nation of faith. It doesn't necessarily have to be mine. But we are a nation that believes that faith is an important part of describing who we are, and our generosity, and our sense of optimism and hope. That does describe me.
MR. RUSSERT: But when you say...
GOV. HUCKABEE: I'm appalled, Tim, when someone says, "Tell me about your faith," and they say, "Oh, my faith doesn't influence my public policy." Because when someone says that, it's as if they're saying, "My faith isn't significant, it's not authentic, it's not so consequential that it affects me." Well, truthfully my faith does affect me. But it doesn't make me think I'm better than someone, it makes me know that I'm not as good as I really need to be.
MR. RUSSERT: But when you say "take this nation back for Christ," what does that say to Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists? What...
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I think I—I'd probably phrase it a little differently today. But I don't want to make people think that I'm going to replace the Capitol dome with a steeple or change the legislative sessions for prayer meetings. What it does mean is that people of faith do need to exercise their sense of responsibility toward education, toward health, toward the environment. All of those issues, for me, are driven by my sense that this is a wonderful world that God's made, we're responsible for taking care of it. We're responsible for being responsible managers and stewards of it. I think that's what faith ought to do in our lives if we're in public service.
MR. RUSSERT: South Dakota had some proposed legislation to outlaw all abortion except saving the life of a mother, no exceptions for rape or incest. You said you'd sign that. Why?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I always am going to err on the side of life, Tim. I believe life is precious. But I think the issue for many of us who are in the pro-life camp—and I have been since, you know, I was a teenager. This is not something that I've been all over the board on, it's consistent. It's because of my view that God is the creator and instigator of life. But I think those of us in the pro-life movement, we have to do also some growing and expanding. We have to remind people that life, that we belive it begins at conception. It doesn't end at birth. And if we're really pro-life we have to be concerned about more than just the gestation period. As a pro-life person, as a governor, look at my record. Yes, did we pass pro-life legislation? We did. But we also did things that improved the environmental quality and the conservation issues that would affect a child's air and water. We also made sure that he had a better education, that access to affordable health care would be better. So I think that real pro-life people need to be concerned about affordable housing, we need to be concerned about safe neighborhoods, access to a college education. That, for me, is what pro-life has to mean.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you outlawed abortion, what would happen to the doctor who performed an abortion? What, what would happen to the woman who had an abortion?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I think the question is, would I sign the bill in South Dakota? Do I think it's the best only bill that ever could be signed? The question still comes back to this is a debate that's been so divisive, and what we really need to be doing is having the discussion center around how can we create a culture where people value and celebrate life. The fundamental difference between the United States and our enemies in terror is that, regardless of whether one is considered pro-life or pro-choice, the one thing that—that is unique to America, or certainly characteristic of America, is that we celebrate life. We believe in it; we cherish it. We may have different definitions of it, what it means and how extensive we want to protect it. But the enemy on the other hand celebrates death. That's where we need to bring this debate, is to remind ourselves that we still are a nation that elevates the concept that life is precious and important. And I hope that we can center on those topics rather than on the, the fine points that sometimes separate and divide.
MR. RUSSERT: But, as president, you would seek to ban abortion.
GOV. HUCKABEE: I would seek always to promote the view that life is precious and should be protected. Would I be able to singularly do that? Of course not. But I think it has to be won on, on a battlefield of one heart at a time rather than pieces of legislation at a time.
MR. RUSSERT: You said this to the Des Moines Register: "Let's face it. In our lifetimes, we've seen our country go from 'Leave it to Beaver' to 'Beavis and Butt-head,' from Barney Fife to Barney Frank." Why, why include Barney Frank, a gay congressman, in that reference?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think it was a matter of a rhetorical device to talk about the different cultural shift that we have, and it wasn't any particular attempt to be derisive of him. But, but there has been a huge cultural shift in this country, Tim. And I think that's why many Americans are seeking leadership that has a positive and optimistic spirit, that wants to take this nation—what I call vertical politics rather than horizontal.
I just completed a book in which I talk about the difference between horizontal politics, where everything is left or right, everything is liberal or conservative, everything is Democrat or Republican. I think the American people are hungry for vertical politics, where we have leaders who lift us up rather than those who tear us down.
MR. RUSSERT: But some would suggest by including Barny Frank in that
reference you are tearing a gay man down. You're against gay marriage, you're
against gay civil unions. Is—do you have a problem with gay people?
GOV. HUCKABEE: No. I have a problem with changing institutions that have served us. And I, I think I would rather characterize not what I'm against, but what I'm for. Before we change the definition of marriage to mean something different, I think our real focus ought to be on trying to strengthen heterosexual marriages because half of them are ending in divorce. That's a real problem in this country. There are a lot of kids who are growing up in a very, very confused and conflicted world because—not because we have same-sex marriage, but because we're seeing a real failure in the tradition heterosexual marriage. That's where our focus needs to be. Because if we want to end poverty, get a kid through high school, let him grow up in a stable, two-parent home and make sure that that child doesn't have a child before he's 21 and has a full-time job. That's a 93 percent chance that child will never grow up in a single day of poverty if those are the criteria.
MR. RUSSERT: Should...
GOV. HUCKABEE: So we ought to be working more to build strong families rather than just to create new versions of them.
MR. RUSSERT: Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?
GOV. HUCKABEE: That's a question that, that I think, again, goes back to the heart of what's best for the child. Unfortunately, so much of this argument has been framed about what, what the same-sex couple wants. But the real question needs to be child-focused, not couple-focused. And, Tim, that's true for whether the couple is same-sex or whether they're heterosexual. In our state, as in most, the criteria for adoption is always what's in the best interest of the child. That ought to be what's front and center.
MR. RUSSERT: So is it in the interest—best interest of the child to have a gay, gay parents?
GOV. HUCKABEE: That's a question I'm not sure that, that we have a positive answer to. And until we absolutely could say it, then, then I—I'm always hesitant to change those institutions.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that you're born gay or you choose to be gay?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I don't honestly know. I really don't. I think there are—there are people who would argue vociferously on both sides of that. But I think that the point is, people are, are who they want to be, and we should respect them for that. But when they want to change the institutions that've governed our society for all the years of recorded human history, then that's a serious change of, of culture that we, we don't just make readily or, or hurriedly. It has to be done with some, some deep thought.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about a controversial aspect of your governorship. Wayne Dumond...
GOV. HUCKABEE: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a rapist who was convicted, sentenced in Arkansas, the parole board voted not to parole him in September of—in August of '96. You announced that you were going to commute his sentence, and then the parole board reversed course and agreed to parole him, and you supported their decision to parole. He was, was freed, left the state, killed and raped someone else in Missouri. Do you regret supporting that parole?
GOV. HUCKABEE: You know, looking back, certainly I wish that I had known more than I knew, but here's what I knew: I never commuted his sentence; his sentence was commuted by my predecessor. When he was parole elibigle, he had not yet made parole. And I supported that he was parole-eligible. Later, the parole board did, in fact, give him their parole, supervised.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you talk to the parole board?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I did. But it wasn't about Wayne Dumond. I went there, even though there are some tabloid reports that tried to make it that I did, I went there to get acquainted with them because I hadn't appointed any of them. Out of all...
MR. RUSSERT: You never mentioned Wayne Dumond?
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, they brought it up to me. And, of course...
MR. RUSSERT: So you did talk to the board about him?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Only thing I said was this: They asked me did I think that he should be paroled, or something to that effect, and I simply said, "I think that his case has got to be given, you know, a serious look." What he apparently did when he left was horrible, Tim. But, you know, the issue is, he is a person who did a horrible thing before and after. I think all of us regret and have deep, deep, painful thoughts that someone could do something like this.
MR. RUSSERT: You or your staff did not pressure or try to convince the parole board—parole board in any way shape or form?
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, we didn't. And, in fact, here's the, the part that never gets really pointed out. That parole board had all been appointed by either Bill Clinton or Jim Guy Tucker, my predecessors. I don't think I had that kind of power. If I'm that persuasive, I'll be the next president of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: But, in hindsight, you regret announcing that you were going to commute his sentence.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Sure. I, I—of course I do, because it, it turned out not to be as we thought, that he had an exemplary prison record. And he'd been commuted by Jim Guy Tucker while he was acting governor, and Bill Clinton knew all about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about the lead right now in the Republican primaries, one of them, John McCain. You said this: "I have a hard time seeing [Sen. John McCain] being elected president, just because I think, at times, some of his views have alienated very important segments of the Republican Party. I'm not sure he can mend the fences with the evangelical wing of the party, the pro-life part of the party." You stand by those words?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, sure, I said them. I, I have a lot of respect for Senator McCain, he's a great American hero. But I do think that there're going to be some challenges that he'll face, and some of them have to do with issues that, that really have alienated many conservatives. But I also think that they're going to be issues in, in relationship to even campaign finance reform and how that's really affected the whole election process.
MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat, has announced for president, the former first lady of Arkansas.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Will she be a formidable candidate?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Absolutely. You know, I think people underestimate her at their own peril. She's a very strong, capable, brilliant person, and she will most certainly be a formidable candidate.
MR. RUSSERT: You're from Hope, Arkansas. So is Bill Clinton.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you similar?
GOV. HUCKABEE: We both came from Hope, Arkansas. We both came from humble origins. I think there are a lot of differences in us politically and philosophically, but the one thing that I'd say that we do share is that we share the sense of coming out of roots that really are, are poverty. I was the first male in my entire family lineage to even graduate high school. I—I've lived the American dream, Tim. One of the reasons that I'm running for president is because I think that America needs folks who understand what it is to start at the bottom of the ladder and climb their way to the top. We've got a lot of people who are born on third base and think they've hit a triple. America loves an underdog. America loves people who've had to struggle and for whom every rung of the ladder has been sometimes three rungs up and two back down. Thank God for the one you've gained and, and keep climbing.
MR. RUSSERT: David Broder of The Washington Post wrote this column in 2005:
"Huckabee ... is part of a bewildering variety of networks. A preacher for 12 years, he headed the Arkansas Baptist State Convention before being elected lieutenant governor and succeeding the scandal-tainted Jim Guy Tucker as governor in 1996. But at 1 a.m. last Sunday, he could be found wearing a Hawaiian shirt, playing bass guitar and leading his rock band of fellow Arkansans, called Capitol Offense, at the [National Governor's Association] staff party at Raccoon River Brewing Co., a downtown beer hall." And we have found this footage, governor.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Uh-oh, I'm in trouble now.
MR. RUSSERT: I believe—let's take a look.
(Videotape of Governor Huckabee playing guitar)
GOV. HUCKABEE: This is from Memphis, by the way, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, I believe that song is "Born To Be Wild." Is that your inner self?
GOV. HUCKABEE: It probably would be born to be mild would be a better one for me. I love music. One of the things that I'm very passionate about is music and art and education because it was life-changing for me. I think in a creative economy we've got to have a whole group of kids coming up and a generation whose left and right brains are stimulated. It's something I pushed for as a governor in Arkansas where we are one of the few states that required both music and art education. I'm a musician, I'm passionate about it, but I think this, this country has made a huge mistake in cutting music and art out of school budgets. And it's something we've got to address because the future economy is dependent upon a creative generation.
MR. RUSSERT: Governor Mike Huckabee, he's announced for president. Thank you for sharing your views, and we'll be following your campaign.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Thank you, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, Republican Senator David Vitter, former Bush adviser Michael Gerson, former Clinton adviser Ken Pollack—they are all here. The Iraq war, what now? Where do we go from here? Only on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. RUSSERT: Senators Schumer and Vitter, Ken Pollack, Michael Gerson, the war in Iraq after this station break.
MR. RUSSERT: And we're back joined by Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana; Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York; Michael Gerson, the Council on Foreign Relations; Ken Pollack, the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution.
Welcome all.
SEN. DAVID VITTER (R-LA): Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, let me start with you. We'll talk about your book, "Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time," in a little bit. But let me start with Iraq.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: This was the scene yesterday down in Washington on the Mall, tens of thousands of Americans protesting the war, calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Senator Schumer, with that kind of anti-war fervor in the country and within the Democratic Party, do you believe that it's inevitable Democrats will cut funding for the war off?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we'll certainly ratchet up the pressure against President Bush. The bottom line is that this escalation, for instance, is so poorly received, not just by Democrats, but by all of the American people. Our first step will be this sense of the Senate resolution. But it's only the first step. I believe, Tim, that that resolution will not only get a large number of Democrats—most Democrats to vote for it, but a large number of Republicans, close or even a majority. And that will send shock waves through the White House and through the country.
MR. RUSSERT: The secretary of defense, Robert Gates, says to vote for that resolution would embolden the enemy.
SEN. SCHUMER: I don't think that's true, and, you know, that kind of talk has led us into the problems in Iraq. When General Shinseki said something, they didn't debate the issue, whether we needed 200,000 troops, they just kneecapped them. And right now 70 percent of the American people want a change in policy. That's democracy, and Democrats and American people are not going to be intimidated by that kind of talk. We have to debate the issues. We haven't had enough of a debate until now. The election in 2006 said debate those issues. We will not be intimidated.
MR. RUSSERT: You said this to Don Imus on Wednesday about the prime minister of Iraq. "Here's a guy we know is incompetent. He's controlled by our biggest enemy, Sadr. He can't do even the execution of Saddam right, in a dignified way. And we're putting more troops to back him?" If you have no confidence in the prime minister of Iraq, then why not stop the war now and cut off the funding?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, the problem with just an immediate withdrawal is that it would create huge problems, as Ken outlines in his report. One, you'd have huge loss of life. Two, you might very well bring in other countries—Iran, Saudis—and have a huge conflagration. And worst for the United States, you might create grounds where terrorists would go. So we are for a rational, careful withdrawal. We'd like to see the troops reduced by a great amount by the end of 2007, and we are going to put pressure on President Bush not just in this resolution, but particularly in the upcoming funding resolution, to make that happen.
MR. RUSSERT: So you will cut off the money for some troop assignments.
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we have some good ideas out there. It's a difficult thing to do because you cannot legislate and say, "We will not fund this battalion, but we'll fund that battalion." And even if you do, the president could then move the other battalion in. But, for instance, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy have a good idea, which is we will—any new troops above have to be voted on by Congress. Hillary Clinton has a good idea. No new troops unless certain benchmarks are made. It's a difficult thing to do because you want to protect the troops that are there and not allow an escalation. But in the upcoming funding resolution in the next month will be our second step. We think this first step, this resolution, nonbinding, will send a real message because close to a majority or even a majority of Republicans will vote for it. But we will not stop there.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Vitter, Chuck Hagel, who serves on the committee with you...
SEN. VITTER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...he's a Republican senator from Nebraska...
SEN. VITTER: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...offered this warning to his fellow senators and challenges—well, let's watch.
(Videotape, Foreign Relations Committee, Wednesday)
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE): There is no strategy. This, this is a ping-pong game with American lives. ... They're real lives. And we better be damned sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be. And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators, to look in that camera and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide any more. None of us.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Vitter, 68 soldiers from Louisiana have died in Iraq, 484...
SEN. VITTER: (Unintelligible)...actually, but significant.
MR. RUSSERT: ...484 have been wounded or injured. What would you say to the people of Louisiana today why more soldiers should be sent?
SEN. VITTER: I would say I've looked at it very, very carefully. I didn't reach this conclusion easily at all. But I do think it's the best alternative, particularly if we add on to the plan certain provisions that I've talked personally about with the president and Secretary of State Rice and others. I agree with Chuck that we need a very full debate. Part of that full debate we're not getting, in my opinion, is a clear discussion of the alternatives. The resolution that my colleague Chuck Hagel was talking about is not a plan. It is not an alternative. It is a vote against the president's plan, which is his right, but it is not an alternative plan. And I think, to have a responsible debate, we need to compare plans side by side because there is no easy answer.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you have an alternative plan?
SEN. VITTER: Well, I'm supporting the president's plan, and I'm strongly encouraging some add-ons, specifically, I think we should be stronger and clearer about benchmarks. And John McCain's working on a resolution about that that I expect to support. Secondly, I think we should embrace and support a regional diplomatic conference which would include Iran and Syria. Those aren't—that's not bilateral talks with them directly with us, but a regional diplomatic conference. And third...
MR. RUSSERT: Well, the Iraq Study Group, you have the book in front of you, called for reaching out, and the president rejected it.
SEN. VITTER: Well, they called for, among other things, those bilateral talks. I agree with the administration that that isn't a good idea. But the regional diplomatic conference and talks I'm talking about is not that. They also talk about that activity, and the administration is very open to that activity. And I've been pushing them and prodding them to move more aggressively in that direction. And then third, I certainly agree with Chuck Hagel about one thing. We need to go over and over and over the issue of is this new troop level enough to make a difference. Because I think, clearly, we've been wrong in the past about the adequacy of troop levels.
MR. RUSSERT: You may recommend more?
SEN. VITTER: I'm, I'm open to that. I'm for getting the job done, turning the corner in a short period of time. I'm not for throwing a, a few more troops at it if that can't turn the corner. I trust David Petraeus, who says we can turn the corner. I'm putting my trust in that. But I think we have to constantly re-examine that issue.
MR. RUSSERT: If this surge doesn't work by the end of the summer, early fall, would you then consider withdrawal?
SEN. VITTER: Yes. I think this is clearly, as a practical matter, and in my mind, in my heart, this is clearly the final shot. And I've said that very clearly to the president and others.
MR. RUSSERT: Ken Pollack, let me show you the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. If the resolution against more troops passes the Congress, should the president proceed? Yes, 30; no, 65 percent. Two out of three Americans say if Congress says to the president, 'Don't send more troops,' he shouldn't do it. Any chance of that happening?
MR. KEN POLLACK: Well, I think that the administration has made up its mind. It seems like the administration has decided that they've got a plan, they believe the plan can work. They also believe that the additional troops can make a difference, and it seems like they're, at the very least, going to give that plan a shot, regardless of what the American people or the Congress may, may want.
MR. RUSSERT: Can you continue to wage a war without the support of the American people?
MR. POLLACK: It's extremely difficult, but certainly the Constitution gives the president a whole variety of powers that're going to make it possible for him to do so, at least in the short term. The bigger question is over the longer term.
MR. RUSSERT: Michael Gerson, you wrote in Newsweek this, and I'll share it with our viewers, "[Tuesday] General David Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. When asked if he could get his job done in Iraq without additional troops, he replied, 'No, sir.' When asked if a congressional resolution of disapproval of the 'surge' could encourage the enemy, he said, 'That's correct, sir.'
"Under these circumstances, it is hard to imagine what impulse of arrogance could cause Republican senators like Warner and Collins to actively undermine the operational judgment of a skilled commander in the field, at the beginning of a decisive military campaign. The next week or so will test the proposition: does the military chain of command end in the Oval Office or on the Senate floor?"
MR. MICHAEL GERSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: You're taking on your fellow Republicans?
MR. GERSON: Yeah, I think this is clearly a case—it would be unprecedented for—to—for the Senate to undermine the operational judgments of a new commander in a very, at the beginning of a very decisive military campaign, where there are some early signs of hope, in, in this case. And, you know, the Senate is not going to conclude, I don't believe, in March, when they consider the supplemental, that this is over, that it will pass the point of no return. The president's made a case that we have to give this a chance.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, the president has said give this a chance.
Why not give him a chance?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we've given him so many chances. We've had nine plans on Iraqization. We've had so many different alternatives, and no change in strategy. Here's the reasons, Tim, very simple. We're still policing a civil war. No one bargained policing a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, that's a large basis of the president's plan. The Sunnis and Shiites are going to be fighting with each other where our—whether our troops stay in three months or three years. And it's our prerogative as a Senate, our obligation as a Senate, hearing the message of the electorate, to try and get the president to change. This plan is going to be—we believe it's going to be a flop. Lots of people gave the president the benefit of the doubt in 2003, but there have—but there have been mess up after mess up after mess up. People are not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt again.
MR. RUSSERT: If you believe the plan is such, such a flop, then why did you vote to confirm General Petraeus, who is one of the architects of the plan?
SEN. SCHUMER: Because General Petraeus—the buck stops with the president, and our relationship is with the president, not in the line of command. And we will ratchet up the pressure on the president to change the course, to come up with a strategy different than the one they've had, which just about everyone, Tim—large numbers of generals, the American people, a majority of the Senate...
MR. RUSSERT: But General Petraeus is for the...
SEN. SCHUMER: ...even General Maliki.
MR. RUSSERT: General Petraeus is for the plan, why vote to confirm him?
SEN. SCHUMER: Because our job is not to interfere with the president's chain of command. I voted for Gates as well. Our job is to send a message in our constitutional prerogatives. Not just a message, but take some action and change the course when we deal with the president. That's how our Constitution works.
SEN. VITTER: Tim, I think it's an important point. The Senate voted to confirm David Petraeus 81-to-nothing. More than that, everybody who has spoken about him has expressed supreme confidence in his ability. He says directly this resolution can hurt our troop morale, can embolden the enemy. I think for the time being we need to respect that judgment. He has also said, "If this plan is not working, cannot work, I will say so. I will report that not just to the president, but to the Congress." Again, this isn't an open invitation forever, this is a final chance. And I think, in that very constrained context, we should give General Petraeus what he needs for the next few months.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret your vote for the war?
SEN. SCHUMER: I don't regret it, Tim, because I always believe in giving the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt. After...
MR. RUSSERT: But knowing what you know today?
SEN. SCHUMER: Knowing what I know today, of course. He has botched it.
MR. RUSSERT: You'd vote no?
SEN. SCHUMER: I will never—right, exactly. I would never give him—the whole point is, I don't give him the benefit of the doubt again given how he's botched this policy so dramatically. Even if we can limit our damage right now, the damage will be there for decades.
MR. RUSSERT: Michael Gerson, the logic of voting for General Petraeus but voting against the troop surge?
MR. GERSON: Yeah. I, I think ultimately it's not responsible to say—which I think many Democrats do—this is the president's war, he's failed, and he has to live with the consequences. In fact, we all have to live with the consequences, moving forward here, and there's a plan on the table, a realistic plan on the table which General Petraeus calls hard but not hopeless, and I think it needs to be given a shot.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you another poll number from The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. When the U.S. leaves Iraq, what will we leave behind? A stable government, 27 percent; no stable government, 65 percent. And look at this party breakdown: Republicans, 42 percent believe we will not leave behind a stable government; 70 percent of Independents; 82 percent of Democrats. That looks like a real erosion in Republican support for what the president promised would be a democratic shining city—country in the Middle East.
MR. GERSON: Yeah, I think there is a real Republican decay in support, there's no question. And I think it is a last chance. And there's a real tension for the administration here. A successful counterinsurgency strategy doesn't have a lot of immediate results. It involves a lot of getting to know local leaders, living in the neighborhoods, drinking tea, you know, with, with local officials. So there's—that's the approach they're taking. But the political situation, their timelines are much shorter, so there's a real tension there.
MR. RUSSERT: Ken Pollack, let me show our viewers something that you have written, "Things Fall Apart," share it with our viewers on the screen here. "With each passing day, Iraq sinks deeper into the abyss of civil war. The history of such wars is that they are disastrous for all involved. ... Unfortunately, we may soon be forced to confront how best we can avoid 'losing' an Iraqi civil war. ...
"Spillover from an Iraq civil war could be disastrous. ... It is imperative that the United States develop a plan for containing an all-out Iraqi civil war. ...
"It was arrogance in the face of history that led us to blithely assume we could invade without preparing for an occupation, and we would do well to show greater humility when assimilating its lessons about what we fear will be the next step in Iraq's tragic history."
MR. POLLACK: Well, the basic point that we're trying to make is that the president wants this one last shot, it's obviously very late in the game, there is no guarantee that it's going to work out. I think that even the administration would say that the likelihood of it working is probably less than 50-50. If it fails, we are going to find Iraq even worse than it is today. It will probably slide into a Bosnia or Lebanon-like all-out civil war. That's going to be disastrous not just for Iraq and the Iraqi people, but potentially for other countries around it, perhaps even for the entire region.
MR. RUSSERT: If it does fall into an Iraq—or to a Bosnia or an Afghanistan, what do we do?
MR. POLLACK: Well this, of course, is the great problem, because all options at that point in time are much worse than any we would have had in the past. What we outline in that report is a strategy of containment. Could we contain the civil war, the violence and the spillover effects within the borders of Iraq, prevent it from affecting other countries that we care a lot about, like Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait, like Jordan, like Turkey? And we lie—we lay out a strategy to do that, but we're very sober about it, because we looked at a lot of the history of other civil wars like this and what we found is it is very hard to do.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, Senator Schumer...
SEN. VITTER: And I—and I think this is very important...
MR. RUSSERT: That's why I want to talk about it, Senator Schumer, because if we pull out, and all civil war breaks out, all-out civil war...
SEN. SCHUMER: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds...
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...perhaps Turkey gets involved, Iran gets involved, the—who knows? And it becomes a haven, a la Afghanistan...
SEN. SCHUMER: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...what do we do?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, there is no good alternative, as Ken said, because things are so bad. And this new surge, this new escalation is no change in strategy at all. That's the problem with it. It's not a surge and a change in strategy, it's just a surge under the present strategy, which I think everyone agrees has failed. So what do we do? Well, we have proposed a—that 2007 be a year of transition where we change the mission, change the strategy, Tim, away from policing a civil war and focusing on counterterrorism, focusing on force protection. During that year, you move a large number of the troops out of harm's way—because they won't be policing a civil war, they won't be going down the streets of Baghdad—and try to contain the damage. It's very similar to...
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you put them? Where do you put the them?
SEN. SCHUMER: Hmm?
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you put the troops?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you put them out of harm's way, either in bases in Iraq or in Kuwait or nearby, many of them would come home. It's a very similar strategy to the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Most of the middle-of-the-road, down-the-road, sober, nonpartisan experts have agreed that this is the best way to go. Only the president in his bunker, and a very few people around him, seem to think we should keep policing this civil war.
MR. RUSSERT: Is it...
SEN. SCHUMER: It's not going to change after our troops leave.
SEN. VITTER: Tim, I, I think Ken—I think Ken's recent piece makes two very important points. One, the Iraq situation is very bad, but it could get a lot worse. And number two, if it does, it is very difficult to contain that sort of all-out civil war. In that context, I think it's very important that we look at the president's plan so we don't get to that complete all-out civil war.
With regard to what Chuck is talking about, the question is can the Iraqi military and security really contain sectarian violence right now, completely on their own? I don't think there's any hope that they can. Maybe he thinks it's a little easier on the ground than I think. I think it is very, very bad.
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, but six, six months of a surge isn't going to change that. It'll be exactly the same once we leave.
MR. RUSSERT: Ken Pollack, are you pessimistic? Do you believe there will be all-out civil war?
MR. POLLACK: I am pessimistic. I will say that while I, I share Senator Vitter's hope that the president's plan works, I share many of Senator Schumer's concerns about it. And I think that what we've seen in Iraq is a very severe deterioration of the situation, particularly over the last year, since the bombing of the gold—the Mosque of the Golden Dome in Samarra. What we have seen is a movement of Iraqi public opinion in the direction of civil war, people signing up with different militias. Again, most of that work was historical, looking at other, other civil wars. And what you find often is that there is a psychological dynamic to civil wars. When that takes hold, it becomes very hard to stop the snowball from rolling.
MR. RUSSERT: Michael Gerson, now that you've left the Bush White House, are, are you liberated to look back and say we made some huge fundamental misjudgments?
MR. GERSON: I think that's fair. I think initially they—the assumption was that Iraqi society—the pyramid of Iraqi society would stay together when the top was taken off the pyramid, and it didn't happen. And I agree with Ken, I think there should be planning going on right now for the worst. I think you should always plan for the worst. I think it's a different thing than to assume the worst and not give the, the current chance—plan a chance to even to go into effect.
MR. RUSSERT: Does the president accept the fact that significant, major misjudgments were made?
MR. GERSON: I think so. I mean, in the speech a few weeks ago he used the word failures. I think that that was very important. And I think that that's the reason we have a new leadership at the Pentagon, a new general in charge of it, a new strategy. And it's hard—it may be right, and it may be wrong, but it's not more of the same.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Vitter, you live in New Orleans. The president was down a few days after Katrina and gave a speech about what he was going to do. Let's listen.
SEN. VITTER: Right. Sure.
(Videotape, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 15, 2005)
President GEORGE W. BUSH: And tonight, I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know there is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The State of the Union message this year, not one mention of Katrina.
SEN. VITTER: Right. That was personally very disappointing to me, no two ways about it. Having said that, the real task is what the president supports in terms of funding and what we need on the Gulf Coast. So far, he's been keeping that commitment in terms of those concrete dollar and other issues. Now, we have huge continuing needs, and there'll be more needs, and so that is an ongoing test, if he's going to keep that commitment. But so far, in terms of real dollars, he's—and real help, he's kept it. We wouldn't have gotten the billions we've gotten in Louisiana through Congress without his leadership. His leadership pushed it through Congress. Now, again, that's an ongoing test, so we'll see.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you surprised there was no mention of Katrina?
MR. GERSON: A little bit. Those words haunt me a little bit, because I was involved in producing them. And it's a disappointing thing, the way that not just the administration but the, the Congress and the country have refused to confront the—a great reality here. We have two different Americas in, in—and that hurricane revealed it. And I don't think that's been taken as seriously as it needs to.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, "Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time," Let me read something you wrote and share it with our viewers and with our panel here as well. You say: "In 2004, [Republicans won] with eight words: War in Iraq. Cut taxes. No gay marriage. Those eight words sum up the reasons for George W. Bush's reelection. ...
"In 2006, Democrats did much better, ... but only because of Bush's mistakes.
We had our own eight words: No war in Iraq. No corruption. Bad economy.
"But these eight words did not describe our own vision; they were the negative image of the Republican message. ... In 2008, we will need to do more to persuade the Baileys," a fictional family from Long Island that you created in your mind and in your book, "to again trust the Democratic Party." You're suggesting you have a lot of candidates for president, but no platform.
SEN. SCHUMER: If we don't have a good, strong platform, even though we do have very strong candidates, it's going to greatly hurt our chances of winning in 2008. That was—that's my anguish, and that's why I wrote the book.
MR. RUSSERT: A, a, a press story in the New York Post described it this way, it was this headline, this is the Schumer book, "Schumer A Party Pooper; New Book: Dems 'Lost Touch' With Middle Class."
"In a revealing new book on politics, Senator Charles Schumer comes out with guns blazing—not at President Bush, but at his own Democratic Party.
"Schumer ... rips his party for being in the clutches of special-interest groups for too long and for losing touch with the middle class.
"'Washington Democrats too often took their cues from interest groups without considering the needs of the average person. ... Group identities around the country were less important, but those claiming to represent group interests in Washington were stronger than ever,' Schumer wrote."
Which special-interest groups?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, all of them. Left, right and center. I bring up, in my book, talk when I got to Congress in 1980, for instance, and that was—that was about crime was ripping apart my district. I come to Washington, and I find out that the ACLU is writing crime legislation, has a veto over any piece of crime legislation. Now, they should be at the table. Their views should be considered. But our job, whether we're Democrat or Republican, is not to just take what the interest groups want and just make it into legislation, it's to balance their needs against others'. I believe in the environment, but there's the issue of jobs. I believe in civil liberties, but there's the issue of security. And what both parties have done, Tim, is forgotten the average middle class voter—yes, I call them the Baileys, but they could be anybody—and instead paid too much attention to interest groups.
The good news for us, Tim, and we talk about this in the book, people have an inclination to support the Democrats. Joe and Eileen Bailey, this middle class couple, they bought into Reagan Republicanism in 1980. They were in great shape. "Get the government off my back. Get it out of the way." 2006, the world is different. We have terrorism, which we've talked about. Our—their kids in their schools have to compete against Chinese, kids in Chinese and Indian schools. We live a lot longer. Not only is that a problem for Medicare and Social Security, but how we live, getting married later, when and whether to have kids, all that leisure time. And for the first time, the Baileys are saying, "You know, I might need some government help." The party that comes up with a platform that adjusts all these major changes caused by technology to the Baileys' lives and, and, and helps them, doesn't supplant them, realizes they're doing OK, will be the majority party.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Vitter, the Republicans lost Congress in 2006. What does your party have to do to bounce back in '08?
SEN. VITTER: Well, we have to do the same thing, present a positive, proactive vision. I agree with Chuck, and it's a lesson for Republicans, too. I also agree with Chuck that that is a void on the Democratic side with regard to this debate. And I'll go back to what I said before, it's every senator's right to oppose a plan, including the president's plan, but I think it's also every senator's responsibility to be for a plan. The Biden resolution, the Warner resolution are not plans. They're opposition to a plan. So I think, to be responsible, we all have to put forward ideas with some specificity, and we all have to be for a plan because this country is in Iraq, not President Bush, and we need to move forward in a positive way.
MR. RUSSERT: Ken Pollack, right now there's anti-war fervor in the country, but if the troops did start coming out and all hell broke loose, a civil war, could the Democrats be in a weaker position in 2008?
MR. POLLACK: It certainly is possible, and this is one of the things that we need to confront when we're thinking about Iraq. And I think that all the Democratic candidates need to be thinking about that is, "Where do we wind up if there is a Democratic president taking over the White House in January of 2009? Is the situation better or worse?" You know, the problem with the situation that we've gotten ourselves into right now is that we have a tiger by the tail, and it's terrible to be on the tiger's back and it's also terrible to let go of the tiger's tail. But we've got to figure out how do we get to a position where we can at least deal with the problems that we've unleashed in Iraq. As we say, our hope is that some kind of containment strategy might offer a reasonable alterative. It will not be good for the Iraqi people. We need to keep that in mind. It will be a tragedy for the Iraqi people.
MR. RUSSERT: Mi—I'm sorry. Michael Gerson, some have suggested that the president just wants to buy time, hold on in Iraq, and then pass it off to the next president.
MR. GERSON: I don't think that's fair. I think the president has always been interested in victory, and he still talks about it in, in this case. I think victory—the standards of victory probably are a little lower right now. It—it's avoiding the worst. It's Ken—you know, Ken's approach.
MR. RUSSERT: When you see John Warner, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, begin to distance himself from the president's policy, if the surge doesn't work, can you envision a time in the fall where Republican senators go to see the president and say, "Mr. President, it didn't work. It's over"?
MR. GERSON: Well, I think even General Petraeus in his testimony talked about late summer as a very important point, break point. And I think that's what we're likely to see. The problem will come on the Republican side when it comes, and it—there has to be serious progress.
MR. RUSSERT: How will the president respond to that?
MR. GERSON: Well, I—you know, I—the president's a very determined man, as I—as I know. I think he'll try to do what's in the interest of the country, but it—it's gong to be a difficult moment if this plan, which I think in many ways is a final plan, doesn't get traction.
MR. RUSSERT: What will happen?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I think the bottom line is that the president will have no choice but to begin a withdrawal come this summer or fall of 2007. And that's why I think the 2008 election, Tim, is going to turn on a positive platform. That's what I've written...
MR. RUSSERT: Not Iraq.
SEN. SCHUMER: Not Iraq. I think we do have to discuss how to deal with the war on terror in the future. But I think that the president has shown so little veering from this plan, which is a disaster, that by 2000--early 2008, even he is going to be forced to withdraw troops from Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: We shall see. Chuck Schumer, the book is "Positively American." Thank you, and to the Baileys. Senator Vitter, thank you, Ken Pollack, Michael Gerson. And we'll be right back.
MR. RUSSERT: That's all for today. Next Sunday our MEET THE CANDIDATES series returns for 2008. The Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, John Edwards, who is leading the crowded field in recent Iowa polls, will be our exclusive guest. That's John Edwards, right here next week.
If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.


text:
Im back, after my pics from last year about Gingerbread, I now have some tasty treats, Ice Cream Sandwich These come from a Nexus S running a build of Ice Cream Sandwich, this is a very reliable source and I guarantee the authenticity. as of now, we know ICS is still very early in the works and not 100% functional, so don't expect to see it coming out next month or anytime soon. We also blacked out some parts of the images to protect the identity of our source.
Some features of ICS that we know (from our source and speculation):
And here is what you've been waiting for, don't forget to check out our buddies at Android Police for the other two! :
(had to give cred to RootzWiki, its my Android Home)
|Posted in Mobile | No Comments »
There are no comments yet for this post.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Inside Athletics
- Tickets
- Fan Zone
- Media Zone
- Social
- Shop
- Donate Now
ORANGEBURG, S.C. (Feb. 25, 2012) – The ETSU women's tennis team went up against an undefeated South Carolina State squad on Saturday at the SCSU Tennis Court and became the Lady Bulldogs' sixth victim of the season in a 5-2 loss.
The day was highlighted by freshman Jessica Brumit (Elizabethton, Tenn.) who won her second-consecutive match by defeating Laura Bosneag 6-4, 7-6 (7-4) at No. 6 singles, and senior Marine Wieliczko (Rouen, France) who broke her three-match losing streak in a straight-set victory, 6-2, 6-3, against Akilah James in the No. 2 match.
"Although we lost today, I feel it was a match that could have gone either way," ETSU assistant coach Travis Sandlant said. "If we just find a way to bring it all together on the same day, it'll be a different story."
"Brumit had a great weekend and if she keeps working as hard as she is now then she will be tough to beat at her spot."
ETSU (1-4) has now lost four-consecutive road matches, and will try to put the month of February behind it after ending the month without a win. Meanwhile, SCSU (6-0) kept its hopes for an undefeated season alive. The Lady Bulldogs have now defeated four Atlantic Sun schools this season, having defeated Stetson (Feb. 17), USC Upstate (Feb. 12) and Jacksonville (Feb. 4) in their season opener.
The day started at 11 a.m., with SCSU taking two of three doubles matches to walk away with the first point. James and Maria Craciun earned the Lady Bulldogs a point at No. 1 doubles by defeating seniors Paula Jaime (Madrid, Spain) and Karina Kedzo (Puerto Ordaz, Venezulea) 8-3. SC State's other victory came at No. 2 doubles with Sabrina Mendez and Suhaila Jad winning against sophomore Giulia Andreazza (Balneario Camboriu, Brazil) and junior Diana Navrostska (Lviv, Ukraine) by the same score, 8-3. The Bucs avoided the sweep as Wieliczko and Brumit handled No. 3 doubles in a 8-5 victory against Victoria Khatcei and Katarina Barborikova.
Five of the six singles points were settled in straight sets, with only Navrostska and Khatcei pushing the No. 5 singles match to three sets. After dropping the first set, Navrostska rebounded to win the second in a tiebreak but did not sustain the momentum in a 6-2, 6-7, 6-4 battle. SCSU also grabbed the No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 singles matches, as Jaime, Andreazza, freshman Kelsey Williams (Sunbury, Australia) and Navrostska all fell in straight sets. The closest match came at No. 1 singles with Jaime dropping two close sets to Jad, 7-6, 7-5.
The ETSU women's tennis team will end its five-match road swing next Thursday when it travels to Asheville, N.C. to take on UNC Asheville at 2 p.m.
For more information on ETSU tennis, please visit ETSUBucs.com and click on the tennis links.


text:
Zion National Park | Watchman Campground
Type: STANDARD NONELECTRIC
Enter dates to check availability
All campsites (except group sites and sites B018 a/b/c and B053 a/b/c) allow a maximum of TWO TENTS.
You can have a maximum of TWO TENTS at this campsite. No recreational vehicles 19' and over or in combined vehicle length. This includes pop-up trailers, camper trailers, motor-homes, some large camper vans and most cab-overs. NO EXCEPTIONS. "Upgrading" to a larger site is not possible. No generators.


text:
We'd rather you put some effort into your drawings.
We'd rather you put some effort into your drawings.
Please try something more original next time. And if you do copy something don't copy it from Taeshi.
Running sausages.
The style is cute (who doesn't love sausages?) but people were mostly peeved about your originality.
And who cares if they were peeved? It's your work, and if your proud of it, then no other damn person's opinion should matter so much to stop you from showcasing your steps into being an artist. Or a better drawer.
the first thing that came to mind was "lets all go to the lobby" music... don't ask...


text:
Kverneland iXter A
The new mounted sprayer with tank volumes of 800, 1000 and 1200 litres. There are two different boom types available the HOSA (12 and 15 metres) and HC (18, 20 and 21 metres).
HighlightsEasy to hitch and unhitch Optimal weight balance with a close gravity point Fully integrated concept – Easy to operate Different iXclean priming and rinsing systems
The Power of Simplicity!
The iXter A will be added to the Kverneland mounted field sprayer range. The iXter A is available with 800, 1000 and 1200 litre tank capacity in combination with two different boom types: the HOSA aluminium spray boom (12-15m) and the HC boom (18-20-21m). Pumps are available with capacities of 100, 150 and 200 l/min. The iXter A is an easy to operate sprayer with the control panel, chemical inductor, hand wash tank and clean cloth locker all on the same side of the sprayer. Operation can be made via the easy-to-use FlowMate Control spray computer.
HC 18-20-21m Vertical Folding Steel Boom
The new generation HC booms is a multi-talented spray boom range. The triangular steel construction allows high speed even in very difficult conditions. The boom is extremely strong and reliable. Using Domex steel for the boom it became stronger, but lighter to contribute to the lower weight of the machine.
HOSA 12 and 15m "Z" folding Aluminium Boom
The HOSA is a unique boom having an advanced Z-folding principle: the lateral movement enables you to quickly reduce boom width and pass obstacles in the field. The aluminium profile is designed for maximum resistance. No welding provides remarkable strength, the anodised hardened surface protects against scratches and corrosion.
- Fully Integrated Concept
It is easy to operate the iXter A sprayer with the control panel, chemical inductor, hand wash tank and clean cloth locker all on the same side of the sprayer. Nobody would expect all these functions so easily to hand. Better protection and integration is simply not possible.
- Optimal Weight Balance
The gravity point is close to the tractor for a maximum weight transfer. Still there is enough space to connect the PTO shaft and the hydraulic and electric cables.
- Control Panel
The control panel makes life easy by its intuitive operation. The controls are separated to a suction and a pressure side. The control panel is located at the left side of the sprayer.
- Easy Operation
The graduated chemical inductor with a capacity of 30 litres is mounted on a pivoting point and fully integrated in the frame. The rotating canister cleaning nozzle releases the water when pushed downwards. The circular rinsing system is no add on: it is part of the design! The sprayer can be cleaned in the field with water from the clean water tank. An outside cleaning set is optional available. Everything is also available to keep your hands clean. Easy access to fill the tank via the opening in the cover. You can wash your hands via the hand wash tap. External aspirated water is filtered first by the filter on the hose and then by the suction filter. In parallel you can already use the chemical inductor to add and premix chemicals.
FlowMate Control FMC: Basic Spray Computer
- Extremely simple to operate
- Very compact by integration of all spraying and hydraulic functions
- Integrated nozzle advice
- Field memory for 25 different fields
The iXter B mounted sprayer is 100% ISOBUS compatible as standard, which means easy plug and play with the IsoMatch Tellus GO+ or PRO or any other AEF certified terminal. The innovative iXspray hardware and software with intuitive touch interface guarantees an user friendly operation of the sprayer. iXspray is full of nice features to make the operators life easy, save time and avoid mistakes in a busy working season, for example pre-sets for spray jobs and boom configuration can be configured easily.
- ENviromental FOcus (ENFO)
ENFO priming and rinsing is standard on all our spray computers. This smart technology optimizes filling and cleaning of the spray lines. Accurate application, no waste of chemicals and saving water are the benefits for you and your environment.
- Rotating level indicator
A rotating level indicator provides the actual tank volume.
- Starguide IV
Those who have used it will never go back. Starguide IV will change your spraying days forever: spray around the headland and the Starguide IV will control the spray sections automatically as you can cover the remainder of the field.
- Parking frame
A parking frame is available for easy hitching and storage of the sprayer.
- Filling
The optional 2 inch hydrant filling device allows filling under pressure at high capacity. A GEKA adapter for 1 inch filling is optional available. For external filling a 1.5 inch suction hose is optional available. If 2 inch filling is required a camlock adapter can be ordered.
Technical specifications
Technical specificationsDownload brochure
iXter A
Nominal tank capacity
800 (l)
1000 (l)
1200 (l)
Maximum tank capacity
965 (l)
1185 (l)
1395 (l)
Chemical inductor
30 (l)
Clean water tank
130 (l)
Hand wash tank
18 (l)
100/150/200 (l/min)
Regulation System
FMC spray computer


text:
Intercity Buses and Trains
In the three countries with the longest and traditionally largest HSR networks –
Japan, Germany, and France – there is no large intercity bus network, with government regulations against the development of one. The US and Canada are in somewhat of the opposite situation – intercity buses are legal, but intercity trains are subject to a variety of regulations and operating practices raising operating costs so much that outside the thickest corridors they might as well be illegal. The best situation is in South Korea, which has well-developed networks of both buses and trains; the result is that on the Seoul-Daegu and Seoul-Busan city pairs, buses have 7-8% of the market and trains 67%.
On top of that, the express buses in North America do not get very high mode share. I've seen no reliable numbers, but when I looked at Megabus and Bolt schedules on the largest city pairs, the two carriers combined were about even with Amtrak, whose mode share on the entire NEC is 6% according to the Vision.
So why is Cap'n Transit suddenly telling us to love the bus (though he rejects the loaded term "love the bus") and advocate for more investment into bus stations at various locations around the metro area? Doctrinaire libertarians have the excuse that the kind of regulations they are used to thinking of are the French regulations against domestic competition with rail and not the FRA's safety rules. But the Cap'n of course knows exactly how pernicious FRA rules are. Since he thinks in terms of activist energy as the primary resource to manage, and not the government's budget, this could be taken as a desperation at any attempt to reform Amtrak and the FRA.
But more likely, this comes from the fact that many intercity bus supporters fought (and lost) regulations against curbside pickups, which are the way Megabus, Bolt, and others could serve New York without paying for space at Port Authority, imitating the practices of the older Chinatown buses.
The immediate trigger for thinking where to place bus stops then is the impending loss of curbside space. Since buses are in many ways intermediate between cars and trains in terms of capacity and the point-to-point versus hub-and-spoke tradeoff, a bus expansion then has to mean finding more and more places to pick up. A legacy train station will run out of running line capacity long before it runs out of station track capacity, but a curbside bus stop uses valuable urban space and a bus station can and does run out of space.
And this is where buses stop being too useful. Frequency is freedom. Because the bus operators compete with one another, passengers need to be ticketed on a specific company, and that already cuts into frequency. On top of that, unlike trains, buses have a very large stop penalty, since they need to get off the highway and into the city. New York-Washington trains make intermediate stops in Philadelphia; express buses don't. Even with dominant CBD stations, the frequency on the buses in the Northeast isn't great: from New York, Bolt offers half-hourly service from to Philadelphia, hourly service to Boston, and less than hourly service to each of Baltimore and Washington, and all four city pairs have one dominant stop pair; Megabus frequency is hourly to Boston and hourly with a half-hourly peak to the other three.
Adding more stops means diluting this less-than-great frequency even further. It would work if bus stops were consolidated and people could buy one ticket good on any company, but the business model that has reduced ticket prices is probably not compatible with such cooperation. It would also work if the market share were 67%, but it isn't and never will be.
The other problem is that people have not just origins but also destinations – and those destinations cluster in the CBDs, and the more the passenger is willing to pay, the likelier it is they'll be traveling to the CBD. A train run from Woodside or Newark to New York will be full in one direction and empty in the other; the reason those trains can make money (they don't in New York, but do in Tokyo, which is as CBD-dominant) is that they're so full in the peak direction it makes up for lower reverse-peak occupancy. For intercity travel, this is harder. High-speed rail can make a profit on these asymmetric intercity runs because it's so fast that it can cut costs that depend on travel time and not distance, such as operator wages, dispatcher wages, and some train maintenance. Buses don't have that luxury, and need to be full in both directions, which favors CBD-to-CBD runs, or runs between neighborhoods that are likely to be destinations as well as origins (such as Chinatown-to-Chinatown runs).
Trains are unique among common-carrier transportation modes in that service uses corridors and not points. They are similar to cars this way: I-95 and the Northeast Corridor serve many overlapping city pairs. Bus services do not have this advantage, because the nature of an expressway network is such that they have to deviate to make a station stop, and in the largest cities this deviation is considerable; it can take an hour for a bus to navigate New York's streets. This makes them more point-to-point, like planes, and on a corridor with four large cities on one line, this is much less efficient.
In general, I think a lot of the pro-bus attitude among liberals and general transit activists (as opposed to libertarians, who I will address in a future post) amounts to defeatism. We will never be able to improve government to the point that trains have high mode share, so let's downgrade service. We will never be like France or Germany or Switzerland or Japan, so let's import practices from China and Scotland.
Transit activists for the most part have not only political but also personal preferences for travel by transit. When I visited Buffalo, I took the Empire Service instead of flying. This creates a skewed impression for what's good; to me, the Empire Service is a semi-useful service, even as to the average traveler it might as well not be there. If the existing service is straightforwardly a worse version of good service – such as a commuter train that should run faster and more frequently, or an intercity train that should be HSR – this is not a problem. But if it is different – such as a bus where a train is more appropriate, a light rail or dedicated subway line where an S-Bahn is appropriate, or even a rapid transit line in the wrong type of neighborhood – then the activism can be in a wrong direction.
The problem is that the 80-90% of travelers who drive are not currently agitating for the mode of transit most likely to get them to switch. Like transit users, they have at least to some extent made their peace with their current mode's deficiency, and if anything they will demand more highway expansions even on corridors where transit is much more useful for the same cost. But we can take a step back and look at case studies from peer first-world countries and see that buses have mode shares in the single digits while trains can dominate corridors in the Northeast Corridor distance range.


text:
Well, the carol muzak fills the air of the arcades and promenades (with a muzakal rendition of O Tannenbaum, better known to these Brit ears as The Red Flag—"The people's flag is deepest red / It shrouded oft our martyr'd dead"–on heavy rotation), the rightist soundtrucks blare out martial songs in the background as I write this as they rehearse for the Emperor's birthday on December 23, and snatches of the fourth movement ("Alle Menschen werden Brüder") of Beethoven's Ninth, a hardy perennial Yuletide favorite in Japan, emanate from television and radio.
All of this can only mean one thing: it's time to inaugurate a new tradition, at grave risk of coming across somewhere between an Oscar acceptance speech and a sherried-up great-aunt's photocopied Christmas circular, and send out season's greetings to all. Writing in the contemporary world is, for me at least, a daunting affair—with 100,000 books published annually in the US, another 100,000 published in the UK, some 200 million and mounting blogs in the blogosphere, and half of all US teens describing themselves as "content creators", why would anyone waste their precious time on my witterings, I often wonder to myself, so I'm simply and straightforwardly grateful to everyone who stops by, in particular to Spike's 300-odd e-mail subscribers, who hail from places as diverse as Hanoi and Prague (with a big shout-out to the sizeable Alberta/British Columbia contingent), its 100-odd Twitter followers, and especially to everyone who takes the trouble to leave a comment.
Us bloggers are narcissistic, solipsistic, frequently deluded folk, filled with self-doubt—in short, we're human—so we care deeply about our stats—our clicks, our hits, our comment counts—and at the business end of a fine WordPress blog, at least, we can obsess unhealthily over them in quite some detail. It was with a rush of delight, for instance, that I discovered last month that Spike had notched up its quarter millionth hit. Not much compared to the Benjy the skateboarding dog video at YouTube, I bemoaned to a friend, who caustically and rightly replied that Benjy brings far more joy to the world than I do.
Spike began the year with the quotation "By God," says he, "I think the Devil shits Dutchmen" and ended with the phrase "harsher winds blowing in the heartland". In between, I somehow managed to scrawl out 24 posts—another novella length's worth of ramblings—about everything under the Japanese sun from alienation to orb-weaver spiders. As Spike, my alter-ego, the year brought one particular personal highlight, at a farewell party—no shortage of them this year, as foreigners fled—at the rooftop poolside of the swanky Tokyo American Club, where the host introduced me as "Spike Japan" to coos of recognition and approval, as well as friendly admonitions not to slacken the pace and disappoint my "fans". So once again, thank you all—I simply wouldn't have kept on writing without you.
Ah, I almost forgot—the photos. They're fresh off the roll, taken yesterday on a wild-goose, needle-in-a-haystack mission to the summer resort of Karuizawa in Nagano Prefecture with my old friend Dr. W—, associate professor of Japanese history at W— University. The mission was to find this mountain lodge, in amongst fifteen hundred others like it, in a half-shambolic, half-spruce besso holiday home resort called Lake New Town, where entry by outsiders is an act of trespass and the now icy roads make driving treacherous.
No one wants this lodge to be found—no signs guide the way, no memorial plinth stands nearby, no "X" marks the spot. This is no ordinary lodge though, but the Asama Sanso, where on February 19, 1972, nigh on forty years ago, five members of the United Red Army forced their way in, took the caretaker's wife hostage, and held off the police in a bloody siege that lasted ten days and left two cops and a bystander dead. The United Red Army had started the winter of 1971/2 a platoon 29 strong, but at its Haruna Base, just over the prefectural border in Gunma, had succumbed to an orgy of internecine strife and lynch-mob justice that left 12 of its acolytes dead through starvation, exposure, and asphyxiation for imaginary thought-crimes that span the gamut from "defeatism", the offence of the first to die, Michio Ozaki (22), to "bureaucratism" and "theoreticism", the offences of the last, Takashi Yamada (27). As the dragnet closed in, the ringleaders and other members were nabbed; five escaped on foot across the border to Nagano, and so began the siege of the Asama Sanso.
It was a strange stand-off: the besieged paid no heed to the police and made no demands of their own. The lodge was stocked with provisions aplenty, and once the only entrance, on the top floor, had been barricaded, it was turned into a nigh on impregnable fortress. Nothing on the police side worked, not even the 150 tonnes of water rained down, the 1,500 rounds of tear gas fired, the all-night barrages of noise, and the megaphoned pleas of anguished relatives. The siege was marked by moments of macabre comedy: the besiegers' bento meals froze in the frigid cold before they could be doled out and the police were forced to rely on then just-invented Cup Noodles for sustenance. A scheme to destroy the top floor with a wrecking ball had to be aborted after the operator of the improvised armored crane kicked the battery terminal from its moorings in the cramped cabin.
On the 10th day, the police stormed the lodge; it took over eight hours to find and subdue the five fugitives. If the incident spelt the end of ultra-radical left as a force with which to be reckoned , it marked the dawn of the age of live outside broadcasts and saturation coverage of breaking news—the peak audience rating of 90% on the last day of the seige has never been matched before or since in Japanese television history.
At the time of the siege the lodge belonged to a maker of musical instruments. Astonishingly, it was not demolished but renovated and extended, passing through several owners before ending up a few years back in the possession of a motorcycle design firm, which goes some of the way to explaining the sign in peeling green and fractured French by the front door: "C'est l'espace pour les menbres et amis de moto". In February this year, it was bought by a Japan-registered company with a Chinese name and probable Hong Kong connections, to predictable howls of outrage from the right, enraged that the Maoist-tinged United Red Army should have the last—for now—laugh as ownership passes into the hands of the sons and daughters of Mao. What the Chinese plan to with it is anyone's guess—it's hard to imagine anyone who knows their history spending a restful night in a place so abustle with ghosts.
Of the five fugitives, one, Kunio Bando, was released in 1975 after the Japanese Red Army stormed the US and Swedish embassies in Kuala Lumpur and took 52 hostages; he remains at large. One, Motohisa Kato, was just 16 years old at the time of the incident, and went largely scot-free. His older brother, Michinori, was sentenced to 13 years; he is now a farmer and active in the Wild Bird Society of Japan. Masakuni Yoshino was sentenced to life for the murder of 17 people and remains behind bars. Hiroshi Sakaguchi, "number three" in the United Red Army, was sentenced to hang and remains on death row, four decades on—a cruel and unusual punishment if ever there was one.
Well, you wouldn't have wanted a beaming Santa and his grinning little elvish helpers on a Christmas card from me now, would you? All the best for the year ahead, thanks again, and please drop by, if you have the time to spare, in 2012.


text:
A few months ago, my pitch to Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) for their GAP funding program was turned down. I actually thought I had a fighting chance, having worked with the good folks there before and produced a plan that set the stage for their first $100k GAP disbursement. But my app-in-progress CHALLENJ was turned down, for, among other things, "We are unsure about your ability to monetize the site." Gee, I thought — I had scoped out several alternatives . . . one of them should surely yield.
What I said was, "The revenue is, of course, dependent on my ability to acquire millions of users." And what they heard was "I don't really care about revenue." Like the classic cartoon, listening, understanding — and in the case of investors, believing — are often completely different things.
I had built a financial model — I love building models — that suggested revenue somewhere between $10M and $20M was achievable in Year 3. (Maybe I should have given them an interactive model or web toolkit, that would let them dial in their own scenario.)
But truth be told, my focus was primarily on getting users. I was willing to bet on our ability to do so, and that's fine for founders . . . but for CIT (and others), the risk was too high — certainly to place a $100,000 bet.
(Incidentally, I still recommend applying for GAP funding — it's a relatively easy application, and structured as a convertible note, avoids issues surrounding valuation, which can be very touchy these days.)
The conclusion I soon reached — months before the economy flip-flopped — was to build and launch before resuming the quest for investment. (Now pretty much a fait accompli for any web start-up.)
Launchbox Digital co-founder (and most recently, Thummit co-founder) Sean Greene suggested an alternative at BarCampDC2 last week: sustainability with small numbers: "VCs need things to be big — you don't. You might be perfectly happy with 10,000 paying customers. And if so, you don't need a VC."
Point well taken. For that matter, maybe you don't even need angel financing.
In a recent BusinessWeek story, New York Angels chairman David Rose — and several others — remarked they'd like to see self-sufficiency on the initial investment. Jeez Louise, how many businesses can get to self-sufficiency on a couple hundred thousand bucks?
Maybe it's my upbringing. My first venture-funded company was in the computer-chip business. Talk about a leap-of-faith investment — money comes in, and a year or two later, you hope to have a working product, a receptive customer base, and good market conditions. In that world, there are only two qualifications for investment: 1) the pedigree of the team; and 2) the gut of the VC.
Google was a gut investment; the founders were super-smart, but still in school. Twitter had a mix of both — the founders had proven their smarts and ability to execute with Blogger, which was acquired by Google in 2003; but well before the meme had proven itself with the masses (some say it has yet a ways to go) a few VCs — notably Union Square Ventures' Fred Wilson and Spark Capital's Bijan Sabet, were also trusting their instincts that Twitter was not destined to be another PointCast. They believed instead they were on the very brink of a phenomenon . . . even without a revenue model.
Recently, a bit of tempest in a teapot brewed around a comment USV's Wilson made about Twitter, as reported in a Wired blog:
"œIt's like the stupidest question in the world: How's Twitter going to make money?," said Union Square Ventures' Fred Wilson, another investor. "It's like 'How was Google going to make money?'
Wilson subsequently apologized for being snippy, but I knew what he meant. Throughout my startup career, I rarely worried about revenue models — the hardware companies of course made products to be sold, so the only concern there was could we sell thingies for more than it cost us to build them. But even in the software and Internet companies, there was a general belief in the notion that if we produce something people use, we'll figure out a way to make money.
It may all be moot, because most of you are probably thinking more about sustainable revenue models than ever before.
Call me crazy . . . but I'm still a fan of go big, or go home.
In any case, we believe in our ideas, exuberant (if not irrational) as ever. And we remind ourselves that, as David Hornik, of August Capital has said: "One VC's next Google is another's wasted hour."
Which is why I continue talking to VCs. And in fulfilling my personal mission to improve the VC-entrepreneur dialog, I've organized my first OpenCoffee, where we'll have two local VCs in attendance. Join us, if you can, for some stimulating discussion!


text:
Recent Posts
Tag Archives: dress down
My M&S Summer Haul!
Tops and Crops – Pumps and Purses I hate baring my legs in the summer so as an alternative I love wearing cropped trousers, casual or smart, depending on the occasion. You can dress them up or down, with … Continue reading
Posted in FAB Fashion, The FAB Company Tagged cardigan, casual, Cropped Trousers, dress down, dress up, fashion, fashion haul, flats, handbags, jacket, marks and spencer, pumps, purses, shoes, smart, summer, summer clothers, sunny, Tops, weather Leave a comment


text:
How can we use math to answer some of our most basic questions? Mathematician and writer Jordan Ellenberg is here today to take our questions about everyday mathematics, how to teach math literacy, and the hidden math of our world.
Ellenberg's new book, How Not To Be Wrong: The Power Of Mathematical Thinking, looks at the mathematical underpinnings of our world and how we can use math to answer everything from how much extra time you should give yourself to catch a flight to how to watch baseball.
Ellenberg has both a PhD in math from Harvard University and a Masters in fiction writing from Johns Hopkins University. He's a professor of mathematics at The University of Wisconsin at Madison, where his mathematical research focuses on number theory and algebraic geometry. He has also published a novel, The Grasshopper King.
He will be joining us today from 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (Pacific time). Ask him whatever you want about mathematical literacy and what we're doing wrong in math education, number theory, the world of everyday mathematics, and what we can do to better understand it all.
Image: Carol M. Highsmith / Library of Congress.


text:
It looks like you're visiting us from outside Sweden
It looks like you're visiting us from outside Sweden
Footwear is an integral part of country clothing and we have a huge selection to choose from. Hunter is the number one choice when it comes to wellingtons, with an extensive selection, ranging from the classic Original Tall Boot in every colour imaginable to the fashion range which features some quirky designs such as the high heeled Fulbrooke Boot. Aside from wellies, we have some lovely boots as well as a small selection of pumps which are great for warmer days.
Make a statement with our collection of footwear from favourite brands including Hunter, Dr Martens, Ted Baker, Grenson, UGG and many more. From suave dress shoes to practical wellington boots, our new collections will see you stepping out in style.Shop Now


text:
Proliant DL145 G3 Overview
HP ProLiant DL145 Generation 3 (G3)
Standard Features
NOTE: For a brief, printer friendly data sheet
that describes this product and informs you of the essential capabilities and
specifications, please visit: https://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-8885ENW.pdf
NOTE: For the Standard Features shipped in the "Factory Integrated
Models", please see the "Configuration Information - Factory Integrated
Models" section.
The HP eCo-Enterprise Configurator now provides factory default racking
for our HP hardware portfolio. This approach is aligned with our strategic
direction to meet the needs and expectations of our valued customers.
If you require "custom" rack configuration, please contact HP's
Customer Business Center or an Authorized Partner for assistance.
HP Care Pack Services provide total care and support expertise with committed
response designed to meet your IT and business needs.
HP Care Pack services include coverage for the HP branded hardware options qualified for the server that are purchased at the same time or afterward and internal to the enclosure. It also includes the 22" and smaller external monitors and tower UPS options up to 3kVA. These items will be covered at the same service level and for the same coverage period as the server. Coverage of UPS Battery is not included and standard warranty terms & conditions apply. For servers or storage systems installed within a rack, service also covers all HP qualified rack options installed within the same rack.
To fully capitalize on your HP ProLiant servers' capabilities requires a service partner who thoroughly understands your server technology and systems environment. HP Services, an industry leader in provision of multi vender support solutions provides a range of support services designed to meet the varying needs of business. Whether an SMB or large global corporation HP has a ProLiant server support offer to help you speedily deploy and maximize system uptime.
Recommended Service - Simplify ProLiant solution implementation,
maintenance and management.
Enhanced Service - Optimize service level to increase IT performance
and availability
Installation & Start-Up of a ProLiant server and Microsoft or Linux O/S per the Customer Description and/or Data Sheet. To be delivered on a scheduled basis 8am-5pm, M-F, excl. HP holidays.
For a complete listing of service offerings and information visit:
HPC Interconnects
GHz 2 GB (1P) 411593-001
HP DL145G3 2210 HE 1.8 GHz 1 GB (1P)
HP DL145G3 2220 2.8 GHz 4 GB (1P) 440719-001 HP DL145G3
2218 2.6 GHz 4 GB (1P) 411599-001
HP DL145G3 2214 HE 2.2 GHz
Configuration Information - Factory Integrated Models
NOTE: This section lists some of the steps required to configure a Factory
Integrated Model. To ensure only valid configurations are ordered, HP recommends
the use of an HP approved configurator. Contact your local sales representative
for additional information. Contact your local sales representative for information
on CTO product offerings and requirements. NOTE: HP does not allow
factory integration of options into standard models listed above. Configure-to-order
servers must start with a CTO Chassis. NOTE: This product offering
does not support HP Factory Express Server Configuration Level 1. NOTE:
FIO indicates that this option is a Factory Installable Option.
Memory (DIMMs)
HP StorageWorks D2D130 Backup System
NOTE: 3TB of Disk Storage.
HP StorageWorks D2D130 Backup System with Data Protector Express Software Kit
NOTE: 3TB of Disk Storage.
HP StorageWorks D2D130 Backup System with LTO-3 Ultrium 920 SAS Tape Drive
NOTE: 3TB of Disk Storage.
Following are memory options
available from HP:
Drive Support
Quantity Supported
Position Supported
Up to 1
Integrated IDE (ATAPI)
DL145 G3 Hard Drives
Up to 2
Embedded SATA Controller
For an up-to-date listing of the latest O/S Support details for each of the
Tape Drives listed below, please see the following: https://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/north_america/10233.html
For complete listing of tape drive offerings see https://www.hp.com/products1/storage/compatibility/tapebackup/ISS/index.html
For recommended tape drive offerings for this ProLiant server see the following:
HP StorageWorks D2D
Backup Systems D2D110 D2D120 D2D130
Power Specifications
Relative Humidity
L WAd (BELS)
L WAd (BELS)
L WAd (BELS)
Hewlett-Packard offers end-of-life HP product return, trade-in, and recycling
programs in many geographic areas. For trade-in information, please go to: https://www.hp.com/go/green.
To recycle your product, please go to: https://www.hp.com/go/green
or contact your nearest HP sales office. Products returned to HP will be recycled,
recovered or disposed of in a responsible manner.
The EU WEEE directive
(2002/95/EC) requires manufacturers to provide treatment information for each
product type for use by treatment facilities. This information (product disassembly
instructions) is posted on the Hewlett Packard web site at: https://www.hp.com/go/green.
These instructions may be used by recyclers and other WEEE treatment facilities
as well as HP OEM customers who integrate and re-sell HP equipment.


text:
In his review of The Hobbit, David Edelstein wrote: "How nice it would be to weigh in on Peter Jackson's The Hobbit without having to lament its newfangled double-speed 3-D 48-frames-per-second projection rate, which must be seen to be disbelieved." (The Hobbit was shot at 48 FPS, as opposed to 24 FPS, which has been the cinema standard for a century. Jackson did this because 48 FPS offers a much sharper image that more mimics how we see the real world. It will only be shown at 48 FPS in certain theaters, though, and only in 3D. The majority of theaters will show it in a 24 FPS version.) Edelstein's is a negative sentiment implicitly echoed by essentially every single film critic, who all strived to come up with the perfect way to explain why 48 FPS was so problematic. (Read also our conversation with a professor of optometry and vision science and a professor of computer science and engineering about why scientifically it's so problematic.) And yet, they often landed on similar analogies. Here is a rundown of the most common comparisons.
Video Games
"At first, in the Smaug battle, I thought I was watching a video game: pellucid pictures of indistinct creatures." – Time
"One thing The Hobbit is not is a celebration of the beauty of film. A celebration of video-game realms, perhaps." – Philadelphia Inquirer
"There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes." – ReelViews
"Available for viewing only in select cinemas in major cities (the rest will feature a standard 24-frame presentation), this 'high-frame rate' Hobbit features exceptionally sharp, plasticine images the likes of which we might never have seen on a movie screen before, but which do resemble what we see all the time on our HD television screens, whether it's Sunday Night Football, Dancing With the Stars, or a game of Grand Theft Auto. (Indeed, most TVs now have a menu setting that can, if you so desire, lend this look to everything you watch—a setting appropriately christened by some gearheads as the 'soap opera effect.')" – Village Voice
"The 3-D film will be presented in select theaters at 48 frames per second — twice the normal rate — an innovation that renders images as unnaturally crisp and clear as an over-amped hi-def LED screen." – Minneapolis Star Tribune
"Depending on lighting, backgrounds and other factors, it can deliver that sheen that one associates with bizarrely calibrated HD displays in big-box stores." – MSN
"Audiences looking for a rich, textured, cinematic experience will be put off and disconcerted by an image that looks more like an advanced version of high definition television than a traditional movie." – L.A. Times
"It was still like watching a very expensively mounted live TV show on the world's largest home TV screen."— Time
"Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it, from painted sets to prosthetic noses. The unpleasant effect is similar to watching a movie on a new HD home-theater monitor, shadows obliterated by blinding light – yikes! – reality TV." – Rolling Stone
"The clarity creates a sense of hyper-reality that reminded me of the first time I saw an LED TV." – The Dallas Morning News
"The rest of us will be reminded of high-definition television — better known, in my household, as a reason to avoid viewing films on TV, unless they contain characters named Woody and Buzz." – The New Yorker
"The immediacy of the actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction. Staginess does nothing for a fantasy-film epic … the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings trilogy having been replaced by something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater." – David Edelstein, New York
"The Hobbit in the 48 format resembles an incredibly high-definition simulcast of "The Metropolitan Opera Live from Middle-earth." – Chicago Tribune
"At 48 frames, the film is more true to life, sometimes feeling so intimate it's like watching live theater. That close-up perspective also brings out the fakery of movies. Sets and props look like phony stage trappings at times, the crystal pictures bleaching away the painterly quality of traditional film." – Associated Press
"While striking in some of the big spectacle scenes, predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film an oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home." – The Hollywood Reporter
"Instead of the romantic illusion of film, we see the sets and makeup for what they are. The effect is like stepping into a diorama alongside the actors, which is not as pleasant as it might sound." – Minneapolis Star Tribune
"The high frame rate, or HFR, version of The Hobbit has such crystalline, videolike clarity that it reduces everything and everybody to mere props and actors. Swords lack heft, the castles look like dioramas." – Newsday
"Watching 48fps is a bit disconcerting at first, a bit like gazing at a high-definition TV showing a live theatre presentation." – Toronto Star
Home Movie
"Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end home movie." – Variety
"The best way I can think to describe the quality of the 48fps image in The Hobbit is this: It looks like an '80s-era home video shot by someone who happened to be standing around on set while The Hobbit was being filmed." – Slate
"Instead of feeling like we've been transported to Middle-earth, it's as if we've dropped in on Jackson's New Zealand set, trapped in an endless 'making of' documentary, waiting for the real movie to start." – Village Voice
"The technique seems more suited to a documentary about the making of the movie than a whimsically inventive tale." – USA Today
"HD has the unfortunate effect of turning every film into what appears to be a documentary about a film set, not just warts-and-all but carefully supplying extra warts where a wart has no right to be." – The New Yorker
"Over all, though, the shiny hyper-reality robs Middle-earth of some of its misty, archaic atmosphere, turning it into a gaudy high-definition tourist attraction." – New York Times
"The best single description of which came in a tweet from Salon contributor Bob Calhoun: It looks like Jehovah's Witness art." — Salon
"More than anything, it resembles an insanely high-end Masterpiece Theatre production: I, Claudius with a big budget and endless banks of computers." – Boston Globe
"Other visual analogues scribbled down in my screening notes include Teletubbies and daytime soap operas." – Slate