Hari&&MakeUp?? Pics!! | Yahoo Answers
May 22, 2015
And by hair I do mean cuts and colours, as you can see im open to different colours. So i’d like some funky make up tips too!!
Ok so im looking for new hair and make up ideas so if you have any thoughts at all let me know..
Oh I almost forgot, make up wise; I tend to just put black eye liner on both top and bottom lids, with a light eye shadow plus mascera.. =]=] .
Yeah I know the pics are weird, but I didnt ask if I was pretty now did I.. red/blonde http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w88/iluvsparkyubermuch/23102006010.jpg
prettie blonde http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w88/i…
blonde http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w88/i… So be creative, please =]
Hacking by China not necessarily a “hostile act” â CNN Security Clearance
May 21, 2015
Asked what he would consider a hostile act, Dempsey said “attacking our critical infrastructure” would be a act worthy of a similar response.
But Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee where he was testifying that he cannot attribute the Chinese hacking to China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army.
Graham noted he was about to lunch with the Vice President of China who is in the U.S.
Asked by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina if it could be proven that the PLA was behind a hacking of the defense infrastructure, would it be considered a “hostile act,” Dempsey said it wasn’t necessarily.
By Adam Levine
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he “believe(s) someone in China is hacking into our systems and stealing technology and intellectual property which at this point is a crime.”
The U.S. this week and asked Dempsey if there was anything he wanted to pass on to Xi Jinping.. infrastructure, it would not necessarily be a “hostile act.”
“Happy Valentine’s Day,” Dempsey replied.
“I would consider it a crime,” Dempsey said. top military officer said should China’s military be found to be behind hacks into the U.S
HÆ°á»ng dáº«n dang ky Fun88 má»i nháº¥t
May 20, 2015
T?ng ??n 100%
ti?n th??ng lên ??n 1 tri?u ??ng ho?c 30% lên ??n 4 tri?u ??ng cho thành
viên m?i khi ??ng ký tài kho?n cá c??c t?i nhà cái Fun88
V?y là hoàn t?t vi?c ??ng ký tài kho?n cá ?? tr?c tuy?n t?i nhà cái Fun88
Click vào hình ??NG KÝ d??i ?? vào trang web chính th?c c?a nhà cái cá c??c tr?c tuy?n Fun88 (tránh gi? m?o)
V?i s? ph? bi?n c?a máy tính, internet, 3G, vi?c ??ng ký Fun88
tr? nên d? dàng h?n lúc nào h?t và vi?c ??ng ký tài kho?n Fun88 là hoàn
toàn mi?n phí.
H? Tên ??ng ký tài kho?n t?i nhà cái cá c??c tr?c tuy?n Fun88 b?n ph?i
ghi ?úng c?a mình (trùng v?i tên ??ng ký th? ATM), vì ?? ??m b?o an toàn
và nhanh chóng cho vi?c giao d?ch c?a b?n v?i nhà cái Fun88, nên vi?c
khác tên s? KHÔNG ?c ch?p nh?n
B?n yên tâm thông tin ??ng ký tài
kho?n cá c??c c?a mình s? ???c b?o m?t 1 cách an toàn nh?t, k bao gi?
ti?t l? v?i bên th? 3, ?ó là ph??ng châm hàng ??u c?a nhà cái cá c??c
tr?c tuy?n Fun88
Mã Liên K?t b?n ?i?n là 310128 (??i di?n c?a nhà cái cá c??c tr?c tuy?n Fun88 t?i VN)
H??ng D?n ??ng Ký Tài Kho?n Cá C??c Tr?c Tuy?n Fun88
Vào trang web cá ?? tr?c tuy?n Fun88 Click ??ng Ký Ngay
Fun88 – Nhà cái cá ?? tr?c tuy?n h? tr? rút ti?n, g?i ti?n c?c k? ??n giãn!
?i?n thông tin mà cá c??c tr?c tuy?n Fun88 yêu c?u nh? h??ng d?n
không vào ???c nhà cái cá c??c Fun88 thì th? các link d??i, ho?c b?m
vào H??ng D?n Cách Vào Nhà Cái Fun88 ?? ???c h??ng d?n cách vào nhà cái
cá c??c tr?c tuy?n Fun88 khi b? ch?n
Xác nh?n b?n ?? ?i?u ki?n ?? tham gia cá c??c tr?c tuy?n và b?m G?I ?? k?t thúc vi?c ??ng ký tài kho?n cá c??c tr?c tuy?n t?i nhà cái Fun88
Nhà cái cá c??c tr?c tuy?n
Fun88 là ??i tác chính th?c c?a CLB bóng ?á Tottenham. Nhà cái Fun88 th??ng có nh?ng ch??ng
trình khuy?n mãi h?t s?c h?p d?n.
Xem bài H??ng D?n G?i Ti?n vào Nhà Cái Fun88 ?? ???c h??ng d?n cách g?i ti?n vào tài kho?n cá c??c tr?c tuy?n t?i nhà cái Fun88 m?t cách nhanh nh?t.. Cùng v?i các hình th?c thanh toán tr?c tuy?n nh? hi?n
nay thì vi?c cá ?? tr?c tuy?n h?t s?c an toàn, ??n gi?n và vô cùng ti?n
Nhà cái Fun88 là m?t nhà cái r?t uy tín t?i Vi?t Nam và trên
th? gi?i, luôn luôn h? tr? 24/7 và nhân viên t?i ?ây r?t nhi?t tình gi?i
quy?t m?i th?c m?c c?a ng??i ch?i
U.S. History: Income Distribution and Reaganomics
May 20, 2015
The Government’s induced deflation, deregulation, regressive tax reform, privatization, and “union bashing” have contributed to new corporate strategies and the inequality of income distribution in America (Harrison Bluestone 16). It became a joke to say, “We are spending money to help the economy.” Consumer borrowing doubled between 1981 and 1986, from $394 Billion to $739 Billion. This act also weakened union power by outlawing mass picketing, secondary strikes on neutral employers, and sit-downs. The program included freezing the minimum wage and shifting against federal protection of workers’ rights and unions. Therefore, it’s not too surprising to see the average American family would not be to upset if union organizations were losing ground. DOD spending doubled $134 billion in 1980 to $282 billion in 1987 (Harrison Bluestone 149). Salaries and benefits of corporate CEOs as compared to the average factory workers were 30 times higher in1980 and reached 130-140 times higher in 1991 (Krugman 262). The “engineered recession” of 1980 and 1981-2, along with reductions in social welfare programs contributed to this “great U-turn” in the standard of living of most Americans, employed as well as unemployed, middle managers as well as blue collar workers (Harrison Bluestone viii). firms have gone abroad to set up assembly or service operations. The results of these policies directly impacted the redistribution of income in favor of the higher income group (Harrison Bluestone 162).
Since the mid-1960′s through the 1990′s, Americans have been getting poorer and poorer. Since employee turnover is highest during the first few months of employment, businesses could save at least 20 to 25-percent of the wages they would have paid to an employee during that same period.
The Government economic policies supporting deregulation and the concept of privatization of government services were actually taken initially between the years 1968-1978. The same act that affirmed the right to organize but gave the NLRB the job of certifying whether or not a union was to be considered “officially” recognized. They provided (and still do) flexibility to tailor their work force needs to the production needs. As a result, the traditional one-income household was no longer sufficient to keep up with the family economic needs. During the 1970′s the average family income was $24,000, while the average steelworker was making $40,000. Families expanded their use of “plastic money” even faster. Strangely enough, this period seems to be the era of debt for both the government and the American income earners. Many of the nation’s economic critics saw the policies of Reaganomics as short-term answers to a long-term problem by borrowing against the nation’s future.
Deregulation under Carter and Reagan opened the industries of steel, automotive, carpenters, and trucking to what Geoghegan called gypsies – small owner operators (Geoghegan 139). The GINI Index numbers support this disparity. This living on debt and buying time was sufficient to fuel a short-term recovery (Harrison Bluestone 147). During this period the government went on a spending spree financed by the deficit. Union bureaucracy began to rival that of the federal and state court systems (Geoghegan 86-7).
If labor had not been weakened enough by the high unemployment levels in the late 1970′s, Reagan’s firming of the PATCO members sent a clear message to not only the unions, but also to the courts as to his lack of support for organized labor. However, after accounting for the business cycle, for productivity, and for the shrinkage of manufacturing jobs, the growing proportion of baby boomers in the work force contributes nothing to an explanation of low wages. Who paid for the improvements in American business during the 1980′s? The lower 60% of American workers paid for these improvements through the reductions in the real purchasing power of their income.
Social deregulation, as described by Harrison and Bluestone, was a true innovation of the Reagan Administration. Reaganomics as described by most, if not all economists and historians was supply-side economics; however, this in itself doesn’t really explain Reaganomics because of what actually happened. Harrison and Bluestone call the Reagan Administration “the single greatest gift to the business community” (Harrison Bluestone 102). Employment in mining actually rose until 1981 only to fall nearly in half during the 1980′s through the 1990′s (Slater 129).
To better compete in a global economy, US industries adopted a program of “restructuring”. They increased offshore investments and began outsourcing for labor and manufacturing in search of the lowest labor and production costs.
But what is the cost of these outsourcing? The result of reductions in domestic production and outsourcing was a reduction in U.S. Reminiscent of the 1920′s and 1930′s, the middle class, formerly the largest class of the post WWII through the Vietnam War era has also been ever decreasing in size. One argument presented to explain this problem is that the “low wage explosion is mostly a statistical illusion, reflecting the impact of inflation and recession on workers’ earnings (Geoghegan 124).” Another proposal is to attribute the problem to a large influx of baby boomers into the work force. New employees would only receive 75 to 80-percent of the normal wage during a probation period (the probation period usually equated to the business’s employee turnover period). The reduced costs resulting from relocating no-skill jobs, low-skill jobs, assembly, and manufacturing operations to low wage areas, validated the practice of outsourcing. Both sides of the Reaganomic fence provide more than enough evidence in support of the argument that says: lower and middle class America lost significant ground during the 1980′s. These methods provided a way of reducing full-time labor wage costs, which included a reduction in employee benefits cost. With the weakening of organized labor by deregulation, businesses began experimenting with organizational changes to include work, labor, management relations, and flexible arrangements with employees, subcontractors, otherwise known as corporate restructuring.
From 1973 to 1986 average wages have dropped in buying power by nearly 14-percent (Harrison Bluestone 113).In 1986, the average annual income of the poorest 20-percent of all families was $8,033. I must add at this point that the “U-turn” in America’s economics actually began during the 1970′s; Reagan only sped up and expanded the process significantly (“U-turn”- the term used by Bluestone and Harrison to describe the reversal of fortune of the labor forces and the shrinking middle class).
Contingency labor pools were (and still are) not organized under a union. The two-tier wage system allowed reduced wages for employees during the new worker’s first few weeks or months of the normal probation period. Contingency labor included part-time and temporary employees. During the 1980′s, the U.S. Double income families were not a uniqueness of the lowest income earners, middle-class America also lost, or at least sustained, buying power during the 1980′s. Employment in the manufacturing area fell seven-percent between 1968 and 1979, continuing to fall twelve-percent more through the 1980′s and 1990′s (Slater 143). The Reagan Administration simply continued this trend toward economic deregulation as initiated under Carter. Reaganomics, in effect, was a program to strengthen business and industry while weakening the power of organized labor, reduce federal spending on other than military programs, reduce taxes, and regulatory abatement. The richest 20-percent received $5,600 more per year in 1986, than they would have based on 1968 monetary values (Harrison Bluestone 131). A further major benefit of these creative pay systems was that they provided a way to avoid unions or at least keep the impact of union actions at a minimum. The inequality of income is not limited to only a specific age group (Harrison Bluestone 125).
Geoghegan, a former labor attorney, tells of his experiences dealing with organized labor, how and why it has lost its ability to fight. U.S. This group shrank from 53-percent in 1973 to 47.9-percent in 1984. The existence of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) also quieted union members by insuring the benefits of workers displaced when companies went bankrupt or their pension plans go bust.
While Presidents Reagan and Bush froze the minimum wage level for a nine-year period, essentially cutting pay each year as inflation bit into lower wage earners, the salaries of executives skyrocketed during the 80′s. However, the benefactors of the tax reduction were not the majority of wage earners. Keeping labor costs from rising is not the only reason that U.S. Benefit packages for these contingency employees were either non-existent or at least small enough to still keep labor costs low. Also on the hit list for Reaganomics, was the reduction of social programs.
Part of the Reagan plan was a reduction in taxes. Additionally, in 1947 and the passing of Taft-Hartley, labor could no longer organize on the scale of unions of the 1930′s. But most of all, during the Reagan year’s people went into debt.
In Thomas Geoghegan’s book, Which Side Are You On? Trying To Be For Labor When It’s Flat on Its Back, two pieces of legislation are discussed as the beginning of the end for organized labor began with the 1935 Wagner Act and the National Labor relations Board (NLRB). Yet, no real credible argument has been made that the Reagan years did anything to improve the equality of income distribution. By the mid-1970′s global competition was eating away at American business profits. This was more than $1,740 less than they would have received based on 1968 income levels (Harrison Bluestone 131). “The old Teamster order collapsed and thousands of firms closed (Geoghegan 139).” During the late 1970′s and into the 1980′s, the Teamster membership fell from 2.2 million to 1.6 million. This article will discuss one particular facet of the Reaganomics debate; the issue of inequality in income distribution in America as a result of a turn-around in government policies combined with corporate restructuring.
Reagan was not the only one conducting a reduction program. A major part of Reagan’s policy was to enhance the military complex in order to stay ahead of the perceived communist threat. More family members entered the work force in order to increase or sustain real income purchasing power. At the end of the Carter Era the GINI Index before taxes was (.403) and (.352) after taxes. Ronald Reagan’s supporters credit him as being the great savior of the American economy; his critics’ credit his policies for creating the destruction of labor and gambling away the future of the American economy through massive increases in the federal deficit.
Reaganomics Debate:Inequality in Income Distribution, Government Policies and Corporate Restructuring
Mountains of paper have been written about the economic period of the 1980′s, coined Reaganomics. To continue the weakening of the labor pool, the Reaganites engineered the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2 to under-cut labor organizations while contributing to the corporate bottom line (Harrison Bluestone 14). The wage-gap between the America lower income group and the upper or rich America group has been ever increasing. As a result of these actions, profit margins rose steadily, yet average wages for families has decreased or at best has somewhat frozen in place.
Creative wage reduction programs such as the two-tier pay system and conversion of a percentage of full-time employees to contingency labor employees (part-time and temporary employees) or a combination of methods became (and are still) the normal practice. Either there exists a significant polarization of income distribution around the middle-class or the middle-class is now what used to be the lower-end of the upper-class income.
Ronald Reagan’s laissez-faire government policies, reminiscent of the 1920′s, included legislative and legal actions that severely hampered organized labor. And, of course, both sides of the argument will present evidence in support of their positions. Credit card use grew from $55 billion in 1980 to more than $128 billion in 1986 (Harrison Bluestone 149).Families filing chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code grew from an average of less than 39,000 per year (1975-1980) to almost 95,000 a year (1981-1984) (Harrison Bluestone 152).
Geoghegan believes that part of the weakening of unions also has to do with a lack of sympathy by the average family. This shows that there was a higher distribution of income in the hands of fewer people (Krugman 25).. After 1980, the purchasing power of lower-class wage earners through middle-class wage earners degraded throughout the period. The groundwork for Reaganomics policies was put in place well before his time.
There is plenty of material to argue whether or not Reaganomics was an economic success or an economic blunder. According to data published in Krugman’s book, Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations, income data for the period reflects that the tax reductions during the 1980s actually cost the lower 60-percent income groups, while the top 40-percent income groups saw monetary increases (Krugman 24-5). Some firms have done so to improve their chance of selling to foreign markets or to take advantage of foreign government incentives (taxes) (Harrison Bluestone 31).
Of course there are many supporters of Reaganomics that will produce statistics showing how the GNP was sustained during the 1980′s; there is really no mystery here. Revolving installment credit grew from $55 billion in 1980 to more than $128 billion in 1986 (Harrison Bluestone 149). Reagan policies were designed to provide some flexibility for businesses to contain production costs, increase profits by reducing labor costs, and reducing the costs involved in meeting government standards. His experience through the late 1960′s and 1970′s describes the labor movement as having become political driven organizations characterized by the same characteristics (greed, power, control, and inequality) of those they despised – Big Business. Often it’s stated that the Reagan Administration was trying to reduce the double-digit inflation of 1980 and turn around the falling rate of production. The result of this program was a softening of safety and environmental regulations to ease the burden on industry. production employment. As Harrison and Bluestone state it, “Globalization of production was no longer supplementing domestic manufacturing but replacing it (Harrison Bluestone 28).” Restructuring involved creating multinational corporations with its headquarters and support functions in the major capitalist countries. According to Krugman, these salaries did not come primarily from greater profits, but from a larger slice of the profits.
This article focused on one particular facet of the Reaganomics debate; the issue of inequality in income distribution in America as a result of a turn-around in government policies combined with corporate restructuring. businesses began discarding their standard practices and shifted capital into overtly speculative ventures. Yet, the cost to the average American laborer during that era and continuing into the next administration was what gave Reaganomics its negative reputation.
From 1969 – 1980 (prior to Reaganomics) wage cuts and freezes were “practically non-existent” (Harrison Bluestone 39). Yet, organized labor was not the only one to feel the reduction of government support. Reaganomic policies, though we can’t forget some initial deregulation efforts instituted during the Carter years, reversed what had been accomplished prior to the 1970′s (Harrison Bluestone 79). As Geoghegan puts it, the Taft-Hartley led to union busting.
The counter argument against these income disparity issues is attributed by some as simply a matter of normal business cycles. In some cases businesses just simply got out of the production end and found alternate “ways of making paper profits” or found other ways to reduce labor costs.
The total amount borrowed by consumers nearly doubled between 1981 and 1986, from $394 Billion to $739 Billion. By the late 1980s the before tax GINI Index was (.423) with the after taxes GINI as (.404). lost one out of three heavy industrial jobs.
Any discussion on Reaganomics should always contain a definition of Reaganomics so let’s get that out of the way from the start. Harrison and Bluestone define what is usually considered the middle-class income earners, as those making $20,000 to $50,000 annually. Fulltime manning was drastically reduced in watchdog agencies tasked to monitor the various industries. This included family members taking on extra jobs or moonlighting in order to make ends meet. Families filing chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code grew from an average of less than 39,000 per year (1975-1980) to almost 95,000 a year (1981-1984) (Harrison Bluestone 152).In effect, most Americans during the Reagan Years went into debt
What are your best frugal living tips? (Weekly Topic Inspiration)
May 19, 2015
Everything homemade tastes better, so therefore, i believe, your needs are more satisfied.
Re-vamp old items into ‘new’ furniture, clothes, curtains, cushions. By not going to the store for these items you will make better use of your time, energy and ingredients.
Bake your own items – bread, cakes, pies etc. Make a hobby of it.
Swap unused items with friends, neighbors etc. Make it a festive occasion.
Live on less. for things you want. I agree with the hubber who says – write down every single penny spent. Get ideas from magazines, online.
Discard the credit card – use a debit card, if needed. you will feel the ‘pain’ of the immediacy of that money spent.
Buy as many items ‘on sale’ or ‘reduced’ as possible. That way you can ‘track’ your money.
Grow your own veg, fruit, keep hens, ducks, poultry – even in a small space. Make a ‘hobby’ of it.
Look for the discounted items.
Ask for discount.
Look for the ‘free’ items. Make a philosophy of it.
Malcontent Murray’s an ideal role model.
May 19, 2015
VINCENT (12A) …..
St. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2014 MGN Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
ST. Vincent star Bill Murray is the fifth of nine children
Bridesmaids’ star Melissa McCarthy plays Maggie, a single
working mum with a 12-year-old son called Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher).
Best of all, Oliver is played brilliantly by a young actor whose
natural ability in front of the camera readily neutralises the
film’s occasional drifts towards sentimentality.
Moving to Brooklyn, she soon has no choice but to leave him in the
care of neighbour Vincent (Murray).
Although his life consists of seeing pregnant stripper Daka (Naomi
Watts) and going to tacky bars and the races, Vincent develops an
oddball relationship with the kid he demands a fee to look after.
Not only is Murray on the form of his life, but Naomi Watts puts
the Diana film firmly behind her with Daka’s thick Eastern European
The actors’ chemistry creates a film greater than the sum of
And so, while he’s turning the boy into a young man, Oliver in
turn is able to discover that Vincent is not as bad as some might think.
Bill Murray is on scene-stealing form as an oddball Vietnam vet |
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. THIS gently-paced comedy drama has a
twist-offate theme that’s agreeably life-affirming.
When schoolteacher Brother Geraghty (Chris O’Dowd) asks his
charges to deliver a verbal report on someone they consider a
21st-century saint, Oliver knows exactly who he wants to canonise.
Bill Murray fans will certainly adore his performance as a broke,
boozing, gambling, misanthropic Vietnam vet who is somehow surviving on
civilisation’s thin ice.
28 dá»i tÆ°á»£ng trong dÆ°á»ng day danh báº¡c hang tram tá»· Fun88 bá» truy tá» | Phap luáºt
May 18, 2015
S? ti?n c? b?c giao d?ch qua các tài kho?n này lên ??n hàng tr?m t? ??ng.
C?m ??u t? ch?c ???ng dây ?ánh b?c tr?c tuy?n là Ph?m Huy Toàn (SN 1977, ng? qu?n Bình Th?nh, TPHCM, có 1 ti?n án t?i “l?a ??o chi?m ?o?t tài s?n”) b? ?? ngh? truy t? v? t?i “t? ch?c ?ánh b?c”. Trong th?i gian là chân r?t c? b? c?a M88, Toàn thi?t l?p ???ng dây ?ánh b?c c?c l?n thông qua trang m?ng khác, là Fun88… Con b?c mu?n tr? thành thành viên trang Fun88 ph?i chuy?n ti?n b?ng ngo?i t? hay ti?n Vi?t Nam vào tài kho?n cho Toàn, r?i ???c c?p m?t tài kho?n trên trang c? b?c trên, có s? ti?n ?o t??ng ???ng, dùng ?? ?ánh b?c.
Theo k?t lu?n ?i?u tra, Toàn tr??c ?ây là thành viên tích c?c c?a trang m?ng c? b?c M88, ?ã b? B? Công an ?ánh s?p.
Th?c t? l?y danh ngh?a này, Toàn tuy?n nhân viên, yêu c?u m?i ng??i dùng gi?y t? cá nhân m? 5 – 6 tài kho?n ngân hàng r?i có gi?y ?y quy?n cho Toàn s? d?ng các tài kho?n này. Có 59 tài kho?n ngân hàng c?a nhân viên công ty CP truy?n thông FAM ???c Toàn s? d?ng vào m?c ?ích c? b?c. ?? núp bóng tinh vi ho?t ??ng, Toàn thành l?p công ty CP truy?n thông FAM, v?i gi?y phép ???c c?p là qu?ng cáo, marketing qua m?ng Internet.
27 ng??i có liên quan ??n ???ng dây ?ánh b?c này b? ?? ngh? truy t? v? t?i “?ánh b?c”, trong ?ó không ít b? can là gi?i trí th?c, công ch?c Nhà n??c…
???c bi?t giao di?n trang Fun88 có nhi?u ngôn ng? khác nhau, ng??i ch?i có th? ??t c??c ? t?t c? các môn c? b?c và có th? ?ánh b?c tr?c ti?p v?i nhau. Toàn ???c xác ??nh là giám ??c công ty CP truy?n thông FAM (tr? s? ? m?t tòa nhà trên ???ng ?inh Tiên Hoàng, ph??ng ?a Kao, qu?n 1, TPHCM).. Gi?a n?m 2012, Toàn chuy?n giao quy?n ?i?u hành công ty cho ng??i em h? là V? Vi?t H?i (SN 1985, ng? qu?n Bình Th?nh) nh?ng th?c ch?t v?n ?i?u hành t?t c? m?i ho?t ??ng.
Theo k?t qu? ?i?u tra, ???ng dây ?ánh b?c qua m?ng Fun88 có hàng ngàn con b?c tham gia trên c? n??c, trong ?ó không ít con b?c là gi?i trí th?c, doanh nhân, ng??i giàu có…
Toàn s? d?ng các tài kho?n ?? chuy?n ti?n cho nhà cái ? n??c ngoài; ??ng th?i thanh toán ti?n c? b?c cho các con b?c trong n??c
Kerry Impressed Mass. Prosecutors With Early Successes
May 18, 2015
A career criminal acquitted years earlier in the beheading of his wife, Edgerly stood accused of rape in 1977. In 1978, a defense lawyer accused Kerry of violating grand jury secrecy rules by leaking stories to the media about an investigation into the sale of county jobs. He had been a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (search) and had lost a bid for Congress in 1972 by the time he attended Boston College Law School.
Then came the George Edgerly (search) case. He denied being the source of the leak.
“It was enormously gratifying,” Kerry said. He also began an organized crime unit, a political corruption task force and a unit aimed at getting top cases to trial within 90 days.
The young prosecutor spent much of his time as an administrator, manager and staff supervisor in Droney’s office, which many lawyers considered slow-moving, inefficient and outdated. “I had put the office together, it was doing very well, and to a certain degree, John Droney began to feel stronger and better and was taking more direct involvement in the office. At news conferences to announce major indictments, Kerry spoke for Droney or gently repeated his remarks when reporters had trouble understanding him.
BOSTON – When the Middlesex County district attorney promoted John Kerry (search) to be his top assistant just months after he had earned a law degree, veteran prosecutors grumbled. Some thought he was little more than a smooth, politically connected opportunist looking for higher office.
Kerry worked summers for Middlesex District Attorney John Droney and, under a state rule that allowed law students to prosecute misdemeanors, had about 30 jury trials.
During Droney’s re-election campaign in 1978, a Superior Court judge scolded Kerry for a campaign advertisement that violated a gag order in a murder case. Kerry took responsibility, saying he helped design the ad. Winter was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Droney suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease and had difficulty talking and moving. “I’m sure there were some people who hoped he would fall flat on his face, but he really won them over on that case.”
“He had great ideas for running the office and great managerial skills. He started a program to help victims and witnesses, particularly rape victims, navigate the judicial system. “It was what I went there to do. He faced a difficult re-election campaign in 1978 and was looking for someone who could project the image of a tough, vigorous prosecutor.
Andrew Zaroulis, a defense attorney who faced Kerry, said some lawyers resented Kerry because he was “Kennedyesque” in appearance and didn’t socialize much with other attorneys.
Kerry restructured the district attorney’s office, securing several million dollars in federal grants to modernize it and add prosecutors. I’d had this enormous responsibility for 2 1/2 years, and it just struck me as the right time to move on.”
Kerry left the office in May 1979, six months after Droney’s re-election. It was what the office was supposed to do.”
“I tried to handle it sensitively and tried to offer people opportunities and work with them, but some people — no matter what — were just bound to find it difficult that somebody was promoted that fast to a position of responsibility,” he said.
Kerry had decided to become a prosecutor because he liked the idea of putting away “bad guys.” Now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, he cites that experience as part of his tough-on-crime credentials.
“One by one, the veteran prosecutors in the office went over and shook his hand, and by the end of the night all of the prosecutors were down at John’s end of the bar,” recalled John Markey, another assistant district attorney at the time. He really moved the office from the 19th century to the 20th century,” said William Codhina, a former prosecutor who is now a defense lawyer.
Before turning to law, Kerry tried politics. “He conducted himself very professionally. The judge did not impose any sanctions, but he criticized the district attorney’s office for “insensitivity.”
Kerry spent the next two years in private practice, specializing mostly in medical malpractice and wrongful death litigation. Not so, Kerry said.
From there, Kerry relaunched his political career, winning election as the state’s lieutenant governor in 1982.
“He was handsome, good-looking and articulate, and he was kind of aloof,” Zaroulis said. He was a very bright, sharp guy.”
“In a sense, John Kerry gave a young face to an old office and helped convey to people that this was not an office that was stuck in the past, but this was an office that was keeping up with modern times and moving forward,” said Peter Agnes Jr., a former prosecutor in Droney’s office who is now a Superior Court judge.
. After Kerry won a conviction, the biggest during his first year on the job, prosecutors gathered at a neighborhood bar.
“I was interested in the prospect of the law and trying to enforce it in order to protect people, and just provide the kind of civil society that we all hope for,” Kerry told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
Kerry knew he was resented and not popular among his colleagues.
Among the top cases on which Kerry worked was the prosecution of Howie Winter, an organized crime leader who ran gambling rackets in the Boston area and western Massachusetts. He and his partner won a new trial and, eventually, freedom for George Reissfelder, who spent 15 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder.
“I left, in essence, because I had done it,” Kerry said. Political pundits and Kerry’s friends at the time said Droney pushed him out because he worried that Kerry intended to run against him
Has anyone ever caught you having sex?
May 17, 2015
So that was also a reason to stop right in the middle of it.. That one was strange because it was my girlfriend walked in on me and I was doing… (we were 17 at the time) and my mom started screaming that there was no sex allowed in the house, she turned around and slammed the door. It got me so angry that I just got up and followed her (naked and dripping..) to tell her she sure as hell didn’t want us to do it outside.
The second time was in college. The first was when I was still living at home.
Twice, and they both were kinda strange..
. well.. not her anyway.. My mom walked in on me and my girlfriend
Footie betting rings busted. – Free Online Library
May 17, 2015
All rights reserved.
He said: “This operation has not only seriously affected the
activities of organised crime gangs throughout Asia.
“It’s incredible to find out there is so much being waged
on our youth team games.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Scottish Daily Record Sunday
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
“It has also served as an excellent test of national, regional
and international police co-operation ahead of the 2008 Olympic
Murray Park Academy technical manager Tommy Wilson said he was
amazed to learn of the betting.
We revealed that SPL reserve and under-21 games have been targeted
by Far East football punters who are wagering millions of pounds on the
outcome of matches.
The swoop comes just 48 hours after the Daily Record exposed their
involvement in Scottish football.
They have taken steps to protect their kids from being lured into
Police have shut down 272 gambling dens which were thought to have
handled pounds 340million worldwide.
RACKET: Record story
Interpol executive director Jean-Michel Louboutin hailed
yesterday’s operation as a major victory in the war against illegal
He added: “All sport is open to levels of corruption and
football is no different but to have youth team matches involved was
outside the realms of our thinking.
Law enforcers from China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam
were involved in the crackdown.
INTERPOL arrested 423 people yesterday in the fight against illegal
Asian betting rings.
But we’ve done as much as we can to help steer our young
players in the right direction.”
The revelations that youth games were becoming big business in Asia
have shocked Rangers Academy coaches.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning