Guest Thinkers — August 21, 2011
Amazon Publishing Leaps Forward; HarperCollins Smells a Monopoly
Austin Allen
Copy a link to the article entitled http://Amazon%20Publishing%20Leaps%20Forward;%20HarperCollins%20Smells%20a%20Monopoly
Share Amazon Publishing Leaps Forward; HarperCollins Smells a Monopoly on Facebook
Share Amazon Publishing Leaps Forward; HarperCollins Smells a Monopoly on Twitter
Share Amazon Publishing Leaps Forward; HarperCollins Smells a Monopoly on LinkedIn
For Amazon, a publishing program is the next logical step in its long-term business strategy. For the rest of the book industry, it's cause for a bad case of nerves. Amazon's announcement this past week that it would be publishing its first major title—The 4-Hour Chef, by self-help maven Tim Ferriss—had the chief executive of HarperCollins UK worrying aloud in the New York Times: "[Amazon is] very, very powerful now, and in fact they are getting close to being in a monopolistic situation."
I think a monopoly is unlikely, although I wouldn't bet a hundred per cent against it. This I will predict: if it forms, you'll see an intense backlash against the company. Some of it will come from publishing industry professionals, including those who are struggling at the bottom of the ladder. (The Columbia Publishing Course, a condensed graduate program for publishing job-seekers, saw a major spike in applicants this year despite dismal industry-wide hiring and salary prospects.) A lot of it will come from authors, a profession for which there is now a massive oversupply of eager labor. (The number of degree-granting U.S. creative writing programs has risen from 79 to 854 in the last 35 years, and their students and alumni account for just a fraction of authors across a few specific genres.)
If Amazon were to gain a stranglehold over bookselling and publishing, jobs and avenues to publication would decrease further, and competition for both would become even more cutthroat than it already is. The result would be tremendous ill will from the literary community, especially if the company engaged in monopolistic practices: chiseling authors on advances and royalties, gouging consumers on prices, and so on.
Again, though, this is all a doomsday scenario. There's nothing inherently evil or unnatural about Amazon Publishing; at this stage in their company's growth, they'd be crazy not to attempt such a program. And at least as far as publishing goes, an oligopoly scenario seems more plausible: if the program flourishes, some combination of Google, Apple, and Facebook will probably attempt similar ventures of their own. (Google has already shown a keen interest in digital book content, Apple already poses stiff competition on the e-reader front, and Facebook just acquired Push Pop Press…) A publishing industry dominated by a handful of giant tech companies would still be less than ideal, but it would prevent the one company from acting with impunity.
The Times also quotes literary agent Richard Curtis as offering a less dramatic prediction: "There is lots of conventional business being done by conventional publishers on conventional terms, and the books are being published on conventional paper with conventional royalties. What we'll see for a long time is an amalgam of the two approaches, digital and traditional." I think he's right, although I'd add that this amalgam may involve some acquisitions of traditional by digital companies.
The Ferriss deal signals that Amazon is once again moving shrewdly to diversify and consolidate power. It's pointless to panic, or to resent them for it. I just hope they'll treat the industry they rule in the same way you'd handle a precious antique book—respectfully, and without breaking its spine.
[Image via Photobucket; Monopoly and the Monopoly man character are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc.]
Can the 'Love Hormone' Deliver World Peace?
Lack of trust is at the root of many of the world's problems, says the neuroeconomist Paul Zak, who claims to have found the brain chemical, oxytocin, responsible for empathy.


Home > General News > When we went to Caistor Grammar School jobs fair
10 Oct When we went to Caistor Grammar School jobs fair
Posted at 08:30h in General News by Ben Watson
There is currently a chasm when it comes to supply and demand of technical talent.
There are more jobs available than there are developers to fill them, which is why it's so important to attend these events and encourage the next generation of developers to continue to follow their passion and progress to a career where they can pioneer the tech of tomorrow.
It's also important for future developers to realise that there are tech roles available locally and regionally, so if they do choose to pursue a career in development there are great job opportunities for them nearby and afar. Nurturing future talent is vital in the technology industry so when we were invited to take part in the Caistor Grammar School jobs fair, we jumped at the chance to promote a career in the IT tech industry.
Therisa Thompson (HR Manager), Ross Horton (Senior Software Developer) and James Cartwright (Key Account and Marketing Manager) packed up the event banners and headed for the Lincolnshire School to meet future developers, talking to them about the tech industry and offering advice on how to further their interest and turn a budding passion into an exciting career.
The recruitment fair was a busy one for the team and they were pleasantly surprised with the impressive number of young, hopeful developers that actively wanted to talk about the tech industry and pathways in. They were asking the right questions and showing dedication to a career path that can be highly rewarding and successful.
One of the key things we notice when speaking to future developers is what they are actively getting involved in and what they are working on in their own time. The students at Caistor Grammar School didn't disappoint, with many of them conducting development exercises outside of their school hours.
After the event, Ross Horton said: "It was a busy evening with a constant stream of interested students and their parents and we were all blown away by the level of enthusiasm and talent shown by those we spoke to."
We're already looking forward to the next time we can make an impression on future tech industry workers.
Our team are on hand if you have any questions about our software. Get in touch on +44 (0)1472 269243 or drop us an email at info@keyzo.co.uk
If you're interested in a career with Keyzo, please see our Careers page: https://www.keyzo.co.uk/join-us/
Keyzo development roadmap 2020
8 great reasons why you need digital acknowledgement
How you can align with Health & Safety legislation updates…
Keyzo expanding at the double after opening second office
How our Job Booking functionality empowers contractor management
Document Distribution
Incentives and Benefits
Inductions and Training
Read and Sign Automation
Return to our blog for more design and technology insights...


Posted on October 7, 2019 by Scott Johnson in 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump, Impeachment, Russia investigation, Ukraine
Lee Smith: It's not all about the Bidens
Lee Smith is one of our most invaluable investigative reporters and political analysts. I have followed his work at the Weekly Standard and at Tablet. Lee is the author of the forthcoming book The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History. He is now with RealClearInvestigations, which has just posted his column "It's not all about the Bidens: Why Trump has Ukraine on the brain" (links omitted below). RCI authorizes the republication of its articles with attribution and we are happy to take advantage of the opportunity here. Lee writes:
The impeachment inquiry Democrats launched last month may ultimately hinge on a simple question: Did President Trump try to force a foreign power (or powers) to help him take down a political opponent, Joe Biden?
But the backdrop of their effort is far more complex and convoluted, connected not just to Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine and related evidence but the three-year war of attrition the Democrats have waged against the president. Their main instrument was the Trump-Russia collusion story that roiled the capital until Special Counsel Robert Mueller pronounced it unfounded. Now they have moved on to one or more "whistleblower" complaints from within the intelligence community.
Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair.
Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with another explanation: Trump's determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just that.
The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power to a U.S. election.
I've covered the Trump-Russia story for three years. Even before these operations emerged publicly after Trump's 2016 victory, I doubted the pre-election whisper campaign circulating throughout the Washington press corps that held Trump was clandestinely cooperating with Moscow.
First, the idea that Trump had for many years been a Russian ally, even an agent, was hard to believe given that there had been no mention of this during a long career lived entirely in the spotlight. I was especially skeptical of this claim because Trump's business concerns were based largely in the most media-saturated city in the world, and because they involved industries – especially real estate and casinos – that attract the attention of legal authorities.
Second, candidate Trump's proposed policies toward Russia were similar to those of the Obama administration – and would prove tougher after he was elected – making it hard to see how he was secretly beholden to Moscow.
I was not surprised when the special counsel concluded the story was false. Neither was it surprising, given the amount of money, time, and prestige spent on pushing collusion, to see Russiagate rebooted two weeks ago in the form of a whistleblower's complaint.
So far the basic facts are these: An active, and unnamed, CIA officer alleged that Trump had sought information from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky regarding Biden's involvement in a Ukrainian prosecution possibly involving his son Hunter. In exchange for information that, according to the CIA officer, would assist Trump's 2020 reelection, the president would release military aid to Ukraine.
Although the details are different – no mention this time of hookers and golden showers – the whistleblower's central claim closely resembles the thesis laid out in the anti-Trump dossier compiled by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which the FBI used as its roadmap to collusion: That Trump took or solicited dirt on his Democratic opponent from a foreign power in exchange for favors to that country's government.
Once again, much of the media seem to be treating every allegation against Trump as probable fact, while dismissing any questions and concerns as conspiracy theories.
Although the whistleblower complaint seems to have emerged quickly, it must be viewed in context of the long war against Trump and its numerous elements tied to Ukraine.
Recent interviews with senior sources on Capitol Hill and newly acquired documents show that Ukraine was and continues to be central to the effort to take down Trump.
That's why Trump's most urgent request of the Ukrainian president was to assist Attorney General William Barr in his investigation of the origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.
"Our country has been through a lot," Trump told President Zelensky. "They say a lot of it started with Ukraine."
This assertion was not wrong. And yet for all of the foreigners, including Ukrainians, who played roles in Russiagate, this is a story about Americans with the sort of scruples, ambitions, and labyrinthine connections found in a Dostoevsky novel.
Origins of Clinton-Tied Ukraine Dirt-Digging
It is significant, in this time of separate, left and right media echo chambers, that an early account of Hillary Clinton campaign efforts to dig up dirt on Team Trump using Ukraine didn't originate on the right: It was a Politico report by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern. (A repeat seems unlikely now: Vogel's current employer, the New York Times, has dismissed Trump's claims about Ukraine's role in Russiagate as part of a right-wing conspiracy theory.)
The Ukraine story starts no later than March 2016, when Democratic Party operative and Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa approached the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington for information on the Trump campaign.
As John Solomon of The Hill newspaper wrote in May, Chalupa asked Ukrainian diplomats for "evidence that Trump, his organization and [campaign manager Paul] Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against the U.S. interests."
Chalupa emailed Democratic National Committee officials that she was briefing U.S. media on Manafort's work in Ukraine. One of the journalists was Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News, who would later publish one of the key stories advancing the collusion narrative.
Ukraine's ambassador to Washington told Solomon that Chalupa wanted to approach a member of Congress to initiate hearings on Manafort or arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's alleged Kremlin ties during a visit to Washington.
Keep that in mind when Democrats and their media allies routinely suggest it is treasonous to seek foreign aid during an election.
As Chalupa was pursuing these channels, the Clinton campaign stepped up its efforts to find foreign dirt on Trump by hiring the Washington, D.C., firm Fusion GPS that March to compile and distribute opposition research on Trump. One of the company's co-founders, Glenn Simpson, was a former Wall Street Journal reporter who had written several articles about Manafort's work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
In a 2007 article, Simpson wrote that Yanukovych "favors closer ties with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's administration."
That view would inform much of the operation to come. It would use Manafort's close ties to Yanukovych as the kernel of truth from which grew the vast Russiagate conspiracy.
Fusion GPS's most infamous work product was the Steele dossier. But, as I report in my forthcoming book, "The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History," Simpson's organization compiled at least two separate opposition research documents on Manafort and his Ukraine business, which it shared with journalists starting in spring 2016.
ne is an eight-page document titled "Paul Manafort – Ukraine and Lichtenstein," the other is nine pages, titled "UPDATE – Paul Manafort." Links to Ukrainian- and Russian-language Internet portals show that the research was compiled by someone who knew the languages. In October 2015, Fusion GPS had brought on former Russian history professor Nellie Ohr for Trump-Russia research. Ohr's husband, top Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, would later help spread Clinton-financed opposition research to the federal government, helping prompt the Trump/Russia collusion probe.
The documents reference flight records, travel documents, and business agreements while noting Manafort's relationships with several Ukrainian officials, including Yanukovych's chief of staff, and oligarchs such as Clinton Foundation donor Victor Pinchuk, described as a "Yanukovych booster."
Without evidence, one of the dossiers alleges that "the Russian government played a leading role in promoting the Yanukovych presidency and Manafort worked closely with several Russians during his time in Ukraine."
The other makes the speculative, if ominious-sounding, claim that "Manafort's newfound role as campaign manager to Trump could offer Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin a new way to exert influence on Trump."
Driving the Manafort-Yanukovych Narrative
Even as Clinton operatives sought the help of Ukrainian officials, they and their allies in the press routinely mischaracterized Yanukovych as pro-Putin, advancing the Russia collusion narrative.
Ukraine is a buffer state, caught between European neighbors to the west and Russia to the east. Its challenge is to balance the two against each other. Failure to do so is apt to lead to conflict, such as the present war between the Kyiv government and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
After Yanukovych became president in 2010, Manafort recommended that he draw closer to the European Union with a trade deal. Putin saw that as a threat, and gave Yanukovych a choice between crippling economic measures and a $15 billion aid package.
Ultimately, Yanukovych rejected Manafort's advice, bowing to Putin in late 2013, touching off protests in the Ukrainian capital that led to deadly violence.
That turmoil started a new chapter in U.S.-Ukraine relations as the Obama White House made then Vice President Joe Biden the point man on the issue.
Biden had known Yanukovych since 2009 and spoke with him frequently during the crisis.
The Obama administration, however, had little confidence in Yanukovych. State Department officials on the ground the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland scrambled to piece together a coalition government. Yanukovych fled his country for sanctuary in Russia in February 2014, just days after his final phone call with Biden, when government snipers killed at least 88 protesters in the capital.
In April 2014, Biden traveled to Kyiv with a small economic aid package, and warned the Ukrainians to rein in corruption. A month later, his son Hunter was named to the board of Burisma, one of Ukraine's largest independent energy companies. Although he had no experience in the energy sector, Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his services.
Here's where the politics get even more interesting. Burisma's owner was not a reformer, but an ally of the just-exiled Yanukovych, having served as his minister of natural resources. Despite the Biden family's financial relationship with the Yanukovych circle, Clinton operatives painted Manafort's association with Yanukovych as evidence of the Trump campaign's pro-Putin sentiments.
In a three-day period at the end of April 2016, for instance, Slate, the Washington Post and Guardian all published articles alleging that Manafort's work for Yanukovych showed the Trump team was close to Russia.
This is another reminder of the double-standard that has driven so much media coverage: the eagerness to buy Clinton's spin on Manafort and then connect Trump to it all while dismissing Biden's clear conflicts.
Clinton Operative Alleges a Ukrainian-Related Quid Pro Quo
Indeed, Manafort's relationship with Yanukovych became a keystone of the Trump-Russia narrative. A July 18, 2016 Washington Post article, for example, cited it before reporting new "evidence" that the campaign was cozying up to Putin.
Trump staffers, according to the article, "stripped out" the Republican National Convention platform's call for giving Ukraine "lethal defensive weapons."
That was inaccurate. One GOP delegate proposed an amendment calling for giving lethal aid to Ukraine. The amendment was toned down by a Trump adviser, changing it to "appropriate assistance." The result was that the amendment was softened but the platform's position on Ukraine was strengthened. In office, the Trump administration, unlike Obama's, sent weapons to Kyiv.
That Post story illustrates the success of the Clinton operation in convincing many media outlets and government agencies to interpret – and misinterpret – the Trump campaign through the lens of Russian collusion. This, in turn, erased skepticism they should have had in assessing the charges leveled for Clinton through Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.
In a July memo written after the DNC emails had been leaked during the Democrats' convention, Steele alleged that the operation – the hack and the release of the emails – had been orchestrated by the Russians. Then he claimed Moscow had done it with the full knowledge of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Steele falsely claimed, was managing the "well-developed conspiracy" for the Trump side.
Further, Steele claimed, in exchange for the DNC hack and subsequent publication of the emails by WikiLeaks, the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a campaign issue. This was the Clinton campaign's first allegation of a Ukraine-related quid pro quo. This was also false.
As Clinton operatives used Ukraine to falsely smear Trump, Manafort's ties to that country threw the Trump campaign into disarray. On Aug. 19, 2016, Manafort resigned as campaign manager following what the New York Times and others described as a wave of stories about his "dealings with Russia-aligned leaders." The Times pushed the larger collusion narrative being spun by Clinton, reporting that the Manafort dismissal "threw a spotlight on a glaring vulnerability for Mr. Trump: his admiration for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia."
The Times story also referenced its earlier article reporting that Manafort received illegal cash payments for his Ukraine work. Manafort denied it.
One source for the Times story was former Ukrainian parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko, also referred to in the whistleblower complaint. According to former Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr, Leshchenko was a source for Fusion GPS as well.
Two years later, in August 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to tax and bank fraud connected to his work in the Ukraine undertaken years before he joined the Trump campaign.
The Steele-Isikoff Nexus
With Manafort driven from the campaign just two months before the election, Clinton operatives and the FBI zeroed in on another Trump adviser, Carter Page. Once again an alleged Ukraine quid pro quo was at the center of it.
In July, Steele had alleged that Page was one of Manafort's "intermediaries" in the "well-developed conspiracy" between Trump and Russia. The former British spy's second-hand sources claimed that Page had met secretly with a Russian energy executive.
The executive, according to Steele, raised with Page the prospect of U.S.-Russia energy cooperation in exchange for dropping sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014 for invading Ukraine.
This second Ukraine-related quid pro quo was the subject of Michael Isikoff's Sept. 23 Yahoo News article, based on information from Steele, whom Isikoff describes as an anonymous "Western intelligence source."
A few weeks later, Steele revised his reporting on Page's meeting for a memo dated Oct. 18. The British spy's unnamed sources changed their story, contending that the Trump adviser had been offered a bribe if he convinced Trump to drop Ukraine-related sanctions. In a sign of how deeply the media and FBI had accepted the Russiagate hoax, no one seemed to question that laughably large amount of this alleged bribe – a brokerage fee on a sale of 19% of the Russian oil giant Rosneft, which would have been worth at least tens of millions of dollars.
On Oct. 21, the FBI obtained a warrant to spy on Page. The still heavily redacted warrant shows that Steele's account of Page's meeting with the Russian energy executive to discuss Ukraine sanctions was a key piece of evidence.
As supporting evidence, the bureau used Isikoff's article and two other Ukraine-related news reports. One was the July Washington Post story alleging that the Trump campaign had weakened the party's convention platform. The second article claimed that Trump had softened his support for Ukraine after Page and Manafort joined the campaign.
This is one reason many consider the Steele dossier to be one of the least credible and most successful pieces of opposition research in U.S. history.
Allegations Tie Up Incoming Trump Team
Even as Clinton tied Trump to Russia and blamed both for hacks of the DNC servers, the Obama administration downplayed Russian interference in the 2016 election so as not to taint Clinton's widely expected victory. After Trump won, Obama retaliated. In late December, he expelled Russian diplomats, closed their diplomatic facilities, and sanctioned Russia's military intelligence service (GRU) and four of its senior officers.
A document released the following week showed why the administration had targeted the GRU. According to the January 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, the GRU was behind the DNC hack.
Further, then-CIA director John Brennan's handpicked teams of analysts assessed with "high confidence" that Putin had developed a preference for Trump because of his "Russia-friendly positions" on Ukraine.
Days later, Steele's reports were made public. According to his sources, the DNC hack was part of a quid pro quo regarding Ukraine.
Now the connections between Trump and the Russians were lit up like a string of holiday lights — Obama had sanctioned the GRU because of the DNC hack, which the Russians engineered on behalf of the Trump campaign in exchange for sidelining Ukraine as a campaign issue.
The operation continued to unfold as the FBI and DoJ pursued their counterintelligence probe of Trump and associates, eventually leading to Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
Mueller's probe focused almost entirely on Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election and its possible connections to Trump. He and his team displayed no interest in exploring how Clinton operatives had worked with foreign interests to sway the same election.
Still, Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump circle and Russian officials. The report makes no mention of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, or Alexandra Chalupa. Leshschenko appears only in a footnote. The report discusses Ukraine only in relation to Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates.
Now, the Ukraine Chapter
But Ukraine's new starring role was still to come. The Intelligence Community's Inspector General relayed the newly disclosed "whistleblower" complaint from the CIA analyst to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence during a transitional period. Both DNI Dan Coats and Deputy Director Sue Gordon had just resigned when the whistleblower's complaint reached Acting DNI Joseph Maguire on Aug. 16, his first day on the job.
Previously, the ICIG's whistleblower's form required first-hand knowledge of the reported concern to file a complaint. The updated form, which was "revised after press inquiries" regarding the whistleblower's complaint, eliminated the requirement of first-hand knowledge. The CIA officer's complaint appears to provide only hearsay.
n September, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena to Maguire to produce the complaint. Yet Schiff apparently already knew its contents. More than two weeks earlier, he'd written on Twitter, "Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent." A New York Times story last week reported that Schiff was briefed by an aide on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint before it was filed with the ICIG.
In driving the whistleblower chapter of the Russiagate operation, Schiff reprised the part he played in its earlier chapters. For nearly two years the California congressman filled the media with claims there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion that would bring down the president.
On Sept. 13, ODNI's general counsel wrote Schiff and other leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees that since the whistleblower's complaint did not deal with intelligence activities or the conduct a member of the intelligence community (i.e., the president is not a member of the IC), it did not find it a matter of urgent concern.
Regardless, the subject matter, Trump's "promise" to a foreign official, was leaked for a Sept. 18 Washington Post story including the bylines of Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima, two of the reporters who in February 2017 received a seminal leak in the Trump-Russia case, regarding a conversation between Trump's erstwhile national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
The same political operatives and journalists appear throughout the anti-Trump operation, as do the same themes and even the same language.
The main charge in the whistleblower's complaint – that Trump solicited "interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election" – echoes the title of the Mueller report, "Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election." The whistleblower's thesis is identical to the dossier's: Trump sought dirt on a political rival regarding Ukraine-related issues on a quid pro quo basis.
The nature of the call to Zelensky so alarmed Trump officials seeking to protect the president, according to the unnamed CIA officer, that they stored the transcript in a secure system usually reserved for programs like covert action. It was a detail contrived to further smear Trump as deceptive, but Trump deputies had begun using the system after his conversations with world leaders were leaked to the press early during the administration.
In February 2017, the Washington Post's Miller had the lead byline on a story based on leaks of Trump's conversations with Australia's prime minister and Mexico's president. Six months later, the Post published the entire transcripts of both conversations in another Miller story.
It was through such national security correspondents that anti-Trump sources — intelligence officials — pushed leaks of classified information and other tidbits intended to damage Trump into the media. There it merged with other anti-Trump currents in nearly every corner of the press, where it blossomed into Russiagate.
After a nearly two-year investigation, the special counsel found no evidence of collusion. But given the scale of the damage done to the public sphere, clearly something had happened. Among other things, the FBI had put a presidential campaign under surveillance.
It was logical that Trump, and millions of other Americans, wanted to know the origins of the Russia probe and that the investigative work would be taken up by the Department of Justice. Since DoJ and FBI officials at the highest levels were implicated, it was natural that the attorney general himself would have a hand in the investigation.
Thus the panicked clamor coursing through the press at present is not about Joe Biden or his son or Trump's alleged commerce with foreign powers. Rather, it is the fear that the Russiagate bubble is likely to burst. And the fear that none of the reporters, intelligence officials, and political operatives responsible for pushing the largest and most destructive conspiracy theory in American history will escape the ruin.


www.henryviscardischool.org > News > President & CEO John Kemp's interview on Capital Press Room about the Henry Viscardi Achievement Award
President & CEO John Kemp's interview on Capital Press Room about the Henry Viscardi Achievement Award
December 14, 2012 by imc_admin
President & CEO John Kemp's interview on Capital Press Room about the Henry Viscardi Achievement Awards which honoring the most influential members of the disability community globally. Senator Robert Dole and Academy Award Winning Actress Marlee Matlin are co-chairing the distinguished international Selection Committee.
Click Here to listen to the podcast with President & CEO John Kemp on Capital Press Room


06/11/2019 | Press releases
ESNEFT among country's best for stroke care
Home > Latest news > ESNEFT among country's best for stroke care
New data shows that stroke patients at Ipswich and Colchester hospitals are getting timely access to specialist treatment and assessment, in turn giving them a better chance of making a good recovery.
The most recent SSNAP (Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme) data places the hospitals, which are run by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (ESNEFT), among the country's best across a variety of criteria designed to measure quality of care.
Both received a SSNAP level A rating, which means they achieved "the highest standards for almost all patients."
The audit looks at a range of factors, including how quickly patients are given a brain scan, whether they are rapidly transferred to a dedicated stroke unit and how many patients receive clot-busting thrombolysis treatment.
Ipswich scored particularly highly for the measures which are in place to aid recovery and rehabilitation, such as access occupational therapy, while Colchester scored top marks for providing fast access to specialist assessments and physiotherapy.
Both hospitals were commended for the way patients are discharged.
Dr Sajid Alam, an ESNEFT stroke consultant based at Ipswich Hospital, said: "We are proud of the stroke care we provide at ESNEFT and delighted that this latest data has placed us among the country's best.
"It is great news for our patients that we are able to provide high quality, fast and effective care which gives them the best possible chance of making a good recovery. However, we cannot be complacent, and will continue to look for ways to enhance the service trying to provide access to services like thrombectomy for even better outcomes for patients.
"We have made changes to improve the care we provide; better access to inpatient speech and language therapy, specialist stroke nurses requesting earlier scans. We also work closely with the ambulance service so that patients who have had a suspected stroke can go straight for a CT scan when they arrive at hospital to aid earlier assessment.
"Acting quickly is essential when someone has suffered a suspected stroke. We would urge people to familiarise themselves with the signs of stroke and call an ambulance immediately they notice problems with their face, arms or speech."
The SSNAP data is the most recent which is currently available, and relates to care provided between April and June 2019.
Patient advice service (PALS)
Learning disabilities and autism support


Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon
Sharon Inkelas
April 21, 2020 Forthcoming
Series: Routledge Library Editions: Phonetics and Phonology
October 3, 2018 by Routledge
Available for pre-order. Item will ship after April 21, 2020
First published in 1990. This study introduces Prosodic Lexical Phonology, a theory of morphology-phonology interaction. This theory unifies the theoretical treatments of lexical and postlexical phonological rule application. It also provides an explanatory account of systematic discrepancies that have been observed between the parsing of strings for purposes of the morphology, and the parsing of those strings into domains of phonological rule application. This title will be of interest to students of language and linguistics.
Preface; Abstract; Acknowledgement; 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Background 3. Prosodic Structure in the Lexicon 4. Constructional Constraints on Prosodic Constituency 5. Prosodic Subcategorization 6. The Representation of Invisibility 7. Case Study: Carib 8. Clitics 9. Implications
Sharon Inkelas is a Professor and former Chair of the Linguistics Department at the University of California, Berkeley. She specializes in phonology interfaces and particularly in the interaction between morphology and phonology.