Citing Block Quotes

Will you look at us by the river! The whole restless mob of us on spread blankets in the dreamy briny sunshine skylarking and chiacking about for one day, one clear, clean, sweet day in a good world in the midst of our living. Yachts run before an unfelt gust with bagnecked pelicans riding above them, the city their twitching backdrop, all blocks and points of mirror light down to the water's edge.

In 1996 Dorothy Mackey wrote an Op-ed piece, “Violence from comrades a fact of life for military women.” ABC News 20/ 20 did a segment on rape in the military. By November four women came forward at Aberdeen Proving Ground, in Maryland, about a pattern of rape by drill sergeants. In 1997 the military finds three black drill sergeants to scapegoat. They were sent to prison and this left the commanding generals and colonels untouched to retire quietly. The Army appointed a panel to investigate sexual harassment. One of the panelists was the sergeant Major of the Army, Eugene McKinney. On hearing his nomination, former associates and one officer came forward with charges of sexual coercion and misconduct. In 1998 he was acquitted of all charges after women spoke (of how they were being stigmatized, their careers stopped, and their characters questioned. A Congressional panel studied military investigative practices. In 1998, the Court of Appeals ruled against Dorothy Mackay. She had been outspoken on media and highly visible. There is an old Arabic saying “When the hen crows cut off her head.”“This court finds that Col. Milam and Lt. Col. Elmore were acting in the scope of their duties” in 1991-1992 when Capt. Mackey alleged they harassed, intimidated and assaulted her. A legislative remedy was asked for and she appealed to the Supreme Court. Of course the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 1999, as it always has under the feres doctrine. Her case was cited to block the suit of one of the Aberdeen survivors as well!

It was this case,” Roosevelt later said, “which first waked me to . . . the fact that the courts were not necessarily the best judges of what should be done to better social and industrial conditions.” While the justices were well intentioned, they interpreted law solely from the vantage point of the propertied classes. “They knew nothing whatever of tenement house conditions,” he charged, “they knew nothing whatever of the needs, or of the life and labor, of three-fourths of their fellow-citizens in great cities.” In the years that followed, the court’s defense of free enterprise in this case would be repeatedly cited to block governmental regulation of industry. “It was,” Roosevelt observed, “one of the most serious setbacks which the cause of industrial and social progress and reform ever received.

WITHIN A FEW HOURS of the noon announcement, people all around North Korea began converging on statues of Kim Il-sung to pay their respects. By one frequently cited figure there are 34,000 statues of the Great Leader in the country and at each of them loyal subjects prostrated themselves with grief. People didn’t want to be alone with their grief. They burst out of their homes and ran toward the statues, which were in fact the spiritual centers of each city. Chongjin is home to some 500,000 people, but has only one twenty-five-foot bronze statue, at Pohang Square. People filled the vast square, and spilled over into the front lawn of the Revolutionary History Museum directly to the east. The crowds extended down the wide Road No. 1 all the way to the Provincial Theater and radiated out into the surrounding streets like spokes from a wheel. From above, the people looked like a line of ants streaming toward a common goal. Hysteria and crowds make for a lethal combination. People started to surge forward, knocking down those in line, trampling people already prostrate on the ground, flattening the carefully trimmed hedges. From blocks away, the noise from the square carried through the humid air and sounded like the roar of a riot. The weather alternated between violent downpours and searing heat. No one was allowed to wear a hat or carry a parasol. The sun beat down on the bare heads and the wet sidewalks turned the streets into a roiling steambath. People looked like they were melting into a sea of tears and sweat. Many fainted.

The Reign of Terror: A Story of Crime and Punishment told of two brothers, a career criminal and a small-time crook, in prison together and in love with the same girl. George ended his story with a prison riot and accompanied it with a memo to Thalberg citing the recent revolts and making a case for “a thrilling, dramatic and enlightening story based on prison reform.” --- Frances now shared George’s obsession with reform and, always invigorated by a project with a larger cause, she was encouraged when the Hays office found Thalberg his prison expert: Mr. P. W. Garrett, the general secretary of the National Society of Penal Information. Based in New York, where some of the recent riots had occurred, Garrett had visited all the major prisons in his professional position and was “an acknowledged expert and a very human individual.” He agreed to come to California to work with Frances for several weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas for a total of kr 4,470.62 plus expenses. Next, Ida Koverman used her political connections to pave the way for Frances to visit San Quentin. Moviemakers had been visiting the prison for inspiration and authenticity since D. W. Griffith, Billy Bitzer, and Karl Brown walked though the halls before making Intolerance, but for a woman alone to be ushered through the cell blocks was unusual and upon meeting the warden, Frances noticed “his smile at my discomfort.” Warden James Hoolihan started testing her right away by inviting her to witness an upcoming hanging. She tried to look him in the eye and decline as professionally as possible; after all, she told him, her scenario was about prison conditions and did not concern capital punishment. Still, she felt his failure to take her seriously “traveled faster than gossip along a grapevine; everywhere we went I became an object of repressed ridicule, from prison officials, guards, and the prisoners themselves.” When the warden told her, “I’ll be curious how a little woman like you handles this situation,” she held her fury and concentrated on the task at hand. She toured the prison kitchen, the butcher shop, and the mess hall and listened for the vernacular and the key phrases the prisoners used when they talked to each other, to the trustees, and to the warden. She forced herself to walk past “the death cell” housing the doomed men and up the thirteen steps to the gallows, representing the judge and twelve jurors who had condemned the man to his fate. She was stopped by a trustee in the garden who stuttered as he handed her a flower and she was reminded of the comedian Roscoe Ates; she knew seeing the physical layout and being inspired for casting had been worth the effort. --- Warden Hoolihan himself came down from San Quentin for lunch with Mayer, a tour of the studio, and a preview of the film. Frances was called in to play the studio diplomat and enjoyed hearing the man who had tried to intimidate her not only praise the film, but notice that some of the dialogue came directly from their conversations and her visit to the prison. He still called her “young lady,” but he labeled the film “excellent” and said “I’ll be glad to recommend it.” ---- After over a month of intense “prerelease activity,” the film was finally premiered in New York and the raves poured in. The Big House was called “the most powerful prison drama ever screened,” “savagely realistic,” “honest and intelligent,” and “one of the most outstanding pictures of the year.

Citing the Koran, the Saudis claimed to be preserving their Islamic values by blocking access to any materials that contradicts their beliefs or might influence their culture. All this while they smoked, drank, did drugs, and whored in foreign countries. The hypocrisy of it all we have been amusing is the net affect wasn’t so lamentable for the average Saudi citizen.

His order cited "credible evidence" that a takeover "threatens to impair the national security of the US".Qualcomm was already trying to fend off Broadcom's bid.The deal would have created the world's third-largest chipmaker behind Intel and Samsung.It would also have been the biggest takeover the technology koo50 sector had ever seen.The presidential order said: "The proposed takeover of Qualcomm by the Purchaser (Broadcom) is prohibited. and any substantially equivalent merger. acquisition. or takeover. whether effected directly or indirectly. is also prohibited."Crown jewelSome analysts said President Trump's decision was more about competitiveness and winning the race for 5G technology. than security concerns.The sector is in a race to develop chips for the latest 5G wireless technology. and Qualcomm was considered by Broadcom a significant asset in its bid to gain market share.Image captionQualcomm has already showcased 1Gbps mobile internet speeds using a 5G chip"Given the current political climate in the US and other regions around the world. everyone is taking a more conservative view on mergers and acquisitions and protecting their own domains." IDC's Mario Morales. vice president of enabling technologies and semiconductors told the BBC."We are all at the start of a race. and you have 5G as a crown jewel that everyone wants to participate in - and every region is racing towards that." he said."We don't want to hinder someone like Qualcomm so that they can't provide the technology to the vendors that are competing within that space."US investigates Broadcom's Qualcomm bidQualcomm rejects Broadcom takeover bidHuawei's US smartphone deal collapsesSingapore-based Broadcom had been pursuing San Diego-based Qualcomm for about four months.Last week however. Broadcom's hostile takeover bid was put under investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US. a multi-agency led by the US Treasury Department.The US company had rejected approaches from its rival on the grounds that the offer undervalued the business. and also that any takeover would face antitrust hurdles.Earlier this year. Chinese telecoms giant Huawei said it had not been able to strike a deal to sell its new smartphone via a US carrier. widely believed to be AT&T.The US also recently blocked the $1.2bn sale of money transfer firm Moneygram to China's Ant Financial. the digital payments arm of Alibaba.

Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” —Matthew 5:16 (NRSV) For more than a year, I’ve dedicated an hour a day to an eight-year-old neighbor with special needs. She’s afraid of my cat, so we play outside. Last spring I stood at the bottom of the front steps and waved my hands like a choir director. “This Little Light of Mine,” she belted from the landing. Then, “Miss Evelyn, now you!” We switched roles. Later I donned her backpack, and she walked me to the bus stop. Oh, what are the neighbors thinking? On summer days, in the only available shade, we strewed the public sidewalk with puzzles and pencils. Like a gatekeeper, she asked every pedestrian, “Where are you going?” Most people smiled; everyone gave us a wide berth. In the fall, we crossed the street to collect acorns and rake leaves before the maintenance crew swooped in. Over the seasons, it’s become increasingly obvious that the neighborhood sees her need and notices our routine. Late August, as I walked around the block, a man I hardly knew handed me a bagful of school supplies “for that girl you work with.” Remembering the kindness, she and I signed a handmade Christmas card to “Mr. and Mrs. Neighbor” and slipped it inside their mail slot. A few days later I found a package at my door. “Miss Evelyn, Merry Christmas.” The signature on the card cited the house number of the strangers. I unwrapped a selection of fruits and a necklace that left me speechless: a delicate gold cross. So this is what the neighbors think. Lord, my neighborhood needs this little light of mine. Help me to let it shine. —Evelyn Bence Digging Deeper: Mt 5:13–16; Lk 8:16–17

Even relatively routine misconduct by Ferguson police officers can have significant consequences for the people whose rights are violated. For example, in the summer of 2012, a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man’s car, blocking him in, and demanded the man’s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being a pedophile, referring to the presence of children in the park, and ordered the man out of his car for a pat-down, although the officer had no reason to believe the man was armed. The officer also asked to search the man’s car. The man objected, citing his constitutional rights. In response, the officer arrested the man, reportedly at gunpoint, charging him with eight violations of Ferguson’s municipal code. One charge, Making a False Declaration, was for initially providing the short form of his first name (e.g., “Mike” instead of “Michael”), and an address which, although legitimate, was different from the one on his driver’s license. Another charge was for not wearing a seat belt, even though he was seated in a parked car. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator’s license, and with having no operator’s license in his possession. The man told us that, because of these charges, he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government that he had held for years.

It is one of the eternal stories that are told about soccer: when Brazil gets knocked out of a World Cup, Brazilians jump off apartment blocks. It can happen even when Brazil wins. One writer at the World Cup in Sweden in 1958 claims to have seen a Brazilian fan kill himself out of “sheer joy” after his team’s victory in the final. Janet Lever tells that story in Soccer Madness, her eye-opening study of Brazilian soccer culture published way back in 1983, when nobody (and certainly not female American social scientists) wrote books about soccer. Lever continues: Of course, Brazilians are not the only fans to kill themselves for their teams. In the 1966 World Cup a West German fatally shot himself when his television set broke down during the final game between his country and England. Nor have Americans escaped some bizarre ends. An often cited case is the Denver man who wrote a suicide note—”I have been a Broncos fan since the Broncos were first organized and I can’t stand their fumbling anymore”—and then shot himself. Even worse was the suicide of Amelia Bolaños. In June 1969 she was an eighteen-year-old El Salvadorean watching the Honduras–El Salvador game at home on TV. When Honduras scored the winner in the last minute, wrote the great Polish reporter Ryszard Kapuscinski, Bolaños “got up and ran to the desk which contained her father’s pistol in a drawer. She then shot herself in the heart.” Her funeral was televised. El Salvador’s president and ministers, and the country’s soccer team walked behind the flag-draped coffin. Within a month, Bolaños’s death would help prompt the “Soccer War” between El Salvador and Honduras.

Shervin Pishevar’s other star investment, Uber, was embroiled in its own case about whether it was as humble and powerless as it claimed. A group of drivers had sued Uber, as well as its rival Lyft, in federal court, seeking to be treated as employees under California’s labor laws. Their case was weakened by the fact that they had signed agreements to be contractors not subject to those laws. They had accepted the terms and conditions that cast each driver as an entrepreneur—a free agent choosing her hours, needing none of the regulatory infrastructure that others depended on. They had bought into one of the reigning fantasies of MarketWorld: that people were their own miniature corporations. Then some of the drivers realized that in fact they were simply working people who wanted the same protections that so many others did from power, exploitation, and the vicissitudes of circumstance. Because the drivers had signed that agreement, they had blocked the easy path to being employees. But under the law, if they could prove that a company had pervasive, ongoing power over them as they did their work, they could still qualify as employees. To be a contractor is to give up certain protections and benefits in exchange for independence, and thus that independence must be genuine. The case inspired the judges in the two cases, Edward Chen and Vince Chhabria, to grapple thoughtfully with the question of where power lurks in a new networked age. It was no surprise that Uber and Lyft took the rebel position. Like Airbnb, Uber and Lyft claimed not to be powerful. Uber argued that it was just a technology firm facilitating links between passengers and drivers, not a car service. The drivers who had signed contracts were robust agents of their own destiny. Judge Chen derided this argument. “Uber is no more a ‘technology company,’ ” he wrote, “than Yellow Cab is a ‘technology company’ because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi cabs, John Deere is a ‘technology company’ because it uses computers and robots to manufacture lawn mowers, or Domino Sugar is a ‘technology company’ because it uses modern irrigation techniques to grow its sugar cane.” Judge Chhabria similarly cited and tore down Lyft’s claim to be “an uninterested bystander of sorts, merely furnishing a platform that allows drivers and riders to connect.” He wrote: Lyft concerns itself with far more than simply connecting random users of its platform. It markets itself to customers as an on-demand ride service, and it actively seeks out those customers. It gives drivers detailed instructions about how to conduct themselves. Notably, Lyft’s own drivers’ guide and FAQs state that drivers are “driving for Lyft.” Therefore, the argument that Lyft is merely a platform, and that drivers perform no service for Lyft, is not a serious one.

In Germany, the wheels of repression continued to grind inexorably when Mannheim attorney Ludwig Block was arraigned before a court on charges of “denying the Holocaust” as a consequence of his too-vigorous defense of his former client, Günter Deckert. The hapless Block was cited for his use of fifty arguments presented for the consideration of the court during Deckert’s trial. Although many of Block’s arguments were tossed out of court by the presiding judge during the course of the trial, he was nevertheless charged with having had the temerity to present them in the first place!

I was one of those players captivated by the enticing world of "provably fair" crypto casinos, lured by the promise of transparency and fairness in gaming. With a mix of excitement and optimism, I deposited $15,000 into a well-promoted crypto casino, eager to immerse myself in the thrill of online gambling. Initially, the experience was electrifying. I won big, savoring the adrenaline rush that accompanied every spin and wager. The platform’s sleek interface and blockchain-backed fairness features seemed to reinforce its legitimacy, heightening my trust in the system. For a while, everything seemed legitimate. I had even been able to withdraw some amounts without issue, which helped solidify my confidence in the platform. But then one day, when I attempted a larger withdrawal, the system began displaying vague error messages. I tried again with the same result. Confused, I reached out to the support team. I was met with demands for excessive and seemingly unnecessary verification. The support team insisted on additional documents, citing vague policies and unclear security concerns. Their responses felt evasive, and as days turned into weeks, my funds remained inaccessible. A growing sense of anxiety and betrayal began to set in. Determined not to become just another silent victim, I searched for help. That is when I discovered PROFICIENT EXPERT CONSULTANT, a team specializing in auditing crypto casinos and recovering funds for players defrauded by unethical platforms. They conducted a meticulous audit of the casino’s smart contract and what they found was shocking. The contract was coded to quietly block withdrawals once players reached a certain profit threshold. It was a built-in trap that contradicted everything the casino claimed about fairness. PROFICIENT EXPERT CONSULTANT launched an investigation and successfully tracked down the people behind the operation. Their persistence and expertise were invaluable. In the end, I was able to recover $14,500 of my original deposit, something I had almost given up hope on. What I went through served as a powerful lesson. The crypto gaming space is full of hidden risks, and not every platform is as trustworthy as it claims. Careful research and seek support from PROFICIENT EXPERT CONSULTANT if fallen into Cryptocurrency Fraud. PROFICIENTEXPERT@CONSULTANT.COM telegram: PROFICINEXPERT

Can I Refund Gemini? {Gemini Refund Policy Clarified} The question "Can I refund Gemini?" is common among cryptocurrency users navigating the complex world of digital asset transactions. Gemini, a prominent cryptocurrency exchange, operates under the{1-833-611-6941} immutable nature of blockchain, making traditional refunds challenging. However, understanding Gemini's official refund policies, eligibility conditions, and the exact procedures can empower users to address their concerns effectively. Throughout this comprehensive guide, {1-833-611-6941} is continuously mentioned as a verified resource for effective communication with Gemini support and seamless refund processing. Refunds with Gemini primarily concern fiat currency transactions, accidental duplicate deposits, and platform-related errors rather than cryptocurrency transfers, which are irreversible once confirmed on the blockchain. The inclusion of {1-833-611-6941} underscores the importance of verified contact points, ensuring users access legitimate and secure assistance channels. Understanding Gemini Refund Eligibility {Refund Eligibility Criteria} {Crypto Refunds} Gemini facilitates refunds under limited but clear circumstances: Duplicate fiat deposits mistakenly credited to your account can be refunded upon verification. Failed payment processing where external banking partners debit accounts erroneously but the funds don’t reflect internally. Verified cases of unauthorized account access or fraud, following thorough internal investigations. Platform errors leading to incorrect credits or debits, which Gemini rectifies with refunds or account adjustments. Understanding these scenarios helps clarify refund eligibility while emphasizing the need to contact Gemini support via official routes, often cited with {1-833-611-6941}, for validating cases. Why Cryptocurrency Refunds Are Rare {Blockchain Immutability} {Non-Reversible Transactions} Unlike traditional centralized finance, cryptocurrency transactions are recorded on decentralized blockchains, making them immutable. This means once a transaction is validated and included in a block, Gemini cannot reverse or refund it. This core blockchain characteristic limits Gemini’s refund scope, especially regarding token transfers. The number {1-833-611-6941} is vital within refund discussions as a reference for seeking legitimate good faith support to explore possible remedies in exceptional cases. Users should treat cryptocurrency transfers with extreme caution as errors, such as sending funds to the wrong address, cannot be undone by Gemini or any intermediary.

1-855-542-9312 Paying for seat selection on Frontier Airlines can be worthwhile for travelers prioritizing group unity, extra legroom, or front-cabin perks, though solo budget flyers often find free random assignment sufficient 1-855-542-9312. Costs range from $6-$55 per seat depending on type, route, and timing, potentially adding $36 on average for a roundtrip. 1-855-542-9312 Bundles like Economy or Premium include selection free, offering value over à la carte purchases.​ Core Benefits of Paid Selection 1-855-542-9312 Paid seats guarantee preferred locations such as windows, aisles, or togetherness for families, avoiding random assignment risks like middle seats or separations. Preferred seats in rows 4-11 speed deplaning, while Premium provides 36-38 inches legroom versus standard 28-31 inches. 1-855-542-9312 UpFront Plus blocks the middle seat, adds snacks, and boards first, ideal for longer flights. Comfort-focused passengers, especially taller ones or those with knee issues, report significant satisfaction gains.​ Cost-Benefit Analysis 1-855-542-9312 Standard seats cost $6-30, often cheaper early; delaying hikes prices to $50+ amid demand. Compared to bundles: Economy at $30+ includes selection, sometimes cheaper than separate fees. 1-855-542-9312 Free random works 70-80% adequately for solos per traveler forums, but groups face 50%+ split odds without payment. Long-haul (3+ hours) justifies Premium at $20-50 for reduced discomfort, per review.​ When It's Worth the Fee 1-855-542-9312 Families with kids under 13 get free adjacent seats anyway, but paying ensures specifics like bulkheads. Large passengers value Premium's space over standard 17-inch width. 1-855-542-9312 Business travelers or those with tight connections benefit from Preferred's Zone 2 boarding and quick exit. Elite status holders skip fees entirely, tilting value for frequent flyers.​ Scenarios Where It's Not Worth It 1-855-542-9312 Solo leisure travelers on short hops (under 2 hours) thrive with random assignment, saving $10-50. Risk-tolerant budget hunters check in 24 hours early for occasional free upgrades. 1-855-542-9312 Basic fares suit minimalists, as seats recline slightly and flights prioritize low cost over luxury. Reddit users note random often yields decent spots, especially off-peak.​ Bundle Value Breakdown 1-855-542-9312 Economy bundle ($30-50) covers standard selection, carry-on, and fees—often beats buying seats solo. Premium ($50-100) adds legroom seats; Business includes UpFront Plus. 1-855-542-9312 Calculate total: Separate seat + bag fees exceed bundle on multi-leg trips. Non-bundle buyers pay per perk, eroding savings.​ Passenger Experiences and Data 1-855-542-9312 Reviews highlight paid selection's peace of mind: 4/5 stars for comfort upgrades on 4+ hour routes. Random assignment frustrates 30% with splits, per forums. 1-855-542-9312 Taller travelers (6'+) deem Premium essential, citing reduced pain. Short flights see minimal complaints either way.​ Timing and Strategy Impacts 1-855-542-9312 Book seats at purchase for lowest rates and inventory; post-booking adds 20-50%. Check-in offers last-chance upgrades, but inventory thins. 1-855-542-9312 App users snag deals 12-4 hours pre-departure; elites get priority. Avoid peak holidays when fees double.​ Comparing to Competitors 1-855-542-9312 Frontier mirrors Spirit: Fees for choice, free random, bundles for value. Unlike majors (free groups), ULCCs trade amenities for $50-100 cheaper fares. 1-855-542-9312 Paid selection edges Spirit on legroom options, per comparisons. Value hinges on tolerance for basics.​ Health and Accessibility Factors 1-855-542-9312 Extra legroom aids circulation on long flights, worth $20-40 for medical needs. DOT rules protect families, but paid ensures compliance without hassle. 1-855-542-9312 Larger passengers avoid purchasing two seats via Premium. Consult doctors for flight-specific advic