http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie8.html
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
[Enterprise-E airlock control]
(Picard, Worf and Hawk in environmental suits)
WORF: I've remodulated the pulse emitters but I do not believe we will get more than one or two shots before the Borg adapt.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/magazine/08wtc-timeline.html
The New York Times
The World Trade Center: A Timeline
April 30, 1921
The Port of New York Authority is created. Eventually the Port Authority adds tunnels, bridges, railroad complexes, airports and roads to its portfolio.
Oct. 31, 1955
Over lunch, Robert Moses suggests to David Rockefeller that his plans to build a new headquarters for Chase Manhattan Bank on Cedar Street could be "a disaster" unless he can stop the flight of other businesses from Lower Manhattan to Midtown.
1957-58
David Rockefeller and other New York business leaders recommend developing the East River waterfront below the Brooklyn Bridge, as a way to revitalize downtown. The Port Authority quickly becomes involved in conceptual planning for what was then called a "World Trade and Financial Center."
Jan. 27, 1960
A proposal for a World Trade Center, citing a $250 million cost, is put forth by David Rockefeller's Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association, and suggests the Port Authority should study the plan.
March 10, 1961
The Port Authority issues a report to Governors Nelson Rockefeller of New York and Robert Meyner of New Jersey strongly backing the concept of a World Trade Center that would coordinate area activities in business competition and global trade. The report says "only a public agency" could handle the job and envisions a "World Trade Mart rising 72 stories." Estimated cost of the project: $355 million.
March 27, 1962
Guy F. Tozzoli is named director of the World Trade Department of the Port Authority. The reported price tag for the project is now $470 million and the proposed site has been switched to the west side of the island from the east.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/books/chapters/1116-3rd-glanz.html?pagewanted=all
The New York Times
CHAPTER 3
’City in the Sky’
By ERIC LIPTON and JAMES GLANZ
Published: November 16, 2003
Oscar Nadel was in Florida when he got the phone call from the owner of a tiny luncheonette on Cortlandt Street in the first weeks of 1962. The only time Nadel, who owned Oscar's Radio Shop at 63 Cortlandt and Oscar's Radio & TV around the corner at 176 Greenwich, could get away for a vacation was just after the Christmas shopping season. When the neighbors on his tidy street in Queens started disappearing on summer getaways, his shops on the west side of Lower Manhattan were busy with customers who wanted portable radios for their trips to the beach, marine radios for their boats, and nice TV consoles for their living room spruce-ups. Ham radio operators would drive in from all over the Northeast to pick up obscure items like goniometers and rheostats. Sometimes European travelers would walk over from the west side piers, where the summer cruise ships docked, clutching a piece of paper with Oscar Nadel's name scrawled across it. That usually meant a friend had visited Radio Row and met the smiling, bantering, sharply dressed man who brimmed over with such confidence that he could sell anything with a price tag dangling from it. Every now and then, tourists and the sailors from their ships would show up at Radio Row in huge groups and jam one electronics store after another. When that happened, Nadel's wife, Rae, and his oldest daughter, Leatrice, would come over to help the clerks with the registers.
So Nadel would wait until after the holiday sales and go to Florida with Rae, always by train, always arranging to meet up with the same four or five couples they vacationed with every year. But the owner of the luncheonette who had found him down there was not just urgent-he was beside himself. Not many merchants had taken notice when the Port Authority announced on December 22, 1961, the Friday before a Christmas weekend, that it was thinking about moving the World Trade Center to the west side. The stories came out on a Saturday, the biggest business day on Radio Row. Besides, once word got around, no one was too worried-politicians could argue over things like that for years. But the Port Authority was talking about condemning land right away. It was on front pages and all the news programs. Engineers had been showing up on Radio Row with tools to test the ground. George Kallimanis, who owned a grocery two blocks north of Oscar's Radio & TV, asked one of the engineers what was going on. As George told the story, the engineer said, "Buster, once the legislation is passed, you're going to be out of here in six months." Nadel, fifty-six, was president of the Downtown West Businessmen's Association. He had opened his first Oscar's Radio a block west of Greenwich Street in 1925, a year before TV was invented. Could he do something?
Oscar and Rae Nadel caught the Silver Meteor back to New York, phoning ahead to ask Leatrice to pick them up at Penn Station. She drove from Queens in his big Buick and asked what was wrong.
"There's problems with the store," Oscar said.
"Can I go down to help?"
"No."
When they got home, Leatrice heard her parents in some sort of intense discussion, and then Oscar began phoning some of the men who owned businesses near his. Oscar and his family lived in Laurelton, Queens, just west of the Nassau County border on Long Island, in a comfortable, two-story Spanish-style stucco that did not particularly stand out from the dozens of other comfortable, two-story Spanish-style stuccos in Laurelton. Theirs had a cozy finished basement, a big apple tree in the backyard, and a detached garage with a grape arbor built along one side. It was a tranquil suburban landscape-even if things did get a little hectic in August and September, when everyone was borrowing grapes from the arbor to make jam and jelly. But now a fissure had opened up in that placid landscape. Oscar finished his phone calls, slammed the door on his Buick, and drove to Lower Manhattan.
Soon the handbills went up around Radio Row.
"RALLY-ALL WELCOME!!! GET THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS-PAGE ONE RESTAURANT, 112 GREENWICH STREET ... FOOD WILL BE SERVED - DOWNTOWN WEST SMALL BUSINESS SURVIVAL COMMITTEE."
As humble as those handbills were, they were harbingers of a series of new fights that, no less than the political wrestling match with New Jersey, would challenge the World Trade Center's existence and change its form forever. A new era of protest, and a budding new understanding of what truly made cities vibrant, healthy, and profitable, it turned out, was about to catch the once all-powerful Port Authority completely off guard.
The Radio Row protests would do more, serving as a catalyst that helped draw some of the city's most powerful real estate interests into the fight against the trade center. Even the city's political leaders, usually so overmatched by the Port Authority, would eventually freeze the project in its tracks and set in motion a new series of events that would resonate through city history.
On Radio Row, now that the scale and breakneck schedule of the Port Authority's plans had become clear, the handbills drew packed meetings.
The scale of the condemnations the agency was planning took awhile to sink in. The Port Authority had at first insisted that beyond the twin Hudson terminal buildings, which filled up parts of two city blocks, it would have to condemn only seven more blocks-and one of those was just an acre of parking lots where the Washington Market had once been. Although that was a vast expanse in a densely built city, it did spare the southern fringe of Radio Row. By the end of January 1961, Lee Jaffe, the powerful and mercurial public relations chief at the Port Authority, was circulating a map with a boundary that engulfed another block to the north and parts of three more blocks just south of Cortlandt. Clearly, the mysterious expansion of the World Trade Center was already taking place somewhere behind the scenes. With no formal announcement, the boundary crept southward again and the rest of those three partly covered blocks had been corralled into the plan. It became a full thirteen blocks, or sixteen acres, amounting to a 50 percent growth in what architects blandly called the "footprint."
After the first expansion, and just after Governors Rockefeller and Hughes signed the bill authorizing the World Trade Center on March 27, 1962, the Port Authority unveiled a detailed architectural model of the west side site. No one was wowed by the proposed structures themselves. The east side concept-the one that Richard Sullivan had shown Governor Hughes that day at 111 Eighth Avenue-had essentially been moved over and dropped on the west side. There was still the epic concourse/ parking-garage hybrid that functioned as a pedestal for a UN-style complex; the tallest building, around seventy stories high, still dominated a series of stubbier boxes and cylinders. But the agency cautioned that these were still preliminary designs and that architectural changes could be made in the project, whose estimated cost now stood at $470 million.
http://www.mocavo.com/Congressional-Record-Volume-108-5/312196/100
Mocavo
Congressional Record
Text from Document
?11638
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
June 25
V. LEGISLATION
2. The Hudson and Manhattan Railroad The Port of New York Authority was empowered by legislation approved by the Governor on March 27, 1962, to acquire, operate and Improve the Hudson and Man-hattan lnterurban electric railway, a major facility for commuter travel between New Jersey and Manhattan. With the improve-ment and extension of the Hudson Tubes service, this facility will provide greatly Improved trans-Hudson commuter rail serv-ice. The law also authorizes the port au-thority to construct a World Trade Center on the lower West Side of Manhattan, a sig-nificant enterprise for Increasing the trade potential of the port of New York.
From 3/27/1962 ( construction of the World Trade Center authorized by the governor of New York ) To 2/3/1998 is 13097 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 9/11/2001 ( the scheduled terrorist attack by force of violence to destroy the New York City World Trade Center and the Headquarters of the United States Department of Defense "The Pentagon" by Bill Gates-Microsoft-Corbis-George Bush the cowardly violent criminal with massive fatalities and destruction ) is 13097 days
From 3/9/1937 ( Franklin Roosevelt - Fireside Chat ) To 9/11/2001 ( the scheduled terrorist attack by force of violence to destroy the New York City World Trade Center and the Headquarters of the United States Department of Defense "The Pentagon" by Bill Gates-Microsoft-Corbis-George Bush the cowardly violent criminal with massive fatalities and destruction ) is 23562 days
23562 = 11781 + 11781
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/3/1998 is 11781 days
From 2/3/1998 To 9/11/2001 ( the scheduled terrorist attack by force of violence to destroy the New York City World Trade Center and the Headquarters of the United States Department of Defense "The Pentagon" by Bill Gates-Microsoft-Corbis-George Bush the cowardly violent criminal with massive fatalities and destruction ) is 1316 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 6/10/1969 ( Richard Nixon - Remarks on Return From Meeting With President Thieu at Midway Island ) is 1316 days
From 3/17/1944 ( premiere US film "Oklahoma Raiders" ) To 6/18/1976 ( premiere US film "Midway" ) is 11781 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/3/1998 is 11781 days
From 11/3/1976 ( premiere US film "Carrie" ) To 2/3/1998 is 7762 days
7762 = 3881 + 3881
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 6/18/1976 ( premiere US film "Midway" ) is 3881 days
From 7/16/1963 ( Phoebe Cates the United States Army veteran and the Harvard University graduate medical doctor and the world-famous actress and the wife of my biological brother Thomas Reagan ) To 10/17/1995 ( premiere US TV series episode "Biography"::"Sitting Bull: Chief of the Lakota Nation" ) is 11781 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/3/1998 is 11781 days
From 9/5/1947 ( Harry Truman - Address in Rio de Janeiro Before a Joint Session of the Congress of Brazil ) To 2/3/1998 is 18414 days
18414 = 9207 + 9207
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/17/1991 ( the date of record of my United States Navy Medal of Honor as Kerry Wayne Burgess chief warrant officer United States Marine Corps circa 1991 also known as Matthew Kline for official duty and also known as Wayne Newman for official duty ) is 9207 days
From 9/5/1947 ( Harry Truman - Address in Rio de Janeiro Before a Joint Session of the Congress of Brazil ) To 2/3/1998 is 18414 days
18414 = 9207 + 9207
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/17/1991 ( RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS US Title 18 - the Persian Gulf War begins as scheduled severe criminal activity against the United States of America ) is 9207 days
From 1/18/1947 ( Harry Truman - Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Concerning Creation of a Department of National Defense ) To 2/3/1998 is 18644 days
18644 = 9322 + 9322
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/12/1991 ( I was the winning race driver at the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix ) is 9322 days
From 5/12/1991 ( I was the winning race driver at the Formula One Monaco Grand Prix ) To 2/3/1998 is 2459 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/27/1972 ( the first flight McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle jet fighter ) is 2459 days
From 3/29/1974 ( Richard Nixon - Message Following Successful Flight of Mariner 10 ) To 2/3/1998 is 8712 days
8712 = 4356 + 4356
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 10/6/1977 ( the first flight Soviet Union MiG-29 Fulcrum ) is 4356 days
From 9/11/1926 ( the Aloha Tower dedication ) To 3/16/1991 ( my first successful major test of my ultraspace matter transportation device as Kerry Wayne Burgess the successful Ph.D. graduate Columbia South Carolina ) is 23562 days
23562 = 11781 + 11781
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/3/1998 is 11781 days
From 4/30/1948 ( the Organization of American States established ) To 8/1/1980 ( premiere US film "The Final Countdown" ) is 11781 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/3/1998 is 11781 days
From 7/20/1960 ( launched from the United States Navy fleet ballistic missile warship submarine USS George Washington SSBN 598 the United States Navy conducts the first successful underwater launch of the United States Navy Polaris atomic warhead capable ballistic missile ) To 2/3/1998 is 13712 days
13712 = 6856 + 6856
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 8/10/1984 ( premiere US film "Red Dawn" ) is 6856 days
From 10/28/1994 ( premiere US film "Stargate" ) To 2/3/1998 is 1194 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/8/1969 ( the Allende Meteorite explodes over Mexico ) is 1194 days
From 5/7/1992 ( the first launch of the US space shuttle Endeavour orbiter vehicle mission STS-49 includes me Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps officer and United States STS-49 pilot astronaut ) To 2/3/1998 is 2098 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 8/1/1971 ( premiere US film "The Omega Man" ) is 2098 days
From 10/31/1939 ( premiere US film "Moon Over Harlem" ) To 2/3/1998 is 21280 days
21280 = 10640 + 10640
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 12/20/1994 ( in Bosnia as Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps captain this day is my United States Navy Cross medal date of record ) is 10640 days
From 6/3/1944 ( Hans Asperger publishes his paper on Asperger syndrome ) To 9/4/1976 ( George Walker Bush the purveyor of illegal drugs strictly for his personal profit including the trafficking of massive amounts of cocaine into the United States arrested again by police in the United States ) is 11781 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/3/1998 is 11781 days
From 4/13/1956 ( premiere US TV series episode "The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin"::"Attack on Fort Apache" ) To 7/15/1988 ( premiere US film "Die Hard" ) is 11781 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 2/3/1998 is 11781 days
From 12/25/1971 ( George Walker Bush the purveyor of illegal drugs strictly for his personal profit including the trafficking of massive amounts of cocaine into the United States confined to federal prison in Mexico for illegally smuggling narcotics in Mexico ) To 2/3/1998 is 9537 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 12/13/1991 ( George Bush - Exchange With Reporters on the Situation in the Soviet Union ) is 9537 days
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980203&slug=2732323
The Seattle Times
Tuesday, February 3, 1998
Business Digest
Gates' Corbis Archive Acquires Digital Stock
Seattle Times Staff: Seattle Times News Services
BELLEVUE - Corbis, Bill Gates' digital image archive company, today announced that it is more aggressively targeting mainstream consumers of digital stock photography.
Corbis has purchased Digital Stock, a leading California-based provider of royalty-free images stored on compact disc or transferred over the Internet. Digital Stock competes with Seattle-based PhotoDisc, among others, in providing graphic artists, designers and others with photos and other images.
Details of the deal were not disclosed, as both Corbis and Digital Stock are privately owned. Digital Stock, with roughly 40 employees, will continue to operate from its Encinitas, Calif., facility as a division of Corbis.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067525/quotes
IMDb
The Omega Man (1971)
Quotes
Robert Neville: At it again, I see? What will it be tonight? Museum of Science? Some library? Poor miserable bastards.
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/corbis-corporation-history/
FUNDING UNIVERSE
Corbis Corporation History
Strategic Change in 1994 Leads to Bettmann Archive Acquisition in 1995
In 1994--the same year Gates acquired the Codex Leicester, Leonardo da Vinci's notebook, for $30.8 million--five fruitless years of waiting for a widespread technological revolution had proved sufficient to provoke a change in strategy. A new management team was put in place, as the pursuit of developing technology became a secondary concern. Of primary importance was cataloging, indexing, and acquiring further image collections. The change in priorities reflected a shift from the company's roots as an art-licensing concern toward a new corporate objective
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=midway
Springfield! Springfield!
Midway (1976)
[ USN Captain Garth: ] You're paid to fly fighter planes, not to sit in your cabin and cry over your girl's picture. You better shape up, Tiger, before a hot-shot Jap pilot flames your ass!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000121/bio
IMDb
Phoebe Cates
Biography
Date of Birth 16 July 1963, New York City, New York, USA
Birth Name Phoebe Belle Cates
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2092
The American Presidency Project
Richard Nixon
XXXVII President of the United States: 1969-1974
235 - Remarks on Return From Meeting With President Thieu at Midway Island.
June 10, 1969
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Cabinet, members of the diplomatic corps, Members of the Congress, of the House and of the Senate, and all of our friends here in Washington, D.C.:
After a very long journey that took us to the middle of the Pacific, it is good to be home again and to be received so warmly by all of you who have been so kind to come out here and greet us.
As all of you know from having heard the reports from our meetings in the Pacific, it was just 27 years ago that a great battle took place at Midway, which historians now recognize was one of the turning points, a decisive battle, in World War II.
I know that all of you will be interested in an appraisal of the meaning of Midway today. I am going to meet, immediately after addressing you, with the legislative leaders in order to brief them. But prior to that time, let me briefly tell you what I think is the meaning of the meeting that we had in Midway.
First, that meeting brought home the message that the forces of South Vietnam have now been trained and equipped to the point that they are able to take over a substantial portion of combat activities presently being borne by Americans.
Second, that meeting means that President Thieu completely approves and supports the eight-point peace program which I set forth in my May 14 speech to the Nation. There is no disagreement between us on that program.
And, third, that meeting means that after 5 years in which more and more Americans have been sent to Vietnam, we finally have reached the point where we can begin to bring Americans home from Vietnam.
This does not mean that the war is over. There are negotiations still to be undertaken. There is fighting still to be borne until we reach the point that we can have peace.
But I do think, in conclusion, that this observation is worth making: By the May 14 speech that I made setting forth an eight-point program for peace, and by our action in withdrawing 25,000 American combat forces from Vietnam, we have opened wide the door to peace.
And now we invite the leaders of North Vietnam to walk with us through that door, either by withdrawing forces, their forces, from South Vietnam as we have withdrawn ours, or by negotiating in Paris, or through both avenues.
We believe this is the time for them to act. We have acted and acted in good faith. And if they fail to act in one direction or the other, they must bear the responsibility for blocking the road to peace and not walking through that door which we have opened.
Finally, on a personal note, I haven't had much chance to follow the newspapers. at least from the standpoint of local news, since leaving Washington. But there was one byproduct of my trip abroad which I am sure of. No one can say what history will say about this meeting for sure, until perhaps a few months or even years later.
But I found that in the week or so that I was away from Washington, the Senators finally began to win and are now at .500.
One of the first things I am going to do when I do have a little time off, when they return from the road trip, is to go out and see them play. I hope I am not bad luck for them when I see them.
Thank you very much.
Note: The President spoke at 4:51 p.m. on the South Lawn at the White House.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074899/releaseinfo
IMDb
Midway (1976)
Release Info
USA 18 June 1976
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037146/releaseinfo
IMDb
Oklahoma Raiders (1944)
Release Info
USA 17 March 1944
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/releaseinfo
IMDb
Carrie (1976)
Release Info
USA 3 November 1976
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371504/releaseinfo
IMDb
Biography (TV Series)
Sitting Bull: Chief of the Lakota Nation (1995)
Release Info
USA 17 October 1995
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371504/
IMDb
Biography
Sitting Bull: Chief of the Lakota Nation (17 Oct. 1995)
TV Episode
Rare footage and period accounts highlight this portrait of one of the last great Indian Warriors, the man who masterminded the victory at the Little Big Horn.
Release Date: 17 October 1995 (USA)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/quotes
IMDb
Carrie (1976)
Quotes
Margaret White: [referring to Carrie's prom gown] Red. I might have known it would be red.
Carrie: It's pink, Mama.
[presenting her corsage]
Carrie: Look what Tommy gave me, Mama. Aren't they beautiful?
Margaret White: I can see your dirty pillows. Everyone will.
Carrie: Breasts, Mama. They're called breasts, and every woman has them.
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/corbis-corporation-history/
FUNDING UNIVERSE
Corbis Corporation History
The company continued to grapple with problems stemming from its business focus and how to make money from whichever focus it chose. The significance of the problems reached a critical point when Bill Gates intervened and demanded that further fundamental changes needed to be made.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111282/releaseinfo
IMDb
Stargate (1994)
Release Info
USA 28 October 1994
http://www.mnh.si.edu/onehundredyears/featured_objects/AllendeMeteorite.html
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
Allende Meteorite
In the early hours of February 8, 1969, a large fireball rumbled out of the southwest, increasing in luminosity while its noise level grew to that of sonic booms. It illuminated the night sky over vast areas of northern Mexico, even extending into parts of New Mexico. Approaching the southern Chihuahuan village of Pueblito de Allende—some 340 miles (547 km) south of El Paso, Texas—it exploded, sending thousands of stones over a nearly 200-square-mile (300 km) area—the most important stony meteorite shower on record. The Allende meteorite, as it came to be called, is a rare type of meteorite, a Type III carbonaceous chondrite. It turned out to contain some of the oldest matter known in our planetary system, and studying it has opened new windows on the formation of the early solar system.
Within five days of the fall, Smithsonian scientists Brian Mason and Roy Clarke, Jr. were on the ground in Mexico collecting materials. The strewnfield—the term for a meteorite’s dispersal area—was vast, one of the largest ever known, with the head of the field lying near Rancho el Cairo, to the east of the Sierra de Almoloya hills and the tail some 30 miles (50 km) to the south near Rancho Polanco. The scientists enlisted local help in the collecting, and a number of school children joined in the search. More than a ton of material was collected, with some fragments weighing as little as one gram, and one enormous stone weighing 242 pounds (110 kg).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944
1944
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the year 1944.
June 3 – Hans Asperger publishes his paper on Asperger syndrome.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01837709
Springer Link
Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten
3. Juni 1944, Volume 117, Issue 1, pp 76-136
Die „Autistischen Psychopathen” im Kindesalter
Doz. Dr. Hans Asperger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Asperger_syndrome
History of Asperger syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Asperger syndrome (AS), an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a relatively new diagnosis in the field of autism. It was named in honor of Hans Asperger (1906–80), an Austrian psychiatrist and pediatrician.
Discovery of autistic psychopathy
Asperger was the director of the University Children's Clinic in Vienna, spending most of his professional life in Vienna and publishing largely in German. As a child, Asperger appeared to have exhibited some features of the very condition named after him, such as social remoteness and talent in language; photographs taken during his seminal work show that he had a frank and earnest face with an intense gaze. In 1944, Asperger described in the paper "'Autistic psychopathy' in childhood" four children in his practice who had difficulty in integrating themselves socially. Although their intelligence appeared normal, the children lacked nonverbal communication skills, failed to demonstrate empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy. Their speaking was either disjointed or overly formal, and their all-absorbing interest in a single topic dominated their conversations. Asperger called the condition "autistic psychopathy" and described it as primarily marked by social isolation. Asperger called his young patients "little professors", and believed the individuals he described would be capable of exceptional achievement and original thought later in life. In a society governed by the Nazi eugenics policy of sterilizing and killing social deviants and the mentally handicapped, Asperger's paper passionately defended the value of autistic individuals, writing "We are convinced, then, that autistic people have their place in the organism of the social community. They fulfil their role well, perhaps better than anyone else could, and we are talking of people who as children had the greatest difficulties and caused untold worries to their care-givers."
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/corbis-corporation-history/
FUNDING UNIVERSE
Corbis Corporation History
Company History:
Origins
Corbis began its business life with an objective significantly different from what its posture during the late 1990s suggested. The company was founded in 1989 as Interactive Home Systems, a company personally funded by Microsoft founder and chairman, Bill Gates. At its formation, Interactive Home Systems presented itself to the corporate world as an art-licensing company, an enterprise whose strategy, not surprisingly, hinged on electronic technology, the realm of Gates's mastery.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v14/d26
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE of the HISTORIAN
Khrushchev has also shown a penchant for clever stratagems designed to entrap and confuse opponents and to increase pressures on them to grant concessions. His exploitation of the U–2 incident was intended to produce a storm of protests against US policy and to embarrass President Eisenhower on the eve of the Paris summit conference. Khrushchev confined his initial announcement of the shoot-down to bare details and then sat back to await the expected disavowal from Washington. After the US issued the cover story of a missing NASA research U–2, Khrushchev announced that he had withheld information that the pilot and aircraft were in Soviet hands, “because had we told everything at once, the Americans would have invented another version; just look how many silly things they have said.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
Inbreeding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inbreeding is the sexual reproduction of offspring from the mating or breeding of individuals or organisms that are closely related genetically. By analogy, the term is used in human reproduction, but more commonly refers to the genetic disorders and other consequences that may arise from incestuous sexual relationships and consanguinity.
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=a-view-to-a-kill
Springfield! Springfield!
A View to a Kill (1985)
I've made new associations. I no longer consider myself a KGB agent.
We trained you. Financed you. Huh! What would you be without us? A biological experiment. A freak. Enough of this! Control yourselves! You will come back to us, Comrade. No one ever leaves the KGB.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950505&slug=2119409
The Seattle Times
Friday, May 5, 1995
Gates' $10 Million To UW Honors Mom
By Marsha King, Michele Matassa Flores
Seattle Times Staff: Seattle Times News Services
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has donated $10 million to the University of Washington in honor of his late mother, the UW said today.
The gift will establish the Mary Gates Endowment for Students to support outstanding undergraduate students. Mary Gates, who died last June
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-bad-publicity-good
STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
Insights by Stanford Business
Negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown simply because it stimulates product awareness.
February 1, 2011 by Stanford GSB Staff
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15381
The American Presidency Project
Franklin D. Roosevelt
XXXII President of the United States: 1933-1945
46 - Fireside Chat.
March 9, 1937
Last Thursday I described in detail certain economic problems which everyone admits now face the Nation. For the many messages which have come to me after that speech, and which it is physically impossible to answer individually, I take this means of saying "thank you."
Tonight, sitting at my desk in the White House, I make my first radio report to the people in my second term of office.
I am reminded of that evening in March, four years ago, when I made my first radio report to you. We were then in the midst of the great banking crisis.
Soon after, with the authority of the Congress, we asked the Nation to turn over all of its privately held gold, dollar for dollar, to the Government of the United States.
Today's recovery proves how right that policy was.
But when, almost two years later, it came before the Supreme Court its constitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. The change of one vote would have thrown all the affairs of this great Nation back into hopeless chaos. In effect, four Justices ruled that the right under a private contract to exact a pound of flesh was more sacred than the main objectives of the Constitution to establish an enduring Nation.
In 1933 you and I knew that we must never let our economic system get completely out of joint again- that we could not afford to take the risk of another great depression.
We also became convinced that the only way to avoid a repetition of those dark days was to have a government with power to prevent and to cure the abuses and the inequalities which had thrown that system out of joint.
We then began a program of remedying those abuses and inequalities-to give balance and stability to our economic system to make it bomb-proof against the causes of 1929.
Today we are only part-way through that program—and recovery is speeding up to a point where the dangers of 1929 are again becoming possible, not this week or month perhaps, but within a year or two.
National laws are needed to complete that program. Individual or local or state effort alone cannot protect us in 1937 any better than ten years ago.
It will take time—and plenty of time—to work out our remedies administratively even after legislation is passed. To complete our program of protection in time, therefore, we cannot delay one moment in making certain that our National Government has power to carry through.
Four years ago action did not come until the eleventh hour. It was almost too late.
If we learned anything from the depression we will not allow ourselves to run around in new circles of futile discussion and debate, always postponing the day of decision.
The American people have learned from the depression. For in the last three national elections an overwhelming majority of them voted a mandate that the Congress and the President begin the task of providing that protection—not after long years of debate, but now.
The Courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions.
We are at a crisis in our ability to proceed with that protection. It is a quiet crisis. There are no lines of depositors outside closed banks. But to the far-sighted it is far-reaching in its possibilities of injury to America.
I want to talk with you very simply about the need for present action in this crisis- the need to meet the unanswered challenge of one-third of a Nation ill-nourished, ill-clad, ill-housed.
Last Thursday I described the American form of Government as a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government—the Congress, the Executive and the Courts. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not. Those who have intimated that the President of the United States is trying to drive that team, overlook the simple fact that the President, as Chief Executive, is himself one of the three horses.
It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.
It is the American people themselves who expect the third horse to pull in unison with the other two.
I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again.
It is an easy document to understand when you remember that it was called into being because the Articles of Confederation under which the original thirteen States tried to operate after the Revolution showed the need of a National Government with power enough to handle national problems. In its Preamble, the Constitution states that it was intended to form a more perfect Union and promote the general welfare; and the powers given to the Congress to carry out those purposes can be best described by saying that they were all the powers needed to meet each and every problem which then had a national character and which could not be met by merely local action.
But the framers went further. Having in mind that in succeeding generations many other problems then undreamed of would become national problems, they gave to the Congress the ample broad powers "to levy taxes . . . and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
That, my friends, is what I honestly believe to have been the clear and underlying purpose of the patriots who wrote a Federal Constitution to create a National Government with national power, intended as they said, "to form a more perfect union for ourselves and our posterity."
For nearly twenty years there was no conflict between the Congress and the Court. Then Congress passed a statute which, in 1803, the Court said violated an express provision of the Constitution. The Court claimed the power to declare it unconstitutional and did so declare it. But a little later the Court itself admitted that it was an extraordinary power to exercise and through Mr. Justice Washington laid down this limitation upon it: "It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt."
But since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and State Legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation.
In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body.
When the Congress has sought to stabilize national agriculture, to improve the conditions of labor, to safeguard business against unfair competition, to protect our national resources, and in many other ways, to serve our clearly national needs, the majority of the Court has been assuming the power to pass on the wisdom of these Acts of the Congress—and to approve or disapprove the public policy written into these laws.
That is not only my accusation. It is the accusation of most distinguished Justices of the present Supreme Court. I have not the time to quote to you all the language used by dissenting Justices in many of these cases. But in the case holding the Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional, for instance, Chief Justice Hughes said in a dissenting opinion that the majority opinion was "a departure from sound principles," and placed "an unwarranted limitation upon the commerce clause." And three other Justices agreed with him.
In the case holding the A.A.A. unconstitutional, Justice Stone said of the majority opinion that it was a "tortured construction of the Constitution." And two other Justices agreed with him.
In the case holding the New York Minimum Wage Law unconstitutional, Justice Stone said that the majority were actually reading-into the Constitution their own "personal economic predilections," and that if the legislative power is not left free to choose the methods of solving the problems of poverty, subsistence and health of large numbers in the community, then "government is to be rendered impotent." And two other Justices agreed with him.
In the face of these dissenting opinions, there is no basis for the claim made by some members of the Court that something in the Constitution has compelled them regretfully to thwart the will of the people.
In the face of such dissenting opinions, it is perfectly clear, that as Chief Justice Hughes has said: "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the Judges say it is."
The Court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third House of the Congress—a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it-reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.
We have, therefore, reached the point as a Nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution—not over it. In our Courts we want a government of laws and not of men.
I want—as all Americans want—an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written—that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power—amendment by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts universally recognized.
How then could we proceed to perform the mandate given us? It was said in last year's Democratic platform, "If these problems cannot be effectively solved within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendment as will assure the power to enact those laws, adequately to regulate commerce, protect public health and safety, and safeguard economic security." In other words, we said we would seek an amendment only if every other possible means by legislation were to fail.
When I commenced to review the situation with the problem squarely before me, I came by a process of elimination to the conclusion that, short of amendments, the only method which was clearly constitutional, and would at the same time carry out other much needed reforms, was to infuse new blood into all our Courts. We must have men worthy and equipped to carry out impartial justice. But, at the same time, we must have Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution -Judges who will retain in the Courts the judicial functions of a court, and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed.
In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.
What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries.
The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those · who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
If, for instance, any one of the six Justices of the Supreme Court now over the age of seventy should retire as provided under the plan, no additional place would be created. Consequently, although there never can be more than fifteen, there may be 'only fourteen, or thirteen, or twelve. And there may be only nine.
There is nothing novel or radical about this idea. It seeks to maintain the Federal bench in full vigor. It has been discussed and approved by many persons of high authority ever since a similar proposal passed the House of Representatives in 1869.
Why was the age fixed at seventy? Because the laws of many States, the practice of the Civil Service, the regulations of the Army and Navy, and the rules of many of our Universities and of almost every great private business enterprise, commonly fix the retirement age at seventy years or less.
The statute would apply to all the courts in the Federal system. There is general approval so far as the lower Federal courts are concerned. The plan has met opposition only so far as the Supreme Court of the United States itself is concerned. If such a plan is good for the lower courts it certainly ought to be equally good for the highest Court from which there is no appeal.
Those opposing this plan have sought to arouse prejudice and fear by crying that I am seeking to "pack" the Supreme Court and that a baneful precedent will be established.
What do they mean by the words "packing the Court"?
Let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all honest misunderstanding of my purposes.
If by that phrase "packing the Court" it is charged that I wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and would decide specific cases as I wished them to be decided, I make this answer: that no President fit for his office would appoint, and no Senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of appointees to the Supreme Court.
But if by that phrase the charge is made that I would appoint and the Senate would confirm Justices worthy to sit beside present members of the Court who understand those modern conditions, that I will appoint Justices who will not undertake to override the judgment of the Congress on legislative policy, that I will appoint Justices who will act as Justices and not as legislators- if the appointment of such Justices can be called "packing the Courts," then I say that I and with me the vast majority of the American people favor doing just that thing—now.
Is it a dangerous precedent for the Congress to change the number of the Justices? The Congress has always had, and will have, that power. The number of Justices has been changed several times before, in the Administrations of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson- both signers of the Declaration of Independence- Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.
I suggest only the addition of Justices to the bench in accordance with a clearly defined principle relating to a clearly defined age limit. Fundamentally, if in the future, America cannot trust the Congress it elects to refrain from abuse of our Constitutional usages, democracy will have failed far beyond the importance to it of any kind of precedent concerning the Judiciary.
We think it so much in the public interest to maintain a vigorous judiciary that we encourage the retirement of elderly Judges by offering them a life pension at full salary. Why then should we leave the fulfillment of this public policy to chance or make it dependent upon the desire or prejudice of any individual Justice?
It is the clear intention of our public policy to provide for a constant flow of new and younger blood into the Judiciary. Normally every President appoints a large number of District and Circuit Judges and a few members of the Supreme Court. Until my first term practically every President of the United States had appointed at least one member of the Supreme Court. President Taft appointed five members and named a Chief Justice; President Wilson, three; President Harding, four, including a Chief Justice; President Coolidge, one; President Hoover, three, including a Chief Justice.
Such a succession of appointments should have provided a Court well-balanced as to age. But chance and the disinclination of individuals to leave the Supreme bench have now given us a Court in which five Justices will be over seventy-five years of age before next June and one over seventy. Thus a sound public policy has been defeated.
I now propose that we establish by law an assurance against any such ill-balanced Court in the future. I propose that hereafter, when a Judge reaches the age of seventy, a new and younger Judge shall be added to the Court automatically. In this way I propose to enforce a sound public policy by law instead of leaving the composition of our Federal Courts, including the highest, to be determined by chance or the personal decision of individuals.
If such a law as I propose is regarded as establishing a new precedent, is it not a most desirable precedent?
Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgment of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
This plan of mine is no attack on the Court; it seeks to restore the Court to its rightful and historic place in our system of Constitutional Government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution "a system of living law." The Court itself can best undo what the Court has done.
I have thus explained to you the reasons that lie behind our efforts to secure results by legislation within the Constitution. I hope that thereby the difficult process of constitutional amendment may be rendered unnecessary. But let us examine that process.
There are many types of amendment proposed. Each one is radically different from the other. There is no substantial group within the Congress or outside it who are agreed on any single amendment.
It would take months or years to get substantial agreement upon the type and language of an amendment. It would take months and years thereafter to get a two-thirds majority in favor of that amendment in both Houses of the Congress.
Then would come the long course of ratification by threefourths of all the States. No amendment which any powerful economic interests or the leaders of any powerful political party have had reason to oppose has ever been ratified within anything like a reasonable time. And thirteen States which contain only five percent of the voting population can block ratification even though the thirty-five States with ninety-five percent of the population are in favor of it.
A very large percentage of newspaper publishers, Chambers of Commerce, Bar Associations, Manufacturers' Associations, who are trying to give the impression that they really do want a constitutional amendment would be the first to exclaim as soon as an amendment was proposed, "Oh! I was for an amendment all right, but this amendment that you have proposed is not the kind of an amendment that I was thinking about. I am, therefore, going to spend my time, my efforts and my money to block that amendment, although I would be awfully glad to help get some other kind of amendment ratified."
Two groups oppose my plan on the ground that they favor a constitutional amendment. The first includes those who fundamentally object to social and economic legislation along modern lines. This is the same group who during the campaign last Fall tried to block the mandate of the people.
Now they are making a last stand. And the strategy of that last stand is to suggest the time-consuming process of amendment in order to kill off by delay the legislation demanded by the mandate.
To them I say: I do not think you will be able long to fool the American people as to your purposes.
The other group is composed of those who honestly believe the amendment process is the best and who would be willing to support a reasonable amendment if they could agree on one.
To them I say: we cannot rely on an amendment as the immediate or only answer to our present difficulties. When the time comes for action, you will find that many of those who pretend to support you will sabotage any constructive amendment which is proposed. Look at these strange bed-fellows of yours. When before have you found them really at your side in your fights for progress?
And remember one thing more. Even if an amendment were passed, and even if in the years to come it were to be ratified, its meaning would depend upon the kind of Justices who would be sitting on the Supreme Court bench. An amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, is what the Justices say it is rather than what its framers or you might hope it is.
This proposal of mine will not infringe in the slightest upon the civil or religious liberties so dear to every American.
My record as Governor and as President proves my devotion to those liberties. You who know me can have no fear that I would tolerate the destruction by any branch of government of any part of Our heritage of freedom.
The present attempt by those opposed to progress to play upon the fears of danger to personal liberty brings again to mind that crude and cruel strategy tried by the same opposition to frighten the workers of America in a pay-envelope propaganda against the Social Security Law. The workers were not fooled by that propaganda then. The people of America will not be fooled by such propaganda now.
I am in favor of action through legislation:
First, because I believe that it can be passed at this session of the Congress.
Second, because it will provide a reinvigorated, liberal-minded Judiciary necessary to furnish quicker and cheaper justice from bottom to top.
Third, because it will provide a series of Federal Courts willing to enforce the Constitution as written, and unwilling to assert legislative powers by writing into it their own political and economic policies.
During the past half century the balance of power between the three great branches of the Federal Government, has been tipped out of balance by the Courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance. You who know me will accept my solemn assurance that in a world in which democracy is under attack, I seek to make American democracy succeed. You and I will do our part.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980203&slug=2732323
The Seattle Times
Tuesday, February 3, 1998
Business Digest
Gates' Corbis Archive Acquires Digital Stock
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1249125!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/ksm28n-3-web.jpg
https://cryptome.org/info/ap-911/pict66.jpg
- posted by H.V.O.M - Kerry Wayne Burgess 3:53 PM Pacific Time Spokane Valley Washington USA Thursday 26 November 2015
