who is noted as the first british citizen to attempt mount everest

The 1921 British Mount Everest reconnaissance expedition had seen the whole eastern and northern surroundings of the mountain. In searching for the easiest route, George Mallory, who was also a participant of the 1924 expedition (and the only person on all three expeditions in 1921, 1922 and 1924), had discovered a route which, according to his opinion, would allow an attempt on the summit.

1922 British Mount Everest expedition

The 1922 British Mount Everest expedition was the first mountaineering expedition with the express aim of making the first ascent of Mount Everest. This was also the first expedition that attempted to climb Everest using bottled oxygen. The expedition would attempt to climb Everest from the northern side out of Tibet. At the time, Everest could not be attempted from the south out of Nepal as the country was closed to Western foreigners.

After two unsuccessful summit attempts the expedition ended on the third attempt when seven porters died as the result of a group-induced avalanche. Not only had the expedition failed to reach the summit but it also marked the first reported climbing deaths on Mount Everest. The expedition did however establish a new world record climbing height of 8,326 metres (27,320Â ft) during their second summit attempt, which was subsequently exceeded in the 1924 expedition.

The attempted ascent was - notwithstanding other aims - an expression of the pioneering thinking that was common in the British Empire. As the British were unsuccessful as the first to reach the North and South Poles they tried to go to the so-called "third pole" â€” to "conquer" Mount Everest.

Cecil Rawling had planned three expeditions in 1915 and 1916 but they never happened due to the outbreak of the First World War and his death in 1917. The expeditions in the 1920s were planned and managed by the British Royal Geographic Society and the Alpine Club in a joint Mount Everest Committee.[1]

The surveying activities in 1921 allowed the creation of maps which were a pre-condition for the 1922 expedition. John Noel took on the role of official expedition photographer. He took with him three movie cameras, two panorama cameras, four sheet cameras, one stereo camera and five so called "vest pocket Kodaks". The last named were small cameras that were of light weight and size to be taken by the mountaineers to great heights. These cameras were intended to allow climbers to document a possible summit success. Additionally they had on their way a special "black tent" for photographic works. Thanks to Noel's efforts, many photographs and one movie chronicled the expedition.[2]

During the 1921 expedition they had seen that the best time for a summit bid would be Aprilâ€“May before the monsoon season. The expeditions in 1922 and 1924 were planned according to this knowledge.

This year of 1922 can also be seen as the starting year for the enduring question of "fair means" and controversies about the use of bottled oxygen for mountaineering purposes in the "death zone". Alexander Mitchell Kellas was one of the very first scientist who had pointed out the possible use of bottled oxygen for gaining great heights. At this point in time the available systems (derived from mining rescue systems) were in his opinion too heavy to be a help at great heights. Kellas was part of the Everest reconnaissance expedition in 1921 but died on the way to Mt. Everest. This expedition had taken bottled oxygen with them, but it was never used. Additionally, few paid much attention to Kellas’ innovative ideas, possibly because his scientific work belonged strictly to the amateur tradition. More attention was paid to the pressure vessel experiments of Professor Georges Dreyer, who had studied high-altitude problems the Royal Air Force encountered in World War I. According to his experiments—which he did partly together with George Ingle Finch—survival at great heights could only be possible with the aid of additional oxygen.

As a consequence of this scientific work, the 1922 expedition planned to use bottled oxygen. One bottle contained ca. 240 litres of oxygen. Four bottles were fixed on a carrying frame which had to be carried by the mountaineer. With the additional elements there was a weight of ca. 14.5 kg., so every mountaineer at the beginning of a climbing day had to bear a very heavy additional load. Ten of these systems were part of the expedition equipment. As well as a mask over mouth and nose, a tube was held in the mouth. Dreyer also had proposed the flow of oxygen: at 7,000 m (22,970 ft) a flow rate of 2 litres of oxygen per minute, on the summit climb they should use 2.4 litres per minute.[3] The result was a usable time of two hours per bottle. So all the oxygen would be used up after a maximum of 8 hours of climbing. Nowadays, 3 or 4 litre bottles are filled with oxygen of 250 bar pressure. At a flow of 2 litres per minute a modern bottle can be used for about 6 hours.[4]

George Finch was responsible for this equipment during this expedition which also was related to his education as a chemist and to his knowledge of this very technique. He ordered daily training for his climber colleagues to become accustomed in the use of this equipment. The apparatuses were very often faulty, were of low robustness and were very heavy together with a low grade of oxygen filling. There was unhappiness about these bottles among the mountaineers; many intended to climb without use of these bottles.[2][3] The Tibetan and Nepalese porters nicknamed these oxygen bottles as "English air".

The expedition participants were selected not just for their mountaineering qualifications: family background as well as their military experiences and professions were highly valued.[1][2]

The mountaineers were accompanied by a large group of Tibetan and Nepalese porters so that the expedition in the end counted 160 men.

The journey to base camp primarily followed the route used in 1921. Starting in India, the expedition members gathered in Darjeeling at the end of March 1922. Some participants had arrived one month earlier to organize and recruit porters. The journey started on 26 March for most participants. Crawford and Finch stayed a couple more days to organize transportation for the oxygen systems. These items had arrived too late in Kolkata when the main travel started in Darjeeling. This further organisation went well and further transportation of the bottles was without incident.

For the journey through Tibet they had a travel permit from the Dalai Lama. From Darjeeling the route went to Kalimpong, then Phari Dzong and further to Kampa Dzong which they reached on 11 April. Here the group rested for three days so that Finch and Crawford could catch up to the team with the oxygen bottles. Then they went to Shelkar Dzong, then north to the Rongbuk Monastery and to the spot where they wanted to erect base camp. To promote the process of acclimatization the participants alternated their travelling methods between walking and horse riding. On 1 May, they reached the lower end of the Rongbuk Glacier, the site of base camp.[5]

For the British expeditions before World War II, Everest was only climbable from the north out of Tibet as the southern side in Nepal was closed to Western foreigners at the time. Mallory had discovered a "makeable" route in 1921 from the Lhakpa La to the north face of the mountain and further to the summit. This route begins at the Rongbuk Glacier, then leads through the rough valley of the eastern Rongbuk Glacier and then to the icy eastern slopes of the North Col. From there the exposed ridges of North Ridge and Northeast Ridge allow an access in direction of the summit pyramid. A severe climbing hindrance, at the time an unknown obstacle, was the so-called Second Step at 8,605 m (28,230 ft), one of three breaks in slope on the upper northeast ridge. This step is approximately 30 m high and has a slope of more than 70 degrees, with a final wall of nearly seven vertical metres. From there the ridge route leads to the summit, by lengthy but gentle slopes. (The first official successful climb on this route was the Chinese ascent of 1960.)[6] Alternatively the British checked a route via the north wall flanks of the mountain and to ascend by the later so called Norton Couloir to the Third Step and to the summit. (This route was used by Reinhold Messner on his first solo ascent in 1980.)

The base camp area in the Rongbuk Valley as well as the upper east Rongbuk Glacier were known from the 1921 reconnaissance expedition but nobody had yet gone along the eastern Rongbuk Glacier valley. So on 5 May, Strutt, Longstaff, Morshead and Norton tried a first intensive reconnaissance of this valley. The Advanced Base Camp (ABC) was erected on the upper end of the glacier below icy slopes of the North Col at 6,400 m (21,000 ft). Between the base camp and the advanced base camp they erected two intermediate camps: camp I at 5,400 m (17,720 ft) and Camp II at 6,000 m (19,690 ft). The erection and the feeding of these camps was supported by local farmers who only could help for a short time as their own farms needed work.[5] Longstaff became exhausted in managing the organisation and transporting tasks and became so ill that he could not do any real mountaineering activities later on in the expedition.[2]

On 10 May Mallory and Somervell left base camp to erect Camp IV on the North Col. They arrived in Camp II only two and a half hours later. On 11 May they started to climb on the North Col.[5] This camp was at a height of 7000 m and was supported with food. The further plan was to do a first ascent trial by Mallory and Somervell without supplemental oxygen, then followed by a second climb by Finch and Norton with oxygen. However, these plans failed as a majority of the climbers became ill. So it was decided that the (more or less) healthy climbers Mallory, Somervell, Norton and Morshead should climb together.[2]

This first attempt was made by Mallory, Somervell, Norton and Morshead without oxygen, and was supported by nine porters. They started 19 May from Camp III. They climbed at 8:45Â a.m. to the North Col. The day was nice and sunny according to Mallory. Around 1 p.m. they erected the tents. The following day the climbers intended to carry only the minimum stuff: two of the smallest tents, two double sleeping bags, food for 36 hours, a gas cooking system and two thermos bottles for drinks. The porters were with three persons per tent and they were in good health at this point in time.

The following day, 20 May, Mallory was awake around 5:30 a.m. and inspired the group to start the day. The porters had slept badly the night before, as the tents provided inadequate air flow and let little oxygen into them. Only five of them intended to go up higher on the mountain. As there were also problems in preparing the food they started the further climb around 7 a.m. However, the weather worsened and the temperature fell dramatically. Above the North Col they climbed on unknown territory. Never before had any mountaineer climbed on the summit slopes of such a mountain. The porters had no warm clothing and shivered excessively. As the effort required to cut steps into the icy slopes was severe because of the hard ice surface they dropped their plan to erect a camp at 8,200 m (26,900 ft). They only went to 7600 m (which is common also for today) and erected a small camp which was named Camp V. Somervell and Morshead could erect their tent quite upright but Mallory and Norton had to use an uncomfortable slope some 50 metres away. The porters were sent down the mountain.

On 21 May the four mountaineers left their sleeping bags around 6:30 a.m. and were ready to go around 8 a.m. During preparation a rucksack with food fell down the mountain. Morshead, who had to fight the cold, was able to regain this rucksack but he was so exhausted from this action that he could not go higher. The climb of Mallory, Somervell and Norton was along the north ridge in direction of the upper northeast ridge. The circumstances were not ideal ones as a light snowfall began to cover the mountain. According to Mallory the snow ramps were not hard to climb. Shortly after 2 p.m. the mountaineers decided to turn around. They were 150 m below the ridge. The gained height was 8,225 m (26,985 ft) which was a world record in climbing. Around 4 p.m. they got back to Morshead in the last camp and climbed down with him. There was nearly an accident as all mountaineers except Mallory began to slip. However, Mallory was able to hold them by his rope and ice axe. They got back to Camp V in the dark and crossed a dangerous area of crevasses above the camp. On 22 May they started to climb down from North Col at 6 a.m.[5]

The second climb was done by George Ingle Finch, Geoffrey Bruce and the Gurkha officer Tejbir with oxygen support. After Finch had regained his health he stated that no real mountaineer even of lesser ability was available, so searched for others fit enough to climb. Bruce and Tejbir seemed to be qualified next. In the days before the oxygen bottles had been transported to Camp III so that enough bottles were available on the upper slopes. The three mountaineers went to camp III on 20 May, checked the bottles and found them in a good state.

On 24 May they climbed to the North Col together with Noel. There Finch, Bruce and Tejbir began at 8 a.m. the following day to climb via the north ridge and on to the northeast ridge. The extreme wind was quite a hindrance the entire climb. Twelve porters transported the bottles and the other equipment. In doing this again it was evident that the use of oxygen was a great help. The three mountaineers could climb much faster than the porters despite their heavier loads. As the wind grew intense they erected camp at 7,460 m (24,480 ft). The following day 26 May the weather worsened and the group could climb no further.

They again climbed on 27 May. At this point the food was nearly exhausted as such a long lasting climb had not been planned. Nevertheless, they started at 6:30 a.m with the sun shining but climbing was hindered by a steadily increasing wind. Tejbir who had no suitable clothing against the wind grew slow and slower and broke down at 7,925 m (26,000 ft). Finch and Bruce sent him back to the camp and again climbed to the northeast ridge but they were no longer roped together. At 7,950 m (26,080 ft) Finch changed the route because of the severe wind conditions and they entered the north wall flank in the direction of the steep couloir later named "Norton Couloir". They made good progress horizontally but they gained no further elevation. At 8326 m Bruce had a problem with the oxygen system. Finch determined that Bruce was exhausted and so they turned back. During this climb the height record was broken again. At 4 p.m. the mountaineers got back to the Camp on the North Col, and 1½ hours later they were back at Camp III on the upper Eastern Rongbuk Glacier.[5]

In the medical opinion of Longstaff they should not make a third try as all mountaineers were exhausted or ill. However, Somervell and Wakefield saw no big risks and a third try was undertaken.

On 3 June Mallory, Somervell, Finch, Wakefield and Crawford started with 14 porters at base camp. Finch had to quit in Camp I. The others arrived in Camp III on 5 June and spent one day there. Mallory had been impressed by the power of Finch, who in the second attempt had climbed much higher in the direction of the summit and also was nearer to the summit in horizontal distance. Mallory now also wanted to use oxygen.[2]

On 7 June Mallory, Somervell and Crawford led the porters through the icy slopes of North Col. The 17 men were divided into four groups, each one roped together. The European mountaineers were in the first group and compacted the snow. Half way a piece of snow became loose. Mallory, Somervell and Crawford were partially buried under snow but managed to free themselves. The group behind them was hit by an avalanche of 30Â m of heavy snow, and the other nine porters in two groups fell into a crevasse and were buried under huge masses of snow. Two porters were dug out of the snow, six other porters were dead, and one porter could not be retrieved dead or alive. This accident was the end of the climbing and marked the end of this expedition.[7] Mallory had made a mistake attempting to go straight up on the icy slopes instead of trying lesser slopes in curves. As a result, the climbers triggered an avalanche.

On 2 August all the European expedition members were back in Darjeeling.[8]

After their journey back to England Mallory and Finch toured the country making presentations on the expedition. This tour had two goals. First, interested audiences would get information on the expedition and the results. Second, with the financial results of this journey another expedition should be financed. Mallory additionally made a three-month trip to the United States. During this travel Mallory was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest. His answer: "Because it is there" became a classic.[9] The intended 1923 expedition to Mount Everest was delayed by financial and organizational reasons. There was insufficient time to prepare another expedition the following year.

The movie which was recorded by Noel during this expedition was also published. Climbing Mount Everest was shown for ten weeks in Liverpool's Philharmonic Hall.[2]

The European expedition members received the Olympic medal in alpinism at the 1924 Summer Olympic Games. To each of the 13 participants Pierre de Coubertin presented a Silver Medal with gold overlay.[10]


who is the bass player for the eagles

Timothy Bruce Schmit (born October 30, 1947) is an American musician, singer, and songwriter. He has performed as the bassist and vocalist for Poco and the Eagles, having replaced bassist and vocalist Randy Meisner in both cases. Schmit has also worked for decades as a session musician and solo artist. In 1998, he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of the Eagles.

Timothy B. Schmit

Schmit was born in Oakland, California.[1] He was raised in Sacramento, and began playing in the folk music group Tim, Tom & Ron[1] at the age of 15. That group evolved into a surf band called the Contenders, then changed its name to the New Breed (sometimes known simply as "the Breed"). As the New Breed, they had one big radio hit: the Animals-inspired "Green Eyed Woman," which was released in 1965. Changing its name once again to Glad, the group recorded the album Feelin' Glad in 1968.

In 1968, Schmit auditioned for Poco but was turned down in favor of founding member Randy Meisner. When Meisner quit the band in 1970, Schmit replaced him on bass and vocals.[2] He wrote and was the lead singer on the song "Keep on Tryin'," Poco's biggest hit single to that point, peaking at #50 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1975. Apart from Poco, Schmit also contributed vocals to Firefall's 1977 hit, "Just Remember I Love You."[3]

Schmit also sang backing vocals on the Steely Dan albums Pretzel Logic, The Royal Scam and Aja.[4] Schmit also sang backing vocals on "Never Let Her Slip Away", a top 5 UK hit for Andrew Gold in 1978, along with Brock Walsh, J.D. Souther and an uncredited Freddie Mercury.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

In 1977, Schmit joined the Eagles after the Hotel California tour, once again replacing Randy Meisner on bass/vocals after Meisner quit. Although the Eagles are thought of as a quintessential California band, Schmit is the only member of the group to actually be a native of California.[11][12]

On the 1979 album, The Long Run, Schmit co-wrote and sang lead vocals on the song "I Can't Tell You Why". The band later broke up in 1980 and reunited 14 years later in 1994, with Schmit singing the lead vocals on "Love Will Keep Us Alive", on the reunion album Hell Freezes Over.

In 2007, the Eagles released a new album, Long Road Out of Eden. Schmit continued to be part of the Eagles lineup along with Don Henley, Glenn Frey and Joe Walsh until Frey's death in 2016.

After the Eagles broke up in 1980, Schmit embarked on a solo career, singing vocals and playing bass for hire during studio sessions. His voice can be heard on many hits, including Bob Seger's "Fire Lake" and Boz Scaggs' "Look What You've Done to Me" (each with Frey and Henley), Don Felder's "Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride)" (with Henley), and Crosby, Stills and Nash's "Southern Cross", where he sang harmony. He was also a background musician on two of Don Henley's hit songs, "Dirty Laundry" and "You Don't Know Me at All".

Schmit teamed with his predecessor in both Poco and the Eagles, Randy Meisner, along with their mutual Eagles bandmate Joe Walsh, to provide background vocals to the Richard Marx 1987 hit "Don't Mean Nothing". Schmit also performed on the Toto 1983 hit singles "I Won't Hold You Back" and "Africa", and the Jars of Clay song "Everything in Between". He also played on the 1983 Glenn Shorrock solo album. In 1991 Schmit covered the standard "I Only Have Eyes for You" for the soundtrack of the film Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead. In 1988 he added background vocals to Sheena Easton album The Lover in Me and in 1989 Schmit added background vocals on the Stacey Q single, "Heartbeat", which was featured on her critically acclaimed Nights Like This album.

Schmit toured with Toto in 1982 and with Jimmy Buffett, in 1983, 1984, and 1985 as a member of the Coral Reefer Band, and coined the term "Parrotheads" to describe Buffett's fans. He was a member of Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band in 1992. In 1993, he contributed background vocals to several tracks on Clint Black's No Time to Kill CD including the title cut. In 1996, he sang on a cover version of The Beach Boys' 1966 song "Caroline, No" on their album Stars and Stripes Vol. 1, with the Beach Boys themselves contributing harmonies. In 2000, he toured with Dan Fogelberg which became a live album, "Dan Fogelberg Live." Schmit sang harmony on the title track of Katy Rose's debut album, Because I Can, produced by fellow Poco alumnus and Katy's father, Kim Bullard.

Schmit's fifth studio album, Expando, was released on October 20, 2009.

In May 2012, Schmit was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Music from Berklee College of Music.[13]

His latest album, Leap of Faith, was released on September 23, 2016, the first release of an Eagles member since the death of bandmate Glenn Frey in January 2016.

Schmit has three children: a daughter by his first wife and a daughter and son by his present wife.[14]


where is little italy in new york located

Little Italy is a neighborhood in Lower Manhattan, New York City, once known for its large population of Italian Americans.[1] Today the neighborhood consists of only a few Italian stores and restaurants.[2] It is bounded on the west by Tribeca and Soho, on the south by Chinatown, on the east by the Bowery and Lower East Side, and on the north by Nolita.

Little Italy, Manhattan

Little Italy on Mulberry Street used to extend as far south as Worth Street, as far north as Houston Street, as far west as Lafayette Street, and as far east as Bowery.[1] It is now only three blocks on Mulberry Street.[3] Little Italy originated as Mulberry Bend. Jacob Riis described Mulberry Bend as "the foul core of New York’s slums."[4] During this time period "Immigrants of the late 19th century usually settled in ethnic neighborhoods".[5] Therefore, the “mass immigration from Italy during the 1880’s”[6] led to the large settlement of Italian immigrants in lower Manhattan. The results of such migration had created an "influx of Italian immigrants" which had "led to the commercial gathering of their dwelling and business".[7]

Bill Tonelli from New York magazine said, "Once, Little Italy was like an insular Neapolitan village re-created on these shores, with its own language, customs, and financial and cultural institutions."[4] Little Italy was not the largest Italian neighborhood in New York City, as East Harlem (or Italian Harlem) had a larger Italian population. Tonelli said that Little Italy "was perhaps the city’s poorest Italian neighborhood".[4] In 1910 Little Italy had almost 10,000 Italians; that was the peak of the community's Italian population. At the turn of the 20th century over 90% of the residents of the Fourteenth Ward were of Italian birth or origins.[4] Tonnelli said that it meant "that residents began moving out to more spacious digs almost as soon as they arrived."[4] Such a vastly growing community impacted the "U.S. labor movement in the 20th century” by making up much of the labor population in the garment industry".[6]

After World War II, many residents of the Lower East Side began moving to Brooklyn, Staten Island, eastern Long Island, and New Jersey. Chinese immigrants became an increased presence after the U.S. Immigration Act of 1965 removed immigration restrictions, and the Manhattan Chinatown to Little Italy's south expanded. In 2004, Tonelli said, "You can go back 30 years and find newspaper clips chronicling the expansion of Chinatown and mourning the loss of Little Italy."[4]

Prior to 2004, several upscale businesses entered the northern portion of the area between Houston and Kenmare Street. Tonelli said "Real-estate prices zoomed, making it even tougher for the old-timers—residents and businesspeople alike—to hang on."[4] After the September 11 attacks in 2001, areas below Houston Street were cut off for the rest of the fall of 2001. The San Gennaro feast, scheduled for September 13, was postponed. Business from the Financial District dropped severely, due to the closure of Park Row, which connected Chinatown and the Civic Center; as a result, residents in Little Italy and Chinatown suffered. Tonelli said the post-9/11 events "strangely enough, ended up motivating all these newfangled efforts to save what’s left of the old neighborhood."[4]

In 2004 Tonelli said "Today, Little Italy is a veneer—50 or so restaurants and cafés catering to tourists, covering a dense neighborhood of tenements shared by recent Chinese immigrants, young Americans who can’t afford Soho, and a few remaining real live Italians."[4] This sentiment has also been echoed by Italian culture and heritage website ItalianAware. The site has called the dominance of Italians in the area, "relatively short lived." It attributes this to the quick financial prosperity many Italians achieved, which afforded them the opportunity to leave the cramped neighborhood for areas in Brooklyn and Queens. The site also goes on to state that the area is currently referred to as Little Italy more out of nostalgia than as a reflection of a true ethnic population.[8]

In 2010, Little Italy and Chinatown were listed in a single historic district on the National Register of Historic Places.[9] Little Italy, by this point, was shrinking rapidly.[3]

The New York Times sent its reporters to characterize the Little Italy/Mulberry neighborhood in May 1896:

They are laborers; toilers in all grades of manual work; they are artisans, they are junkman, and here, too, dwell the rag pickers....There is a monster colony of Italians who might be termed the commercial or shop keeping community of the Latins. Here are all sorts of stores, pensions, groceries, fruit emporiums, tailors, shoemakers, wine merchants, importers, musical instrument makers....There are notaries, lawyers, doctors, apothecaries, undertakers.... There are more bankers among the Italians than among any other foreigners except the Germans in the city.[10]

As of the 2000 U.S. Census, 1,211 residents claiming Italian ancestry lived in three census tracts that make up Little Italy. Those residents comprise 8.25% of the population in the community, which is similar to the proportion of those of Italian ancestry throughout New York City. Bill Tonelli of New York magazine contrasted Little Italy with the Manhattan Chinatown; in 2000, of the residents of the portions of Chinatown south of Grand Street, 81% were of Chinese origins.[4]

In 2004, Tonelli revisited the issue, saying, "Little Italy may always endure as an open-air theme park of nineteenth- and twentieth-century European immigration to the Lower East Side... But you’ll spend a long time in the neighborhood before you hear anyone speak Italian, and then the speaker will be a tourist from Milan."[11] Tonelli added, "You have to slow your gaze to find the neighbors in this neighborhood, because they’re so overwhelmed and outnumbered by the tourists. But once you focus, you can see them, standing (or sitting) in the interstices, taking in the scene, like the group of men, mostly senior citizens, loitering contentedly under an awning on Mulberry Street."[11]

Little Italy was home to dozens of restaurants that serve authentic Italian cuisine, but between March 2013 and March 2014, eight eateries closed down.[12]

Since 2004, Sorrento Lactalis funds neighborhood cultural events in Little Italy.[4]

The Feast of San Gennaro originally was once only a one-day religious commemoration. It began in September 1926 with the new arrival of immigrants from Naples. The Italian immigrants congregated along Mulberry Street in Manhattan's Little Italy to celebrate San Gennaro as the Patron Saint of Naples. The Feast of San Gennaro is a large street fair, lasting 11 days, that takes place every September along Mulberry Street between Houston and Canal Streets.[13] The festival is an annual celebration of Italian culture and the Italian-American community. In 1995 Mort Berkowitz became the professional manager of a community group that had been formed to take over management of the San Gennaro feast. Since then, Berkowitz became involved in other recreational activities in Little Italy, including the summer, Carnevale, Columbus Day, and Christmas events.[4]

Richard Alba, a sociologist and professor at University at Albany, SUNY, said "The fascinating part here is the way in which ethnic tourism—not only by Italian-Americans but by people who want to see an authentic urban village—keeps these neighborhoods going."[11]

Little Italy residents have seen organized crime since the early 1900s. Powerful members of the Italian Mafia have operated in Little Italy.

Little Italy was the locale of the fictional Corleone crime family depicted in the novel The Godfather and the three movies based on it. It is also the setting for the 1973 film Mean Streets, starring Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel,[17] and the 1994 film Leon: The Professional, starring Jean Reno and Natalie Portman.[18]

Other Italian American neighborhoods in New York City include:


what is the main language spoken in laos

Lao, sometimes referred to as Laotian (ລາວ 'Lao' or ພາສາລາວ 'Lao language') is a tonal language of the Tai–Kadai language family. It is the official language of Laos, and also spoken in the northwest of Thailand, where it is usually referred to as the Isan language.

Lao language

The Lao language serves as an important lingua franca as the country of Laos consists of multiple ethnic groups, whose population speaks about 86 different languages.[5]

Spoken Lao is mutually intelligible with the Thai language (the two languages are written with slightly different scripts but are linguistically similar).

Lao, like many languages in Laos, is written in the Lao script, an abugida. Although there is no official standard, the Vientiane dialect has become the de facto standard.

The Lao language is descended from Tai languages spoken in what is now southern China and northern Vietnam in areas believed to be the homeland of the language family and where several related languages are still spoken by scattered minority groups.

Due to Han Chinese expansion, Mongol invasion pressures, and a search for lands more suitable for wet-rice cultivation, the Tai peoples moved south towards India, down the Mekong River valley, and as far south as the Malay Peninsula. Oral history of the migrations is preserved in the legends of Khun Borom. Tai speakers in what is now Laos pushed out or absorbed earlier groups of Mon–Khmer and Austronesian languages.

In addition to the dialects of Lao, numerous closely related languages (or dialects, depending on the classification) are spoken throughout the Lao-speaking realm in Laos and Thailand, such as the Nyaw, Phu Thai, Saek, Lao Wiang, Tai Dam, Tai Daeng, etc. These Tai peoples are classified by the Lao government as Lao Loum (ລາວລຸ່ມ, lāo lum) or lowland Lao. Lao and Thai are also very similar and share most of their basic vocabulary, but differences in many basic words limit inter-comprehension.

The Lao language consists primarily of native Lao words. Because of Buddhism, however, Pali has contributed numerous terms, especially relating to religion and in conversation with members of the Sangha. Due to their geographic proximity, Lao has influenced the Khmer and Thai languages and vice versa.

Formal writing has a larger amount of foreign loanwords, especially Pali and Sanskrit terms, much as Latin and Greek have influenced European languages. For politeness, pronouns (and more formal pronouns) are used, plus ending statements with ແດ່ (dǣ [dɛː]) or ເດີ້ (dœ̄ [dɤ̂ː]). Negative statements are made more polite by ending with ດອກ (dǭk [dɔ᷆ːk]). The following are formal register examples.

Many consonants in Lao make a phonemic contrast between labialized[dubious â€“ discuss] and plain versions. The complete inventory of Lao consonants is as shown in the table below:[10]

All plosive sounds are unreleased in final position. Hence, final /p/, /t/, and /k/ sounds are pronounced as [p̚], [t̚], and [k̚] respectively.

All vowels make a phonemic length distinction. Diphthongs are all centering diphthongs with falling sonority.[10] The monophthongs and diphthongs are as shown in the following table:[10]

Lao has six lexical tones.[11]

There are six phonemic tones in unchecked syllables, that is, in syllables ending in a vowel or other sonorant sound ([m], [n], [Å‹], [w], and [j]).

The number of contrastive tones is reduced to four in checked syllables, that is, in syllables ending in an obstruent sound ([p], [t], [k], or the glottal stop [Ê”]).

Lao syllables are of the form (C)V(C), i.e. they consist of a vowel in the syllable nucleus, optionally preceded by a single consonant in the syllable onset and optionally followed by single consonant in the syllable coda. The only consonant clusters allowed are syllable initial clusters /kw/ or /kÊ°w/. Any consonant may appear in the onset, but the labialized consonants do not occur before rounded vowels.[10]

Only /p t k ʔ m n ŋ w j/ may appear in the coda. If the vowel in the nucleus is short, it must be followed by a consonant in the coda; /ʔ/ in the coda can be preceded only by a short vowel. Open syllables (i.e. those with no coda consonant) and syllables ending in one of the sonorants /m n ŋ w j/ take one of the six tones, syllables ending in /p t k/ take one of four tones, and syllables ending in /ʔ/ take one of only two tones.[10]

The majority of Lao words are monosyllabic, and are not inflected to reflect declension or verbal tense, making Lao an analytic language. Special particle words serve the purpose of prepositions and verb tenses in lieu of conjugations and declensions. Lao is a subject–verb–object (SVO) language, although the subject is often dropped. In contrast to Thai, Lao uses pronouns more frequently.

The Lao religious script is written in the Tua Tham script, based on Mon scripts[12] and still used in temples in Laos and Isan. The Lao script (Tua Lao), derived locally around the 14th century from the Khmer script of Angkor,[13] is ultimately rooted in the Brahmic script of India.[12] Although similar to one another, the Lao alphabet is more phonetic than the Thai alphabet due to various Lao royal decrees concerning orthographic reforms, resulting in the Lao script having fewer duplicate sounds thus making the Lao script more phonetic, efficient and easy to learn.

Words are spelt according to phonetic principles as opposed to etymological principles. In addition to consonants having tone classes, tone marks facilitate marking tones where they are needed. Romanisation of Lao is inconsistent, but is based on French transcriptive methods.

Numerals may be written out as words (1 vs. one), but numerical symbols are more common. Although Arabic numerals are most common, Lao numerals, from the Brahmi script are also taught and employed.

Lao is traditionally not written with spaces between words, although signs of change are multiplying. Spaces are reserved for ends of clauses or sentences. Periods are not used, and questions can be determined by question words in a sentence. Traditional punctuation marks include ໌, an obsolete mark indicating silenced consonants; ໆ, used to indicate repetition of the preceding word; ຯ, the Lao ellipsis that is also used to indicate omission of words; ฯ, a more or less obsolete symbol indicating shortened form of a phrase (such as royal names); and ฯລฯ, used to indicate et cetera.

In more contemporary writing, punctuation marks are borrowed from French, such as exclamation point !, question mark ?, parentheses (), and «» for quotation marks, although "" is also common. Hyphens (-) and the ellipsis (...) are also commonly found in modern writing.

Experts disagree on the number and nature of tones in the various dialects of Lao. According to some, most dialects of Lao and Isan have six tones, those of Luang Prabang have five. Tones are determined as follows:

A silent ຫ (/h/) placed before certain consonants will produce place the other proceeding consonant in the high class. This can occur before the letters ງ /ŋ/, ຍ /ɲ/, ຣ /r/, and ວ /w/ and combined in special ligatures (considered separate letters) such as ຫຼ /l/, ໜ /n/, and ໝ /m/. In addition to ອ່ (low tone) and ອ້ (falling tone), there also exists the rare ອ໊ (high) ອ໋ (rising) tone marks.


who wrote the principles of literary criticism and practical criticism

Richards' intellectual contributions to the establishment of the literary methodology of the New Criticism are presented in the books The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism (1923), by C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism (1926), Practical Criticism (1929), and The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936).

I. A. Richards

Ivor Armstrong Richards (26 February 1893 – 7 September 1979), known as I. A. Richards, was an English educator, literary critic, and rhetorician whose work contributed to the foundations of the New Criticism, a formalist movement in literary theory, which emphasized the close reading of a literary text, especially poetry, in an effort to discover how a work of literature functions as a self-contained, self-referential æsthetic object.

Richards was educated at Clifton College and Magdalene College, Cambridge, where his intellectual talents were developed by the scholar Charles Hicksonn 'Cabby' Spence.[1] He began his career without formal training in literature; he studied philosophy (the "moral sciences") at Cambridge University, from which derived his assertions that, in the 20th century, literary study cannot and should not be undertaken as a specialisation, in itself, but studied alongside a cognate field, such as philosophy, psychology and rhetoric.

His early teaching appointments were as adjunct faculty: at Cambridge University, Magdalene College would not pay a salary for Richards to teach the new, and untested, academic field of English literature. Instead, like an old-style instructor, he collected weekly tuition directly from the students, as they entered the classroom. In his private life, Richards married Dorothy Pilley Richards in 1926; they had met on a mountain climbing holiday in Wales.

In the 1929–30 biennium, as a visiting professor, Richards taught Basic English and Poetry at Tsinghua University, Beijing.[2][3] In the 1936–38, triennium, Richards was the director of the Orthological Institute of China.[4]

The life and intellectual influence of I. A. Richards approximately corresponds to his intellectual interests; many endeavours were in collaboration with the linguist, philosopher, and writer Charles Kay Ogden (C.K. Ogden), notably in four books:

I. Foundations of Aesthetics (1922) presents the principles of aesthetic reception, the bases of the literary theory of “harmony”; aesthetic understanding derives from the balance of competing psychological impulses. The structure of the Foundations of Aesthetics—a survey of the competing definitions of the term æsthetic—prefigures the multiple-definitions work in the books Basic Rules of Reason (1933), Mencius on the Mind: Experiments in Multiple Definition (1932), and Coleridge on Imagination (1934)

II. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism (1923) presents the triadic theory of semiotics that depends upon psychological theory, and so anticipates the importance of psychology in the exercise of literary criticism. Semioticians, such as Umberto Eco, acknowledged that the methodology of the triadic theory of semiotics improved upon the methodology of the dyadic theory of semiotics presented by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857â€“1913).

III. Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar (1930) and IV. the Times of India Guide to Basic English (1938) developed the Basic English program in effort to develop an international language, an interlanguage based upon a vocabulary of 850 English words.

Richards' travels, especially in China, effectively situated him as the advocate for an international program, such as Basic English. Moreover, at Harvard University, to his international pedagogy, the instructor I. A. Richards began to integrate the available new media for mass communications, especially television.

I. A. Richards' paternity of the New Criticism is in two books of critical theory, The Principles of Literary Criticism (1924) and Practical Criticism (1929). The first book, The Principles of Literary Criticism, discusses the subjects of form, value, rhythm, coenesthesia (awareness of inhabiting one's body, caused by stimuli from various organs), literary infectiousness, allusiveness, divergent readings, and belief. The second book, Practical Criticism (1929), is an empirical study of inferior response to a literary text.

As an instructor of English literature at Cambridge University, Richards tested the critical-thinking abilities of his pupils; he removed authorial and contextual information from thirteen poems, one by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807– 82), and assigned the literary interpretations to undergraduate students in order to ascertain the likely impediments to an adequate response to a literary text. That experiment in pedagogical approach — critical reading without contexts — demonstrated the variety and the depth of the possible textual misreadings that might be committed, by university student and layman reader alike.

The critical method derived from that pedagogical approach did not propose a new hermeneutics, a new methodology of interpretation, but questioned the purposes and efficacy of the critical process of literary interpretation, by analysing the self-reported critical interpretations of university students. To that end, effective critical work required a closer aesthetic interpretation of the literary text as an object; which methodology produced the empirical-study work about the teaching of composition, e.g. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing ” (1981), by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes (see: Writing process).

To substantiate interpretive criticism, Richards provided theories of metaphor, value, and tone, of stock response, incipient action, and pseudo-statement; and of ambiguity. This last subject, the theory of ambiguity, was developed in Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930), by William Empson, a former student of Richards'; moreover, additional to The Principles of Literary Criticism and Practical Criticism, Empson's book on ambiguity became the third foundational document for the methodology of the New Criticism.

To Richards, literary criticism was impressionistic, too abstract to be readily grasped and understood, by most readers; and he proposed that literary criticism could be precise in communicating meanings, by way of denotation and connotation. To establish critical precision, Richards examined the psychological processes of writing and of the reading of poetry. That in reading poetry and making sense of it “in the degree in which we can order ourselves, we need nothing more”; the reader need not believe the poetry, because the literary importance of poetry is in provoking emotions in the reader.[5]

As a rhetorician, I. A. Richards said that the old form of studying rhetoric (the art of discourse) was too concerned with the mechanics of formulating arguments and with conflict; instead, he proposed the New Rhetoric to study of the meaning of the parts of discourse, as “a study of misunderstanding and its remedies” to determine how language works. That ambiguity is expected, and that meanings (denotation and connotation) are not inherent to words, but are inherent to the perception of the reader, the listener, and the viewer. By their usages, compiled from experience, people decide and determine meaning by “how words are used in a sentence”, in spoken and written language.[6]

I. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden created the semantic triangle to deliver improved understanding to how words come to mean.[7] The semantic triangle has three parts, the symbol or word, the referent, and the thought or reference.[8] In the bottom, right corner is the Referent, the thing, in reality, Placed at the left corner is the symbol or word. At the top point, the convergence of the literal word and the object in reality; it is our intangible idea about the object. Ultimately, the meaning of the words is determined by an individual's unique experience.[7]

At the age of 75 years, I. A. Richards was approached by the Saturday Review to write a piece for their "What I Have Learned" series. Richards surprisingly took this opportunity to expound upon his lesser known concept of "feedforward".[8] According to Richards, feedforward is the concept of anticipating the effect of one's words by acting as our own critic. It is thought to work in the opposite direction of feedback, though it works essentially towards the same goal: to clarify unclear concepts. Existing in all forms of communication,[9] feedforward acts as a pretest that any writer can use to anticipate the impact of their words on their audience. According to Richards, feedforward allows the writer to then engage with their text to make necessary changes to create a better effect. He believes that communicators who do not use feedforward will seem dogmatic. Richards wrote more in depth about the idea and importance of feedforward in communication in his book Speculative Instruments and has claimed that feedforward was his most important learned concept.[9]

Richards served as mentor and teacher to other prominent critics, most notably William Empson and F. R. Leavis, though Leavis was contemporary with Richards, Empson much younger. Other critics primarily influenced by his writings also included Cleanth Brooks and Allen Tate. Later critics who refined the formalist approach to New Criticism by actively rejecting his psychological emphasis included, besides Brooks and Tate, John Crowe Ransom, W. K. Wimsatt, R. P. Blackmur, and Murray Krieger. R. S. Crane of the Chicago school was both indebted to Richards's theory and critical of its psychological assumptions. They all admitted the value of his seminal ideas but sought to salvage what they considered his most useful assumptions from the theoretical excesses they felt he brought to bear in his criticism. Like Empson, Richards proved a difficult model for the New Critics, but his model of close reading provided the basis for their interpretive methodology.

The Oxford English Dictionary records that I. A. Richards coined the term feedforward, in 1951, at the 8th annual Macy Conferences on cybernetics. In the event, the term extended the intellectual and critical influence of Richards to cybernetics which makes liberal use of the term feedforward, as in Feedforward. Moreover, among Richards' students was Marshall McLuhan, who also applied the term and the ideas of feedforward.


who created the first intelligence test and why

Alfred Binet (French: [binɛ]; July 8, 1857 – October 18, 1911) was a French psychologist who invented the first practical IQ test, the Binet–Simon test.[2] In 1904, the French Ministry of Education asked psychologist Alfred Binet to devise a method that would determine which students did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction so they could be given remedial work. Along with his collaborator Théodore Simon, Binet published revisions of his test in 1908 and 1911, the last of which appeared just before his death.

Alfred Binet

Binet attended law school in Paris, and received his degree in 1878. He also studied physiology at the Sorbonne. His first formal position was as a researcher at a neurological clinic, Salpêtrière Hospital, in Paris from 1883–1889. From there, Binet went on to being a researcher and associate director of the Laboratory of Experimental Psychology at the Sorbonne from 1891–1894.  In 1894, he was promoted to being the director of the laboratory until 1911 (his death). Binet also educated himself by reading psychology texts at the National Library in Paris. He soon became fascinated with the ideas of John Stuart Mill, who believed that the operations of intelligence could be explained by the laws of associationism. Binet eventually realized the limitations of this theory, but Mill's ideas continued to influence his work.

In 1883, years of unaccompanied study ended when Binet was introduced to Charles Féré, who introduced him to Jean-Martin Charcot, the director of a clinic called La Salpêtrière, Paris. Charcot became his mentor and in turn, Binet accepted a job offer at the clinic, working in his neurological laboratory. At the time of Binet's tenure, Charcot was experimenting with hypnotism. Binet was strongly influenced by Charcot, and published four articles about his work in this area. Unfortunately, Charcot's conclusions did not hold up under professional scrutiny, and Binet was forced to make an embarrassing public admission that he had been wrong in supporting his teacher. Nevertheless, he had established his name internationally in the field, Morton Prince for example stating in 1904 that "certain problems in subconscious automatism will always be associated with the names of Breuer and Freud in Germany, Janet and Alfred Binet in France".[3]

When his involvement with hypnosis waned as a result of failure to establish professional acceptance, he turned to the study of development spurred on by the birth of his two daughters, Marguerite and Armande (born in 1885 and 1887, respectively), calling Armande a subjectivist and Marguerite an objectivist, and developing the concepts of introspection and externospection in an anticipation of Carl Jung's psychological types.[4] In the 21-year period following his shift in career interests, Binet "published more than 200 books, articles, and reviews in what now would be called experimental, developmental, educational, social, and differential psychology" (Siegler, 1992). Bergin and Cizek (2001) suggest that this work may have influenced Jean Piaget, who later studied with Binet's collaborator Théodore Simon in 1920. Binet's research with his daughters helped him to further refine his developing conception of intelligence, especially the importance of attention span and suggestibility in intellectual development.

Despite Binet's extensive research interests and wide breadth of publications, today he is most widely known for his contributions to intelligence. Wolf (1973) postulates that this is the result of his not being affiliated with a major university. Because Binet did not have any formalized graduate study in psychology, he did not hold a professorship with a prestigious institution where students and funds would be sure to perpetuate his work (Siegler, 1992). Additionally, his more progressive theories did not provide the practical utility that his intelligence scale would evoke.

Binet and his coworker Fere discovered what they called transfer and they also recognized perceptual and emotional polarization. Binet and Fere thought their findings were a phenomenon and of utmost importance. After investigations by many, the two men were forced to admit that they were wrong about their concepts of transfer and polarization. Basically, their patients had known what was expected, what was supposed to happen, and so they simply assented. Binet had risked everything on his experiment and its results, and this failure took a toll on him.

In 1890, Binet resigned from La Salpêtrière and never mentioned the place or its director again. His interests then turned towards the development of his children, Madeleine and Alice, who were two years apart. This research presages that done by Jean Piaget just a short time later, regarding the development of cognition in children.

A job presented itself for Binet in 1891 at the Laboratory of Physiological Psychology at the Sorbonne. He worked for a year without pay and by 1894, he took over as the director. This was a position that Binet held until his death, and it enabled him to pursue his studies on mental processes. While directing the Laboratory, Theodore Simon applied to do doctoral research under Binet's supervision. This was the beginning of their long, fruitful collaboration.  During this time he also co-founded the French journal of psychology, L'Annee psychologique, serving as the director and editor-in-chief of the journal that was the first scientific journal in this domain.

In 1899, Binet was asked to be a member of the Free Society for the Psychological Study of the Child. French education changed greatly during the end of the nineteenth century, because of a law that passed which made it mandatory for children ages six to fourteen to attend school. This group to which Binet became a member hoped to begin studying children in a scientific manner. Binet and many other members of the society were appointed to the Commission for the Retarded. The question became "What should be the test given to children thought to possibly have learning disabilities, that might place them in a special classroom?" Binet made it his problem to establish the differences that separate the normal child from the abnormal, and to measure such differences. L'Etude experimentale de l'intelligence (Experimental Studies of Intelligence) was the book he used to describe his methods and it was published in 1903.

Development of more tests and investigations began soon after the book, with the help of a young medical student named Theodore Simon. Simon had nominated himself a few years before as Binet's research assistant and worked with him on the intelligence tests that Binet is known for, which share Simon's name as well. In 1905, a new test for measuring intelligence was introduced and simply called the Binetâ€“Simon scale. In 1908, they revised the scale, dropping, modifying, and adding tests and also arranging them according to age levels from three to thirteen.

In 1904 a French professional group for child psychology, La Société Libre pour l'Etude Psychologique de l'Enfant, was called upon by the French government to appoint a commission on the education of retarded children. The commission was asked to create a mechanism for identifying students in need of alternative education. Binet, being an active member of this group, found the impetus for the development of his mental scale.

Binet and Simon, in creating what historically is known as the Binet-Simon Scale, comprised a variety of tasks they thought were representative of typical children's abilities at various ages. This task-selection process was based on their many years of observing children in natural settings. They then tested their measurement on a sample of fifty children, ten children per five age groups. The children selected for their study were identified by their school teachers as being average for their age. The purpose of this scale of normal functioning, which would later be revised twice using more stringent standards, was to compare children's mental abilities relative to those of their normal peers (Siegler, 1992).

The scale consisted of thirty tasks of increasing difficulty. The easier ones could be done by everyone. Some of the simplest test items assessed whether or not a child could follow a beam of light or talk back to the examiner. Slightly harder tasks required children to point to various named body parts, repeat back a series of 2 digits, repeat simple sentences, and define words like house, fork or mama. More difficult test items required children to state the difference between pairs of things, reproduce drawings from memory or to construct sentences from three given words such as "Paris, river and fortune." The hardest test items included asking children to repeat back 7 random digits, find three rhymes for the French word "obÃ©isance" and to answer questions such as "My neighbor has been receiving strange visitors. He has received in turn a doctor, a lawyer, and then a priest. What is taking place?" (Fancher, 1985).

For the practical use of determining educational placement, the score on the Binet-Simon scale would reveal the child's mental age. For example, a 6-year-old child who passed all the tasks usually passed by 6 year-olds—but nothing beyond—would have a mental age that exactly matched his chronological age, 6.0. (Fancher, 1985).

Binet was forthright about the limitations of his scale. He stressed the remarkable diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, measures. Binet also stressed that intellectual development progressed at variable rates and could be influenced by the environment; therefore, intelligence was not based solely on genetics, was malleable rather than fixed, and could only be found in children with comparable backgrounds (Siegler, 1992). Given Binet's stance that intelligence testing was subject to variability and was not generalizable, it is important to look at the metamorphosis that mental testing took on as it made its way to the U.S.

While Binet was developing his mental scale, the business, civic, and educational leaders in the U.S. were facing issues of how to accommodate the needs of a diversifying population, while continuing to meet the demands of society. There arose the call to form a society based on meritocracy (Siegler,1992) while continuing to underline the ideals of the upper class. In 1908, H.H. Goddard, a champion of the eugenics movement, found utility in mental testing as a way to evidence the superiority of the white race. After studying abroad, Goddard brought the Binet-Simon Scale to the United States and translated it into English.

Following Goddard in the U.S. mental testing movement was Lewis Terman, who took the Simon-Binet Scale and standardized it using a large American sample. The new Stanford-Binet scale was no longer used solely for advocating education for all children, as was Binet's objective. A new objective of intelligence testing was illustrated in the Stanford-Binet manual with testing ultimately resulting in "curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency".[5]

It follows that we should question why Binet did not speak out concerning the newfound uses of his measure. Siegler (1992) pointed out that Binet was somewhat of an isolationist in that he never traveled outside France and he barely participated in professional organizations. Additionally, his mental scale was not adopted in his own country during his lifetime and therefore was not subjected to the same fate. Finally, when Binet did become aware of the "foreign ideas being grafted on his instrument" he condemned those who with 'brutal pessimism' and 'deplorable verdicts' were promoting the concept of intelligence as a single, unitary construct (White, 2000).

He did a lot of studies of children. His experimental subjects ranged from 3 to 18 years old. Binet published the third version of the Binet-Simon scale shortly before his death in 1911. The Binet-Simon scale was and is hugely popular around the world, mainly because of the vast literature it has fostered, as well as its relative ease of administration.

Since his death, many people in many ways have honored Binet, but two of these stand out. In 1917, the Free Society for the Psychological Study of the Child, of which Binet became a member in 1899 and which prompted his development of the intelligence tests, changed their name to La Société Alfred Binet, in memory of the renowned psychologist. The second honor was not until 1984, when the journal Science 84 picked the Binet-Simon scale as one of twenty of the century's most significant developments or discoveries.

He studied sexual behavior, coining the term erotic fetishism to describe individuals whose sexual interests in nonhuman objects, such as articles of clothing,[6] and linking this to the after-effects of early impressions in an anticipation of Freud.[7]

He also studied abilities of Valentine Dencausse, the most famous chiromancer in Paris in those days.

Binet had done a series of experiments to see how well chess players played when blindfolded.[8]  He found that only some of the master chess players could play from memory and a few could play multiple games simultaneously without looking at the boards.  To remember the positions of the pieces on the boards, some players envisioned exact replicas of specific chess sets, while others envisioned an abstract schema of the game. Binet concluded that extraordinary feats of memory such as blind chess playing could take a variety of mnemonic forms. He recounted his experiments in a book entitled Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs en echec (Paris: Hachette, 1894).[9]

Alfred Binet was one of the founding editors of L'annÃ©e  psychologique, a yearly volume comprising original articles and  reviews of the progress of psychology still in print.


will there be a season 5 of braquo

The fourth - and final - season of Braquo was shot between February and June 2015 in Marseille and Paris. It is directed by Xavier Palud and Frédéric Jardin and written by Abdel Raouf Dafri. It screened in France in September 2016, closely followed by a Spanish broadcast, and began airing in the UK in November on FOX UK.[1]

Braquo

Braquo is a French crime drama television series created by Olivier Marchal. It was produced by Capa Drama with the participation of Canal+ in association with Marathon Group, Be-Films and RTBF. Braquo was first broadcast in France from 12 October to 2 November 2009.

The first season of Braquo established a record audience for an original production of the channel, and has surpassed that of many U.S. productions broadcast by the network. The second season started on Canal+ on 21 November 2011. A third and apparently final season was announced by lead actor Jean-Hugues Anglade in 2011. However, the ending of the third season, with two separate plot strands left unfinished, suggested a possible return. The series was available in the US from Hulu as of September 2013.

The name of the series comes from the French word braquage, meaning armed robberies, particularly of banks.

The protagonists are four police agents in the Hauts-de-Seine area of Paris: Eddy Caplan (Jean-Hugues Anglade), Walter Morlighem (Joseph Malerba), ThÃ©o Vachewski (Nicolas Duvauchelle) and Roxanne Delgado (Karole Rocher). Their colleague Max Rossi (Olivier Rabourdin) is accused of criminal misconduct, and commits suicide. His guilt is then presumed, disrupting the lives of the other four.

The four police agents then decide to "cross the yellow line": do whatever is necessary, even breaking the law, to clear Rossi's name. In crossing the yellow line, however, they fall under the close scrutiny of Vogel, of the police internal affairs bureau, a sworn enemy to Caplan.

First broadcast: between 12 October and 2 November 2009 by Canal+.

First broadcast: between 21 November and 12 December 2011 by Canal+.

First broadcast: between 10 February and 3 March 2014 by Canal+.

First broadcast: between 12 September and 3 October 2016 by Canal+ (two episodes per night).


la belle indifference describes which feature of a psychological disorder

In excluding neurological disease, the neurologist has traditionally relied partly on the presence of positive signs of conversion disorder, i.e. certain aspects of the presentation that were thought to be rare in neurological disease but common in conversion. The validity of many of these signs has been questioned, however, by a study showing that they also occur in neurological disease.[11] One such symptom, for example, is la belle indifférence, described in DSM-IV as "a relative lack of concern about the nature or implications of the symptoms". In a later study, no evidence was found that patients with functional symptoms are any more likely to exhibit this than patients with a confirmed organic disease.[12] In DSM-V, la belle indifférence was removed as a diagnostic criteria.

Conversion disorder

Conversion disorder (CD) is a diagnostic category used in some psychiatric classification systems. It is sometimes applied to patients who present with neurological symptoms, such as numbness, blindness, paralysis, or fits, which are not consistent with a well-established organic cause, which cause significant distress, and can be traced back to a psychological trigger. It is thought that these symptoms arise in response to stressful situations affecting a patient's mental health or an ongoing mental health condition such as depression. Conversion disorder was retained in DSM-5, but given the subtitle functional neurological symptom disorder. The new criteria cover the same range of symptoms, but remove the requirements for a psychological stressor to be present and for feigning to be disproved.

The theory of conversion disorder stems from ancient Egypt, and was formerly known as "hysteria". The concept of conversion disorder came to prominence at the end of the 19th century, when the neurologists Jean-Martin Charcot and Sigmund Freud and psychologist Pierre Janet focused their studies on the subject. Before their studies, people with hysteria were often believed to be malingering.[1] The term "conversion" has its origins in Freud's doctrine that anxiety is "converted" into physical symptoms.[2] Though previously thought to have vanished from the West in the 20th century, some research has suggested that conversion disorder is as common as ever.[3]

ICD-10 classifies conversion disorder as a dissociative disorder[4] while DSM-IV classifies it as a somatoform disorder.

Conversion disorder is now contained under the umbrella term functional neurological symptom disorder. In cases of conversion disorder, there is a psychological stressor.

The diagnostic criteria for functional neurological symptom disorder, as set out in DSM-V, are:

Specify type of symptom or deficit as:

Specify if:

Specify if:

Conversion disorder begins with some stressor, trauma, or psychological distress. Usually the physical symptoms of the syndrome affect the senses or movement. Common symptoms include blindness, partial or total paralysis, inability to speak, deafness, numbness, difficulty swallowing, incontinence, balance problems, seizures, tremors, and difficulty walking. These symptoms are attributed to conversion disorder when a medical explanation for the afflictions cannot be found.[6] Symptoms of conversion disorder usually occur suddenly. Conversion disorder is typically seen in individuals aged 10 to 35,[7] and affects between 0.011% and 0.5% of the general population.[8]

Conversion disorder can present with motor or sensory symptoms including any of the following:

Motor symptoms or deficits:

Sensory symptoms or deficits:

Conversion symptoms typically do not conform to known anatomical pathways and physiological mechanisms. It has sometimes been stated that the presenting symptoms tend to reflect the patient's own understanding of anatomy and that the less medical knowledge a person has, the more implausible are the presenting symptoms.[7] However, no systematic studies have yet been performed to substantiate this statement.[citation needed]

Conversion disorder presents with symptoms that typically resemble a neurological disorder such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy or hypokalemic periodic paralysis. The neurologist must carefully exclude neurological disease, through examination and appropriate investigations.[9] However, it is not uncommon for patients with neurological disease to also have conversion disorder.[10]

Another feature thought to be important was that symptoms tended to be more severe on the non-dominant (usually left) side of the body. There have been a number of theories about this, such as the relative involvement of cerebral hemispheres in emotional processing, or more simply, that it was "easier" to live with a functional deficit on the non-dominant side. However, a literature review of 121 studies established that this was not true, with publication bias the most likely explanation for this commonly held view.[13] Although agitation is often assumed to be a positive sign of conversion disorder, release of epinephrine is a well-demonstrated cause of paralysis from hypokalemic periodic paralysis.[14]

Misdiagnosis does sometimes occur. In a highly influential[15] study from the 1960s, Eliot Slater demonstrated that misdiagnoses had occurred in one third of his 112 patients with conversion disorder.[16] Later authors have argued that the paper was flawed, however,[17][18] and a meta-analysis has shown that misdiagnosis rates since that paper was published are around 4%, the same as for other neurological diseases.[9]

Conversion disorder is unique in ICD-10 in explicitly requiring the exclusion of deliberate feigning. Unfortunately, this is likely to be demonstrable only where the patient confesses, or is "caught out" in a broader deception, such as a false identity.[19] One neuroimaging study suggested that feigning may be distinguished from conversion by the pattern of frontal lobe activation;[20] however, this was a piece of research, rather than a clinical technique.[citation needed] True rates of feigning in medicine remain unknown.[citation needed] However, it is believed that feigning of conversion disorder is no more likely than of other medical conditions.[citation needed]

The psychological mechanism of conversion can be the most difficult aspect of a conversion diagnosis. Even if there is a clear antecedent trauma or other possible psychological trigger, it is still not clear exactly how this gives rise to the symptoms observed. Patients with medically unexplained neurological symptoms may not have any psychological stressor, hence the use of the term "functional neurological symptom disorder" in DSM-V as opposed to "conversion disorder", and DSM-V's removal of the need for a psychological trigger.

There are many number of different treatments that are available to treat and manage conversion syndrome. Treatments for conversion syndrome include hypnosis, psychotherapy, physical therapy, stress management, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Treatment plans will consider duration and presentation of symptoms and may include one or multiple of the above treatments.[21] This may include the following:[22]

There is little evidence-based treatment of conversion disorder.[24] Other treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, EMDR, and psychodynamic psychotherapy, EEG brain biofeedback need further trials. Psychoanalytic treatment may possibly be helpful.[25] However, most studies assessing the efficacy of these treatments are of poor quality and larger, better controlled studies are urgently needed. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is the most common treatment, however boasts a mere 13% improvement rate.

Empirical studies have found that the prognosis for conversion disorder varies widely, with some cases resolving in weeks, and others enduring for years or decades.[26][27] There is also evidence that there is no cure for conversion disorder, and that although patients may go into remission, they can relapse at any point. Furthermore, many patients who are 'cured' continue to have some degree of symptoms indefinitely.

Information on the frequency of conversion disorder in the West is limited, in part due to the complexities of the diagnostic process. In neurology clinics, the reported prevalence of unexplained symptoms among new patients is very high (between 30 and 60%).[28][29][30] However, diagnosis of conversion typically requires an additional psychiatric evaluation, and since few patients will see a psychiatrist[31] it is unclear what proportion of the unexplained symptoms are actually due to conversion. Large scale psychiatric registers in the US and Iceland found incidence rates of 22 and 11 newly diagnosed cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively.[32] Some estimates claim that in the general population, between 0.011% and 0.5% of the population have conversion disorder.[8]

Although it is often thought that the frequency of conversion may be higher outside of the West, perhaps in relation to cultural and medical attitudes, evidence of this is limited.[3] A community survey of urban Turkey found a prevalence of 5.6%.[33] Many authors have found occurrence of conversion to be more frequent in rural, lower socio-economic groups, where technological investigation of patients is limited and individuals may be less knowledgeable about medical and psychological concepts.[32][34][35]

Historically, the concept of 'hysteria' was originally understood to be a condition exclusively affecting women, though the concept was eventually extended to men. In recent surveys of conversion disorder (formerly classified as "hysterical neurosis, conversion type"),[28][33] females predominate, with between 2 and 6 female patients for every male.

Conversion disorder may present at any age but is rare in children younger than 10 years or in the elderly. Studies suggest a peak onset in the mid-to-late 30s.[28][32][33]

The first evidence of functional neurological symptom disorder dates back to 1900 BC, when the symptoms were blamed on the uterus moving within the female body. The treatment varied "depending on the position of the uterus, which must be forced to return to its natural position. If the uterus had moved upwards, this could be done by placing malodorous and acrid substances near the woman’s mouth and nostrils, while scented ones were placed near her vagina; on the contrary, if the uterus had lowered, the document recommends placing the acrid substances near her vagina and the perfumed ones near her mouth and nostrils."[36]

In Greek mythology, hysteria, the original name for functional neurological symptom disorder, was thought to be caused by a lack of orgasms, uterine melancholy and not procreating. Plato, Aristotle and Hippocrates believed that a lack of sex upset the uterus. The Greeks believed that it could be prevented and cured with wine and orgies. Hippocrates argued that a lack of regular sexual intercourse led to the uterus producing toxic fumes and caused it to move in the body, and that this meant that all women should be married and enjoy a satisfactory sexual life.[36]

From the 13th century, women with hysteria were exorcised, as it was believed that they were possessed by the devil. It was believed that if doctors could not find the cause of a disease or illness, it must be caused by the devil.[36]

At the beginning of the 16th century, women were sexually stimulated by midwives in order to relieve their symptoms. Gerolamo Cardano and Giambattista della Porta believed that polluted water and fumes caused the symptoms of hysteria. Towards the end of the century, however, the role of the uterus was no longer thought central to the disorder, with Thomas Willis discovering that the brain and central nervous system were the cause of the symptoms. Thomas Sydenham argued that the symptoms of hysteria may have an organic cause. He also proved that the uterus is not the cause of symptom.[36]

In 1692, in the US town of Salem, Massachusetts, there was an outbreak of hysteria. This led to the Salem witch trials, where the women accused of being witches had symptoms such as sudden movements, staring eyes and uncontrollable jumping.[36]

During the 18th century, there was a move from the idea of hysteria being caused by the uterus to it being caused by the brain. This led to an understanding that it could affect both sexes. Jean-Martin Charcot argued that hysteria was caused by "a hereditary degeneration of the nervous system, namely a neurological disorder".[36]

In the 19th century, hysteria moved from being considered a neurological disorder to being considered a psychological disorder, when Pierre Janet argued that "dissociation appears autonomously for neurotic reasons, and in such a way as to adversely disturb the individual's everyday life".[36] However, as early as 1874, doctors including W. B. Carpenter and J. A. Omerod began to speak out against the hysteria phenomenon as there was no evidence to prove its existence.[37]

Sigmund Freud referred to the condition as both hysteria and conversion disorder throughout his career. He believed that those with the condition could not live in a mature relationship, and that those with the condition were unwell in order to achieve a "secondary gain", in that they are able to manipulate their situation to fit their needs or desires. He also found that both men and women could suffer from the disorder.[36]

Freud's model[2] suggested that the emotional charge deriving from painful experiences would be consciously repressed as a way of managing the pain, but that the emotional charge would be somehow "converted" into neurological symptoms. Freud later argued that the repressed experiences were of a sexual nature.[38] As Peter Halligan comments, conversion has "the doubtful distinction among psychiatric diagnoses of still invoking Freudian mechanisms".[39]

Pierre Janet, the other great theoretician of hysteria, argued that symptoms arose through the power of suggestion, acting on a personality vulnerable to dissociation.[40] In this hypothetical process, the subject's experience of their leg, for example, is split off from the rest of their consciousness, resulting in paralysis or numbness in that leg.

Later authors have attempted to combine elements of these various models, but none of them has a firm empirical basis.[41] In 1908, Steyerthal predicted that: "Within a few years the concept of hysteria will belong to history... there is no such disease and there never has been. What Charcot called hysteria is a tissue woven of a thousand threads, a cohort of the most varied diseases, with nothing in common but the so-called stigmata, which in fact may accompany any disease."[42] However, the term "hysteria" was still being used well into the 20th century.

Some support for the Freudian model comes from findings of high rates of childhood sexual abuse in conversion patients.[43] Support for the dissociation model comes from studies showing heightened suggestibility in conversion patients.[44] However, critics argue that it can be challenging to find organic pathologies for all symptoms, and so the practice of diagnosing patients who suffered with such symptoms as having hysteria led to the disorder being meaningless, vague and a sham diagnosis, as it does not refer to any definable disease.[42] Furthermore, throughout its history, many patients have been misdiagnosed with hysteria or conversion disorder when they had organic disorders such as tumours or epilepsy or vascular diseases. This has led to patient deaths, a lack of appropriate care and suffering for the patients. Eliot Slater, after studying the condition in the 1950s, stated: "The diagnosis of 'hysteria' is all too often a way of avoiding a confrontation with our own ignorance. This is especially dangerous when there is an underlying organic pathology, not yet recognised. In this penumbra we find patients who know themselves to be ill but, coming up against the blank faces of doctors who refuse to believe in the reality of their illness, proceed by way of emotional lability, overstatement and demands for attention... Here is an area where catastrophic errors can be made. In fact it is often possible to recognise the presence though not the nature of the unrecognisable, to know that a man must be ill or in pain when all the tests are negative. But it is only possible to those who come to their task in a spirit of humility. In the main the diagnosis of 'hysteria' applies to a disorder of the doctor–patient relationship. It is evidence of non-communication, of a mutual misunderstanding... We are, often, unwilling to tell the full truth or to admit to ignorance... Evasions, even untruths, on the doctor’s side are among the most powerful and frequently used methods he has for bringing about an efflorescence of 'hysteria'".[42]

Much recent work has been done to identify the underlying causes of conversion and related disorders and to better understand why conversion disorder and hysteria appear more commonly in women. Current theoreticians tend to believe that there is no single cause for these disorders. Instead, the emphasis tends to be on the individual understanding of the patient and a variety of therapeutic techniques. In some cases, the onset of conversion disorder correlates to a traumatic or stressful event. There are also certain populations that are considered at risk for conversion disorder, including people suffering from a medical illness or condition, people with personality disorder, and individuals with dissociative identity disorder.[6] However, no biomarkers have yet been found to support the idea that conversion disorder is caused by a psychiatric condition.

There has been much recent interest in using functional neuroimaging to study conversion. As researchers identify the mechanisms which underlie conversion symptoms, it is hoped that they will enable the development of a neuropsychological model. A number of such studies have been performed, including some which suggest that the blood-flow in patients' brains may be abnormal while they are unwell. However, the studies have all been too small to be confident of the generalisability of their findings, so no neuropsychological model has been clearly established.

An evolutionary psychology explanation for conversion disorder is that the symptoms may have been evolutionarily advantageous during warfare. A non-combatant with these symptoms signals non-verbally, possibly to someone speaking a different language, that she or he is not dangerous as a combatant and also may be carrying some form of dangerous infectious disease. This can explain that conversion disorder may develop following a threatening situation, that there may be a group effect with many people simultaneously developing similar symptoms (as in mass psychogenic illness), and the gender difference in prevalence.[45]

The Lacanian model accepts conversion disorder as a common phenomenon inherent in specific psychical structures. The higher prevalence of it among women is based on somewhat different intrapsychic relations to the body from those of typical males, which allows the formation of conversion symptoms.[46]


who does the ontario government borrow money from

The Ontario government debt is the net amount of money the Government of Ontario has borrowed from the general public, institutional investors and public-sector bodies. As of March 31, 2018, the Ontario government's total debt is projected to be CDN$348.79 billion.[4] The Debt-to-GDP ratio for 2017-2018 is 37.1% and interest on the debt is CDN$11.97 billion, representing 8.0% of Ontario's revenue and its fourth-largest spending area.[5][6]

Ontario government debt

Ontario Financing Authority (2004-2014) [1]
Viable Opposition (1985-2004)
- referencing a TD Bank report [2]
Ontario Financing Authority [3]

As of March 31, 2018 the breakdown of Ontario's debt is as follows:[7]

The majority of the debt (83.1%) was issued in Canadian currency.

The government of Ontario's debt has risen under all governments since 1989.

During the 1990s recession, the Ontario New Democratic Party (NDP) government of Premier Bob Rae increased the total debt from $35.4 billion in 1989-1990 to $90.7 billion in 1994-1995.

The Progressive Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris increased the debt from $90.7 billion in 1994-1995 to $132.6 billion in 2002-2003, even while cutting services and downloading formerly provincially-run services onto the municipalities.[8] In the 1999-2000 budget, the Mike Harris government paid $3.1 billion towards the total deficit by selling the rights to the government-owned Highway 407/ETR in the form of 99-year lease to a private consortium.

The Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty, in part due to the Great Recession, increased spending on social and energy programs and uploaded services from the municipalities, doubling the total debt from $132.6 billion in 2002-2003 to $268.0 billion in 2013-2014.[9]

The Liberal government of Premier Kathleen Wynne, in part through the sale of Hydro One shares, delivered a $600-million surplus in 2017-2018.[10][11] However, it projects deficit spending until 2024-2025 if it remains in power.[10]

Health and education together account for more than 50% of Ontario's spending ($61.3B and $29.1B, respectively).[12]

Tax cuts and incentives to high income earners during the 1990s reduced government revenues.[13]

The Great Recession of 2008 had a considerable impact on Ontario, particularly its manufacturing sector[citation needed]. Ontario's budget surplus in 2007-2008 had by 2009-2010 given way to a $19 billion deficit.[14]

Scandals such as those involving eHealth, the Oakville and Mississauga power plant cancellations, and Ornge are often cited as examples of wasteful government spending contributing to debt growth.[15]

Ontario government's direct subsidies to corporations average $2.7 billion per year over the five years to 2011.[16] It has been argued that business subsidies such as to the Ontario's automotive sector does not help create widespread economic growth or new jobs and instead contributes to increased debt.[16]

In 2012, Moody's Investors Service downgraded Ontario's rating from Aa1 to Aa2, citing "growing debt burden" as a major concern.[17] In April 2018, the agency changed its outlook on this rating from "stable" to "negative," stating its expectation that "spending pressure will challenge the province's ability to sustain balanced fiscal results across multiple years."[18]

In 2012, the Provincial Solvency and Federal Obligations study found that Ontario had a 42.9% probability of defaulting on its debt obligations in the following 10-20 years (higher than any other province) and a 79.3% probability of defaulting in the following 30 years.[19]

In 2012, the governing Liberal Party commissioned the Drummond Report, which outlined various measures to reduce the province's debt level.

Debt reduction was proposed by all three major provincial parties in their 2014 election platforms. The Progressive Conservative Party proposed to eliminate the deficit and reduce debt through eliminating 100,000 public sector jobs, a public sector wage freeze and benefit reduction, and service cuts to all programs except healthcare.[20] The New Democratic Party proposed to balance the budget by eliminating corporate tax "giveaways" and through the Fairness Tax on Ontario's highest income earners.[21] The Liberal Party proposed to balance the budget by 2017-2018 by establishing a committee of ministers to find $2.25B in savings over 3 years and reduce the number of government agencies by 30%.[22]

Non-governmental organizations in other Provinces such as the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have advocated for aggressive debt reduction through spending cuts[citation needed]. Organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have advocated for strong stimulus programs such as infrastructure spending to aid economic recovery and growth during the Great Recession[citation needed]. They also advocate eliminating corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and cuts.


who sang building a bridge to your heart

In March 1987, band members Andrew Gold and Graham Gouldman started writing and recording songs for the follow-up to Magnetic Heaven, American English. One of these songs was "Bridge to Your Heart".

Bridge to Your Heart

"Bridge to Your Heart" is a song by English duo Wax from their second studio album American English (1987). In many European countries the song was released under the title "Building a Bridge to Your Heart".

The song became the group's most popular single in their home country of the United Kingdom, reaching No. 12 on the UK Singles Chart[1] and reaching the top ten in other European countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden.

The release of the duo's debut album Magnetic Heaven in 1986 spawned the single "Right Between the Eyes". The song became Wax's most successful song in the United States, reaching No. 43 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart,[2] the song was considered a commercial failure in the United Kingdom, only reaching No. 60 on the UK Singles Chart.[1] Several follow-up singles failed to chart.

The song was later released as the album's second single in July 1987, on RCA Records. The song then debuted at No. 98 on the UK Singles Chart, and slowly rose to its peak position of No. 12 on the chart. The song instantly became their breakout hit, and the American English album became the duo's first and only album to chart in the UK, peaking at No. 59 on the UK Albums Chart.[3] The song became their only successful hit in the UK; it was their only top 40 hit, making them a one-hit wonder there. Their only song after the release of "Bridge to Your Heart" to chart was "Anchors Aweigh", which barely scraped the top 100 of the UK Singles Chart, peaking at No. 95 on the chart.

The song opens with Gold counting from one to two, backed by drums; he then restarts the countdown, counting to four â€“ "hold it.. NOW!". A majority of the song features Gold singing, backed by drums and pop-influenced music. The song also features a horn section, opened by Gold shouting "Horn!". The section starts after the song's final verse.

The song's lyrics talk about a failed relationship between a man and a woman, the man trying to rekindle the relationship by promising the woman a new beginning, and that he will treat her better ("I won't make you sad / but I'll be on my best behavior"). He then states on the chorus that he is "building a bridge" to the woman's heart.

The song's music video, directed by Gouldman's former 10cc bandmates Godley & Creme, was released in 1987 and featured stop-motion animation, with shifting backgrounds and some scenes with more traditional animation. These scenes follow the context of the song's lyrics.

The video received some MTV airplay, including "Weird Al" Yankovic's AL-TV special.

It featured on the sixth episode of the first series of Phoenix Nights, where two men known as the Singing Builders performed the song during the Talent Trek grand final.

In 1999, Hamburger Schule artist Rocko Schamoni covered the song under the title Gegen den Staat, with the refrain now being "wehre dich gegen den Staat" ("defend yourself against the state").

German 7" single

A "Bridge to Your Heart" – 3:51
B "Ready or Not" – 3:31

German maxi-12" single

A "Bridge to Your Heart" (The Unabridged version) – 5:15
B1 "Bridge to Your Heart" (7" version) – 3:51
B2 "Ready or Not" – 3:31

UK/Australian 7" single

A "Bridge to Your Heart" – 3:51
B "Heaven in Her Bed" – 5:36

UK/U.S. 12" single

A "Bridge to Your Heart" (The Unabridged version) – 5:15
B1 "Bridge to Your Heart" (7" version) – 3:51
B2 "Heaven in Her Bed" – 5:36