when did shania twain released come on over

Come On Over is the third studio album recorded by Canadian singer Shania Twain. It was released on November 4, 1997. It became the best-selling country music album, the best-selling studio album by a female act, and the best selling album by a Canadian. It is the sixth best-selling album in the United States.[1]

Come On Over

To date, the album has sold more than 40 million copies worldwide,[2] shipped over 20 million copies in the United States,[3] with over 15.7 million copies sold according to Nielsen SoundScan,[4] and another 1.99 million through BMG Music Clubs. The album debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Top Country Albums chart and stayed there for 50 non-consecutive weeks. It stayed in the Top Ten for 151 weeks. 11 of the 16 songs hit top 30 of the Hot Country Songs chart, 8 of which hit top 10, including three No. 1s.[5] Twain promoted the album with television performances and interviews. It was further promoted with the successful Come On Over Tour, which visited North America, Oceania and Europe.

After releasing and promoting her breakthrough album The Woman in Me, Come On Over saw Twain entirely collaborating with producer and then husband Robert John "Mutt" Lange on a variety of country pop numbers, mostly uptempo. Given much more creative freedom than for its predecessor, Twain and Lange sought to break the conventional country music formula on the album and explore the country pop genre to its fullest extent.

Twain decided not to tour off The Woman in Me partly because she felt she needed more powerful music to do a powerful show.[5] Twain and her husband commenced songwriting material for the album as early as 1994, and often wrote apart to later intertwine their ideas. The recording process was intensive, with Lange dedicating overzealous time and patience to each individual track. Though the singer indicated her sonic preferences, she ultimately ceded all production to Lange. On the international version, Twain and Lange revisited tracks to strip them of country influences and increase the album's marketability beyond the US and Canada.

The album was a blockbuster success, becoming the biggest-selling studio album of all time by a female artist, the biggest-selling country music album ever, the biggest-selling album by a Canadian act and one of the biggest-selling albums in music history. Three different versions of the album were released, the original country version, released in 1997, and the revised pop and international versions released in 1998 and 1999 respectively. The album was also supported by an extensive world tour by Twain.

The album received generally positive reviews from contemporary music critics. AllMusic praised the album for successfully breaking free of traditional country stereotypes (musical brevity, a blatant honkey-tonk image, etc.), while also praising Twain for crafting an album with just as much pop/rock appeal as country appeal. Meanwhile, Entertainment Weekly praised the album for successfully incorporating a substantial rock influence without losing its country sensibilities.

The album was listed as #21 in the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame's Definitive 200.[13]

Twain topped her own record with the release of Come On Over, beating out her previous Diamond selling album The Woman in Me, as the best-selling country music album ever released. It is, in fact, the best-selling album ever released by a female artist in any genre. Debuting at No. 2 on the US Billboard 200 with a moderate 172,000 copies (3,000 units behind Mase's Harlem World), the album showed its consistency when it moved another 170,000 copies in its second week (a 1.2% decrease) to stay at No. 2 again behind Barbra Streisand's Higher Ground. The RIAA certified Come on Over Gold, Platinum and 2Ã— platinum on December 23, 1997. It sold more than 100,000 units in each of 62 weeks. During the Thanksgiving week of 1999, the Come On Over: International Version was released in conjunction to Shania's Thanksgiving CBS special, Come On Over that week earned the Billboard chart "Greatest Gainer" title, jumping 24-11 on the Billboard 200, a 246% increase in sales from a 57,000 the previous week to a 197,000 the week after. The album's best sales week was its 110th week, during which it sold 355,000 units to settle at number ten (Christmas 1999). The album stayed on the top 10 for 54 weeks, set a record for longest stay in the Top 20 of the Billboard 200 of 112 weeks, and in top 40 for 127 consecutive weeks. Come On Over topped the Billboard Country album chart for a record 50 weeks, finishing second to Garth Brooks' Sevens in 1998, finishing first in 1999, and third in 2000 behind Dixie Chicks' Fly and Faith Hill's Breathe. It was certified diamond by the RIAA on April 7, 1999.[5] Despite its considerable sales, The album never reached the top of the Billboard 200.

Come On Over was the first album to reach both 14 million (in September 2001) and 15 million (in August 2004) in sales in the US since 1991, when Nielsen SoundScan started tracking music sales.[14] It ranks as the second best-selling album of the Nielsen SoundScan era in the US, with over 15.7 million copies sold by October 2017,[4][5] behind its nearest rival, Metallica's 1991 self-titled album (16.1 million as of 2015).[15] However, these figures do not include sales through such entities as BMG Music Club, where Come on Over has sold 1.99 million copies while Metallica has sold fewer than 298,000 copies.[16]

The album topped the charts for 11 weeks in the UK. The album is one of the highest-selling albums ever in Australia, reaching 15 times platinum and spending 19 weeks at No. 1 and 165 weeks in the top 100 (or more than 3 years). It is still the best-selling album of the 1990s in Australia.[17] The album sat at the top spot of the Canadian country albums chart for over 110 weeks (more than 2 years). Worldwide the album sold 3.4 million copies in 1997, 8.9 million in 1998 and over 15.2 million copies in 1999, standing strong in 2000 selling another 6.4 million copies worldwide. Over 40 million copies have been sold across the world.

All tracks written by Shania Twain and Robert John "Mutt" Lange.

The International version was remixed for a more pop and world feel. The only song that stayed the same on both versions was "Rock This Country!". Some issues of this album adhere to the original track-listing and feature Bryan White on "From This Moment On", while others feature the track as a solo recording.

The album was later re-released after the success of "That Don't Impress Me Much". This'revised version' included The Right Mix of "From This Moment On", the Notting Hill Remix for "You've Got a Way" and the (UK) Dance Remix for "That Don't Impress Me Much". In most countries this mix is titled the "Dance Mix Edit" but for the UK, Netherlands and Germany it was titled the "UK Dance Mix".

In Australia a special edition was released with 19 tracks and contained a special bonus Video CD which included three music videos and an interview.

In the US, this version of the album was released, titled simply as the "International Version", to coincide with both international success and the fact that the original version of the album had maintained heavy chart success throughout the past two years.

A limited edition tour edition was released in Australia and Asia which contains a bonus disc with bonus mixes and live tracks. Also included was a list of tour dates.

Strings on "From This Moment On" arranged and performed by Carl Marsh and David Hamilton.

"Bow Bros." gang fiddles on tracks 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, and 15 (of original version) performed by Rob Hajacos, Joe Spivey, Glen Duncan, and Aubrey Haynie.

Mixed by Mike Shipley (all tracks on original version; tracks 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14 & 16 on international version), Olle Romo (tracks 4, 8, 10, 13 & 15 on international version) and Mutt Lange (track 13 on revised international version (uncredited); edited by Mike Shipley (uncredited))

*sales figures based on certification alone
^shipments figures based on certification alone

In late 1999, the album's video counterpart, appropriately titled Come On Over: Video Collection, was released in VHS format. With the sole exceptions of "When" (1998), which was released exclusively to the United Kingdom, and "Rock This Country!", which at the time had not been filmed, the collection included all of Twain's music videos released in promotion for the album.


where are the elk in elk grove illinois

Elk Grove Village is a village located in northeastern Illinois adjacent to O'Hare International Airport and is a near northwest suburb, touching the city of Chicago. It is one of the Chicago metropolitan area's principal villages due to its large industrial park, located on the eastern border of the village. The village is located primarily in Cook County with a small portion in DuPage County. The population was 33,127 at the 2010 census.[4] As the name suggests, Elk Grove Village is home to a small herd of elk kept in a grove at the eastern edge of the Busse Woods forest preserve for which the grove is named. Elk are not native to the area but were brought by train from Montana by an early resident, William Busse, in the 1920s.[citation needed] The elk are currently maintained by the Chicago Zoological Society veterinary staff and the Busse Woods Forest Preserve wildlife biologists.[5]

Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Elk Grove Village is home to the largest industrial park in North America.[6] Over 3,600 businesses are located in its 5.4-square-mile (14 km2) business park adjacent to O'Hare International Airport.  The community is served by several Interstate highways including I-90, I-290/I-355/Route 53 combination, and the Elgin–O'Hare Expressway.

Elk Grove Village is also home to Alexian Brothers Medical Center (ABMC) hospital, which is the largest employer in the community with over 2,200 workers. There are a number of other well-known corporations including Apple Vacations, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Illinois Tool Works (ITW), ADP, CitiGroup, Symons, and Pepsi Cola Distribution. The headquarters of United Airlines was in the unincorporated area of Elk Grove Township until it moved to downtown Chicago; the Elk Grove office is still in use as United's Operations Center.

Elk Grove Village, incorporated in 1956 in Elk Grove Township, was founded as a planned suburban community. The majority of houses were constructed by Centex Corporation. As part of the original planning concept, the village was to be home to separated residential and industrial areas (the latter of which would later become the largest contiguous industrial park in North America).

Prior to its development as a residential community, it was home to many farmers and their families (mostly German immigrants). Many of the major streets in and around the village are named for these farmers. Busse Farm is the final undeveloped agricultural property in the village, located between Higgins Road and Oakton Street, and was at one time considered as a location for a new Chicago Bears stadium, to replace the aging Soldier Field.

The original boundaries of Elk Grove Village's residential area were Higgins Road (Illinois Route 72) on the north, State Road (now Arlington Heights Road) on the west, Landmeier Road on the south, and Wildwood Road on the east. The village easily doubled in size during the 1960s. By the end of the decade, most of the land between O'Hare Airport and I-290/IL-53 was developed. As the village expanded to the south and west, new roads, schools, and parks were added to the community. Rupley Elementary was the first school to be constructed in Elk Grove Village, and it was named after the president of Centex.

In the 1970s, the village developed land west of the expressway in Schaumburg Township along with industrial development into Addison Township. New apartment communities were constructed in Elk Grove Village along Tonne Road and Ridge Avenue. These developments have since been sectioned, and some converted to condominium homes. The village saw continuous residential, commercial, and industrial growth during the 1980s. However, Lively Junior High School was no longer necessary and saw fast-declining enrollment numbers. It was shut down by the school district, sold to Elk Grove Park District, and remodeled to become the new Jack E. Claes Pavilion Recreation Facility.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the village embarked on a series of beautification and redevelopment programs which included the installation of a clock tower at Village Hall, installation of brick-paved crosswalks in residential areas, new landscaping in boulevards and other public lands, and installation of retro-themed street lights.

In 2006, Elk Grove Village became one of the first municipalities in Illinois to enact a public smoking ban,[7] and in 2008 became one of the first Chicago suburbs to use red light cameras. In June 2010, Elk Grove Village's Municipal Administration and Public Safety Complex was LEED Gold Certified by the US Green Building Council.[8]

Elk Grove Village is home to the largest consolidated business park in North America.[citation needed] The business park comprises 5.9 square miles (3,776 acres) and continues to expand.  There are nearly 3,600 businesses operating in the business park, employing nearly 100,000 persons.  In 2018, the business park became the sponsor of the Bahamas Bowl college football game, renaming it the Makers Wanted Bahamas Bowl after the business park's advertising slogan "Makers Wanted".

The Elk Grove business park is home to the largest concentration of manufacturers in the Midwest; the largest concentration of logistic "freight" companies in the United States; and the 2nd largest source of manufacturing in the State of Illinois behind only the City of Chicago.  The village is home to many large data centers which rely upon the convergence of national fiber optic networks and natural gas lines in Elk Grove, which has other strategic advantages for business including the convergence of national fiber optic cables, national gasoline and oil pipelines, and a virtually unlimited supply of fresh Lake Michigan water.

In 2014, the city launched a new website to serve as an online oasis for all things business related in the city. Current and prospective businesses and real estate professionals can access tools and resources for recruitment resources, work referrals, job requests and more. Those that own or work for a business within Elk Grove qualify for a free membership and profile.[9]

On December 30, 2014, Global Trade Magazine named Elk Grove Village one of America's best cities for global trade.[10]

Companies and organizations based in Elk Grove Village include Topco, LA-CO Industries and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

According to the village's 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,[11] the top employers in the village are:

Central Elk Grove Village is located at 42°0′11″N 87°59′47″W / 42.00306°N 87.99639°W / 42.00306; -87.99639 (42.003178, −87.996418).[12] The geographic confluence point of 42°N and 88°W is also located within the village, on Brantwood Avenue.

According to the 2010 census, Elk Grove Village has a total area of 11.408 square miles (29.55 km2), of which 11.34 square miles (29.37 km2) (or 99.4%) is land and 0.068 square miles (0.18 km2) (or 0.6%) is water.[13]

Residents of Elk Grove Village enjoy a high quality of education. Areas east of I-290 are served by Elk Grove High School (which is a part of Illinois High School District 214) and Elk Grove Township Elementary School District 59. Areas west of I-290 are served by James B. Conant High School which is part of Township High School District 211 and Mead Junior High which is part of Community Consolidated School District 54. Queen of the Rosary Catholic School is located in Elk Grove Village and was recently named by Chicago magazine as one of the top 25 private elementary schools in the Chicago area. Elk Grove Village has many other national and state award-winning schools and instructors.

Schools in Elk Grove Village:[14]

Middle Schools:

High School:

At the 2000 census,[16] there were 32,727 people, 13,278 households and 9,294 families residing in the village. The population density was 3,145.8 per square mile (1,214.5/km²). There were 13,513 housing units at an average density of 1,224.1 per square mile (472.6/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 86.03% White, 1.41% African American, 0.10% Native American, 8.79% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 2.30% from other races, and 1.34% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.23% of the population.

Ancestries were: German (25.6%), Polish (19.4%), Irish (17.1%), Italian (14.7%), English (6.8%), Swedish (4.6%).

There were 13,278 households of which 33.5% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 58.4% were married couples living together, 8.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 30.0% were non-families. 25.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.6% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.60 and the average family size was 3.17.

24.9% of the population were under the age of 18, 7.4% from 18 to 24, 31.8% from 25 to 44, 24.2% from 45 to 64, and 11.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 95.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 91.7 males.

The median household income was $62,132 and the median family income was $71,834. Males had a median income of $50,141 versus $34,054 for females. The per capita income for the village was $28,515. About 1.5% of families and 2.0% of the population were below the poverty line, including 1.4% of those under age 18 and 6.2% of those age 65 or over.

The Downtown area of Elk Grove Village, located in the Biesterfield Road corridor east of Interstate 290 and west of Arlington Heights Road, is home to the Charles J. Zettek Municipal Complex (Village Hall), which was renovated in 2009 and is a LEED-certified structure, the Elk Grove Public Library, Jack A. Claes Pavilion Recreation Facility, Alexian Brothers Medical Center, and St. Julian Emyard Catholic Church. It is also the home to Veterans Memorial Park, Elk Grove Theatre, and the headquarters for Elk Grove Park District.  There is also a Starbucks, Jewel food store, and a Walgreens drugstore with drive-thru convenience.

The area metropolitan newspapers are the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Korea Times, a Korean-American newspaper, as of 2011 has its offices in Elk Grove Village.[17]


why are there so many lens flares in star trek

Director J. J. Abrams added numerous lens flares to the 2009 film Star Trek by aiming powerful off-camera light sources at the lens. He explained: "I wanted a visual system that felt unique. I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, 'Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many.' But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame." Many complained of the frequent use; Abrams admitted it was "overdone, in some places."[7]

Lens flare

Lens flare refers to a phenomenon wherein light is scattered or flared in a lens system, often in response to a bright light, producing an undesirable effect on the image. This happens through unintentional image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material imperfections in the lens. Lenses with large numbers of elements such as zooms tend to exhibit greater lens flare, as they contain multiple surfaces at which unwanted internal scattering occurs. These mechanisms differ from the intended image formation mechanism, which depends on rays from the refraction of the image itself. Using this principle, lens flares can be theoretically seen if you are wearing glasses.

Flare manifests itself in two ways: as visible artifacts, and as a haze across the image. The haze makes the image look "washed out" by reducing contrast and color saturation (adding light to dark image regions, and adding white to saturated regions, reducing their saturation). Visible artifacts, usually in the shape of the lens iris, are formed when light follows a pathway through the lens that contains one or more reflections from the lens surfaces.

Flare is particularly caused by very bright light sources. Most commonly, this occurs when shooting into the sun (when the sun is in frame or the lens is pointed in the direction of the sun), and is reduced by using a lens hood or other shade. For good-quality optical systems, and for most images (which do not have a bright light shining into the lens), flare is a secondary effect that is widely distributed across the image and thus not visible, although it does reduce contrast.

The spatial distribution of the lens flare typically manifests as several starbursts, rings, or circles in a row across the image or view. Lens flare patterns typically spread widely across the scene and change location with the camera's movement relative to light sources, tracking with the light position and fading as the camera points away from the bright light until it causes no flare at all. The specific spatial distribution of the flare depends on the shape of the aperture of the image formation elements. For example, if the lens has a 6-bladed aperture, the flare may have a hexagonal pattern.

Such internal scattering is also present in the human eye, and manifests in an unwanted veiling glare most obvious when viewing very bright lights or highly reflective surfaces. In some situations, eyelashes can also create flare-like irregularities, although these are technically diffraction artifacts.

When a bright light source is shining on the lens but not in its field of view, lens flare appears as a haze that washes out the image and reduces contrast. This can be avoided by shading the lens using a lens hoods. In a studio, a gobo or set of barn doors can be attached to the lighting to keep it from shining on the camera. Filters can be attached to the camera lens which will also minimise lens flare, which is especially useful for outdoor photographers.

When using an anamorphic lens, as is common in analog cinematography, lens flare can manifest itself as a horizontal lines. This is most commonly seen in car headlights in a dark scene, and may be desired as part of the "film look".

A lens flare is often deliberately used to invoke a sense of drama. A lens flare is also useful when added to an artificial or modified image composition because it adds a sense of realism, implying that the image is an un-edited original photograph of a "real life" scene.

For both of these reasons (implying realism and/or drama) artificial lens flare is a common effect in various graphics editing programs, although its use can be a point of contention among professional graphic designers.[1] Lens flare was one of the first special effects developed for computer graphics because it can be imitated using relatively simple means. Basic flare-like effects, for instance in computer and video games, can be obtained using static or animated starburst, ring, and disc textures that are moved according to the position of the light source.[2] More sophisticated rendering techniques have been developed based on ray tracing[3] or photon mapping.[4]

Lens flare was typically avoided by Hollywood cinematographers, but when filming Easy Rider, Harrison Arnold was forced to modify a camera car for his Arriflex, which resulted in numerous lens flares as he shot motorcycle footage against Southwestern U.S. landscapes.[5]

Costume designer Rita Riggs purposefully would sometimes dress Bea Arthur in Maude in a red that would flare to make a statement, to match Maude's personality as a "red flag".[6]

David Boyd, the director of photography of the sci-fi Firefly series, desired this style so much (harkening back to 1970s television), that he sent back cutting-edge lenses that reduced lens flare in exchange for cheaper ones.[8][verification needed]

Director Michael Bay, well-known for heavy use of CGI in his films, digitally adds lens flares to most light sources in his films.

The use of photographic filters can cause flare, particularly ghosts of bright lights (under central inversion).[9] This can be eliminated by not using a filter, and reduced by using higher-quality filters or narrower aperture.

One form of flare is specific to digital cameras. With the sun shining on an unprotected lens, a group of small rainbows appears. This artifact is formed by internal diffraction on the image sensor, which acts like a diffraction grating. Unlike true lens flare, this artifact is not visible in the eyepiece of a digital SLR camera, making it more difficult to avoid.

Photograph of NASA lunar lander containing lens flare. Besides the obvious flare around the Sun, the light artifacts at the bottom right are also caused by flare.

Sample of artificial lens flare, as might be used in an animated movie or video game.

High-end lens flare rendering using a recent technique

Lens flare is extremely difficult to control when a bright light source like the sun is just outside the frame.

When the subject of a photo is the light source itself, lens flare can be a desirable and dramatic effect.

Lens flare used to capture details of too bright motive (partial solar eclipse).

Lens flare - the sun is outside the frame.

Dome of the Rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem

Lens flare commonly associated with the use of anamorphic lenses which are often used in the production of films.

Lens flare example in picture of Kensington Gardens - London, UK


is it bad to put soap in your mouth

Washing out mouth with soap is meant to be unpleasant, but is usually not intended to cause death or serious harm.  Nonetheless, many people employ the aforementioned techniques with extremely limited knowledge regarding the safety of ingesting their chosen cleansing agents.  Agents likely to cause serious harm if swallowed include many automatic dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents.  Even ordinary bar soaps and liquid hand soaps may cause harmful effects including vomiting, diarrhea, irritation of the lining of the mouth and digestive tract, and in rare instances, pulmonary aspiration.  This is especially true if these products are ingested in large quantities.

Washing out mouth with soap

Washing out mouth with soap is a traditional form of physical punishment that consists in placing soap, or a similar cleansing agent, inside a person's mouth so that the person will taste it, inducing what most people consider an unpleasant experience.  This form of punishment was especially common in the United States and United Kingdom from the late 19th century through the 1960s.

Washing out mouth with soap is most often used as a response to profanity, lying, biting,[1] tobacco use, or verbal disrespect. It functions both as a symbolic "cleansing" following the infraction, as well as acting as a deterrent due to the foul aftertaste. It is commonly used as child discipline or school discipline, and is more frequently employed by mothers than fathers.[2]

This punishment still has advocates today, even though its use has diminished considerably in recent years in favour of discipline methods that are not considered violent or humiliating. Additionally, ingestion of soaps and detergents can have potentially serious health consequences, and persons utilizing this form of punishment may face legal sanctions.

Washing out mouth with soap is essentially defined by the introduction of soap, or a soap-like cleansing agent, into the oral cavity.  Methods commonly used for this purpose include placing a bar of soap in a person's mouth and forcing them to hold it there, chew it, and/or swallow it; forcing a person to drink liquid soap or another liquid cleanser or to swish such liquids in their mouth; and using a toothbrush to brush the used cleaning product onto a person's teeth and oral tissues.

One of the earliest recorded uses of forcing another to ingest soap as punishment appeared in the 1832 Legal Examiner, in which it was noted that a married couple "were constantly quarrellingÂ ; and that one evening, on the man's return home, he found his wife intoxicated, [...] perceiving a piece of kitchen soap lying on the ground near the spot, he crammed it into his wife's mouth, saying, "She has had plenty of water to wash with, she ought now to have a little soap".[4]

In the 1860s, the periodical Aunt Judy's Annual Volume featured the main characters forced to eat a bar of soap as punishment for constantly failing to wash up, as the climax to a story entitled "Scaramouches at School".[5]

In 1872, The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal stated that the practice of washing out the mouth of a child heard to swear was noted by an American colleague, and should be recommended to colleagues in the Orient as well.[6]

In 1873, a schoolmistress in Mahaska, Iowa was noted to have punished a boy in her class for indulging in chewing tobacco by washing his mouth out with soap.[7]  Much later examples tell how Filipino or Lakota aboriginals were punished for speaking their native language with a similar punishment.[8][9]

An 1898 "study in moral education", published by the Journal of Genetic Psychology, noted that whipping, withdrawal of privileges, lectures, being sent alone to a room and washing out a subject's mouth with either soap, salt or pepper, were the most likely punishments to deter future abuses.[10] Two years later, a New York State Department of Social Welfare officer submitted a complaint against the Rochester Orphan Asylum noting that "I find, as charged, that children's mouths have been washed with soap-suds, but not, as also charged, with ashes and water; that such punishments were ordered for obscene or profane language".[11] By the start of the 20th century, the practice was also noted at the Maryland State Reformatory for Women as punishment for any infraction of the rules.[12]

In the 1940s, washing out mouth with soap was a hazing ritual in the British Royal Navy.[13]

In the 1950s, several American schoolboards ruled in favour of washing out a pupil's mouth with soap as a legitimate punishment.[14][15]

In 1953, Wisconsin judge Harvey L. Neelan fined a Miss Mertz $25 for her drunken obscenities and noted that she should be required to wash her mouth with soap.[16]  In 1963, Michigan judge Francis Castellucci ordered Louis Winiarski, who had been found using obscene language around women and children, to wash his mouth with soap before leaving the courtroom.[17] A similar case in October 1979 saw a New York resident choose to wash his mouth out with soap, rather than serve ten days in prison for his disorderly conduct and obscenities.[18]

In 1977, the National Criminal Justice Reference System published a report defending the use of corporal punishment in schools, in which a school administrator noted that he documented 200 cases, over his 13-year career, of using corporal punishmenting, noting "That's not just using paddles in every instance, but if you shake a student, if you grab a student, if you wash a student's mouth out with soap, that's corporal punishment under the definition of the law".[19]

In 1982, the Journal of Youth and Adolescence listed the practise, alongside paddling and hairpulling as a "moderate" punishment for children, beneath the realm of "severe" punishment such as whipping.[20] Similarly in 1996, the American Academy of Pediatrics classified it as an alternative to spanking.[21]

In 2006, students at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts carried out a peer-reviewed study on the ability of punishment to curb the use of profanity by interviewing colleagues on their remembered upbringings, and noted that the most commonly reported parental reaction was a verbal reprimand (41%). Soap in the mouth was mentioned in 20% of the episodes, and physical punishments were described in 14%.[22]

There have been a number of cases of arrests, charges and civil lawsuits arising from the domestic discipline of washing another's mouth out with soap; often arising from the perception of abuse of parental authority by an outside figure.

In the United States, there is often variance between individual states as well;[23] for example North Carolina specifically instructs its social workers that "washing a childâ€™s mouth out with soap is not considered an extreme measure",[24] but the Florida Department of Children and Families took away a mother's two children permanently after she forced her 8-year-old daughter to chew soap after saying "fuck", leading to an allergic reaction.[25][26][27][28][29]


when did the red sox last win the world series

Boston failed to maintain the momentum of their World Series championship in the following year, falling back to last place in the American League East with a 71â€“91 record. This marked the third time in four years that a defending World Series champion failed to make the postseason. Boston returned to the World Series in 2018 and won their 9th title by defeating the Los Angeles Dodgers 4 games to 1.

2013 World Series

The 2013 World Series was the championship series of Major League Baseball's (MLB) 2013 season.[1] The 109th edition of the World Series, it was a best-of-seven playoff between the American League (AL) champion Boston Red Sox and the National League (NL) champion St. Louis Cardinals; the Red Sox won, 4 games to 2. The Red Sox had home field advantage for the series, based on the AL's win in the 2013 MLB All-Star Game on July 16.[2] This was the first World Series since 1999 to feature both #1 seeds from the American League and National League. The Series started on Wednesday, October 23, ending on Game 6 the following Wednesday, October 30, 2013.

The Red Sox won the first game at Fenway Park on October 23, followed by the Cardinals winning the second game on October 24 to tie the series 1–1. The series then moved to Busch Stadium, where the Cardinals won the third game on October 26 to gain a 2–1 lead. The Red Sox won the fourth game on October 27 to tie the series at 2–2, then won the last of three games at Busch Stadium on October 28 for a 3–2 lead. The series then moved back to Fenway Park, where the Red Sox decisively won the final game on October 30, becoming the World Series champions for 2013.

This was the fourth meeting of the Cardinals and the Red Sox in the World Series (previously meeting in 1946, 1967, and 2004).[3][4] Winning in six games, the Red Sox clinched their first World Series championship at their home field of Fenway Park since 1918,[5][6][7] and the last such Series to date won by the home team. David Ortiz was awarded the World Series Most Valuable Player Award.[8][9] He became the first non-Yankee to win three World Series titles with one team since Jim Palmer (Baltimore Orioles 1966, 1970, and 1983).

The Cardinals finished the 2013 regular season at 97–65, earning the best record in the National League. They set a new Major League Baseball record for hitting efficiency with runners in scoring position, hitting.330 (447–for–1,355), the best in baseball since the Boston Red Sox hit.312 in 1950,[10] also beating the 2007 Detroit Tigers, and 1996 Colorado Rockies with a.311 average.[11]

Despite losing first baseman Albert Pujols to the Angels and manager Tony La Russa to retirement, the Cardinals under new manager Mike Matheny still came within one game of a return trip to the World Series, but lost the final three games to the eventual World Series champion San Francisco Giants in the 2012 National League Championship Series. However, with the help of Matheny and general manager John Mozeliak, the Cardinals were able to stay in contention even with a roster consisting mostly of rookies, free-agent veteran additions, and a few holdovers from the 2011 World Series championship team.[citation needed]

The Cardinals' offense was led by catcher Yadier Molina, second baseman Matt Carpenter, and first baseman Allen Craig, all of whom finished in the top 10 in batting average. They were joined by outfielders Carlos Beltrán and Matt Holliday, third baseman David Freese, and first baseman Matt Adams. The Cardinals' pitching staff were led by Adam Wainwright, who returned to form after posting an NL-leading 19 wins. Wainwright was joined by youngsters Lance Lynn, Joe Kelly, Shelby Miller, and late-season call-up Michael Wacha. Wainwright's return to form, along with the emergence of the young starters, helped fill the void left by star pitcher Chris Carpenter, who missed the entire season due to various injuries. The bullpen were also powered by youngsters, led by closer Trevor Rosenthal, set-up man Carlos Martínez, and middle relievers Seth Maness and Kevin Siegrist.[citation needed]

St. Louis opened the playoffs by defeating the Pittsburgh Pirates in five games in the Division Series. Then, in their third consecutive National League Championship Series appearance, St. Louis defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers four games to two for their 19th National League pennant.[12]

After finishing last in the AL East with a 69–93 record in 2012, the Red Sox fired Bobby Valentine and hired John Farrell as their new manager.[13] Under Farrell, the team finished the 2013 regular season at 97–65, the best record in the American League.[14]

In the aftermath of the infamous September collapse in 2011 and the ill-fated Valentine experiment of 2012, general manager Ben Cherington brought in Farrell, a former pitching coach under Terry Francona, and several role players in hopes of turning the Red Sox around. The Boston Marathon bombings on April 15 helped inspire a season-long rally for the Red Sox in support of the victims and the city of Boston. In games after the marathon, the Red Sox hung a jersey on the dugout saying Boston Strong and 617, representing the city's area code. The team also wore "B Strong" patches in their uniforms. In addition, some of the Red Sox players grew beards during the season as a sign of unity. The inspired play of the Red Sox took them from last place the previous season to American League East champions with a 28-game turnaround, helped by Farrell's calming presence and familiarity with some of the players.[15]

Boston's offense was powered by designated hitter David Ortiz, who hit.309 during the season. They also relied on the baserunning exploits of center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury, whose 52 stolen bases led the major leagues, while right fielder Shane Victorino, second baseman Dustin Pedroia, first baseman Mike Napoli, catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia, and outfielder Jonny Gomes helped the Red Sox to a league-leading 853 runs scored. The pitching staff was led by Jon Lester, who rebounded from a miserable 2012 campaign to post a 15â€“8 record and 3.75 ERA. Lester was joined by Clay Buchholz, John Lackey and midseason acquisition Jake Peavy. The bullpen were led by closer Koji Uehara, who unexpectedly took over following injuries to Joel Hanrahan and Andrew Bailey to post 21 saves and a 1.09 ERA. He was joined by compatriot and set-up man Junichi Tazawa, and middle relievers Brandon Workman and Craig Breslow. While Stephen Drew and David Ross were limited offensively, their defense proved to be an asset to the team's success, especially during the postseason.[citation needed]

Boston opened the playoffs by defeating the Tampa Bay Rays in four games in the Division Series. Then in the American League Championship Series, the Red Sox defeated the Detroit Tigers four games to two to win their 13th American League pennant.

Boston won the series, 4â€“2.

Boston Hall of Famer Carl Yastrzemski threw the ceremonial first pitch,[22] as he had done before Game 1 in 2004 and 2007. After Boston starter Jon Lester pitched a scoreless top half of the first inning, St. Louis ace Adam Wainwright found trouble in the bottom of the inning. He walked leadoff batter Jacoby Ellsbury and after an out, Dustin Pedroia singled.  Wainwright then got David Ortiz to ground to second base, but Matt Carpenter's flip was mishandled by shortstop Pete Kozma, ending the possibility of a double play.  Initially, the Cardinals had been awarded a force-out at second base, but after conferring, the umpires ruled that Kozma never had control of the ball, and Pedroia was reinstated at second base.  With the bases loaded and one out, Mike Napoli doubled to left-center, scoring Ellsbury, Pedroia and Ortiz, the latter after Shane Robinson misplayed a carom off the wall.  In the bottom of the second inning, Stephen Drew led off with a pop-up in front of the pitcher's mound. Wainwright and catcher Yadier Molina both converged, but both let the ball drop for a leadoff single. David Ross then singled to center field, followed by a flyout by Ellsbury. Shane Victorino then hit a ground ball to deep short, but Kozma again mishandled it, his second error of the game, and once again the bases were loaded with one out.  Pedroia then singled under the glove of a diving David Freese to make the score 4–0.  Ortiz then hit a deep fly to right field, but was robbed of a grand slam by Carlos Beltrán.  Ross did tag and score to give Boston a 5–0 lead.  Beltrán would leave the game, with Robinson moving to right field, and Jon Jay taking over in center.  Meanwhile, Lester was brilliant for the Red Sox, pitching 7 2/3 scoreless innings.  The Red Sox added to their lead in the bottom of the seventh with Ortiz hitting a two-run home run off Kevin Siegrist to give them a 7–0 lead.  After the Red Sox plated another run in the eighth inning, the Cardinals finally got on the board with Matt Holliday leading off the ninth with a home run off Ryan Dempster. Dempster recovered and closed out the 8–1 victory by striking out Matt Adams.[23][24][25] Lester was accused of using a foreign substance on his glove, but he claimed that it was just rosin, which is legal, and the Cardinals organization elected to not file a complaint.[26]

Game 2 pitted the NLCS MVP Michael Wacha against the Red Sox' John Lackey. Several members of the 2004 Red Sox championship team, including Pedro Martínez, threw ceremonial first pitches.[27] After three scoreless innings, Matt Holliday led off the fourth inning for the Cardinals with a triple to center field.  After Matt Adams lined out, catcher Yadier Molina grounded out softly to Dustin Pedroia to score Holliday and give the Cardinals a 1–0 lead.  The Red Sox threatened in the bottom half as the first two batters reached with Pedroia leading off with a double and David Ortiz drawing a walk. Mike Napoli then grounded into a double play to partially kill the threat and Wacha got Jonny Gomes to pop out to Matt Carpenter to end the inning.  In the bottom of the sixth inning, the Red Sox finally got on the scoreboard, as Pedroia walked with one out and Ortiz hit a two-run home run to left center field on a 3–2 changeup to give the Red Sox a 2–1 lead.  In the seventh inning, the Red Sox' defense let them down.  With one out and the bases loaded (David Freese walked, Jon Jay singled and Daniel Descalso walked), Carpenter hit a fly ball to Gomes in left field for the second out.  With Pete Kozma, who pinch-ran for Freese, scoring on the throw, the ball got away from catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia.  Jay and Descalso attempted to advance on the misplay and pitcher Craig Breslow, who was backing up on the play, tried to get Jay at third but his throw was wild and went into the stands.  Jay scored and Descalsco went to third as the Cardinals now led 3–2. Carlos Beltrán then singled to right to score Descalso and give the Cardinals a 4–2 lead.  Things got a little interesting in the bottom of the eighth inning.  With Carlos Martinez on the mound for the Cardinals, the Red Sox had Jacoby Ellsbury reach on an error and after two strikeouts, Ortiz reached on a single.  With two outs, Martinez jammed Napoli and he popped out to short to end the inning.  In the bottom of the ninth with the 4–2 lead, Cardinals closer Trevor Rosenthal entered the game and made quick work of the Red Sox by striking out Gomes, Saltalamacchia and pinch-hitter Daniel Nava on 17 pitches.  The Cardinals evened up the series at one game each as the series shifted to St. Louis for the next three games.

With the win, St. Louis snapped Boston's nine-game winning streak in the World Series.

The ceremonial first pitch was thrown by 1985 NL MVP Willie McGee.[27] The Cardinals got off to a good start in the bottom of the first inning, putting two on the board from RBI singles by Matt Holliday and Yadier Molina off of Boston starter Jake Peavy. It wasn't until the top of the fifth inning before the Red Sox got on the board themselves, when pinch hitter Mike Carp grounded into a fielder's choice off Cardinals starter Joe Kelly. In the next inning, Boston tied the game at 2–2 on a Daniel Nava single. But in the bottom of the seventh, Matt Holliday hit a line drive off of reliever Junichi Tazawa that just got past a diving Xander Bogaerts that drove in two, and Holliday advanced to third on the throw. Even though this happened with no outs, Holliday was stranded at third. Boston quickly responded in the top of the eighth by loading the bases off Carlos Martínez. Trevor Rosenthal came in to pitch, and the first batter he faced, Daniel Nava, grounded in to a fielder's choice, after a great diving stop by rookie second baseman Kolten Wong. The next batter, Xander Bogaerts, bounced a ball up the middle for an RBI single of his own, knotting the game at 4–4.[28]

In the bottom of the ninth inning, Boston reliever Brandon Workman stayed in, having pitched in the eighth inning and having batted in the top of the ninth, striking out in his first professional at bat.[29] He gave up a one out single to Molina. Boston closer Koji Uehara was brought in to face pinch hitter Allen Craig, who doubled on the first pitch. With one out, Jon Jay hit a grounder to second baseman Dustin Pedroia. He made a diving stab and threw home to catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia, who tagged out the sliding Molina. But then Saltalamacchia threw to third trying to get Craig, who was running on the play. Saltalamacchia's throw was wide, and it pulled Middlebrooks toward the second-base side of the bag. Middlebrooks tried to keep the ball on the infield, but it skipped into foul territory. Craig slid into third, popped up and started for home. He made contact with Middlebrooks, who was lying face-first on the dirt, with his feet in the air. Craig fell, got back up and ran home.  Saltalamacchia, receiving the throw from foul territory, applied the tag to the sliding Craig.  However, the third base umpire, Jim Joyce, called obstruction on the play; home plate umpire Dana DeMuth determined that Craig would have scored without the obstruction, giving the Cardinals the win and a 2â€“1 lead in the World Series. The Red Sox were furious about the call, as manager John Farrell stayed out to argue the call, as did most of the players. They protested that Middlebrooks' feet were in the air as he was getting up when Craig ran over him.[30]

The largest paid crowd in the history of Busch Stadium (47,432) saw the game. It was the first time in a World Series game that a winning play was on an obstruction call.[31]

The largest paid crowd in the history of Busch Stadium (47,469) saw the game, surpassing the previous night's record attendance. Hall of Famer and two-time World Series MVP Bob Gibson threw the ceremonial first pitch.[27] After Boston starter Clay Buchholz, pitching through a shoulder injury, was removed for a pinch-hitter after four innings, five Red Sox relievers combined to hold St. Louis to one run on three hits the rest of the way.  In the sixth inning, the bases were empty with two outs before Dustin Pedroia singled and David Ortiz walked.  Then, outfielder Jonny Gomes came to bat and the Cardinals brought in Seth Maness to face him.  Gomes worked the count to 2–2 before he broke the tie with a three-run homer that would become the difference in the game.  The game ended when Boston closer Koji Uehara picked off pinch runner Kolten Wong with Carlos Beltrán at the plate, making it the first postseason game in baseball history to end on a pickoff.[32]

Felix Doubront pitched 2â…” innings out of the bullpen to earn his first career postseason win. John Lackey, who pitched a scoreless eighth, made his first relief appearance since 2004 and first in the postseason since 2002.[33]

Hall of Fame inductee Ozzie Smith threw the ceremonial first pitch.[27] In a rematch of the staff who faced off in Game 1, Jon Lester again outdueled Adam Wainwright to give the Red Sox a 3–2 series lead.[34]
Boston scored first for the first time since Game 1 when Dustin Pedroia and David Ortiz hit back-to-back doubles with one out in the first.[35]
Matt Holliday tied the score with a home run to center in the fourth inning, but it would be the only run Lester would allow over strong 7⅔ innings of work. Wainwright matched Lester until the seventh inning, when a ground-rule RBI double by David Ross and RBI single by Jacoby Ellsbury scored Xander Bogaerts and Stephen Drew to give Boston a 3–1 lead.[36]
Koji Uehara relieved Lester with two outs in the eighth and retired all four Cardinals he faced to earn his second save of the series.[37][38][39]

Uehara tied John Wetteland, Robb Nen, Troy Percival, and Brad Lidge for most saves in one postseason year, with 7 (since then, Greg Holland matched this record the next year). In addition, Lester joined Babe Ruth as the only Red Sox lefthanders to win three World Series games.[40]

Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame members Carlton Fisk and Luis Tiant, both of whom played in historic Game 6 of the 1975 World Series, threw ceremonial first pitches.[27] Boston won Game 6 in a rout, by scoring six runs on the Cardinals rookie Michael Wacha, who had previously been unbeaten in the playoffs.[41]  World Series Most Valuable Player David Ortiz was walked by the Cardinals four times, and scored twice.  Boston's Shane Victorino opened the scoring with a three-run double in the third inning[42] and had four runs batted in.[43]  Red Sox pitcher John Lackey pitched six scoreless innings.  The Cardinals only seriously threatened in the seventh inning when they scored on Carlos Beltrán's single and had the bases loaded with two outs, but Boston reliever Junichi Tazawa got the final out.[41] Koji Uehara came in again to pitch a perfect ninth, striking out Matt Carpenter swinging to end the game, series, baseball season, and clinch their eighth overall title.

With this win, Boston won the championship at Fenway Park for the first time since 1918.[44][45][46][47] The win was the third championship in the last ten seasons for the Red Sox.[48][49]

The average list price on the resale market for a ticket to Game 6 was $1,860, according to TiqIQ, a ticket tracking company.[50][51] As of the 2018 postseason, this is the most recent World Series in which the home team has won a deciding game and has received the Commissioner's Trophy on their home field.

2013 World Series (4â€“2): Boston Red Sox (A.L.) beat St. Louis Cardinals (N.L.)

Fox televised the series in the United States and Canada, with Joe Buck calling play-by-play and Tim McCarver handling color commentary. This was McCarver's 24th and final World Series broadcast (including four with ABC and four with CBS prior to his joining Fox in 1996), as he had announced that he would retire from the network's lead crew following the season.[53][54] Working with Buck and McCarver were field reporters Ken Rosenthal and Erin Andrews.[55]

Pregame coverage was handled by host Matt Vasgersian, joined by regular analyst Harold Reynolds.  They were joined by special guest analysts A. J. Pierzynski of the Texas Rangers (his third consecutive World Series as a guest analyst), and Jimmy Rollins of the Philadelphia Phillies.[citation needed]

A partnership with Fox Sports featured Pearl Jam as the November artist of month for all entities within the Fox Sports domain and licensed 48 songs from their catalogue to play during the 2013 World Series.  The group's music was included in anything from "opening teases and commercial bumpers to montages, as well as additional promotional inventory across Fox prime-time and cable."[56]

Major League Baseball International syndicated the television coverage outside Canada and the U.S., with English-language commentary provided by Baltimore Orioles play-by-play announcer Gary Thorne and ESPN analyst Rick Sutcliffe.[citation needed]

According to Nielsen Media Research, the six-game series on Fox averaged an 8.9 rating and 15 share. The 8.9 rating was, by a large margin, the lowest for a six-game World Series (the 2009 World Series that pulled an 11.7 was the prior lowest) and the fourth lowest overall, behind the 2010, 2008 and 2012 series (the latter holding the record low at 7.6). Game 3, which pulled a 7.4 rating, is the fourth lowest rated MLB World Series game, ahead of just Game 3 of the 2011 World Series (6.6), Game 3 of the 2012 World Series (6.1), and Game 3 of the 2008 World Series (6.1).[57]

Some analysts expressed alarm at the low ratings, considering the prestigious franchises involved (a combined 20 World Championships and 32 pennants). Boston, moreover, had a storybook narrative because of the recent Boston Marathon bombing, which, some felt, should have attracted casual audiences.[58]

ESPN Radio broadcast the series in the U.S., with commentators Dan Shulman and Orel Hershiser. Locally, the two teams' flagship radio stations broadcast the series with their respective announcing crews. Mike Shannon and John Rooney called the games for the Cardinals on KMOX in St. Louis, while Joe Castiglione, Dave O'Brien, and Lou Merloni announced for the Red Sox on WEEI in Boston.[citation needed]

Following the team's World Series win, Boston Red Sox fans congregated at the site of the Boston Marathon bombing to celebrate the title.[59]
The white lights of Boston's Prudential Tower displayed "GO SOX." Red Sox owner John Henry said after the game that the parade would take place on Saturday, November 2.[60]
[61][62][63]

On November 2, the Red Sox parade began at Fenway Park and headed down Boylston Street. The 25 duck boats carrying the players and executives paused at the marathon finish where three spectators died during the April bombings.
[64][65][66][67]

The Cardinals extended their postseason streak to a fourth consecutive season, winning the National League Central title for a second straight year with a 90â€“72 mark. They also made the NLCS for the fourth time in as many seasons, but like in 2012, they lost to the eventual World Series champions San Francisco Giants, this time in five games.


what form of government does the dominican republic have

Government of the Dominican Republic takes place in a framework of a representative democracy, whereby the President of the Dominican Republic is both head of state, head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in the bicameral National Congress. The Judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

Politics of the Dominican Republic

With the proclamation of the first constitution in the Dominican Republic on 6 November 1844 in the city of San Cristobal, the Dominican theory of sovereignty, 'independence politics', was formed. The Dominican Republic would remain for the most part republican and representative.

The constitution of San Cristobal established the legislature as superior to the other branches, the judiciary as an independent and the Executive to run the state day-to-day under the oversight of the judiciary and the legislature.

The Congress of the Dominican Republic consists of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

The President of the Republic was presented as an impartial public figure that would provide a source of unity to the Republic.

The Executive is charged with the daily administration of the state, subject to the oversight of the judicial and legislative branches. The President functions as the head of state, the head of government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Dominican Armed Forces.

The Dominican Cabinet is responsible for assisting the president in his duty to govern the nation and the President appoints ministers as he sees appropriate.

The President and Vice President are elected on the same ticket by popular vote for a four-year term without immediate re-election. After at least one constitutional term, a person who has held the post of President before may run for this Office again, according to the last amendment made to the Constitution in 2010. Elections are held in years evenly divisible by four.

The Dominican Constitution takes twenty-seven paragraphs to spell out the president's extensive powers. Among the most important are those that grant him authority over virtually all appointments and removals of public officials, and even popular elected ones; empower him to promulgate the laws passed by Congress; direct him to engage in diplomatic relations; and empower him to command, to deploy, and to make appointments in, the armed forces. The president also has vast emergency powers to suspend basic rights in times of emergency, to defer the legislature, to declare a state of siege, and to rule by decree.

The 1966 Constitution provides for ministers and subcabinet ministers to assist in public administration. These officials must be Dominican citizens, at least twenty-five years of age, with full civil and political rights. The powers of the ministers are determined by law. However, the president is constitutionally responsible for the actions of his ministers. Ministers serve at the president's discretion, and function both as administrators of their ministries and as agents of presidential authority.

The military consists of about 45,000 active duty personnel. Its principal mission is to defend the nation, but it serves more as an internal security force. The army, twice as large as the other services combined, consists of four infantry brigades and a combat support brigade; the air force operates three flying squadrons; and the navy maintains 30 aging vessels. The Dominican Republic's military is second in size to Cuba's in the Caribbean.

The armed forces participate fully in counter-narcotics efforts. They also are active in efforts to control contraband and illegal immigration from Haiti to the Dominican Republic and from the Dominican Republic to the United States and Puerto Rico.

Legislative power is exercised by a bicameral National Congress (Congreso de la República). The upper house is the Senate (Senado) with 32 members, elected for a four-year term in single-seat constituencies. The lower house is the Chamber of Deputies (Cámara de Diputados) with 178 members, elected for a four-year term by proportional representation in accordance to each province, as follows: one deputy is elected for every 50,000 inhabitants plus fraction exceeding 25,000, but never less than two.

Among the attributions of the Senate are the following:

Congressional and municipal elections are held separately from the presidential elections. Re-election is always possible, without any limitation. The office of Senator and Deputy are incompatible with any other position or employment at the Public Administration.

The Judicial Power is charged of administering justice in order to ensure the respect, protection and supervision of rights recognized under the Constitution and laws. Its higher organ is the Supreme Court of Justice, which is composed of 16 judges appointed by the National Council of Magistrates, an entity created by the constitutional reform of 1994 to ensure the independence of the Judicial Branch.

The National Council of Magistrates is nominated by the three major political parties. It is presided by the President of the Republic and has the following members:

The Supreme Court hears appeals from lower courts (as a Court of Cassation) and chooses members of lower courts. It has sole jurisdiction over actions against the President, designated members of his cabinet, and members of Congress. It has administrative and financial autonomy.

Apart from working as an appeals court for all judgments rendered by judicial courts, the Supreme Court supervises all judges in the Dominican territory. Its judicial and administrative functions may be summarized as follows:

Each of the 31 provinces is headed by a presidentially appointed governor. People-elected mayors and municipal councils administer the National District (Santo Domingo) and the 103 municipal districts.

The Dominican Republic has 31 provinces (provincias) and one National District* (Distrito Nacional): Azua, Baoruco, Barahona, Dajabón, Duarte, El Seibo, Elías Piña, Espaillat, Hato Mayor, Independencia, La Altagracia, La Romana, La Vega, María Trinidad Sánchez, Monseñor Nouel, Monte Cristi, Monte Plata, Pedernales, Peravia, Puerto Plata, Hermanas Mirabal, Samaná, Sánchez Ramírez, San Cristóbal, San José de Ocoa, San Juan, San Pedro de Macorís, Santiago, Santiago Rodríguez, Santo Domingo, Distrito Nacional, and Valverde.

The Dominican Republic has a multi-party political system with national elections every four years. In two rounds of presidential elections in 1996, nearly 80% of eligible Dominican voters went to the polls. The leading parties in 1994 were the PRSC, linked to the International Christian Democratic political movement, whose candidate was President Joaquín Balaguer; the PRD, affiliated with the Socialist International, whose candidate was José Francisco Peña Gómez; and the PLD, whose candidate was former President Juan Bosch.

In the 1994 elections, international observers noted many irregularities in the voter lists, and the opposition PRD immediately charged the Central Electoral Board and the PRSC with fraud. A Verification Commission appointed by the Central Electoral Board, however, did not accept the PRD's charges. By all estimates, total disenfranchised voters far exceeded the 22,281-vote margin of victory in favor of President Balaguer on 2 August 1994.

Following an intense period of political activity, the competing political parties signed a Pact for Democracy on 10 August, reducing President Balaguer's term of office from 4 to 2 years, setting early elections, and reforming the constitution. A new Central Electoral Board was named to work on electoral reform. The main candidates in 1996 were Vice President Jacinto Peynado (PRSC), José Francisco Peña Gómez (PRD), and Leonel Fernández (PLD).

Domestic and international observers saw the 1996 election as transparent and fair. After the first round in which Jacinto Peynado (PRSC) was eliminated, the PRSC with Joaquín Balaguer endorsed Leonel Fernández (PLD). Results in the second round, 45 days later on 30 June, were tabulated quickly, and although the victory margin was narrow (1.5%), it was never questioned. The transition from incumbent administration to incoming administration was smooth and ushered in a new, modern era in Dominican political life.

Fernández' political agenda was one of economic and judicial reform. He helped enhance Dominican participation in hemispheric affairs, such as the Organization of American States and the follow-up to the Miami Summit. On 16 May 2000, Hipólito Mejía, the Revolutionary Democratic Party candidate, was elected president in another free and fair election. He defeated Dominican Liberation Party candidate Danilo Medina 49.8% to 24.84%. Former President Balaguer garnered 24.68% of the vote. Mejia entered office on 16 August with four priorities: education reform, economic development, increased agricultural production, and poverty alleviation. Mejía also champions the cause of Central American and Caribbean economic integration and migration, particularly as it relates to Haiti. On 16 May 2004, Leonel Fernández, running for the Dominican Liberation Party, garnered about 57% of the vote. On 16 May 2008, Leonel Fernández, running for the Dominican Liberation Party, garnered about 54% of the vote for a second consecutive term in office.

Presidential elections are held in the Dominican Republic every four years, on the 16 May. The candidate must gain a majority vote of at least 50% plus one to win the presidency in the first round. If none of the candidates obtains such majority, a second poll will take place 45 days later, at which the population will decide between the two candidates that had the best results during the first poll.

Template:Dominican Republic presidential election, 2016


what was the purpose of the reichstag fire

In February 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as the "Reichstag Fire Trial": Bulgarians Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoy Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe. The responsibility for the Reichstag fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.[3][4] Historians disagree as to whether van der Lubbe acted alone, as he said, to protest the condition of the German working class. The Nazis accused the Comintern of the act. Some historians endorse the theory, initially proposed by the Communist Party, that the arson was planned and ordered by the Nazis as a false flag operation.[5][6][7] The building remained in its fire-damaged state until it was partially repaired from 1961 to 1964, then completely restored from 1995 to 1999.

Reichstag fire

The Reichstag fire (German: Reichstagsbrand,  listen (help·info)) was an arson attack on the Reichstag building (home of the German parliament) in Berlin on 27 February 1933, one month after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. The National Socialist party stated that Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch council communist, was found near the building and attributed the fire to communist agitators in general—though in 1933, a German court decided that van der Lubbe had acted alone, as he claimed. After the fire, the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed. The Nazi Party used the fire as evidence that communists were plotting against the German government, and the event is considered pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany. The term Reichstag fire has come to refer to false flag actions perpetrated or facilitated by an authority to promote their own interests through popular approval of retribution or retraction of civil rights.

The fire started in the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament. A Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the building was on fire shortly after 21:00.[1]:26â€“28 By the time the police and firefighters arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was engulfed in flames. The police conducted a thorough search inside the building and found van der Lubbe. He was arrested, as were four communist leaders soon after. Hitler urged President Paul von Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties and pursue a "ruthless confrontation" with the Communist Party of Germany.[2] After passing the decree, the government instituted mass arrests of communists, including all of the Communist Party parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival communists gone and their seats empty, the Nazi Party went from being a plurality party to the majority, thus enabling Hitler to consolidate his power.

Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor and head of the coalition government on 30 January 1933. As Chancellor, Hitler asked German President Paul von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new parliamentary election. The date set for the elections was 5 March 1933. Hitler's aim was first to acquire a National Socialist majority, to secure his position and to remove the communist opposition. If prompted or desired, the President could remove the Chancellor. Hitler hoped to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion, by passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law that gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree, without the involvement of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for four years, after which time they were eligible to be renewed. Under the Weimar Constitution, the President could rule by decree in times of emergency using Article 48.[8] The unprecedented element of the Enabling Act was that the Chancellor possessed the powers. An Enabling Act was only supposed to be passed in times of extreme emergency and had only been used once, in 1923–24 when the government used an Enabling Act to end hyperinflation (see hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic). To pass an Enabling Act, a party required a vote by a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag. In January 1933, the Nazis had only 32% of the seats.

During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution and that the only way to stop the Communists was to pass the Enabling Act. The message of the campaign was simple: increase the number of Nazi seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed. To decrease the number of opposition members of parliament who could vote against the Enabling Act, Hitler planned to ban the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (the Communist Party of Germany or KPD), which at the time held 17% of the seats, after the elections and before the new Reichstag convened.

Shortly after 21:00 on 27 February 1933, the Berlin Fire Department received a message that the Reichstag was on fire. Despite the best efforts of the firefighters, most of the building was gutted by the blaze. By 23:30, the fire was put out. The firefighters and police inspected the ruins and found twenty bundles of flammable material (firelighters) unburned lying about. At the time the fire was reported, Adolf Hitler was having dinner with Joseph Goebbels at Goebbels' apartment in Berlin. When Goebbels received an urgent phone call informing him of the fire, he regarded it as a "tall tale" at first and hung up. Only after the second call did he report the news to Hitler.[9] Both left Goebbels' apartment and arrived by car at the Reichstag, just as the fire was being put out. They were met at the site by Hermann Göring who told Hitler, "This is Communist outrage! One of the Communist culprits has been arrested." Hitler called the fire a "sign from God" and claimed it was a Fanal (signal) meant to mark the beginning of a Communist Putsch (revolt). The next day, the Preussische Pressedienst (Prussian Press Service) reported that "this act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Bolshevism in Germany". The Vossische Zeitung newspaper warned its readers that "the government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation existed and still exists".[10]

The day after the fire,  Hitler asked for, and received, from President Hindenburg,  the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany, including habeas corpus, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, the secrecy of the post and telephone.[11] These rights were not reinstated during Nazi reign. The decree was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. Despite the fact that Marinus van der Lubbe claimed to have acted alone in the Reichstag fire, Hitler, after having obtained his emergency powers, announced that it was the start of a Communist plot to take over Germany. Nazi newspapers blared this "news".[11] This sent the Germans into a panic and isolated the Communists further among the civilians; additionally, thousands of Communists were imprisoned in the days following the fire (including leaders of the Communist Party of Germany) on the charge that the Party was preparing to stage a putsch. Speaking to Rudolph Diels about Communists during the Reichstag fire, Hitler said "These sub-humans do not understand how the people stand at our side. In their mouse-holes, out of which they now want to come, of course they hear nothing of the cheering of the masses."[12] With Communist electoral participation also suppressed (the Communists previously polled 17% of the vote), the Nazis were able to increase their share of the vote in the 5 March 1933, Reichstag elections from 33% to 44%.[13] This gave the Nazis and their allies, the German National People's Party (who won 8% of the vote), a majority of 52% in the Reichstag.[13]

While the Nazis emerged with a majority, they fell short of their goal, which was to win 50%â€“55% of the vote that year.[13] The Nazis thought that this would make it difficult to achieve their next goal, which was to pass the Enabling Act, a measure that required a two-thirds majority.[13] However, there were important factors weighing in the Nazis' favor. These were: the continued suppression of the Communist Party and the Nazis' ability to capitalize on national security concerns. Moreover, some deputies of the Social Democratic Party (the only party that would vote against the Enabling Act) were prevented from taking their seats in the Reichstag, due to arrests and intimidation by the Nazi SA. As a result, the Social Democratic Party would be under-represented in the final vote tally. The Enabling Act, which gave Hitler the right to rule by decree, passed easily on 23 March 1933. It garnered the support of the right-wing German National People's Party, the Centre Party, and several fragmented middle-class parties. This measure went into force on 27 March and, in effect, made Hitler dictator of Germany.

The Kroll Opera House, sitting across the KÃ¶nigsplatz from the burned-out Reichstag building, functioned as the Reichstag's venue for the remaining twelve years of the Third Reich's existence.

In July 1933, Marinus van der Lubbe, Ernst Torgler, Georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popov, and Vasil Tanev were indicted on charges of setting the Reichstag on fire. From 21 September to 23 December 1933, the Leipzig Trial took place and was presided over by judges from the German Supreme Court, the Reichsgericht. This was Germany's highest court. The presiding judge was Judge Dr. Wilhelm BÃ¼rger of the Fourth Criminal Court of the Fourth Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court.[14] The accused were charged with arson and with attempting to overthrow the government.

The Leipzig Trial was widely publicized and was broadcast on the radio. It was expected that the court would find the Communists guilty on all counts and approve the repression and terror exercised by the Nazis against all opposition forces in the country. At the end of the trial, however, only Van der Lubbe was convicted, while his fellow defendants were found not guilty. In 1934, Van der Lubbe was beheaded in a German prison yard. In 1967, a court in West Berlin overturned the 1933 verdict, and posthumously changed Van der Lubbe's sentence to 8 years in prison. In 1980, another court overturned the verdict, but was overruled. In 1981, a West German court posthumously overturned Van der Lubbe's 1933 conviction and found him not guilty by reason of insanity. This ruling was subsequently overturned. However, in January 2008, he was pardoned under a 1998 law for the crime on the grounds that anyone convicted under Nazi Germany is officially not guilty. The law allows pardons for people convicted of crimes under the Nazis, based on the idea that the laws of Nazi Germany "went against the basic ideas of justice".[15]

The trial began at 8:45 on the morning of 21 September, with Van der Lubbe testifying. Van der Lubbe's testimony was very hard to follow as he spoke of losing his sight in one eye and wandering around Europe as a drifter and that he had been a member of the Dutch Communist Party, which he quit in 1931, but still considered himself a communist. Georgi Dimitrov began his testimony on the third day of the trial. He gave up his right to a court-appointed lawyer and defended himself successfully. When warned by Judge Bürger to behave himself in court, Dimitrov stated: "Herr President, if you were a man as innocent as myself and you had passed seven months in prison, five of them in chains night and day, you would understand it if one perhaps becomes a little strained." During the course of his defence, Dimitrov claimed that the organizers of the fire were senior members of the Nazi Party and frequently verbally clashed with Göring at the trial. The highpoint of the trial occurred on 4 November 1933, when Göring took the stand and was cross-examined by Dimitrov.[16] The following exchange took place:

Dimitrov: Herr Prime Minister GÃ¶ring stated on February 28 that, when arrested, the "Dutch Communist Van der Lubbe had on his person his passport and a membership card of the Communist Party". From whom was this information taken?

GÃ¶ring: The police search all common criminals, and report the result to me.

Dimitrov: The three officials who arrested and examined Van der Lubbe all agreed that no membership card of the Communist Party was found on him. I should like to know where the report that such a card had been found came from.

GÃ¶ring: I was told by an official. Things which were reported to me on the night of the fire...could not be tested or proven. The report was made to me by a responsible official, and was accepted as a fact, and as it could not be tested immediately it was announced as a fact. When I issued the first report to the press on the morning after the fire the interrogation of Van der Lubbe had not been concluded. In any case I do not see that anyone has any right to complain because it seems proved in this trial that Van der Lubbe had no such card on him.

Dimitrov: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior what steps he took to make sure that Van der Lubbe's route to Hennigsdorf, his stay and his meetings with other people there were investigated by the police to assist them in tracking down Van der Lubbe's accomplices?

GÃ¶ring: As I am not an official myself, but a responsible Minister it was not important that I should trouble myself with such petty, minor matters. It was my task to expose the Party, and the mentality, which was responsible for the crime.

Dimitrov: Is the Reichsminister aware of the fact that those that possess this alleged criminal mentality today control the destiny of a sixth part of the world – the Soviet Union?

GÃ¶ring: I don't care what happens in Russia! I know that the Russians pay with bills, and I should prefer to know that their bills are paid! I care about the Communist Party here in Germany and about Communist crooks who come here to set the Reichstag on fire!

Dimitrov: This criminal mentality rules the Soviet Union, the greatest and best country in the world. Is Herr Prime Minister aware of that?

GÃ¶ring: I shall tell you what the German people already know. They know that you are behaving in a disgraceful manner! They know that you are a Communist crook who came to Germany to set the Reichstag on fire! In my eyes you are nothing, but a scoundrel, a crook who belongs on the gallows!".[17]

In his verdict, Judge BÃ¼rger was careful to underline his belief that there had in fact been a Communist conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag, but declared, with the exception of Van der Lubbe, there was insufficient evidence to connect the accused to the fire or the alleged conspiracy. Only Van der Lubbe was found guilty and sentenced to death. The rest were acquitted and were expelled to the Soviet Union, where they received a heroic welcome. The one exception was Torgler, who was taken into "protective custody" by the police until 1935. After being released, he assumed a pseudonym and moved away from Berlin.

Hitler was furious with the outcome of this trial. He decreed that henceforth treason—among many other offenses—would only be tried by a newly established People's Court (Volksgerichtshof). The People's Court later became associated with the number of death sentences it handed down, including those following the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler, which were presided over by then Judge-President Roland Freisler.

At his trial, Van der Lubbe was found guilty and sentenced to death. He was beheaded by guillotine (the customary form of execution in Saxony at the time; it was by axe in the rest of Germany) on 10 January 1934, three days before his 25th birthday. The Nazis alleged that Van der Lubbe was part of the Communist conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag and seize power, while the Communists alleged that Van der Lubbe was part of the Nazi conspiracy to blame the crime on them. Van der Lubbe, for his part, maintained that he acted alone to protest the condition of the German working class.

According to Ian Kershaw, in Hitler 1889â€“1936: Hubris, written in 1998, the consensus of nearly all historians at the time of writing was that Van der Lubbe did set the Reichstag on fire, and that it was generally believed that he acted alone and that the Reichstag fire was merely a stroke of good luck for the Nazis.[18] Although Van der Lubbe was certainly an arsonist and clearly played a role, there has been considerable popular and scientific debate over whether he acted alone; the case is still discussed.

It is alleged that the idea Van der Lubbe was a "half-wit" or "mentally disturbed" was propaganda spread by the Dutch Communist Party, to distance themselves from an insurrectionist anti-fascist, who was once a member of the party and took action where they failed to do so.[19] John Gunther, who covered the trial, described him as "an obvious victim of manic-depressive psychosis", and said that the Nazis would not have chosen "an agent so inept and witless". Citing a letter allegedly written by Karl Ernst before his death during the Night of Long Knives, he believed that Nazis who heard Van der Lubbe boast of planning to attack the Reichstag started a second simultaneous fire they blamed on him.[20] Hans Mommsen concluded that the Nazi leadership was in a state of panic on the night of the Reichstag fire and they seemed to regard the fire as confirmation that a Communist revolution was as imminent as they said it was.[21]

British reporter Sefton Delmer witnessed the events of that night and his account of the fire provides a number of details. Delmer reports Hitler arriving at the Reichstag and appearing uncertain how it began and concerned that a Communist coup was about to be launched. Delmer viewed Van der Lubbe as being solely responsible but that the Nazis sought to make it appear to be a "Communist gang" who set the fire, whereas the Communists sought to make it appear that Van der Lubbe was working for the Nazis, each side constructing a plot-theory in which the other was the villain.[22]

In private, Hitler said of the chairman of the Communist Party, Ernst Torgler: "I'm convinced he was responsible for the burning of the Reichstag, but I can't prove it".[23]

In 1960, Fritz Tobias (de), a West German SPD public servant and part-time historian, published a series of articles in Der Spiegel, later turned into a book, in which he argued that Vаn der Lubbe acted alone.[24] Tobias was widely attacked for his articles, which showed that Van der Lubbe was a pyromaniac, with a long history of burning down buildings or attempting to burn down buildings. Tobias established that Van der Lubbe attempted to burn down several buildings in the days prior to 27 February. In March 1973, the Swiss historian Walter Hofer organized a conference intended to rebut the claims made by Tobias. At the conference, Hofer claimed to have found evidence that some of the detectives who investigated the fire had been Nazis. Mommsen commented on Hofer's claims by stating, "Professor Hofer's rather helpless statement that the accomplices of Van der Lubbe 'could only have been Nazis' is tacit admission that the committee did not actually obtain any positive evidence in regard to the alleged accomplices' identity." Mommsen also had a counter-study supporting Hofer, which was suppressed for political reasons, an act that he admits was a serious breach of ethics.[25]

In 1946, Hans Gisevius a member of anti-Hitler resistance within the German government and former member of the Gestapo, Abwehr, and foreign ministry, indicated his supposition that the Nazis were the arsonists.[26] Gisevius posits that Karl Ernst by order of possibly Goebbels, collected a commando of SA men headed by Hans Georg "Heini" Gewehr, who set the fire. Among them was a criminal named Rall, who later made a (suppressed) confession before he was murdered by the Gestapo. Almost all participants were murdered in the Night of the Long Knives; Gewehr survived this purge but was later reported, inaccurately, to have died in the war.[26] Gewehr actually lived until 1976 and was involved in much of the post-war controversy about the origins of the fire.[27]

New work by Bahar and Kugel, as of 2001, has revived the theory that the Nazis were behind the fire. It uses Gestapo archives held in Moscow and available to researchers only since 1990. They argue that the fire was almost certainly started by the Nazis, based on the wealth of circumstantial evidence provided by the archival material. They say that a commando group of at least three and at most ten SA men, led by Hans Georg Gewehr, set the fire using self-lighting incendiaries, and that Van der Lubbe was brought to the scene later.[28] Der Spiegel published a 10-page response to the book, arguing that the thesis that Van der Lubbe acted alone remains the most likely explanation.[29] Benjamin Carter HettÂ (de)'s 2014 study rejects the possibility of a single perpetrator, van der Lubbe, as he had neither time nor appropriate resources for a successful arson attack.[30]

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer wrote that at Nuremberg, General Franz Halder stated in an affidavit, that Hermann Göring boasted about setting the fire:

On the occasion of a lunch on the Führer's birthday in 1943, the people around the Führer turned the conversation to the Reichstag building and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears how Göring broke into the conversation and shouted: 'The only one who really knows about the Reichstag building is I, for I set fire to it.' And saying this he slapped his thigh.[31]

Under cross-examination at the Nuremberg trial in 1945/6, Göring was read Halder's affidavit and denied he had any involvement in the fire, characterizing Halder's statement as "utter nonsense". Göring stated:

I had no reason or motive for setting fire to the Reichstag. From the artistic point of view I did not at all regret that the assembly chamber was burned; I hoped to build a better one. But I did regret very much that I was forced to find a new meeting place for the Reichstag and, not being able to find one, I had to give up my Kroll Opera House... for that purpose. The opera seemed to me much more important than the Reichstag.[32]:433

During the summer of 1933, a mock counter-trial was organised in London by a group of lawyers, democrats and other anti-Nazis under the aegis of German Communist émigrés. The chairman of the mock trial was Labour barrister (and Stalin apologist) D N Pritt KC and the chief organiser was the KPD propaganda chief Willi Münzenberg. The other "judges" were Meester Piet Vermeylen of Belgium, George Branting of Sweden, Maître Vincent de Moro-Giafferi and Maître Gaston Bergery of France, Betsy Bakker-Nort of the Netherlands, Vald Hvidt of Denmark and Arthur Garfield Hays of the United States.[1]:120

The mock trial began on 21 September 1933. It lasted one week and ended with the conclusion that the defendants were innocent and the true initiators of the fire were to be found amid the leading Nazi Party elite. The counter-trial received much media attention and Sir Stafford Cripps delivered the opening speech. Göring was found guilty at the mock counter-trial. The mock trial served as a workshop, during which all possible scenarios were tested and all speeches of the defendants were prepared. Most of the "judges", such as Hays and Moro-Giafferi, complained that the atmosphere at the "Counter-trial" was more like a show trial, with Münzenberg constantly applying pressure behind the scenes on the "judges", to deliver the "right" verdict without any regard for the truth. One of the "witnesses", a supposed SA man, appeared in court wearing a mask and claimed that it was the SA that really set the fire; in fact, the "SA man" was Albert Norden, the editor of the German Communist newspaper Rote Fahne. Another masked witness whom Hays described as "not very reliable", claimed that Van der Lubbe was a drug-addicted homosexual, who was the lover of Ernst Röhm and a Nazi dupe. When the lawyer for Ernst Torgler, asked the mock trial organisers to turn over the "evidence" exonerating his client, Münzenberg refused the request because he lacked any "evidence" to exonerate or convict anyone of the crime.[1]:122–126 The counter-trial was an enormously successful publicity stunt for the German Communists. Münzenberg followed this triumph with another by writing under his name, the best-selling The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror, an exposé of what Münzenberg alleged to be the Nazi conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag and blame the act on the Communists. (As with all of Münzenberg's books, the real author was one of his aides; in this case, a Czechoslovak Communist named Otto Katz.[33]) The success of The Brown Book was followed by another best-seller published in 1934, again ghost-written by Katz, The Second Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and the Hitler Terror.

The Brown Book was divided into three parts. The first part, which traced the rise of the Nazis (or "German Fascists" as Katz called them, in conformity with Comintern practice, which forbade the use of the term Nazi), portrayed the KPD as the only genuine anti-fascist force in Germany and featured a bitter attack on the SPD. Formed from dissidents within the SPD, the KPD led the communist uprisings in the early Weimar periodâ€”which the SPD crushed. The Brown Book labelled the SPD "Social Fascists" and accused the leadership of the SPD of secretly working with the Nazis. The second section deals with the Reichstag fire, which is described as a Nazi plot to frame the Communists, who are represented as the most dedicated opponents of Nazism. The third section deals with the supposed puppet masters behind the Nazis.

The term "Reichstag fire" is used by some writers to denote a calamitous event staged by a political movement, orchestrated in a manner that casts blame on their opponents, thus causing the opponents to be viewed with suspicion by the general public. This is sometimes known as a false flag attack when the event itself is caused by proponents of a political movement to falsely accuse their opponents. In modern histories the destruction of the palace of Diocletian at Nicomedia has been described as a "fourth-century Reichstag fire" used to justify an extensive persecution of Christians.[34][35] According to Lactantius, "That [Galerius] might urge [Diocletian] to excess of cruelty in persecution, he employed private emissaries to set the palace on fire; and some part of it having been burnt, the blame was laid on the Christians as public enemies; and the very appellation of Christian grew odious on account of that fire."[36] Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome involved similar allegations.[37]


how big is a cord of wood nz

A cord is the amount of wood that, when "racked and well stowed" (arranged so pieces are aligned, parallel, touching and compact), occupies a volume of 128 cubic feet (3.62 m3).[1] This corresponds to a well-stacked woodpile 4 feet (122 cm) high, 8 feet (244 cm) long, and 4 feet (122 cm) deep; or any other arrangement of linear measurements that yields the same volume.

Cord (unit)

The cord is a unit of measure of dry volume used to measure firewood and pulpwood in the United States and Canada.

The name cord probably comes from the use of a cord or string to measure it.[2]

Cord-foot was a US unit of volume for stacked firewood, four feet long, four feet wide and one foot high - equal to one eighth of a cord.[3] Symbol for the unit was cd-ft.[4]

In Canada, the cord is legally defined by Measurement Canada. The cord is one of three legal standards for the sale of firewood in Canada (stacked cubic metre, cubic foot, and cord). However the stacked cubic metre is now the preferred unit of measurement.[5]

In the United States, the cord is defined by statute in most states. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 130, section 2.4.1.2,[6] defines a cord and provides uniform regulations for the sale of fireplace and stove wood. In the metric system, wood is usually measured in steres and cubic metres: 1 stere = 1 m3 ≈ 0.276 cords.

Maine appears unique among U.S. states by also defining a "loose thrown cord" or pile of cut firewood: "A cord of 12 or 16 inches (30 or 41 cm) in length shall mean the amount of wood, bark and air contained in a space of 180 cubic feet (5.1 m3); and a cord of wood 24 inches (61 cm) in length shall mean the amount of wood, bark and air contained in a space of 195 cubic feet (5.5 m3). [1981, c. 219 (amd).]"[7]

Other non-official terms for firewood volume include standing cord, kitchen cord, running cord, face cord, fencing cord, country cord, long cord, and rick, all subject to local variation. These are usually taken to mean a well-stacked pile of wood in which the logs are shorter or longer than in a legal cord, to accommodate various burners. For example, a face cord commonly consists of wood that is 16 inches (41 cm) long.[8] The volume of a face cord therefore is typically 1/3 of the volume of a full cord even though it is 8 feet (244 cm) long and 4 feet (122 cm) high. A face cord is also called a rick in Midwestern United States.[9]

The term is used in other English-speaking countries, such as New Zealand,[10] but may not have a legal definition.

The "corde" unit was used before metrication in several French-speaking countries (France, Belgium and Luxemburg), and its value varied, according to the regions, approximately between 3 and 4 steres.

One seasoned (dry) cord of red oak (22.1 MMBtu per cord) (million British thermal units per cord) has the heating equivalent of 159 US gallons (132 imperial gallons; 602 litres) of fuel oil (138,700 Btu per Gal).[11][12]


where did the phrase cold shoulder come from

The first recorded use of the expression was in 1816 by Sir Walter Scott in the Scots language, in The Antiquary. This expression is a mistranslation of the Latin phrase dederunt umerum recedentem from the Book of Nehemiah 9.29 from the Vulgate Bible, which actually means "stubbornly they turned their backs on you", which comes from the Septuagint Bible's Greek equivalent ἔδωκαν νῶτον ἀπειθοῦντα. Latin umerus (often misspelled humerus) means both "shoulder" and "back":[1][2][3][4][5]

Cold shoulder

"Cold shoulder" is a phrase used to express dismissal or the act of disregarding someone. Its origin is attributed to Sir Walter Scott in a work published in 1816, which is in fact a mistranslation of an expression from the Vulgate Bible. There is also a commonly repeated incorrect folk etymology.

"Ye may mind that the Countess’s dislike did na gang farther at first than just shewing o’ the cauld shouther..."[6]

where "cauld" is the equivalent of cold and "shouther" means shoulder,[7] which is further supported by contextual usage in The Antiquary. Neither eating nor food is expressed in the passage, but the phrase is presented in a rather allusive way.[4] The phrase also appears in one of Scott's later works, St. Ronan's Well and after the 1820s it had traveled to America. Dated June 1839 in a letter to the editor in the New England newspaper The Bangor Daily Whig and Courier:

"... eminent individuals and his cabinet advisers turned "the cold shoulder" to their ambassador, for his independent act upon this occasion."[4]

Despite being repeated in several non-academic (non-scientific) books of etymology, the common explanation that the phrase stems from serving a cold shoulder of mutton or other meat to an unwanted guest is an incorrect folk etymology according to linguists.[3][2][4]

One source claims that the explanation of the expression is due to a very literal action: keeping one's back towards, or in the least a shoulder between, a person one was trying to avoid.[8]

The expression "cold shoulder" has been used in many literary works, and has entered into the vernacular. It has been used as a description of aloofness and disdain,[4] a contemptuous look over one's shoulder,[9] and even in the context of a woman attempting to decline the advances of an aggressive man.[10] Overall, it remains widely popular as a phrase for describing the act of ignoring someone or something, or giving an unfriendly response.[11]