title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: Tristram Cary was chosen to provide the score for "Quatermass and the Pit". He developed an interest in electronic music while serving in the Royal Navy as an electronics expert working on radar during the Second World War. He became a professional composer in 1954, working in film, theatre, radio and television, with credits including "The Ladykillers" (1955). He said of his assignment, "I was not mad about doing the film because Hammer wanted masses of electronic material and a great deal of orchestral music. But I had three kids, all of which were at fee-paying schools, so I needed every penny I could get!". Cary also recalled that, "The main use of electronics in "Quatermass", I think, was the violent shaking, vibrating sound that the "thing in the tunnel" gave off ... It was not a terribly challenging sound to do, though I never played it very loud because I didn't want to destroy my speakers—I did have hopes of destroying a few cinema loudspeaker systems, though it never happened". Carey went on to write the score for another Hammer film, "Blood from the Mummy's Tomb", in 1971. Several orchestral and electronic cues from the film were released by GDI Records on a compilation titled "The Quatermass Film Music Collection". The soundtrack was released on yellow vinyl in the UK for Record Store Day 2017.


title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: The title sequence of "Quatermass and the Pit" was devised to be evocative. Kim Newman, in his British Film Institute (BFI) monograph about the movie, states: "The words 'Hammer Film Production' appear on a black background. Successive jigsaw-piece cutaways reveal a slightly psychedelic skull. Swirling, infernal images are superimposed on bone—perhaps maps or landscapes—evoking both the red planet Mars and the fires of Hell. Beside this, the title appears in jagged red letters."


title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: "Quatermass and the Pit" premiered on 9 November 1967 and went on general release as a double feature with "Circus of Fear" on 19 November 1967. It was released in the US as "Five Million Years to Earth" in March 1968. The critical reception was generally positive. Writing in "The Times", John Russell Taylor found that, "After a slowish beginning, which shows up the deficiencies of acting and direction, things really start hopping when a mysterious missile-like object discovered in a London excavation proves to be a relic of a prehistoric Martian attempt (successful, it would seem) to colonize Earth [...] The development of this situation is scrupulously worked out and the film is genuinely gripping even when (a real test this) the Power of Evil is finally shown personified in hazy glowing outline, a spectacle as a rule more likely to provoke titters than gasps of horror." Paul Errol of the "Evening Standard" described the film as a "well-made, but wordy, blob of hokum", a view echoed by William Hall of "The Evening News" who described the film as "entertaining hokum" with an "imaginative ending". A slightly more critical view was espoused by Penelope Mortimer in "The Observer" who said, "This nonsense makes quite a good film, well put together, competently photographed, on the whole sturdily performed. What it totally lacks is imagination."


title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: According to Fox records, the film required $1.2 million in rentals to break even and made only $881,000 ($ in ).


title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: The film was a success for Hammer and they quickly announced that Nigel Kneale was writing a new "Quatermass" story for them but the script never went further than a few preliminary discussions. Kneale did eventually write a fourth "Quatermass" story, broadcast as a four-part serial, titled "Quatermass", by ITV television in 1979, an edited version of which was also given a limited cinema release under the title "The Quatermass Conclusion". "Quatermass and the Pit" marked the return to directing for the cinema for Roy Ward Baker and he went on to direct such films as "The Anniversary" (1968), "Moon Zero Two" (1969), "The Vampire Lovers" (1970), "Scars of Dracula" (1970), "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" (1971) and "The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires" (1974) for Hammer. He also directed "Asylum" (1972), "And Now the Screaming Starts!" (1973) and "The Vault of Horror" (1973) for Hammer's rival, Amicus Productions.


title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: "Quatermass and the Pit" continues to be generally well regarded among critics. John Baxter notes in "Science Fiction in the Cinema" that "Baker's unravelling of this crisp thriller is tough and interesting. [...] The film has moments of pure terror, perhaps the most effective that in which the drill operator, driven off the spaceship by the mysterious power within is caught up in a whirlwind that fills the excavation with a mass of flying papers." John Brosnan, writing in "The Primal Scream", found that, "As a condensed version of the serial, the film is fine but the old black-and-white version, though understandably creaky in places and with inferior effects, still works surprisingly well, having more time to build up a disturbing atmosphere. Bill Warren in "Keep Watching the Skies!" said, "The ambition of the storyline is contained in a well-constructed mystery that unfolds carefully and clearly". Nigel Kneale had mixed feelings about the end result: he said, "I was very happy with Andrew Keir, who they eventually chose, and very happy with the film. There are, however, a few things that bother me... The special effects in Hammer films were always diabolical."


title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: It has been suggested that Tobe Hooper's 1985 "Lifeforce" is largely a remake of Hammer's "Quatermass and the Pit". In an interview, director Tobe Hooper discussed how Cannon Films gave him $25 million, free rein, and Colin Wilson's book "The Space Vampires". Hooper then shares how giddy he was: "I thought I'd go back to my roots and make a 70 mm Hammer film."


title: Quatermass and the Pit (film)

text: Various DVDs of the film include a commentary from Nigel Kneale and Roy Ward Baker, as well as cast and crew interviews, trailers and an instalment of "The World of Hammer" TV series devoted to Hammer's forays into science fiction.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Jeffrey Mark Goldberg (born September 22, 1965) is an American journalist and editor-in-chief of "The Atlantic" magazine. During his nine years at "The Atlantic" prior to becoming editor, Goldberg became known for his coverage of foreign affairs.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Goldberg is Jewish and was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Ellen and Daniel Goldberg, whom he describes as "very left-wing." He grew up in suburban Malverne on Long Island, where he recalled being one of the few Jews in a largely Irish-American area. Retroactively, when describing his first trip to Israel as a teen, Goldberg recalled his youth being among pugnacious youth of a different ethnicity. He found the Jewish empowerment embodied by Israeli soldiers exciting, "So, I became deeply enamored of Israel because of that."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: He attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he was editor-in-chief of "The Daily Pennsylvanian". While at Penn he worked at the kitchen serving lunch to students. He left college to move to Israel, where he served in the Israel Defense Forces during the First Intifada as a prison guard at Ktzi'ot Prison, a prison camp set up to hold arrested Palestinian participants in the uprising. There he met Rafiq Hijazi, a Palestine Liberation Organization leader, college math teacher, and devout Muslim from a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, whom Goldberg describes as "the only Palestinian I could find in Ketziot who understood the moral justification for Zionism".


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Goldberg lives in Washington, D.C., with his wife, Pamela (née Ress) Reeves, and their three children.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Goldberg returned to the United States and began his career at "The Washington Post", where he was a police reporter. While in Israel, he worked as a columnist for "The Jerusalem Post". Upon his return to the US, he served as the New York bureau chief of "The Forward", a contributing editor at "New York" magazine, and a contributing writer at "The New York Times Magazine".


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In 2007, he was hired by David G. Bradley to write for "The Atlantic". Bradley had tried for nearly two years to convince Goldberg to work for "The Atlantic", and was finally successful after renting ponies for Goldberg's children.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Before becoming editor-in-chief of "The Atlantic", Goldberg was a reporter there. Goldberg wrote principally on foreign affairs, with a focus on the Middle East and Africa.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In 2019, Goldberg delivered the commencement address to the graduating class of the Johns Hopkins University.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Michael Massing, an editor of the "Columbia Journalism Review", called Goldberg "the most influential journalist/blogger on matters related to Israel," and David Rothkopf, former editor and CEO of the FP Group, called him "one of the most incisive, respected foreign policy journalists around." He has been described by critics as a liberal, a Zionist and a critic of Israel. "The New York Times" reported that he "shaped" "The Atlantic"s endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election, only the third endorsement in the magazine's 160-year history.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In "The Great Terror", Goldberg investigates the nature of the Iraqi Army's chemical attack on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In a March 2002 CNN interview, former CIA director, James Woolsey said, "I think Jeff Goldberg's piece is quite remarkable, and he and The New Yorker deserve a lot of credit for it."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In October 2002, Goldberg wrote a two-part examination of Hezbollah, "In the Party of God." Part I recounts his time in the village of Ras al-Ein, located in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, meeting with Hezbollah officials, including Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Hezbollah's former spiritual leader, and Hussayn al-Mussawi, founder of the now-defunct pro-Iranian Islamist militia Islamic Amal in 1982. Part II examines Hezbollah's activities in South America, specifically in the area known as the Triple Frontier, a tri-border area along the junction of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In April 2010, Goldberg published "The Hunted", a "New Yorker" article on Mark and Delia Owens, a conservationist couple based in Zambia, who resorted to vigilantism in an effort to stop elephant poachers in North Luangwa National Park. Goldberg chronicles the Owens’ attempts to counter the poachers’ activity in Zambia in the 1970s/80s, which began with creating incentives such as bounty programs for the park's scouts, but as the poaching continued, the Owenses methods turned more confrontational. "The New York Times" columnist Ross Douthat praised "The Hunted", noting that “Goldberg builds an extensive, persuasive case that the Owenses' much-lauded environmental activism in the Zambian hinterland led to at least one murder, and maybe more.”


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In September 2010, Goldberg wrote a story for "The Atlantic", examining the potential consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Based on his interviews with high level Israeli and American government and military officials, including, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, Ephraim Sneh, Ben Rhodes, Rahm Emanuel, and Denis McDonough, Goldberg writes, "I have come to believe that the administration knows it is a near-certainty that Israel will act against Iran soon if nothing or no one else stops the nuclear program; and Obama knows—as his aides, and others in the State and Defense departments made clear to me—that a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat to the interests of the United States, which include his dream of a world without nuclear weapons."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: After reading the article, Fidel Castro invited Goldberg to Cuba to talk about the issue. Goldberg published a series of articles on their interviews, including Castro's views about anti-Semitism and Iran, Soviet-style Communism, and theories on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. When asked by Goldberg if the Soviet-style Communism was still worth exporting, Castro replied that "the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In April 2013, Goldberg published an article on the Jordanian King Abdullah and his government's approach to reform in the wake of the 2011 protests around the Arab world.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In discussing a meeting between the King and the Jordanian tribes, Goldberg quotes the King as saying "I'm sitting with the old dinosaurs today." This quote garnered controversy when published, and the King's Royal Court issued a statement claiming the article contained many "fallacies" and that his words "were taken out of their correct context." However, in defending the accuracy of his quotes, Goldberg later tweeted, "I just spoke to a top official of the Jordanian royal court. He said they are not contesting the accuracy of quotes in my "Atlantic" piece."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In April 2015, Goldberg published "Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?". Goldberg's essay explores the state of the Jewish communities across Europe, in light of the resurgence of anti-Semitism and attacks against Jews in Europe.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Historian Diana Pinto, who is of Italian Jewish descent, wrote a rejoinder to Goldberg's article in "The New Republic", arguing that his article is excessively dire. She wrote: "If a plaster cast may be permitted to speak, I would say that Goldberg and his colleagues aren’t describing my reality; the world I come from isn't already destroyed; and the story of the Jews in Europe isn't yet ready to be relegated to museums or to antiquarian sites like Pompeii."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Goldberg has conducted five interviews with President Barack Obama since 2008. Goldberg's interviews have centered around President Obama's views on U.S.-Israel relations, Zionism, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and other issues concerning U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Peter Baker, the White House correspondent for "The New York Times", recommended Goldberg's interviews with President Obama, writing, "For much of his time in office, President Obama has been having sort of a running conversation about the Middle East with Jeffrey Goldberg of "The Atlantic", one of the premier writers on the region based in Washington. In this latest interview, Mr. Obama defends his approach to the war against the Islamic State, warns Arab leaders not to pursue nuclear programs to match Iran and discusses his feud with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Along the way, Mr. Obama and Mr. Goldberg hash over the nature of the sometimes turbulent Israeli-American relationship."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In April 2016, Goldberg published "The Obama Doctrine" in "The Atlantic". This essay covers many foreign policy issues, including his views of the U.S. role in Asia, the Middle East, ISIL, Russia, and Europe, focusing on the nature of American leadership in these different regions and the relative power that the United States wields in developing and executing policies that reflect American interests abroad.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, praised Goldberg's "The Obama Doctrine" in "The Wall Street Journal" for its detailed accounting of the president's foreign policy views and its influence in sparking a debate about Obama's foreign policy legacy. Katulis wrote, "Jeffrey Goldberg's analysis of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy ("The Obama Doctrine") is required reading for those looking at the big picture on U.S. national security."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In a response piece in "The Atlantic", Martin Indyk praised the article, writing, "Jeffrey Goldberg’s fascinating article taps into President Obama's thinking about foreign policy and reveals its wellsprings. In that sense, he does more to help the president define and explain 'the Obama Doctrine' than previous efforts by the White House itself, captured in those memorable lines 'don’t do stupid shit' and 'leading from behind', which do not do justice to a doctrine that is both complicated and far-reaching in its implications for American foreign policy."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Goldberg has conducted interviews with Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, John Kerry, Benjamin Netanyahu, Isaac Herzog, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ashton Carter, Ben Rhodes, Yair Lapid, Michael Oren, King Abdullah of Jordan, Ta-Nehisi Coates, David Gregory, and Tom Cotton.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In September 2020, Goldberg published "Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are 'Losers' and 'Suckers. According to Goldberg's article, in cancelling a 2018 visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial in France, which contains the remains of 2,289 U.S. service members killed in combat in World War I, President Donald Trump is alleged to have privately said, "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." He also reputedly referred to the more than 1,800 U.S. Marines who lost their lives at the Battle of Belleau Wood as "suckers" for getting killed.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: CNN reported that Goldberg's article "immediately became a massive story, with Democrats—including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden—rushing to condemn Trump for his alleged behavior and the White House rallying an aggressive pushback against the article, including the President himself." Trump tweeted, "The Atlantic Magazine is dying, like most magazines, so they make up a fake story in order to gain some relevance. Story already refuted..."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Referring to Goldberg's "blockbuster revelation," the "Intelligencer" said "The scope and intensity of the pushback was nuclear." It added, "While it's impossible to directly prove any of these allegations, there is an impressive amount of corroborating evidence. Almost all of it supports Goldberg's reporting," which the Associated Press, "The New York Times", Fox News, and "The Washington Post" "quickly confirmed."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Trump immediately denied making the comments, tweeting, "This is more made up Fake News given by disgusting & jealous failures in a disgraceful attempt to influence the 2020 Election!" Numerous Trump officials present that day also refuted Goldberg's reporting, including United States Ambassador to France Jamie McCourt, stating "In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either". Also denying the report was national security adviser turned Trump-critic John Bolton and Deputy Chief of Staff Zach Fuentes, who was close to former Chief of Staff John Kelly. Speaking to Breitbart News, Fuentes said "Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?".


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: "Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide" (New York: Knopf, 2006), describes Goldberg's experiences in Israel working at the Ketziot military prison camp as well as his dialogue with Rafiq, a prisoner whom Goldberg would later befriend in Washington, DC.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", and the "Los Angeles Times" named it one of the best books of 2006.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: The "Los Angeles Times" critic wrote, "Realization of the humanity of the ‘other’ is at the heart of "New Yorker" magazine correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg's sharply observed and beautifully written memoir." "The New York Times" critic wrote, Mr. Goldberg, a talented and ambitious writer for the "New Yorker" ... takes an engagingly personal approach to the issue in his story of a quest for mutual understanding with a Palestinian activist who had been his prisoner ... For the bittersweet complexity of that moment, offered in the context of all that has preceded it, this is a genuinely admirable book.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: "The Washington Post" review of the book noted, ""Prisoners" is Jeffrey Goldberg's sensitive, forthright and perceptive account of his years as a soldier and journalist in Israel—and of his long-running conversation with a Palestinian whom he once kept under lock and key. It is a forceful reminder of how rewarding, and how difficult, discourse between Israelis and Palestinians can be." CBS News critic wrote, There is no shortage of histories, polemics and policy manuals about the Middle East. An honest but complex story, from what happens to be a personal perspective that many Americans can at least conjure, is a rarer opportunity for insight. And that is what Jeffrey Goldberg, a reporter for The "New Yorker", delivers in "Prisoners". To those of us who have followed Jeffrey Goldberg’s reporting on the Muslim world, the publication of his first book is cause for real pleasure...because his writing on the subject has always been exceptional: wise, unpretentious, and at times, unexpectedly funny.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Boris Kachka, a contributing editor for "New York" magazine, interviewed Goldberg in October 2006 about "Prisoners" in addition to other issues pertaining to journalism and the Middle East.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In 2002, Goldberg's "The Great Terror" published in "The New Yorker" argued that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein was significant, discussing the possible connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory has since been debunked. It also discussed the Iraqi nuclear program, averring that there was "some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon ... There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: In a late 2002 debate in "Slate" on the question "Should the U.S. invade Iraq?", Goldberg argued in favor of an invasion on a moral basis, writing, "So: Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler in power today—and the first one since Hitler—to commit chemical genocide. Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power? I would say yes, if 'never again' is in fact actually to mean 'never again.


title: Jeffrey Goldberg

text: Glenn Greenwald called Goldberg "one of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq", saying Goldberg had "compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller's both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact". In his 2008 article in "Slate" titled "How Did I Get Iraq Wrong?", Goldberg explained why he initially supported the Iraq War and wrote that he "didn't realize how incompetent the Bush administration could be".


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: "The Yellow Rose of Texas" is a traditional American folk song dating back to at least the 1850s. Members of the Western Writers of America chose it as one of the Top 100 Western songs of all time. Several versions of the song have been recorded, including by Elvis Presley, Willie Nelson and Mitch Miller.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: The earliest known version is found in "Christy's Plantation Melodies. No. 2", a songbook published under the authority of Edwin Pearce Christy in Philadelphia in 1853. Christy was the founder of the blackface minstrel show known as the Christy's Minstrels. Like most minstrel songs, the lyrics are written in a cross between a parody of a generic creole dialect historically attributed to African-Americans and standard American English. The song is written in the first person from the perspective of an African-American singer who refers to himself as a "darkey," longing to return to "a yellow girl" (that is, a light-skinned, or bi-racial woman born of African/African-American and European-American progenitors).


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: The soundtrack to the TV miniseries "James A. Michener's Texas" dates a version of the song to June 2, 1933, and co-credits both the authorship and performance to Gene Autry and Jimmy Long. Don George reworked the original version of the song, which Mitch Miller made into a popular recording in 1955 that knocked Bill Haley & His Comets' "Rock Around The Clock" from the top of the Best Sellers chart in the U.S. Miller's version was featured in the 1956 motion picture "Giant", and reached #1 on the U.S. pop chart the same week "Giant" star James Dean died. Stan Freberg had a simultaneous hit of a parody version in which the bandleader warred with the snare drummer, Alvin Stoller, who also featured prominently in Miller's arrangement. "Billboard" ranked Miller's version as the No. 3 song of 1955.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: This song became popular among Confederate soldiers in the Texas Brigade during the American Civil War; upon taking command of the Army of Tennessee in July 1864, General John Bell Hood introduced it as a marching song. The final verse and chorus were slightly altered by the remains of Hood's force after their crushing defeat at the Battle of Nashville that December:


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: The modified lyrics reference famous Confederate military commanders Joseph Johnston, P.G.T. Beauregard, and Robert E. Lee. Texan veterans sang it openly to mock Hood's mishandling of their Nashville campaign.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: In this version of the chorus, "soldier" replaced "darkey." The same substitution is made throughout the song.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: The song was very popular with not only Texan troops but other infantry units in the west such as Louisiana and Arkansas.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: Gene Autry first recorded this song on January 27, 1933, at Victor Studios, without supporting musicians. On March 1, he and Jimmy Long recorded the better-known version for American Record Corporation (ARC). This was released in June 1933 on Melotone, Perfect and several other dime store labels distributed by ARC. His version started with "There's a yellow rose in Texas, I'm going back to see,


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: no other fellow knows her, nobody else but me." On March 10, Autry filed a copyright not for lyrics, but for his arrangement and melody. Whether the copyright was good is unknown, Gene knew all the tricks of the trade, and he learned how to squeeze every dime out of his creative efforts. He made a small fortune from songwriting and publishing over the years (600 songs), and in 1961 he bought a major league baseball team.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: In September 1955, for six weeks, Mitch Miller had a "Billboard" number one hit with "The Yellow Rose of Texas", and 13 months later, Miller's hit version was used for a key scene in the 1956 Texas-based film "Giant". Miller's lyrics used "rosebud" and no words - except the term "yellow" - to indicate either Rose or the singer was a person of color. The 1955 song became a gold record. The song achieved the #2 position in the UK and the #1 position in Australia.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: In 1955 Stan Freberg issued a parody version of the song which sees him battle against an over-enthusiastic snare drummer.


title: The Yellow Rose of Texas (song)

text: In 1984, country music artists Johnny Lee and Lane Brody recorded a song titled "The Yellow Rose," which retained the original melody of "The Yellow Rose of Texas" but with new lyrics, for the title theme to a TV series also titled "The Yellow Rose." It was a number one country hit that year.


title: Grant Stuard

text: Grant Stuard (born October 15, 1998) is an American football linebacker for the Indianapolis Colts of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football at Houston and was selected by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with the final pick in the 2021 NFL Draft, making him that year's Mr. Irrelevant.


title: Grant Stuard

text: Stuard helped take care of his four siblings while growing up, as his mother battled a drug addiction and his father spent time in prison.


title: Grant Stuard

text: Stuard played four years with the University of Houston, primarily as a linebacker, although he also played some running back.


title: Grant Stuard

text: In the 2017 season his freshman season he played in 7 games before missing 4 games and the 2017 Hawaii Bowl due to a torn meniscus. He recorded 2 assisted tackles both against Rice University. In the 2018 season Stuard played 13 games and had 1 start. He led the 2018 Houston Cougars football team with 11 special teams tackles. He also played running back late in the year. He had 5 attempts and 35 yards running the ball, along with 30 tackles, 18 solo and 12 assisted. In the 2019 season Stuard started all 12 games. He had 97 tackles which led the team and had 9.5 tackles for loss good for third in the American Athletic Conference. He had 1 sack and 4 pass deflections. Stuard was named to the 2019 American Athletic All-Conference Second-team. In the 2020 season he was a team captain for his senior year and led the Cougars in tackles: he made 61 total tackles (including 35 solo tackles) in a COVID-shortened 7-game regular season. He led the American Athletic Conference in tackles per game with 8.4 tackles/game. For his senior season, he changed his uniform number from 3 to 0.


title: Grant Stuard

text: The Tampa Bay Buccaneers chose Stuard with the final pick (259th overall) of the 2021 NFL Draft, making him that year's Mr. Irrelevant. Stuard signed his four-year rookie contract with Tampa Bay on May 13, 2021.


title: Grant Stuard

text: On August 30, 2022, Stuard and a seventh-round pick were traded to the Indianapolis Colts for a sixth-round pick.


title: Alogia

text: In psychology, alogia (; from Greek ἀ-, "without", and λόγος, "speech" + New Latin -ia) is poor thinking inferred from speech and language usage.


title: Alogia

text: There may be a general lack of additional, unprompted content seen in normal speech, so replies to questions may be brief and concrete, with less spontaneous speech. This is termed poverty of speech


title: Alogia

text: The amount of speech may be normal but conveys little information because it is vague, empty, stereotyped, overconcrete, overabstract, or repetitive.


title: Alogia

text: Under Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms used in clinical research, thought blocking is considered a part of alogia, and so is increased latency in response.


title: Alogia

text: As a symptom, it is commonly seen in patients with schizophrenia and schizotypal personality disorder, and is traditionally considered a negative symptom. It can complicate psychotherapy severely because of the considerable difficulty in holding a fluent conversation.


title: Alogia

text: The alternative meaning of alogia is inability to speak because of dysfunction in the central nervous system,


title: Alogia

text: Alogia may be on a continuum with normal behaviors. People without mental illness may have it occasionally including when fatigued or disinhibited, when writers use language creatively, when people in certain disciplinessuch as politicians, administrators, philosophers, ministers, and scientistsuse language pedantically, or in people with little education.


title: Alogia

text: Hence, deciding if an individual has alogia depends on contextual clues. Is the person in control? Can the person moderate the effect if asked to be specific or concise? Is it better with another topic? Are there other significant symptoms?


title: Alogia

text: Alogia is characterized by a lack of speech, often caused by a disruption in the thought process. Usually, an injury to the left side of the brain may cause alogia to appear in an individual. While in conversation, alogic patients will reply very sparsely and their answers to questions will lack spontaneous content; sometimes, they will even fail to answer at all. Their responses will be brief, generally only appearing as a response to a question or prompt.


title: Alogia

text: Apart from the lack of content in a reply, the manner in which the person delivers the reply is affected as well. Patients affected by alogia will often slur their responses, and not pronounce the consonants as clearly as usual. The few words spoken usually trail off into a whisper, or are just ended by the second syllable. Studies have shown a correlation between alogic ratings in individuals and the amount and duration of pauses in their speech when responding to a series of questions posed by the researcher.


title: Alogia

text: The inability to speak stems from a deeper mental inability that causes alogic patients to have difficulty grasping the right words mentally, as well as formulating their thoughts. A study investigating alogiacs and their results on the category fluency task showed that people with schizophrenia who exhibit alogia display a more disorganized semantic memory than controls. While both groups produced the same number of words, the words produced by people with schizophrenia were much more disorderly and the results of cluster analysis revealed bizarre coherence in the alogiac group.


title: Alogia

text: If the condition is assessed using a language other than the individual's primary language, the medical professional needs to make sure that the problem is not from language barriers.


title: Alogia

text: The following table shows an example of "poverty of speech" which shows replies to questions that are brief and concrete, with a reduction in spontaneous speech:


title: Alogia

text: The following example of "poverty of content of speech" is a response from a patient when asked why he was in a hospital. Speech is vague, conveys little information, but is not grossly incoherent and the amount of speech is not reduced. "I often contemplate—it is a general stance of the world—it is a tendency which varies from time to time—it defines things more than others—it is in the nature of habit—this is what I would like to say to explain everything."


title: Alogia

text: Alogia can be brought on by frontostriatal dysfunction which causes degradation of the semantic store, the center located in the temporal lobe that processes meaning in language. A subgroup of chronic schizophrenia patients in a word generation experiment generated fewer words than the unaffected subjects and had limited lexicons, evidence of the weakening of the semantic store. Another study found that when given the task of naming items in a category, schizophrenia patients displayed a great struggle but improved significantly when experimenters employed a second stimulus to guide behavior unconsciously. This conclusion was similar to results produced from patients with Huntington's and Parkinson's disease, ailments which also involve frontostriatal dysfunction.


title: Alogia

text: Medical studies conclude that certain adjunctive drugs effectively palliate the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, mainly alogia. In one study, Maprotiline produced the greatest reduction in alogia symptoms with severity reduction in 50% of patients (out of 10). Of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, alogia had the second best responsiveness to the drugs, surpassed only by attention deficiency. D-amphetamine is another drug that has been tested on people with schizophrenia and found success in alleviating negative symptoms. This treatment, however, has not been developed greatly as it seems to have adverse effects on other aspects of schizophrenia such as increasing the severity of positive symptoms.


title: Alogia

text: Although alogia is found as a symptom in a variety of health disorders, it is most commonly found as a negative symptom of schizophrenia.


title: Alogia

text: Previous studies and analyses conclude that at least three factors are needed to cover both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia; the three are: psychotic, disorganization, and negative symptom factors. Studies suggest that an inappropriate affect is strongly associated with bizarre behavior and positive formal thought disorder on a disorganization factor; attention impairment correlates significantly with psychotic, disorganization, and negative symptom factors. Alogia contains both positive and negative symptoms, with the poverty of content of speech as the disorganization factor, and poverty of speech, response latency, and thought blocking as the negative symptom factors.


title: Alogia

text: Alogia is a major diagnostic sign of schizophrenia, when organic mental disorders have been excluded.


title: Alogia

text: In schizophrenia, negative symptoms including flattening of affect, avolition, and alogia are responsible for the considerable morbidity of the disease compared with other psychotic disorders.


title: Alogia

text: During the first year, negative symptoms can progress, especially alogia, which may start off from a relatively low rate. Within 2 years, up to 25% of patients will have significant negative symptoms.


title: Alogia

text: Prominent negative symptoms at disease onset, including alogia, are good predictors of worse outcomes.


title: Alogia

text: Negative symptoms can arise in the presence of other psychiatric symptoms. Positive symptoms are a common cause of apathy, social withdrawal, and alogia. Secondary causes of negative symptoms, such as depression and demoralization, often remit within a year, which helps distinguishing them from primary negative symptoms. Symptoms that don't diminish over a year with medications should be reconsidered as possible primary negative symptoms.


title: Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial)

text: Abraham Lincoln (1920) is a colossal seated figure of the 16th President of the United States Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) sculpted by Daniel Chester French (1850–1931) and carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. It is in the Lincoln Memorial (constructed 1914–1922), on the National Mall, Washington, D.C., United States, and was unveiled in 1922. The work follows in the Beaux Arts and American Renaissance style traditions.


text: The 170-ton statue is composed of 28 blocks of white Georgia marble (Georgia Marble Company) and rises from the floor, including the seated figure (with armchair and footrest) upon an high pedestal. The figure of Lincoln gazes directly ahead and slightly down with an expression of gravity and solemnity. His frock coat is unbuttoned, and a large United States flag is draped over the chair back and sides. French paid special attention to Lincoln's expressive hands, which rest on the enormous arms of a semi-circular ceremonial chair, the fronts of which bear fasces, emblems of authority from Roman antiquity. French used casts of his own fingers to achieve the correct placement.


text: Daniel Chester French was selected in 1914 by the Lincoln Memorial Committee to create a Lincoln statue as part of the memorial to be designed by architect Henry Bacon (1866–1924). French was already famous for his 1874 "The Minute Man" statue in Concord, Massachusetts and other works such as his 1884 "John Harvard" statue. He was also the personal choice of Bacon who had already been collaborating with him for nearly 25 years. French resigned his chairmanship of the Fine Arts Commission in Washington, D.C.—a group closely affiliated with the memorial's design and creation—and commenced work in December.


text: French had already created (1909–1912) a major memorial statue of Lincoln—this one standing—for the Nebraska State Capitol ("Abraham Lincoln", 1912) in Lincoln, Nebraska. His previous studies of Lincoln—which included biographies, photographs, and a life mask of Lincoln by Leonard Volk done in 1860—had prepared him for the challenging task of the larger statue. For the national memorial, he and Bacon decided that a large seated figure would be most appropriate. French started with a small clay study and subsequently created several plaster models, each time making subtle changes in the figure's pose or setting. He placed the President not in an ordinary 19th-century seat, but in a classical chair including fasces, a Roman symbol of authority, to convey that the subject was an eminence for all the ages.


text: Three plaster models of the Lincoln statue are at French's Chesterwood Studio, a National Trust Historic Site in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, including a plaster sketch (1915) and a six-foot plaster model (1916). The second of French's plasters, created at Chesterwood in the summer of 1916 (inscribed October 31) became the basis of the final work, which was originally envisioned as a bronze. In deciding the size of final statue French and Bacon took photographic enlargements of the model to the memorial under construction. Eventually French's longtime collaborators, the firm of Piccirilli Brothers, were commissioned to do the carving of a much larger sculpture, in marble from a quarry near Tate, Georgia.


text: It took a full year for French's design to be transferred to the massive marble blocks. French provided finishing strokes in the carvers' studio in The Bronx, New York City and after the statue was assembled in the memorial on the National Mall in 1920. Lighting the statue was a particular problem. In creating the work, French had understood that a large skylight would provide direct, natural illumination from overhead, but this was not included in the final plans. The horizontal light from the east caused Lincoln's facial features to appear flattened—making him appear to stare blankly, rather than wear a dignified expression—and highlighted his shins. French considered this a disaster. In the end, an arrangement of electric lights was devised to correct this situation. The work was unveiled at the memorial's formal dedication on May 30, 1922.


text: It is often said that the Lincoln figure is signing his own initials in the American manual alphabet: "A" with his left hand, "L" with his right. The National Park Service is at best ambivalent toward the story, saying "It takes some imagination to see signs in Lincoln's hands."


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: Syeda Maimanat Mohsin (born 1959), commonly known as Jugnu Mohsin, is a Pakistani politician and journalist. She was an independent member of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab until 31 March 2022 and then joined PML(N) on 1 April 2022.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: Previously, she has served as an editor of "The Friday Times" and "Good Times". She previously hosted an eponymous weekly talkshow "Jugnu".


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: Born into a wealthy Punjabi family, Mohsin studied law at University of Cambridge, where she met and married journalist Najam Sethi in 1983. In 1999, her husband, "Friday Times" editor-in-chief Najam Sethi, was arrested by the Nawaz Sharif government for his work as a journalist and held for a month without charge, causing Mohsin to launch an international campaign for his release. That year, she and Sethi were awarded the International Press Freedom Award of the Committee to Protect Journalists.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: She received her early education from the Convent of Jesus and Mary, Lahore and did her A-level from the Moreton Hall School. She received her law degree from the University of Cambridge and was called to the Bar at Gray's Inn, London.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: In 1984, Sethi was imprisoned on a charge of copyright but no Pakistani newspaper had protested the arrest. This led to Mohsin and Sethi wishing to commence their own independent newspaper. Sethi's name carried some infamy and so they applied for a publishing licence under Mohsin's name.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: Called into Nawaz Sharif's office to discuss the application, Jugnu Mohsin told him that she intended to publish "a social chit chat thing, you know, with lots of pictures of parties and weddings". It was finally approved in 1987, but Mohsin requested a one-year delay to avoid the first issue coming out during the dictatorship of General Zia ul Haq. The paper's first issue appeared in May 1989.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: In early 1999, Sethi gave an interview to a journalist from the BBC television program, "Correspondent". The program planned to expose corruption in the Pakistani government. At the beginning of May 1999, Sethi was warned that his arrest was imminent. On 8 May 1999, Sethi was taken from his home by government agents.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: Mohsin said at least eight armed officers broke into their house; the family's security guards were assaulted; and no warrant was shown. Sethi was threatened and she was tied up and left locked in another room. Sethi was held for almost a month without charge. He was kept in the custody of the army intelligence group, Inter-Services Intelligence in Lahore.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: Mohsin publicly campaigned for his release and continued to publish the "Friday Times". Amnesty International stated that Sethi's arrest was connected with his investigations into government corruption, and designated him a prisoner of conscience. The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists sent a letter of protest letter to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, noting the organisation's dismay "that the state (Pakistan) continues its persecution of independent journalists". The World Bank president, James Wolfensohn called Sharif to urge for Sethi's release.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: On 1 June 1999, the Pakistan government charged Sethi with "condemnation of the creation of the State and advocacy of the abolition of its sovereignty" and "promoting enmity between different groups". Sethi was transferred to the custody of the police. However, the following day, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the government had not provided sufficient evidence to justify Sethi's detention. Sethi was released, and the charges against him were dropped. Mohsin and Sethi received the International Press Freedom Award from the Committee to Protect Journalists.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: In June 1991, Mohsin and Sethi's publishing company, Vanguard Books, released Tehmina Durrani's "My Feudal Lord". The book relates her marriage with the politician and Punjab landlord, Mustafa Khar. In the book, Durrani alleges that Khar mistreated and abused her. Durrani signed a contract with Mohsin giving Mohsin foreign rights and fifty percent of foreign royalties.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: On 19 May 1999, however, during Sethi's detention, Durrani said at a press conference that Sethi had stolen all of her earnings from the book. She said his actions were "an even bigger case of hypocrisy than my experience with the feudal system". Durrani sued Sethi for mental torture, and he counter sued for defamation. An earlier dispute over the foreign rights had been settled out of court in 1992. A review of the contracts by the UK newspaper "The Independent" described Sethi as having acted in good faith and described him and Mohsin as "the injured party".


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: During the rule of President Pervez Musharraf, Mohsin wrote a monthly humour column titled "Mush and Bush" featuring fictional conversations between the Pakistani President and US President George W. Bush. She had previously targeted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with a column for his "dim and authoritarian personality" and "his intolerance of dissent". Mohsin's sister, Moni Mohsin, satirises the country's social elites with another column for the paper, "Diary of a Social Butterfly".


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: Mohsin advocates for a liberal Pakistan and opposes religious fundamentalism. In January 2006, she argued for the right of women to participate in a marathon wearing shorts instead of the shalwar kameez. Mohsin is a member of the Women's Action Forum of Pakistan organization. She later became a major critic of Imran Khan's entry into politics. However in 2018, after being elected as a member of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, she supported PTI. On 1 April 2022, she joined PML(N) prior to the no-confidence motion against Imran Khan.


title: Jugnu Mohsin

text: In 1983, she married a Punjabi Khatri businessman Najam Sethi whose family converted to Islam from Hinduism five generations ago. The couple has two children, Mira Sethi and Ali Sethi.


title: Superficial charm

text: Superficial charm (or insincere charm) refers to the social act of saying or doing things because they are well received by others, rather than what one actually believes or wants to do. It is sometimes referred to as "telling people what they want to hear". Superficial charm is a generally effective way to ingratiate or persuade and it is one of the many elements of impression management/self-presention.


title: Superficial charm

text: Flattery and charm accompanied by obvious ulterior motives is generally not socially appreciated, and most people consider themselves to be skilled at distinguishing sincere compliments from superficial, however, researchers have demonstrated that even obviously manipulative charm can be effective. While expressed attitudes are negative or dismissive, implicit attitudes are often positively affected. The effectiveness of charm and flattery, in general, stems from the recipient’s natural desire to feel good about one's self.


title: Superficial charm

text: Superficial charm can be self damaging. The ability to be superficially charming often leads to success in areas like the theatre, salesmanship, or politics and diplomacy. In excess, being adept in social intelligence and endlessly taking social cues from other people, can lead to the sacrificing of one's motivations and sense of self.


title: Superficial charm

text: Superficial charm can be exploitative. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder, for example, are known to have limited guilt or anxiety when it comes to exploiting others in harmful ways. While intimidation and violence are common means of exploitation, the use of superficial charm is not uncommon. Superficial charm is listed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The Treaty of Fort Laramie (also the Sioux Treaty of 1868) is an agreement between the United States and the Oglala, Miniconjou, and Brulé bands of Lakota people, Yanktonai Dakota and Arapaho Nation, following the failure of the first Fort Laramie treaty, signed in 1851.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The treaty is divided into 17 articles. It established the Great Sioux Reservation including ownership of the Black Hills, and set aside additional lands as "unceded Indian territory" in the areas of South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska, and possibly Montana. It established that the US government would hold authority to punish not only white settlers who committed crimes against the tribes but also tribe members who committed crimes and were to be delivered to the government, rather than to face charges in tribal courts. It stipulated that the government would abandon forts along the Bozeman Trail and included a number of provisions designed to encourage a transition to farming and to move the tribes "closer to the white man's way of life." The treaty protected specified rights of third parties not partaking in the negotiations and effectively ended Red Cloud's War. That provision did not include the Ponca, who were not a party to the treaty and so had no opportunity to object when the American treaty negotiators “inadvertently” broke a separate treaty with the Ponca by unlawfully selling the entirety of the Ponca Reservation to the Lakota, pursuant to Article II of this treaty. The United States never intervened to return the Ponca land. Instead, the Lakota claimed the Ponca land as their own and set about attacking and demanding tribute from the Ponca until 1876, when US President Ulysses S. Grant chose to resolve the situation by unilaterally ordering the Ponca removed to the Indian Territory. The removal, known as the Ponca Trail of Tears, was carried out by force the following year and resulted in over 200 deaths.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The treaty was negotiated by members of the government-appointed Indian Peace Commission and signed between April and November 1868 at and near Fort Laramie, in the Wyoming Territory, with the final signatories being Red Cloud himself and others who accompanied him. Animosities over the agreement arose quickly, with neither side fully honoring the terms. Open war again broke out in 1876, and the US government unilaterally annexed native land protected under the treaty in 1877.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The treaty formed the basis of the 1980 Supreme Court case, "United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians", in which the court ruled that tribal lands covered under the treaty had been taken illegally by the US government, and the tribe was owed compensation plus interest. As of 2018 this amounted to more than $1 billion. The Sioux refused the payment, having demanded instead the return of their land which wouldn't be possible to contest if the monetary compensation was accepted.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The first Treaty of Fort Laramie, signed in 1851, attempted to resolve disputes between tribes and the US Government, as well as among tribes themselves, in the modern areas of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. It set out that the tribes would make peace among one another, allow for certain outside access to their lands (for activities such as travelling, surveying, and the construction of some government outposts and roads), and that tribes would be responsible for wrongs committed by their people. In return, the US Government would offer protection to the tribes, and pay an annuity of $50,000 per year.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: No land covered by the treaty was claimed by the US at the time of signing. The five “respective territories” of the participating tribes – Sioux, Arapaho and Cheyenne, Crow, Assiniboine, Arikara, Hidatsa and Mandan – were defined. North of the Sioux, the Arikara, Hidatsa and Mandan held a joint territory. The territory of the Crows extended westward from that of their traditional enemies in the Sioux tribe. The Powder River divided the two lands.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: When the Senate reduced the annuity to 10 years from originally 50, all tribes except the Crow accepted the cut. Nevertheless, the treaty was recognized as being in force.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The 1851 treaty had a number of shortcomings which contributed to the deterioration of relations, and subsequent violence over the next several years. From an inter-tribal view, the lack of any “enforcement provisions” protecting the 1851 boundaries proved a drawback for the Crow and the Arikara, Hidatsa and Mandan. The federal government never kept its obligation to protect tribal resources and hunting grounds, and only made a single payment toward the annuity.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Although the federal government operated via representative democracy, the tribes did so through consensus, and although local chiefs signed the treaty as representatives, they had limited power to control others who themselves had not consented to the terms. This of course is impossible to confirm as the Indians had no writing and hence no way of recording their political philosophy. The discovery of gold in the west, and the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad, led to substantially increased travel through the area, largely outside the 1851 Sioux territory. This increasingly led to clashes between the tribes, settlers, and the US government, and eventually open war between the Sioux (and the Cheyenne and Arapaho refugees from the Sand Creek massacre in Colorado, 1864) and the whites in 1866.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: None of the other tribes signing the 1851 treaty engaged in battle with the US soldiers, and most allied with the Army. With the 1851 intertribal peace soon broken, the Arikara, Hidatsa and Mandan called for US military support against raiding Sioux Indians in 1855. By summer 1862, the three tribes had abandoned all their permanent villages of earth lodges in the treaty territory south of the Missouri, which was now under Sioux control, and lived together in Like-a-Fishhook Village north of the river.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: In the mid-1850s, the western Sioux bands crossed the Powder River and entered the Crow treaty territory. Sioux chief Red Cloud organized a war party against a Crow camp at the mouth of Rosebud River in 1856. Despite the Crows fighting "... large-scale battles with invading Sioux" near present-day Wyola in Montana, the Sioux had taken over the western Powder River area by 1860.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: In 1866 the United States Department of the Interior called on tribes to negotiate safe passage through the Bozeman Trail, while the United States Department of War moved Henry B. Carrington, along with a column of 700 men into the Powder River Basin, sparking Red Cloud's War. However, most of the wagon track to the city of Bozeman “crossed land guaranteed to the Crows under the 1851 treaty” “... the Sioux attacked the United States anyway, claiming the Yellowstone was now their land.” Red Cloud’s war “... appeared to be a great Sioux war to protect their land. And it was – but the Sioux had only recently conquered this land from other tribes and now defending the territory both from other tribes” and the passing through of whites. During the war, the Crows sided with the soldiers in the isolated garrisons. Crow warrior Wolf Bow urged the Army to, “Put the Sioux Indians in their own country, and keep them from troubling us.”


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: After losing resolve to continue the war, following defeat in the Fetterman Fight, sustained guerrilla warfare by the Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho, exorbitant rates for freight through the area, and difficulty finding contractors to work the rail lines, the US Government, organized the Indian Peace Commission to negotiate an end to ongoing hostilities. A peace counsel chosen by the government arrived on April 19, 1868, at Fort Laramie, in what would later become the state of Wyoming. The outcome would be the second treaty of Fort Laramie Treaty, signed in 1868.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article one called for the cessation of hostilities, stating "all war between the parties to this agreement shall for ever cease." If crimes were committed by "bad men" among white settlers, the government agreed to arrest and punish the offenders, and reimburse any losses suffered by injured parties. The tribes agreed to turn over criminals among them, any "bad men among the Indians," to the government for trial and punishment, and to reimburse any losses suffered by injured parties. If any Sioux committed “a wrong or depredation upon the person or property on any one, white, black, or Indians” the US could pay damages taken from the annuities owed the tribes. These terms effectively relinquished the authority of the tribes to punish crimes committed against them by white settlers.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Similar provisions appeared in nine such treaties with various tribes. In practice, the "bad men among the whites" clause was seldom enforced. The first plaintiff to win a trial case on the provision did so in 2009, based on the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: In 1873, the US exercised the right to withhold annuities and compensate for Sioux wrongs against anyone, including Indians. After a massacre on a moving Pawnee camp during a legal Sioux hunting expedition in Nebraska, the Sioux “were made to pay reparations for the loss of life, meat, hides, equipment, and horses stolen...” The Pawnee received $9,000.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article two of the treaty changed the boundaries for tribal land and established the Great Sioux Reservation, to include areas of present day South Dakota west of the Missouri River, including the Black Hills. This was set aside for the "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians". In total, it allocated about 25% of the Dakota Territory as it existed at the time. It made the total tribal lands smaller, and moved them further eastward. This was to "take away access to the prime buffalo herds that occupied the area and encourage the Sioux to become farmers."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The government agreed that no parties, other than those authorized by the treaty, would be allowed to "pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory". According to one source writing on article two, "What remained unstated in the treaty, but would have been obvious to Sherman and his men, is that land not placed in the reservation was to be considered United States property, and not Indian territory."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: As in 1851, the US recognized most of the land north of the Sioux reservation as Indian territory of the Arikara, Hidatsa and Mandan. In addition, the US still recognized the 1851 Crow claim to the Indian territory west of the Powder. The Crow and the US came to an agreement about this expanse on May 7, 1868.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: With the reservation border following “the northern line of Nebraska”, the Peace Commission ceded to the Sioux the little Ponca reservation, which had already been guaranteed the Ponca in multiple treaties with the government. “No one has ever been able to explain” this blunder, which was nonetheless enforced by the government, irrespective of their earlier agreements.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article three provided for allotments of up to of tillable land to be set aside for farming by members of the tribes. By 1871, 200 farms of and 200 farms of had been established including 80 homes. By 1877, this had risen to 153 homes "50 of which had shingle roofs and most had board floors" according to an 1876 report by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article four also provided for the establishment of an agency on the reservation for the purpose of government administration. In practice, five were constructed and two more later added. These original five were composed of the Grand River Agency (Later Standing Rock), Cheyenne River Agency, Whetstone Agency, Crow Creek Agency, and Lower Brulé Agency. Another would later be set up on the White River, and again on the North Platte River, but would later be moved to also be on the White.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The government agreed that the agent for the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall keep his office open to complaints, which he will investigate and forward to the Commissioner. The decision of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of the Interior, "shall be binding on the parties".


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article six laid out provisions for members of the tribes to take legal individual ownership of previously commonly held land, up to for the heads of families, and for any adult who was not the head of a family. This land then "may be occupied and held in the exclusive possession of the person selecting it, and of his family, so long as he or they may continue to cultivate it."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article seven addressed education for those aged six to 16, in order, as the treaty states, to "insure the civilization of the Indians entering into this treaty". The tribes agreed to compel both male and females to attend school, and the government agreed to provide a schoolhouse and teacher for every 30 students who could be made to attend.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: In article eight, the government agreed to provide seeds, tools, and training for any of the residents who selected tracts of land, and agreed to farm them. This was to be in the amount of up to $100 dollars worth for the first year, and up to $25 worth for the second and third years. These were one of a number of provisions of the treaty designed to encourage farming, rather than hunting, and move the tribes "closer to the white man's way of life."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: After 10 years the government may withdraw the individuals from article 13, but if so, will provide $10,000 annually "devoted to the education of said Indians ... as will best promote the education and moral improvement of said tribes." These are to be managed by a local Indian agent under the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article 10 provided for an allotment of clothes, and food, in addition to one "good American cow" and two oxen for each lodge or family who moved to the reservation. It further provided for an annual payment over 30 years of $10 for each person who hunted, and $20 for those who farmed, to be used by the Secretary of the Interior for the "purchase of such articles as from time to time the condition and necessities of the Indians may indicate to be proper."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article 11 included several provisions stating the tribes agreed to withdraw opposition to the construction of railroads (mentioned three times), military posts and roads, and will not attack or capture white settlers or their property. The same guarantee protected third parties defined as “persons friendly” with the United States. The government agreed to reimburse the tribes for damages caused in the construction of works on the reservation, in the amount assessed by "three disinterested commissioners" appointed by the President. It guaranteed the tribes access to the area to the north and west of the Black Hills as hunting grounds, "so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: As one source examined the treaty language with regard to "so long as the buffalo may range", the tribes considered this language to be a perpetual guarantee, because "they could not envision a day when buffalo would not roam the plains"; however:


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The concept was clear enough to the commissioners … [who] well knew that hide hunters, with Sherman’s blessing, were already beginning the slaughter that would eventually drive the Indians to complete dependence on the government for their existence.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Despite Sioux promises of undisturbed construction of railroads and no attacks, more than 10 surveying crew members, US Army Indian scouts and soldiers were killed in 1872 and 1873.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Because of the Sioux massacre on the Pawnee in southern Nebraska during a hunting expedition in 1873, the US banned such hunts outside the reservation. Thus, the US decision nullified a part of Article XI.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article 12 required the agreement of "three-fourths of all the adult male Indians" for a treaty with the tribes to "be of any validity". Hedren reflected on article 12 writing that the provision indicated the government "already anticipated a time when different needs would demand the abrogation of the treaty terms." These provisions have since been controversial, because subsequent treaties amending that of 1868 did not include the required agreement of three-fourths of adult males, and so under the terms of 1868, are invalid.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The government agreed to furnish the tribes with a "physician, teachers, carpenter, miller, engineer, farmer, and blacksmiths".


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The government agreed to provide $100 in prizes for those who "in the judgment of the agent may grow the most valuable crops for the respective year." Once the promised buildings were constructed, the tribes agreed to regard the reservation as their "permanent home" and make "no permanent settlement elsewhere".


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Article 16 stated that country north of the North Platte River and east of the summits of the Big Horn Mountains would be "unceded Indian territory" that no white settlers could occupy without the consent of the tribes. This included of land outside the reservation which were previously set aside by the 1851 treaty, as well as around an additional . As part of this, the government agreed to close the forts associated with the Bozeman Trail. Article 16 did not however, address issues related to important hunting grounds north and northwest of the reservation. The Arikara, Hidatsa and Mandan held the treaty right to the bigger part of those hunting grounds according to the 1851 treaty. With the 1868 treaty, the Sioux ceded land to the US directly north of the reservation.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: This article proclaims the shift of the Indian title to the land east of the summits of the Big Horn Mountains to Powder River (the combat zone of Red Cloud’s War). In 1851, the US had acknowledged the claim of the Crow to this area. Following defeat, the Peace Commission recognized it as “unceded Indian territory” held by the Sioux. The US Government could only dispose of Crow treaty territory, because it held parallel negotiations with the Crow tribe. The talks ended on May 7, 1868. The Crows accepted to give up large tracts of land to the US and settle on a reservation in the heart of the 1851 territory.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: It was possible for the Peace Commission to allow the Sioux to hunt on the Republican Fork in Nebraska (200 miles south of the Sioux reservation) along with others, because the US held the title to this river area. The Cheyenne and Arapaho had ceded the western part of the Republican Fork in 1861 in a more-or-less well-understood treaty. The US had bought the eastern part of the Republican Fork from the Pawnee in 1833. The Pawnee held a treaty right to hunt in their ceded territory. In 1873, the Massacre Canyon battle took place here.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The treaty, as agreed to "shall be construed as abrogating and annulling all treaties and agreements heretofore entered into."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Over the course of 192 days ending November 6, the treaty was signed by a total of 156 Sioux, and 25 Arapaho, in addition to the commissioners, and an additional 34 signatories as witnesses. Although the commissioners signed the document on April 29 along with the Brulé, the party broke up in May, with only two remaining at Fort Laramie to conclude talks there, before traveling up the Missouri River to gather additional signatures from tribes elsewhere. Throughout this process, no further amendments were made to the terms. As one writer phrased it, "the commissioners essentially cycled Sioux in and out of Fort Laramie ... seeking only the formality of the chiefs' marks and forgoing true agreement in the spirit that the Indians understood it."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Following initial negotiations, those from the Peace Commission did not discuss the conditions of the treaty to subsequent tribes who arrived over the following months to sign. Rather, the treaty was read aloud, and it was permitted "some time for the chiefs to speak" before "instructing them to place their marks on the prepared document." As the source continues:


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: These tribes had little interest in or understanding of what had taken place at the Fort Laramie councils. They wanted the whites out of their country and would fight as long as necessary.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The process of abandoning the forts associated with the Bozeman Trail, as part of the conditions agreed to, proved to be a long process, and was stalled by difficulty arranging the sale of the goods from the fort to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fort C.F. Smith was not emptied until July 29. Fort Phil Kearny and Fort Reno were not emptied until August 1. Once abandoned, Red Cloud and his followers, who had been monitoring the activities of the troops rode down and burned what remained.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The peace commission dissolved on October 10 after presenting its report to Congress, which among other things, recommended the government "cease to recognize the Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations," and that no further "treaties shall be made with any Indian tribe." William Dye, the commander at Fort Laramie was left to represent the commission, and met with Red Cloud, who was among the last to sign the treaty on November 6. The government remained unwilling to negotiate the terms further, and after two days, Red Cloud is reported to have "washed his hands with the dust of the floor" and signed, formally ending the war.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Notable signatories presented in the order they signed are as follows. Two exceptions are included. Henderson was a commissioner, but did not sign the treaty. Red Cloud was among the last to sign, but is listed here out-of-order along with the other Oglala.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Although the treaty required the consent of three-fourths of the men of the tribes, many did not sign or recognize the results. Others would later complain that the treaty contained complex language that was not well explained in order to avoid arousing suspicion. Yet others would not fully learn the terms of the agreement until 1870, when Red Cloud returned from a trip to Washington D.C.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The treaty overall, and in comparison with the 1851 agreement, represented a departure from earlier considerations of tribal customs, and demonstrated instead the government's "more heavy-handed position with regard to tribal nations, and ... desire to assimilate the Sioux into American property arrangements and social customs."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: According to one source, "animosities over the treaty arose almost immediately" when a group of Miniconjou were informed they were no longer welcome to trade at Fort Laramie, being south of their newly established territory. This was notwithstanding that the treaty did not make any stipulation that the tribes could not travel outside their land, only that they would not permanently occupy outside land. The only travel expressly forbidden by the treaty was that of white settlers onto the reservation.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Although a treaty between the US and the Sioux, it had profound effect on the Crow tribe, since it held the title to some of the territories set aside in the new treaty. By entering the peace talks “... the government had in effect betrayed the Crows, who had willingly helped the army to hold the [Bozeman Trail] posts ...”.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: When the Sioux Indians had stopped the advance of the US in 1868, they quickly resumed their “own program of expansions” into the adjoining Indian territories. Although all parties took and gave, the Sioux and their allies once again threatened the homeland of some of the Indian nations around them. Attacks on the Crows and the Shoshones were “frequent, both by the Northern Cheyennes and by the Arapahos, as well as the Sioux, and by parties made up from all three tribes”. The Crows reported Sioux Indians in the Bighorn area from 1871. This eastern part of the Crow reservation was taken over a few years later by the Sioux in quest of buffalo. When a force of Sioux warriors confronted a Crow reservation camp at Pryor Creek in 1873 throughout a whole day, Crow chief Blackfoot called for decisive actions against the Indian intruders by the US. In 1876, the Crows (and the Eastern Shoshones) fought alongside the Army at the Rosebud. They scouted for Custer against the Sioux, “who were now in the old Crow country”.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Both the tribes and the government chose to ignore portions of the treaty, or to "comply only as long as conditions met their favor," and between 1869 and 1876, at least seven separate skirmishes occurred within the vicinity of Fort Laramie. Prior to the Black Hills expedition, Army sources mention attacks in Montana north of the Yellowstone and north of the Sioux reservation in North Dakota carried out by unidentified groups of Sioux. Large war parties of Sioux Indians left their reservation to attack distant Indian enemies near Like-a-Fishhook Village. The first talks of actions against the Sioux arose. In his 1873 report, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs advocated, “that those [Sioux] Indians roaming west of the Dakota line be forced by the military to come in to the Great Sioux Reservation.”


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The government eventually broke the terms of the treaty following the Black Hills Gold Rush and an expedition into the area by George Armstrong Custer in 1874, and failed to prevent white settlers from moving onto tribal lands. Rising tensions eventually led again to open conflict in the Great Sioux War of 1876.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: The 1868 treaty would be modified three times by the US Congress between 1876 and 1889, each time taking more land originally granted, including unilaterally seizing the Black Hills in 1877.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: On June 30, 1980, the US Supreme Court ruled that the government had illegally taken land in the Black Hills granted by the 1868 treaty, by unlawfully abrogating article two of the agreement during negotiations in 1876, while failing to achieve the signatures of two-thirds the adult male population required to do so. It upheld an award of $15.5 million for the market value of the land in 1877, along with 103 years worth of interest at 5 percent, for an additional $105 million. The Lakota Sioux, however, have refused to accept payment and instead continue to demand the return of the territory from the United States. the Sioux interest on the money has compounded to over 1 billion dollars.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: Marking the 150th anniversary of the treaty, the South Dakota Legislature passed Senate Resolution 1, reaffirming the legitimacy of the treaty, and according to the original text, illustrating to the federal government that the Sioux are "still here" and are "seeking a future of forward-looking, positive relationships with full respect for the sovereign status of Native American nations confirmed by the treaty."


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: On March 11, 2018, the Governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead signed a similar bill into law, calling on "the federal government to uphold its federal trust responsibilities," and calling for a permanent display of the original treaty, on file with the National Archives and Records Administration, in the Wyoming Legislature.


title: Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

text: In May 2019, in a 5-4 decision , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the "Herrera v. Wyoming" case that Wyoming's statehood did not void hunting rights which were guaranteed to the Crow tribe by the treaty.


title: Toyota VD engine

text: The "1VD-FTV" the only member in the VD engine family. It is a 32-valve DOHC engine, with common rail fuel injection and either one or two variable-geometry turbochargers.


title: Toyota VD engine

text: The single-turbo variant of this engine was first used in Australia commencing 2007, fitted to the 70-series Land Cruiser range. The engine is available in Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, India, Southern Africa, Central and South America.


title: Toyota VD engine

text: The twin-turbo variant saw its first use in September 2007 fitted to the 200-series Land Cruiser wagon, which is available in various worldwide markets. Yanmar also marinized the twin-turbo variant of this engine as 8LV.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Dylan Scott Robinson (born October 22, 1990) is an American country pop singer and songwriter, better known by his stage name Dylan Scott. He is signed to Curb Records.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Scott's debut single, "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy", was released in June 2013. Billy Dukes of "Taste of Country" gave the song three and a half stars out of five, writing that "the native Louisianan can really rumble when he reaches down to hit the low notes, but his performance won't leave female fans tingling like the greats." It charted for 10 weeks on the "Billboard" Country Airplay chart, peaking at number 54 in April 2014. The song's music video premiered on CMT in December 2013.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Scott's second single, "Mmm, Mmm, Mmm", was released in July 2014. Markos Papadatos of "Digital Journal" gave the song a B+ rating, writing that "the song has a Jake Owen meets Colt Ford vibe to it, especially since he displays his smooth baritone and rap vocals."


title: Dylan Scott

text: Both songs are included on his extended play, "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy" (also as the self-titled "Dylan Scott" EP), which was released on February 11, 2014. The EP was produced by Jim Ed Norman. It peaked at number 50 on the "Billboard" Top Country Albums chart. Another single, "Lay It on Me", came out in late 2014.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Dylan Scott had his first number one record in the summer of 2016 with "My Girl", a song written for his high school sweetheart-now wife, Blair Robinson. "My Girl" is also Scott's first Platinum record, indicating the single has sold 1,000,000 copies.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Scott released his debut studio album, self-titled "Dylan Scott", in August 2016. It debuted at number five on the Top Country Albums chart, selling 9,000 copies for the week.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Scott followed up "My Girl" with a number 2 record, "Hooked", from his "Dylan Scott" album, which was later certified Gold.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Scott released the single "Nothing to Do Town", which was accompanied by a music video and released on December 17, 2018.


title: Dylan Scott

text: In 2019, Scott released an EP titled "An Old Memory", containing seven covers of Keith Whitley songs and features a guest appearance from Whitley's widow Lorrie Morgan.


title: Dylan Scott

text: Scott and his wife, Blair Robinson live in Nashville with their two children, son Beckett Scott (born December 12, 2017) and daughter Finley Gray (born August 28, 2019).


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The Parliament Act 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5 c. 13) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is constitutionally important and partly governs the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the two Houses of Parliament. The Parliament Act 1949 provides that the Parliament Act 1911 and the Parliament Act 1949 are to be construed together "as one" in their effects and that the two Acts may be cited together as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: Following the House of Lords' rejection of the 1909 "People's Budget", the House of Commons sought to establish its formal dominance over the House of Lords, which had broken convention in opposing the bill. The budget was eventually passed by the Lords, after the Commons' democratic mandate was confirmed by holding a general election in January 1910. The following Parliament Act, which looked to prevent a recurrence of the budget problems, was also widely opposed in the House of Lords, and cross-party discussion failed, particularly because of the proposed Act's applicability to the passage of an Irish Home Rule Bill. Following a second general election in December, the Act was passed with the assent of the monarch, George V, after the House of Lords conceded due to the Government's threat that the Conservative majority in the Lords could be overcome by creating many new peers.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The Act effectively removed the right of the House of Lords to veto money bills completely, and replaced its right of veto over other public bills with the ability to delay them for a maximum of two years (the Parliament Act 1949 reduced this to one). It also reduced the maximum term of a parliament from seven years (as set by the Septennial Act 1716) to five.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: Until the Parliament Act 1911, there was no way to resolve disagreements between the two houses of Parliament except through the creation of additional peers by the monarch. Queen Anne had created twelve Tory peers to vote through the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The Reform Act 1832 had been passed when the House of Lords dropped their opposition to it: King William IV had threatened to create eighty new peers by request of the prime minister, Earl Grey. This created an informal convention that the Lords would give way when the public was behind the House of Commons. For example, Irish disestablishment, which had been a major point of contention between the two main parties since the 1830s, was passed by the Lords in 1869 after Queen Victoria intervened and W. E. Gladstone won the 1868 election on the issue. However, in practice, this gave the Lords a right to demand that such public support be present and to decide the timing of a general election.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: It was the prevailing wisdom that the House of Lords could not amend money bills, since only the House of Commons had the right to decide upon the resources the monarch could call upon. This did not, however, prevent it from rejecting such bills outright. In 1860, with the repeal of the paper duties, all money bills were consolidated into a single budget. This denied the Lords the ability to reject individual components, and the prospect of voting down the entire budget was seemingly unpalatable. It was only in 1909 that this possibility became a reality. Prior to the Act, the Lords had had rights equal to those of the Commons over legislation but, by convention, did not utilise its right of veto over financial measures.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: There had been an overwhelming Conservative-Liberal Unionist majority in the Lords since the Liberal split in 1886. With the Liberal Party attempting to push through significant welfare reforms with considerable popular support, problems seemed certain to arise in the relationship between the houses. Between 1906 and 1909, several important measures were considerably watered down or rejected outright: for example, Augustine Birrell introduced the Education Bill 1906, which was intended to address nonconformist grievances arising from the Education Act 1902, but it was amended by the Lords to such an extent that it effectively became a different bill, whereupon the Commons dropped it. This led to a resolution in the House of Commons on 26 June 1907, put forward by Liberal Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman, declaring that the Lords' power ought to be curtailed. In 1909, hoping to force an election, the Lords rejected the financial bill based on the government budget (the "People's Budget") put forward by David Lloyd George, by 350 votes to 75. This action, according to the Commons, was "a breach of the constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the Commons". The Lords suggested that the Commons demonstrate at the polls the veracity of its claim that the bill represented the will of the people. The Liberal government sought to do so through the January 1910 general election. Liberal representation in the House of Commons fell steeply, but the party retained a majority with the help of a significant number of Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) and Labour MPs. The IPP saw the continued power of the Lords as detrimental to the prospect of securing Irish Home Rule. Following the election, the Lords relented on the budget (which had been reintroduced by the government), and it passed the Lords on 28 April, a day after the Commons vote.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The Lords was now faced with the prospect of a Parliament Act, which had considerable support from the Irish Nationalists. A series of meetings between the Liberal government and Unionist opposition members was agreed. Twenty-one such meetings were held between 16 June and 10 November. The discussions considered a wide range of proposals, with initial agreement on finance bills and on a joint sitting of the Commons and the Lords as a means by which to enforce Commons superiority in controversial areas; the number of members of the Lords present would be limited so that a Liberal majority of fifty or more in the House of Commons could overrule the Lords. However, the issue of home rule for Ireland was the main contention, with Unionists looking to exempt such a law from the Parliament Act procedure by means of a general exception for "constitutional" or "structural" bills. The Liberals supported an exception for bills relating to the monarchy and Protestant succession, but not home rule. On 10 November, the discussions were declared to have failed.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The government threatened another dissolution if the Parliament Act were not passed, and followed through on their threat when opposition in the Lords did not diminish. The December 1910 general election produced little change from January. The second dissolution of Parliament now seems to have been contrary to the wishes of Edward VII. Edward had died in May 1910 while the crisis was still in progress. His successor, George V, was asked if he would be prepared to create sufficient peers, which he would only do if the matter arose. This would have meant creating over 400 new Liberal peers. The King, however, demanded that the bill would have to be rejected at least once by the Lords before his intervention. Two amendments made by the Lords were rejected by the Commons, and opposition to the bill showed little sign of reducing. This led H. H. Asquith to declare the King's intention to overcome the majority in the House of Lords by creating sufficient new peers. The bill was finally passed in the Lords by 131 votes to 114 votes, a majority of 17. This reflected a large number of abstentions.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: At the request of prominent Cabinet member Sir Edward Grey, the preamble included the words "it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation". The long title of the Act was "An Act to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the House of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliament." Section 8 defined the short title as the "Parliament Act 1911".


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The bill was also an attempt to place the relationship between the House of Commons and House of Lords on a new footing. As well as the direct issue of money Bills, it set new conventions about how the power the Lords continued to hold would be used. It did not change the composition of the Lords, however.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The Lords would only be able to delay money bills for one month, effectively ending their ability to do so. These were defined as any public bill which contained only provisions dealing with the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; and the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof. But it did not cover any sort of local taxes or similar measures. Some Finance Bills have not fallen within this criterion; Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills have. The Speaker of the House of Commons would have to certify that a bill was a money bill, endorsing it with a Speaker's certificate. The Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the Community Charge ("Poll Tax"), was not certified as a Money Bill and was therefore considered by the Lords. Whilst Finance Bills are not considered money bills, convention dictates that those parts of a Finance Bill dealing with taxation or expenditure (which, if in an Act alone, would constitute a money bill) are not questioned.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: Other public bills could no longer be vetoed; instead, they could be delayed for up to two years. This two-year period meant that legislation introduced in the fourth or fifth years of a parliament could be delayed until after the next election, which could prove an effective measure to prevent it being passed. Specifically, two years had to elapse between the second reading in the House of Commons in the first session and the passing of the bill in the House of Commons in the third session. The Speaker also has to certify that the conditions of the bill have been complied with. There are significant restrictions on amendments to ensure that it is the same bill that has been rejected twice. The 1911 Act made clear that the life of a parliament could not be extended without the consent of the Lords.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: Parliament had been limited to a maximum of seven years under the Septennial Act 1716, but the Parliament Act 1911 amended the Septennial Act to limit Parliament to five years, reckoned from the first meeting of Parliament after the election. In practice, no election was absolutely forced by that limitation; until the Septennial Act was repealed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, all parliaments were dissolved by the Monarch under the Royal Prerogative on request of the Prime Minister. The five-year maximum duration in the amended Septennial Act referred to the lifetime of the Parliament, and not to the interval between general elections. For example, the 2010 general election was held five years and one day after the 2005 general election; the 1992 general election was held on 9 April 1992 and the next general election was not held until 1 May 1997. The reduction in the maximum length of a Parliament was seen as a counterbalance to the new powers granted to the Commons. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, in contrast, called for general elections every five years (unless called sooner, as in 2017), and provided for an earlier dissolution of Parliament only by certain specified legal procedures. The Act was repealed in 2022, restoring the previous system of dissolution under the Royal Prerogative.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The Lords continued to suggest amendments to money bills over which it had no right of veto; and in several instances these were accepted by the Commons. These included the China Indemnity Bill 1925 and the Inshore Fishing Industry Bill 1947. The use of the Lords' now temporary veto remains a powerful check on legislation.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: It was used in relation to the Government of Ireland Act 1914, which had been under the threat of a Lords veto, now removed. Ulster Protestants had been firmly against the passing of the bill. However, the Government of Ireland Act 1914 never came into force because of the outbreak of the First World War. Amendments to the Parliament Act 1911 were made to prolong the life of the 1910 parliament following the outbreak of the First World War, and also that of the 1935 parliament due to the Second World War. These made special exemptions to the requirement to hold a general election every five years.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: Legislation passed without the consent of the Lords, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, is still considered primary legislation, ie. a fully valid Act of Parliament. The importance of this was highlighted in "Jackson v Attorney General", in which the lawfulness of the Parliament Act 1949 was questioned. The challenge asserted that the 1911 Parliament Act had delegated power from Parliament as a whole to the Commons, and that the 1949 Parliament Act was therefore delegated rather than primary legislation. If this were the case, then the House of Commons could not further increase its own powers through the 1949 Parliament Act without direct permission from the House of Lords. Since it was passed under the 1911 Act, the 1949 Act had never received the required consent of the Lords. However, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords found that the 1911 Act was not primarily about empowering the Commons, but rather had the purpose of restricting the ability of the Lords to reject legislation, ie. altering the process by which Parliament as a whole enacts legislation. The 1949 Act had therefore been lawfully enacted. This ruling also appears to mean that efforts to abolish the House of Lords (a major constitutional change) by using the Act could be successful, although the issue was not directly addressed in the ruling.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: The Parliament Act 1911 can be seen in the context of the British constitution: rather than creating a written constitution, Parliament chose instead to legislate through the usual channels in response to the crisis. This was a pragmatic response, which avoided the further problems of codifying unwritten rules and reconstructing the entire government. It is commonly considered a statute of "constitutional importance", which gives it informal priority in Parliament and in the courts with regard to whether later legislation can change it and the process by which this may happen.


title: Parliament Act 1911

text: It is also mentioned in discussion of constitutional convention. While it replaced conventions regarding the role of the House of Lords, it also relies on several others. Section 1(1) only makes sense if money bills do not arise in the House of Lords, and the provisions in section 2(1) only if proceedings on a public bill are completed in a single session, otherwise they must fail and be put through procedure again.