document_title: Direct action

question_text: example of direct action politics in the united states

text: Direct action

text: History[edit]

text: Direct action tactics have been around for as long as conflicts have existed but it is not known when the term first appeared. The radical union the Industrial Workers of the World first mentioned the term "direct action" in a publication in reference to a Chicago strike conducted in 1910.[2]  Other noted historical practitioners of direct action include the American Civil Rights Movement, the Global Justice Movement,  the Suffragettes, revolutionary Che Guevara, and certain environmental advocacy groups.

text: American anarchist Voltairine de Cleyre wrote an essay called "Direct Action" in 1912 which is widely cited today. In this essay, de Cleyre points to historical examples such as the Boston Tea Party and the American anti-slavery movement, noting that "direct action has always been used, and has the historical sanction of the very people now reprobating it."[3]

text: In his 1920 book, Direct Action, William Mellor placed direct action firmly in the struggle between worker and employer for control "over the economic life of society."  Mellor defined direct action "as the use of some form of economic power for securing of ends desired by those who possess that power." Mellor considered direct action a tool of both owners and workers and for this reason, he included within his definition lockouts and cartels, as well as strikes and sabotage.  However, by this time the US anarchist and feminist Voltairine de Cleyre had already given a strong defense of direct action, linking it with struggles for civil rights:

text: ...the Salvation Army, which was started by a gentleman named William Booth was vigorously practising direct action in the maintenance of the freedom of its members to speak, assemble, and pray.  Over and over they were arrested, fined, and imprisoned ... till they finally compelled their persecutors to let them alone.

text:
Martin Luther King felt that non-violent direct action's goal was to "create such a crisis and foster such a tension" as to demand a response.[4]
The rhetoric of Martin Luther King, James Bevel, and Mohandas Gandhi promoted non-violent revolutionary direct action as a means to social change. Noteworthy, Gandhi and Bevel had been strongly influenced by Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You, which is considered a classic text that ideologically promotes passive resistance.[5]

text: By the middle of the 20th century, the sphere of direct action had undoubtedly expanded, though the meaning of the term had perhaps contracted.  Most campaigns for social change—notably those seeking suffrage, improved working conditions, civil rights, abortion rights or an end to abortion, an end to gentrification, and environmental protection—claim to employ at least some types of violent or nonviolent direct action.

text: Some sections of the anti-nuclear movement used direct action, particularly during the 1980s. Groups opposing the introduction of cruise missiles into the United Kingdom employed tactics such as breaking into and occupying United States air bases, and blocking roads to prevent the movement of military convoys and disrupt military projects. In the US, mass protests opposed nuclear energy, weapons, and military intervention throughout the decade, resulting in thousands of arrests. Many groups also set up semi-permanent "peace camps" outside air bases such as Molesworth and Greenham Common, and at the Nevada Test Site.

text: Environmental movement organizations such as Greenpeace have used direct action to pressure governments and companies to change environmental policies for years. On April 28, 2009, Greenpeace activists, including Phil Radford, scaled a crane across the street from the Department of State, calling on world leaders to address climate change.[6] Soon thereafter, Greenpeace activists dropped a banner off of Mt. Rushmore, placing President Obama's face next to other historic presidents, which read "History Honors Leaders; Stop Global Warming".[7] Overall, more than 2,600 people were arrested while protesting energy policy and associated health issues under the Barack Obama Administration.[8]

text: In 2009, hundreds blocked the gates of the coal fired power plant that powers the US Congress building, following the Power Shift conference in Washington, D.C. In attendance at the Capitol Climate Action were Bill McKibben, Terry Tempest Williams, Phil Radford, Wendell Berry, Robert Kennedy Junior, Judy Bonds and many more prominent figures of the climate justice movement were in attendance.

text: Anti-abortion groups in the United States, particularly Operation Rescue, often used non-violent sit-ins at the entrances of abortion clinics as a form of direct action in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

text: Anti-globalization activists made headlines around the world in 1999, when they forced the Seattle WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 to end early with direct action tactics.  The goal that they had, shutting down the meetings, was directly accomplished by placing their bodies and other debris between the WTO delegates and the building they were meant to meet in.  Activists also engaged in property destruction as a direct way of stating their opposition to corporate culture—this can be viewed as a direct action if the goal was to shut down those stores for a period of time, or an indirect action if the goal was influencing corporate policy.

text: One of the largest direct actions in recent years took place in San Francisco the day after the Iraq War began in 2003. Twenty-thousand people occupied the streets and over 2,000 people were arrested in affinity group actions throughout downtown San Francisco, home to military-related corporations such as Bechtel. (See March 20, 2003 anti-war protest).

text: Direct action has also been used on a smaller scale. Refugee Salim Rambo was saved from being deported from the UK back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo when one person stood up on his flight and refused to sit down.  After a two-hour delay the man was arrested, but the pilot refused to fly with Rambo on board. Salim Rambo was ultimately released from state custody and remains free today.

text: Nonviolent[edit]

text: Non-violent direct action (NVDA) is any form of direct action that does not rely on violent tactics, as opposed to principled nonviolence, which is a positive force in its own right and involves active concern for the well being of the opponent even while resisting the latter's actions. Mohandas Gandhi's teachings of Satyagraha (or truth force) have inspired many practitioners of nonviolent direct action, although the use of nonviolence does not always imply an ideological commitment to pacifism.  In 1963, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. described the goal of NVDA in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

text: Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.[4]

text: In the United States, the term has largely come to signify civil disobedience, and protest in general. In the 1980s, a California direct action protest group called Livermore Action Group called its newspaper Direct Action. The paper ran for 25 issues, and covered hundreds of nonviolent actions around the world. The book Direct Action: An Historical Novel took its name from this paper, and records dozens of actions in the San Francisco Bay Area.

text: Human rights activists have used direct action in the ongoing campaign to close the School of the Americas, renamed in 2001 the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. As a result, 245 SOA Watch human rights defenders have collectively spent almost 100 years in prison. More than 50 people have served probation sentences.

text: "Direct Action" has also served as the moniker of at least two groups: the French Action Directe as well as the Canadian group more popularly known as the Squamish Five. Direct Action is also the name of the magazine of the Australian Wobblies. The UK's Solidarity Federation currently publishes a magazine called Direct Action.

text: Until 1990, Australia's Socialist Workers Party published a party paper also named "Direct Action", in honour of the Wobblies' history. One of the group's descendants, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, has again started a publication of this name.[9]

text: Food Not Bombs is often described as direct action because individuals involved directly act to solve a social problem; people are hungry and yet there is food available. Food Not Bombs is inherently dedicated to non-violence.

text: A museum that chronicles the history of direct action and grassroots activism in the Lower East Side of New York City, the Museum of Reclaimed Urban Space, opened in 2012.

text: Violent[edit]

text: Violent direct action is any direct action which utilizes physical injurious force against persons or, controversially (see below), property.[10] Examples of violent direct action include: rioting, lynching, terrorism, political assassination, freeing political prisoners, interfering with police actions, armed insurrection, and arguably property destruction.

text: Ann Hansen, one of the Squamish 5, also known as Vancouver 5, a Canadian anarchist and self-professed urban guerrilla fighter, wrote in her book Direct Action that,

text: The essence of direct action ... is people fighting for themselves, rejecting those who claim to represent their true interests, whether they be revolutionaries or government officials. It is a far more subversive idea than civil disobedience because it is not meant to reform or influence state power but is meant to undermine it by showing it to be unnecessary and harmful. When people, themselves, resort to violence to protect their community from racist attacks or to protect their environment from ecological destruction, they are taking direct action.[11]:335

text: Controversy over destruction of property[edit]

text:
One major debate is whether destruction of property should be included within the realm of violence or nonviolence. This debate can be illustrated by the response to groups like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, which use property destruction and sabotage as direct action tactics. Although these types of actions are often prosecuted as violence, those groups justify their actions by claiming that violence is harm directed towards living things and not property. The issue of whether sabotage is a form of violence is difficult to resolve in purely philosophical terms, but the use of sabotage as a methodology can be contrasted with minor property damage that is a small but necessary part of a non-violent campaign methodology such as breaking locks and fences to gain entry to a site.[12]
Some theorists and activists believe that a doctrine of diversity of tactics can resolve the controversy.[13][14]

text: US and international law include acts against property in the definition of violence and state that even in a time of war, "Destruction [of property] as an end in itself is a violation of international law".[15]:218

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: The environmental direct action movement in the United Kingdom started in 1990 with the forming of the first UK Earth First! group. The movement rapidly grew from the 1992 Twyford Down protests, culminating in 1997.

text: There are now several organisations in the United Kingdom campaigning for action on climate change that use non-violent direct action, including Camp for Climate Action, Plane Stupid and Greenpeace. This has resulted in environmental campaigners being labelled as extremists by the Ministry of Justice.[16]


document_title: The Song of Roland

question_text: in the song of roland roland's fate is brought on by his

question_tokens: in the song of roland roland 's fate is brought on by his

root

text: The Song of Roland

text: Manuscripts and dating[edit]

text: Set in the Carolingian era, it was written much later. There are nine extant manuscripts of the Song of Roland in Old French. The oldest of these manuscripts is held at the Bodleian Library at Oxford. This copy dates between 1129 and 1165 and was written in Anglo-Norman.[2]

tag: p

text: Scholars estimate that the poem was written, possibly by a poet named Turold, between approximately 1040 and 1115, and most of the alterations were performed by about 1098. Some favor an earlier dating, because it allows one to say that the poem was inspired by the Castilian campaigns of the 1030s, and that the poem went on to be a major influence in the First Crusade. Those who prefer a later dating do so on grounds of what they interpret as brief references made in the poem to events of the First Crusade.

text: In the poem, the term d'oltre mer or l'oltremarin comes up three times in reference to named Muslims who came from oltre mer to fight in Spain and France. Oltre mer, modern French Outremer, literally "oversea, beyond sea, other side of the sea", is a native French term from the classical Latin roots ultra = "beyond" and mare = "sea". The name was commonly used by the Crusaders to refer to Palestine.[citation needed]

text: The occurrence of this term in the poem cannot be interpreted as showing influence from the Crusades in the poem; on the contrary, the way it is used in the poem, in which it is simply a Muslim land, indicates that the author of the poem was unacquainted with the Crusades, and that the term was in French before the Crusades began meaning the far side of the Mediterranean Sea. The bulk of the poem is adjudged to date from before the Crusades (which started in 1098), but there are a few items where questions remain about these items being late additions shortly after the Crusades started.

text: After two manuscripts were found in 1832 and 1835, the Song of Roland became recognized as France's national epic when an edition was published in 1837.[3]

text: Critical opinions[edit]

text: Oral performance of the Song compared to manuscript versions[edit]

text: Scholarly consensus has long accepted that the Song of Roland differed in its presentation depending on oral or textual transmission; namely, although a number of different versions of the song containing varying material and episodes would have been performed orally, the transmission to manuscript resulted in greater cohesiveness across versions.

text: Early editors of the Song of Roland, informed in part by patriotic desires to produce a distinctly French epic, could thus overstate the textual cohesiveness of the Roland tradition. This point is clearly expressed by Andrew Taylor, who notes,[4] "[T]he Roland song was, if not invented, at the very least constructed. By supplying it with an appropriate epic title, isolating it from its original codicological context, and providing a general history of minstrel performance in which its pure origin could be located, the early editors presented a 4,002 line poem as sung French epic".

text: Plot[edit]

text: Charlemagne's army is fighting the Muslims in Spain. They have been there for seven years, and the last city standing is Saragossa, held by the Muslim King Marsile. Threatened by the might of Charlemagne's army of Franks, Marsile seeks advice from his wise man, Blancandrin, who councils him to conciliate the Emperor, offering to surrender and giving hostages. Accordingly, Marsile sends out messengers to Charlemagne, promising treasure and Marsile's conversion to Christianity if the Franks will go back to France.

text: Charlemagne and his men, tired of fighting, accept his peace offer and select a messenger to Marsile's court. The protagonist Roland, Charlemagne's nephew, nominates his stepfather Ganelon as messenger. Ganelon, who fears to be murdered by the enemy and accuses Roland of intending this, takes revenge by informing the Saracens of a way to ambush the rear guard of Charlemagne's army, led by Roland, as the Franks re-enter France through the mountain passes.

text: As Ganelon predicted, Roland leads the rear guard, with the wise and moderate Oliver and the fierce Archbishop Turpin. The Muslims ambush them at Roncesvalles and the Christians are overwhelmed. Oliver pleads with Roland to blow his horn to call for help, but Roland tells him that blowing his horn in the middle of the battle would be an act of cowardice. If Roland continues to refuse, Oliver will not let Roland see his sister again whom Roland loves the most. However, Archbishop Turpin intervenes and tells them that the battle will be fatal for all of them and so instructs Roland to blow his horn oliphant (the word is an old alternative to "elephant", and was used to refer to a hunting horn made from an elephant tusk) to call for help from the Frankish army. The emperor hears the call on their way to France. Charlemagne and his noblemen gallop back even though Count Ganelon tries to trick them.

text: The Franks fight well, but are outnumbered, until almost all Roland's men are dead and he knows that Charlemagne's army can no longer save them. Despite this, he blows his olifant to summon revenge, until his temples burst and he dies a martyr's death. Angels take his soul to Paradise.

text: When Charlemagne and his men reach the battlefield, they find the dead bodies of Roland's men, who have been utterly annihilated. They pursue the Muslims into the river Ebro, where the Muslims drown. Meanwhile, Baligant, the powerful emir of Babylon, has arrived in Spain to help Marsile. His army encounters that of Charlemagne at Roncesvalles, where the Christians are burying and mourning their dead. Both sides fight valiantly. When Charlemagne kills Baligant, the Muslim army scatters and flees, leaving the Franks to conquer Saragossa. With Marsile's wife Bramimonde, Queen of Saragossa, Charlemagne and his men ride back to Aix, their capital in France.

text: The Franks discover Ganelon's betrayal and keep him in chains until his trial, where Ganelon argues that his action was legitimate revenge, not treason. While the council of barons assembled to decide the traitor's fate is initially swayed by this claim, one man, Thierry, argues that because Roland was serving Charlemagne when Ganelon delivered his revenge on him, Ganelon's action constitutes a betrayal.

text: Ganelon's friend Pinabel challenges Thierry to trial by combat. By divine intervention, Thierry kills Pinabel. By this the Franks are convinced of Ganelon's treason. Thus, he is torn apart by having four galloping horses tied one to each arm and leg and thirty of his relatives are hanged.

text: Form[edit]

text: The poem is written in stanzas of irregular length known as laisses. The lines are decasyllabic (containing ten syllables), and each is divided by a strong caesura which generally falls after the fourth syllable. The last stressed syllable of each line in a laisse has the same vowel sound as every other end-syllable in that laisse. The laisse is therefore an assonal, not a rhyming stanza.

text: On a narrative level, the Song of Roland features extensive use of repetition, parallelism, and thesis-antithesis pairs. Roland proposes Ganelon for the dangerous mission to Sarrogossa; Ganelon designates Roland to man the rearguard. Charlemagne is contrasted with Baligant.[5] Unlike later Renaissance and Romantic literature, the poem focuses on action rather than introspection. The characters are presented through what they do, not through what they think or feel.

text: The narrator gives few explanations for characters' behavior. The warriors are stereotypes defined by a few salient traits; for example, Roland is loyal and trusting while Ganelon, though brave, is traitorous and vindictive.

text: The narrator is openly biased towards the Franks. His moral view is very black-and-white: the Franks are good, and the pagans are bad.

text: The story moves at a fast pace, occasionally slowing down and recounting the same scene up to three times but focusing on different details or taking a different perspective each time. The effect is similar to a film sequence shot at different angles so that new and more important details come to light with each shot.

text: Characters[edit]

text: Principal characters[edit]

text:
Andriodos, helpless boy; despite the honor came from King Charlemagne.
Baligant, emir of Babylon; Marsile enlists his help against Charlemagne.
Blancandrin, wise pagan; suggests bribing Charlemagne out of Spain with hostages and gifts, and then suggests dishonouring a promise to allow Marsile's baptism
Bassalt, came from the name of rocks that are solid and may occur in the second phrase of the poem; captured the horse of the king.
Bramimonde, Queen of Saragossa, King Marsile's wife; captured and converted by Charlemagne after the city falls.
Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor; his forces fight the Saracens in Spain.
Ganelon, treacherous lord and Roland's stepfather who encourages Marsile to attack the French army.
King Marsile, Saracen king of Spain; Roland wounds him and he dies of his wound later.
Naimon, Charlemagne's trusted adviser.
Oliver, Roland's friend; mortally wounded by Margarice. He represents wisdom.
Roland, the hero of the Song; nephew of Charlemagne; leads the rear guard of the French forces; bursts his temples by blowing his olifant-horn, wounds from which he eventually dies facing the enemy's land.
Turpin, Archbishop of Rheims, represents the force of the Church.

tag: ul

text: Secondary characters[edit]

text:
Aude, the fiancée of Roland and Oliver's sister
Basan, French baron, murdered while serving as Ambassador of Marsile.
Bérengier, one of the twelve paladins killed by Marsile’s troops; kills Estramarin; killed by Grandoyne.
Besgun, chief cook of Charlemagne's army; guards Ganelon after Ganelon's treachery is discovered.
Geboin, guards the French dead; becomes leader of Charlemagne's 2nd column.
Godefroy, standard bearer of Charlemagne; brother of Thierry, Charlemagne’s defender against Pinabel.
Grandoyne, fighter on Marsile’s side; son of the Cappadocian King Capuel; kills Gerin, Gerier, Berenger, Guy St. Antoine, and Duke Astorge; killed by Roland.
Hamon, joint Commander of Charlemagne's Eighth Division.
Lorant, French commander of one of the first divisions against Baligant; killed by Baligant.
Milon, guards the French dead while Charlemagne pursues the Saracen forces.
Ogier, a Dane who leads the third column in Charlemagne's army against Baligant's forces.
Othon, guards the French dead while Charlemagne pursues the Saracen forces.
Pinabel, fights for Ganelon in the judicial combat.
Thierry, fights for Charlemagne in the judicial combat.

text: Durandal[edit]

text: According to the Song of Roland, this legendary sword was first given to Charlemagne by an angel. It contained one tooth of Saint Peter, blood of Saint Basil, hair of Saint Denis, and a piece of the raiment of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and was supposedly the sharpest sword in all existence. In the story of the Song of Roland, the weapon is given to Roland, and he uses it to defend himself single-handedly against thousands of Muslim attackers. According to one 12th century legend from the French town of Rocamadour, Roland threw the sword into a cliffside. You can still see the sword embedded into the cliff-face.

text: Historical adaptations[edit]

text: A Latin poem, Carmen de Prodicione Guenonis, was composed around 1120, and a Latin prose version, Historia Caroli Magni (often known as "The Pseudo-Turpin") even earlier. Around 1170, a version of the French poem was translated into the Middle High German Rolandslied by Konrad der Pfaffe[5] (formerly thought to have been the author of the Kaiserchronik). In his translation Konrad replaces French topics with generically Christian ones. The work was translated into Middle Dutch in the 13th century.

text: It was also rendered into Occitan verse in the 14th- or 15th-century poem of Ronsasvals, which incorporates the later, southern aesthetic into the story. An Old Norse version of the Song of Roland exists as Karlamagnús saga, and a translation into the artificial literary language of Franco-Venetian is also known; such translations contributed to the awareness of the story in Italy. In 1516 Ludovico Ariosto published his epic Orlando Furioso, which deals largely with characters first described in the Song of Roland.

text: There is also Faroese adoption of this ballad named "Runtsivalstríðið" (Battle of Roncevaux).[6] The ballad is one of many sung during the Faroese folkdance tradition of chain dancing.

text: Modern adaptations[edit]

text: The Chanson de Roland has an important place in the background of Graham Greene's The Confidential Agent. The book's protagonist had been a Medieval scholar specialising in this work, until the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War forced him to become a soldier and secret agent. Throughout the book, he repeatedly compares himself and other characters with the characters of "Roland". Particularly, the book includes a full two pages of specific commentary, which is relevant to its 20th-century plot line: "Oliver, when he saw the Saracens coming, urged Roland to blow his horn and fetch back Charlemagne – but Roland wouldn't blow. A big brave fool. In war one always chooses the wrong hero. Oliver should have been the hero of that song, instead of being given second place with the blood-thirsty Bishop Turpin.(...) In the Oxford version Oliver is reconciled in the end, he gives Roland his death-blow by accident, his eyes blinded by wounds. [But] the story had been tidied up. In truth, Oliver strikes his friend down in full knowledge – because of what he has done to his men, all the wasted lives. Oliver dies hating the man he loves – the big boasting courageous fool who was more concerned with his own glory than with the victory of his faith. This makes the story tragedy, not just heroics".[7]

text: It is also adapted by Stephen King, in the Dark Tower series in which Roland Deschain wishes to save the Dark Tower from the Crimson King.

text: The Song of Roland is part of the Matter of France (the Continental counterpart to the Arthurian legendarium known as the Matter of Britain), and related to Orlando Furioso. The names Roland and Orlando are cognates.

text: Emanuelle Luzzati’s animated short film, I paladini di Francia, together with Giulio Gianini, in 1960, was turned into the children’s picture-story book, with verse narrative, I Paladini de Francia ovvero il tradimento di Gano di Maganz, which translates literally as “The Paladins of France or the treachery of Gano of Maganz” (Ugo Mursia Editore, 1962). This was then republished, in English, as Ronald and the Wizard Calico (1969). The Picture Lion paperback edition (William Collins, London, 1973) is a paperback imprint of the Hutchinson Junior Books edition (1969), which credits the English translation to Hutchinson Junior Books.

text: Luzatti’s original verse story in Italian is about the plight of a beautiful maiden called Biancofiore – White Flower, or Blanchefleur – and her brave hero, Captain Rinaldo, and Ricardo and his paladins – the term used for Christian knights engaged in Crusades against the Saracens and Moors. Battling with these good people are the wicked Moors – North African Muslims and Arabs – and their Sultan, in Jerusalem. With the assistance of the wicked and treacherous magician, Gano of Maganz, Biancofiore is stolen from her fortress castle, and taken to become the reluctant wife of the Sultan. The catalyst for victory is the good magician, Urlubulu, who lives in a lake, and flies through the air on the back of his magic blue bird. The English translators, using the original illustrations, and the basic rhyme patterns, slightly simplify the plot, changing the Christians-versus-Muslim-Moors conflict into a battle between good and bad magicians and between golden knights and green knights. The French traitor in The Song of Roland, who is actually Roland’s cowardly step-father, is Ganelon – very likely the inspiration for Luzzati’s traitor and wicked magician, Gano. Orlando Furioso (literally, Furious or Enraged Orlando, or Roland), includes Orlando’s cousin, the paladin Rinaldo, who, like Orlando, is also in love with Angelica, a pagan princess. Rinaldo is, of course, the Italian equivalent of Ronald. Flying through the air on the back of a magic bird is equivalent to flying on a magic hippogriff.

text: On July 22, 2017, Michael Eging and Steve Arnold released a novel ″The Silver Horn Echoes: A Song of Roland," inspired by the La Chanson de Roland. This work is more closely based on a screen play written by Michael Eging in 2008, simply known as "Song of Roland" and first optioned to Alan Kaplan at Cine LA that same year. The book explores the untold story of how Roland finds himself at Ronceveaux, betrayed by Ganelon and facing the expansive Saragossan host. Primary characters in the novel include Charles (Charlemagne), Ganelon, Bishop Turpin, Oliver, Aude, Marsilion, Blancandarin and others recognizable from the poem. Introduced in this tale are additional characters that inject intrigue and danger to the story, including Charles oldest son, Pepin, Marsilion's treacherous son, Saleem, and the scheming Byzantine emissary, Honorius. The cover artwork was hand painted by Jordan Raskin. The authors determined when writing both the screenplay and the novel to remain in the world created by the poem; thus Charles remains an older man near the end of his long reign rather than in 778 when the attack on the rearguard actually occurred. Further, this novel bookends the story with William the Conqueror's use of the poem as a motivator for Norman forces prior to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. [8]


document_title: Lookin' Through the Windows (song)

question_text: who sang looking through the window of love

text: Lookin' Through the Windows (song)

text: This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text:
"Lookin' Through the Windows"
Single by The Jackson 5from the album Lookin' Through the WindowsB-side
"Love Song"Released
June 23, 1972Genre
Pop, soul, R&BLength
3:44Label
MotownSongwriter(s)
Clifton DavisProducer(s)
Hal DavisThe Jackson 5 singles chronology

"Little Bitty Pretty One" (1972)

"Lookin' Through the Windows" (1972)

"Doctor My Eyes" (1972)

"Little Bitty Pretty One" (1972)

"Lookin' Through the Windows" (1972)

"Doctor My Eyes" (1972)

text: "Lookin' Through the Windows" is a song written by Clifton Davis released as a single by The Jackson 5 in 1972 from the album Lookin' Through the Windows. Produced by Hal Davis, it peaked at No. 16 on the Billboard Hot 100.

text:
hidevteThe Jackson 5/The Jacksons singlesSingles on Steeltown Records
"Big Boy"
Diana Ross Presents The Jackson 5
"I Want You Back"
ABC
"ABC"
"The Love You Save"
"Never Had a Dream Come True"
"Don't Know Why I Love You"
" La La (Means I Love You)"
Third Album
"I'll Be There"
"Mama's Pearl"
"The Love I Saw in You Was Just a Mirage"
Jackson 5 Christmas Album
"Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town"
"I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus"
"Give Love on Christmas Day"
Maybe Tomorrow
"Never Can Say Goodbye"
"Maybe Tomorrow"
"16 Candles"
Greatest Hits
"Sugar Daddy"
Lookin' Through the Windows
"Little Bitty Pretty One"
"Lookin' Through the Windows"
"Doctor, My Eyes"
Skywriter
"Skywriter"
G.I.T.: Get It Together
"Get It Together"
"Dancing Machine"
Dancing Machine
"Dancing Machine"
"I Am Love"
Moving Violation
"Forever Came Today"
"All I Do Is Think of You"
The Jacksons
"Enjoy Yourself"
"Show You the Way to Go"
Destiny
"Blame It on the Boogie"
"Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)"
Triumph
"Lovely One"
"This Place Hotel"
"Can You Feel It"
"Walk Right Now"
Victory
"State of Shock"
"Torture"
2300 Jackson Street
"Nothin' (That Compares 2 U)"
"2300 Jackson Street"
Notable collaborations and album tracks
"Who's Lovin' You"
"Hum Along and Dance"
"Feelin' Alright"
"This Is It"

 Book
 Category
 Portal

text: This 1970s R&B/soul music song-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.vte

text: The Jackson 5 songs1972 songs1972 singlesSong recordings produced by Hal DavisSongs written by Clifton DavisMotown singles1970s R&B song stubs

text: Articles lacking sources from January 2015All articles lacking sourcesArticles with hAudio microformatsAll stub articles


document_title: A Girl Like Her (2015 film)

question_text: who plays avery keller in a girl like her

text: A Girl Like Her (2015 film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: The movie starts with Jessica (Lexi Ainsworth) in her room, crying and walking around. She walks to her bathroom and takes a handful of pills from her medicine cabinet. It is revealed that the high school she goes to has won a chance for a documentary for being a public school that has placed as one of the top ten schools across the country.

text: Word of Jessica's suicide attempt and hospitalization spreads quickly throughout the school, and the cameras catch students crying and talking about the situation. The camera crews go around interviewing kids about Jessica, and they reveal that her main tormentor was her former best friend, Avery Keller (Hunter King). They seek her out and she denies ever bullying Jessica and claims they were joking around.

text: They ask her if she wants to be part of the film, saying they want to see into the life of a popular girl, as Avery claims that she, as a popular girl, is often misunderstood. They go to her house that night, where they meet her mother, brother, and father and see how difficult her home life is. They record footage of her life and give her a camcorder with which to film extra footage of herself in order for others to see what being a popular was like.

text: As the movie progresses and the students continue to deal with what's happening the camera crew talks with Jessica's best friend, Brian (Jimmy Bennett). Brian invites the crew to his home. He tells the crew that the bullying has been going on for around 6 months and that they started filming the bullying with a hidden camera disguised as a dragonfly pin, as well as with Brian's camera. He shows them footage of Avery bullying Jessica, confirming what others had stated about the relationship between the two girls. Also in the footage are scenes of Jessica crying and saying she can't take it anymore.

text: The next day at school, the crew approaches Avery again and tells her they have proof that she bullied Jessica. They ask her if she wants to see it, and she agrees to meet them at her house that night.

text: Later that night at the hospital, Jessica's parents are visiting her when she loses her pulse. Her parents and the cameras are kicked out of the ICU, as the doctors attempt to revive Jessica. At this point, Avery is watching the footage of her bullying Jessica. She starts to break down while watching and requests that it be turned off. Crying hysterically, she tells the filmmaker how sorry and regretful she is, as she comforts Avery and tells her that she is really a good person.

text: The doctors are able to regain Jessica's pulse, but say that due to the non-improvement of her organs, she will eventually succumb to total organ failure if she doesn't wake from the coma soon.

text: Realizing the consequences of her actions, Avery posts a vlog, tearfully stating that no person deserves to be treated the way she treated Jessica and apologizes profusely. She ends the video with, "My name is Avery Keller, and I'm a bully."

text: The movie ends with a cut to Jessica's face, in which she opens her eyes and looks around, before finally staring straight into the camera.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Hunter King as Avery Keller
Lexi Ainsworth as Jessica Burns
Jimmy Bennett as Brian

text: Reception[edit]

text: Justin Chang of Variety gave A Girl Like Her a mixed review, lauding the film as a "well-acted, well-meaning cautionary tale", but also criticizing it as "less and less convincing the more blatantly it strives for authenticity".[1]

text: Sheri Linden of The Hollywood Reporter lauded the film's acting, noting that the "two young female leads, exceptionally well cast, deliver strong performances", but felt "the drama lapses into speechifying".[2]

text: Rotten Tomatoes gave it an overall rating of 65%. This included a few mixed reviews. One review declared it heartbreaking and emotional, but not that convincing as other movies about bullying. Another review had said, "A Girl Like Her unfolds with a clear-eyed approach to the subject - a drama that fleshes out the principals and shows, without excusing the bully, that pain is not the exclusive domain of the victim."


document_title: East County, San Diego

question_text: what cities are in east county san diego

text: East County, San Diego

text: Geography[edit]

text: East County does not have an official geographic definition. It commonly includes the four cities east of San Diego and South Bay—El Cajon, La Mesa, Santee, and Lemon Grove—as well as suburban unincorporated communities such as Lakeside, Spring Valley, Jamul, and Alpine. Many sources also include vast swathes of the backcountry of San Diego County also known as the Mountain Empire, including communities along Interstate 8 such as Pine Valley and Descanso, and communities along the rural section of California State Route 94 such as Potrero, Boulevard, and Jacumba.[1] Other sources consider communities within the entire eastern two-thirds of the county to be East County, thereby encompassing places like Ramona, Julian, and Borrego Springs,[2][3]  The Ramona urban area—Ramona, San Diego Country Estates and Barona Mesa—is often considered part of inland North County due to its association with Poway, Rancho Bernardo, Escondido and other North County Inland communities.[4]

text: The populace of East County primarily dwells in the interior valleys east of San Diego proper while some development encroaches the coastal foothills.

text: A broader definition of East County exists that includes the Cuyamaca Mountains, Laguna Mountains, and Palomar Mountain, as well as the desert area of Anza-Borrego State Park.[5] Yet, this definition, when used by SANDAG, excludes the East Suburban centers.[6]

text: Prominent geologic formations include El Capitan, a large dome-shaped mountain overlooking Santee and Lakeside.

text: Demographics[edit]

text: East County is the fourth most populous region in the San Diego metropolitan area, though its population is almost equivalent to that of South Bay.

text: Cities[edit]

text: Populations listed are 2010 Census populations

text: Incorporated[edit]

text:
El Cajon – 99,478
La Mesa - 54,749
Santee – 53,413
Lemon Grove – 25,320

text: Unincorporated CDPs[edit]

text:
La Presa – 34,169
Lemon Grove – 25,320 Spring Valley – 28,205
Rancho San Diego – 21,208
Lakeside – 20,648
Winter Gardens – 20,631
Casa de Oro-Mount Helix – 18,762
Bostonia – 15,379
Alpine – 14,236
Jamul – 6,163
Harbison Canyon – 3,841
Granite Hills – 3,035
Crest – 2,593

text: Education[edit]

text: Primary and secondary schools[edit]

text: East County is served by Santee School District, Grossmont Union High School District, Cajon Valley Union School District, Lakeside Union School District, Lemon Grove School District, and La Mesa-Spring Valley School District.

text: Colleges and universities[edit]

text: Grossmont College and Cuyamaca Community College are two community college's located in El Cajon. San Diego Christian College is located in Santee.

text: Landmarks[edit]

text: Important landmarks in East County included Gillespie Field, Old Poway Park, Poway Tony Gwynn Statue, El Capitan, Mt. Helix, Santee Lakes, Sweetwater Reservoir and Lake Cuyamaca.

text:
El Capitan

Sweetwater Reservoir


document_title: The Break Up (Glee)

question_text: who sings give your heart a break in glee

text: The Break Up (Glee)

text: Plot[edit]

text: In New York City, Rachel Berry (Lea Michele) reunites with her former fiancé, Finn Hudson (Cory Monteith), who has been discharged from the Army, and gives him a tour through the New York Academy of Dramatic Arts (NYADA), causing Finn to feel out of place. Meanwhile, in Lima, Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss), feeling neglected by his boyfriend, Kurt Hummel (Chris Colfer), who is busy with his work at Vogue.com, cheats on him. Finn and Blaine sing Duncan Sheik's "Barely Breathing" and Blaine, feeling guilty, decides to surprise Kurt by visiting him in New York City.

text: Finn, Rachel, Kurt and Blaine attend a local bar where NYADA students meet, and where Finn runs into Brody Weston (Dean Geyer). Suspicious of his and Rachel's relationship, Finn encourages them to sing Demi Lovato's "Give Your Heart a Break" together. They are followed by Blaine, who performs a heartfelt acoustic version of Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream." Outside, Finn and Kurt confront Rachel and Blaine, and Rachel admits to kissing Brody, while Blaine admits to cheating on Kurt, leading to them singing No Doubt's "Don't Speak" as they return to Rachel and Kurt's apartment.

text: The following day, Finn leaves without telling Rachel and returns to Lima, where he visits glee club director Will Schuester (Matthew Morrison) and breaks down in his arms. Finn is introduced to the new members of New Directions and suggests that they perform Grease for the school musical, which impresses Will. Will later tells Emma Pillsbury (Jayma Mays), that he has been accepted to the blue ribbon government panel to improve arts education nationwide, but that it requires him to move to Washington, D.C. for six months. Emma is reluctant to leave Lima for such a long time to accompany Will, and they argue, but do not break up.

text: Santana Lopez (Naya Rivera) visits her girlfriend, Brittany Pierce (Heather Morris), and learns that she joined a club created by cheerleader Kitty Wilde (Becca Tobin) to prepare for the rapture. Kitty's boyfriend, Jake Puckerman (Jacob Artist), invites Marley Rose (Melissa Benoist) to one of the meetings, but becomes disappointed when Kitty uses it to play a harmful prank on one of the members. Jake eventually decides to break up with Kitty after she mistreats Marley, but also ignores Marley's romantic advances.

text: Santana serenades Brittany with Taylor Swift's "Mine" and confides with Brittany that their relationship isn't working due to the long distance and her new priorities. She and Brittany break up, which leaves Brittany devastated. Blaine continuously attempts to contact Kurt, but Kurt won't communicate with him, and he becomes uncertain of where they're standing.

text: Rachel, having flown all the way to Lima, confronts Finn at the McKinley auditorium, where she calls him immature and a coward for hiding from her for months. She says she loves him, but states that she can't keep their current relationship up, and she breaks up with him despite Finn's claims that he was giving her freedom. She gives him a last kiss, and leaves. After she leaves, Finn performs Coldplay's "The Scientist" alone, and imagines that Rachel, Kurt, Blaine, Santana, Brittany, Will and Emma are there performing with him.

text: Production[edit]

text: In a July 2012 interview with E! News, Colfer elaborated in regard to the progression of the Kurt-Blaine relationship in the show's fourth season. Colfer said, "I would like to do something besides say 'I love you,' and I think Darren [Criss] and I agree on that. We're ready for the next step. They've been together for a while. Let's throw some spice and drama into that." Colfer quipped that he did not know what was in store for the couple, "I hear mixed things. I hear they're still together but then maybe they're breaking up."[1] In a September 2012 interview with the same publication, on whether the couple would breakup or not in the show's fourth season, Criss stated, "I don't know. We still have episodes to shoot." Criss ultimately echoed Colfer's sentiment, "We're like an old married couple now. Let's shake it up!"[2] Prior to the episode's debut, series co-creator Ryan Murphy dubbed it "the best episode we have ever done".[3]

text: Scenes from the episode were filmed on location in New York City the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2012, including the walk through the park for the song "Don't Speak".[4][5]

text: Recurring characters in this episode include McKinley guidance counselor Emma Pillsbury (Mays), glee club members Joe Hart (Samuel Larsen), Wade "Unique" Adams (Alex Newell), Marley Rose (Benoist) and Jake Puckerman (Artist), cheerleader Kitty (Tobin), NYADA junior Brody Weston (Geyer)[6] and Vogue.com employee Chase Madison (Dan Domenech).

text: Six songs are being released as singles, including Duncan Sheik's "Barely Breathing" performed by Criss and Monteith,[7] No Doubt's "Don't Speak" performed by Colfer, Criss, Monteith and Michele,[4][8] Coldplay's "The Scientist" performed by Monteith, Michele, Colfer, Criss, Rivera, Morris, Morrison and Mays,[9] Demi Lovato's "Give Your Heart a Break" performed by Michele and Geyer,[10] Taylor Swift's "Mine" performed by Rivera,[11][12] and an acoustic version of Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream" performed by Criss.[13]


document_title: History of the Food and Drug Administration

question_text: when was the food and drug administration established

text: Early history[edit]

text: Origins of federal food and drug regulation[edit]

text: Up until the 20th century, there were few federal laws regulating the contents and sale of domestically produced food and pharmaceuticals, with one exception being the short-lived Vaccine Act of 1813. A patchwork of state laws provided varying degrees of protection against unethical sales practices, such as misrepresenting the ingredients of food products or therapeutic substances. The history of the FDA can be traced to the latter part of the 19th century and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Division of Chemistry (later Bureau of Chemistry). Under Harvey Washington Wiley, appointed chief chemist in 1883, the Division began conducting research into the adulteration and misbranding of food and drugs on the American market. Although they had no regulatory powers, the Division published its findings from 1887 to 1902 in a ten-part series entitled Foods and Food Adulterants. Wiley used these findings, and alliances with diverse organizations such as state regulators, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, and national associations of physicians and pharmacists, to lobby for a new federal law to set uniform standards for food and drugs to enter into interstate commerce. Wiley's advocacy came at a time when the public had become aroused to hazards in the marketplace by muckraking journalists like Upton Sinclair, and became part of a general trend for increased federal regulations in matters pertinent to public safety during the Progressive Era.[1] The 1902 Biologics Control Act was put in place after diphtheria antitoxin was collected from a horse named Jim who contracted tetanus, resulting in several deaths. Much credit is given to the deaths of many people in the 1930s, including Eben Byers in 1932 from the ingestion of radithor and many women, some known as The Radium Girls, to making the FDA into the much more powerful organization we know today.[2][3][4][5]

text: The 1906 Food and Drug Act and creation of the FDA[edit]

text: In June 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the Food and Drug Act, also known as the "Wiley Act" after its chief advocate.[1] The Act prohibited, under penalty of seizure of goods, the interstate transport of food which had been "adulterated," with that term referring to the addition of fillers of reduced "quality or strength," coloring to conceal "damage or inferiority," formulation with additives "injurious to health," or the use of "filthy, decomposed, or putrid" substances. The act applied similar penalties to the interstate marketing of "adulterated" drugs, in which the "standard of strength, quality, or purity" of the active ingredient was not either stated clearly on the label or listed in the United States Pharmacopoeia or the National Formulary. The act also banned "misbranding" of food and drugs.[6] The responsibility for examining food and drugs for such "adulteration" or "misbranding" was given to Wiley's USDA Bureau of Chemistry.[1]

text: Wiley used these new regulatory powers to pursue an aggressive campaign against the manufacturers of foods with chemical additives, but the Chemistry Bureau's authority was soon checked by judicial decisions, as well as by the creation of the Board of Food and Drug Inspection and the Referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts as separate organizations within the USDA in 1907 and 1908 respectively. A 1911 Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1906 act did not apply to false claims of therapeutic efficacy,[7] in response to which a 1912 amendment added "false and fraudulent" claims of "curative or therapeutic effect" to the Act's definition of "misbranded." However, these powers continued to be narrowly defined by the courts, which set high standards for proof of fraudulent intent.[1] In 1927, the Bureau of Chemistry's regulatory powers were reorganized under a new USDA body, the Food, Drug, and Insecticide organization. This name was shortened to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) three years later.[8]

text: The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act[edit]

text: By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products which had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, the mascara Lash lure, which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law was unable to get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent. The only way that the FDA could even seize the product was due to a misbranding problem: an "Elixir" was defined as a medication dissolved in ethanol, not the diethylene glycol used in the Elixir Sulfanilamide. Had it been labeled a "solution" instead, it is argued, the agency could have done nothing to track down and confiscate what medication remained in the public's hands.[9]

text: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the new Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) into law on June 24, 1938. The new law significantly increased federal regulatory authority over drugs by mandating a pre-market review of the safety of all new drugs, as well as banning false therapeutic claims in drug labeling without requiring that the FDA prove fraudulent intent. The law also authorized factory inspections and expanded enforcement powers, set new regulatory standards for foods, and brought cosmetics and therapeutic devices under federal regulatory authority. This law, though extensively amended in subsequent years, remains the central foundation of FDA regulatory authority to the present day.[1]

text: Regulation of human drugs and medical devices after 1938[edit]

text: Early FD&C Act amendments: 1938–1958[edit]

text: Soon after passage of the 1938 Act, the FDA began to designate certain drugs as safe for use only under the supervision of a medical professional, and the category of "prescription-only" drugs was securely codified into law by the 1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment.[1] While pre-market testing of drug efficacy was not authorized under the 1938 FD&C Act, subsequent amendments such as the Insulin Amendment and Penicillin Amendment did mandate potency testing for formulations of specific lifesaving pharmaceuticals.[8] The FDA began enforcing its new powers against drug manufacturers who could not substantiate the efficacy claims made for their drugs, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in Alberty Food Products Co. v. United States (1950) found that drug manufacturers could not evade the "false therapeutic claims" provision of the 1938 act by simply omitting the intended use of a drug from the drug's label. These developments confirmed extensive powers for the FDA to enforce post-marketing recalls of ineffective drugs.[1] Much of the FDA's regulatory attentions in this era were directed towards abuse of amphetamines and barbiturates, but the agency also reviewed some 13,000 new drug applications between 1938 and 1962. While the science of toxicology was in its infancy at the start of this era, rapid advances in experimental assays for food additive and drug safety testing were made during this period by FDA regulators and others.[1]

text: Expansion of premarket approval process: 1959–1985[edit]

text: In 1959, Senator Estes Kefauver began holding congressional hearings into concerns about pharmaceutical industry practices, such as the perceived high cost and uncertain efficacy of many drugs promoted by manufacturers. There was significant opposition, however, to calls for a new law expanding the FDA's authority. This climate was rapidly changed by the thalidomide tragedy, in which thousands of European babies were born deformed after their mothers took that drug - marketed for treatment of nausea - during their pregnancies. Thalidomide had not been approved for use in the U.S. due to the concerns of an FDA reviewer, Frances Oldham Kelsey, about thyroid toxicity. However, thousands of "trial samples" had been sent to American doctors during the "clinical investigation" phase of the drug's development, which at the time was entirely unregulated by the FDA. Individual members of Congress cited the thalidomide incident in lending their support to expansion of FDA authority.[10]

text: The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment to the FD&C act represented a "revolution" in FDA regulatory authority.[11] The most important change was the requirement that all new drug applications demonstrate "substantial evidence" of the drug's efficacy for a marketed indication, in addition to the existing requirement for pre-marketing demonstration of safety. This marked the start of the FDA approval process in its modern form. Drugs approved between 1938 and 1962 were also subject to FDA review of their efficacy, and to potential withdrawal from the market. Other important provisions of the 1962 amendments included the requirement that drug companies use the "established" or "generic" name of a drug along with the trade name, the restriction of drug advertising to FDA-approved indications, and expansion of FDA powers to inspect drug manufacturing facilities.

text: These reforms had the effect of increasing the time required to bring a drug to market.[12] In the mid-1970s, 13 of the 14 drugs the FDA saw as most important to approve were on the market in other countries before the United States.[12]

text: One of the most important statutes in establishing the modern American pharmaceutical market was the 1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, more commonly known as the "Hatch-Waxman Act" after its chief sponsors. This act was intended to correct two unfortunate interactions between the new regulations mandated by the 1962 amendments, and existing patent law (which is not regulated or enforced by the FDA, but rather by the United States Patent and Trademark Office). Because the additional clinical trials mandated by the 1962 amendments significantly delayed the marketing of new drugs, without extending the duration of the manufacturer's patent, "pioneer" drug manufacturers experienced a decreased period of lucrative market exclusivity. On the other hand, the new regulations could be interpreted to require complete safety and efficacy testing for generic copies of approved drugs, and "pioneer" manufacturers obtained court decisions which prevented generic manufacturers from even beginning the clinical trial process while a drug was still under patent. The Hatch-Waxman Act was intended as a compromise between the "pioneer" and generic drug manufacturers which would reduce the overall cost of bringing generics to market and thus, it was hoped, reduce the long-term price of the drug, while preserving the overall profitability of developing new drugs.

text: The act extended the patent exclusivity terms of new drugs, and importantly tied those extensions, in part, to the length of the FDA approval process for each individual drug. For generic manufacturers, the Act created a new approval mechanism, the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), in which the generic drug manufacturer need only demonstrate that their generic formulation has the same active ingredient, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and pharmacokinetic properties ("bioequivalence") as the corresponding brand-name drug. This act has been credited with essentially creating the modern generic drug industry.[13]

text: FDA reforms in the AIDS era[edit]

text: Concerns about the length of the drug approval process were brought to the fore early in the AIDS epidemic. In the mid- and late 1980s, ACT-UP and other HIV activist organizations accused the FDA of unnecessarily delaying the approval of medications to fight HIV and opportunistic infections, and staged large protests, such as a confrontational October 11, 1988 action at the FDA campus which resulted in nearly 180 arrests.[14] In August 1990, Dr. Louis Lasagna, then chairman of a presidential advisory panel on drug approval, estimated that thousands of lives were lost each year due to delays in approval and marketing of drugs for cancer and AIDS.[15]

text: Partly in response to these criticisms, the FDA issued new rules to expedite approval of drugs for life-threatening diseases, and expanded pre-approval access to drugs for patients with limited treatment options.[16] The first of these new rules was the "IND exemption" or "treatment IND" rule, which allowed expanded access to a drug undergoing phase II or III trials (or in extraordinary cases even earlier) if it potentially represented a safer or better alternative to treatments currently available for terminal or serious illness. A second new rule, the "parallel track policy", allowed a drug company to set up a mechanism for access to a new potentially lifesaving drug by patients who for various reasons would be unable to participate in ongoing clinical trials. The "parallel track" designation could be made at the time of IND submission. The accelerated approval rules were further expanded and codified in 1992.[17]

text: All of the initial drugs approved for the treatment of HIV/AIDS were approved through accelerated approval mechanisms. For example, a "treatment IND" was issued for the first HIV drug, AZT, in 1985, and approval was granted just two years later in 1987.[18] Three of the first five drugs targeting HIV were approved in the United States before they were approved in any other country.[citation needed]

text: Challenges to FDA authority by states[edit]

text: In two instances, state governments have sought to legalize drugs which have not been approved by the FDA. Because federal law passed pursuant to Constitutional authority overrules conflicting state laws,[citation needed] federal authorities still claim the authority to seize, arrest, and prosecute for possession and sales of these substances, even in states where they are legal under state law.

text: The first wave was the legalization by 27 states of laetrile in the late 1970s. This drug was used as a treatment for cancer, but scientific studies both before and after this legislative trend found it to be ineffective.[19][20] Federal law enforcement prevented interstate shipment, making the drug infeasible to manufacture and sell. Further studies based on a Mexican formulation also showed no effectiveness in treating cancer, but did find that some patients experienced symptoms of cyanide poisoning. Though the political movement died out in the 1980s, FDA enforcement actions against laetrile purveyors continued into the 2000s.[20]

text: The second wave concerned medical marijuana in the 1990s and 2000s. Though Virginia passed a law with limited effect in 1979, a more widespread trend began in California in 1996. In 2009, the Obama Administration de-prioritized enforcement of federal law against patients using the drug in compliance with state law, but reversed this policy in 2011.[21] Recreational marijuana remains illegal (but not necessarily criminal) in all states and at the federal level, as of 2009.

text: Regulation of living organisms[edit]

text: With acceptance of premarket notification 510(k) k033391 in January 2004, the FDA granted Dr. Ronald Sherman permission to produce and market medical maggots for use in humans or other animals as a prescription medical device. Medical maggots represent the first living organism allowed by the Food and Drug Administration for production and marketing as a prescription medical device.

text: In June 2004, the FDA cleared Hirudo medicinalis (medicinal leeches) as the second living organism to be used as a medical devices.

text: Timeline of food and drug legislation[edit]

text: Most federal laws concerning the FDA are part of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,[22] (first passed in 1938 and extensively amended since) and are codified in Title 21, Chapter 9 of the United States Code. Other significant laws enforced by the FDA include the Public Health Service Act, parts of the Controlled Substances Act, the Federal Anti-Tampering Act, as well as many others. In many cases these responsibilities are shared with other federal agencies.

text: Important enabling legislation for the FDA includes:

text:
1902 – Biologics Control Act
1906 – Pure Food and Drug Act
1938 – Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
1944 – Public Health Service Act
1951 – 1951 Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act Amendments PL 82–215
1962 – 1962 Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act Amendments PL 87–781
1966 – Fair Packaging and Labeling Act PL 89–755
1976 – Medical Device Regulation Act PL 94–295
1987 – Prescription Drug Marketing Act
1988 – Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 PL 100–690
1990 – Nutrition Labeling and Education Act PL 101–535
1992 – Prescription Drug User Fee Act PL 102–571
1994 – Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
1997 – Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 105-115
2002 – Bioterrorism Act 107-188
2002 – Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA) PL 107-250
2003 – Animal Drug User Fee Act PL 108-130
2007 – Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
2009 – Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
2010 – FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
2012 – Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act


document_title: History of Olympia, Washington

question_text: when did olympia become the capital of washington

text: History of Olympia, Washington

text: Pre-European history[edit]

text: Olympia is situated at the extreme southern tip of Puget Sound on Budd Inlet. The site of Olympia was home to Lushootseed-speaking peoples for thousands of years. The abundant shellfish in the tideflats and the many salmon-spawning streams entering Puget Sound at this point made it a productive food-gathering area. Many tribes shared access to these resources, including Squaxin, Nisqually, Puyallup, Chehalis, Suquamish, and Duwamish. According to early settlers' accounts, natives called the present site of Olympia "Cheet Woot" or "Schictwoot", meaning "place of the bear."

text: European contact[edit]

text: The first recorded visit by Europeans was in 1792 when Peter Puget and a crew from the British Vancouver Expedition charted the site. In 1833, the Hudson's Bay Company established Fort Nisqually, a trading post at Sequalitchew Creek near present-day DuPont, Washington. As the fur trade declined, the HBC diversified, forming a subsidiary called Pugets Sound Agricultural Company and converted former trade posts including Fort Nisqually into working farms. The U.S. Exploring Expedition under Lt. Charles Wilkes explored the Puget Sound region in 1841. They camped near Fort Nisqually while they charted the area and named Budd Inlet after expedition member Thomas A. Budd.

text: Settlement[edit]

text: The first known European to reside at the future site of Olympia was Thomas K Otchin, an English Hudson Bay Company employee who took up a claim in 1841 but abandoned it by 1842.[1]

text: American settlers came to the area in the 1840s, drawn by the water-power potential of Tumwater Falls and established nearby "New Market," now known as Tumwater, the first American settlement on Puget Sound. The site was the northern end of the "Cowlitz Portage," the overland trail between the Cowlitz River and Puget Sound. In a time when water travel was the easiest form of transportation, Olympia's location on the north end of the main route through the area made it a crossroads for regional trade.

text: In 1846 Edmund Sylvester and Levi Lathrop Smith jointly claimed the land that now comprises downtown Olympia. Smith built his cabin and enclosed two acres for a garden and livestock near the current intersection of Capitol Way and Olympia Avenue. Smith's untimely death in 1848 left Sylvester the sole owner of the land on which he platted the future townsite. Early names for the settlement included "Smithfield" and "Smithter" in honor of Levi Smith. In 1853 the town settled on the name Olympia, at the suggestion of local resident Isaac N. Ebey, due to its view of the Olympic Mountains to the northwest.

text: At the request of the Hudson's Bay Company, French Catholic missionaries established Mission St. Joseph of Newmarket and school in the 1848 at Priest Point near the future townsite for the conversion of natives to Catholicism.

text: In 1851, the U.S. Congress established the Customs District of Puget Sound and Olympia became the official customs port of entry requiring all ships to call at Olympia first. In 1854, the customs house moved to Port Townsend at the entrance to Puget Sound to better monitor shipping activity. In 1852, Olympia became the county seat of the newly organized Thurston County which at the time was still part of Oregon Territory.

text: By the early 1850s American settlers began agitating to separate the area north of the Columbia River from Oregon Territory. The agitation resulted in Congress creating Washington Territory. Isaac I. Stevens served as its first governor. Upon his arrival in 1853, Stevens designated Olympia capital of the new territory. The first territorial legislature convened early in 1854 at the Parker and Colter store on Main Street (now Capital Way) between State Street and Olympia Ave. Olympia's Daniel Bigelow represented Thurston County in the first three legislatures. His family home still stands, now known as Bigelow House Museum, Olympia's oldest surviving home.

text: The city grew steadily until 1873, when the Northern Pacific Railroad building a line toward Puget Sound unexpectedly bypassed Olympia, choosing Tacoma as its west coast terminus. Alarmed by the loss of the railroad, Olympia residents set to work building their own rail connection to the main line at Tenino. Citizens formed a private corporation to raise money and build a connection. One of the early contributors was black businesswoman, Rebecca G. Howard, whose contribution of 80 acres of land was used by the committee to encourage like contributions. The corporation used both volunteer labor and contract Chinese workers to complete a narrow gauge line by 1878. The little railroad served as Olympia's only railroad connection until the Northern Pacific built a spur to Olympia in 1891.

text: After Washington achieved statehood in 1889, Olympia continued as the state's capital city. Construction of the current Washington State Capitol began in 1912, with the prominent Legislative Building, one of the largest in the nation, completed in 1928. The building's dome is the fourth largest free-standing masonry dome in the world.

text: Aside from its role as the seat of state government, Olympia was a fairly typical Pacific Northwest town. Early on, extraction industries such as logging and oystering were the basis of much of the economy. By the twentieth century, sawmilling, fruit canning, and other industrial concerns comprised its economic base. Olympia also served as a shipping port for materials produced from the surrounding countryside, including sandstone, coal, and agricultural products.

text: Olympia is often associated with the Olympia Brewing Company, which from 1896–2003 brewed Olympia Beer, even though the brewery was actually located in Tumwater. The Olympia Brewing Company began producing beer in 1896 at a site along the Deschutes River and continued until Prohibition. After Prohibition ended, a new brewery was erected just upstream from the original site. This brewery was eventually purchased by SABMiller and closed on July 1, 2003.

text: Scandinavian immigrants founded two cooperative plywood mills after World War I. During World War I and World War II, there were also increased influxes of workers attracted by wartime industries including shipbuilding.

text: Periodic earthquakes affect the Olympia area. The 1949 earthquake damaged many historic downtown buildings beyond repair, and they were demolished. Others were retrofit with new facades to replace the damaged Nineteenth century wood and glass storefronts. Subsequently, much of Olympia's downtown reflects mid-twentieth-century architectural trends. Olympia also suffered significant damage from the 1965 Puget Sound and 2001 Nisqually earthquakes. It was the closest major city to the epicenter of the 2001 event.

text: Since the 1960s Olympia has lost much of its earlier waterfront industry, including lumber and plywood mills, shipbuilding, power pole manufacture and other concerns. While the shipping port and log staging area remains, Olympia's waterfront area has gentrified since the 1980s.

text: In 1967, the state legislature approved the creation of The Evergreen State College near Olympia, mostly due to the efforts of progressive Republican Governor Daniel J. Evans. Evans later served as president of the college, leaving Evergreen in 1983 when he was appointed to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson's death.

text: Because of the college's presence, Olympia has become a hub for artists and musicians (many of whom have been influential in punk, post-punk, anti-folk, lo-fi and other music trends (see Olympia music scene)). In 2003 Outside Magazine named Olympia one of the best college towns in the nation for its vibrant downtown and access to outdoor activities.[2]

text: Olympia is a regional center for social justice and environmental activism. Olympia was the hometown of activist Rachel Corrie. Olympia has been the site of direct-action opposition to the Iraq War.[3]

text: Olympia hosts the state's largest annual Earth Day celebration, Procession of the Species, a community arts-based festival and parade. Also popular is the Olympia farmer's market,[4] the second largest in Washington State, as well as the locally based Olympia Food Co-op.[5]

text: Olympia based independent media outlets, such as: KAOS FM 89.3, Free Radio Olympia 98.5 FM,[6] and Olyblog[7] as well as independent publications, such as Works in Progress,[8] keep local residents informed.


document_title: Right to privacy

question_text: where is the right to privacy found in the constitution

text: Right to privacy

text: Background[edit]

text: State of consideration of constitutional laws and acts formed by sectors and sections

text: Privacy uses the theory of natural rights, and generally responds to new information and communication technologies. In the United States, an article in the December 15, 1890 issue of the Harvard Law Review, written by attorney Samuel D. Warren and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, entitled "The Right to Privacy", is often cited as the first implicit declaration of a U.S. right to privacy. Warren and Brandeis wrote that privacy is the "right to be let alone", and focused on protecting individuals.  This approach was a response to recent technological developments of the time, such as photography, and sensationalist journalism, also known as "yellow journalism".[4]

text: Privacy rights are inherently intertwined with information technology. In his widely cited dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States (1928), Brandeis relied on thoughts he developed in his 1890 article The Right to Privacy. But in his dissent, he now changed the focus whereby he urged making personal privacy matters more relevant to constitutional law, going so far as saying "the government [was] identified...as a potential privacy invader." He writes, "Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet." At that time, telephones were often community assets, with shared party lines and the potentially nosey human operators. By the time of Katz, in 1967, telephones had become personal devices with lines not shared across homes and switching was electro-mechanical. In the 1970s, new computing and recording technologies began to raise concerns about privacy, resulting in the Fair Information Practice Principles.

text: Definitions[edit]

text: In recent years there has been only few attempts to clearly and precisely define the "right to privacy". In 2005, students of the Haifa Center for Law & Technology asserted that in fact the right to privacy "should not be defined as a separate legal right" at all. By their reasoning, existing laws relating to privacy in general should be sufficient.[5] Other experts, such as William Prosser, have attempted, but failed, to find a "common ground" between the leading kinds of privacy cases in the court system, at least to formulate a definition.[5] One law school treatise from Israel, however, on the subject of "privacy in the digital environment," suggests that the "right to privacy should be seen as an independent right that deserves legal protection in itself." It has therefore proposed a working definition for a "right to privacy":

text: The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.[5]

text: An individual right[edit]

text: Alan Westin believes that new technologies alter the balance between privacy and disclosure, and that privacy rights may limit government surveillance to protect democratic processes. Westin defines privacy as "the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others". Westin describes four states of privacy: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, reserve.  These states must balance participation against norms:

text: Each individual is continually engaged in a personal adjustment process in which he balances the desire for privacy with the desire for disclosure and communication of himself to others, in light of the environmental conditions and social norms set by the society in which he lives.

text: Under liberal democratic systems, privacy creates a space separate from political life, and allows personal autonomy, while ensuring democratic freedoms of association and expression.

text: David Flaherty believes networked computer databases pose threats to privacy.  He develops 'data protection' as an aspect of privacy, which involves "the collection, use, and dissemination of personal information".  This concept forms the foundation for fair information practices used by governments globally.  Flaherty forwards an idea of privacy as information control, "[i]ndividuals want to be left alone and to exercise some control over how information about them is used".[7]

text: Marc Rotenberg has described the modern right to privacy as Fair Information Practices, "the rights and responsibilities associated with the collection and use of personal information". Rotenberg emphasizes that the allocation of rights are to the data subject and the responsibilities are assigned to the data collectors because of the transfer of the data and the asymmetry of information concerning data practices.[8]

text: Richard Posner and Lawrence Lessig focus on the economic aspects of personal information control.  Posner criticizes privacy for concealing information, which reduces market efficiency.  For Posner, employment is selling oneself in the labour market, which he believes is like selling a product. Any 'defect' in the 'product' that is not reported is fraud.[9] For Lessig, privacy breaches online can be regulated through code and law.  Lessig claims "the protection of privacy would be stronger if people conceived of the right as a property right", and that "individuals should be able to control information about themselves".[10]  Economic approaches to privacy make communal conceptions of privacy difficult to maintain.

text: A collective value and a human right[edit]

text: There have been attempts to reframe privacy as a fundamental human right, whose social value is an essential component in the functioning of democratic societies.[11] Amitai Etzioni suggests a communitarian approach to privacy.  This requires a shared moral culture for establishing social order.[12] Etzioni believes that "[p]rivacy is merely one good among many others",[13] and that technological effects depend on community accountability and oversight.  He claims that privacy laws only increase government surveillance.[14]

text: Priscilla Regan believes that individual concepts of privacy have failed philosophically and in policy.  She supports a social value of privacy with three dimensions: shared perceptions, public values, and collective components.  Shared ideas about privacy allows freedom of conscience and diversity in thought.  Public values guarantee democratic participation, including freedoms of speech and association, and limits government power.  Collective elements describe privacy as collective good that cannot be divided.  Regan's goal is to strengthen privacy claims in policy making: "if we did recognize the collective or public-good value of privacy, as well as the common and public value of privacy, those advocating privacy protections would have a stronger basis upon which to argue for its protection".[15]

text: Leslie Regan Shade argues that the human right to privacy is necessary for meaningful democratic participation, and ensures human dignity and autonomy.  Privacy depends on norms for how information is distributed, and if this is appropriate. Violations of privacy depend on context.  The human right to privacy has precedent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Shade believes that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.[16]

text: Universal Declaration of Human Rights[edit]

text: A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

text: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

text: Privacy laws in different countries[edit]

text: United States[edit]

text: Although the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment.[17] This right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education, Griswold v. Connecticut, where a right to privacy was first established explicitly, Roe v. Wade, which struck down a Texas abortion law and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy.

text: The 1890 Warren and Brandeis article "The Right To Privacy" is often cited as the first implicit declaration of a U.S. right to privacy.[4]  This right is frequently debated. Strict constructionists[who?] argue that  such right exists (or at least that the Supreme Court has more jurisdiction to protect such a right), while some civil libertarians[who?] argue that the right invalidates many types of currently allowed acts not to be surveillance (wiretaps, public cameras film industry, etc.).

text: Most states of the United States[who?]also grant a right to privacy and recognize four torts based on that right:

text:
Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs;
Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts;
Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; and
Appropriation of name or likeness.

tag: ol

text: The 4 privacy torts above were introduced by William Prosser, some even argue this in addition to the "right to privacy" by Warren and Brandeis form the basis for modern U.S. privacy legislation.

text: Also, in some American jurisdictions the use of a person's name as a keyword under Google's AdWords for advertising or trade purposes  without the person's consent[18]  has raised certain personal privacy concerns.[19]

text: Right to privacy and social media content laws have been considered and enacted in several states, such as California’s “online erasure” law protecting minors from leaving a digital trail. However, the United States is still far behind that of European Union countries in protecting privacy online. For example, the “right to be forgotten” ruling by the EU Court of Justice protects both adults and minors.[20]

text: On March 11, 2015, Intelligence Squared US, an organization that stages Oxford-style debates, held an event centered on the question, "Should the U.S. adopt the 'Right to be Forgotten' online?" The side against the motion won with a 56% majority of the voting audience.[21]

text: India[edit]

text: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, ruled on August 24, 2017 that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right for Indian citizens under the Constitution of India (mostly under Article 21 and additionally under Part III rights). Thus no legislation passed by the government can unduly violate it. Specifically, the court adopted the three-pronged test required for encroachment of any Article 21 right – legality-i.e. through an existing law; necessity, in terms of a legitimate state objective and proportionality, that ensures a rational nexus between the object of the invasion and the means adopted to achieve that object. This clarification was crucial to prevent the dilution of the right in the future on the whims and fancies of the government in power.[22] This ruling by the supreme Court will open debate about the scrapping of the archaic section 377, that criminalizes Homosexual acts of union.[23] India is the world’s biggest democracy and with this ruling, it has joined United States, Canada, South Africa, the European Union and the UK in recognizing this fundamental right.[24]

text: The new data sharing policy of Whatsapp with Facebook after Facebook acquired Whatsapp in 2014 has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must decide if the right to privacy can be enforced against private entities.[25]

text: Journalism[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: It is often claimed, particularly by those in the eye of the media, that their right to privacy is violated when information about their private lives is reported in the press.  The point of view of the press, however, is that the general public have a right to know personal information about those with status as a public figure.  This distinction is encoded in most legal traditions as an element of freedom of speech.

text: Mass surveillance and privacy[edit]

text: Governmental organizations such as the NSA, CIA, and GCHQ amongst others conduct mass surveillance throughout the world. Programs such as PRISM, MYSTIC, and other operations conducted by NATO-member states are capable of collecting a vast quantity of metadata, internet history, and even actual recordings of phone calls from various countries. The existence of programs is justified by their conductors in terms of supposed benefits for defense and law enforcement, however this is also in conflict with the right to privacy established under various treaties, constitutions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The argument in favor of privacy has therefore come under a larger opposition to intelligence operations carried out for political purposes, and has become a contentious issue since it undermines the perceived need of nations to spy on the general population in order to maintain their power structures.

text: Support[edit]

text:
The right to privacy is alluded to in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[27] The logical extension of the amendment to digital properties would make sense since if the internet had existed when it was written, digital documents would have been considered more important than the literal "papers" mentioned in the text.
Privacy helps to avoid unwanted and potentially intrusive interference in an individual's personal affairs.
Privacy is one of the rights that were absent in the society in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Without privacy, there would be nothing to stop a Big Brother-like entity from taking control of every aspect of life.

text: Opposition[edit]

text:
In 1999, during a launch event for the Jini technology, Scott McNealy, the chief executive officer of Sun Microsystems, said that privacy issues were "a red herring" and then stated "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."[28]
The nothing to hide argument states that government data mining and surveillance programs do not threaten privacy unless they uncover some illegal activities and those committing such activities do not have the right to keep them private. One who supports this argument may state, "I've got nothing to hide" thus, not opposing data mining and surveillance.[29]
In wake of the Snowden scandal, governments have claimed that there is an existential terrorist threat that overrides the so-called right to privacy.