text:
Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola

Don Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola y Pedrueca or Marcelino de Sautuola was a Spanish jurist and amateur archaeologist who owned the land where the Altamira cave was found.

Altamira cave
The Altamira cave, now famous for its unique collection of prehistoric art, was well known to local people, but had not been given much attention until 1868, when it was "discovered" by the hunter Modesto Cubillas Pérez.

Sautuola started exploring the caves in 1875. He did not become aware of the paintings until 1879, when his eight-year-old daughter María noticed that the ceiling was covered with images of bison. Sautuola, having seen similar images engraved on Paleolithic objects displayed at the World Exposition in Paris the year before, rightly assumed that the paintings might also date from the Stone Age. He therefore engaged an archaeologist from the University of Madrid to help him in his further work.

Publication
Professor Juan Vilanova y Piera supported Sautuola's assumptions, and they published their results in 1880, to considerable public acclaim. In contrast, the scientific establishment of his day was reluctant to accept the presumed antiquity of the paintings. The French specialists, led by their guru Gabriel de Mortillet, were particularly adamant in rejecting the hypothesis of Sautuola and Piera and their findings were loudly ridiculed at the 1880 Prehistorical Congress in Lisbon. Due to the supreme artistic quality, and the exceptional state of conservation of the paintings, Sautuola was even accused of forgery. A fellow countryman maintained that the paintings had been produced by a contemporary artist, on Sautuola's orders.

During the next 20 years, several other findings of prehistoric paintings made the Altamira-paintings more plausible, and mainstream scientists retracted their opposition to the Spaniards. In 1902, the respected French archaeologist Émile Cartailhac, who had been one of the leading critics, emphatically admitted his mistake in the article, "Mea culpa d'un sceptique", published in the journal L'Anthropologie.

Legacy
Sautuola had died fourteen years before Cartailhac's apology, and did not live to enjoy the restitution of his honour or the later scientific confirmation of his premonitions. Modern dating techniques have since confirmed that the paintings of the Altamira cave were created over extended periods, ranging from 20,000 and 40,000 years ago. For the study of Paleolithic art, Sautuola's discoveries must now be considered pivotal.

Family
Sautuola's daughter later married into the Botín family of Cantabrian bourgeoisie. The current owners of Banco Santander are Sautuola's descendants.

title: Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola


text:
Talk:Society of Saint Pius X

Membership
Is there any reliable citations or sources to back up the SSPX membership figuers? In this source the SSPX claims that 11 new priest were ordained and thousnads attended the ceremony, and in this it claims that over 170 people attended the most recent SSPX event. Of course both of these come from the SSPX's website and as thus is WP:PRIMARY and as a result should be taken with a grain of salt. Are there any third-party sources on the SSPX's membership? Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What I usually do in such cases is use the News tab on Google in hope of finding some articles on the ordinations, professions or whatnot. This is how I found sources to Sisters Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus, which I have expanded a bit. You will probably have to look through different languages and use a lot of filters. If you can’t find anything from the big ones there’s always local or regional news, Catholic news, trad news such as The Remnant (although I don’t know if they report about SSPX specifically, I don’t really read stuff from them) asf. I don’t think I personally have time to do the searching, sorry. But perhaps you could do it if you want. Cheers. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Saint Mary's Academy and College claims to have over 700 students enrolled as of 2008. Given that the SSPX is attributed to have about 1,000 members in this article, I find that rather doubtful as the actual number is much higher. Both the SSPX and the PFSP usually claim to ordain around 10 men every year. That being said, not everyone who attends a school run by the SSPX or attends mass at an SSPX-run parish considers themself a member of the SSPX, and might just identify as a traditional Catholic or just Catholic. Thus it will probably be hard to come up with any reliable concrete numbers besides the sats that the SSPX itself publishes. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SSPX and the others are priestly societies, and do not have lay members such as the people who attend their Masses and events. The only people counted in SSPX memberships are the ones who have been ordained and incardinated with them. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I overlooked that, thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Allies and supporters
It would be good to add information about Bishop Vigàno and Athanasius here. Eaden (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Section Needs Work: Lifestyle and clothing amongst SSPX adherents
I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is. There's a quote by a former SSPX member complaining about female attire, and then an anecdote about a mothers in skirts. Can we either get a fuller section that gives a more holistic view of the topic or consider scrapping this section? I am not convinced from reading this section how or if people whom attend the SSPX can be said to be distinct in any particular way. --Valepio (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is worth keeping because there is a difference, which the citations show. You probably have never visited an SSPX Mass Center then nor attended any conferences of the SSPX. The difference between how those who are members of SSPX parishes versus those who attend the Novus Ordo is very noticeable. There is a reason that the SSPX tells its members to avoid attending Novus Ordo churches. If this group wasn't very different from the mainstream, SSPX clerics wouldn't be giving these admonitions. desmay (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Rank in size "if it were canonical"
Per WP:ABOUTSELF this claim is sourced to the WP:PRIMARY SSPX mouthpiece. It is a pointless claim; since SSPX is not canonically regular, they do not hold this distinction of size. Therefore it is inappropriate to place such a claim in the article. Apples should be measured against apples, not oranges. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Disagree. A counterfactual can be a striking way of making a point. Example: "If ex-Catholics constituted a denomination, it would be the second largest denomination in the US." MDJH (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Relative size of SSPX
This article has 2 different claims about the relative size of the SSPX. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede says: “In July 2022, the Society reached over 700 priestly members; following the Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines, and Augustinians, the SSPX would be the fifth largest religious congregation of ordained priests among its professed members.” The last sentence of the section entitled “SSPX today” says: “If the society's canonical situation were to be regularized, it would be the Church's 4th largest society of apostolic life (similar to a religious order, but without vows), according to the three criteria published annually in Annuario Pontificio.”

There are a number of problems with these claims:

1. The lede speaks of “the fifth largest religious congregation of ordained priests”, and “SSPX today” of the “4th largest society of apostolic life”. While the average person doesn't distinguish between kinds of “religious orders”, canon law distinguishes between institutes of consecrated life (where priests take vows) and societies of apostolic life (where priests live communally without vows). The lede seems to be talking about both kinds with its generic reference to “religious congregations”. If so, the claim is clearly false, since there are many institutes of consecrated life with more than 700 priests other than the 4 mentioned in the lede. Think Salesians of St John Bosco, Dominicans, Redemptorists, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Holy Ghost Fathers, Society of the Divine Word. The claim in “SSPX today” is more plausible since it is limited to societies of apostolic life.

2. Even if the claim in the lede was amended to limit it to societies of apostolic life, there would still be the discrepancy between “fourth largest” and “fifth largest”.

3. Both claims seem to be supported by a footnote, but when examined closely, neither footnote turns out to be about the size of the SSPX compared to other orders of priests. In other words, no evidence is offered in support of either claim. MDJH (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Correct; there is no support at all for these claims; I've removed them. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Society of Saint Pius X


text:
Thomaston

Thomaston is the name of several places in the United States of America:
 * Thomaston, Alabama
 * Thomaston, Connecticut, a New England town
 * Thomaston (CDP), Connecticut, the main village in the town
 * Thomaston, Georgia
 * Thomaston, Indiana
 * Thomaston, Maine, a New England town
 * Thomaston (CDP), Maine, census-designated place within the town
 * Thomaston, New York
 * Thomaston, Texas
 * South Thomaston, Maine

title: Thomaston


text:
Cross Island Parkway

The Cross Island Parkway is a controlled-access parkway in New York City and Nassau County, part of the Belt System of parkways running along the perimeter of the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. The Cross Island Parkway runs 10.6 mi from the Whitestone Expressway (Interstate 678 or I-678) in Whitestone past the Throgs Neck Bridge, along and across the border of Queens and Nassau County to meet up with the Southern State Parkway, acting as a sort of separation point which designates the limits of New York City. The road is designated as New York State Route 907A (NY 907A), an unsigned reference route, and bears the honorary name 100th Infantry Division Parkway.

The exit numbering is a continuation of the Belt Parkway, with exit numbers increasing north. At exit 25A (Southern State Parkway), the Cross Island Parkway becomes the Belt Parkway (more specifically, the section once known as the Laurelton Parkway). Before its exits were renumbered to align with the Belt Parkway, they were numbered to co-align with the Southern State Parkway, which is why that parkway begins with exit 13 (the Cross Island Parkway was once exits 1 to 12).

Route description
The Cross Island Parkway begins at an interchange with the Belt Parkway and the Southern State Parkway in the Cambria Heights section of Queens. A short distance after exit 25B, which serves Linden Boulevard, forks off the Cross Island. The parkway runs northward along the Queens-Nassau county line upon leaving the interchange, running between Cambria Heights in Queens and Nassau's town of Hempstead (Elmont and Bellerose Terrace) as it enters Belmont Park. In Belmont Park, the Cross Island enters exit 26A, the first of two gated-entrance exit ramps for Belmont Park parking lots. After crossing under Belmont Park Road, the parkway enters exit 26B, a partial cloverleaf interchange which serves NY 24 (Hempstead Avenue in Queens Village and Hempstead Turnpike in Elmont). Paralleling the race track, the Cross Island Parkway continues north, passing west of Belmont Park's Long Island Rail Road station, where southbound exit 26C forks to NY 24. Exit 26D is the final entrance ramp to Belmont Park and also provides access to UBS Arena and the Elmont Long Island Rail Road station.

After exit 26D, the Cross Island Parkway crosses under the Long Island Rail Road main line then Superior Road before crossing into the Nassau County hamlet of Bellerose Terrace. After the crossing, the parkway enters exit 27, a cloverleaf interchange with NY 25 (Braddock Avenue and Jericho Turnpike) and Jamaica Avenue before crossing back into Queens. A short distance later, the parkway enters exit 28A, serving NY 25B (Hillside Avenue) via a diamond interchange and exit 28B for Union Turnpike via a collector-distributor road. Now proceeding northwest, the Cross Island crosses under Union Turnpike and enters exit 29, a trumpet interchange with the Grand Central Parkway. After crossing under the multitude of lanes that make up the interchange and the Grand Central Parkway, the Cross Island Parkway crosses under Douglaston Parkway and enter Alley Pond Park. The Cross Island parallels the Douglaston Parkway northwest for a stretch, entering exit 30, a trumpet interchange with the Long Island Expressway (I-495) in Alley Pond Park. The parkway parallels Alley Creek as it bends further to the northwest, entering exit 31, a partial cloverleaf interchange with NY 25A (Northern Boulevard) and the Alley Pond Environmental Center. Past the junction, the highway continues on a northwestward track as it passes under the Port Washington Branch of the Long Island Rail Road and begins to run along the western edge of Little Neck Bay.

After a pedestrian crossover, the parkway passes a parking lot for Bayside Marina, accessible only via the parkway's northbound lanes. The Cross Island Parkway soon leaves the side of Little Neck Bay and passes south of Fort Totten Military Reservation. While south of Fort Totten, the parkway enters exit 32, a diamond interchange with Bell Boulevard. A short distance later, the parkway enters another diamond interchange, exit 33, this time for the Clearview Expressway (I-295) and the Throgs Neck Bridge. The northbound lanes also boast a ramp for Utopia Parkway (signed as exit 34). After crossing under Utopia Parkway, the Cross Island enters the Whitestone section of Queens, where southbound, an exit 34 serves 160th Street and Utopia Parkway.

Continuing west, the Cross Island Parkway crosses through Whitestone, crossing under Clintonville Street, 150th-149th Streets and 14th Avenue before entering exit 35 southbound, serving 14th Avenue and Francis Lewis Boulevard. After crossing under 147th Street, the parkway enters exit 36, a partial diamond interchange with the Whitestone Expressway (I-678), which proceeds north to the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge and southbound towards John F. Kennedy International Airport. This interchange also serves as the northern terminus of the Cross Island Parkway.

Design
The Cross Island Parkway was first proposed in 1930 by Robert Moses, President of the New York State Council of Parks, as part of a $20 million (1930 USD) plan to construct several parks and parkways throughout New York City. This proposal also included proposals for the Richmond Parkway and the corridor of the Grand Central Parkway. The proposal was held at the Hotel Commodore in Manhattan during the Park Association of New York City annual dinner, which had an attendance of 500 civic leaders. While the group accepted the idea, there were certain complaints about costs of the new projects, which were centered between Queens and Staten Island. The city had about $400 million in borrowing capacity, and that most of these projects should wait and be dealt with one at a time for funding by their importance.

The project for the Cross Island soon became the northernmost part of the 33 mi "Circumferential Parkway", a new roadway that would start at Owl's Head Park and run along the southern shores of Brooklyn and Queens. The Cross Island Parkway piece would begin at the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge (then under construction), cross through the neighborhoods of Whitestone, Bayside and Alley Park and run along the Nassau County border until reaching the Laurelton Parkway, which would connect the Cross Island and the Southern Parkway. In December 1937, Moses, now commissioner of the New York City Parks Department, recommended the Cross Island, along with the other parkways proposed in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and The Bronx would cost about $8,026,182 (1937 USD) to acquire land for and that it would erase numerous bottlenecks throughout the city.

In June 1938, the Regional Plan Association proposed 27 new parks throughout the city, including three that would serve the purpose of helping construct the Cross Island Parkway. The first, an approach to the Whitestone Bridge, the city had recently gotten control of, the second; a park along Little Bay, a section of the Long Island Sound that would also connect to the Clearview golf course. The final piece was a section near Willets Point that also included Little Bay, Little Neck Bay and connecting to Alley Park. The Regional Plan Association, in coordination with Moses, requested these new park ideas as urgent, and would help improve the parkway system through New York City.

The Circumferential Parkway, which would cost $28,5 million (1938 USD), was accepted on October 13, 1938; the State of New York and the city provided $16,5 million, while the other $12 million came from the Public Works Administration. The city could not take on any more debt to fund the project, leading the New York City controller to recommend that the parkway be delayed. To provide funding for the new parkway, money for a new courthouse for the Appellate Division had to be eliminated, along with subway improvements and additional funding from the 1939 capital budget. The borough of Manhattan paid 66% of the cost, while Queens and Brooklyn each paid 17%. The new parkway would help connect other transportation facilities throughout Brooklyn and Queens, and as a result, plans for a connection to South Brooklyn and the West Side and East Side Highways. The city also appropriated $3.327 million for the land acquisition for the new alignment, plus the engineering work. Moses notified the board that he had $5 million worth of contracts to let so that work could start as soon as possible. The board also accepted the $12 million federal contribution for the new project.

The name of the parkway system was changed in December 1938 from the "Circumferential Parkway" to the Belt Parkway, on request by Mayor of New York City Fiorello LaGuardia, who settled an argument of different names, one of which included using the last three letters of Brooklyn and the first three of Queens to make the Lynque Parkway. However, people felt that name was a bit too absurd and Moses and the city agreed to the new Belt name, and removed the former name due to many people who could not pronounce the former name. Another proposed name for the new roadway, among others, was suggested by LaGuardia, calling the road the Ringstrasse Parkway. The Queens section of the Belt Parkway was ultimately named Cross Island Parkway, usurping that name from the parallel Francis Lewis Boulevard.

Construction
Almost immediately after the parkway was approved by the city, bids were flowing in for new project contracts to construct the new parkways. The Belt system would be constructed via numerous contracts, which involved grading the new parkway, constructing bridges, and paving the new highway. 66 spans of bridges were going to be constructed for the entire system, with the section of the Cross Island Parkway between Fort Totten and the Whitestone Bridge approach being bid on by December 23, 1938. By this point, already seven contracts totaled at over $5 million (1938 USD). S.J. Grover and Sons, a firm based out of Ridgefield, New Jersey, got the contract for the 3 mi section. Just three days prior, the city got bids for grading the new parkway through Springfield, Queens, between Arthur Street and Brookville Boulevard, as well as a vehicular bridge over the Cross Island Parkway at Springfield Boulevard and 225th Street. The project went to Petracca and Banco of St. Albans.

In January 1939, the state government received bids for the construction of the interchange between the Whitestone and Cross Island parkways. On February 4, 1939, Governor of New York Herbert Lehman gave permission to let the city construct the Cross Island Parkway piece that crossed into Nassau County. Known as the Bennett-Numan Bill, the bill also required the city to maintain and enforce laws on the Nassau County portion of the new roadway. By February 1939, the project was already 26% along, with parts of the $6.1 million (1939 USD) section of the Belt Parkway system being completed, and eleven contracts had been awarded. On February 24, 1939, the city let a contract to National Excavation Corporation for construction of the Cross Island Parkway between Hillside Avenue and 91st Avenue in Queens.

The thirteenth contract of the project, let on March 10, would pave the Cross Island Parkway from Hempstead Turnpike to Linden Boulevard, a 1 mi long stretch in Queens, a new separation between 115th Avenue and one at Linden Boulevard. Good Roads Engineering and Contracting Company of Wantagh won the contract with a bid of $597,794. On March 21, 1939, bids were opened to construct three new bridges along the Cross Island Parkway in Whitestone; the Elmhurst Contracting Company of Corona received the contract. On March 22, the city offered a contract of the grade separation of the Cross Island Parkway over the Long Island Rail Road's Main Line and its spur to Belmont Park, along with separation for nearby Superior Road. The project also included paving of the Cross Island between Jamaica Avenue and Hempstead Avenue. The contract went to the National Excavation Corporation. The state also received bids for paving the Cross Island between 46th Avenue and the Grand Central Parkway; the low bidder for that contract was Andrew Weston Inc. By March 31, 1939, the twentieth contract for the system was let, constructing a new bridge for the Grand Central Parkway to cross over Winchester Boulevard and westbound Grand Central traffic over the Cross Island Parkway.

On June 13, 1939, bids for construction of the new interchange between the Laurelton Parkway, Southern State Parkway and construction of the new parkway between Linden Boulevard and 129th Avenue. Landscaping of the new parkway began around September, when topsoiling and gardening began between the Creedmore State Hospital and Laurelton Parkway. By December, 92% of the landscaping contracts had been announced, with the recent section between the Grand Central Parkway and Fort Totten.

Opening
While construction continued on the Belt Parkway system, including the Cross Island Parkway, construction was wrapping up on construction of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, which opened with a ceremony on April 29, 1939. LaGuardia and Moses both praised the construction of the Cross Island Parkway as the important part of the Whitestone side of the new bridge. By 1940, final bids on the new project were still coming in for the Belt Parkway projects, which included a contract let on April 17, 1940 for new fencing along the three parkways. Ross Galvanizing Works in Brooklyn won the contract for fencing between North Conduit Avenue and the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge along the Southern, Laurelton and Cross Island. On May 22, 1940, a contract was let to Frank Mascali and Sons, which paved, drained, filled and graded sections of the Cross Island Parkway between the Grand Central and the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge.

Two hundred construction workers formally toured the parkway on June 8, 1940. It was announced that the entire Belt Parkway system, 34.9 mi long, would open to traffic on June 29, 1940, with a ceremonial trip along the entire roadway. With a final total of nearly $30 million (1940 USD), the road was complete except for a portion between Plumb Island and Ocean Parkway near Coney Island. The due date on the Public Works Administration funding, set for June 30, 1940, was met, and the new parkway would have Moses, LaGuardia and the administrator of the PWA, John Carmody. The new parkway was groomed overnight by 1,700 workers to prepare for the opening. The general public was allowed to use the new parkway after the special dignitaries car had passed. The project also included the addition or renovation of several playgrounds and public parks, such as Crocheron Park.

Later years
In 1952, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority awarded a $920,000 contract to widen about 11 mi of the Cross Island Parkway from four to six lanes. As a result of this project, nearly all of the Belt Parkway system was six lanes wide, except for a four-lane section in Laurelton. The TBTA also installed overhead navigational signs at several interchanges in 1953.

The state announced a plan to renovate the Long Island Expressway (I-495) in the vicinity of Alley Pond Park and the Cross Island Parkway in 1995. In 2000, Pataki and New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani announced that the segment of I-495 near Alley Pond Park and the Cross Island Parkway, would be rebuilt at a cost of $112 million. Work started in August 2000 and was substantially completed by 2005. The project included the restoration of 12 acre within the park, as well as the construction of new ramps between I-495 and the Cross Island Parkway at exit 30. As part of the reconstruction, two cloverleaf ramps were replaced with flyovers; the shoulders in each direction were converted into travel lanes; and new collector-distributor ramps were installed on I-495 east of the Cross Island Parkway interchange.

Exit list
Exit numbers continue sequentially from those of the Belt Parkway.

title: Cross Island Parkway


text:
Talk:Scope

Untitled
True or false: one of these articles can be moved to Scope as the dominant meaning, just as Rome re-directs to Rome, Italy even though there exists Rome (disambiguation). 66.245.125.9 23:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Only one appears to me to be prominent enough for this, namely the Proctor and Gamble brand of mouthwash. However, Wikipedia is an international affair. I'm not convinced that it is enough of a worldwide product to warrant this. Thadius856 08:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scope


text:
Bennet C. Riley

Bennet C. Riley (November 27, 1787 – June 9, 1853) was the seventh and last military governor of California. Riley ordered the election of representatives to a state constitutional convention, and handed over all civil authority to a Governor and elected delegates at the end of 1849; the following year, California joined the U.S. as a state. He participated in the War of 1812 on Lake Ontario. He also served in the United States Army during the Seminole War in Florida, and Mexican–American War.

Early life and family
Riley was born to an Irish-Catholic couple, Bennet Riley and Susanna Ann Drury, in St. Mary's, Maryland, 1787. His father apprenticed him to a cobbler; later, he served as a foreman in a shoe factory. After his father's death in 1811, he signed up for service on a privateer.

Riley married Arabella Israel, of Philadelphia, on 9 November 1834, at the Jefferson Barracks, Lemay, Missouri. They had eight children: William Davenport Riley and Samuel Israel Riley, twins, died in Fort King, Florida, on 15 and 17 November 1841; Bennet Israel Riley, born 1835 in Massachusetts, served in the Navy and died aboard the war-sloop USS Albany (1846), which disappeared with all hands in September 1854; Mary, born 1836; Arabella I. Riley, 1837–1916) (never married); George, born 1838; and Edward Bishop Dudley Riley (1839–1918), whose military career was split between the Union and Confederate armies.

Ulysses S. Grant described Bennet Riley as "the finest specimen of physical manhood I had ever looked upon...6'2 (190 cm) in his stocking feet, straight as the undrawn [sic] bowstring, broad shouldered with every limb in perfect proportion, with an eagle and a step as light as a forest tiger." An accident or injury in his youth caused him to lose part of his palate, and he spoke with a hoarse voice.

Military career in the War of 1812
Riley volunteered for service in the War of 1812, and on 19 January 1813, he was appointed Ensign of Rifles. In March of the same year, he became a third lieutenant and in April 1814 a second lieutenant in the First Rifles. He saw action at Sackets Harbor, New York, in second of two battles for control of the shipyards on Lake Ontario. He gained a promotion to first lieutenant in March 1817. Riley was further advanced to captain in the 5th U.S. Infantry, and by 1821 he was transferred to the 6th U.S. Infantry.

Skirmish near the garrison of Ogdensburg
Benjamin Forsyth needed firewood for his barracks. Forsyth sent Bennet C. Riley with about a half dozen riflemen upriver to gather some wood in a boat. Riley and his men tried to stay by their side as close as possible and as stealthily as possible. But a group of British gunboats spotted Riley's boat crea and set upon them. Benjamin Forsyth and his riflemen rowed out on their boat providing sniper covering fire for Riley's crew. The British gunboats were held at bay as Riley and Forsyth both withdrew safely back to their fort in their boats.

Spearheading and raiding York
Benjamin Forsyth and Bennet C. Riley spearheaded a raid in York. It would be a massive large force of 1,700 regulars including riflemen in 14 armed vessels. Forsyth and Riley led the way with their riflemen at the front to make a beachhead. Forsyth, Riley, and the riflemen landed at the beach. The Americans engaged the British regulars, Indians, and Canadians who were trying to set up a defense. Forsyth, Riley, and their riflemen hid behind trees and logs and never exposed themselves except when they fired, squatting down to load their pieces, and their clothes being green they were well camouflaged with the bushes and trees. The place chosen by the Americans for landing was very advantageous for their troops, being full of shrubs and bushes. The Americans immediately covered and cut off the British-allied forces, with little or no danger to the Americans. The British and their allies, suffering many casualties, withdrew from the field. The Americans suffered moderate casualties from resistance from British-allied remnants, magazine explosion, or other circumstances. The American raid at York was successful, however it was not without some controversy. Even though the civilians were not harmed, many of their belongings were looted by the Americans and much private property was burned to the ground. This was in spite of the explicit instructions of the American commander, Pike (who was killed in this raid), not to loot or burn private property. The Americans, after conducting their raid, withdrew from York. Forsyth, Riley, and the rest of their riflemen also withdrew.

Capturing and interrogating prisoners
Riley, Forsyth, and their riflemen were performing paramilitary operations in British Canada in support of America's invasion. Riley and his riflemen were out patrolling and acting as sentries. They captured two Canadian teenage boys who were acting as spies. Riley brought them before Forsyth. Forsythe and Riley did not wish to kill these captured teenagers, as they were just young boys whom they had no intention of killing. Forsyth and Riley bluffed their captured prisoners into talking by pretending to threaten them with death. The ruse worked, and the boys told Forsyth of valuable intelligence about a blockhouse that was being built to contest the American advance. Then Forsyth and Riley released both teenagers. Forsyth sent Riley to inform the American generals of the blockhouse. After Riley informed the American generals, the American army easily overtook the blockhouse and routed the British-Canadian defenders.

Spearheading and besieging the British blockhouse Lacolle Mills
Benjamin Forsyth, Bennet C. Riley, and their riflemen spearheaded an attack on British-allied forces who were retreating back to a blockhouse. The main American army followed behind. The British and their allies fell back into their blockhouse. The British and their allies were deeply entrenched and fortified in their blockhouse. Riley, Forsyth, their riflemen, and the American army besieged the blockhouse with rifle/musket fire and artillery. But the British held them off to great effect. After a long siege, the American force withdrew.

Long-range patrol
Benjamin Forsyth, Bennet C. Riley, and 70 of their riflemen went out from their base from Chamberlain to patrol near the Canadian border. While the Americans were patrolling in a loose skirmishing V formation. Forsyth stopped his men and had a secret conversation with Riley. Forsyth whispered to Riley that he sensed that there were Indians and Canadians hiding in ambush. Forsyth commanded Riley to tell the rest of the riflemen to casually withdraw so as not to cause the Indians and Canadians to be eager to launch their ambush. Riley suggested to Forsyth that they should withdraw to a tavern on the outskirts of this town and take shelter in it. Riley explained that they could conduct sniper fire from within the cover of the tavern. While Riley and Forsyth were marching their column casually for ten minutes. The Canadian-Indian force caught up and opened fire. All 70 American riflemen opened a simultaneous volley fire killing or wounding many Canadians and Indians. The Americans retreated by leapfrogging. One group of riflemen would provide covering fire while one group of riflemen retreated. The American repeated this process until they reached the tavern. Riley, Forsyth, and all their riflemen went inside the tavern. The Americans sniped at the enemy from behind covered and concealed positions within the tavern. The Americans killed or wounded many Canadians and Indians. After this intense engagement, the enemy fully retreated. The Americans were victorious. One American rifleman was killed and some wounded. The Americans later withdrew back to American lines in Chamberlain.

Ambushing and killing an enemy leader
On August 10, 1814, Riley and a dozen American riflemen would conduct a mission behind enemy lines to kill or capture an enemy Canadian Indian tribal partisan leader named Captain Joseph St Valier Mailloux. Riley and his dozen riflemen infiltrated Odeltown in Canada silently. There was an enemy sentry. One of the American riflemen crept on the sentry and silently killed him with his tomahawk. Riley and his men hid the dead sentry's body. One of the American riflemen put on the dead sentry's uniform to trick captain Mailloux into a false sense of security when he came in to check on the sentry. The American rifleman disguised as the sentry stood guard while Riley and his other riflemen concealed themselves behind the bushes. Captain Mailloux came by and came closer to the sentry imposter to check up on him. Then Riley and his riflemen rose out of their concealment and demanded captain Mailloux to surrender. Captain Mailloux ran away. Riley's riflemen fired eleven shots hitting Mailloux eleven times. Mailloux was badly wounded. Riley and his riflemen carried Mailloux back to American lines in Chamberlain. The Americans tried to nurse Mailloux back to health, but Mailloux succumbed to his wounds and passed away.

Military operations against the Arikara Indians
The officer joined his superior, Colonel Henry Leavenworth, in an engagement against the Arikara Indians in August 1823. Riley was honored for ten years of faithful service by being promoted to brevet major on 6 August 1828, leading the first military escort along the Santa Fe Trail in 1829. Among those he escorted were Charles Bent, future first territorial Governor of New Mexico during the later Mexican-American War.

Seminole Wars
He had tenures as major in the 4th U.S. Infantry (1837) and lieutenant colonel, 2nd U.S. Infantry, beginning in December 1839. The Battle of Chokachotta in Florida took place on 2 June 1840. Colonel Riley was cited for bravery and good conduct during this engagement in the Seminole Wars. He gained the rank of Brevet Colonel in February 1844.

Mexican-American War
During the Mexican–American War, as colonel of the 2nd U.S. Infantry, Riley fought at the Siege of Veracruz and the Battle of Cerro Gordo, where he was cited for bravery. He was brevetted brigadier general and assumed command of the 2nd Brigade in David E. Twiggs's Second Division. He led his brigade at the Battle of Contreras and the Battle of Churubusco, where Winfield Scott gave him credit for the U.S. victory: Riley had discovered a way around the rear of Velencia's position. He was appointed brevet major general and fought at the Chapultepec. After the battle at Churubusco, he also presided over the courts-martial of 72 deserters of the so-called Saint Patrick's Battalion discovered hiding in the San Patricios convent; among them were John Murphy and John Riley. He was generally considered one of the ablest brigade commanders in the army during the war with Mexico.

Role in California statehood
After the war with Mexico, Riley served a brief stint at Fort Hamilton, in Brooklyn, New York, in 1848. In the years 1849 and 1850, General Riley commanded the Military Department in Upper California and exercised the duties of Provincial Governor: the inaction of Congress in deciding the issue of California statehood complicated his service. He relieved Bvt. Gen. Persifor Frazer Smith on 13 April 1849, as the Gold Rush worked into its most violent phase. In addition to the influx of prospectors seeking their fortunes, daily desertions of his own men rapidly depleted his troops. At the height of the Gold Rush, he had eight companies of infantry, two artillery, and two dragoons stretched between San Diego and San Francisco. When Congress refused to act on the statehood of California and New Mexico, he called for the election of civil officers to a de facto government. Consequently, the military authorities could not prevent the slaughter of California's native population, nor could they suppress the violence in the lawless gold camps. He relinquished all his civil power on 20 December 1849.

After his administrative service concluded on the Pacific, Riley was ordered to take command of a regiment on the Rio Grande. However ill-health prevented further service on his part. He returned to his home in Black Rock, near Buffalo, New York, where he died of cancer. General Riley died on Thursday evening, 09 June 1853, survived by his wife Arabella (who died on 12 February 1894) and four children. Riley is buried at Forest Lawn Cemetery, Buffalo.

Legacy
On 27 June 1853, Camp Center (Kansas Territory) was named Fort Riley in Bennet Riley's honor, even though he never served at the fort, and it was a cavalry post, while Riley's career was that of an infantryman. Riley County, Kansas is also named in his honor.

title: Bennet C. Riley


text:
Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement

The Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) is a preferential trade agreement between Australia and the United States modelled on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The AUSFTA was signed on 18 May 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2005.

History of the FTA
The U.S. first proposed a free trade agreement with Australia as far back as 1945. In more recent times, the prospect of an Australia-U.S. FTA was raised in the 1980s by the Hawke government. In 1991 U.S. president George H. W. Bush offered to begin FTA negotiation with Australia and New Zealand, but was turned down by Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating.

It was not until early 2001, after the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. and with John Howard in power in Australia, that an Australia-U.S. FTA finally began to take shape. In April 2001, President Bush signalled his interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia provided "everything is on the table". Following this, in 2004, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned a private consultancy – the Centre for International Economics (CIE) – to model the economic impacts of such an agreement. Negotiations for the FTA began in March 2003 and after six rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004, and signed off on by Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington in May 2004.

The FTA was ratified by the United States Congress with the passage of the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. It was passed by the House of Representatives on 14 July 2004 by a vote of 314–109 and by the Senate on 15 July 2004 by a vote of 80–16, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on 3 August 2004.

In Australia, the agreement's implementing legislation, the US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act 2004, was passed, with amendments, by the Senate on 13 August 2004. After some delay, the U.S. Administration accepted the amended Australian legislation as being consistent with implementation of the agreement.

The Agreement came into force in both countries on 1 January 2005.

Provisions of the FTA
The text of the Free Trade Agreement is divided into twenty-three sections, listed and summarized as follows:

Establishment of the free trade area and definitions
This chapter lays the framework for the FTA. It states that the provisions are consistent with the relevant sections of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Both GATT and GATS are documents created by World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and they lay the boundaries for subsequent bilateral agreements such as the Australian-U.S. FTA.

The chapter also sets definitions to be used throughout the agreement in order to assure uniformity.

National treatment and market access for goods
Chapter two of the FTA lays out conditions for what types of goods are subject to non-discriminatory treatment. Certain types of goods are fully applicable to the agreement immediately and some are phased in over a period of years or temporarily applicable.

The chapter also reminds the two countries that they must abide by the WTO rules applying what is called national treatment. "National treatment" means that each country will provide the same treatment to imported goods from the other country as if they were domestically produced goods.

Finally, the chapter established a Committee on Trade in Goods with the purpose of providing arbitration for each country to "raise issues of concern in relation to tariffs, non-tariff measures, rules of origin and customs administration."

Agriculture
The agriculture section of the agreement outlines the system for eliminating most tariffs for agriculture products being traded between the two countries. It also agrees to eliminate export subsidies when the good in question is being exported to one of the two party countries.

Special tariff-rate quotas are part of the agreement. These quotas allow Australian producers to export increasing amounts of these products free of duty to the United States during the tariff elimination period. The following agricultural products are designated:

 * Beef
 * Dairy
 * Tobacco
 * Cotton
 * Peanuts
 * Avocados

The quota systems vary for the different products and are outlined, in detail, in this section.

The section also sets up a Committee on Agriculture with the purpose of providing "a formal opportunity for Australia and the United States to discuss a wide range of agricultural issues relevant to the Agreement, including trade promotion activities; barriers to trade; and consultation on the range of export competition issues."

Finally, the two countries have committed to working with the WTO on a multilateral scale to eliminate export subsidies to other WTO member countries.

Textiles and apparel
Chapter four deals with the trade of textiles and apparel between the two party countries. The bulk of this section outlines the rules of origin provisions with regard to textile goods and safeguarding the domestic markets of the two countries. The agreement provides a mechanism to institute emergency action should the sudden increase in imports due to the reduction of tariffs lead to detrimental effects on the domestic industry of the importing country.

In addition, this section details the cooperation of Customs authorities for ensuring that the rules of the agreement are carried out and outlines possible actions which can be taken if the exporting country appears to be acting in bad faith.

Rules of origin
The rules of origin section outlines the rules for determining the origin of the goods being traded in order to establish eligibility and also the method to determine the value of the goods traded.

For the purposes of the FTA, this section defines an originating good as those that:

 * are wholly obtained or produced entirely in the country, such as minerals extracted there, vegetable goods harvested there, and live animals born and raised there;
 * are produced in the country wholly from originating materials; or
 * are produced in the country partly from non-originating materials.

The section also outlines supporting documentation and verifications that the goods being traded are, indeed, originating in the exporting country, as defined by the agreement. The responsibility for verification of the applicable conditions is given to the importer. Denial of preferential treatment and penalties may apply if proper verification is not provided by the importer upon request made by the importing country.

Customs administration
This section outlines the requirements of the customs authorities to:

 * 1) promptly publish law, regulations, guidelines and administrative rulings,
 * 2) administer customs laws in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner,
 * 3) provide advance rulings on tariff classifications and rules of origin within a given period of time,
 * 4) provide some sort of administrative body to review customs determinations,
 * 5) cooperate with each other on all reasonable matters, especially those involving suspicion of illegal activity,
 * 6) protect the confidentiality of information provided in cooperation with other customs authorities,
 * 7) impose their respective penalties for violations of customs laws and regulations,
 * 8) promptly release goods consistent with ensuring compliance with customs laws,
 * 9) apply risk management systems to concentrate on high-risk areas and facilitate low-risk areas, and,
 * 10) maintain expedited procedures with respect to express shipments.

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
In conjunction with the existing WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, this section sets up two committees to ensure that the SPS agreement provisions are followed.

 * Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters (provided with a mandate for "increasing the mutual understanding of the SPS measures and regulatory processes of each Party as well as continuing the cooperative efforts of the Parties internationally")
 * Standing Working Group on Animal and Plant Health (to help with the resolution of specific animal and plant health matters with the goal of resolving the problems with the least adverse effect on trade as possible)

Technical barriers to trade
This section acknowledges the rights and obligations of Australia and the United States to each other with respect to combating barriers to trade. These rights and obligations were laid out by the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which deals with standards, regulations, and conformity assessments, among other things.

Most of the section is language from both countries agreeing to share information on several levels of government regulation. They agree to attempt to accept each other's regulations and publish such rules and regulations in a timely manner in order to ensure transparency.

Safeguards
The goal of the safeguards section of the agreement is to lay out an agreed upon structure to guard against severe adverse effects to each countries domestic industries during the transition period after lifting tariffs. The countries also agree to consider the exclusion from the application of global WTO safeguards imports from the other country where those imports are not a substantial cause of the injury to the domestic industry.

Cross-border trade in services
Section 10 of the FTA gives clear meaning to the phrase "cross-border trade in services" and provides suppliers with an open environment in which to conduct their business. It requires that each country give the other's service suppliers national treatment or most-favored-nation treatment and prohibits many restrictions to market access and transfers.

Investment
The investment chapter of the FTA provides clear definitions as to what investments are covered and gives cross-border investors assurances in order to make it as safe as if they were investing in their own country. Among other things, the section prohibits each country from imposing or enforcing any of the following requirements in relation to an investment in its territory:

 * to export a given level or percentage of goods or services;
 * to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content;
 * to purchase, use, or accord a preference to goods produced in its territory, or to purchase goods from persons in its territory;
 * to relate in any way the volume or value of imports to the volume or value of exports or to the amount of foreign exchange inflows associated with an investment;
 * to restrict sales of goods or services in its territory that an investment produces or supplies by relating such sales in any way to the volume or value of its exports or foreign exchange earnings;
 * to transfer a particular technology, a production process, or other proprietary knowledge to a person in its territory; or
 * to supply exclusively from its territory the goods that an investment produces or the services it supplies to a specific regional market or to the world market.

Telecommunications
This section details agreed upon terms by both countries to assure fair trade between the telecommunications industries in each country. The rules specifically exclude measures relating to broadcast or cable distribution of radio or television programming.

Among other provisions, the agreement lays out rules for settling disputes among the members of the telecommunications industries in one country with the members in the other. It entitles enterprises to:

 * seek timely review by a regulator or court to resolve disputes;
 * seek review of disputes regarding appropriate terms, conditions, and rates for interconnection; and
 * to obtain judicial review of a determination by a regulatory body.

Financial services
This chapter is concerned with ensuring a non-discriminatory environment with regard to financial services. The section defines financial services as "all insurance and insurance-related services, and all banking and other financial services, as well as services incidental or auxiliary to a service of a financial nature."

The section further lays out the scope of its application as it applies to measures by either country that affect:

 * financial institutions located in the territory of that country that are controlled by persons of the other country;
 * investors of the other country who have invested in financial institutions located in that country;
 * the investments of investors of the other country in financial institutions located in that country; and
 * cross-border trade in financial services by service suppliers of the other country.

Competition-related matters
The parties agreed to minimise obstacles to the operation of each other's competition and consumer protection policies. Australia agreed that its governments at all levels would not provide any competitive advantage to any government businesses simply because they are government-owned. This provision is consistent with existing provisions of Australia's National Competition Policy

Government procurement
Subject to some exceptions, and the non-participation of some US states, the agreement required, in government and government agency procurement, that each party should accord to the other treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded to domestic goods, services and suppliers.

Electronic commerce
The parties agreed to co-operate on mechanisms to facilitate electronic commerce, not to impose customs duties on digital products and for each to apply non-discriminatory treatment to the digital products of the others.

Intellectual property rights
Australia agreed to extend its copyright expiration period from 50 to 70 years after the author's death where copyright is calculated on the basis of the life of a natural person, and 70 years after the first performance or publication in other cases.

The agreement expands the rights of patent holders.

The agreement requires legal enforcement of digital rights management systems, however an Australian legislative committee has issued a report stating that this portion of the treaty has a "significant flaw": while the agreement provides permitted exceptions allowing the use of copyright access circumvention devices, it also disallows access to the tools used for such circumvention. The report goes on to term it a "lamentable and inexcusable flaw", an "egregious flaw", and even a "flaw that verges on absurdity". The committee expressed the strong view that the Government must find a solution to the flaw before implementing this portion of the treaty.

Labour
Chapter 18 of the Agreement deals with labour, and is largely confined to general statements of principle. The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and their commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up (1998) (ILO Declaration). The Agreement recognizes the right of each Party to establish its own labour standards, and to adopt or modify accordingly its labour laws, and states that each Party shall strive to ensure that its laws provide for labour standards consistent with the internationally recognised labour principles

Environment
Chapter 19 responds to concerns that parties may seek to gain trade advantages by relaxing environmental laws.

Article 19.2 states that "The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protections afforded in their respective environmental laws."

Accordingly, each Party shall strive to ensure that it does not waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, such laws in a manner that weakens or reduces the protections afforded in those laws as an encouragement for trade with the other Party, or as an encouragement for the establishment, acquisition, expansion, or retention of an investment in its territory.

Transparency
Chapter 20 requires that:

Each Party shall ensure that its laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings of general application respecting any matter covered by this Agreement are promptly published or otherwise made available in such a manner as to enable interested persons and the other Party to become acquainted with them.

and that

Each Party shall maintain judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or procedures for the purpose of the prompt review20-2 and, where warranted, correction of final administrative actions regarding matters covered by this Agreement.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
See Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

U.S. attitudes to the FTA
After the FTA was signed, there were initially concerns that the American agricultural sector would lobby against the agreement, due to a fear that it could interfere with the government's farm subsidies program. However, the agreement, with time limits on importation of Australian agricultural products such as beef and sugar cane managed to allay the concerns of the American agricultural market (while greatly frustrating many Australian producers).

A coalition of trade unions and other groups did speak out against the agreement on the basis that it would cause similar problems to those experienced by NAFTA.

More substantial lobbying was undertaken by American pharmaceutical companies, who were concerned about the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. See below.

American manufacturing lobbies strongly supported the FTA.

On 15 July, both houses of the United States Congress gave strong support to the FTA. The agreement was also supported by Democratic Party Presidential nominee John Kerry.

Additionally, labour groups expressed concern regarding the agreement. In a report to the USTR office, the Labor Advisory Committee (LAC) recommended that Congress reject the U.S.-Australia FTA because they believed the agreement failed to meet congressional negotiating objectives.

Support
The agreement became a major political issue leading up to the 2004 Elections. After a protracted period of negotiation under Howard government Trade Minister Mark Vaile, the agreement was strongly supported by the Howard government as an enormous potential gain to the Australian economy and as essential to the continuation of the U.S.-Australia alliance.

The government relied on estimates of the economic benefits of the FTA computed by the Centre for International Economics, a consultancy group. The leading group supporting the FTA was called Austa. Austa's arguments focused on the dynamic benefits of integration with the U.S. economy.

Opposition
Criticisms of the FTA appeared from a number of sources and on a number of grounds:

Trade diversion
Economic theory suggests that bilateral agreements like the FTA will lead to trade creation between the parties directly involved, but will also cause trade diversion from third countries, offsetting any benefits. Bilateral agreements may also undermine multilateral agreements such as those associated with the World Trade Organization. Partly as a result of these factors, the estimates of benefits produced by the CIE and relied on by the government were disputed by most economists who made submissions to the Senate Committees inquiring into the topic, some of whom concluded that the agreement would reduce Australia's economic welfare.

Intellectual property
The provisions of the AUSFTA in Ch 17 required Australia to offer stronger protection to American intellectual property. In particular, the minimum term of copyright was extended to 70 years after the author's death. Most economists and others interested in intellectual property issues regarded this as undesirable. A number of prominent American economists took the same view in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft.

Other key changes included:

 * special copyright term extension for photographs
 * broader definition of technological protection measures, narrow exceptions, and review process
 * protection of temporary copies
 * stronger protection of electronic rights management information
 * protection of pay television broadcasts
 * safe harbour provisions for Internet Service Providers
 * protection of performers' economic and moral rights in respect of sound recordings
 * broader civil and criminal offences

For a discussion of the copyright changes, see Rimmer, M. "Robbery Under Arms:  Copyright Law and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement"

Local content provisions
Many in the Australian film and television community expressed concern over the effect of the agreement on government regulations enforcing a mandatory minimum of locally produced content on television. Since American content can be purchased by networks at a cost far less than the local production of Australian content, fears were raised that the agreement would result in the diminishing fraction of home-grown media being screened on Australian television networks and in Australian cinemas being reduced even further. As a result, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, as well as a number of prominent artists individually, argued for rejection of the FTA on the grounds that it would erode Australian culture.

Manufacturing and agricultural sector
Australia as a whole is heavily reliant on the primary sector and the main benefits of a FTA between the two countries were seen to be increased access to the large, but heavily subsidised and protected, American market by Australian producers. In particular, the rural and regional-based National Party lobbied hard to have the agreement extend to the export of sugar. The eventual provisions of the agreement did not go as far as had been hoped, and as a result, some lobbyists for the sugar industry, notably independent Bob Katter, urged rejection of the FTA. However, many, such as then Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie, still felt that the agreement was a net gain for Australian agriculture and supported ratification on that basis.

The Australian manufacturing sector was another problematic area. Australian labour, wage and environmental protection standards are substantially higher than those of the US. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union ran a high-profile campaign against the FTA on the basis that it would lead to manufacturing jobs being outsourced overseas.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a central component of the Australian healthcare system. The scheme provides reimbursement to community pharmacy for the costs of dispensing prescription medicines prescribed in accordance with the PBS Schedule, a comprehensive but closed formulary. Drugs are added to the formulary on the basis of an assessment of comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness compared to the therapy most likely to be replaced in practice. The result is that where there is no evidence of incremental benefit, a drug may not be listed at a higher price than the comparator with the result that for many (but by no means all) drugs the prices for subsidy purposes are a great deal cheaper than in many other major markets.

While the scheme is very effective at keeping many drug prices low, pharmaceutical corporations in both the US and Australia are wary of the operation of the scheme, since they argue that higher drug prices are necessary to fund the costs of research and development. The American pharmaceutical companies claim that in enjoying low-cost medicines, Australians are essentially free riding on the costs of research performed in the U.S.

While companies have in particular criticised the process by which drugs are listed on the PBS, claiming that it lacks transparency, public health advocates have claimed that calls for transparency are merely an effort by drug companies to gain greater control over the process of listing. To a large degree the existing limitations on the transparency of the process are those that have been imposed by the industry itself. The text of the Agreement included text mandating transparency to the public, reflecting an offensive interest of Australia, thus creating a treaty level obligation to circumvent the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry to continue to frustrate public transparency of PBS processes.

Disquiet about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme led to speculation that the American side would lobby heavily for its abrogation as an integral component of a free trade agreement. The Government was criticised, particularly by the Australian Democrats and Greens, for not doing enough to safeguard the operations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, allegations which the Government strenuously denied. Some academics (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) claimed that the provisions of the Agreement would lead to increases in the prices of PBS medicines. However the relevant text was actually limited to issue of process and transparency, and contained no provisions that could affect price, and this was ultimately shown not to be the case.

Ratification of the FTA
The Australian Government did not hold a majority in the Senate, and thus required the support of the opposition Labor party, the Greens, Democrats, or independent senators in order to secure ratification. The Government put heavy pressure on Labor Party leader Mark Latham to secure Opposition support of the agreement (knowing that Latham, among many Labor members, viewed the FTA as beneficial). The issue had divided the party, with the Left faction in particular arguing that Labor should reject the agreement.

Latham responded unexpectedly by making Labor's support of the FTA conditional on an amendment that would allegedly safeguard the PBS. This effectively turned the tables on Howard: if the Government refused the amendment as unnecessary, it opened itself to claims it was not safeguarding Australian interests; if it supported the amendment, it then tacitly admitted that the original terms of the agreement were inadequate. The bill was eventually amended and passed.

Latham's amendment proposals were supported by the Australian Medical Association, but dismissed as ineffective by the Greens and Democrats, who still argued for outright rejection of the FTA.

Outcomes

In the year following the agreement, Australian exports to the U.S. declined, while U.S. exports to Australia increased. This followed the International Monetary Fund's prediction that the Australia-United States FTA would shrink the Australian economy marginally because of the loss of trade with other countries. The IMF estimated $US5.25 billion of extra U.S. imports entering into Australia per year under the FTA, but only $US2.97 billion of extra Australian exports to the U.S. per year. However, it remains unclear whether or not Australia's worsening trade deficit with the United States can be solely attributed to the FTA. It may have been a lagged effect of an appreciation of the Australian dollar against the US dollar between 2000 and 2003.

For the U.S., the FTA improved the overall trade deficit situation, creating a trade surplus with Australia which rose 31.7% in the first quarter of 2005, compared to the same timeframe in 2004. U.S. exports to Australia increased 11.7% in the first quarter of 2005 to nearly $3.7 billion for the quarter. Agriculture exports to Australia increased 20%.

According to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures the imbalance in trade between the U.S. and Australia increased substantially during 2007. The United States became Australia's largest import source, with goods and services imported to a value of over A$31 billion. Australia's exports to the U.S., however, amounted to only $15.8 billion AU. It remains unclear what, if any, real benefits the agreement has produced.

In U.S. Fiscal Year 2006 (October 2005 through September 2006), which was the first full year during which E-3 regulations were in effect, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recorded 2,123 admissions of Australian citizens as E-3 status foreign workers under the treaty. 9,294 admissions were recorded in U.S. Fiscal Year 2007 (October 2006 through September 2007).

According to Shiro Armstrong from the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University concluded, from over 10 years of dataset from the Productivity Commission suggests that Australian and US trade with the rest of the world fell - that there was trade diversion - due to AUSFTA after controlling for country specific factors. Estimates also suggest trade between Australia and the United States fell in association with the implementation of AUSFTA - also after controlling for country-specific factors. Shiro Armstrong also concludes Australia and the United States reduced their trade with the rest of the world by US$53 billion and are worse off than they would have been without the agreement.

Governmental links

 * Australian legislative committee report on the Technological Protections Measures aspects of the treaty
 * U.S. International Trade Commission Report on Australia-U.S. FTA
 * Congressional Research Service Report on Australia-U.S. FTA
 * U.S. Senate Finance Committee Hearing on Australia-U.S. FTA
 * U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Hearing on Australia-U.S. FTA
 * President's Message to the United States Congress on the AUSFTA

Media

 * Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement Media Archive


text:
Category:Conspiracy theories

Articles relating to conspiracy theories, explanations for events or situations that invoke a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.

title: Category:Conspiracy theories


text:
Talk:Diane Warren

∑ 73 items.

title: Talk:Diane Warren


text:
Talk:Jan Peter Balkenende

PM resignation
as per the election yesterday he resigned as PM and his seat in parliament. Perhaps he is the acting PM then it should state that he is acting and not the PM.Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * No, sorry, that's not correct. He resigned as party leader, not as PM. And he is not acting PM, because there is no such thing in The Netherlands. He is currently the regular Prime Minister of a demissionary cabinet (but it was already demissionary before the election) and will remain that until Queen Beatrix appoints a new PM. -- BenTels (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Councilwoman?
This might be original research, but I doubt he was ever a councilwoman. I changed him to a councilman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.27.10 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"U kijkt zo lief"
While technically it's correct to translate this sentence with "You look so cute", kijken is specifically a word for looking at, not necessarily looking like, something which should probably be made more clear. He didn't say that she looked cute, he meant the general expression in her face was cute. 86.86.215.140 (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jan Peter Balkenende. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211174622/http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2007/02/art000001C74C011F6335E9.html to http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2007/02/art000001C74C011F6335E9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jan Peter Balkenende


text:
Talk:BIKINI state

Untitled
The Alert States are (in increasing level of seriousness): .... then the table list Red, Amber, Black ... Does it means Amber state is more serious that Red state? -- Kowloonese

Yes it means so, french uses the also Amber colour as the worst colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:C46A:CEA0:F5E0:C273 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 * um ... I was trying to show it graphically as increasing by being higher in the table, but maybe it isn't as clear as I'd thought. Red is highest state of alert, white lowest. ps. It is usual to 'sign' your contributions to talk pages by writing " --~ " at the end (a couple of hypens followed by four tildes: this puts your name and the date/time) --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 23:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey, what's ALL IN CAPITALS, dude? Wetman 08:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * They're codewords. All-caps is the common convention for codewords: see, for example, their use at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/518-ii/2013002.htm -- Karada 08:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is it called BIKINI state? Is it named after underwear styles? Are there a BOXER PANTS state and a THONG state to go along? Kowloonese 21:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe it is named BIKINI after the Bikini Atoll used in one of the first atomic bomb tests in 1946. 134.219.148.43 16:58, 22 March 2005 (this signature added by *Ulla* 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC), collected from the page history)

 * Why would the British use this word for that reason? The atomic tests there were made by the Americans. I figure, since it is a code word, it is just a word picked randomly. -*Ulla* 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Still wondering. And "I figure" doesn't count as a valid cite. :-) -- Writtenonsand 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The MoD say it was randomly selected by a computer so I've added this to the article.  Hut 8.5  17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Having the codename BIKINI as well as alert status on the signs seems redundant. I had assumed that there was a sequence like Bikini, Bath Robe, Tuxedo and Suit of armour.  Although the set of words may be random.  Andrew Swallow (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Go watch the movie "Threads" for free at [www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg youtube] and you can clearly see this system being highlighted and used as the UK prepares for imminent hostilities with the Soviet Union.

There were also two status alerts for "Counter-Surprise" that were maintained at UK bases as part of NATO's Military Alert System. "State ORANGE" - enemy attack expected within 36 hours; "State SCARLET" - enemy attack expect within minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.165.157 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Unless extra alerts applies to nuclear weapons I suspect that those values are just that film. The script writer may self censored the system to ensure that he was not arrested.  Some of the writers of this article know more than they are saying.  Andrew Swallow (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 * actually talk) i separated the two pieces of information. Scarlet and Orange have nothing to do with the movie Threads--and frankly your comment is baffling. http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_archives/20121128_19561022_NU_SHAPE-AG-1401-PP_ACE_Counter-Surprise_Miltiary_A.pdf Maybe do some research before you post.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.165.157 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The page says that Amber and Red were only supposed to be used for a short time, but living on an RAF station for most of the eighties I remember the sign on the guardroom *always* saying "Bikini Amber" - so much so that I thought it was a single phrase. PeteVerdon 16:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Could that have been because the cold war was on at that time? -*Ulla* 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I was also in the RAF in the 80's and we were usually on black or black alpha (as it used to be called)--Dingos-Kidneys (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat levels
I feel that it would be informative to list each of the specific times at which the threat level has been elevated to the maximum, and the probable reasons for this e.g. the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. Can anyone get this information? Ygoloxelfer

This is the first time under the new system - before that it went upto Amber a few times (during the IRA campaign and after the London bombings) - but it never has been at "Red" under the old system was more related to the cold war. I suppose you could do a FoI request to the MOD requesting the BIKINI status for x years, however personally I don't think it is worth it.

Actually, it has been at RED once, when Bobby Sands MP died. There's a ref to that in some Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence (line 255) - this also has data on the costs of changes to the alert state, in terms of increased policing etc. I might add this info to the article... m3tainfo 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The White alert state was dropped several years ago as it hadn't been used in 30 years. The BIKINI alert states are still used. I'll have to check at work what the current definitions are but I think the ones given here are wrong. Red and Amber are used for a period of a few hours when specific threats to a location are known. Black and Black alpha were merged and are generally considered synonymos by us civvies. I'll get back to this later after I've got current definitions. PeterCScott (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this information on an international forum?
It's supposed to be "Restricted". PiP (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Circular logic I guess, but the fact that it's here would mean that it isn't?Johnmc (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Trouble is the alert states are Restricted, they shouldn't be here. Can an article be removed from Wikipedia? PiP (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only of casual interest to me, but the main reference for this article (link on main page) seems to be an article in the "New Statesman" that lists all the alert codes. The article mentions that it's "not used for the general public."  Whether that's the same as "restricted", i'm not sure.  There is another link mentioned which links to a MoD memorandum, at the House of Commons records site.  That memorandum lists 3 (Black Special, Amber and Red) of the alert states.  It looks as if information regarding the alert states is well and truly in the public domain. Johnmc (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The BIKINI state is NOT restricted information as it is on display, usually on a board, in the reception of most, if not all government buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.135.112 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The alert state might not be restricted but the definition as to what the alert state means is. PeterCScott (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 * RESTRICTED was a British security classification lower than CONFIDENTIAL. Documents classified RESTRICTED were frequently declassified after 5 years. Since the system has not been used in over a decade I suspect that no one bothered to renew the classification. Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Current use
Is there any evidence that the coloured states are being used now? I suspect they were changed in 2006 and are now purely historical. --Rumping (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * With no response, I will change the article to indicate the historical nature of the coloured alerts --Rumping (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The alert states were changed ie White was dropped as it hadn't been used in 30 years. There was also a degree of simplification with the numbr of levels being reduced. PeterCScott (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Colours?
Weren't the levels

 * RED
 * AMBER
 * BLACK
 * BLACK SPECIAL
 * WHITE

?

Who has changed the colours round? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmojito (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 * No. Black Special was a higher state of alert than Black.  --Rumping (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitions
In DERA in the 90's, we had a different and less reverential definition of the defence condition states:

 * BIKINI BLACK - stroll into work
 * BIKINI BLACK ALPHA - stroll into work and the guard checks your pass
 * BIKINI AMBER - long queue to get into work as guard is checking passes and all vehicles
 * BIKINI RED - don't bother trying to get into work - go home and kiss the wife and kids goodbye!

There also was a less well publicised Alert state based upon the risk of being the target of terrorist attack, but I can't remember the designation

Malvern ex-pat

Agree with above Served 1989-1994 with REME all over the South of England. The Alert state was invariably Black Alpha or Amber - I've never heard such a state as 'Black Special' used in Aldershot or the South of England during that period. Based at S.E.E. Arborfield, RCT Buller Barracks, and RAMC Keogh Barracks in Mytchett. Nigel Kenworthy (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

=
==========

Terrorism
Did Bikini State really only refer to terrorist threat? That seems odd, at least in 1970. I thought it related to the security/defence status of an establishment. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The system was set up for the Cold War including fighting invasion. Fortunately the Cold War never went hot. On battle fields the troops can go to higher alerts.  Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * So why does the article limit it to terrorist threats:"to warn of non-specific forms of terrorist activity"? Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Poor wording of the article. Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Other states?
I seem to remember (and I'm going back 20+ years) other states that covered the likelihood of attack on helicopters (TAHITI?) and other special threats (PIRA mortars?) Does anyo ne have information on them?188.29.116.247 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I remember Tahiti which referred to the likelihood of mortar attack, there was also another (Tesseral) used by the AAC/RAF bases for threats to air traffic. 81.103.95.88 (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

C & R?
Near the end of the article, the abbreviation "C & R" appears. Is the reader supposed to know what it means? 86.132.221.80 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:BIKINI state