tidwell's, that we remove the parent pedicles -- parentheticals for consistency. there will not be some in some districts but not others. mr. mcdonnell: a of the purpose of the parenthetical thoughts was for definition purposes. >> there are findings as to neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? the inclusion of the parentheticals were for what purpose? >> for task force member reference. mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to remove them and move forward in utilizing the consultants submission of the neighborhood descriptions. that is the question on the table. i am broadening the question so we do not necessarily need to go district by district, unless someone feels the need to go district by district. is there anyone who feels the need to go district by district? mr. pilpel: i don't feel the need except that i like the approach, which captures more areas more specifically than the consultant. that is why we generally go with her language. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. district to we did. -- district 2 we did. let's take that vote. here is the vote. wh

. >> let me add one parenthetical here. in fact, the black elite of washington of whom i spoke at the outset, many, many, many, many of them, if not the majority, were mixed-race persons. many, many of them were children and grandchildren of slavemasters and slave women. hence, the look of the near-white black leader at that point. o.s.b. wahl is also one of those people. >> yes. and he winds up in the 1850s, he's raised by these abolitionists and trains to become a shoemaker. he decides to move from a small town outside of cincinnati to overland, ohio, which in the 1850s was the most abolitionist place in america. >> a hotbed, yes. >> a true hotbed. it was a place where the first african-american is elected to political office. his brother-in-law, john mercer langston, and he is -- o.s.b. wahl establishes a reputation for two things. one for his ardent activism as an anti-slavery political activism, and, second, he gets a reputation for having what one observer called a trumpet-tongued way with words. he was a really great

. >> note parenthetically that they had such a fierce fight over the presidency, ford and jimmy carter. they became such close friends. jimmy carter was broken up at gerald ford's funeral service and i know you worked for jimmy carter. i knew jimmyford -- jimmy ford, he really got to love him. chris: that's an interesting almost father-son relationship. >> strange really. when clinton becomes president nixon really wants to work with hip, to be a sort of secret advisor behind the scenes. they do become late night phone pals. they talk a lot about russia. and they talk about how to organize the president's day. he asked how did you do it? and he loves the fact that 30 years later there's another young president saying how do you do this job? chris: he brought nixon back, didn't he? >> i think he did. the republicans couldn't really do it. a democratic president could. so clinton did. and when he died, clinton actually says, you know, there are days when i miss him the same way i miss my mother. chris: i wonder if nixon said you're the kind of son i wanted. i wonder. that's an interestin

by the way, parenthetically, you ever think you would be choosing between two guys for president, one with a swiss bank account, one without? it's kind of -- look, if you really want to know what he thinks about the profession, if you really want to know how fundamentally out of touch he is with what made you choose your profession in the first place, go to his website. here's what he says about you, and i'm quoting. i'm quoting now. when your cause in life, referring to you all, when your cause in life is preventing parents from having a meaningful choice or children from having a real chance, then you're on the wrong side, end of quote. that's what he thinks of you. pretty astounding. your cause in life is preventing parents from seeing their kids have an opportunity and a choice? your cause in life is preventing children from having a real chance? is he serious? he is, though. he is. i believe he believes what he says. that's why i believe they mean what they say about their budget. i've been doing this for awhile. i can't think of a candidate for president who has ever made such a

parenthetically 1955 was the first year that women were granted access to morning services at appleton chapel. the business school worked out an arrangement with radcliffe in the late 1930s to build a program in business administration. again, with a radcliffe degree. beginning in 1959 graduates of the program were admitted to the second year of the mba program at the harvard business school, and then they were in. finally arts and sciences. it took first a father's desire it honor his late son and distinguished anthropologist daughter and then a genius to break the lock keeping women out of the faculty. the samuels murray jr. and radcliffe professorship was established at f.a.s. in 1948 for a distinguished woman scholar. the first woman to hold the chair was -- was helen maude camm, a constitutional historian, followed in 1954 by the anthropologist court debois. its current holder is katherine park in the history of science. is katherine here?

and i might just say parenthetically here, if you don't mind, i think this is an important topic. and i would encourage you all to think about this yourselves, and i know many of you have had this experience. both physicians and family and patients are stressed at the end of life. the worst thing that can happen is not to have the discussion about the difficulty that this represents for those people. i found in my surgical career that if i would enter into the discussion with a family and say i will do everything possible to keep your loved one alive if they can, i think they can return to a useful member of society. at the end of that time, if i think that we've come to the point where i don't think that's going to happen, i will come to you, and we will have a discussion about this, and i will not make life go on just endlessly for keeping your loved one alive. i've always been greeted by thank you so much, doctor, i'm really pleased, and i look forward to those discussions, and i'm greatly relieved that you had that discussion with me. it takes -- and if you will enter into tho

trying to get an injunction to stop these purging efforts and the judge -- judge, by the way, parentheticallysaid no, no. the state didn't continue to look for non-citizen voters. i think when the federal government lost that important round in court, they decided to throw in the owl and let the state have that. >> what if they find there are thousands of non-citizens on the vo voter polls? what does that do in terms of going to law enforcement matter in immigration? >> absolutely. i don't know if that will happen. they find -- i think that -- you can expect the governor here and the republican leadership to say even if they find one noncitizen on this role they made hair point. if you find a lot of them, it is up to a local prosecutor to charge someone with a third degree felony. it is a crime to state on a voter registration application that you are a u.s. citizen when you are not a u.s. citizen. that's a serious crime. >> it is an interest conversation from the tampa bay times herald. thank you, steve. i appreciate. >> it okay, thanks. >>> in today's office politics, i talked with melissa

i might just say, parenthetically, if you do not mind, i think this is an important topic.ncourage you all to think about this yourselves. i know many of you have had this experience. both positions and family patients, are stressed at the end of life. the worst thing that can happen is not to have a discussion about the difficulty that this represents for both people. i have found in my surgical career that if i would enter into the discussion with the family and say, i will do everything possible to keep your loved one alive if i think they can return to a useful member of society. at the end of that time, if i think we have comeo a poll where i do not think that is going to happen, i will come to you -- come to a point, where i do not think that is going to happen, i will come to you and we will have a discussion. i will not keep it going. i have always been greeted by, thank you doctor. i am greatly relieved that you had this discussion with me. if you look into that discussion and have that discussion, it would be good for your patient, good for you, and for the doctor

and i might just say parenthetically here if you don't mind, this is an important topic. i would encourage you all to think about this yourselves. i know many of you have had this experience. both physicians and family patients are stressed at the end. the worst thing that could happen is to have the discussion about the difficulty that this represents for most people. i found him a surgical career that if i would enter into the discussion with the family and they would do everything possible to keep your loved one alive and i think they can return to a useful member of society. at the end of the time that i think we come to the point where i don't think that what happened, i will come to you and we will have a discussion about this. and i will not make life go on endlessly keeping your loved one alive. i've always been greeted by thank you so much, dr. i'm really pleased and i look forward to those discussions and i'm greatly relieved to have that discussion with me. if you enter into those individuals and how that discussion with your position, it will be good for the p

what i was impressed yesterday, i'll say parenthetically, mr. president, though there is some controversy out here about who is capable of what in our federal government, let me people frankly of people who don't have much respect for the department of homeland security, i don't understand why because they do a great job in my opinion in so many different areas including the one that's relevant here, cybersecurity. but it was clear that the department of homeland security, department of defense, f.b.i., working like a team really, like a seamless team, 24/7, 365 days a year, to leverage each others' capabilities to provide for the common defense. and they all agreed yesterday that we need to pass this legislation to give them the tools they urgently need that they don't have without this legislation to work with one another and the private sector. mr. president, i want again to give thanks to senators kyl and whitehouse, joined by senator mikulski, blunt, coons, graham, coats, and blumenthal, who have come together with a compromise proposal aft

and i would just note parenthetically, one of the most important things to have health care reform would include fixing the doc fix. in other words, we're projected without legislation that takes effect to reduce the expenditures, the payments to doctors, by 20-some-odd percent for medicare-medicaid patients. that's what we would reduce the pay-for if we don't do something each year. it adds up to about $200 billion to $250 billion over ten years. it was part of the promise that would be fixed in the bill. but when they looked at their numbers, if you paid for the doc fix, which was critical and needs to be fixed permanently -- not continuing to hang out there every year and to be fixed by borrowed money -- if we fix it, the bill wouldn't have -- couldn't have been contended to be in surplus. in fact, it couldn't contend to be paid for, as the president was saying. and so they just didn't do it. they just decided they wouldn't fix one of the most important areas in health care and it remains that today. so we're using congressional budget office nonpartisan numbers and -- as i work throu

i would just say, parenthetically, that i congratulate my colleague from arizona for his statement earlier in spirited defense of those u.s. business leaders who choose to shift jobs overseas. that's a subject for another day. i will not engage in that debate today. but i think it admirable that he feels compelled to make that case here on the senate floor today. mr. president, i want to speak to -- in support of the disclose act. if there is one thing that democrats and republicans should be able to agree on, that is our campaign finance system is broken. my colleague from rhode island made that point earlier, and i certainly agree with that. with the supreme court's decision in citizens united, corporations, unions, and other groups are able to raise millions of dollars through secret contributions and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence federal elections. as long as they do not directly coordinate with a candidate. according to the federal election commission, it's expected that something over $11 billion will be spent over the course of the 2012 elections. that's about twice

and i might just say parenthetically here if you don't mind, i think this is an important topic. and i would encourage yo all to think about this yourself, and in a many of you had this experience. both physicians and family and patients are stressed at the end of life. the worst thing that can happen is not to have a discussion about the difficulty that this represents for both people. i found in my surgical career that if i would enter into the discussion with them and say, i will do everything possible to keep your loved one alive if i think they can return to a useful member of society, at the end of that time if i think that we've come to the point where don't think it's going to happen, i will come to you and will have a discussion about this. and i will not make life go on just endlessly for keeping your loved one alive. i've always been greeted by thank you so much, doctor, i'm really pleased, i look forward to those discussions and i'm greatly relieved that you have that discussion with me. it takes -- and if you into into those and have that discussion with your physici