MUSEUM PR ACTICE Edited by CONAL MCCARTHY Museum Practice covers the professional work carried out in museums and art galleries of all types, including the core functions of management, collections, exhibitions, and programs. Some forms of museum practice are familiar to visitors, yet within these diverse and complex institutions many practices are hidden from view, such as creating marketing campaigns, curating and designing exhibitions, developing fundraising and sponsorship plans, crafting mission statements, handling repatriation claims, dealing with digital media, and more. Focused on what actually occurs in everyday museum work, this volume offers contributions from experienced professionals and academics that cover a wide range of subjects including policy frameworks, ethical guidelines, approaches to conservation, collection care and management, exhibition development and public programs. From internal processes such as leadership, governance and strategic planning, to public facing roles in interpretation, visitor research and community engagement and learning, each essential component of contemporary museum practice is thoroughly discussed.

The real collusion in the 2016 election was not between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. It was between the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration. The media-Democrat "collusion narrative," which paints Donald Trump as cat's paw of Russia, is a studiously crafted illusion. Despite Clinton's commanding lead in the polls, hyper-partisan intelligence officials decided they needed an "insurance policy" against a Trump presidency. Thus was born the collusion narrative, built on an anonymously sourced "dossier," secretly underwritten by the Clinton campaign and compiled by a former British spy. Though acknowledged to be "salacious and unverified" at the FBI's highest level, the dossier was used to build a counterintelligence investigation against Trump's campaign. Miraculously, Trump won anyway. But his political opponents refused to accept the voters' decision. Their collusion narrative was now peddled relentlessly by political operatives, intelligence agents, Justice Department officials, and media ideologues-the vanguard of the "Trump Resistance." Through secret surveillance, high-level intelligence leaking, and tireless news coverage, the public was led to believe that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election. Not one to sit passively through an onslaught, President Trump fought back in his tumultuous way. Matters came to a head when he fired his FBI director, who had given explosive House testimony suggesting the president was a criminal suspect, despite privately assuring Trump otherwise. The resulting firestorm of partisan protest cowed the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, whose seemingly limitless investigation bedeviled the administration for two years. Yet as months passed, concrete evidence of collusion failed to materialize. Was the collusion narrative an elaborate fraud? And if so, choreographed by whom? Against media-Democrat caterwauling, a doughty group of lawmakers forced a shift in the spotlight from Trump to his investigators and accusers. This has exposed the depth of politicization within American law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is now clear that the institutions on which our nation depends for objective policing and clear-eyed analysis injected themselves scandalously into the divisive politics of the 2016 election. They failed to forge a new Clinton administration. Will they succeed in bringing down President Trump?

As one of the leading specialists in hip arthroscopies, Dr. Joseph McCarthy's proposed text Early Hip Disorders promises to become a definitive addition to the field. Featuring full color, arthroscopic views and contributions from such prestigious figures in the orthopaedic community as John McGinty, Richard Villar and James Bono, this text will cover all the essentials of hip arthroscopy including: examiniations, arthroscopic procedures for loose bodies, labral injuries, defects of the femoral head and acetabulum, treatment for infections, tumors, differential diagnosis and, most uniquely, a section on pediatric hip injuries. In addition, this text will provide the surgeon with detailed analysis of cost considerations and comparison with open hip procedures as well as outcome analysis. This text is a must- have for any orthopaedic surgeon interested in learning the newest procedures in the treatment of hip injuries and providing their patients with the safest, most effective treatment available.

The real collusion in the 2016 election was not between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. It was between the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration. The media-Democrat "collusion narrative," which paints Donald Trump as cat's paw of Russia, is a studiously crafted illusion. Despite Clinton's commanding lead in the polls, hyper-partisan intelligence officials decided they needed an "insurance policy" against a Trump presidency. Thus was born the collusion narrative, built on an anonymously sourced "dossier," secretly underwritten by the Clinton campaign and compiled by a former British spy. Though acknowledged to be "salacious and unverified" at the FBI's highest level, the dossier was used to build a counterintelligence investigation against Trump's campaign. Miraculously, Trump won anyway. But his political opponents refused to accept the voters' decision. Their collusion narrative was now peddled relentlessly by political operatives, intelligence agents, Justice Department officials, and media ideologues-the vanguard of the "Trump Resistance." Through secret surveillance, high-level intelligence leaking, and tireless news coverage, the public was led to believe that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election. Not one to sit passively through an onslaught, President Trump fought back in his tumultuous way. Matters came to a head when he fired his FBI director, who had given explosive House testimony suggesting the president was a criminal suspect, despite privately assuring Trump otherwise. The resulting firestorm of partisan protest cowed the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, whose seemingly limitless investigation bedeviled the administration for two years. Yet as months passed, concrete evidence of collusion failed to materialize. Was the collusion narrative an elaborate fraud? And if so, choreographed by whom? Against media-Democrat caterwauling, a doughty group of lawmakers forced a shift in the spotlight from Trump to his investigators and accusers. This has exposed the depth of politicization within American law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is now clear that the institutions on which our nation depends for objective policing and clear-eyed analysis injected themselves scandalously into the divisive politics of the 2016 election. They failed to forge a new Clinton administration. Will they succeed in bringing down President Trump?

This collection, marking the centenary of Avery Dulles's birth, makes an entirely distinctive contribution to contemporary theological discourse as we approach the second century of the cardinal's influence, and the twenty-first of Christian witness in the world. Moving beyond a festschrift, the volume offers both historical analyses of Dulles's contributions and applications of his insights and methodologies to current issues like immigration, exclusion, and digital culture. It includes essays by Dulles's students, colleagues, and peers, as well as by emerging scholars who have been and continue to be indebted to his theological vision and encyclopedic fluency in the ecclesiological developments of the post-conciliar Church. Though focused more on Catholic and ecumenical affairs than interreligious ones, the volume is intentionally outward-facing and strives to make clear the diverse and pluralistic contours of the cardinal's nearly unrivaled impact on the North American Church, which truly crossed ideological, denominational, and generational boundaries. While critically recognizing the limits and lacunae of his historical moment, it serves as one among a multitude of testaments to the notion that the ripples of Avery Dulles's influence continue to widen toward intellectually distant shores.

While Americans focus on terrorism, a more insidious Islamist threat to our way of life lurks. It is the agenda of sharia, Islama (TM)s authoritarian legal and political system. The global Islamist movement aims, in the words of the international Muslim Brotherhood, to destroy the West by sabotaging it from within. Its principal strategy is not mass-murder but the exploitation of Western freedoms and the insinuation of sharia principles into Western legal systems. Because those principles are hostile to our core liberties - indeed, hostile even to the bedrock premise that people are free to govern themselves as they see fit - shariaa (TM)s advance gradually undermines our culture. The sharia agenda has found a friend in the Obama administration, which has embraced its vanguard, including the Brotherhood and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. President Obama is actively abetting the Islamist platform: promoting sharia in his foreign policy, easing enforcement of laws that stop Islamic "charitiesa from diverting funds to jihadist terror, and even sponsoring a United Nations resolution that - under the guise of insulating Islam from criticism - would stifle First Amendment rights.

With the Obama Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder's direction, Americans are learning what really happens when law-enforcement power is co-opted by politics.
In this eye-popping Broadside, Andrew C. McCarthy shows that the biggest beneficiaries have been jihadists. For the past eight years, a group of lawyers volunteered their services to America's enemies. Now, the Justice Department is rife with some of those same lawyers as it enhances due process for terrorists and feeds the international Left's call for war-crimes charges against President Obama's political adversaries. Just consider how the administration has disclosed national defense secrets during wartime or granted the 9/11 mass murderers a civilian trial. The department, moreover, is working to tighten the Democratic Party's grip on power, ignoring the Constitution and green-lighting election fraud and abuse.

An in-depth understanding of a comprehensive approach to the management of radius fractures and their complications. The authors -- world renowned experts in the field -- present practical, clinical information from their extensive experience in the treatment of these fractures. Topics include the authors' classification as well as decision- making and tactics in the conservative and operative management of all types of radius fractures. Topics covered include: bending fractures of the metaphysis, shearing and compression fractures of the joint surface, avulsion fractures, radio-carpal fracture and dislocation, combined fractures, high velocity injury and malunions. In addition, chapters deal with surgical techniques and approach as well as with complications. With over 500 illustrations, this is the definitive volume on these challenging fractures, their complete treatment, and the management of complications.

We still imagine ourselves a nation of laws, not of men. This is not merely an article of faith but a bedrock principle of the United States Constitution. Our founding compact provides a remedy against rulers supplanting the rule of law, and Andrew C. McCarthy makes a compelling case for using it. The authors of the Constitution saw practical reasons to place awesome powers in a single chief executive, who could act quickly and decisively in times of peril. Yet they well understood that unchecked power in one person's hands posed a serious threat to liberty, the defining American imperative. Much of the debate at the Philadelphia convention therefore centered on how to stop a rogue executive who became a law unto himself. The Framers vested Congress with two checks on presidential excess: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment. They are potent remedies, and there are no others. It is a straightforward matter to establish that President Obama has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term signifying maladministration and abuses of power by holders of high public trust. But making the legal case is insufficient for successful impeachment, leading to removal from office. Impeachment is a political matter and hinges on public opinion. In Faithless Execution, McCarthy weighs the political dynamics as he builds a case, assembling a litany of abuses that add up to one overarching offense: the president's willful violation of his solemn oath to execute the laws faithfully. The "fundamental transformation" he promised involves concentrating power into his own hands by flouting law--statutes, judicial rulings, the Constitution itself--and essentially daring the other branches of government to stop him. McCarthy contends that our elected representative are duty-bound to take up the dare. What are "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? Impeachment is rare in American history--and for good reason. As the ultimate remedy against abuse of executive power, it is politically convulsive. And yet, as the Framers understood, it is a necessary protection if the rule of law is to be maintained. But what are impeachable offenses? There is widespread confusion among the American people about the answer to this question. Article II of the Constitution lists treason and bribery, along with "other high crimes and misdemeanors as the standard for impeachment. Despite what "crimes" and "misdemeanors" connote, the concept has precious little to do with violations of a penal code. Rather, it is about betrayal of the political trust reposed in the president to execute the laws faithfully and "preserve, protect and defend" our constitutional system, as his oath of office requires. At the constitutional convention in 1787, the delegates concurred that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard captured the many "great and dangerous offenses" involving malfeasance, incompetence, and severe derelictions of duty that could undermine the constitutional order. The Framers were clear that "high crimes and misdemeanors" involved misconduct that did not necessarily break penal laws; it might not even be considered criminal if committed by a civilian. It would apply strictly to "the misconduct of public men ...or the abuse or violation of public trust," as Alexander Hamilton put it. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are of a purely political nature as they "relate to injuries done immediately to the society itself." To be clear, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a standard conceived for normal law enforcement. It applies instead to oath, honor, and trust--notions that are more demanding of public officials than the black and white prohibitions of criminal law. While the standard is high-minded it is not an abstraction. The Framers were very clear: betrayals of the constitutional order, dishonesty in the executive's dealing with Congress, and concealment of dealings with foreign powers that could be injurious to the American people were among the most grievous, and impeachable, high crimes and misdemeanors. Above all, the Framers had in view the president's oath of allegiance to our system of government, a system in which the president's highest duty is faithful execution of the laws. The mere attempt to subvert the constitution would be a breach of trust that warranted impeachment and removal. A free country requires the rule of law. But the rule of law is a sham if lawlessness is rampant among those who govern. This was the deep political truth that the Framers of this country recognized in the providing for the impeachment of an errant executive. It is a truth that we ignore at our peril. Faithless Execution Author Q&A You are a well-known conservative commentator -- how would you answer the accusation that Faithless Execution is just a partisan stunt? McCarthy: Well, 'conservative' does not mean 'Republican'--in fact, the book is not very flattering when it comes to GOP fecklessness in the face of the president's lawlessness. But the main point is: Faithless Execution argues against partisan hackery. I analyze the legal case for impeachment as a former prosecutor who would not go to court without a sufficient case. And as far as the politics goes, I argue that, despite the sizable majority Republicans hold in the House, articles of impeachment should not be filed unless and until there is a strong public will to remove the president from power--one that transcends party lines. Many Republicans say an effort to impeach Barack Obama is political suicide for the Republican Party. How do you respond to this? McCarthy: The failure to pursue impeachment is likely to be suicide for the country, which is much more important than the political fate of the Republican Party. But, again, making the case for impeachment--which would probably help not only Republicans but any elected official who defends our constitutional framework--is not the same as moving forward with articles of impeachment, which should not happen absent public support. How does the case for Barack Obama's impeachment compare to the campaigns to impeach Nixon and Clinton? McCarthy: Obama's presidency is a willful, systematic attack on the constitutional system of separation of powers, an enterprise that aims to bring about a new regime of government by executive decree. This is exactly the kind of subversion the Framers designed the impeachment power to address. The Nixon and Clinton episodes involved misconduct that did not aim to undermine our constitutional framework. You describe impeachment as a political and not a legal remedy. What's the distinction? McCarthy: Legally speaking, a president may be impeached for a single offense that qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors"--a breach of the profound public trust vested in the president, a violation of his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. But real impeachment requires the public will to remove the president from office. You can have a thousand impeachable offenses, but without that political consensus, impeachment is not an appropriate remedy.

The first fundamental truth about the "Arab Spring" is that there never was one. The salient fact of the Middle East, the only one, is Islam. The Islam that shapes the Middle East inculcates in Muslims the self-perception that they are members of a civilization implacably hostile to the West. The United States is a competitor to be overcome, not the herald of a culture to be embraced. Is this self-perception based on objective truth? Does it reflect an accurate construction of Islam? It is over these questions that American officials and Western intellectuals obsess. Yet the questions are irrelevant. This is not a matter of right or wrong, of some posture or policy whose subtle tweaking or outright reversal would change the facts on the ground. This is simply, starkly, the way it is. Every human heart does not yearn for freedom. In the Islam of the Middle East, "freedom" means something very nearly the opposite of what the concept connotes to Westerners -- it is the freedom that lies in total submission to Allah and His law. That law, sharia, is diametrically opposed to core components of freedom as understood in the West -- beginning with the very idea that man is free to make law for himself, irrespective of what Allah has ordained. It is thus delusional to believe, as the West's Arab Spring fable insists, that the region teems with Jamal al-Madisons holding aloft the lamp of liberty. Do such revolutionary reformers exist? Of course they do ...but in numbers barely enough to weave a fictional cover story. When push came to shove -- and worse -- the reformers were overwhelmed, swept away by a tide of Islamic supremacism, the dynamic, consequential mass movement that beckons endless winter. That is the real story of the Arab Spring -- that, and the Pandora's Box that opens when an American administration aligns with that movement, whose stated goal is to destroy America.

The essays in this volume pose the question common usage has obscured: was ""the Enlightenment"" truly enlightened or enlightening? Scholarly investigation has sometimes avoided the question by confining itself to historical particulars of 18th-century Europe. Yet the most visible proponents of the Enlightenment, the ""philosophers"", insisted that their project originated a century earlier, in the writings of the first self-proclaimed modern ""philosophers"". This volume seeks philosophical clarity of modernity's enlightenment by beginning with Bacon, Descartes and Hobbes. Consideration of Pascal, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Roussea, Lessing and Kant - all philosophical critics, or reformers, of the Enlightenment - furthers the study of its legacy by displaying its diversity. Finally, the book indicates the Enlightenment's vitality by outlining ways it continues to hold philosophical sway in this century. The contributors discuss several themes pertaining to the ambition of Enlightenment reason: justice, tradition and authority; the mastery of nature; metaphysics and scientific method; enlightened and unenlightened ""dogmatism""; the utilitarian revision of the common good and the commonly true; Christianity and the limits of enlightened theology; ""theodicy""; aesthetics and political rhetoric; myth, history and human freedom.

FROM THE AUTHOR: Pearl Harbor galvanized America to convert peacetime production capacity to war levels, intensify recruiting, and expand every facet of its military training system. Those of us who wanted to fly found on Monday, 8 December 1941, that a difficult written test would satisfy the two years of college prerequisite to enter the Aviation Cadet aircrew-training program. We still faced a rigorous physical exam and batteries of psychological and intelligence evaluations plus specific aptitude tests. The process was intense, demanding, and time consuming. Only 41 survivors of several hundred original applicants in the Boston area became aviation cadets on 18 March 1942. Five days later, we reported to Santa Ana Army Air Base, California, for preflight training-the first of four phases en route to pilot, navigator, or bombardier wings. Santa Ana was a new base with no roads or buildings. Tents were used for every purpose. The wettest rainy season in years converted the base into a muddy quagmire. Amazingly, the program stayed on schedule despite almost impossible living and working conditions. I found a remarkable can-do attitude to be characteristic of Army personnel in every step of the training process. Our class opened a new primary flight school in Scottsdale and a new basic flight school in Marana, both in Arizona. Neither was ready for occupancy, but the Army made do and opened on time, producing graduates who met course completion standards despite obvious handicaps. On 4 January 1943, Class 43-A graduated from Luke Field on schedule with more than 400 new pilots. Other advanced flying bases produced similar numbers to provide a steady flow of young Americans to support theater requirements for combat aircrews. Operational P-40 training in Sarasota, Florida, started two weeks later. The schedule provided the necessary 40 hours for each of us in eight weeks. By the end of March, we reported to Dale Mabry Field, Tallahassee, Florida, for overseas processing. With our gear, we boarded a new four-engine C-54 for Africa via Miami, Trinidad, Belem, Ascension Island, and Accra. Many of us volunteered to ferry P-40s from Lagos (down the coast from Accra) through equatorial Africa to Cairo-an unlikely saga, completed successfully-without maps or navigational aids. That ferry trip was the first example of an indomitable can-do determination to complete the mission. That attitude became the defining characteristic of leadership philosophy in the 57th Fighter Group. Those selected for positions of greater responsibility had to demonstrate leadership capability-the ability to think under pressure and the determination to get the job done. The last two chapters focus on highlights of the more memorable missions that took place during two years of bitter fighting between implacable enemies-one who never gave ground willingly, and one who never quit trying to find a better way to get the job done. For the most part, the events are accurate accounts with due allowance for fallible memories of participants who have survived some 60 years since these events demanded and received complete concentration from all who were part of the 57th Fighter Group. At a recent gathering of old fighter pilots, everyone agreed with the sequence of the missions but each of us had a different memory of where we were flying in the formation. Air University.

Imagine if you will, assembling all the great Archeological and Anthropological Writers of the current century, in one room and asking them to write a factual book on the Origins and History of the Human Race. (Objective Researchers and Writers like Von Daniken, Sagan, Sitchen, Cremo, Wilkens, Hancock, West, Hapgood, Dunn, Childress, and on and on). Well, for various reasons, this has never been done, SO I DID IT. After 30 years of quiet research, visiting sites, and pouring over ancient documents and writings, I have brought it all together into one "BIG PICTURE" that can be read and understood by everyone. This "Big Picture" will leave you amazed, if not angry, that you and millions like you have been so deceived, for so long. As the expression goes, "The Cat is out of the bag.."

Romanticism and Speculative Realism features a range of scholars working at the intersection of literary poetics and philosophy. It considers how the writing of the Romantic era reconceptualizes the human imagination, the natural world, and the language that correlates them in radical ways that can advance current speculative debates concerning new ontologies and new materialisms. In their wide-ranging examinations of canonical and non-canonical romantic writers, the scholars gathered here rethink the connections between the human and non-human world to envision speculative modes of social being and ecological politics. Spanning historical and national frameworks-from historical romanticism to contemporary post-romantic ecology, and from British and German romanticism to global modernity-these essays examine life in all its varied forms in, and beyond, the Anthropocene.

Romanticism and Speculative Realism features a range of scholars working at the intersection of literary poetics and philosophy. It considers how the writing of the Romantic era reconceptualizes the human imagination, the natural world, and the language that correlates them in radical ways that can advance current speculative debates concerning new ontologies and new materialisms. In their wide-ranging examinations of canonical and non-canonical romantic writers, the scholars gathered here rethink the connections between the human and non-human world to envision speculative modes of social being and ecological politics. Spanning historical and national frameworks-from historical romanticism to contemporary post-romantic ecology, and from British and German romanticism to global modernity-these essays examine life in all its varied forms in, and beyond, the Anthropocene.

Whether the rapt trances of Romanticism or the corpse-like figures that confounded Victorian science and religion, nineteenth-century depictions of bodies in suspended animation are read as manifestations of broader concerns about the unknowable in Anne C. McCarthy's Awful Parenthesis. Examining various aesthetics of suspension in the works of poets such as Coleridge, Shelley, Tennyson, and Christina Rossetti, McCarthy shares important insights into the nineteenth-century fascination with the sublime. Attentive to differences between "Romantic" and "Victorian" articulations of suspension, Awful Parenthesis offers a critical alternative to assumptions about periodization. While investigating various conceptualizations of suspension, including the suspension of disbelief, suspended animation, trance, paralysis, pause, and dilatation, McCarthy provides historically-aware close readings of nineteenth-century poems in conversation with prose genres that include devotional works, philosophy, travel writing, and periodical fiction. Awful Parenthesis reveals the cultural obsession with the aesthetics of suspension as a response to an expanding, incoherent world in crisis, one where the audience is both active participant and passive onlooker.