Legal assistance for battered women is hard to come by. But it just got a little easier to find in Tarrant County. This month, the federal Violence Against Women Office awarded a two-year, $350,000 grant to the Women's Haven of Tarrant County. The money will allow the shelter to add a second full-time attorney to its staff and contract with the law school clinic at Texas Wesleyan University for pro bono and student services. Most important, the funds will help fill a frustrating gap. The Women's Haven, which provides shelter and outreach to domestic-violence victims, already has a full-time attorney. But that person is prohibited (by funding parameters) from representing women in matters of divorce or child custody. That's not a problem for most of the shelter's indigent residents, who can access free legal aid locally from West Texas Legal Services. But many of the clients served by the Women's Haven outreach programs are the working poor, who don't qualify for free legal services. Divorces and custody battles are simply out of their financial reach. "They can't begin to save up enough money for a divorce, so they're stuck," says Sonyia Hartwell, the Women's Haven's associate director. "They're completely shut out of the civil-law system." In Texas, unlike in some other states, women who aren't divorced can't gain full control over their portion of assets. And they can't obtain child support. The grant will also provide law students with valuable experience working these types of cases. "They can't go to court, but they can interview clients and do all the initial intake work that needs to be done" as well as investigative work, says Hartwell. And there's no shortage of abuse victims who need this kind of help. "Within 60 days of hanging out her or his shingle," says Hartwell of the yet unhired new attorney, "we'll have an active caseload of 20 or more."

Question: "What is different about living in Texas if you are not a divorced woman?"

Response: "Can't obtain child support"

A: no

The after-action review had treated the CIA as the lead agency for any offensive against al Qaeda, and the principals, at their March 10 meeting, had endorsed strengthening the CIA's capability for that role. To the CTC, that meant proceeding with "The Plan," which it had put forward half a year earlier-hiring and training more case officers and building up the capabilities of foreign security services that provided intelligence via liaison. On occasion, as in Jordan in December 1999, these liaison services took direct action against al Qaeda cells. In the CTC and higher up, the CIA's managers believed that they desperately needed funds just to continue their current counterterrorism effort, for they reckoned that the millennium alert had already used up all of the Center's funds for the current fiscal year; the Bin Laden unit had spent 140 percent of its allocation. Tenet told us he met with Berger to discuss funding for counterterrorism just two days after the principals' meeting. While Clarke strongly favored giving the CIA more money for counterterrorism, he differed sharply with the CIA's managers about where it should come from. They insisted that the CIA had been shortchanged ever since the end of the Cold War. Their ability to perform any mission, counterterrorism included, they argued, depended on preserving what they had, restoring what they had lost since the beginning of the 1990s, and building from there-with across-the-board recruitment and training of new case officers, and the reopening of closed stations. To finance the counterterrorism effort, Tenet had gone to congressional leaders after the 1998 embassy bombings and persuaded them to give the CIA a special supplemental appropriation. Now, in the aftermath of the millennium alert, Tenet wanted a boost in overall funds for the CIA and another supplemental appropriation specifically for counterterrorism. To Clarke, this seemed evidence that the CIA's leadership did not give sufficient priority to the battle against Bin Laden and al Qaeda. He told us that James Pavitt, the head of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, "said if there's going to be money spent on going after Bin Laden, it should be given to him. My view was that he had had a lot of money to do it and a long time to do it, and I didn't want to put more good money after bad." The CIA had a very different attitude: Pavitt told us that while the CIA's Bin Laden unit did"extraordinary and commendable work," his chief of station in London "was just as much part of the al Qaeda struggle as an officer sitting in [the Bin Laden unit]." The dispute had large managerial implications, for Clarke had found Ailies in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Question: "What alert caused the CIA's managers believe that they had already used up all of the Center's funds for the current fiscal year, and caused Tenet to want a boost in overall funds for the CIA?"

Response: "1998 embassy bombings"

A: yes

You couldnt survive without your skin. It has many important functions. The main function of the skin is controlling what enters and leaves the body. It prevents the loss of too much water from the body. It also prevents bacteria and other microorganisms from entering the body. The skin helps maintain a constant body temperature. It keeps the body cool in two ways. Sweat from sweat glands in the skin evaporates to cool the body. Blood vessels in the skin dilate, or widen. This action increases blood flow to the body surface. This allows more heat to reach the surface. The heat is then able to radiate off the body. The opposite happens to retain body heat. Blood vessels in the skin constrict, or narrow. This decreases blood flow to the body surface. This reduces the amount of heat that reaches the surface. When this happens, less heat can be lost to the air.

Question: "Does the skin have any control over body temperature and if so in how many ways does it?"

Response: "Yes, and in 3 ways"

A:
yes