text:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18, 2011— -- AMANPOUR: This week -- a special program on the defining issue of 2012. Has Uncle Sam become too big, too powerful? A bailout bonanza, a welfare state? A tax-and-spend Goliath crushing the entrepreneurial spirit when America can't afford to fall behind? That' the rallying cry of the Tea Party, the mantra of Republican candidates everywhere.
GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Washington doesn't need a new coat of paint. It needs a complete overall.
AMANPOUR: At the heart of Ronald Reagan's famous declaration.
RONALD REAGAN: The government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
AMANPOUR: Today, ABC News and the Miller Center of the University of Virginia present, the great American debate. Facing off here in Washington, the intellectual heavyweights of both parties. For the right, Congressman Paul Ryan and ABC's own George Will. And from the left, Congressman Barney Frank and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Good morning. And welcome to this special edition of the program. Today, we delve into the fundamental question that's facing American democracy at this pivotal moment. Has the federal government become too big, too sprawling? Americans have always been weary of Washington, but this year that anger seems to be at fever pitch, with poll after poll showing trust in government is at an all-time low. But is this because it's too bloated or too broken? And what about this conundrum, people who oppose big government still want to collect their entitlements?
So today we put all those issues to the test. This is of course a debate as old as the republic itself, and the driving theme of the 2012 elections. And ABC's John Donvan tells us why.
REP. JOHN A. BOEHNER, R-OHIO, HOUSE SPEAKER: Right now, we have got a government so big and so expensive--
JOHN DONVAN, ABC CORRESPONDENT: You listen to this theme.
GLENN BECK: Big government.
DONVAN: Let's call it--
PERRY: Big government economic policies.
DONVAN: Or maybe rant is the word.
DONVAN: And how does this not feel as though we're stuck in a time machine? Because didn't we hold this debate already? Didn't Reagan say 30 years ago--
REAGAN: Government isn't the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.
DONVAN: And 15 years ago, didn't Clinton basically concede?
BILL CLINTON: The era of big government is over.
DONVAN: Didn't Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton come out of the very founding itself drawing America's first partisan battle lines? Because Hamilton had big plans for a strong central government, leadership by an elite, a stretchable Constitution. While Jefferson, he wanted to keep power local and limited and exactly as spelled out in the Constitution, no less and especially no more. Well, guess what? Hamilton dies in a duel, Jefferson becomes president, and then he starts enlarging things, like America itself, buying land rights from France. Like the national debt, which got bigger as the result. And the size of the government? Well, they had to keep adding chairs to the president's cabinet from five in Jefferson's time; the number grew to 7 by 1853; 10 by 1903. Then comes the New Deal.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: The only thing we have to fear is --
DONVAN: A broken economy, it was government to the rescue. Social Security born, the financial industry slapped with new rules. And the view that it was a good thing to spend to save the system. It touched that thing inside that says, when something's not right, in a Hollywood way that captures it in a line--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Should be a law against it.
DONVAN: Mae West in "My Little Chickadee." Well, laws we've got. Plenty of them. And rules and regulations and restrictions and limits and codes and requirements. And agencies and boards and commissions and departments that warn and watch and police, and enforce, and inspect and approve or disapprove. Who wants all this? Well, if you needed it, if you needed the federal government to force open the schoolhouse door, if you needed those checks the government handed out after the Gulf oil spill, if you hated the fact that airlines could keep you on the runways for hours until the government told them they couldn't. If you need the parking space that federal law mandates in front of stores, then, well, it's you who wanted it.
Or maybe not. Not when this agency gets into it, because there's a price to be paid for all of this. And maybe we can't really pay it.
AMANPOUR: And so, today, we step away from the din to debate what American government should do and what it does well. We're here with a live studio audience at the night studio in the Newseum. And with me on this stage, some of the leading lights in American political thought. On the right, House Budget Committee Chairman Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and ABC's own George Will. And on the left, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who's just announced that this term in Washington will be his list. And Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary, now teaching at the University of California Berkeley.
Gentlemen, we have a lot of ground to cover today and we want to leave time for questions, and so we're asking you to keep answers quite tight. And you'll be allowed a moment or two for rebuttal.
We kick things off with brief opening statements. First, Congressman Ryan.
RYAN: Thank you, Christiane. Is there too much government in our lives? Yes. Ask most people and they will agree. It's no coincidence that government spending has hit record levels while people's trust in government has hit record lows. So the longer answer, why is this, is pretty simple.
Too much government inevitably leads to bad government. When government grows too much and extends beyond its limits, it usually does things poorly. Our founders put limits on government because they knew the limits of government.
The left usually likes to advance what I would call a strawman argument or a false choice, that those of us who believe in the constitutional principles of limited government somehow favor sort of a Hobbsian state of nature, or a social Darwinism, where people are left to fend for themselves completely, only to be exploited by the few who are powerful, and that the only alternative to this cruel society is a vision of a society of total security and total outcome, results guaranteed by government.
Fortunately, this is not the case. Those of us who believe in limited government also believe in effective government. A good and popular government is one that respects its limits. Is one that fulfills its goals and its functions well.
But look at where we are today. Look at our economy, look at our debt. Crony capitalism where government is picking winners and losers. Where you have big government and big business exchanging favors with one another while the entrepreneur and the small-business person is left struggling to survive.
The last few years have shown us that a truly effective government is impossible without limits. A government that focuses on equalizing the results of our lives is one that does damage to the American commitment of equal opportunity. If we reclaim our founding timeless principles, we'll have a government that we have faith in, that we are proud of, and the question surrounding the size and the proper size of government will take care of itself.
AMANPOUR: Congressman Ryan, thank you very much. And Congressman Barney Frank, your opening minute and a half.
FRANK: Yes, we have too much government, and yes, we have too little government. There is this mistaken view that says, you know, we have a fight between the people's money and the government's money. It's all the people's money. The question is, as people, intelligently, we have two sets of needs. We have needs that we best pursue individually, with money for ourselves and our families. And we can make personal choices. But then there are things that we have to do together.
I understand the appeal of tax cuts, but in all my years of government, I have never seen a tax cut put out a fire. I have never seen a tax cut build a bridge or clean up toxic atmosphere.
The point is that there are some things where we are inevitably together. We are interlocked in the economy. We're all subject to the same environment, we all have the same public safety needs. And there, I think, we have sometimes had too little government.
On the other hand, and my conservative friends who claim that they are for small government are the ones who tell us that an adult shouldn't be able to gamble on the Internet. We have the leading judicial conservative, Antonin Scalia, absolutely in a snit because you can't be sent to jail if you have personal sexual relations of which he does not approve. We have a series of interventions by the conservatives in those choices that should be left to individuals.
So my conservative friends have it absolutely backwards. I do want there to be regulation so that you don't have the kind of manipulation in the financial area that leads to crises. And I do want to be able to clean up the environment. No matter how rich you are, you can't get your own air to breathe.
On the other hand, as I said, there are overreaches by the conservatives. And by the way, they include militarily. I think we have a wonderful military, full of able young people, very well equipped, and they can stop bad things from happening. But they're not really good at making good things happen in foreign societies. And it's on the whole my conservative friends who want us to be rebuilding other societies where we're not very good at it. So the answer is yes, we should have more government where we need in an interactive way to protect ourselves against abuses, but there should be more personal choice. And so that's the -- that's the current situation.
And so my answer is yes, I want more government involved in economic regulation and environmental cleanup and for reasons of public safety. I want less government telling me what personal choices to make as an individual.
AMANPOUR: Congressman, thank you very much. So you have heard both sides open up with their premise.
And let me ask you, Robert Reich, about the distrust and the fear of government, it's at record highs right now. And a recent Gallup poll shows that about 64 percent of Americans, including 48 percent Democrats, feel that a big government is the biggest threat to the future of this country as compared with only 26 percent thinking that big business is the biggest threat to the future of this country. Isn't that your problem?
REICH: Well, it's not my problem, personally. And Christiane, I think that this country has never, in our history, embraced the idea of big government. We don't like to think that we want big government. The idea of big government as a framing device in terms of a debate such as this inevitably sets it up kind of in favor of the side that doesn't want big government. As my debating partner just said the issue is really not so much how big the government is, it's what government does, it's who is government -- who government is for.
And I think lot of us are worried that government is doing the wrong things. It's not only invading personal space -- I mean, look at what Alabama and also Arizona have done with regard to allowing police to stop almost anybody who looks Latino on the suspicion that may not be here legally. We want a government that actually does protect the right things.
You mentioned distrust. Well, people distrust government? But how many people trust Wall Street these days? How many trust big corporations? How many trust the economic system? An Pew Foundation poll just done -- the results were just indicated Friday said that 77 percent of Americans think that the economy is unfair, the dice are loaded, essentially the game is rigged in favor of the rich.
AMANPOUR: You talked about what the government should be doing. So let me ask you, one of the big issues obviously that we have been debating all year is election. This election is jobs, the jobs crisis. There are something like nearly 23 million people who are either unemployed, underemployed or out of the work force. And of course during the Great Depression the government created big programs to get people back to work. Why shouldn't they do right now? Why shouldn't they be that kind of... WILL: First of all, because it didn't work during the depression. The cardinal aim of the New Deal was to put the country back to work. Unemployment never came below 14 percent until we geared up to be the arsenal of democracy in the Second World War. We have had a remarkably clear test under the Obama administration. They said, pass the stimulus and by 2011, the economy would be growing at 4% and unemployment would be 7.1 percent and falling.
I don't fault the president for having his economic projections wrong. This is a complicated society. John Kenneth Galbraith, one of your liberal friends was once said, that the purpose of economic projections is to make astrology to look respectable.
I don't fault the president for this. I fault the president for thinking that society is transparent and easy to regulate. Just as I don't fault the president for making a slew of horrible investments in green energy and all the rest -- Solyndra and other companies. I don't fault him for that, because no one expects the political class to be good at disposing money in the most productive ways.
FRANK: Well, can I respond to that. Because in fact one of the most successful things we have done recently is to keep the American automobile industry alive. Yes, Solyndra was a mistake, but there was a major liberal/conservative fight about whether or not we should inject funding into the American automobile industry. And as a result of that injection of funding, we have a thriving American automobile industry today that would have been in collapse.
And it's interesting that Ford Motor Company that was not looking for any of that money, because they had prudently put aside some money ardently argued for money to go to Chrysler and General Motors which are now alive and thriving. And there was significant appointment -- the American automobile industry is stronger than it has been in a long time because of a judicious intervention of federal funding.
As to the stimulus, yes, they overargued. But the fact is, quite clear, things are better than they would have been.
Now, I understand, it is not a good political slogan to say things would have been worse without me. You don't win on that. But it is clear, and I say that less politely in other forums, it is clear that the economic intervention that we did earlier in 2009, reduced the damage.
The president underestimated the difficulty we had in the economy. But when you talk about interventions, the intervention into the American automobile industry has been very successful and has promoted employment, it has promoted and kept alive an American automobile industry that would have been badly crippled if we hadn't done that.
AMANPOUR: Congress Ryan, you actually voted for the Wall Street bailout, and indeed the auto bailout as well.
RYAN: Right. The auto bailout in order to prevent TARP from going to the auto companies, because we already put $25 billion aside in an energy bill, which I disapproved of, to go to auto companies.
The point I would say with the auto bailout is we created a moral hazard now. Now we said if you're really big and you drive your company into a ditch, don't worry about, because the federal government might just bail you out the next time.
The other point I would simply say is, counterfactual is impossible to disprove, which is it would have been much better if we didn't do all of these things. It's not possible to disprove these things, but I would simply say, when we had deep recessions in these country, usually we come out of it really growing very quickly like we did in the 70s and the 80s. This recession, we are not recovering very well.
Look at how high our unemployment is. Look at how few jobs have been created.
FRANK: Do you think the automobile intervention was successful or not?
RYAN: I think we should have done a bankruptcy, because what we're doing now by saying the bond holders look out if you're not on the right side of the politicians in Washington you might lose your money. And so we're violating the rule of law.
FRANK: I don't see any company today that feels that they can be reckless and be bailed out. As a matter of fact -- we're letting companies fail all the time. There's no such moral hazard.
REICH: Can I break out of form and agree with Paul Ryan on one very important issue. And I think the Wall Street bailout, if we had to do it again, certainly, that bailout would have had strings attached. Those Wall Street banks would have been required to help homeowners, would have been required to put caps on executive salaries, would have been limited in terms of lobbying they could do from prevent Wall Street regulation.
Now would you have voted for that, Paul Ryan?
RYAN: With those strings? No, I would have put different strings on it. I would have said stick to the financial services sector, don't go into these other areas that you just mentioned. That was the whole part of TARP. And it was all taking toxic assets, not to buy stock in companies.
FRANK: We did vote for the bill. The bill you described is the one we voted for. The Bush administration decided it was so important to get the buy-in from the financial industry, that they ignored significant pieces.
AMANPOUR: And we have a question from our audience. We're going to go to you on financial services.
LARRY PARNELL, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Good morning. Larry Parnell, professor at GW's graduate school of political management. My question really has to do with what has been put in place since those days to prevent this happening again for consumers and investors to take some comfort from what we have learned in the past few years?
FRANK: I will be glad to respond, because we have in fact gone from being accused of not dealing with too big to fail to now overdoing it. And we are now being accused of too stingy to bail. The economists -- the economists did a simulation, it said if there's another crisis, we won't be able to bail people out.
The Federal Reserve gave money to AIG, the section 13-3. We abolished that in the bill. That no longer exists. We also said that if a company fails -- in the first place, it is, if you can't pay its debts, it is abolished.
Sarah Palin was half-right, which for her was a good average. We had death panels in the legislation that we passed, but they were for large financial companies. If a financial company cannot pay its debt, it is abolished. The federal government can then step in and pay some of the debts, but it is mandated to recover any of those debts that are paid and they can pick and choose and pay only as little as they need to keep them from contagious. And that is all recovered not from the taxpayer, but from other financial institutions.
WILL: Surely, it should be axiomatic that if you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist, because then the country is held hostage to you.
FRANK: George, how small would you make every bank? Should, no bank should be so big that if it fails it would be a problem? How small would you get the banks?
WILL: Below whatever threshold we determine...
FRANK: Well, what is that threshold, George? Would break up every bank in America?
WILL: No, I would break up the big ones.
FRANK: And to what size? Because here's the problem, people say that, because Canada has five banks. And if they're well regulated that doesn't cause a problem. But no one told me to what size.
The answer is not that if you're too big -- what we have said is this, if you fail that's okay, because that's your money as long as it's not the taxpayers' money. That's what we have done is to say that if you fail, you're out of business. We may pay some of the debts, but it comes from other financial institutions.
REICH: This is a terrific example of where so-called liberals and conservatives actually are not on polarized opposites. I mean, I happen to think we should cap the size of big banks. Big banks are bigger today than they were before the Wall Street bailout. I think that we ought to use the antitrust laws to make sure that banks don't get too big. RYAN: And bankruptcy laws.
REICH: And bankruptcy laws as well.
So where is the liberal? Where is the conservative position? We are in the habit, all of us, on being exactly opposite sides. But when you actually look underneath the surface, there is much more in common.
AMANPOUR: Congressman Ryan.
RYAN: That's altogether partly right. But here's our problem with this approach. We are amplifying too big to fail. We are saying that if the government deems you systemically risky, you're the one that's going to get bailed out. And so what's going to happen as a result --
FRANK: No, that's not true.
RYAN: So what are we saying? We are saying to the big banks, you're going to get the capital that's cheaper. We're going to have seven Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs instead of two. And the small banks are going to be left on the outside looking in. We're stacking the deck in favor of the big banks instead of the smaller banks.
FRANK: That's entirely inaccurate.
RYAN: I totally disagree with that, Barney.
FRANK: Let me make a point--
RYAN: Because you just said a couple of things. Government gets to pick and choose. We are putting more power in the hands of discretionary bureaucrats so that they can decide how to run these big companies. And the markets know that if things go down, we'll bail them out.
FRANK: That is simply -- you haven't read the bill.
RYAN: No, I read the bill three times.
FRANK: Here's what the bill says. Here is what -- in the first place, you say break them up. No one has told me to what size. And you do have an international competitive aspect. I don't want there to be no American financial institution that's capable of competing with all the international ones.
Secondly, what we have said is this, we'll be regulating them. The regulators are empowered to make them divest if they think in a particular case they're too big. There are caps on the amount of deposits they can take. But finally, if all that fails and they have to have more capital, more capital for the big banks and the small ones. But if that fails, they are put out of business. They are not too big to fail. We then will pick and choose to see what debts we may pay, but the bank is done. The shareholders are wiped out. Everybody is fired. There's no moral hazard. There is no more institution.
RYAN: You just made our case.
AMANPOUR: All right. On that note, then, in the next segment --
FRANK: Well, what then, if there's no institution, who's too big to fail?
RYAN: And the only people who can hire the legion of lawyers and compliance officers to deal with all of this are the big businesses, not the small businesses.
FRANK: Nonsense. They're put out of business.
AMANPOUR: Congressman, we're going to leave banks for the moment and go to people in our next segment. The rich and the poor and the government's freedom and fairness, when "The Great American Debates" continues.
ELIZABETH WARREN, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE: There's nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear, you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.
Now, look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
AMANPOUR: Welcome back. That is the essence of what we're going to debate in this segment as our special edition continues here at the night studio at the Newseum.
That of course was Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, defending the role of government. The resolution on the table today, there's too much government in my life. The hot topic on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill.
Let me ask you, in 2007, the nation's top 1 percent took home more after-tax pay than the total bottom 40 percent. And now new reports show that at least one in 15 Americans are living in extreme poverty. So the gap between rich and poor is widening. Shouldn't the government do something to address that?
RYAN: Yes, and the poverty rates are as high as they have ever been. That's a good argument for the fact that current economic policies aren't working. Rather than trying to bring the people at the top down to the bottom, we should be focusing on bringing the people from the bottom up toward the top. Income mobility, economic growth.
And so we have to keep an eye on what is necessary to grow the economy so we can have more broadly shared prosperity by giving people income mobility, let people rise up. And that means, take the barriers away from allowing people to rise in society, don't have a society where we say this is enough, we're going to cap it, and we're going to try and equalize the differences.
Because what ends up happening, if you look at that new CBO study that's about income inequality, the best thing you can have to reduce income inequality is to have more recessions. I mean, that's basically what their conclusion is. And so you're going to have different outcomes of different people's lives.
The focus on our government ought to be to respect people's rights so that they can make the most of their lives. And the difference in our philosophies is not equalizing the outcome of people's lives, but giving equal opportunities so people can make the most of their lives.
AMANPOUR: But how does one do that, George Will? If as decades now of evidence shows, at least in the last decade, that this upward mobility in this country has stalled. Mitch Daniels is one who said upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise. Can government, should government do what the congressman is doing and allow upward mobility, which stalled?
WILL: Big government inevitably exacerbates the problem of inequality. Big government inevitably is a servant of the strong. I'll give you two examples. The tax code has been changed 4,500 times in the last decade. Every one of those times at the service of a group strong enough and attentive enough and wealthy enough to hire a Washington lawyer to represent them to game the tax code.
The welfare state exists to transfer wealth basically from the working young and retired elderly -- working young and middle aged to the retired elderly. The elderly are, according to the CBO study, the net worth of a family of a household on average, household headed by someone 65 years old or older is 47 times larger than that of the net worth of a household of someone 35 or younger. That's a record, and has doubled in the last five years. Big government is responsive to big, muscular interest groups.
REICH: Well, I -- let's just be clear about the facts. I mean, right now, the top 1 percent is claiming in terms of their pay, a larger share of total income than has been at any time since before the Great Depression. And their tax rates -- and their tax rates are lower than they have been in 30 years.
You look at that period. I mean, George, you say that, you know, big -- rich people and big corporations have undue influence. Yes, I agree with you. But the answer is not to shrink government and not even to have government attempt to invest in education, in job training and all of the ways in which we traditionally have generated upward mobility. The answer is to get money out of politics, to make sure that those who are at the top reaches, that is both individuals and corporations, don't have the untoward influence they now have.
One final point. In the first three decades after the second world war, we had in this country much more of an equal distribution of the fruits of economic growth. And yet what happened? It turned out that in those days, the economy grew faster than it has grown since. There was, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whom nobody accused of being a socialist, a marginal tax rate on the top of 91 percent. I'm not advocating we go back to 91 percent. I'm just saying that for conservatives to say that we cannot tax the wealthy, when all of the nation's wealth and income, virtually speaking, is at the top, to invest in people and education and training and everything else we need to invest, it's absurd on its face.
WILL: You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen. No one is arguing against government investing in education. That's not --
FRANK: Wrong. You guys are.
RYAN: No, we're not.
WILL: No, we're not.
FRANK: I'll make the point.
WILL: Look, I'm not attacking the elderly. I am elderly.
WILL: I have -- five years ago when I turned 65, I got my Medicare card. I showed it to my doctor, he said, that's wonderful, George, now we'll send your bills to your children. I find that a regressive transfer of wealth, and the welfare state is full of them.
FRANK: Let me talk about education. In the first place, George, you were simply wrong when you say all of the tax -- I thought you said all of the tax increases help the wealthy. I voted, Paul voted against, a tax increase under Bill Clinton which raised the rate on the top people -- at that point it was above 150,000, I would go higher than that.
It created great increase in revenue. It helped us balance the budget, along with military cuts. And, you know, I do want to go back to the fact that it is the right wing that wants to expand the government in form of the military enormously and also claims it's job-creating.
Interestingly, the only way we create jobs, according to my conservative friends, in government spending, is not with highways and not with environmental cleanup, but overseas military bases.
But the point is that the Clinton tax increase was not for the wealthy. It helped, it raised taxes on the wealthy. It actually moved more in the direction of equality in the tax code.
Secondly, as to education, it is this attack on public spending that we have had to defend Pell grants, college aid for low-income people, against right-wing efforts to cut them. And in particular, and when I talk about income inequality, both Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan correctly hailed community colleges as a major way -- as a transmission belt (ph).
But community colleges are largely public-funded. And community colleges are suffering from this right-wing attack on government revenues so that our ability to give community colleges the funds that give people the skills they need, is being eroded by this blindsided attack on government.
AMANPOUR: Congressman, when it comes to taxes, we've just said that the top 1 percent pay 38 percent of all federal taxes. But 49 percent American households don't pay any taxes at all -- any federal taxes at all, is that fair?
FRANK: It is if you don't think Social Security is a tax. In fact, the Social Security tax, which is a very significant tax, which goes to what George was just talking about, Medicare and Social Security, is not only a tax heavily paid by lower income people, but it's regressive.
Because if you make $100,000, then everything you earn is taxed, and if you make $1 million, 10 percent of what you earn is taxed. So, yes, if you exclude the Social Security payroll tax from the calculation, then the lower income people don't pay taxes. But if you look at the percentage of their income...
RYAN: Yes, but the EIC, you can't make your point.
FRANK: What? But the percentage of income that's taxed is taken into account and you take Social Security tax, then that figure isn't true.
AMANPOUR: I want to go to the audience, we have got a question there about lobbyists.
GERALD BALILES, DIRECTOR, MILLER CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: I'm Jerry Baliles, director of the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. My question is this, many Americans believe that Washington is dominated by lobbying groups that represent both the left and the right.
And I'm curious whether in your judgment that's the case? And if the government is influenced by too much in the way lobbying, then how do you reform it without jeopardizing or threatening our valued traditions of the right to organize and to speak freely?
FRANK: Well, let's broaden that one, jeopardized by lobbyists and historians. Let's get the whole...
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you first, Congressman. And then I'll ask you, Secretary Reich.
RYAN: I was struck at something Bob said. How does having big government get money out of politics? It's the other way around. If the power and the money are going to be here in Washington, that's where the influence is going to go.
And so what we're doing by having big government concentrated in a few, in politicians and bureaucrats up here, that is where the powerful are going to go to influence it, by reducing the size and scope of government. By having government live within its limits, you're reducing that power center and decentralizing it and sending it back to the people where it belongs.
FRANK: Can I stress again, I am struck by -- can I just say one again? When people talk about limits, you guys just keep exempting the military. There was an enormous amount of military -- we spend more on the military than on Medicare.
We are building roads and we are building schools and we are building bridges in all kinds of countries in the rest of the world. And somehow it's money that's spent on the military disappears from your worldview.
AMANPOUR: Secretary Reich, since people really do, really do worry about this, and as the governor said, it's both parties, how does one get all of that money out of government, out of elections?
REICH: Well, first of all, we have much stricter campaign finance laws. I think we may need an amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's ridiculous rulings that say that money is speech and corporations are people. I mean, how absurd.
You know, the average First Amendment rights of most people are being trampled on these days because so much money is flooding Washington.
Paul Ryan, going back to your point, my concern is not so much with the size of government, it's what government is for. And if you and I can just simply agree to get money out of politics, and to reduce government to the size that it works for average working people, not for corporate welfare, not for defense contractors, not for Wall Street, not for agribusiness, not for all of the big industries that now claim so much of the public weal, then you and I, maybe we can make some progress.
RYAN: But, Bob, we passed McCain-Feingold, so everything should be all fine.
FRANK: The Supreme Court threw it out, Paul. You know that. That's disingenuous.
WILL: It is axiomatic that if you want to reduce the role of money in politics, reduce the role of politics in allocating money and opportunity in this society, leave it to the market, private voluntary transactions between individual.
REICH: George, you say leave it to the markets, well, we've tried leaving things to the market. Look what happened on Wall Street, we left that the market and Wall Street exploded. Look what happened with Massey Energy. We left that to the market and we had mine cave-ins.
What about the...
WILL: Some of us...
REICH: ... poor in this country? What about education? What about job training? What about roads and bridges and everything else we depend on? You're going to leave that to market?
WILL: Some of us think that the big problem began in this country in the financial crisis because a lot of wizards in Washington decided they knew -- they just knew how many Americans ought to own houses. And they were going to do whatever they needed to do to support banks, to subsidize banks, and to set interest rates that would encourage this.
AMANPOUR: All right. We've got to go to a break. We'll continue this.
And up next, when does Uncle Sam become Big Brother? When political decisions challenge individual liberties as "The Great American Debate" continues.
AMANPOUR: Welcome back to "The Great American Debates." The resolution on the table, there is too much government in my life. And right now, we're going to talk about where government should be in terms of individual liberties and privacy. We have a question to my right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a preschool teacher in a university town, where dangerous driving is an issue. I read the headlines when I was leaving town that the camera, red light camera surveillance issue was not approved. And my question is, when does safety trump personal -- people feel that's an invasion of privacy, to be videotaped. We use it in convenience stores, many places, we use it to catch criminals. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Eminently sensible. George?
WILL: Well, I'm worried, actually, by the mad proliferation of cameras following us through our lives. It does seem to me that when you say when does X trump personal liberty? Almost never.
AMANPOUR: When it's a matter of saving lives?
WILL: I don't want to make safety parallel with, equal to, let alone trump personal liberty.
FRANK: I would welcome -- I do -- there's a complication when you're driving a car, because it implicates others. But I would assume, George, you're going to sign on with me and Ron Paul in removing the criminal penalties on the use of marijuana and on stopping this terrible regulation of the Internet in which we tell adults that they can't gamble.
And frankly, here is where the right wing is very much for big government. They are the ones who want to regulate personal choices. Birth control, whether or not -- we'll leave aside abortion, which is more controversial -- they want to regulate the use of birth control. As I said, gambling. Private sexual practices. Who can get married. I have never understood why heterosexuals who want to get married, believe that if I were to marry a man, they would somehow lose interest in their wives. I am not -- I am not aware of what my attractive role would be there.
So, in fact, it is the case -- there's also the case of course with the military, and again, we didn't get any take-up of that, but a major reason for the expansion in American government, taxation, et cetera, is an overly extended American military, which is committed all over the world to accomplish all kinds of social and economic purposes far beyond defense.
But, let's talk about individual liberty. Gambling, marijuana, personal sexual practices, what people can read -- here is the case where, frankly, it is the right wing, particularly the social issues component of the right wing, that has been the ones fostering big government.
REICH: But this is another issue, area, where so-called liberals and conservatives actually don't feel all that much differently. I mean, for example, when we talk about surveillance, most people don't want cameras everywhere. Most people want to be able to count on their individual freedom. Most people don't like the idea that is contained in the new defense act, the authorization act, that any American could be deemed an enemy combatant and lose all of his or her rights with regards to indefinite suspension, habeas corpus. That's not the America we know.
AMANPOUR: What about what some people see as a paradox, that the right--?
RYAN: Big Brother-ism.
AMANPOUR: Big Brother-ism, that the right wants to keep the government out of the boardroom but in the bedroom, so to speak.
RYAN: So, look, Big Brother-ism. I find it interesting that my friends on the left say that they are the ones who are the opponents of Big Brotherism, when they're passing all of these laws to take power from individuals (inaudible) to Washington. When we get into social issues, that's a different debate about what we believe are the origins of life and things like that.
I noticed, Barney, you have a big thing with the national defense, with the Defense Department. That's the primary function of the federal government. You may not like what they do.
FRANK: But to build bridges in Afghanistan -- where in the Constitution is that?
RYAN: This time last week, this time last week I was in Helmand Province with our Marines in Afghanistan. They're out there fighting for our liberties and our security, depriving safe havens for terrorists who can come and attack again. You might not like that. You might have a problem with that.
FRANK: They go far beyond it. The point is--
RYAN: It is a primary function of the government. FRANK: You're talking about the construction of society -- I'm in favor of the military stopping bad things from happening and shooting bad guys, (inaudible). But they are far beyond that, into construction of societies and in trying to build. Look, we're still in Iraq--
RYAN: Look, we can debate the --
FRANK: Let's do that.
AMANPOUR: We're out of Iraq. And Afghanistan is going to be winding down.
FRANK: No, we're in Iraq, building Iraq.
RYAN: The problem is, this is something that only government can do. National defense is a primary function of the federal government.
FRANK: Just because only government can do it, doesn't mean we have to do it if no one should do it.
AMANPOUR: Let's go to the audience quickly. Let's go to the audience quickly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning. This is a great debate. I'm an evangelical Christian minister from Fredricksburg, Virginia. I'm president of an organization called the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. And so I'm interested in finding common ground and I'm not finding a whole lot here. But I think it's great discussion.
My question is this. There's a great paradox, I think Congressman Ryan mentioned that paradox. One is this, two pieces of economic information came out this week, one that we're a nation of haves and have-nots. 48 percent are now poverty or working poor. That's the first point. The second point is that we don't believe that as Americans. The percentage according to Gallup that actually know that this paradox exists, this great income inequality, has fallen. And so my question is, isn't this a great American delusion? And an inconvenient truth that we deny at our peril?
RYAN: Inequality falls when we have less economic growth. That's the paradox. The point we're trying to say as conservatives, is what do we do to set the conditions for economic growth so that we have upward mobility, so that people can rise through society?
We have a dynamic society and the American economy where people move all around in income groups. People who are at the top don't always stay there, and people at the bottom don't stay there. The question is, what are we doing to make it as easy as possible for people to rise through the ranks and make the most of their lives and remove those barriers in front of them?
FRANK: And the answer is not nearly enough. Yes, economic growth is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. We now read daycare for working mothers is being cut by this assault on taxation. Community colleges are being cut. Pell grants are being cut. I'm talking about those measures which will allow people who are not in great circumstances to move forward. And only the government will do that. There needs to be sufficient public spending for community colleges, which are generally overwhelmingly public entities, and are being cut back now. On Pell grants for lower-income people. For working mothers to have daycare. It's precisely those things that enable some people who are not now fully participating in this growth to participate, that are the victims of some of this mindless budget cutting.
REICH: Also, beyond this, Christiane, you started to ask about civil liberties and civil rights. One of the great -- one of the great and proudest things this federal government has ever done, has to do with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, making sure that there's upward mobility and equal opportunity for people with -- not only based on race and religion, based upon disabilities, based upon sexual preferences. I mean, if we did not have those laws, this country would not be as strong as it is now and we wouldn't have the upward mobility that we now have.
RYAN: No argument there.
FRANK: Can I get an answer on marijuana, George? Are you with me on it? I mea, personal liberty, if someone wants to smoke marijuana who's an adult, why do you want to make them go to jail?
WILL: As you know, first of all, on the Internet gambling, as you know, I'm on the -- a supporter of the Barney Frank bill.
FRANK: Yes.
WILL: With regard to marijuana, I need to know more about -- whether it's a gateway to other drugs. I need to know how you're going to regulate it, whether you're going to advertise it. I am open to the--
FRANK: Oh, you're just a copout.
WILL: We're not--
FRANK: It's been around for a long time. The gateway -- anything is a gateway to anything. That's -- and let's put it this way, that's the slippery slope argument, which is a very anti- libertarian argument. The fact is that if someone is doing something that's not in itself wrong, that it might lead later on to something else, then stop the something else. Don't lock them up for smoking marijuana.
WILL: What you're calling a copout is I'm calling a quest for information.
FRANK: How long is it going to last, George? We've been doing it for decades.
WILL: I understand liberalism's aversion to information because it often does not go in their direction.
FRANK: No, I'm averse -- I've been studying this for a long time. You know, you're on Medicare, and how much longer are we going to have to wait for you to make up your mind?
AMANPOUR: I want to get back to the issue of social mobility, because I think it is the --
RYAN: Good. Let's get off marijuana and onto business.
FRANK: It's a great embarrassment to the conservatives that they want to tell people--
FRANK: Come on. Paul, this is big government. Who can I have sex with? Who can I marry? What can I read? What can I smoke? You guys on the whole -- not all of you -- but it's the conservatives that want to intrude on personal liberties there.
RYAN: All right, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Taking that into account, the basic function of the government -- this government has in the past enabled social upward mobility. This is something governments know what to do. Education, health care. To create a healthy society.
RYAN: The basis.
AMANPOUR: Don't you think that's where it should be involved?
RYAN: There are three points I would make here, very quickly. Number one, the math just doesn't add up. All these tax increases they're talking about, letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top, it will pay for 8 percent of the president's planned deficit spending. So they are raising these taxes to pay for spending that never catches up. We're going to run about $9.5 trillion of deficits over the next 10 years if the president has his way.
The second point is, let's stop subsidizing the wealthy. Stop crony capitalism. Stop corporate welfare. Means-test our entitlement programs. And the third point is, let's get out of this class division rhetoric. It's dangerous. We should not be speaking to people as if they're stuck in some class and that the government is here to help them cope with their lives. We should appealing to people's sense of upward mobility.
FRANK: I never heard a poor person complain that it was dangerous to talk about --
(CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: You will be able to sum up in your closing arguments, both of you, as we take a break.
Coming up -- the teams get, as I said, one last shot to make the sale. So, stay with us.
AMANPOUR: It's been a spirited and civil debate. And now the teams get one last chance to make their case. We have time for brief closing statements. Starting with George Will.
WILL: I want to thank Bob and Barney for shouldering the Herculean task of arguing that government today is too small, too frugal and too modest. I think big government harms prosperity. It harms prosperity by allocating resources not in terms of efficiency, but in terms of political power that directs the allocation. I think big government harms freedom, because it is an enormous tree in the shade of which the smaller institutions of civil society cannot prosper. And most of all, big government today harms equality. It harms equality because, by concentrating power in Washington, in big government, it makes itself susceptible to the rent-seeking by big, muscular interest groups. The only people who can come to Washington and bend the government to private purposes.
Get the government out of our lives more and more, and you'll find that freedom and the market allocations of wealth and opportunity prevails.
Jefferson understood -- Jefferson understood that you can have a government with minimal attention to the absolute essentials we have talked about. Of course, we want government to build roads, we want government to defend the shores, we want the government to deliver the mail. But after it does the essentials, understand what Ronald Reagan did. When Ronald Reagan said we're going to have less government -- under Reagan, respect for government, something we all want, respect for government rose as government's role declined.
AMANPOUR: Thank you, George Will. Robert Reich?
REICH: Well, first of all, let me thank both of you for trying to defend the indefensible, which is that the market is working beautifully and you don't need much with regard to government.
I think if I can summarize what my debating partner and I have been saying, it's that the issue is not so much how large government should be, but who government should be for. And these days, so many Americans are worried that the game is rigged, that the dice are loaded in favor of big corporations and Wall Street and the rich.
And indeed, what George, you have said over and over again, and Paul Ryan, you have said, is that yes, there is too much crony capitalism, there is too much of big corporation and the rich and Wall Street. But you seem to believe that if you got rid of government, then somehow individuals would not be imperiled by those same forces. They would be. Big government is a canard. Look, I spent half of my life in government. Do I look like big government to you? Let's get serious about what we're talking about. And let's make sure that we understand we're living in a society where people care about jobs, they care about wages. They can't get ahead because so much wealth and income are at the top and taxes are not being paid at the top to finance education and health care and infrastructure that everybody depends on to get ahead.
Upward mobility is being slowed because of that inequality, and that inability of us to actually have the effect we the people, not we the corporations, not we Wall Street, not we the rich want to have.
AMANPOUR: Robert Reich, thank you very much. And we will be right back.
AMANPOUR: And that's our program this week. Our thanks to the Miller Center at the University of Virginia for partnering with us on "The Great American Debates." And thanks of course to the Museum for hosting us. Send your comments on Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo! and at abcnews.com/thisweek and thank you also to our distinguished panelists. Congressman Paul Ryan, Congressman Barney Frank, Robert Reich and George Will.
You can also find more information about this debate on our website as well. Be sure to watch "World News" with David Muir tonight for all of the latest headlines. For all of us here, thank you for watching and we'll see you next week.


text:
In this cheese dip, better known as queso fundido in Spanish, the tequila not only shines through but gives the melted cheese a luscious texture. Typical salsa ingredients (tomato, onion, chile, cilantro) mingle with the cheese, to make an unforgetable mexican dip. This dip needs to be eaten as soon as it's made or kept warm (for a relatively short time) in a chafing dish. Don't worry, before you know it, it will be all gone!
I like to accompany with homemade tortilla chips.
1 Tbs. olive oil
1 large ripe tomato, cored, seeded (if you wish) and cut into 1/4-inch pieces
1 medium white onion, cut into 1/4-inch pieces
Hot green chile(s) to taste, (roughly 1 large jalapeño or 2 large serranos), stemmed, seeded and finely chopped
3 Tbs. tequila, preferably a silver tequila
8 oz. Mexican melting cheese (such as Chihuahua, quesadilla or asadero) or Monterey Jack, mild cheddar or brick, shredded (you'll have about 2 cups)
1/2 cup (loosely packed) chopped cilantro (thick bottom stems cut off)
Heat the oil in a large (10-inch) skillet over medium-high. Add the tomato, onion and chile(s), and cook, stirring constantly, until the onion begins to soften and brown, about 7 minutes. Add the tequila and cook, stirring, for a minute or so, until reduced to a glaze. (If you tip the pan toward an open gas flame, the tequila will ignite. If you choose this route, simply shake the pan back and forth until the flames subside and the tequila has reduced to a glaze.)
With the skillet of tequila-infused vegetables over medium-low, sprinkle in the cheese. Stir slowly and constantly until just melted-too long over the heat and the cheese will become tough, oily and stringy. Scoop into a warm dish, sprinkle with the cilantro and serve right away with chips to dip.
Check out the Hot Black Bean Dip With Chipotle in the country blog
and Super Bowl Menus And Recipes
Adapted from Rick Bayles

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Writing is lonely work. But it is not always solitary. Despite the isolation that I sometimes feel pounding out text on my laptop, I work in the presence of an audience, or rather, a perceived audience. The perceived audience is a tough crowd usually, tougher than the real one. It is with me as I write this — sitting at the oak table at the Eastham Public Library– watching me.
My perceived audience is made up of three groups: academics who work on the same subject as me (I know their names and see their faces), academics who work in the same or overlapping disciplines (hazier) and everybody else: non-specialists who are interested in the Arctic, or exploration, or who typed in the wrong search term on Google.
In graduate school, I paid attention to the first two groups. In particular, I tried to interpret the reactions of the specialists. Nothing that I wrote, at that point, seemed likely to find its way into the hands of lay readers, so I didn't trouble myself with them.
Mapping out a graduate essay was like planning a war game: anticipating threats and finding tactical responses. I became adept at different weapon systems. My arsenal included the obscure, the arcane, and the highly theoretical.
This has changed over the last decade as I have started writing and lecturing for a broader audience. The lay audience that once sat at the back of the room has edged closer to the front. This is not simply because they make up a larger percentage of my readership.
It is because they ask the best questions.
For example, last week I was a guest on WNPR's Where We Live show about exploration. No one who produced or called in to the show was a specialist or an academic. Nor was the host, John Dankosky, an exploration expert (although he's a whip-smart journalist).
Yet the questions were tough and incisive. "At the beginning of the 21st century, what's left to explore?" "Do Americans have a special relationship with exploration?"
Dankosky raised one of the best questions after the show was over. "Why do politicians defend human space flight as a jobs program for engineers and astronauts? Aren't these the windfalls of discovery rather than the heart? Would we defend money given to artists through National Endowments for the Arts as a great way to employ artists?
A very good question.
You can listen to the full show here.


text:
'…but Icarus flew too close'
9 March 2018
Filed under Book Reviews
Tags: Books by Proxy, Dune, Frank Herbert, Friday Face off
Here we are again with the Friday Face Off meme created by Books by Proxy . This is a great opportunity to feature some of your favourite book covers. The rules are fairly simple each week, following a predetermined theme (list below) choose a book, compare a couple of the different covers available for that particular book and choose your favourite. Future week's themes are listed below. This week's theme:
'…but Icarus flew too close' – a cover featuring the Sun
This week I had a book that didn't work out because there was only one cover, I had a book that did work but was a bit sneaky and so the book I eventually found was : Dune (Dune #1) by Frank Herbert:
I'm not sure which is my favourite this week. I think I have a joint favourite:
Which is your favourite?
Next week – a cover featuring a doll or puppet
Future themes:
16th March – 'I got no strings to hold me down' – a cover featuring a doll or puppet
23rd March – "When she was a child, the witch locked her away in a tower that had neither doors nor stairs." – a cover featuring a Tower
30th March – 'A little soil to make it grow' – a cover featuring seeds/spores
6th April – "After a good dinner one can forgive anybody, even one's own relations." – a cover featuring a family
13th April – 'lawns and rocks and heather and different sorts of trees, lay spread out below them, the river winding through it' – a cover featuring a panorama
20th April – Where there's fire there's… – a cover featuring smoke
27th April – 'Those darling byegone times… with their delicious fortresses, and their dear old dungeons, and their delightful places of torture' – a cover that is positively mediaeval
4th May- 'A Hand without a hand? A bad jape, sister.' – a cover featuring a hand/hands
11th May – 'Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth' – a cover featuring a dinosaur/s
18th May – 'Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;' – a cover featuring a gravestone
25th May – Trip trap, trip trap, trip trap – a cover featuring footsteps
1st June – clinging and invasive – a cover featuring creeping vines
8th June – Raining Cats and Dogs – a cover featuring a stormy sky


text:
This year's Equal Pay Day falls on April 12, marking how far into 2011 the average woman must work in order to earn what the average man had by the end of 2010. In the 15 years since Equal Pay Day was established, the gender wage gap has barely budged, moving from 74 percent in 1996 to 77 percent in 2010. This amounts to a three-cent increase in women's wages for every dollar earned by men. Given that women make up half of the workforce, the gender wage gap does not generate the outrage that it should, as is clear from the failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act last November.
Polls confirm that most people believe women and men doing the same job should receive the same pay. But many are unaware of the extent of the problem, believe the wage gap is a result of women's choices or think that the gap is a relic of the past. Thus, Equal Pay Day is the perfect time for some myth busting.
Myth #1: The wage gap is a result of women's choices.
We're less likely to think the wage gap is a problem if we believe it stems from women's individual choices—to choose one job or field of study over another, to "opt out" of the workforce to raise children, or to fail to negotiate for higher pay. These arguments, prevalent in the media, overlook important research to the contrary. For one, men are perceived as more accomplished than women even when they have the same resumes. As for women "opting out" to become mothers, author Pamela Stone shows [PDF] that many professional women who leave their jobs to engage in full-time caregiving are not "opting out" but are "pushed out": They are stigmatized and their attempts to stay on the career track are stymied. Correspondingly, Stanford sociologist Shelley Correll found that mothers are less likely to be hired and are offered lower salaries than fathers and women without children.
Furthermore, while it's true that men are more likely to be working in higher-paid fields, women make less money than men even when they occupy the same jobs. Researchers at the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that in the largest 108 occupations, men outearn women in all but four: (1) life, physical, and social science technicians, (2) bakers, (3) teacher assistants and (4) dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers. With respect to negotiation, researchers at Harvard and Carnegie Mellon have demonstrated that although women are less likely to negotiate, they are penalized more heavily than men when they negotiate.
Myth #2: The wage gap is a relic of the past.
Concerns about equal pay may have been mitigated by recent reports that in major cities, single, childless women in their 20s are out-earning their male counterparts. But several important details are often left out of the headlines. First, the pay gap between women and men is smallest when they are young and just entering the workforce, occupying lower-paid positions. As time passes, the wage gap increases as men move up the ladder more quickly and receive bigger raises. Second, young women are now more likely than men to graduate from college, allowing more of them to find higher-paying entry-level jobs. Controlling for education, college-educated men who work full-time earn 33 percent more than college-educated women full-time workers. Third, the good news holds only for young, unmarried, childless women. This might be a harbinger of good news if women were likely to remain single and childless for their lifetimes. However, almost all women marry and/or have children, both of which lower their earnings. Married women earn only 72 percent as much as married men, compared to an overall wage gap of 77 percent. Women with children suffer a wage penalty of 4 percent for the first child and 12 percent for each additional child—a penalty that is not explained by work experience, education, or other factors that affect pay.
Myth #3: The economic recession favored women.
The recent economic recession was dubbed a "mancession" because the male-dominated construction industry took the first major blow. But now it's women's jobs that are disproportionately on the line as cuts to professions such as education and nursing are becoming more frequent. Even as the unemployment rate has dropped again, to 8.8 percent for the general public, it's still 12.3 percent for women who maintain families.
Women are also less likely to have jobs that come with important fringe benefits such as paid sick days and employer-sponsored retirement benefits. Without such benefits, women's ability to save money for a rainy day is hindered, leaving them more economically vulnerable when they lose their jobs.
Myth #4: The wage gap affects only women.
It's time we realized that equal pay is a pressing social issue that affects not only women, but also families. Women's incomes are critical to families' economic well-being. The majority of married couples depend on earnings from women to support their households, and close to one-quarter of children live in single-mother families. Experts estimate that there would be at least a 50 percent reduction in poverty if women earned the same incomes as men in their field.
Imagine how much stronger families could be economically if the wage gap were eliminated. Perhaps the safety net would not have to be as wide. Perhaps fewer families would be facing foreclosure. It's time that the issue of equal pay attract the attention that it deserves. The economic strength of our families and our nation depend on it.
Photo from Flickr user openDemocracy through Creative Commons.


text:
The MIT Kerberos Team announces the availability of the krb5-1.3 release. The detached PGP signature is available without going through the download page, if you wish to verify the authenticity of a distribution you have obtained elsewhere. The following is a list of notes and major changes; for a more complete list, please see the README file for a more complete listing of changes.
You may also see the current full list of fixed bugs tracked in our RT bugtracking system.
Known bugs reported against krb5-1.3 are listed here.
Please note that the HTML versions of these documents are converted from texinfo, and that the conversion is imperfect. If you want PostScript or GNU info versions, please download the documentation tarball.
You may retrieve the Kerberos 5 Release 1.3 source from here. If you need to acquire the sources from some other distribution site, perhaps due to problems with our export control web pages, you may verify them against the detached PGP signature for krb5-1.3.


text:
NEW YORK—Alfonso Soriano homered twice and drove in a career-high six runs, Alex Rodriguez had a two-run double, and the New York Yankees' bats bailed out a wild CC Sabathia in a 14-7 rout of the Los Angeles Angels on Tuesday night.
Vernon Wells homered against his former team, and leadoff batter Eduardo Nunez drove in four runs as New York equalled its highest run total of the season. The second-worst offence in the AL won by more than three runs for the first time in 26 games.
Jason Vargas gave up two homers in his first start since having surgery to remove a blood clot from near his left armpit on June 26, including Soriano's go-ahead two-run drive in the fifth.
Soriano singled in a run in the Yankees' four-run sixth that broke open a sloppy game, and hit a three-run shot off Joe Blanton in the seventh.
A quick rainstorm chased the players off the field with one out in the top of the eighth. But that didn't slow the Yankees, who collected a season-best 19 hits. Nunez had a two-run single before Soriano flied out to left with a shot for a third homer.
Repeatedly kicking at the dirt on the mound, Sabathia (10-10) allowed three runs in six-plus laborious innings in which he walked six, including one to force in a run — but yielded just three hits. Still, he reached 10 wins for the 13th time in a 13-year career.
Leading 4-3 in the sixth, Sabathia walked the bases loaded. He got out of the jam with a double play when Chris Nelson left early on a tag up from third base on Tommy Field's liner to left field.
Soriano started the play when he caught Field's fly and made a strong throw home that was offline. Catcher Chris Stewart immediately threw to third base to retire Nelson. Angels manager Mike Scioscia spent several minutes pleading his case to plate umpire David Rackley to no avail.
The Yankees then broke it open with four runs in the bottom half — capped by A-Rod's hard-hit double to left-centre — to ease into their fourth win in five games.
Mike Trout hit a three-run homer in the ninth, and slumping slugger Mark Trumbo connected in the first for Los Angeles, which has lost 13 of 18 even though the Angels led in 10 of those defeats.
Before his start against Seattle on June 17, Vargas noticed temperature differences in his pitching hand. It was caused by circulation problems due to the clot. In his only rehab start, Vargas gave up four runs in 4 2/3 innings for Triple-A Salt Lake last Thursday and wasn't much better against the Yankees. He allowed eight hits and four runs, walked one and struck out three.
The sloppy Yankees did everything they could to give Los Angeles the lead from the start. With flags whipping in the wind overhead in the first, Wells overran Trout's two-out foul ball into the tight right-field corner. One pitch later, Trout walked to bring up Trumbo.
Trumbo homered to left field for his second hit in 27 at-bats.
Wells connected an inning later. Wells last homered when he was still wearing No. 12 on May 15 — 208 at-bats earlier. He gave that number to Soriano, who came over in a trade with the Cubs in mid-July, and took 22.
The Angels opened a 3-1 lead in the third with help from fielding errors by third baseman Jayson Nix and another miscue by Nunez, who missed touching second base on a force play. The run scored when Nelson drew a bases-loaded walk.


text:
Reporter's Note: I write to the president every single day. And you think you have problems!
Dear Mr. President,
I'm not sure if I should be encouraged or confused by the latest news about the fiscal cliff. Until it is clear that we are headed toward a solution, I think I will stick with the second option.
Which is pretty frustrating, when you think about it.
Several weeks ago it looked as if you were all headed toward some sort of agreement. You were giving up some items on your wish list, the Republicans were giving up some of theirs, but then it seemed as if someone just threw the brakes on the train. Not enough to stop it entirely, but enough to slow it so dramatically that now it seems uncertain if it will even reach the station.
Can I mention once again how much damage it does to both parties when this sort of behavior dominates the depot? I know that the political operatives on each side are constantly trying to triangulate every advantage, and anytime they think the polls favor their side over the opposition in one of these clashes, they think that is good. But I think they overlook the relentless and lasting damage each side suffers in such a battle.
Years ago a trusted colleague told me something about workplaces. He said, "You have to remember that even when you win a fight at work, everyone involved loses a little...and if you fight enough, it won't matter if you are right or wrong, your career will suffer."
Anyway, I certainly hope some kind of deal is coming down the tracks.
Call if you have a moment. I'm around. Went for a nice run this morning with the older daughter, btw; a little over three miles in the cold wind...bracing!
Filed under: Letters to the President • Opinion • President Barack Obama • T1 • Tom Foreman
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°


text:
Keep moving is Life. Life is simple. Never complicate it. Over thinking about something will never help you to get rid of it. Stay calm.
Here are the few things I would to share –
- Health – You need to take care of your health or your health will limit your ability to enjoy your life. Make it a priority. You want to be a successful corporate executive or entrepreneur, work 10+ hours everyday, earn millions of dollars and don't take care of your health for first 10 years of your career. Next 10 years of your career, you have to spend those millions of dollars to repair your broken health.
- Family and Friends – Family does matter at every stage and phase of life. They are the people who really want you to live peaceful life. Always love them. I fought a lot with my cousin when I was growing up. Now, I miss them all the time. Time goes by faster each day so make sure and appreciate the moments you have with family and friends by understanding that they won't be there forever.
- Hard work pays – You might not get what you expected in life but if you worked hard ever on something , it will definitely be helpful.
- Stop your online conversations with VIRTUAL friends. The more online you are ,the more insecure or lonely you are. Instead of that talk to your Parents and real life friends, they will give you more happiness than those VIRTUAL emoticons.
- Guru or Mentor – In life we definitely need a Guru or Mentor to learn the new things or to get the guidance about the personal or professional career.
That's all so far I have learned and Still learning from life! Please share your learning so that we all can benefits.
Please share this article with your friends and family members .


text:
|Total population
|1770: 9,000-17,800
1848: 6,000
1880: 100
1910: 670
|Regions with significant populations
| United States ( California):
Sierra Nevada, Central Valley
Plains Miwok, Northern Sierra Miwok, Central Sierra Miwok, Southern Sierra Miwok
Miwok religion
|Related ethnic groups
|Other Miwok peoples: Coast Miwok, Lake Miwok, and Bay Miwok
The Plains and Sierra Miwok were once the largest group of California Indian Miwok people, indigenous to California. Their homeland included regions of the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and the Sierra Nevada.
YouTube Encyclopedic
1/3Views:1 00614 6155 543
The Oak Tree: Ruth Orta and Family on Oak Trees and California Natives
Bear Medicine. Miwok, Maidu, Nisenan Native Traditions
The Plains and Sierra Miwok traditionally lived in the western Sierra Nevada between the Fresno River and Cosumnes River, in the eastern Central Valley of California. As well as in the northern Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta region at the confluences of the Cosumnes River, Mokelumne River, and Sacramento River.
In the present day, many Sierra Miwok live in or close to their traditional territories and Indian rancherias, including at:[2]
- Buena Vista Rancheria
- Chicken Ranch Rancheria
- Jackson Rancheria
- Sheep Ranch Rancheria
- Shingle Springs Rancheria
- Tuolumne Rancheria
- Wilton Rancheria
The Plains and Sierra Miwok lived by hunting and gathering, and lived in small local tribes, without centralized political authority. They are skilled at basketry and continue the traditions today.
The original Plains and Sierra Miwok people world view included Shamanism. One form this took was the Kuksu religion that was evident in Central and Northern California, which included elaborate acting and dancing ceremonies in traditional costume, an annual morning ceremony, puberty rites of passage, shamanic intervention with the spirit world, and an all-male society that met in subterranean dance rooms.[3][4] Kuksu was shared with other indigenous ethnic groups of Central California, such as the Pomo, Maidu, Ohlone, Esselen, and northernmost Yokuts. However, Kroeber observed less "specialized cosmogony" in the Miwok, which he termed one of the "southern Kuksu-dancing groups", in comparison to the Maidu and other northern California tribes.[5]
Traditional narratives
The record of myths, legends, tales, and histories from the Plains and Sierra Miwok is one of the most extensive in the state. These groups participate in the general cultural pattern of Central California.[3]
Miwok mythology is similar to other natives of Central and Northern California. The Plains and Sierra Miwok believe in animal and human spirits, and see the animal spirits as their ancestors. Coyote is seen as their ancestor and creator god.[6]
There were four definite regional and linguistic sub-divisions: Plains Miwok, Northern Sierra Miwok, Central Sierra Miwok, and Southern Sierra Miwok.
Plains Miwok
The Plains Miwok inhabited a portion of the Central Valley's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and adjacent plains in modern southern Sacramento County, eastern Solano County, and northern San Joaquin County. They spoke Plains Miwok, a language of the Miwokan branch of the Utian language family.[7]
Villages and local tribes
Classical anthropologists recorded a number of specific Plains Miwok villages, but it remained for work by Bennyhoff in the 1950s and 1960s to recognize multi-village territorial local tribes as the signature land-use organization of the Plains Miwok. The published specific village locations were:
- On the Cosumnes River: Chuyumkatat, Lulimal, Mayeman, Mokos-unni, Sukididi, Supu, Tukui, Yomit[8]
- Near the Cosumnes River: Umucha, Yumhui; on the Mokelumne River: Lel-amni, Mokel(-unni), Sakayak-unni; on the east bank of Sacramento River below Sacramento: Hulpu-mni; on Jackson Creek: Ochech-ak[9]
Among the important landholding local tribes at the time of Spanish colonization in California were:
- Anizumne at Rio Vista on the west side of the Sacramento River
- Chilamne at Bellota on the Calaveras River
- Chucumne at Liberty Island on the west side of the Sacramento River
- Cosomne at the Wilton Rancheria Miwok on the Cosumnes River
- Gualacomne at Freeport on both sides of the Sacramento River
- Guaypemne at Terminous on the Mokelumne River delta
- Lelamne at Clements on the Mokelumne River
- Muquelemne at Ione on the Mokelumne River
- Musupum at Andrus Island at the confluence of the Mokelumne and San Joaquin rivers
- Ochejamne at Courtland on the east side of the Sacramento River
- Quenemsia at Grand Island among the distributary channels of the Sacramento River
- Seuamne at Jenny Lind on the Calaveras River (intermediate to Northern Sierra Miwok)
- Sonolomne probably on Dry and Laguna creeks east of Galt
- Unizumne at Thornton at the confluence of the Cosumnes and Mokelumne rivers
- Ilamne at Yolano on the west side of the Sacramento River (northwest of Freeport)[10]
Post-contact history
The majority of the members of the Plains Miwok local tribes moved to colonial Franciscan Mission San José, in some cases through attraction and in other cases through intimidation, between 1812 and 1833. By 1815 they represented 14% of the Indian people at that mission, and by 1830 they had reached 42% of the mission's population. In 1834 and 1835, hundreds of Plains Miwok survivors of the Central Valley's 1833 malaria epidemic were baptized at Mission San José. By the end of 1835, Plains Miwok was the native language of 60% of the Indian people at the mission.
Between 1834 and 1838 the Alta California missions were secularized (closed as religious and agricultural communes). Many Plains Miwoks moved back to their home areas, where between 1839 and 1841 John Sutter played the local groups off against one another in order to gain control of the lower Sacramento Valley. Other Plains Miwok families remained in the San Francisco Bay area, intermarried with Ohlone, Patwin, and Yokuts peoples, and found work on local Mexican ranchos.[11]
Northern Sierra Miwok
The Northern Miwok inhabited the upper watersheds of the Mokelumne River and the Calaveras River. One settlement site is within the present day Indian Grinding Rock State Historic Park near Volcano. They spoke Northern Sierra Miwok, a language in the Utian linguistic group.
Historic villages
The authenticated Northern Sierra Miwok villages are:[12]
- At present-day San Andreas: Huta-sil
- At present-day Jackson: Tukupe-su
- Near present-day Jackson: Pola-su
- On the Calaveras River Headwaters: Kechenti, Kaitimii, Mona-sti
- Between Calaveras River and Mokelumne Rivers: Apautawilti, Heina, Ketina
- On the Cosumnes River: Noma (South Fork), Omo (South Fork), Yule (south of river)
- On the Mokelumne River. Ktiniisti, Uptistini, Penken-sii (inland south of river), Sopochi (towards Jackson Creek)
- On Jackson Creek: Chakane-sii?, Seweu-sii, Tumuti (on the headwaters), Yuloni, on Jackson Creek
Central Sierra Miwok
The Central Sierra Miwok inhabited the upper watersheds of the Stanislaus River and the Tuolumne River. They spoke Central Sierra Miwok, a language in the Utian linguistic group.
Historic villages
The authenticated Central Sierra Miwok villages are:[12]
- At present-day Sonora: Akankau-nchi (1), Kuluti. Also in this vicinity: Hunga, Kapanina, Chakachi-no, Akankau-nchi (2), Kesa, Kotoplana, Olaw_ye, Pokto-no, Pota, Siksike-no, Sopka-su, Suchumumu, Sukanola, Sukwela, Telese-no, Tel'ula, Tunuk-chi, Waka-che.
- "On the Calaveras River: Humata, Katuka, Newichu (between Stanislaus River and a head branch)
- On the Stanislaus River: Akutanuka (northwest), Hangwite (South Fork), Kawinucha (North Fork), Kewe-no, Loyowisa (near the junction of Middle and South Forks), Oloikoto, Sutamasina (South Fork), Takema (Middle Fork), Tipotoya, Tulana-chi, Tulsuna (between the South and Middle Forks), Tuyiwu-nu, Wokachet (South Fork), Wolanga-su (south of the junction between the South and Middle Forks), Wtiyu Yungakatok (near the junction of the North and Middle Forks)
- On the Tuolumne River: Akawila (between a branch of Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers), Hechhechi (at headwaters), Hochhochmeti, Kulamu, Pangasema-nu (northern), Pasi-nu (southeast of Sonora), Pigliku (southern), Singawu-nu, Sala
- Near present-day San Andreas: Alakani (east), Kosoimuno-nu (towards Stanislaus River), Sasamu (almost due east), Shulaputi (southeast)
Southern Sierra Miwok
The Southern Miwok inhabited the lower banks of the Merced River and the Chowchilla River, as well as Mariposa Creek. They spoke Southern Sierra Miwok, a language in the Utian linguistic group.[13]
The Merced River flows from the High Sierras, through Yosemite Valley, and into the San Joaquin Valley near present-day near Livingston.
The Mono tribe people (considered Northern Paiute) occupied the higher eastern Sierras and the Mono Lake Basin, and entered Yosemite from the east. The Mono name for the Southern Miwok was qohsoo?moho.[14] Miwoks occupied the lower western foothills of the Sierras and entered from the west. Disputes between the two tribes were violent, and the residents of the valley, in defense of their territory, were considered to be among the most aggressive of any tribes in the area.
When encountered by immigrants of European descent, the neighboring Southern Sierra Miwok tribe referred to the Yosemite Valley residents as "killers".[15] It is from this reference and a confusion over the word for "grizzly bear" that Bunnell named the valley Yosemite. The native residents called the valley awahni. Today, there is some debate about the original meaning of the word, since the Southern Miwok language is virtually extinct, but recent Southern Miwok speakers defined it as "place like a gaping mouth." Those living in awahni were known as the Awahnichi (also spelled Ahwahnechee and similar variants), meaning "people who live in awahni".[16][17] The naming of the Ahwahnee Hotel was derived from the Miwok word.
Historic villages
The authenticated Southern Sierra Miwok villages are:[12]
- Near present-day Mariposa: Kasumati, Nochu-chi
- On the Chowchilla River headwaters: Nowach, Olwia
- On the Fresno River: Wasema, Wehilto
- On the Merced River: Alaula-chi, Angisawepa, Awal, Hikena, Kakahula-chi, Kitiwana, Kuyuka-chi, Owelinhatihu, Palachan, Sayangasi, Siso-chi, Sope-nchi, Sotpok, WilitoYawoka-chi
Post-contact history
After Euro-Americans entered Yosemite Valley and the adjacent Sierras, and established Yosemite National Park, the residents were of both Paiute-Mono and Miwok origin. They had either fought to a stalemate or agreed to peaceful coexistence and had intermixed to a limited extent.[16]
Alfred L. Kroeber estimated there to be 9,000 Plains and Sierra Miwok combined in 1770, but this is an arguably low estimate.[18] Richard Levy estimated there were 17,800.[19] In 1848 their population was estimated at 6,000, in 1852 at 4,500, in 1880 at 100, and in 1910 the population was estimated at 670.[20]
Notable Plains and Sierra Miwoks
- Lucy Telles — master basket weaver, based in Yosemite Valley.
- ^ Craig D. Bates Museum Anthropology 17(2):13 (June 1993)
- ^ "California Indians and Their Reservations: Miwok." San Diego State University Library and Information Access. 2011 . Retrieved 28 May 2012.
- ^ a b Kroeber, 1907, Vol. 4 #6, sections titled "Shamanism", "Public Ceremonies", "Ceremonial Structures and Paraphernalia", and "Mythology and Beliefs".
- ^ The Kuksu Cult paraphrased from Kroeber. Archived October 11, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Kroeber, 1925, page 445. "A less specialized type of cosmogony is therefore indicated for the southern Kuksu-dancing groups. [1. If, as seems probable, the southerly Kuksu tribes (the Miwok, Costanoans, Esselen, and northernmost Yokuts) had no real society in connection with their Kuksu ceremonies, the distinctness of their mythology appears less surprising.]".
- ^ Clark 1910, Gifford 1917.
- ^ Callaghan 1984; Mithun 1999:535-538.
- ^ Merriam 1907.
- ^ Kroeber 1925:444-445, Plate 37.
- ^ Bennyhoff 1977
- ^ Milliken 2008
- ^ a b c Kroeber 1925:445, Plate 37.
- ^ Broadbent, 1964.
- ^ Sydney M. Lamb. 1957. Mono Grammar. University of California. Berkeley PhD dissertation.
- ^ "Origin of the word Yosemite". Yosemite.ca.us. 2011-07-10. Retrieved 2013-02-15.
- ^ a b Bunnel, 1892.
- ^ Anderson, 2005.
- ^ Kroeber
- ^ Levy, 1978, page 401.
- ^ Cook, 1976, pages 236-245.
- Anderson, Daniel. Origin of the word Yosemite. Retrieved on 2006-08-01.
- Broadbent, Sylvia. (1964). The Southern Sierra Miwok Language. University of California publications in linguistics. Vol. 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Bennyhoff, James A. 1977. Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication Number 5. University of California at Davis.
- Bunnell, Dr. Lafayette. Discovery of the Yosemite, and the Indian war of 1851, which led to that event", 3d ed. New York City and Chicago, IL: F. H. Revell Company, 1892.
- Callaghan, Catherine A. 1984. Plains Miwok Dictionary. University of California Publications in Linguistics, Volume 105.
- Cook, Sherburne. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1976. ISBN 0-520-03143-1.
- Kroeber, Alfred L. 1907. The Religion of the Indians of California, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 4:#6. Berkeley, sections titled "Shamanism", "Public Ceremonies", "Ceremonial Structures and Paraphernalia", and "Mythology and Beliefs"; available at Sacred Texts Online
- Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, D.C: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78. (Chapter 30, The Miwok); available at Yosemite Online Library.
- Levy, Richard. 1978. Eastern Miwok, in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8 (California). William C. Sturtevant, and Robert F. Heizer, eds. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1978. ISBN 0-16-004578-9 / 0160045754, pp. 398–413.
- Milliken, Randall. 2008. Native Americans at Mission San Jose. Banning, CA: Malki-Ballena Press. ISBN 978-0-87919-147-4
- Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. University Press, Cambridge.
External links
- Online books about the Ahwahneechee/Southern Sierra Miwok
- Central Sierra Miwok Dictionary
- Southern Sierra Miwok Dictionary
- Access Genealogy: Indian Tribal records, Miwok Indian Tribe
- Native Tribes, Groups, Language Families and Dialects of California in 1770 — (map after Kroeber).


text:
|Home » Online Games » Action & Arcade
Plan it Green
|Total comments: 0
|Home » Online Games » Action & Arcade
|You've been elected the Mayor of your hometown and have decided to take the barren environment and Plan it Green! Bring back the natural beauty of your city, and create a brighter, cleaner future. Build eco-homes and apply green upgrades, all while bringing new clean jobs and industry to your city. Increase your Greendex as you leave behind the ways of the past and create a beautiful, sustainable metropolis!
Rating: 0.0/0
|Counters: 495/8/464
|Total comments: 0


text:
ELLE DECOR: What are you trying to bring to architecture that isn't there?
Annabelle Selldorf: Tension is an interesting quality—and architecture must have it. There should be elements of the inexplicable, the mysterious, and the poetic in something that is perfectly rational.
ED: What are your inspirations or influences?
AS: I'm inspired by looking at art, by looking at precedent. Looking is what you have to do if you want to make things, so you develop a critical eye.
ED: What are your three must-haves?
AS: A tape measure, my Lumix camera, and a very good pen; it's all about recording, I guess.
ED: How do you describe your style?
AS: Modern. It's specific, precise, restrained, and plausible.
ED: How has your aesthetic evolved?
AS: My aesthetic is the same. What has changed is the degree to which I like to mess with it. I am more experimental than I used to be. I'm no Buckminster Fuller, but I enjoy challenging myself.
ED: What materials are your hallmarks?
AS: There isn't any one material that's mine. It all depends on the context. For example, I did a house that had the most exquisite marble applications. That sounds ostentatious, but it wasn't, given the context. The color white I subscribe to extensively. I love thinking about color, but I often go with white.
ED: What design advances do you find exciting?
AS: I'm not so interested in technology for technology's sake. I don't need incredibly sophisticated climate-control systems. And I'm absolutely amazed at the time people spend exchanging messages; I don't have a lot of time left over for those things.
ED: What is the most important thing you have learned?
AS: Listening and collaborating—all the while pursuing my own path—and making use of other people's points of view. The more you know what a client wants, the more interesting it gets.
ED: How has the public's increased awareness of design affected your work?
AS: The more educated people are, the more sophisticated the dialogue is. The pitfall is that occasionally people think architecture is a paint-by-numbers activity—which it's not.
ED: What's the last place that made you think, I wish I'd done that?
AS: An overgrown garden wall on Long Island. It was at once architectural and natural; it had this wonderful quality of capturing life.


text:
Name (Age): Malcolm Freberg (25)
Tribe Designation: Bikal
Previous Season: Survivor: Philippines – 15th castaway voted off/8th Jury member
Current Residence: Hermosa Beach, Calif.
Occupation: Bartender
Personal Claim to Fame: Once I spent over a month with Abi-Maria Gomes, and I'm still considered legally sane by the state of California.
Inspiration in Life: O.J. Simpson before the murder trial. When he was a kid he had Rickets. For his birthday when he was still young his father took him to a signing to meet Jim Brown and O.J. hobbled right up to him and told him he was going to break all his records which he eventually did. I'm a sucker for underdog stories.
Hobbies: Exercising, writing/reading and partying.
Pet Peeves: Ex-TV stars.
3 Words to Describe You: Charming, brilliant and slightly-less cocky than the last time I did this.
If You Could Have 3 Things on The Island What Would They Be and Why? 1) Soap - Not for me; for whoever I end up cuddling with at night 2) Book of puzzles – Your mind is a muscle and needs to be kept in shape. 3) The Hidden Immunity Idol I never played in the Philippines - Early advantage. Seems obvious.
SURVIVOR Contestant You Are Most Like: This feels like a trick question.
Reason for Being on SURVIVOR: I'm a super-fan of the show. Getting to do it once was incredible. To get a second chance… How could anyone say no?
Why You Think You'll "Survive" SURVIVOR: Experience plays a huge roll in any situation in life. I made it through 38 days the first time so I have to like my survival odds the second time around. Oh, and I'm also smart, athletic and nice to look at.
Why You Think You Will Be the Sole SURVIVOR: You play the game to win the game. I'm not on Survivor to "have a life-changing experience" or "grow as a person" or "see how far I can make it." Those things may happen, but that's not the reason I'm out there. The best thing I have going for me is my single-mindedness and focus towards a single goal: a seven-digit bank account.


text:
This a recovery test. I dropped all control files and all datafiles while the db is up and running. Then, I use rman to do the following restore and recovery. As fas as I know, as long as you have all archived logs and online redo logs, you can recover and open the database without "resetlogs." Why does this one require me to "resetlogs"?
run {
allocate channel tape1 type 'sbt_tape';
allocate channel tape2 type 'sbt_tape';
restore controlfile;
alter database mount;
restore database;
recover database;
sql "ALTER DATABASE OPEN";
release channel tape1;
release channel tape2;


text:
A brief history of time
- Document author(s):
- Georgia Brown
- Document source:
- Village Voice
- Publication date:
- 1992 Aug 25
- Document language:
- English
- Document type:
- review
- Number of pages:
- 1
- Document contains:
- distribution co and production co
- Related films:
- A brief history of time — Morris, Errol — Japan; Great Britain; United States — 1991
- Film country(ies):
- Great Britain, Japan, and United States
- Film language(s):
- English
- Film production company:
- Amblin Entertainment, Anglia Television, Channel Four Films, NBC, and Tokyo Hoso
- Film genre(s):
- Adaptation, Biographical (Nonfiction), Documentary, and Feature
- Film subject(s):
- Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis -- Biography
- Cosmology
- Hawking, S.W. (Stephen W.)
- Hawking, S.W. (Stephen W.). Brief history of time -- Film and video adaptations
- People with disabilities -- Biography
- Physicists -- Great Britain
- Relativity (Physics)
- Time
- Images:
- PDFs:
A PDF of this document is available
Materials from the BAMPFA Film Library and Study Center's CineFiles project may be protected by U.S. copyright, and possibly other statutes, even if no copyright symbol appears. Please be advised that we are providing these materials for personal study purposes only, following sections 107 (Fair Use) and 108 (Reproduction by Libraries and Archives) of the U.S. Copyright Act; please contact the publisher to obtain permission for any other type of use.
In order to access these materials, you must create a free account and indicate that you acknowledge and will comply with these terms. Please click below to sign up; once you have logged in, you will be able to access this document.


text:
House Speaker Paul Ryan won't run for re-election
House Speaker Paul Ryan, who said he never wanted to hold the gavel but accomplished many of his lifelong goals in the position, announced Wednesday he would not seek re-election to Congress.
After reports of his exit broke early in the morning and after meeting with House GOP members, the Wisconsin Republican made his upcoming departure official. He told reporters in his weekly press conference that he wished to spend more time with his children, but will see his term through to January.
"My kids aren't getting any younger," said Ryan, whose children weren't even born when he first came to the House in 1999. "If I stay, they're only going to know me as a weekend dad."
Ryan's departure marks another major vacancy for the GOP as the party tries to hold on to the House with fears of a blue wave coming ahead of this year's midterms. At the same as Ryan's announcement, Rep. Dennis Ross of Florida added to a flood of Republican retirement announcements, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
Rumors have swirled about Ryan leaving Congress, especially after he helped pass a massive tax reform package late last year -- one of his longtime goals. The father of three told CBS in a January interview that he and his wife would make a decision about his future in the spring.
Along with tax reform, Ryan said he was proud to help usher through a budget with a hefty to boost to Pentagon coffers with the aim of "rebuilding our nation's military."
"I think I've done my little part in history to set up on a great course," he said.
President Donald Trump tweeted warm wishes for the speaker. The pair worked closely in the push for tax reform.
"Speaker Paul Ryan is a truly good man," he said, "and while he will not be seeking re-election, he will leave a legacy of achievement that nobody can question. We are with you Paul!"
Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana appear to be the top candidates to replace Ryan.
Ryan came to Congress in 1999 just before he turned 30 and reluctantly took over the speaker position from the retiring John Boehner in 2015. Ryan was also was former presidential candidate Mitt Romney's running mate in the 2012 election.


text:
Marshwood High putting on 'Disco Inferno'
SOUTH BERWICK -- The kids on stage may not have been alive yet, but more than 60 students in the cast and crew from Marshwood High School will bring the fun and music of the 70s back to life with a play that includes more than a dozen songs from that era."When I found this show I knew it would be a great fit to showcase our Marshwood students." said Tanya West, musical director for the show, which opens Friday March 29 and runs two weeks Friday and Saturday nights at 7 pm.
"Disco Inferno", set in the summer of 1976, is loosely based on the story of Faust. The play, based on a book written by Justin Sepple, is about an aspiring musician who wants to be famous so badly he is willing to sell his soul. Jack meets Lady Marmalade, who leads him down the path to moral ruin, as he realizes success is not all it's cracked up to be. After Jack becomes an international success, his only wish is to return to his former life and love.
Jack's part is played by Ryan Bulger, a junior whose voice has been delighting audiences in the South Berwick-Eliot district since he first appeared in Bye Bye Birdie in Sixth Grade. Lady Marmalade is played by junior Isabella Etro, who wowed the crowd as Elle in Legally Blonde, and Jack's longtime girlfriend Jane is played by Julianna Burke, another favorite in Marshwood theater.
From "Boogie Nights" and "Celebration" to "Hot Stuff", the songs of the show come alive as sung by Marshwood students.
Disco Inferno will run for four shows, 7 pm March 29 and 30 and April 5 and 6. Tickets for $8 are available in advance at www.marshwoodmusic.org or by calling Denise Brooks at the high school at 207-384-4500. Tickets are also available at the door for $10.


text:
PSFK. September 17, 2012. (English) by Karen Summerson. -Amsterdam school, 4e Gymnasium, uses the social network's feature to chronologically document major historical events. History classes have created a new approach to studying major historical events. Amsterdam-based school, 4e Gymnasium, has taken advantage of the popularity of Facebook and the user-friendly Timeline feature to inspire a curriculum. The page allows students to create posts, link various media, and create dialogue with fellow classmates.
The class is focusing on four subjects: Magellan's voyages, 20th century inventions, Fashion history from 1950-present, and the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. By not only focusing on the content, but the chronology of events, students are able to experience a larger understanding of cultural and social themes, trends, and milestone achievements.
The class has sent a public invitation for others to add to the timelines by visiting their pages on Facebook. Titles of the pages — as well as more information about the project — can be found in the video clip below.


text:
Violin Flash Arrays for Maximum VDI Performance
When running virtual desktops, the biggest challenge is ensuring that you have enough IOPS performance, scalability and cost-effectiveness. To do so, you need to have storage that can handle random, often extreme fluctuations in I/Os.
If you can't provide these storage capabilities, desktop performance will decline leading to lost productivity and angry employees. So, how can you size your virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) to meet peak demands?
Download this exclusive whitepaper now to learn about a VDI solution that can help you achieve three main objectives, including enhancing the user desktop experience. Read on for two more and get an overview of the product and find out how it performed when put to the test.