Once upon a time I introduced you the five types of RTs, cfive types of COPD patients, and the 11 types of asthmatics, and the six types of doctors. Now it's time for the 13 types of nurses.

No group of individuals is more vital to good patient care than our beloved nurses. Nurses are great, and I've had the honor of working with nurses on both the receiving end and as fellow professionals.

So, without further adieu, I present to you the nursing types:

1. Consensus: About 80% of RNs fit into this category. These RNs respect, seek out, and listen to the opinions of other members of the staff. They tend to work well together as members of the team to come up with a "consensus" as to what might be wrong with the patient and what to do about it. They are aware that they lack the experience in all areas, that they don't have all the answers, and are willing call upon their coworkers, including doctors and respiratory therapists, to help them to best care for their patients. These are similar to your gallant doctors.

2. Contents: These nurses are set in their ways, and prefer not to sway from their routine. They believe they know what needs to be done, and they do it. They tend to not seek out other opinions, and usually don't consider the opinions of others. They consist of about 10% of all nurses. They will often perform procedures (such as increasing oxygen) without seeking expert consultation. These are similar to your goofus doctors.

3. Prospects: These are your newby RNs or, perhaps, soon to be RNs. Most are eager to learn and are more than willing to go out of their way to help out. Some are mature, independent and trustworthy enough to work on their own, while others have less confidence and need quality assistance. Look at these folks carefully, because in a year or two they will morph to a different type of RN. Some will grow dogmatic and become contents, while others will grow and smile and become consensus. These consist of about 10% of all nurses.

4. Cordial: We all hope that Beginner RNs turn out to be of this type. They know they do not hold all the answers, have a friendly disposition, and are more than willing to take thee extra step, even when they're burned out, to smile and lend a helping hand to patients and coworkers. Their ears are always open. They are most often social, may often bring in treats to work to keep the peace, and are likely to remain in one department for several years, if not their entire nursing career. You'll find them mainly on medical/surgical floors, although they generally don't fit in fast pace departments such as critical care and emergency. Some people refer to this type of RN as Happy or even Friendly RN. Most staff and most patients love cordial RNs. They almost seem to be flawless. These usually consist of most LPNs and about 20% of Consensus RNs. Most of them work on the med-surg floors, but a small percentage wander down to the ER and critical care.

5. Receptive: These are your nurses who are constantly looking to become better nurses, read medical journals, magazines, blogs, read online sources such as blogs and articles, and are more than willing to listen and retain the wisdom of their fellow workers. They like to learn not just to better themselves, but the institution as well. They tend to be more observant than your receptive RN when it comes to being proactive responding quickly to emergency situations. They can be friendly, but tend to be more serious and bossy and bossy under pressure, and may even appear to be condescending at times. They may start their careers on medical/ surgical floors, but generally branch out to more challenging areas such as emergency and critical care. Many are likely to further their careers by earning their bachelor's or even mater's degree, and it is from this group you get your future supervisors, administrators, nurse practitioners, and occasionally doctors. They consist of about 20% of Consensus RNs.

6. Dogmatic: This type of RN has a definitive way of doing things. They are relatively laid back in their personality (type b personality) however they have created a set way of doing things to protect themselves from making mistakes. Patients love them because dogmatics tend to be overbearing and attentive to their patent's needs. If a doctor orders for teeth to be brushed every two hours, they will do it every two hours whether it's needed or not, and whether they have to wake the patient or not (patients don't like this part). They are also very particular about specific doctor orders, and call to report even slight variances. For example, if the doctor writes an order to maintain a sat of 92%, they will call the doctor and RT even if the sat is 91%. They will often guilt you into staring at the monitor hoping the vitals improve by your looks alone.

Thus, they are known to make a bill deal of trivial things. In this way, they tend to irritate doctors and RNs. Although they are so nice it's hard to stay mad at them. However, patients can be guaranteed to get a good wash per shift, to be rotated regularly, have fresh blankets and sheets and towels and a good assessment frequently. Any slight change in lung sounds will be noted. But, the bottom line is, they do this because they legitimately want the best for their patients. Bosses love them too, because, like type a anal RNs, they are perfectionists with their charting. They make good friends, and are relatively happy except under pressure. Oh, and one more thing, their rooms are spiffy clean. If you leave something laying around they will not say anything, but they will clean it up. They consist of about 10% of Consensus RNs.

7. Compulsive: Like Dogmatic RNs, they are guaranteed to do full assessments, and will do everything the doctor orders to a tee whether they think it's needed or not. They will never question a doctors order. Actually, they are under the belief that if the doctor ordered it, it's needed. If you say something is not needed, they will defend the doctor as a "god." They too will have you staring at monitor values that are "barely" below the accepted range. But if an RT refuses to continue staring at the monitor saying something like "that sats fine," he will get mad at you and tell you that you are not caring for your patient. If you don't follow the rules, or directly follow a doctor's order, he will approach you. He's also prone to writing variances for even the silliest of detail. They are type A personalities, although are generally very precise and attentive to their patients. Yet they too can be overbearing, and tend to be hard to work with. Unlike Macho RNs, they often seek the help of others, but tend to get upset when others disagree with them, or don't provide the answers they want. Therefore, it's easier to pretend to agree with them than to show them how they are incorrect. They expect equal perfection from their coworkers, and are known to look over your back. Sometimes they are referred to as snoops, or sometimes worse. So, when you are working with these RNs, you need to careful. Oh, and one more thing, if you leave your ABG kit lying on the patients bed, they will make you well aware that you messed up their room. These consist about 5% of consensus RNs.

8. Macho: These tend to take things in stride, and not make big deals over trifles. They would be content to live with a sat in the mid 80s, will use common sense, and will not call RTs and doctors over trivial things. They tend to use the word "common sense" a lot. They tend to be cool. They tend to have a dry sense of humor. Many tend to be men, but not all. Nothing seems to bother them, and they do a good job with their patients with the advice of others or without. They tend to have a high degree of intelligence, yet are often seen reading science fiction or mystery novels in their free time as opposed to medical stuff. They tend to hold their own. They tend to work in CCUs, and are very confident. They consist of about 5% of Consensus RNs.

9. Complainers: Nurses do not have as much time to complain as RTs do because they are busier. When RTs complain, they complain about stupid doctor orders or how doctors refuse to give them autonomy. RNs complain not about their job per se, but about the hospital in general -- too many patients, not enough pay, too many rules, change is not needed, paper charting was better, insurance isn't fair, so and so gets treated better by the boss, etc. They tend to be busy bodies while taking care of their duties. When you pass them as you are entering work, they are known to say things like: "You definitely don't want to be here tonight," or, "Welcome to hell," or, "This schedule sucks," or "I hate Michelle, she's always picking her nose." For the most part, complainers tend to be stuck working on med-surge floors, and consist of about 20% of all Consensus RNs.

10. Busybodies: These RNs consist of the RNs you never really get to know because they are busy, busy, busy. They are fast moving, going from room to room, chart to chart, and phone to phone. They never run, but walk at a vary fast pace. They tend to be thin. Some of them work on the med-surge floors, but the majority work in the emergency room. The tend to be very business-like, but when you get a chance to sit down with them they are very fun to talk with. Yet they are known to take off mid sentence. Getting a complete conversation in can be a challenge. Likewise, they are not good listeners. Actually, they are awesome nurses and are very knowledgeable. Because they are so busy, some of them tend to skip corners. The RT bosses may complain to them occasionally, but considering they are such great workers, they don't make a big deal about it. These consist of about 10% of Consensus RNs.

The Arrogants: They always have that smirk on the corner of their lips, and walk with their heads high. They are usually friendly and easy to get along with, but they tend to believe that they know everything and don't need to hear from you. Since they know so much, they tend to compete for supervisor jobs, and seek to become RN Bosses. When they do become RN Bosses, they tend to not keep many of their friends. These consist of 15% of Content RNs.

Old School: These are very wise and sagacious RNs. They can pick up on even the most simple thing wrong with the patient. Their patients are usually well taken care of, and they have little need for other members of the team. They are not arrogant by any means, and are usually great teachers. The problem with this type of RN is they are set in their ways, and are not quick to adapt to changes. They tend to believe in old theories such as the hypoxic drive theory, prefer paper charting to computers, and may tend to wine when they are told to break from their routine. If you are not intimidated by them, they can be fun, or at least educational, to work with. About 50% of Contents are Old School.


Content Contents: They are happy-go-lucky and when we RTs tell them a treatment is not needed they will look at you with crazy eyes. They do this not because they don't like you, but because they don't understand why you just didn't do what you were told. They say things like, "The patient is wheezing. He needs a treatment." They tend to refer to RTs as ancillary staff, and have little use for them other than for them to do what they are told. They are usually opposed to protocols and rapid response teams (RTT) because those elevate RTs to the same level as RNs, and they know that shouldn't be. And, even if a hospital has an RRT, they will never call for one. Attempts to educate them are futile. They are wonderful people and make great friends otherwise, and are great nurses, but they are incapable of learning new things. They consist of 25% of Content RNs.


Besetting: I'm sorry, but these guys tend to not be happy ever. Nobody gets along with them, probably not even the patient. But when all is said and done, they are very good with their patient when it comes to picking up on things early. However, when it comes to little things like brushing their patients teeth or giving baths, they think those tasks belong to lesser people like Nurses Aids. Unfortunately, these RNs tend to work in Critical Care Units where AIDS are far and few. They have few friends. They hate you and more than likely you can't stand to work with them. If you do something wrong, they will not be nice and give you a warning, they will simply crab to you and make you feel miserable, or they will simply go over your head and write you up. They consist of 5% of Content RNs, so thankfully they're a rare breed.


Boor: They tend to be very similar to Macho RNs as listed above, except that they have no use for "ancillary staff" other than to provide their duties. They consider anyone besides doctors and nurses as ancillary, so RTs are ancillary. If they ask you to do something, you do it and do it now. If you don't do exactly as you are told, you will have to deal with the consequences. They are usually very quiet, and are very opinionated at the same time if you get them going. They can also be hot heads if you say something they disagree with. They will put you on the spot. If you ask a question, they will ask a question back. They hold grudges, and may go days without talking to you if you said something to irritate him. For example, if you are discussing politics with him, and everybody in the room disagrees with him, he may give you all the cold shoulder. He's modest, smart, quick witted, and can be hard to work with. He has no problems making enemies. But if you are intelligent or important, you may be his best friend. They are rare and far between, or less than 5% of Content RNs.


Chief: Here we lump all levels of RNs from supervisors on up. Usually, but not always, RN bosses come from the ranks of the Receptive (85%) or Arrogant (15%). Arrogant RNs don't necessarily care what people think about them, but Learners do. Learners go out of their way to please. The farther away from the duties of RN work the RN Bosses become, the greater the chance that The Institution moves ahead of The Person. That doesn't mean they won't try to be friendly, but the bottom line is not necessarily keeping the patient load low, but making money for the institution and keeping their own bosses happy and keeping their jobs and the higher wages that come with it. The RN bosses closer to the working staff (the supervisors, the lead RNs), tend to fit in nicely with the other workers. They do not complain. They are very helpful. They tend to be good workers. Yet they are often political, defend policy regardless of usefulness, and generally will tell you what you want to hear and then either ignore you (Arrogant) or make an attempt to help through the general chain of command -- a process that's really slow. As a general rule, they don't like to make waves, and the longer they have their jobs, the smaller the waves become.

It's getting down to the end, and as Randy says, this is where you figure out who's in it to win. And last night, with the possible exceptions of Jacob and Lauren, they all were.

The theme: One classic song and one modern song. Each of the five remaining contestants gets to sing twice. J-Lo has a flower in her hair. Steven has some kind of crazy red coat. The mentor of the week: Sheryl Crow, who looks fabulous at 49.

First up: James, "Closer to the Edge." Not his best performance (that was later), not a great song, but he's a rock god. (ivian is convinced he's going to the final no matter what, since Steven Tyler promised to sing with him on stage in the final performance and nobody wants to give up those ratings.) Jacob: "No Air." Viv says it's "terrible." I just thing it's the wrong song for him (trying to do both parts of a duet is a bad idea) and the judges agree. After the first round, he's not looking good.

Lauren: "Flat on the Floor." She rocks it. Good song choice, nice upbeat performance. Nothing stellar, but fine. Scotty: "Gone." A different side of him. Steven is thrilled: "You danced with the devil."

Haley takes a huge risk and sings an unreleased Lady Gaga song, which sucks. But she sings it well, as well as she's done all year. the problem: Nobody's ever heard the song before. Nobody wants to hear it again.

Now Round Two, the classics. and all I can say is, Wow.

James: "Without You." Epic. Over-emotional sap about his family, and he didn't hit all the notes perfectly, but damn he's a performer. He had the audience spellbound. He is, I think, the next Idol.

Jacob: "Love Hurts." I'm not a big fan of Jacob, and there were some screachy moments here, but again: He had the audience. Great performance. Not enought to save him tonight, but great.

Lauren: Whoa, who chooses her outfits? Some sort of blue-striped dress that's a cross of cowgirl at the state fair, hospital volunteer and antebellum pajamas. "Unchained Melody." Boring song, but she can belt it out. J-lo: "Nothing to judge." I agree. Nothing much.

Scotty: Elvis, of course. "Always on my Mind." Perfect for him. A little slow, but the audience loved it.

Haley: Holy shit. I've never seen "House of the Rising Sun" done like that. For once, she's actually sexy and not goofy; the teeny-bopper smile is gone, replaced with a New Orleans bluesy-edgy voice and look that counts as a verifiable Idol Moment. She just saved herself. Performance of the night, maybe of the month.

Tonight: James, Scotty and Haley are clearly safe. Jacob and Lauren are in the bottom, and Jacob goes home. Finally. But don't believe me; I'm never right.

It didn't take long for Doug Marrone to return a proud program to responsibility. What's next for Ryan Nassib, Chandler Jones and the Orange?

NOTE: Confused? Don't miss the definitions and footnotes at the bottom.

Yesterday, our own Spencer Hall pointed us toward a lovely post from The Run of Play that I may have otherwise missed.

The sole and entire point of sports is to enjoy sports; even if you think athletic competition has a deeper purpose, that it helps with moral instruction or enforcing community ties or whatever else, it’s only able to serve that purpose because it’s fun in the first place. If your love of soccer has brought you to a point where you’re no longer really able to see the game as something wonderful and amazing except in narrow moments of unequivocal triumph, then you are doing it wrong, no matter how many kills you rack up on the internet. On that note, it’s also not unimportant that the mind-warp of hyperpartisanship is eventually going to make you think and say things that are, let’s be frank, really f***ing stupid, and that there’s no need for you to be really f***ing stupid just to support your club. ...

So look: don’t be like this. There’s no reason to. It’s really, really easy not to be, once you decide you don’t want to. The secret is to care, I mean really care, about something other than your club. That thing can be the game itself, or the truth, or just being a reasonable person. You can care about something other than your club and still be totallysupercommitted to your club. It doesn’t mean not supporting your team through thick and thin; it just means being able to tell the difference between thick and thin, and not thinking that your favorite forum, or your group of like-minded supporters, is so important that it throws reality on the wrong end of a greater-than sign. It means doing this for fun, and not for revenge or for a sense of deep-down defining identity, even if you’re a crazy tattooed ultra. You can be a crazy tattooed ultra and still be fine, for that matter. You just can’t be an idiot.

This is a beautiful sentiment.  It is the reason I share things I love about college football every Saturday morning.  It is something I have attempted to communicate many times, but seeing this I know I have fallen short.

It is also a sentiment that would have been difficult to communicate to Syracuse fans in earnest in the middle part of the last decade.

This is a program with as much history as any northeastern program not named Penn State (and hell, they can at least compete with PSU in that regard as well).  Jim Brown.  Ben Schwartzwalder, Ernie Davis and the 1960 Cotton Bowl.  John Mackey.  Floyd Little and Larry Csonka.  Art Monk.  Dick MacPherson coaching Don McPherson (which just confused the hell out of me).  Moose Johnston.  Donovan McNabb to Marvin Harrison.  Dwight Freeney.  The Carrier Dome (I'm a sucker for unique venues).

This is also a program that was simply dreadful during the Greg Robinson years.  Only once between 2005 and 2008 did Syracuse finish with more than three wins or rank better than 89th in F/+ (4-8, 69th in 2006).  In that span, only Duke had a worse major conference program.  A team with potentially the most history in the Big East was significantly dragging down the Big East's averages.

Enter Doug Marrone.  While he still has quite a road to hoe when it comes to returning Syracuse to college football's upper echelon, in just two years on the job, he has at least returned them to respectability.  Syracuse ranked 75th in F/+ in 2009, then broke through with an 8-5 season, ranking 57th in 2010.  Improvement has been incremental but potentially sustainable, and it's quite possible that Syracuse fans can once again find the joy in being Syracuse fans.

2010 Schedule & Results*

Record: 8-5 | Adj. Record: 6-7 | Final F/+ Rk**: 57
Date	Opponent	Score	W-L	Adj. Score	Adj. W-L
3-Sep	at Akron	29-3	W	20.9 - (-4.7)	W
11-Sep	at Washington	20-41	L	15.4 - 36.0	L
18-Sep	Maine	38-14	W	25.1 - 26.4	L
25-Sep	Colgate	42-7	W	43.2 - 32.9	W
9-Oct	at South Florida	13-9	W	28.8 - 7.8	W
16-Oct	Pittsburgh	14-45	L	23.8 - 32.2	L
23-Oct	at West Virginia	19-14	W	33.1 - 17.3	W
30-Oct	at Cincinnati	31-7	W	23.7 - 11.8	W
6-Nov	Louisville	20-28	L	22.8 - 28.3	L
13-Nov	at Rutgers	13-10	W	13.5 - 25.6	L
20-Nov	Connecticut	6-23	L	12.6 - 27.7	L
27-Nov	Boston College	7-16	L	29.8 - 32.8	L
30-Dec	vs Kansas State	36-34	W	35.9 - 33.8	W

Category	Offense	Rk	Defense	Rk
Points Per Game	22.2	93	19.3	17
Adj. Points Per Game	25.3	78	23.7	33

Sometimes it takes a while to remember how to win.  On a play-by-play basis, Syracuse improved significantly in Marrone's first year.  In 2009, the Orange improved from 92nd in overall S&P+ to 64th while undergoing the Greg Paulus experiment, but their win total only improved from three to four and their F/+ ranking from 89th to 75th.  Sometimes per-play success comes before per-drive or per-game success.

In 2010, however, the Orange actually regressed in terms of play-by-play stats -- they fell from 64th to 78th in overall S&P+ -- but they learned how to win.  They improved from 75th to 57th in F/+, they improved from 1-2 in one-possession games to 4-1, and they won an epic, confusing Pinstripe Bowl over Kansas State.  In terms of Adj. Record, Syracuse probably didn't play at the level of a true, eight-win team in 2010, but ... tell that to fans who enjoyed being relevant and winning (or simply attending) bowls again.

In all, the offense faded significantly down the stretch despite the emergence of receiver Marcus Sales, but they rebounded with a ridiculously fun performance against Kansas State.  The defense trended toward regression as well, but not enough to prevent Syracuse's first eight-win season since Dwight Freeney was terrorizing QBs in 2001.  (Seriously, he had 27 TFL/sacks and 23 QB hurries that season. Good god.)

Offense***

Category	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	89	83	91
RUSHING	53	39	62	Adj. Line Yards:
PASSING	100	104	100	14
Standard Downs	63	73	57	Adj. Sack Rate:
Passing Downs	100	88	104	106
Redzone	68	73	60

Q1 Rk	95	1st Down Rk	72
Q2 Rk	100	2nd Down Rk	87
Q3 Rk	67	3rd Down Rk	80
Q4 Rk	18

The 'Cuse had a confused offense in 2010.  They passed a hair more than average even though they weren't very good at it, and their variability was off the charts.  They grew more conservative the closer they got to the end zone (they ran 30 percent of the time on passing downs between their 26 and midfield, 40 percent of the time when they crossed midfield), and they didn't necessarily seem to trust a rather efficient running game.  They were a terrible first-half offense that slowly got better as the game progressed (and came through big-time in the fourth quarter).

At 220 pounds, Delone Carter (1,233 yards, 5.3 per carry, -4.9 Adj. POE, nine touchdowns) was a strong enough runner to perhaps wear defenses down later in games.  (A faster pace would have helped with the exhaustion factor as well.).  Carter's gone, replaced by a couple of interesting, smaller backs; his Adj. POE suggests he is rather replaceable, but we'll see about the size factor.  We'll also have to see if Syracuse understands itself a little better this fall.

The key to that, I guess, is the passing game, since 'Cuse evidently wants to pass.  Ryan Nassib (2,334 yards, 6.5 per pass, 56% completion rate, 19 TD, 8 INT) returns to 'Cuse for his senior season, and for better or worse, he's got most of last year's weapons back.  Van Chew (611 yards, 14.9 per catch, 8.5 per target, 58% catch rate, 5 TD) is perhaps one of the better receivers you've never heard of, a solid big-play threat who could benefit from a group of solid possession receivers.  It would appear that tight end Nick Provo (306 yards, 11.1 per catch) could be that possession guy, but his 56% catch rate -- quite poor for a tight end -- needs improving.

In fact, the only primary targets who caught more than 58% of the passes thrown their way were running back Antwon Bailey (75% catch rate on mostly super-short passes) and home run hitter Marcus Sales (414 yards, 15.9 per catch, 10.4 per target, 65% catch rate, 4 TD), who could improve Syracuse's offense all by himself if he has a full season like last November.  In all, Marrone felt shaky enough about this unit to bring in six new receiver recruits for the fall, so just because last year's leaders return doesn't mean they'll be this year's leaders.  Chew and Sales could be a helluva combo if consistent, though.

Other tidbits:

• Bailey (554 yards, 4.9 per carry, -6.6 Adj. POE, 2 TD; 306 receiving yards, 8.7 per catch) and Prince-Tyson Gulley (74 yards, 5.7 per carry, +0.8 Adj. POE) appear to be the Orange's 1-2 punch at running back heading into the fall.  Bailey was obviously an interesting run-and-catch guy last year; I'm curious to see if his role changes without Carter around to take on the large portion of the carries.
• The 'Cuse line could see solid improvement this fall; they were excellent in run blocking but terrible in pass blocking (perhaps Nassib waited far too long to get the ball out of his hand?) last year, and they return four starters, including a second-team all-conference performer at left tackle (Justin Pugh) and two seniors on the right (Andrew Tiller, Michael Hay).

Defense

Category	S&P+ Rk	Success Rt. Rk	PPP+ Rk
OVERALL	58	64	56
RUSHING	60	62	56	Adj. Line Yards:
PASSING	61	65	60	57
Standard Downs	50	54	50	Adj. Sack Rate:
Passing Downs	57	54	56	86
Redzone	28	24	34

Q1 Rk	66	1st Down Rk	48
Q2 Rk	22	2nd Down Rk	34
Q3 Rk	79	3rd Down Rk	84
Q4 Rk	54

Like yesterday's team, Iowa State, Syracuse made a living off of bending, bending, bending, then figuring out a way not to break.  Unlike Iowa State, however, a) Syracuse wasn't all that great at attacking the ball, and b) Syracuse figured out a way not to be horribly inefficient.  The Orange were spectacularly, admirably average on D last year, ranking between 50th and 65th in every major overall, success rate, and PPP+ sub-category.  They were great in the redzone, on second downs, and in the second quarter ... and consistently mediocre in just about every other facet of the game.

This being the case ... it's rather difficult to get too worked up about either returning or departing personnel, isn't it?  For what it's worth, the 'Cuse should be stronger around the perimeter, weaker in the middle.  Three interesting defensive ends return, including Chandler Jones (47.5 tackles, 9.5 TFL/sacks, 3 FF, 4 PBU) and Mikhail Marinovich, Todd's younger brother, male model and hookah enthusiast.  Plus, there is ample quality at the safety position in Phillip Thomas (75.0 tackles, 4.0 TFL/sacks) and Shamarko Thomas (52.5 tackles, 3.5 TFL/sacks).  However, tackles Anthony Perkins (3.5 TFL/sacks) and Andrew Lewis (4.5 TFL/sacks) depart, along with middle linebacker and lead play-maker Derrell Smith (93.0 tackles, 9.0 TFL/sacks, 3 FF, 3 FR).  Last year, the Orange line was better against the run than in rushing the quarterback; the opposite will probably be true in 2011.

Other tidbits:

• It always interests me when teams rank quite differently in terms of my play-by-play measure and Brian Fremeau's per-drive measure.  Syracuse's D ranked just 58th in Def. S&P+ but a much healthier 37th in Def. FEI.  (Split the difference, more or less, and you get an overall Def. F/+ ranking of 43rd.)  The main reason for this should be obvious -- redzone efficiency.  Holding teams to field goals is a solid way to end up on the right side of the "points versus expected points" equation.
• Syracuse had a lovely total of tackles for loss in 2010 despite the mediocre numbers; it appears that opponents caught on to their aggression as well.  They ran more frequently than average on passing downs to counter the aggression.  That the Orange attacked a lot but still couldn't get to the quarterback that often is either confusing or off-putting.

Syracuse's 2010 Season Set to Music

Just put this song on in the background of your favorite Pinstripe Bowl highlights, and you're set, right?

Fun Stat Nerd Tidbit

Here.

Summary and Projection Factors

Below is a small handful of projection and change factors most pertinent to the Football Outsiders' preseason projections you will find in this summer's Football Outsiders Almanac 2011.

Four-Year F/+ Rk	81
Five-Year Recruiting Rk	65
TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin****	-4 / -3
Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)	12 (7, 5)
Yds/Pt Margin*****	-1.0

Thought they have yet to catch back up to the rest of the Big East, Syracuse is making their way back toward average.  Though I can't predict any incredible surge this year, Marrone has enough pieces in place to continue the slow-but-steady ascent.  And the schedule should comply nicely.  Though the Orange will likely be projected in the No. 50-70 range, they should still begin the season 5-1, with home wins over Wake Forest, Rhode Island, Toledo and Rutgers and a win at Tulane.  From there, they should at least be able to scrape out a sixth win and a second straight bowl bid.

The Big East is a conference with an incredible number of above-average teams and, currently, no elite power.  That's good and bad, of course; there are almost no easy wins, but if you take a healthy step forward, you're just as likely to pass four teams as one.  With Louisville improving, somebody will have to assume last place this fall and in coming years, but despite less-than-amazing recruiting, it's looking less and less likely that it will be Syracuse.  That alone should be cause for celebration in upstate New York.

 

 

---

* For more on the 'Adj. Score' and 'Adj. Record' measures below, feel free to read this Football Outsiders column. Adj. Score is a look at how a team would have performed in a given week if playing a perfectly average team, with a somewhat average number of breaks and turnovers. The idea for the measure is simple: what if everybody in the country played exactly the same opponent every single week? Who would have done the best? It is an attempt to look at offensive and defensive consistency without getting sidetracked by easy or difficult schedules. And yes, with adjusted score you can allow a negative number of points, which is strangely satisfying.

** F/+ rankings are the official rankings for the college portion of Football Outsiders. They combine my own S&P+ rankings (based on play-by-play data) with Brian Fremeau's drives-based FEI rankings.

*** What is S&P+? Think of it as an OPS (the "On-Base Plus Slugging" baseball measure) for football. The 'S' stands for success rates, a common Football Outsiders efficiency measure that basically serves as on-base percentage. The 'P' stands for PPP+, an explosiveness measure that stands for EqPts Per Play. The "+" means it has been adjusted for the level of opponent, obviously a key to any good measure in college football. S&P+ is measured for all non-garbage time plays in a given college football game. Plays are counted within the following criteria: when the score is within 28 points in the first quarter, within 24 points in the second quarter, within 21 points in the third quarter, and within 16 points (i.e. two possession) in the fourth quarter.  For more about this measure, visit the main S&P+ page at Football Outsiders.

**** Adj. TO Margin is what a team's turnover margin would have been if they had recovered exactly 50 percent of all the fumbles that occurred in their games. If there is a huge difference between TO Margin and Adj. TO Margin (in other words, if fumbles and unlucky bounces were the main source of a good/bad TO margin), that suggests that a team's luck was particularly good or bad and might even out the next season.

***** Phil Steele has long tracked Yards Per Point as a means of looking at teams that were a little too efficient or inefficient the previous season. A positive Yds/Pt Margin means a team's offense was less efficient than opponents' offenses, and to the extent that luck was involved, their luck might even out the next year.

We catch you up on how the God of Thunder made his way to the big screen.
By Eric Ditzian

A scene from "Thor"
Photo: Marvel

Is "Thor" the best Marvel Studios movie ever? Better than "Iron Man," which wowed crowds in 2008 on its way toward $585 million in worldwide box-office receipts? Better than "Iron Man 2" and "The Incredible Hulk"?

That's the word floating around the blogosphere and inside the MTV Newsroom, where everyone is marveling about what director Kenneth Branagh was able to accomplish with his comic book source material.

The movie could have easily become another "Masters of the Universe," a cheese-tastic example of how not to bring fantastical heroes to planet Earth. But Thor, no doubt, has avoided the fate of He-Man before him. To understand how Marvel and Branagh accomplished this impressive cinematic task, we must flash back into the recent past to see how the project came together. Luckily, that's exactly what we're able to do, since MTV News has been all over this project for years and can now present an indispensible cheat sheet: everything you need to know about "Thor":

Searching for the Gods
Marvel had been making plans for "Thor" since the '90s, but things started to come together in fall 2008, when Branagh entered into talks to helm the production. A few months later, he broke his silence and confirmed to us he'd be hopping into the director's chair, citing the appeal of working "on a story about one of the immortals, Gods, extraordinary beings, inter-dimensional creatures."

At that point, though, Branagh said it was too early to speculate about a potential cast. For Thor himself, we soon learned, Marvel was eyeing someone in his 20s who could be "physically powerful, very handsome, occasionally egotistical, petulant, and wild." Names like Daniel Craig and Kevin McKidd had been floated before for the hero from Asgard, but neither seemed to fit the bill, at least age-wise. Other actors like Alexander Skarsgård, Charlie Hunnam and Channing Tatum entered the conversation, but the job eventually went to Chris Hemsworth. Natalie Portman then signed on to play a scientist and Thor love interest, Tom Hiddleston became Thor's brother Loki, Anthony Hopkins became Thor's father Odin, and Stellan Skarsgård, Jaimie Alexander and Colm Feore joined in too.

Bringing Asgard to Earth
Filming kicked off in January of last year, and a week in, Branagh told us all was going well. "We have many miles to go and promises to keep, but so far, so good," he said. "Everybody's doing very good work and just a lot of it is so promising. Fingers crossed for everybody and everything. [Hemsworth] is a great guy."

Our first look at "Thor" came in April: Hemsworth in full Thor costume, his blond locks artfully falling in his face. "It's a pretty impressive costume, and I think anyone who put it on would look pretty cool," Hemsworth told us earlier. "I have a nice long, blond wig which they throw on every day."

Then came a pic of Hopkins as Odin. "It's a superhero movie, but with a bit of Shakespeare thrown in," he revealed to us. "It's a big, big, broad thing." More photos followed, until the first footage debuted at San Diego Comic-Con.

The public didn't get a chance to see official footage until December, when the first trailer popped up online, showing the God of Thunder as a skilled but arrogant warrior living in the faraway land of Asgard. But when Thor's reckless actions reawaken an ancient war, he's cast down to Earth and forced to live among mankind. As a threat from Asgard looms over our planet, Thor becomes the only one able to save both worlds from destruction.

Mighty Thor Arrives
A year after filming began, Hemsworth still hadn't seen a final cut. "I can't wait," he told us. "I've seen little bits and pieces through the process and little grabs. It looks amazing. I saw some special-effects stuff the other day that looks mind-blowing."

A Super Bowl commercial gave us a closer look at the action, followed by another full trailer in mid-February. Eventually, Hemsworth got to see the full film. "Being that close to something, it's often pretty hard to watch yourself, but the film in so many ways is so impressive that I was swept along with it like an audience member, and that's a pretty good sign," he told us.

He wasn't the only one impressed. Early reviews lauded the film for its faithful adaptation of the beloved comic books. Everything, it seems, is looking good both for a "Thor" sequel and "The Avengers," the superhero all-star flick that's already in production.

"It would be a lovely challenge and problem to have should we do a second one," Branagh said of directing "Thor 2." "We went through so many possibilities for how the story might go, that of course the prospect of that is very tantalizing and fascinating."

As for "Avengers," which will focus not only on Thor and Loki but characters like Hulk, Captain America and Hawkeye, everyone involved is ecstatic. "We've met sort of separately at various events and things, but yet to all sit down in the same room and do a read through...which I'm very excited about," Hemsworth told us before production began. "All of a sudden there's more people to sort of take some of the weight of it all, but also you want to do your bit and stand out, you know so it's a combination. But the excitement outweighs all of that. I'm a huge fan of these characters and these actors."

Check out everything we've got on "Thor."

For breaking news and previews of the latest comic book movies — updated around the clock — visit SplashPage.MTV.com.

Related Videos

• MTV Rough Cut: 'Thor'

It's getting down to the end, and as Randy says, this is where you figure out who's in it to win. And last night, with the possible exceptions of Jacob and Lauren, they all were.

The theme: One classic song and one modern song. Each of the five remaining contestants gets to sing twice. J-Lo has a flower in her hair. Steven has some kind of crazy red coat. The mentor of the week: Sheryl Crow, who looks fabulous at 49.

First up: James, "Closer to the Edge." Not his best performance (that was later), not a great song, but he's a rock god. (ivian is convinced he's going to the final no matter what, since Steven Tyler promised to sing with him on stage in the final performance and nobody wants to give up those ratings.) Jacob: "No Air." Viv says it's "terrible." I just thing it's the wrong song for him (trying to do both parts of a duet is a bad idea) and the judges agree. After the first round, he's not looking good.

Lauren: "Flat on the Floor." She rocks it. Good song choice, nice upbeat performance. Nothing stellar, but fine. Scotty: "Gone." A different side of him. Steven is thrilled: "You danced with the devil."

Haley takes a huge risk and sings an unreleased Lady Gaga song, which sucks. But she sings it well, as well as she's done all year. the problem: Nobody's ever heard the song before. Nobody wants to hear it again.

Now Round Two, the classics. and all I can say is, Wow.

James: "Without You." Epic. Over-emotional sap about his family, and he didn't hit all the notes perfectly, but damn he's a performer. He had the audience spellbound. He is, I think, the next Idol.

Jacob: "Love Hurts." I'm not a big fan of Jacob, and there were some screachy moments here, but again: He had the audience. Great performance. Not enought to save him tonight, but great.

Lauren: Whoa, who chooses her outfits? Some sort of blue-striped dress that's a cross of cowgirl at the state fair, hospital volunteer and antebellum pajamas. "Unchained Melody." Boring song, but she can belt it out. J-lo: "Nothing to judge." I agree. Nothing much.

Scotty: Elvis, of course. "Always on my Mind." Perfect for him. A little slow, but the audience loved it.

Haley: Holy shit. I've never seen "House of the Rising Sun" done like that. For once, she's actually sexy and not goofy; the teeny-bopper smile is gone, replaced with a New Orleans bluesy-edgy voice and look that counts as a verifiable Idol Moment. She just saved herself. Performance of the night, maybe of the month.

Tonight: James, Scotty and Haley are clearly safe. Jacob and Lauren are in the bottom, and Jacob goes home. Finally. But don't believe me; I'm never right.

It's getting down to the end, and as Randy says, this is where you figure out who's in it to win. And last night, with the possible exceptions of Jacob and Lauren, they all were.

The theme: One classic song and one modern song. Each of the five remaining contestants gets to sing twice. J-Lo has a flower in her hair. Steven has some kind of crazy red coat. The mentor of the week: Sheryl Crow, who looks fabulous at 49.

First up: James, "Closer to the Edge." Not his best performance (that was later), not a great song, but he's a rock god. (ivian is convinced he's going to the final no matter what, since Steven Tyler promised to sing with him on stage in the final performance and nobody wants to give up those ratings.) Jacob: "No Air." Viv says it's "terrible." I just thing it's the wrong song for him (trying to do both parts of a duet is a bad idea) and the judges agree. After the first round, he's not looking good.

Lauren: "Flat on the Floor." She rocks it. Good song choice, nice upbeat performance. Nothing stellar, but fine. Scotty: "Gone." A different side of him. Steven is thrilled: "You danced with the devil."

Haley takes a huge risk and sings an unreleased Lady Gaga song, which sucks. But she sings it well, as well as she's done all year. the problem: Nobody's ever heard the song before. Nobody wants to hear it again.

Now Round Two, the classics. and all I can say is, Wow.

James: "Without You." Epic. Over-emotional sap about his family, and he didn't hit all the notes perfectly, but damn he's a performer. He had the audience spellbound. He is, I think, the next Idol.

Jacob: "Love Hurts." I'm not a big fan of Jacob, and there were some screachy moments here, but again: He had the audience. Great performance. Not enought to save him tonight, but great.

Lauren: Whoa, who chooses her outfits? Some sort of blue-striped dress that's a cross of cowgirl at the state fair, hospital volunteer and antebellum pajamas. "Unchained Melody." Boring song, but she can belt it out. J-lo: "Nothing to judge." I agree. Nothing much.

Scotty: Elvis, of course. "Always on my Mind." Perfect for him. A little slow, but the audience loved it.

Haley: Holy shit. I've never seen "House of the Rising Sun" done like that. For once, she's actually sexy and not goofy; the teeny-bopper smile is gone, replaced with a New Orleans bluesy-edgy voice and look that counts as a verifiable Idol Moment. She just saved herself. Performance of the night, maybe of the month.

Tonight: James, Scotty and Haley are clearly safe. Jacob and Lauren are in the bottom, and Jacob goes home. Finally. But don't believe me; I'm never right.

It's getting down to the end, and as Randy says, this is where you figure out who's in it to win. And last night, with the possible exceptions of Jacob and Lauren, they all were.

The theme: One classic song and one modern song. Each of the five remaining contestants gets to sing twice. J-Lo has a flower in her hair. Steven has some kind of crazy red coat. The mentor of the week: Sheryl Crow, who looks fabulous at 49.

First up: James, "Closer to the Edge." Not his best performance (that was later), not a great song, but he's a rock god. (ivian is convinced he's going to the final no matter what, since Steven Tyler promised to sing with him on stage in the final performance and nobody wants to give up those ratings.) Jacob: "No Air." Viv says it's "terrible." I just thing it's the wrong song for him (trying to do both parts of a duet is a bad idea) and the judges agree. After the first round, he's not looking good.

Lauren: "Flat on the Floor." She rocks it. Good song choice, nice upbeat performance. Nothing stellar, but fine. Scotty: "Gone." A different side of him. Steven is thrilled: "You danced with the devil."

Haley takes a huge risk and sings an unreleased Lady Gaga song, which sucks. But she sings it well, as well as she's done all year. the problem: Nobody's ever heard the song before. Nobody wants to hear it again.

Now Round Two, the classics. and all I can say is, Wow.

James: "Without You." Epic. Over-emotional sap about his family, and he didn't hit all the notes perfectly, but damn he's a performer. He had the audience spellbound. He is, I think, the next Idol.

Jacob: "Love Hurts." I'm not a big fan of Jacob, and there were some screachy moments here, but again: He had the audience. Great performance. Not enought to save him tonight, but great.

Lauren: Whoa, who chooses her outfits? Some sort of blue-striped dress that's a cross of cowgirl at the state fair, hospital volunteer and antebellum pajamas. "Unchained Melody." Boring song, but she can belt it out. J-lo: "Nothing to judge." I agree. Nothing much.

Scotty: Elvis, of course. "Always on my Mind." Perfect for him. A little slow, but the audience loved it.

Haley: Holy shit. I've never seen "House of the Rising Sun" done like that. For once, she's actually sexy and not goofy; the teeny-bopper smile is gone, replaced with a New Orleans bluesy-edgy voice and look that counts as a verifiable Idol Moment. She just saved herself. Performance of the night, maybe of the month.

Tonight: James, Scotty and Haley are clearly safe. Jacob and Lauren are in the bottom, and Jacob goes home. Finally. But don't believe me; I'm never right.

Marriage, when it is healthy, has a mystical way of revealing God; a way of bringing a smiling peace to our restless hearts.  (Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts, p. 142) The authors add, “Marriage is closer to the nature … Continue reading →

The National Day of Prayer, which Ronald Reagan signed into law, is being celebrated today --- and nowhere as much as in California, the state with more people of faith than any other in America.

Occurring on the first Thursday of each May, the National Day of Prayer is one day set aside to encourage hundreds of millions of individual conversations with God and to direct them all into a single prayer toward Heaven.

As California, America and the world all celebrate the 100th anniversary of his birth, former Governor Ronald Reagan is remembered as a man of deep prayer who faithfully honored the National Day of Prayer every year during his American presidency.

Reagan called prayer a "source of strength" and saw the National Day of Prayer as the most proper homage to America's founding.

"While never willing to bow to a tyrant, our forefathers were always willing to get on their knees before God," Reagan said.  "Join with me in giving thanks to Almighty God for the blessings He has bestowed on this land and the protection He affords us as a people. Let us as a Nation join together before God, fully aware of the trials that lie ahead and the need, yes, the necessity for divine guidance."

After the assassin's attempt on his life in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan expressed gratitude to the American people who had prayed for him and all who were shot.  Surviving the bullet sharpened the focus of Reagan's faith and his sense of purpose.

"There are moments when our prayers and the prayers of our friends and loved ones help to see us through and keep on the right path," Reagan declared.  "And while recognizing that the freedom to choose a Godly path is the essence of liberty, as a Nation we cannot but hope that more of our citizens would, through prayer, come into a closer relationship with their Maker."

Ronald Reagan promoted the National Day of Prayer because he knew how important it was for Americans of all faiths to set aside a day for collective reflection.

In his typical down-to-earth style, the iconic Californian summed it up by saying, "Prayer is one of the few things in this world that hurts no one and sustains the spirit of millions."

Amen, and thank God for Ronald Reagan's controversial yet fearless support for the National Day of Prayer.

Plus, Haley Reinhart redeems herself with bluesy 'House of the Rising Sun' on Then and Now-themed night.
By Gil Kaufman

James Durbin performs on "American Idol" Wednesday
Photo: FOX

The theme for Wednesday night's (May 4) top-five "American Idol" performance show was Then and Now, and the remaining contestants went out of their way to let viewers know exactly what musical pocket they've settled into with their song choices.

Helping to guide them along was Grammy-winning superstar Sheryl Crow. And while some, like front-runners Scotty McCreery and James Durbin, hit a pair of home runs — including a Durbin performance that was one of the most emotional in "Idol" history — frequent bottom-three dweller Haley Reinhart stumbled in the judges' eyes with an unreleased Lady Gaga song, only to storm back into their hearts with a show-closing, vocal-fireworks display.

After a detour into sensitive singer/songwriter land last week, rocker Durbin was back in his bombastic lane with 30 Second to Mars' "Closer to the Edge." Crow did a duet with Durbin to get him in the groove and lead mentor Jimmy Iovine dubbed it the perfect song choice.

James started out a bit shaky, his vocals flat and a tad tinny, but after pumping up the room and rising up into his head voice, he walked out into the crowd and doled out the high-fives, working the stage like an arena-rock veteran. With pyro shooting off behind him, he made a clear attempt to reach the folks all the way in the back of the room.

"I think you kicked that song's ass," said Steven Tyler, deeming JD ready to rock stadiums. Jennifer Lopez agreed, saying "it's yours to take," and Randy Jackson liked how it made Durbin feel contemporary and took him out of his 1980s hard rock zone.

Jacob Lusk was feeling confident about his chances of winning and proved it by taking on Jordin Sparks' "No Air." Crow deemed the tune difficult, but felt good about Lusk's chances of nailing it, even though he was attempting to sing both the Sparks and Chris Brown parts. Lusk was in fine voice, using his breathy falsetto to its full power and adding a funky body wave to his repertoire, but the solo duet was a bit awkward.

J.Lo's always liked his showmanship and called his voice one of the best ever on the show, but said she wondered what his career might look like. If the Sparks song was it, she counseled him to stick with that sound. "I don't think that's the direction for you," countered Randy, saying it was mostly sharp and was a mistake to sing both parts. "I don't see you as Chris Brown or Jordin Sparks," he added, saying Lusk should focus on being a more Luther Vandross-style crooner.

Teen Lauren Alaina chose Carrie Underwood's "Flat on the Floor," and Crow suggested she stand still and just belt it! Wearing a sassy outfit with silver tassels hanging around her waist, Alaina took their advice and shimmied in place while putting all her sass and country swagger into the fiddle-rocking tune for one of her strongest performances to date.

"That is the direction for you!" Jackson said, psyched about the fun, energetic side Lauren showed. Tyler agreed and Lopez said, simply, "You ate that up!"

It was back in the down-home groove for McCreery with Montgomery-Gentry's gritty rocker "Gone." The first few lines were delivered in his signature baritone — with a bit of stilted over-enunciation — but once he broke into the chorus, Scotty looked and sounded like a future Grand Ole Opry veteran as he owned the song and put some kicky emotion into it.

"Up to now you've been like a puritan, but I swear to God I saw you dance with the devil tonight, and that's a good thing ... that showed a whole other side of you," offered Tyler to Jackson's utter confusion. Lopez said Scotty just owned the stage and whooped about his growling, by which she meant the good kind, not the Casey Abrams kind.

Talk about a coup. Iovine gave Haley Reinhart the as-yet-unreleased Born This Way Lady Gaga tune "You & I," and with Gaga's blessing, she played it as a jazzy torch song. With a seductive purr and her trademark guttural growl, Reinhart bumped and grinded her way across the stage and sang the tune like a show-stopping, hands-in-the-air bluesy encore at a 5,000-seat theater.

Though she loved some moments in the song, Lopez wasn't sure about the choice of the unreleased tune and felt it didn't showcase Reinhart's gifts. Jackson agreed that picking a song no one knows was risky, but Tyler said it did spotlight her strengths. "I think you're just one perfect song away from being an 'American Idol,' " the Aerosmith singer offered.

Durbin couldn't stop crying listening to the sensitive piano ballad "Without You" by late Grammy-winning singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson. Choked up thinking about his son and fiancée, Durbin was clearly emotionally invested in the tune, belting out the line "I can't live if living is without you," putting on a heart-stopping performance that ended with a beautiful note and a trickle of tears.

Maybe all the notes were not spot-on, but Randy said it was "emotionally perfect" and said after that bravura performance, it is James' contest to lose. "That was just as beautiful as it gets," Tyler agreed.

With that hard act to follow, Lusk went with Iovine's suggestion of "Love Hurts," a hit for rockers Nazareth in 1976. Playing the tune as a swelling, soulful diva ballad, J.Lusk poured his heart and gospel stomping power into a lush arrangement accented by a harp and sharp brass accents.

"Everybody got lost in you because you got lost in the song," said Tyler, who thought it had the usual Jacob overkill, but still came off well. After a shaky first song, Randy felt Lusk redeemed himself and speculated that final towering note was the highest ever on "Idol."

Alaina's second song was an "AI" classic, the Righteous Brothers' "Unchained Melody." Looking like a 1950s girl singer in a flowing, white-and-blue gown, Alaina did her best to make the oldie feel contemporary amid a tepid, doo-wop arrangement, sometimes struggling to find the melody but ending strong with some forceful vocals.

Lopez couldn't even judge, calling it just a beautiful song sung beautifully and Randy said it was a nice, tender moment for the teen singer.

Elvis fanatic McCreery stayed true to himself and chose Presley's "Always on My Mind." Slowing the song wayyyy down, McCreery likely melted hearts coast to coast with his sincere, seductive country crooner take on the tune.

Lopez thought Scotty's two performances of the night perfectly showed off his rock-to-a-soft-place range. "This is what you do, what you love ... and you do it so well," Randy said, encouraging the 17-year-old to stick with the horse that got him there.

Needing a home run, Reinhart went with another "Idol" staple, the Animals' "House of the Rising Sun." Crow suggested Haley come out and perform a cappella at first. Sitting on a stool in dramatic spotlight and singing the song in a smoldering, echo-laden voice, Haley testified her way through the lyrics as if playing a midnight set at a Southside Chicago blues club, seemingly redeeming herself.

Randy said she came all the way back and then some, putting on the best performance of the night. "Sweet and sour, raspy, I can really relate to that. That really sells a song and I think you sold everybody tonight," Tyler said.

Don't miss "Idol Party Live" every Thursday at noon on MTV.com for analysis, celebrity guests and even some karaoke — get in the conversation by tweeting with the hashtag #idolparty! In the meantime, get your "Idol" fix on MTV News' "American Idol" page, where you'll find all the latest news, interviews and opinions.

Related Photos

• 'American Idol' Season 10 Performances

The title of this piece links to the nationalistic slogan of Alexander Dugin, which I have satirised elsewhere (in Russian). From the point of view of common logical positivism, however, it is сlearly a ridiculous notion Dugin advances: even on level ground, moving forward while looking back will make you trip and fall. Of course, only if you are actually going somewhere. For those who walk the same old paths round and round — like the Cat who follows a golden chain around an oak tree in Pushkin’s Ruslan and Liudmila — the future holds nothing new at all. 

It is not a new argument to say that Russia has had an unpredictable past, not least because its history has frequently been re-written to suit its changing masters (Ivan the Great personally redacted the Russian Chronicles, for example). What isn’t always said, however, is that within this same unpredictable history, you can also find a perfect reflection of the country’s future. If you discount fools and awful roads [Russia’s two gravest ills, according to Gogol], the are actually four constants throughout Russian history: A Glorious Past, Bad Neighbours, A Wise Leader and a Bright Future. Since everything flows and nothing changes, any and every old man can become a prophet. Why, indeed, shouldn’t I do a little moonlighting in the genre myself?  

Even before WWII, I was reading grown-up newspapers and trying to understand politics.  I can remember how, in 1940, we sent in our troops “at the request of” the Baltic nations; and how they simply demanded to be annexed afterwards. The wits among us described how the Balts had pleaded to us to “extend out an arm to help”, before extending out their own boots in return.  

In 1961, our Bright Future was brought even closer: Communism in 20 years! Of course, there were a few wisecracks about the promises to reach and overtake the US levels of meat and milk production: reaching was fine enough, so the jokes went, but overtaking risked letting the Americans see the full reality of our naked bottoms

Then we had a difficult war, but already by 1946, Comrade Stalin had managed to sketch out a wonderful future for us. Targets for cast iron and steel production had not only been reached, but surpassed: utopia was but an outstretched arm away. But cast iron and steel didn’t agree with the plan, going and losing their previous economic significance. In any case, there was North Korea to save from American-UN aggression, the Berlin workers who needed Western propaganda crushed out of them by tanks, and the Eastern Germans who needed a wall to save them from running away. In 1956, we had to save the Hungarians from Western intervention; in 1968 — it was the Czechs and Slovaks; and there was quite a bit of trouble with Poland in amongst it all. Of course, everyone was always so terribly grateful to us for our brave assistance. 

Then at Party Congress in 1961, our Bright Future was brought even closer: Communism in 20 years! True, a few wisecracks were uttered in regards to promises to reach and overtake the US levels of meat and milk production: reaching was fine enough, so the jokes went, but overtaking risked letting the Americans see the full reality of our naked bottoms. We all voted unanimously for the Party.  No one seemed to object when we moved on from Building Communism to Advanced Socialism: we were, after all, happy with our own version of reality. 

But then The Evil West struck again. Oh how expensive it was to ship our missiles to Cuba and back; to support revolutions in Africa, Asia and Latin America; and to write off the new regimes’ rotten debts. A multi-year battle with the Israeli military left us with nothing but new centres of international terrorism, which later began to operate against us. Then there was the time we offered our self-sacrificing international assistance to the people of Afghanistan. A truly voluntary endeavour: not a penny gained — indeed, nothing but losses! The Afghans adored us. It would have been perfect had the Americans not weighed in once again, unleashing a guerilla war which made us leave. 

Tons of money went on another Soviet battle for world peace: the campaign to prevent American missiles being positioned in Europe. We were so close to winning that historic peace-loving battle when - again - disaster struck. World prices for oil collapsed, we had no other source of income, and the American imperialists — aided abetted by the fifth column of Gaidar and his associates — went about destroying our country with intent.  

We somehow survived the terrifying 1990s and the “piratisation” of the Russian economy. But thanks to the oil boom, we managed to “get up from our knees. We found a new National Leader; we returned to our spiritual roots; we remembered “Moscow as the third Rome”; we recalled the Tsarist slogan “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality”; we created a new moral-political union and national agreement. We recognised the achievements of Comrade Stalin. We unveiled a new 20-year plan, trumping all the other Soviet programmes, and with every penny counted and accounted for (no need for an “economic economy” here, my friend). Once again, our pockets began to clunk with arms, hydrocarbons and nanotechnologies, frightening not only our near, but our distant neighbours too. The deeply flawed European idea of human rights was set against the more traditional moral-religious values that have underpinned our country’s development from Ivan the Great through to Stalin. 

Honest and proper Russian traditions, no mistake. 

Luck, however, somehow evades us. The putrid, imperialistic West somehow still manages to hang on like grim death. The impudent Georgian aggression (wasn’t it us who gave them Abkhazia and Ossetia in the first place?), the Ukrainian revanchism (and why was it only us who saw fit to free Western Ukraine from Polish domination?), the British spies and poisoners... Despite the common family values and personal friendship between George Bush and our then president Vladimir Putin, the Americans also decided to annoy us by wrecking the domestic and international economy (which, despite the predictions of our experts, hit the Russian market too). 

Heeding the phrases “birds of a feather flock together” and “tell me with whom thou goest, and I'll tell thee what thou doest”, we decided to replace our old enemies with new and wondrous friends (no need to name them before twilight). We presented the world with new and exciting plans of comprehensive conservative renewal. 

We learned that the most important thing in life is belief in National Leader. 

We learned that the only thing that can separate us is death — his or ours, god grant him health! 

**** 

One day, God brought together the heads of the Great Powers for a debriefing. The American President (this was long before Bush Sr and Jr) began to talk at length about the difficulties he was facing, and eventually broke down in tears. The Lord put his arm around him and said “don’t worry, things will turn out fine in the end”. In came the British PM, and the scene was almost identical: “with God’s will, you will turn it around” was the Lord’s comforting response. Then our General Secretary stepped up and proudly listed the achievements of the country. The Lord listened, silent, before he himself broke down in tears. 

****

Our principle misfortune, you see, is lack of belief. Up until 1917, we believed in a Power Vertical that ranged from God, the Tsar and the Fatherland, right up to the nearest policeman. Today, we don’t know who to fear more: the bandit or the policeman; and who to sympathise with more: the State Prosecutor, lawyer, defendant or judge. Ruthless and comedic public showdowns (who could believe that such a combination was possible) involving the special services have discredited the FSB too. The philosophical quandry: do we believe someone (and something) or in someone (and in something)? is even less irresolvable than the more practical question — “to pay or to swindle”?

Maybe, instead, what is needed is not blind belief, but trust (feelings that are distinct and arguably contradictory). How you form trust in an atmosphere of global deceit and total corruption is another matter entirely. Even if a magician were to fly in on a helicopter and take all our ruling elite away to their far from imaginary Spanish castles, our lives would not change much. After the traditional and painful redistribution of power and property, we would find our new Deathless Kashchey (Ivan Tsarevich in maturity), who will revenge the irrational Khazars and guarantee yet another new wind to our flagging but glorious past  

Neither sociology or futurology is required to predict Russia’s future, because history never fails to serve up the same devastation time and time again. That said, perhaps if we were to learn to differentiate left and right; up and down; front and behind; perhaps if we stopped walking circles around the now rusted chains*, maybe then things could change. Maybe our past could become more certain, and our future — more variable. 

But against this past, we have our wonderful ancestors. Besides, who needs an unpredictable future; and what would our unborn children think? No, let it all be as it always was. 

Add your own smiley if you like. 

 

* the original gold chains that featured in Pushkin’s tale were, of course, taken away to the pawnbrokers in the 1920s, just as the oak tree was cut down, the cat was made into cutlets and the forest hobgoblin sent off to to the Solovki prison camps

Sideboxes

Related stories: 

Tatyana Zaslavskaya’s moment

Sexually liberated, or just badly brought up?

This gentleman takes the sort of high-school pop the weirder kids from Twin Peaks might have enjoyed and fuzzes it up

Hometown: Cologne, Germany.

The lineup: James Singleton (voices, instruments).

The background: The fast turnover of acts for this column demands a general approach to listening – a Bandcamp or Spotify track here, some MP3 or MySpace action there – so we almost forgot about the old-fashioned unit of measure that is the album. Luckily, today's new gentleman jolted our memory. Remember albums? James Pants has just recorded a great one. It's called James Pants, it was made in a Colorado basement before his move to Cologne, and it will be enjoyed by people who liked last year's Ariel Pink LP, Relayted by Gayngs and the recent Kaputt by Destroyer.

As you can imagine from those reference points, we're in avant-garde or leftfield-artist-does-Guilty-Pleasures-MOR-pop territory here. James Pants – James Singleton to his Presbyterian parents, and plain ol' "Hey You White Boy Play Some Music" to the black nationalist rap group he DJ'd for as a teenager – has taken the sort of high-school pop the weirder kids from Twin Peaks might have enjoyed, and fuzzed it up. "The prom-gone-wrong, creepy smalltown rock'n'roll motorcycle vibe really appealed to me," says Pants, who comes from that kind of nowheresville place himself. Think Joe Meek meets My Bloody Valentine, Sandie Shaw sings the songs of Stereolab and Suicide, or Danny and the Juniors in hell. There are deep low baritone male voices and sugar-sweet girl ones, there are electronic beats, swirling FX and swooshing noises: lounge with edge, basically. The kind of cosmic kitschadelia Odd Future's the Jet Age of Tomorrow spin-off project might record. No wonder Tyler, the Creator has called Pants "one of the most creative fucking people to walk this earth".

Maybe because Odd Future have sampled Pants several times, it lends his music an air of transgression. Heavenly stuff, nevertheless. Beta is like a Fairfisa-swirling Meek instrumental coated in Ariel Pink's hypna-dust. On Every Night the vocals are buried deep in the mix, like Alan Vega crooning from a tomb. For the single, Clouds Over the Pacific, a girl in a slinky catsuit does the boogaloo or the watusi or one of those. A Little Bit Closer (even the titles are creepy) opens with a chillwavey/shoegazey haze of prettynoise (TM), becomes a bona fide beautiful dream-pop ballad pivoting on two aching chords, before dramatically switching to mambo techno.

And so it goes on. Incantation could easily provide the gorgeous backdrop to one of Tyler's ghastly booming raps. Body On Elevator is sci-fi muzak like James Last on Venus. These Girls brings to mind Ian Curtis if he was in a 50s doo-wop troupe. The last track is titled Dreamboat – Pants clearly has some misguided fantasy of himself as a teen-pop hunk from the Twinkle era. Still, let him dream. God knows from what murky depths of his psyche he dredges up these songs about "psycho stalker girls and being broke but getting laid", but who cares when the music's this lovely.

The buzz: "Singleton delves deeper into his own sound, David Koresh-style, optioning for no-wave dirges over up-rock funk" – dustedmagazine.com.

The truth: Like Pink and James Ferraro, Pants is one level below cult – undercult, in the name of one "lifestyle collective" (aka online magazine) that has championed him – but with music this good, let's hope he stays there.

Most likely to: Make the past seem odd.

Least likely to: Join the church.

What to buy: James Pants was released on Monday (2 May) by Stones Throw.

File next to: Ariel Pink, James Ferraro, Destroyer, Gayngs.

Links: jamespants.blogspot.com.

Thursday's new band: Ny.

---

Who am I that You are mindful of me
That You hear me when I call
Is it true that You are thinking of me
How You love me it's amazing 

Kenneth Branagh's Norse epic hammers the competition while latest Fast & Furious instalment shows no sign of slowing down

The winner

To say that Marvel's film division had a lot riding on the success of its Thor movie would be an understatement. The company and distribution partner Paramount had a hit franchise in Iron Man, but would audiences show up for a Kenneth Branagh action sci-fi about a hammer-wielding alien god starring Jim Kirk's dad from the Star Trek reboot (Chris Hemsworth)? And if they didn't, where would that leave the forthcoming Captain America picture, next year's Avengers team-up, and more besides?

In the UK and elsewhere, Marvel and Paramount have plenty to be happy about. Thor debuted with £5.45m, including £2.34m from three days of previews. Add in bank holiday Monday, and that tally rises to £6.44m. That's in a similar ballpark to Iron Man three years ago, which opened on the same May bank holiday weekend with £5.47m including previews of £667,000, and just over £7m including the Monday. Iron Man 2, which as a sequel benefited from a built-in audience, began its run exactly a year ago with £7.66m, including £877,000 in previews, and £9.54m including the May Day Monday holiday. Thor isn't matching those giddy heights, especially when you consider the boost from its aggressive preview strategy and the price premium on 3D tickets, but given the relative obscurity of the character, the numbers are good enough.

The runner-up

Fast & Furious movies typically live up to their moniker, screaming out of the starting grid before quickly hitting the speed bumps. Two years ago, for example, the fourth film opened with £4.93m and then fell 61% on the second weekend. This time, the instalment is braking less rapidly. Fast & Furious 5 fell a relatively modest 36%, delivering an 11-day total of £11.16m, and £11.94m including the Monday holiday. £12m in 12 days is pretty good going for a film that isn't based on a famous comic book or literary-blockbuster character. When Neal Moritz produced the first film in the series eight years ago, based on a 1998 Vibe magazine article by Ken Li, "Racer X", he presumably had no inkling how much future value he was creating for himself and backers Universal.

The total dominance of Thor and Fast & Furious 5 at UK cinemas currently can be gauged by looking at the top 100 engagements chart. Starting with Thor at the Vue Westfield, and ending with F&F5; at Cineworld West India Quay, the two films occupy an astonishing 98 positions of that chart, and the whole of the top 90. Only Insidious (Cineworld Sheffield, 91st place) and Rio (Vue Dublin, 96th), prevent a Thor/F&F5; top 100 clean sweep.

The chasing pack

Following its premiere at the Toronto film festival last September, the release of horror flick Insidious has been considered and patient. Opting to wait out the whole of the winter/spring awards season and the busy Christmas period, and then sensibly giving Scream 4 a two-week berth, UK distributor Momentum chose late April as a propitious date, counter-programming against Thor. Selling points included the writer (Leigh Wannell) and director (James Wan) of Saw, with Paranormal Activity's Oren Peli among the producer credits.

Given Insidious's status as a fresh property, the opening numbers are solid. The film took £1.44m over the three-day weekend, and £1.84m including holiday Monday. That's nowhere close to Paranormal Activity, which debuted with £3.59m on the back of massive hype in November 2009, but puts it in the same category as recent mid-range hits such as Source Code (£1.31m), The Adjustment Bureau (£1.40m) and Unknown (£1.36m). Since it's horror, Insidious is likely to suffer quicker burnout.

Landing outside the top 10, indie comedy Cedar Rapids is a disappointment for 20th Century Fox. The company failed to position the film as a worthy successor to much-loved Fox Searchlight comedy hits such as Juno, Sideways and Little Miss Sunshine, resulting in a weak debut of £146,000 from an optimistic 180 screens, and £189,000 including Monday.

Also disappointing is The Veteran, starring Toby Kebbell and Brian Cox. Not really convincing as an arthouse title, The Veteran suggested itself as a small-scale genre picture, which is always a tricky sell. An opening of £11,000 from 45 screens resulted – or £13,000 including Monday. Much healthier was French flick Farewell, with a decent £40,000 from 30 sites, rising to £52,000 including Monday.

The 3D docs

Distributor CinemaNX can justifiably claim that its motorbike racing documentary TT3D: Closer to the Edge is winning the battle for audience word of mouth. Over the four-day weekend, the film took more box-office than the equivalent period the previous week (£156,000 vs £149,000). Thanks to an aggressive preview strategy, the film has now grossed £600,000 after two weekends of play. TT3D looks well placed to match non-fiction hits such as Man on Wire (£879,000), An Inconvenient Truth (£936,000) and Buena Vista Social Club (£955,000), as long as it can hold its screens. Meanwhile, fellow 3D doc Pina also held up well, reaching £275,000 after two weekends on release. Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams has now reached £525,000.

The future

Overall the market is a healthy 21% up on the previous weekend and a slim 6% down on the equivalent 2010 frame, when Iron Man 2 kicked plenty of new life into the box-office. After a frankly dismal March and April, UK cinemas are recovering, and looking forward to Pirates of the Caribbean on 18 May. There are still a couple of weekends to get through, but Water for Elephants, starring Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon, opens today, well-placed to pick up audiences not effectively served by Thor and Fast & Furious 5. It's joined on Friday by Hanna, starring Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett; Something Borrowed, with Kate Hudson and Ginnifer Goodwin; and Priest, with Paul Bettany. Everywhere & Nowhere, from Kidulthood director Menhaj Huda, will be hoping to match the successes of recent British urban hits. Cast includes the talismanic Adam Deacon, from Kidulthood, Adulthood and Anuvahood.

Top 10 films

1. Thor, £5,449,300 from 500 sites (New)

2. Fast & Furious 5: £2,609,244 from 452 sites. Total: £11,163,953

3. Insidious, £1,441,292 from 325 sites (New)

4. Rio, £801,102 from 501 sites. Total: £9,779,770

5. Arthur, £682,187 from 434 sites. Total: £2,477,285

6. Scream 4, £396,190 from 377 sites. Total: £5,096,897

7. Hop, £314,829 from 461 sites. Total: £6,727,678

8. Beastly, £210,974 from 249 sites. Total: £1,071,105

9. Source Code, £196,978 from 212 sites. Total: £5,707,782

10. Red Riding Hood, £169,325 from 317 sites. Total: £2,469,669

Other openers

Cedar Rapids, £146,062 from 180 screens

Farewell, £40,272 from 30 screens

Chalo Dilli, £25,260 from 17 screens

The Veteran, £10,694 from 45 screens

Battleship Potemkin, £4,078 from 4 screens

Tracker, £1,961 from 7 screens

Vaanam, £896 from 8 screens

I Saw The Devil, £876 from 1 screen + £510 previews

Shadow, 2 screens, £714

This just in:

Cinema Update
For the week of May 6th

The Cinema's Farewell Address

It's been a long great run but it's over. The cinema is closed. The city killed it.

Last week, while we thought we were still working with the city, city government closed the cinema by order of the mayor, the fire marshall and the building department.

They said we were not making sufficient progress toward installing fire sprinklers. That's hard to understand or even believe, since we had dug ourselves out of the $80,000 hole the city put us in, gotten drawings, obtained permits, asked for bids, awarded the contract, and were a week or two away from beginning. Why is that not sufficient progress?

(Full press release after the jump.)

We asked for a two month extension and were denied. Left with no options, we sent the following email to city officials:

Congratulations,

You have finally forced us out of business, which seems to have been your intent from the beginning. First you declared war on us, then you crippled us, then you killed us. We will not attempt to reopen. The option you give us will not allow us to survive. You say you closed us for lack of substantial progress. But it is hard to understand why getting the plans, getting the permits, calling for bids and awarding the contract with the promise of completion within two months is not substantial progress. You can robotically quote chapter and verse of the building code bible as much as you like, but what the code actually states is that in an historic building the fire protection provisions SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED. That may not exempt the cinema from sprinklers, as the city claims, and we agreed to do the sprinklers, but it is certainly a reasonable basis for giving the cinema two months to comply without closing, especially when we are, according to Diane Sugimura, supposed to be "proactively working together". I've discovered the city doesn't work with anyone. It tells them what to do. There has been very little "how can we help?" and a whole lot of "how difficult can we make this?"

The closure will:

Force the cinema into bankruptcy

Create another vacant building

Put 12 people out of work

Cost the city $90,000 in tax, loan and sprinkler hookup revenue

Devastate the economic life of a business community that depends on the cinema for traffic

Cause the loss of over $200,000 for Columbia City investors and supporters

Anger and disappoint thousands of families, schools, churches, day cares, youth groups and
businesses that depend on the cinema

Whatever you think, the saner part of the city will view this as epic stupidity and unfairness. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for your smallness, lack of vision and the damage you have done. It is city dysfunction at its worst and a major betrayal of the Columbia City community.

The cinema was a beautiful thing. It became the symbol and pride and center of a neighborhood. You should have treasured it, and done everything you could to preserve it. Instead you destroyed it.

I feel terrible about what has happened. For the last few years, I have worked hard, against incredible odds, to keep the cinema alive for the community and pay back the wonderful investors who got us going and kept us afloat. It was a labor of love and obligation. I ran the cinema for the community, taking a salary, when I took it, that the average homeless person would deem inadequate.

But more than that, it is this community that has worked hard and I thank all of you for the generous support you have given in creating something beautiful. I loved working with all of you and will miss you the most. Together we were a vibrant force and a community in action. I wrote an upbeat email last week thinking everything was going to be all right. Then we all got betrayed. Even though the cinema is gone, we can all look proudly on what we created. Thank you again more than I can say for all your support over the years.

Closed, with no income and no cash reserves, we will have to declare bankruptcy. While we can't promise anything, we intend to put together a small internet company whose sole purpose is to pay back lenders and investors. We also hope the cinema will survive in some new incarnation. The website will continue for awhile. Perhaps the building owners, confronted with a vacant building, will see the wisdom of installing sprinklers themselves and renegotiating the rent, but they haven't in the past. Perhaps a new operator can be found. Perhaps a community nonprofit can be formed to take over operation. I will certainly help in any way I can.

The cinema will stay open through Thursday night, if the city doesn't come and forcibly shut us down, which they might. Then the film goes through the gate, the shutter closes and the cinema goes dark.

What to Do

If you have an opinion about this one way or the other, here are some email addresses:

mike.mcginn@seattle.gov
cc dave.cordaro@seattle.gov, diane.sugimura@seattle.gov, john.nelsen@seattle.gov, darryl.smith@seattle.gov, gregory.dean@seattle.gov

Or you can become their Twitter and Facebook friends.

A Brief History of What Went Down

When the city discovered we did not have sprinklers, they summoned me to a meeting and promised a friendly, cooperative, proactive (their word) process to resolve the problem. It was anything but. They promised a second discussion meeting on how we would proceed. But instead, before the promised meeting, they closed the cinema behind my back the next day. The city lied to us.

We had a few meetings trying to get back open. You would not believe the mindless, inflexible, robotic nastiness of the city representatives. I do because I was there. I remember thinking with fear and surprise "My God, these people are vicious." I remember our attorney telling me "You've got to remember you are not dealing with rational people." It seemed like a vendetta against the cinema from the beginning for stepping over the line, not a friendly, proactive discussion of solutions as promised. Our first architect quit because the city was so nasty to him. I had to complain before it stopped.

After much public outcry, we were allowed to reopen two of the cinemas and were given a temporary occupancy permit. The closure ultimately cost us over $80,000 in lost revenue and made it impossible to think about sprinklers during that period. It didn't matter because the city took until December 11 to approve our permit anyway, and by that time it looked like the cinema would have to close. Once again the community came forward and saved it. Then our occupancy permit expired. Citing the progress we had made, we asked for a six month extension to give us time to raise the necessary financing and promised completion by the end of summer. We never dreamed we wouldn't get it. But the city denied the request and gave us 60 days. That was not enough time to raise the approximate $35,000 needed for the first phase.

At this point, we asked the mayor's office for help to get us an extension. We had put together a financing package and the big summer movies were coming. We could get it done if we got the time. The mayor's office promised help and then did nothing, finally betraying the community with a lame, self-serving CYA letter to the Rainier Valley Post suggesting that we work more closely with city departments. The mayor's office simply did not care, and to absolve themselves, put all the blame on the cinema. This was a problem the mayor's office could have solved with a phone call.

By now the 60 day extension had expired but we were that much closer to the summer season and our marketing/financing initiatives which we expected would give us an extra $40,000. So we appealed saying we could have the sprinklers installed in just two months but we had to stay open or there simply would not be enough cash flow. Just two more months. After all, the building had been without sprinklers and without a fire for 90 years. But it was like dealing with the Mafia. They pressed the robot response button and again said no.

So we said "okay, we'll operate with only two screens and try to get it done." They said no again. Because there is no law against a single screen cinema without sprinklers they had to let us operate just one. But there was a catch. They would make us close anyway, probably up to a month, to redraw the plans already drawn and approved, knowing full well that we couldn't do it. Does this seem like working together?

If the city wanted to force us out of business, they would not have done anything any different. I remember an arrogant and powerful city official yelling at me "If I had my way, the cinema would be closed forever." Well, he got his way.

I informed the city we were unable to accept their conditions. It was over. There was no way to save the cinema.

Addressing the Issues

You will probably hear a lot of self-serving, face-saving, truth-altering city spin in the next few weeks. There has to be some fallout over this. And there has been an incredible amount of misinformation going around as fact and opinion in the blogosphere. So here are the facts. If anyone tells you different, they aren't telling you the truth.

· All the remodeling done at the cinema was done under a permit and according to code. There are no construction issues at the cinema as a city-required plan review determined. The cinema, on the advice of seasoned professionals, did a little more work under the permit than was authorized, but it was a question of expediency. We did what we had to do and straightened things out with the city afterward, paying an increased permit fee, a not uncommon strategy in the construction industry. We did not address the sprinkler issue because we honestly thought we were exempt (and still do). So when we applied for final inspection and permanent occupancy under the permit, the sprinkler issue arose. The only issue we currently have are the sprinklers.

· The city is fond of saying to the media "Mr. Doyle brought this on himself." Probably true, but so what? Doesn't matter who's at fault. Move beyond it. Besides, brought what on himself? All the nastiness the city could summon? When he agreed to comply and be good? When we were "proactively working together?" This sounds a lot like punishment rhetoric not problem-solving rhetoric. Besides, it's not about Mr. Doyle anyway. It's about, or should have been about, what was good for the community and what would solve the problem.

· Fire safety issues. Let's be real. There are no safety issues. Despite the misinformation disseminated by the city, the cinema has had from the beginning:

All the required exits

All the required hardware

All the required pathway lighting

All the required exit lighting

All the required emergency backup lighting

Plus nonflammable curtains, smoke alarms and fire extinguishers.

We have always cared about our customers and safety has always been a concern. The fire marshall even conceded in a moment of reasonableness that the problem wasn't fire safety, it was the code. A few lines of text said we had to have fire sprinklers. Even though a few other lines said we didn't. As a sympathetic city official said to me "When the city wants to tar and feather someone, they raise the issue of public safety."

If it were a problem of safety, then the Uptown, the Oak Tree, the Crest and the Admiral would have to have sprinklers and they don't.

So while I'm sad things turned out this wayI'm not angry. I don't even hate the small-minded, soulless bureaucrats specifically responsible. But I do want you to know the truth.

Happier Times: John Keister Arrives May 18

Don't forget John Keister, May 18 at Rainier Valley Cultural Center. Maybe he can find some humor in all this. We'll go out with a bang in our last live performance event ever.

Advance tickets are available at the Cinema box office while we're still open or on-line via:

http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/158786.

Important Announcement

By the way I'm out of a job. I'm looking for anything: fundraiser, corporation executive, blog writer, pizza delivery driver, dog walker. Plus I'm looking for a small office/bedroom and a storage area. Let me know if you have any ideas.

And that's it. Thank you for seven wonderful years.

Paul Doyle

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

By By Nude0007 ~

I hear many Christians stating that this is a Christian nation. This is obviously not so, because we still have some freedoms that the upper class and the religious right have not yet been successful in eliminating. However, let us indulge them for a moment, let us look at what it means to have a Christian nation.

First of all, America would certainly become Catholic. Catholics make up the largest denomination in this country, so even if we put the matter to one of the last democratic actions we would have, Catholics would win by an overwhelming majority. This means that America would now be run by the Pope. Now running a country is a bit different than running a religion, but I am sure that he would do the best that he could. However, I can see no way that he would not decide to enact God’s laws on a national scale. (Okay, I really think he would be ecstatic to get the chance, but let’s just stick to the facts.)

First thing to go is Science. It is a topic hotly debated already. Science gave us the Theory of Evolution, which is obviously against God, so all science must be evil and must no longer be taught. History also tends to back up science, especially when many different sources are consulted to help eliminate bias, but this field of study also quite often fails to support the existence of God or Jesus. Therefore we don’t need that to be taught either. Biology and Social studies aren’t needed either, since all we really need to know is God’s will and that is found only in the Bible. Therefore henceforth school will only teach the Bible with a smattering of basic math so that one can offer up the proper tithe. This frees up a great many frustrated teachers to get jobs closer to God like the Priesthood, or some capacity in the church. Failing that they can become farmers and the women can go back to being housewives as they should.

This also means that we don’t need scientists, pharmacists, doctors, nurses, historians, librarians, physicists or any other advanced positions that science brings, because they are only there to subvert God’s will. No longer will we take extreme measures to save premature babies or use advanced medical techniques to ease and prolong the lives of the elderly. God’s will must take its natural course and not be thwarted! Forget all this medicine for women’s needs, whatever they have to deal with is a part of being a woman as God decreed. We should stop interfering with the natural processes God built into women. Again, all these people can also join the clergy or become simple honest farmers so that they can be closer to God.

That’s a good start, but now we must enact actual laws to live by. Our present legal system favors the criminal, while lawyers get rich off of arguing cases for people whom they know are guilty. It is time to go back to God’s holy law! All have sinned, and the wages of sin is death. No, not just the heathen, it says ALL, even the Christians must be subject to God’s perfect law, and all crimes are punishable by death. There were no prisons in Jesus’ time except for debtors prisons. If you owed someone and couldn’t pay them, they took the matter to the local magistrate and he threw you into a large cell with others of your ilk, till your friends and family could come up with the amount you owed. Oh, and forget the government having to feed you or provide sanitary conditions, if you get food your family must bring it to you daily. But I digress; let’s get back to the law as put forth in the Bible. Jesus said that women should be totally subservient to their husbands, so no more equality of citizenship. Sorry. If you disobey your husband, he has the perfect right to take you to the walls of the city and declare that you are a disobedient wife. At this point she is to be stripped and stoned by everyone there until it is certain she is dead. Then she is to be left for the vultures to pick at her bones as an example to all others.

Disobedient sons get the same treatment, and by the way, proof is not needed! We don’t need a large ponderous legal system! Just make your claim and that’s it. Surely God would strike down anyone to make such a false claim? Let’s see…. Have no other God’s before me. If someone isn’t seen worshiping God or praying constantly, or perhaps they don’t carry their Bible around with them everywhere, then they must not be putting God first. Stone them. Remember, proof isn’t needed, just the accusation. Remember, homosexuality is a very serious crime, so now we can stone the evil abominations’. Remember, just pick a commandment, accuse someone, and they get stoned! Now that’s simple justice! Now we don’t need all those evil lawyers, but we don’t want them in our clergy, so surely we can find the sin in their life and expose it till there are no more lawyers.

Being rich is a severe stumbling block to ones salvation, so in order to help the rich along toward the path of righteousness, the church will confiscate all their wealth. The problems brought on by wealthy people using their money to become even richer are legion, and nothing good will ever come of it. Everyone will earn only a minimum wage so that we will stay humble and obedient to God.

Well, I think you get the idea about legal matters. Now America is so much better off, but our job is not yet done. The Bible teaches us that even though God created the human body and it is perfect and beautiful (so much so that he wanted us to live nude and never retracted that statement), but the Devil has corrupted it, so we must be ashamed of our bodies. We must ensure that men and women are covered head to toe to hide their shameful bodies. There goes the fashion industry. Oh well, probably for the best anyway. I have always been sure that high heels were decidedly harmful and stupid anyway. Oh yes, we must all take to wearing dark sunglasses, since lusting after a woman is a very serious crime, we must not be mistakenly taken for looking at a woman too long. (see accusations and stoning above)

Now we are totally obeying God’s law, but just to remove as much temptation as we can we must reenact some old practices. Yes, Sarah Palin is right but she doesn’t go nearly far enough. We must burn all books beside the Bible! After all anything besides this book is unnecessary and could possibly lead someone astray.

Oops! How silly of me! I forgot that all the products of the evil Science must be removed as well! It must be evil to have cell phones, computers, tv’s, air-conditioning (hot and cold), automobiles, or any technology that cannot be made personally. After all, it was the fruit of the tree of Knowledge that Satan used, so it must have been near and dear to him, especially since God himself told us not to touch the stuff. In order to be more holy we must rid ourselves of as much knowledge as we can. The Republican and Tea Parties have shown us the way, but we must build on their foundation.

Now we are much better off! We have far fewer worries! We don’t have to be so concerned with others violating our civil rights, because we have only those rights that God gives us (as determined by the Pope). Just to be safe, though, I’d keep well to myself lest someone decides they just don’t like you and make an accusation against you. We know where that leads. Look on the bright side, now the governmental debt will soon be reduced to zero! Most governmental spending is on things we will no longer need, like programs for education, welfare, arts, and maybe even the C.I.A., N.S.A., and many others. Of course, we may decide to up our military budget so that we can finally launch a strike to rid ourselves of all the other religions at home and abroad, but that will surely end sometime. Meanwhile, we only have to pay ten per cent to the church, rather than in excess of twenty five to the government! Forget retirement! If your family cannot support you in your old age, then you’ll likely die without advanced medical care or at least of starvation being left to your own devices.

Now I’m sure someone, especially those who keep trying to make this country a more Christian one would disagree with this assessment, but it is all in the Bible and MUCH WORSE! The fact that they refuse to acknowledge that this is what Jesus preached just shows that they aren’t really reading it or they aren’t really comprehending what they read. As for me, I think we have far too little separation of church and state as it is. I don’t think religious organizations or clergy should get a tax break, and I don’t think Federal funds should be used to support religious organizations or be sent to State or Local governments that give money to religious organizations. Why? It is completely unfair to other religions that are “unrecognized” and so don’t qualify and to secular organizations who can’t get those monies.

'This is about wearing something beautiful to give glory to God,' says Bishop Domenico Mogavero

The devil may wear Prada, but a Sicilian bishop has set out to show Satan does not have a stranglehold on designer clothing by ordering new vestments from Giorgio Armani.

Bishop Domenico Mogavero drew compliments from churchgoers when he turned out for mass on Monday on the Mediterranean island of Pantelleria in green silk vestments designed by Armani and decorated with symbols of vines, wheat, shells and starfish.

Mogavero said the vestments had turned heads, particularly among female parishioners, but warned he had no intention of turning the aisle into a catwalk.

"This is all not about having brands in church or indulging in the fashion of the moment, but about wearing something beautiful to give glory to God," said Mogavero, 64, who donned the vestments at a ceremony for the opening of a church on the tiny volcanic island.

Armani, who has holidayed on Pantelleria for 37 years and owns a luxury retreat there, has created four vestments for the new church, in green, white, red and purple.

"They are tasteful, made from a sober type of silk and give an idea of the solemnity of the occasion," said Mogavero, who was appointed the bishop of Mazara del Valle, in Sicily, four years ago.

Known as a free thinker within the church, Mogavero once called for Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi to resign over his sex scandals and has told Italians to show more tolerance towards immigrants.

Most recently he penned the preface to a book that details the financial scandals at the Vatican during John Paul II's papacy and was published on the eve of the Polish pontiff's beatification.

Last summer he approached Armani, 76, about vestments for the church on Pantelleria, which is closer to Tunisia than the Italian mainland.

"I asked him for the vestments as a gift to the new church – to create something beautiful, original and with themes reflecting the island," he said. "I will see him this summer and I'll have the opportunity to thank him personally."

Mogavero's venture into designer wear follows reports that Pope Benedict had a weakness for red Prada shoes, although the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano scotched the rumours, pointing out that the shoes in question were in fact made by an Italian artisan. "The Pope is not dressed by Prada but by Christ," the newspaper stated.

So how can a nation, proudly steeped in religion and religious freedom with a sometimes overbearing degree of piety, conservatism and moralism boldly justify publicly cheering and waving American flags and popping bottles of champagne over the death of another human being?

Yes, Osama Bin Laden was indeed the mastermind behind the horrible deaths of nearly 3,000 people via the 9/11 attacks and was founder of the militant terrorist network, Al-Qaeda. And who really knows just how many other attacks and thousands of other deaths were additionally executed through Bin Laden's evil machinations. But does eliminating Bin Laden from our planet, and celebrating this lethal act of aggression as if America had just won the World Cup really the best form and fashion of our political and spiritual sensibilities?

Well if your answer is yes, based upon the heinous crimes against nature Bin Laden has committed, then you and this great nation have some serious soul searching to do. Being emotionally relieved that Bin Laden can no longer commit his reign of terror against America and the world is one thing, but gloating that someone else's son, father and simply another human being is no longer able to take a breath and enjoy the fruits of life is a bit much.

America, built upon the broad shoulders of patriotism should exercise better judgment and restraint in the coming days, weeks and even years concerning the death of Osama Bin Laden. There's always the risk of retaliation as well as individuals seeking to become the next Bin Laden. But revenge attacks should be the least of our worries.

Instead how you as a parent can justify celebratory behavior to your children and how you as a person-of-faith can reconcile happiness in the death of another human being are far bigger problems you must deal with.

Spiritually and ethically speaking, America is being tested. And you as its citizen should be very concerned about how well you will pass this test. It is an extreme unfortunate situation that in the process of defending our great nation we must sometimes resort to violence in the harm or death of others both innocent and guilty. In the case of Bin Laden, his death brings us a much needed closure to a very ugly chapter in American and world history.

But does his death really bring us closer to God, to our children, and to each others? Or does our mutual hatred of one man, give us a shared reason to be less afraid, more justified and even downright smug that we finally were able to extract our pound of flesh nearly a decade later? This is a question we must individually ask and answer as we grapple to makes sense of this rapidly evolving world.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

President Obama has been able to announce the news that Americans have longed to hear for the last ten years:  Osama bin Laden is dead, his corpse flung into the sea.

Better, he is dead at America’s hands.

Better yet, he died a beaten man.  His bid for the leadership of global Islam had failed, and Osama lived long enough to see other movements and other ideas shoulder his perverted synthesis aside.  Osama was yesterday’s man, and he knew it.

Above all, this is good for the United States.  Presidents Bush and Obama have not gotten everything right since 9/11, but on this matter they both did pretty well.  The United States was relentless and determined in hunting him down, pursuing tens of thousands of leads all over the world.  We left no doubt in anyone’s mind that getting Osama Bin Laden was a priority, but we did a pretty reasonable job (except when demagogic politicians were out on the stumps) of keeping our eyes open and our mouths shut.

My own approach has been to say very little on the hunt for OBL.  Back in December 9, 2009, when the subject got attention because of General McChrystal’s testimony in Congress,  I cited the advice of Leon Gambetta to the French following the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans after the Franco-Prussian war in 1871: “Think of it ever, speak of it never.”  Good advice then, and good advice for the United States during the ten year manhunt.  The more we talked about him and the more we shared our frustration at not finding him, the more we magnified the murdering thug and helped make him a larger figure on the world stage as a hero.  Talking about our desire to capture or kill him while he eluded us made him the Pink Panther to our Inspector Clouseau, the Bugs Bunny to our Elmer Fudd.

There was no telling how long it would take us to get him.  Killing or capturing an individual leader whose followers are willing to hide him is one of the toughest things a country can do.  Finding him in a country like Pakistan, where the United States is widely hated and where much of the leadership actively works with our enemies is harder yet.

But now the deed is done and there is no need to downplay its importance.  The death of Bin Laden will discourage and depress terrorists and their potential recruits the world over.  The world’s most ‘successful’ terrorist had nothing to show for his efforts — no forced withdrawal of the US from the Middle East, no proclamation of a caliphate, no destruction of Israel, no theocracy in Iraq.

Bid Laden’s death is not, as Peter Beinart suggests in the Daily Beast, the end of the war on terror.

Unfortunately a shadowy underworld of “Islamic” terror groups continue to pose an unprecedented threat around the world.  Unlike anarchist and communist terror groups in the past, they can kill hundreds and even thousands of people at a time, and they have the ability to disrupt commerce and the free flow of people around the world.  The threat that these groups could acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction is still very much alive; we live in an era in which non-state actors can wield levels of violence on a scale once restricted to states.

This underground, with links to organized crime, is opportunistic and evolving.  New leaders will emerge, new tactics will develop, and new attacks will come.  This remains a strategic threat, and whether we admit it or not, the state of war continues. We are winning that war by degrading the capacity and depressing the elan of these groups.  They are losing their popular support in most places; a decade of growing international cooperation has made the world’s counter terror measures significantly more effective.

So to amend Beinart, we are winning this war, but it isn’t over yet.

Nevertheless, the death of this failed, misguided man — with the blood of his thousands of victims staining his hands, choking his soul, and rising up to testify against him on the dreadful day of judgment – changes the world, and it changes the world for the better.

In the first place, it greatly simplifies America’s task in Afghanistan.  The death of this man was a strategic objective in that war; it has now been achieved.  It is easier now for the United States to take a more flexible and political approach toward ending the conflict.  There are a lot of things we would like to see in a peace deal in Afghanistan; there are only two things we must have.  One is that Afghanistan never again becomes  a friendly sanctuary for terrorists planning attacks against us and our allies; the other is that the end of the Afghan War cannot be perceived as an American defeat.

The death of Bin Laden makes it much more difficult to paint a compromise political settlement in Afghanistan as an American defeat.  This should hasten the day when NATO forces come home.

It also begins to untie the unhealthy knot that has bound the US and Pakistan together since 9/11.  Pakistani nationalists by and large hate and fear the United States, especially since the US-India rapprochement puts us firmly in favor of India’s emergence as a global power.  Americans are frustrated by what we can only see as Pakistan’s slow but inexorable national suicide.  As these long term forces drove us apart, we were tightly bound together by the war in Afghanistan and the US drive against Al-Qaeda.  That unnaturally tight bond between two countries fundamentally uneasy with each other has intensified the friction in our relations and increased the hostility between us.

We have now moved significantly closer to the end of the unnatural relationship that is doing so much damage.  Ultimately American interests in Central Asia are secondary ones; we will not be abandoning this region as completely as we did after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but we will not indefinitely hover over Pakistan the way we have since 9/11.  This will allow some underlying parallels between US and Pakistani interests to emerge and should lead to a smoother working relationship.

Pakistanis often blame Washington’s war in Afghanistan for their own country’s grim slide into chronic instability and for their frustrations in Afghanistan.  They are likely soon to discover that the only thing worse than a Washington breathing down their necks is a Washington relegating the region to a lower priority level.  The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians and the Iranians all agree that the conversion of Afghanistan into a sanctuary for radical, Sunni-linked religious terror movements is a very bad thing. Pakistan’s isolation on this issue is not America’s fault; as the US steps back, Pakistanis will have to grow up.  For too long Pakistan has had a security culture that nurtures fantasies and illusions; when those illusions don’t pan out, Pakistani nationalists blame the United States.  They will soon have the opportunity to find out that we have nothing to do with the steady deterioration of Pakistan’s position.

Osama certainly didn’t intend to do Israel any favors, but it is another sign of the curse under which he lived that his death has given the Jewish state a badly needed diplomatic victory.  In a statement that was one of the most serious of the many self-inflicted wounds to the Palestinian national cause, the ‘administrative head’ of the Hamas authority in Gaza condemned the attack and called OBL a “holy warrior”.  Suddenly, it is much, much easier for Israel to resist negotiating with the ‘unified’ Palestinian movement and much, much harder to pressure the Jewish state to embrace a coalition that includes Hamas.  In death as in life, OBL ruined whatever he touched — but did more damage to those he claimed as friends than to those he claimed to hate.

To be loved by Osama was if anything worse than to be hated by him.  No one has ever slimed the causes he claimed to support like he did.  OBL claimed to defend Islam; he and his henchmen murdered Muslims by the cartload and brought the name of Islam into disrepute all over the world.  He claimed to support Afghanistan, and brought a ruinous war to that country.  Those who offered him shelter were forced into exile themselves.  Those who sought to use him had their fingers scorched.  He lived as he died: a man of violence and blood.

May God have mercy on us all.

This post originally appeared at The American Interest.

For the latest in politics, visit Politics. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Obama Needs A Reset
• Bin Laden's Death Is Irrelevant, From A Tactical Standpoint

Paths of PC Simon Harwood and Ian Tomlinson fatally crossed on evening of G20 protests

Twenty-three minutes after Ian Tomlinson left his newspaper stand to walk home, he was lying on a nearby street, blood seeping into his abdomen.

The jury at his inquest were told repeatedly they were required to attribute a cause to his death rather than apportion blame.

But their conclusion after five weeks of evidence could not have contained a more severe indictment: Tomlinson, a vulnerable father of nine, was unlawfully killed by a police officer. For legal reasons the verdict could not name the police officer, Simon Harwood, a 43-year-old constable in the Metropolitan police's specially trained Territorial Support Group (TSG). Jurors were aided by an unprecedented amount of footage, enabling them to reconstruct the movements of Tomlinson and Harwood on the evening of 1 April 2009 in forensic detail.

They soon discovered that the paths of the two men only coincided on Royal Exchange Buildings at 7.20pm as a result of an unfortunate unfolding of events. Neither Tomlinson nor Harwood would have been expected to be there.

Tomlinson had left his newspaper stand at Monument tube station 20 minutes earlier, shortly before 7pm.

The G20 protests, which had been the subject of weeks of speculation, had resulted in some of the most violent clashes seen on British streets in a decade as police kettled thousands of protesters in London's financial district.

The front page of the Evening Standard, which Tomlinson had been selling that afternoon, was filled with a picture of a bloodied protester lying at the feet of riot police.

Still, Tomlinson, 47, may not have known that disturbances would prevent him taking his customary route home to a hostel on nearby Smithfield.

He looked smarter than usual, but had been drinking heavily.

An alcoholic, Tomlinson had a diseased liver and was unsteady on his feet. His plodding walk is what first brought him to the attention of PC Andrew Brown, who was in a cordon that blocked Tomlinson and others from walking north along King William Street.

"There were fires, smoke, rocks being thrown, and Mr Tomlinson approached the cordon, shuffling," Brown recalled. "He was staring vacantly towards the demonstration. I explained why he could not get through, he said he needed to get to west Smithfield where he lived, he needed to work in the morning."

That brief discussion at 7.02pm was the first of several encounters Tomlinson had with police as he tried unsuccessfully to find a passage through the protests. He repeatedly walked up to police lines, looking vacant and confused, seeking a route home.

When he reached Lombard Street at 7.06pm, police officers forcibly removed him from the road because he was standing in the way of their van.

Moments later CCTV footage showed another group of officers waving the newspaper seller away from nearby Change Alley.

He emerged at 7.18pm on Cornhill, where several hundred rowdy protesters were in a confrontation with a line of police. The situation was volatile and, perhaps sensing this, Tomlinson walked away from the disturbance.

He turned the corner on to Royal Exchange Buildings, finding a place that, for a few moments, must have felt like a safe haven.

At 7.19pm, Tomlinson was standing beside a bicycle stand with his hands in his pockets when he saw an advancing line of police. They were heading south, clearing Royal Exchange Buildings of protesters.

He asked if he could get through, but was told to get back. A police dog bit his lower leg and an officer nudged him lightly in the back. Tomlinson had turned around, hunched his shoulders, and started to walk away.

Getting out of control

Among the police officers gesturing for Tomlinson and others to leave Royal Exchange Buildings, one man stood out. He was the only officer with no shield and with a badge number missing. His face was covered with a balaclava and his baton was poised on his left shoulder.

Minutes earlier, Harwood had strayed from his vehicle. He told the inquest he was lost, disorientated and in fear for his life.

For the most part, the G20 had been an exceptionally quiet day for Harwood. An officer with 14 years' experience, he had been assigned as a van driver for the G20 protest and was required spent most of his day in his vehicle.

On duty since 5am, he had watched one of the biggest public order events in his career unfold through his windscreen. He admitted he had been bored.

That changed at 7.12pm. In the short time it took Tomlinson to leave work and stumble inadvertently on to Royal Exchange Buildings, Harwood's day had also taken a twist that would see him arrive at the same spot.

He had parked his carrier beside two others on Cornhill when he spotted a man writing "all cops are bastards" on the side of a colleague's van.

Harwood said in hindsight it may have been an error to try to arrest the man, a move which went badly wrong when the suspect's head struck a van door, prompting an angry reaction from the those stood nearby.

The mood in the crowd changed. "There was a large gasp from quite a number of people," Harwood said. "I was starting to believe that this was getting out of control."

Harwood dragged the suspect away from police and into the crowd. When the man wriggled free, Harwood said he believed it was too dangerous to return to his van.

He had been separated from his unit and, he said, was left fearing for his life. Challenged on his evidence, Harwood accepted that it was untrue when he had earlier claimedhe had received a blow to the head, fell over, lost his baton and came under attack from a violent crowd in the minutes preceding his encounter with Tomlinson .

After the failed arrest of the graffiti suspect, Harwood moved further away from his unit and deeper into the crowd, becoming involved in three more altercations, most of which were captured on CCTV.

In the space of six minutes, the police officer swung a coat at a protester, pulled a BBC cameraman to the ground and used a palm strike against another man, believed to be a city worker, who had been trying to get past a police cordon.

Harwood then heard an order to clear Royal Exchange Buildings. A command had been given to clear the area around the Bank of England and, although still separated from his unit, Harwood decided to assist.

At 7.19pm, Harwood pushed a fifth man he said had been threatening a police dog handler and, seconds later, spotted a heavy-set man in a blue Millwall T-shirt stood beside a bicycle rack.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and he was obeying orders to move away. In what Harwood described as a "split-second decision", the police officer decided it was justified for him to "engage".

Emerging from behind other officers who were closer to Tomlinson, Harwood struck his left thigh with a baton and shoved him hard in the shoulder.

No threat

Harwood's account of striking Tomlinson changed during the course of the inquest. He told jurors that his perception at the time was different to what he accepted was subsequently shown in footage.

The inconsistencies in his testimony prompted the judge, when summing up the evidence, to ask the jury to consider whether Harwood had provided "an untruthful account of events, put forward as a deliberate attempt to try to excuse his actions".

Harwood, for example, initially told investigators Tomlinson had been defiantly obstructing a police line and "almost inviting a physical confrontation". He also denied that Tomlinson had his back to him and claimed he was resisting orders when he struck him.

After three days of questioning, Harwood accepted footage showed Tomlinson posed no threat and was walking away from police when he struck him from behind without warning.

But he maintained the response was justified and proportionate, saying the strike and push were a "gesture" to "encourage" a man who posed a potential breach of the peace to move away.

Harwood said he was "amazed" when the "very poor push" resulted in Tomlinson being propelled forward. "I was shocked that he had fallen," he said. "I didn't intend that he should fall."

The jury heard very different accounts of the push from other witnesses. Two said it had been a "violent shove", while another recalled seeing Tomlinson "flying through the air" as if struck by a car.

Kerry Smith, a police officer who spoke to Tomlinson just before he was pushed to the ground, and seconds afterwards, provided key testimony.

"I was shocked by the forcefulness of the push at the time," she told the inquest. "He came flying out, right in front of me. From what I saw and heard and the dealings I had with him, there was no need to use force against him."

She recalled how after hitting the ground, Tomlinson looked around looking "dazed and confused" and told her: "I just wanted to go home." She replied: "It's obvious mate, you can't come through."

In her initial statement to investigators, Smith said she "expected to see blood". Tomlinson's bleeding, however, was not visible. It is now certain that the fall caused internal injuries that led to bleeding in his abdomen.

Tomlinson was helped to his feet by bystanders, and less than 150 seconds later he had stumbled a short distance down Cornhill and collapsed outside a coffee shop. One witness said he saw Tomlinson fall to the ground "like a tree", and recalled hearing him tell bystanders: "They have got me, the fuckers got me."

Police would later claim that medics were impeded from treating Tomlinson by protesters, but this was disputed by witnesses at the inquest. A medical student, Lucy Apps, went to Tomlinson's aid and another protester called an ambulance. The crowd quickly realised someone was seriously unwell.

Meanwhile, just 100 metres away, Harwood was apparently oblivious that the man he had pushed to the ground was lying on the ground being tended to by paramedics.

By 7.30pm, as a police helicopter camera filmed medics taking an unconscious man through the crowds on a stretcher, Harwood had returned to his van, where he wrote up his notes. Asked to explain why he made no mention in his notebook of striking or pushing Tomlinson, the police officer said he had forgotten about the incident.

It was not for another six days that Harwood's encounter with Tomlinson on Royal Exchange Buildings was replayed on television screens across the world.

The footage had been recorded on a Chris La Jaunie, an investment fund manager from New York, on a digital camera, and released by the Guardian on 7 April. Harwood said he was unaware the man he had pushed had later died until he watched the video on a TV screen at his base in Catford, south-east London, the following day.

Staring at the screen, Harwood placed his head in his hands and said: "My God, that's me." When his inspector tried to persuade him it could not be him, the officer replied: "I'm not chomping." The phrase was TSG slang for "I'm not joking."

Harwood was nonetheless allowed to return home, where he viewed the footage again on the internet. He called his wife and an ambulance was called to his home.

When he was interviewed by investigators from Independent Police Complaints Commission a week later, Harwood refused to answer questions and gave them a three-page statement.

It stated: "In the context in which this engagement occurred, if this was me, the use of force was necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the prevailing circumstances."

More than two years after Harwood wrote that statement, a jury of seven men and four women have come to a different conclusion.

Different religions are like the spokes of a wheel, with God or whatever it is that's most sacred to your life, at the centre. As people move along any religious or spiritual path, so each grows closer to all other seekers, from whichever direction they are travelling.

read more

Only one of these men will get to open a restaurant in the Mall of America.

A wise man once said, “A journey of a thousand miles ends with a single step.” And so it has come to pass: We have reached the final episode of America’s Next Great Restaurant, and Osama bin Laden has been killed. (I’m glad President Obama had the decency to delay his announcement of Bin Laden’s death until after the ANGR finale; I guess he does read all those faxes I send him.)

Our three finalists are called into the Investors’ Suite. Bobby Flay reminds them of the stakes: “One of you three guys is going to open America’s next great restaurant.” He adds: “It’s not common that a person with little to no restaurant experience gets to do that.” Joey (Brooklyn Meatball Company) starts crying. Bobby Flay looks disdainful as he asks, “You okay? What’s the matter?” Joey admits to being overwhelmed. Bobby Flay musters a little compassion, admitting: “It’s emotional for us as well,” which is probably what the men in the helicopters thought as they flew toward a city north of Islamabad, Pakistan.

Our heroes are invited to enter their unadorned restaurant interiors. The spaces are empty, ghostlike. This doesn’t stop our friends from rubbing the spotless counters with awed affection. “Unbelievable,” says Joey, adding, “I keep sayin’ that.” Sudhir (Spice Coast) is moved as well: “As a newly minted American citizen ... it’s the embodiment of the American dream.”

Back in the contestants’ office, Bobby Flay introduces two architects who will help design the restaurants: Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind. (Joke.) Joey tells the architects that he pictures a customer walking in off the street and smelling garlic and oil. I applaud Joey’s vision of a culinary home away from home, but I’ve never been convinced that Italian home cooking is something people want to experience in a fast-casual environment. Jamawn (Soul Daddy) wants a Motown theme with lots of Motown music. Bobby Flay, reaching inside my head and stealing a thought, declares he “doesn’t want (Soul Daddy) to be the Hard Rock Café of Motown.” Jamawn concedes, “I kinda feel him on that.” Sudhir wants to make “exotic things accessible,” which is why I stand by my decision to make him the public face of 120 Days of Skadom, my erotic ska band. It’s the embodiment of the Skamerican dream.

It’s time to build out the restaurant interiors, and — ladies and gentlemen, BREAKING NEWS! Momentous world event! We never thought this day would come: The mysterious rockabilly contractor from episode four is BACK! We see him only for a flash, but his pompadour remains a Gibraltar of all-American defiance.

With 36 hours until the soft open, Joey dips into his Treasury of Subversive Provocations and declares: “I gotta bring my A-game like never before.” Joey’s chef, meanwhile, wants to play it safe and stick to the basics — the “three essential meatballs,” which according to Corinthians 13:13 are faith, hope, and love. Jamawn wants to keep his menu “balanced and healthy.” He has truly internalized the investors’ suggestions, which is why he’s about 40 minutes away from winning this thing. Sudhir admits that his goal is to make the Indian version of Chipotle. (In Hollywood, this type of thinking is called “high concept” — “It’s Knocked Up meets Grizzly Man" — and usually results in a huge payday.) Sudhir’s menu will feature tacos and quesadillas, in an Indian style. Is Sudhir being too overt in his Chipotle-obsequiousness? I ponder this question like a team of special-ops forces approaching a fortified compound.

FIRST COMMERCIAL BREAK:

I got this shirt on Canal Street shortly after 9/11. I’ve never worn it until today. Terrorism suck. Justice never fail.

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
The investors — who have never revealed how much of their money they’re investing, and are probably hoping that some kind of history-making news event will distract people from asking — show up to help the contestants cook. Curtis Stone puts on a pinstripe apron and commences schooling folks with impeccable style and panache. Are there too many fried items on Jamawn’s menu? Dr. Chipotle really wants Jamawn to help people eat better in this country: “I’m sick of Michael Pollan getting all the credit!” (Joke.)

Our friends are hiring staff one day before their opening. (Why didn’t they use the staff from the Las Vegas challenge? Would they have been too competent?) Joey thinks so far outside the box, he actually thinks outside the box that the box came in and decides to use table service: “I like my food to be brought to me; I don’t like walking around with a tray.” Is Joey intent on shattering every paradigm of fast-casual dining? Does he want to use valet parking, as well? Sommeliers? In fairness to Joey, there is something kinda demeaning about walking around with a tray — and I’m saying this as someone whose favorite food is salad bars! (Shout-out to the K&W; cafeteria behind University Mall in Chapel Hill; I’ll always carry your trays with pride.)

Against his chef’s wishes, Jamawn takes fried chicken off his menu. He decides to serve baked chicken instead — however, he draws the line at serving pieces of Melba toast with chickens drawn on them.

The new restaurant signs are installed. Overwhelmed by the moment’s momentousness, Jamawn starts weeping. The producers, adhering to their contempt for the maudlin and their love of understatement, deploy the kind of piano music that makes you think every character on a soap opera is about to be diagnosed with cancer simultaneously.

SECOND COMMERCIAL BREAK:
My friend opines that the three finalists are all living up to familiar cultural stereotypes: Joey (Italian) makes good food but is “unorganized” (“Just like Italy,” per my friend); Sudhir (Indian) is played up as technocratic and disciplined, but lacking passion (“Just wait til you see him in my ska band,” I say); Jamawn (African-American) is portrayed as instinctive, emotional — a kindhearted giant. For all the talk about “concepts” on ANGR, it seems to me that the cleanest, strongest concepts were actually embodied by the contestants, and not their restaurants. Go figure.

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
It’s the day of the soft opening. The dining rooms are set up. The restaurants’ counters and service area are low-rent industrial chic, à la Chipotle. (Would it kill Steve Ells to throw a sombrero on a wall? Eating at Chipotle sometimes feels like dining in an abandoned OfficeMax.) Soul Daddy has chosen a lurid shade of purple that brings to mind Prince’s underwear, assuming he wears any. Spice Coast has cushions like one would find at a real Indian restaurant, i.e., an Indian restaurant that is not trying to pass as a Mexican restaurant.

Suddenly Jamawn cries: “Get the hell out of here!” His family has been flown in for the opening. (Jamawn isn’t actually telling them to leave; that would be awkward.) We meet his fiancée, Tyrah, his father (a.k.a. “the perfect man”), and his kids. They seem like a happy, lovely family, and I grudgingly admit that I have been successfully manipulated into hoping Jamawn wins ANGR. (Which of course he will: Good thing ANGR’s producers weren’t in charge of killing bin Laden; he would’ve seen that shit coming from a mile away.)

Joey’s wife(?) and kids show up, too. When Joey’s adorable daughter leaps into his arms, he remains stone-faced, unemotional, a cypher. (Joke.) Sure enough, when Joey says, “It couldn’t have been a better surprise for this moment; I gotta tell ya, it really took the edge off,” he is not referring to a bag of heroin he palmed from Curtis Stone, he is referring to his family’s visit.

Sudhir shrieks with pleasure as well — his sister and two of his “dearest friends” have arrived. As I ponder the mysteries of Sudhir’s personal life, he admits: “That was the closest I’ve come to fainting on the show.” Sudhir explains his Indian tacos and quesadillas to his sister, who is his “biggest fan.” Nevertheless she accuses him of “selling out 5,000 years of culinary history” and storms off in a huff. (Joke.)

Sudhir tells his staff to prioritize “quality and accuracy over speed,” which is probably what President Obama told the Special Forces before sending them on their lethal mission. Joey tastes his pasta sauce and asks his chef: “Does it need anything?” His chef answers with a “NO!” that suggests Joey has been asking him this question constantly for the past 100 hours.

Joey decides to run a dress rehearsal and orders a meal from Brooklyn Meatball Company, an act of meatball-based recursiveness that would make Tom Stoppard’s mouth water. Things run off the rails immediately, as somebody mis-abbreviates “marinara sauce.” Joey waits at a table, impatient: “90 seconds! Where’s my food, chef?” Ninety seconds turns into three minutes, then four minutes! “This food better be good,” barks Joey. Meanwhile Joey’s staff bitches sotto voce about the kitchen’s inability to understand their newfangled marinara abbreviations. Guys, I smell something, and it’s not spaghetti sauce — it’s TROUBLE. (I hope Bin Laden said that to his bodyguards as the first shots rang out.)

THIRD COMMERCIAL BREAK:
I’m eating leftover party food and drinking white wine, one of the best kinds of wine. Have you ever eaten faro? One of my friends is obsessed with it, and I think it’s rubbing off on me.

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
Bobby Flay, in his final address to an assembly of ANGR diners, tells them to “consider the food, service, and environment” of the proto-restaurants. An old lady calls out: “I’m sick of you telling us what to do!” (Joke.) The diners eagerly fan out like the freeloaders they are. Curtis Stone ponders the significance of the occasion: It’s “the first time all the elements are being brought together: design, furnishing, food, service … ” (deep breath) “ … and the death of a terrorist mastermind." (Joke.)

Sudhir walks around greeting diners. He describes Spice Coast as a “redheaded stepchild,” which disappoints me: Surely a man of Sudhir’s intelligence and cultural savvy should have referred to Spice Coast as a “henna-headed stepchild”?

There are long lines at all three restaurants. The investors, moving for once as a single pack, walk into Spice Coast. The menu is praised for being “easy to read.” (It would’ve been funny if Sudhir had printed it in Vedic Sanskrit, just to fuck with them.) Sudhir greets the investors as they wait in line. They commence to yakkin’. Bobby Flay: “My concern is you’re turning this into a Mexican restaurant.” Sudhir just wants to make Indian food accessible; he’s willing to rename his dishes once he’s hooked America on his spices. Curtis Stone has had enough: “We’ve been here seven minutes; the line’s not moving. Instead of giving us a political discussion, get back there [behind the counter]!”

Did Curtis Stone and Sudhir have a falling out? Does Curtis resent Sudhir’s constant genuflection to Bobby Flay and Dr. Chipotle? Curtis, to Ells: “Chiptole, Chipotle, Chipotle: You got into his head!” Ells seems genuinely wounded: “Oh, come on, that’s not fair!” My heart swells for Steve Ells one last time — he is truly a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a tortilla. It’s true, though: Sudhir even compares Spice Coast’s wait time to Chipotle’s, telling a customer: “It’ll take about five minutes, like Chipotle.” What kind of hand soap does Spice Coast use in its restrooms, Sudhir? IT BETTER BE JUST LIKE CHIPOTLE!

Joey and his chef are bristling in the midst of G.M.B. (general meatball disorder): Apparently there are two missing orders for children’s rigatoni. Joey: “How did this happen?” Staff-member Melissa is screwing up orders, simply writing “pasta” — what kind of pasta? Joey laments: “The day is not going the way I envisioned it going,” which we can only imagine was Osama bin Laden’s final thought on this earth.

The investors visit Soul Daddy, where the customers are all smiles. Bobby Flay likes the vibe: “It’s relaxed.” He further commends the staff for being “well-versed.” As if on cue, the staff gathers on the floor to recite Yeats’s “Sailing to Byzantium” from memory. (Joke.) The judges agree: Jamawn’s biscuits are good. (My friend remarked on the delicious-looking-ness of the biscuits every time they were shown, to the point where I almost said, “If you love Jamawn’s biscuits so much, why don’t you marry them,” before remembering that’s still illegal in most states.) Bobby Flay misses the fried chicken, but Curtis Stone thinks the menu is rich enough already. Lorena worries about the menu: She couldn’t see herself eating at Soul Daddy twice a week, and this “worries her tremendously.” Bobby Flay: “These greens are good, I could eat this all day.” (The greens are collard, not kale; Jamawn knows not to mess with Kale City.) Dr. Chipotle doesn’t like the Soul Daddy interior: “The purple doesn’t say anything about food,” which seems like an odd complaint to make about a color. Jamawn’s chef, who’s been with him the whole time, is emotional because Jamawn’s family is here. (My notes: She seems like a good person and has a nice, trusting relationship with Jamawn.)

The Brooklyn Meatball Company remains a Hieronymus Bosch–like vision of chaos. Melissa still isn’t writing clearly; her inscrutable chicken-scratch is monkey-wrenching the meatballs! (Was she secretly hired by Sudhir to kneecap the competition?) Joey pleads with her: “Please write clearly!” One customer has been waiting for 45 minutes, which is about as long as it takes to kill Osama bin Laden in a firefight. Joey pleads with his chef, with his staff, with his unforgiving God: “Get me out of this disaster.”

FOURTH COMMERCIAL BREAK:
It’s interesting to consider what the ANGR investors and producers thought was important in opening a restaurant chain: design, logos, “concepts,” etc. Very little attention was paid to finances, and (no big surprise, I guess) there was no discussion of business ethics or paying employees a decent wage. I suppose, in a country where McDonalds’ hiring 50,000 employees in one day is heralded as an economic boom, we can’t expect much. Still, for all of Dr. Chipotle’s proclamations about “changing food culture” and the Way Americans Eat, it would’ve been cool for somebody to pipe up and remind everyone that it’s easier to eat well when you have a little money in your pocket.

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
The ANGR doomsday clock is now a single word: TOMORROW!

The judges are not enjoying their time at Brooklyn Meatball Company; Dr. Chipotle complains about the line: “Three and a half minutes and we’re taking our first step.” (In a weird moment in the background, Bobby Flay sniffs a Styrofoam cup after it’s handed to him. Any theories, guys?) The diners sit in awkward, stiff-backed rows. Bobby Flay: “Dude, it’s like a nightmare.” Lorena comments on the lack of energy: “Where is the love and passion?” “It’s here,” I finally cry out, “It’s here, Lorena, just waiting for you! Come to me!” When the food arrives, though, it’s good. Ells likes his veggie sandwich. Joey looks depleted, but Bobby Flay gives him the ol’ shoulder slap and tells him to hang in there, and it’s actually a convincing display of fellow feeling from Mr. Flay, and I decide that I will intern for him whether he knows it or not.

In the contestants’ green room, our finalists reflect on their ANGR experience. Sudhir: “My biggest realization was how many dimensions you have to get right.” In competing on ANGR, he gave up his software career and “pivoted towards happiness,” which sounds like a Manitowoc crane translating Oprah. Jamawn says he’s “living closer to my dream than I’ve ever been before in my life.” Joey, meanwhile, says his goal has always been to “make a meatball so big I can have sex with it.” (Joke.)

FIFTH COMMERCIAL BREAK:

A message to all haters.

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
Judges on Sudhir: “Good organizer, seems to inspire people he works with.” They’re excited about his flavors, but his food is “going in the wrong direction.”

Judges on Joey: They like the food. Curtis Stone: “He makes fantastic meatballs,” but the service was a huge problem. Lorena: “He doesn’t think on his feet.”

Judges on Jamawn: “He’s come a long way.” Curtis Stone: “He wears his heart on his sleeve.” Lorena hated the purple, but thought he showed good leadership. Bobby Flay is still peeved that the other judges pressured Jamawn to abandon his beloved fried chicken, but admits, “the baked chicken was amazing.”

It’s decision time. Lorena: “I’m shaking, to be honest.” Dr. Chipotle admits he wants “a food revolution in this country, and revolution is never easy.” Careful, Dr. C: I know of another mastermind who longed for revolution in America, and last I checked he’s been buried at sea with a bullet through his eye.

The guys are brought into the Investors' Suite one last time. The judges are dressed up, though Curtis Stone still can’t be bothered to wear a tie. Bobby Flay says, “All of America would be proud of your concepts.” DING! I almost thought we were going to make it through this episode without hearing the “C”-word, but I was wrong. Everybody drink.

To the show’s credit, there is almost no climactic build-up. Bobby Flay just comes out and says it: “America’s next great restaurant is Soul Daddy.” This is the second-most-astonishing announcement of the night, surpassed only by President Obama’s remarks minutes later. Jamawn says it’s the “biggest moment of my life.” Jamawn lifts Lorena five feet off the ground. This, finally, is the passion she’s been waiting for! Jamawn is giddy: “I can’t wait to get to work.”

Joey is disappointed, but "[Brooklyn Meatball Company] is something I will continue to nurture; it’s too beautiful to die on the vine.” This is a moment of poetry from Joey, and it’s well-earned. Sudhir is disappointed: “Let’s not mince words about this.” If Sudhir jettisons all the faux-Mexican stuff from Spice Coast and gets back to his original vision of Indian street food, he’ll make money in metropolitan markets. We all know this. Get to it, Sudhir. I’m hungry for dosas.

A title flashes onscreen: TEN MONTHS LATER. Wait a minute — this all happened ten months ago? What manner of tomfoolery be this? Friends, we’ve been hornswoggled! Oh hell, who cares? Bobby Flay and Jamawn enter the Hollywood branch of Soul Daddy for the first time. (My notes: Where are the other judges? / Jamawn has new ultracool beard.) Jamawn loves it: “I’m a very blessed man.” Jamawn’s family is back as well. His father, Lyman Woods, chokes up as he talks about how proud he is of his son. Bobby Flay is “thrilled to death … [Jamawn] deserves it.” He goes on, “I mean, the guy cried on cue for two months straight; that ain’t easy.” (Joke.)

Am I disappointed that Kale City didn’t win ANGR in some sort of reality-show write-in coup? Of course I am. But as a wise man once said, “When God closes a door, he opens a secret bank account in your name and it’s just a matter of hacking the PIN so you can withdraw as much money as you want.” That’s what I aim to do — I’m off to find investors. (Joke. But seriously, thanks to everyone for their kind support of Kale City. It was a nice concept while it lasted.)

Dear reader, our time together has come to an end. Another chapter in our nation’s history has been written. As we reflect on the death of an evil man and the end of the adventure that was America's Next Great Restaurant — a show that combined America’s fondness for entrepreneurial capitalism with its love of food culture to exhilarating and bewildering effect — one question lingers in the air, unresolved, unrepentant, unanswerable:

“WHO WANTS A SPORT WRAP?”

May God bless you and may God bless the United States of America’s Next Great Restaurant.

The show may be over, but David Rees will be back next week to give us his take on Soul Daddy.

Read more posts by David Rees

Filed Under: overnights, america's next great restaurant, david rees, recaps, tv

As you probably know (or have guessed by now) my dream job/career would be to own my own nursery. I've thought about different ways to do this and researched quite a few options. Ideally I would work from home and be able to produce plants for retail nurseries or landscapers. That dream is still a long way off at this point but I tried something of an experiment this past weekend, we had a yard sale, and I tried to sell a few plants.

Saturday, the day of the garage sale, was gorgeous. A cool crisp morning - jacket weather, led to a warm and sunny late morning and afternoon. People came by at a regular pace, looking for bargains and deals. One person asked if I had guns and knives - nope not here. Another person was looking for buttons. Another yardsaler was looking for patio furniture - closer to my goods but still not plants. I met people who claimed they would kill plants - even monarda and mint. You really have to try to kill those two plants! I even met people who were from Alabama visiting a sister who lived in our neighborhood while they were without power from the terrible tornadoes they suffered last week. I hope you'll join me in thinking and praying for those people who lost their loved ones and homes in that disaster.

I met lots of people, but no one who really wanted to buy plants from a yard sale. One person did come and buy a few plants who heard of my sale from the one advertisement I put out (a small message to our local garden club). That was neat since he actually lived in a house with a garden and pond I've admired for a while now. He has over 600 varieties of daylilies! I think his purchase was more to be nice to a fellow gardener than to buy plants for himself.


What was my grand total for the day on plants? $14! I'm sure glad I don't have to feed my family on that income! I'm not disappointed in the least, far from it really. I learned a few things that day and even came up with some ideas for the future that I might explore.

What did I learn? 

• First, garage sales are not the ideal venue. People are looking for stuff - not plants. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't buy plants but if it's not on their list they are less likely to consider buying it. I think a plant sale out of the yard could work, I've heard several stories about those who have been able to make a god side income with it but a sale in conjunction with a garage sale isn't the best of both worlds. Different types of customers looking for different things. 
• Second, the right venue is important. A craft fair might be better than a garage sale but obviously a real nursery would bring in people specifically looking for plants. One day maybe!
• Third, reaching the right crowd is paramount. I didn't advertise a plant sale at all. I mentioned it to the garden club but only the night before and realistically I couldn't expect anyone to come on such short notice.  The community yard sale advertised in all the local papers but a specific plant sale ad might have done wonders, then again maybe not. Contacting Master Gardener programs and other garden clubs might have been an option but at this point my plant selection was limited and I didn't want to get over my head.
• Lastly, a beautiful day after several really awful rainy days probably keeps gardeners at home in their gardens! When the sun is shining I need to garden, don't you? Make hay while the sun shines! 

It was fun to try and I might do so again in the future - only modified. Good planning, proper advertising, and a nice variety of plants are not only necessary but paramount to success.

Within two days, President Obama has delivered two remarkable speeches, demonstrating beyond doubt that he's still very much at the top of the oratorical game - with the ability to capture two completely different moods in talking about two completely different types of opponent.

When giving his stand-up comedy routine about Donald Trump the other day (video 1 below), he obviously knew that he'd just authorised American special forces to undertake a highly risky attack on Osama Bin Laden - and that it wouldn't be long before he'd have to appear before the world as the bearer, depending on the outcome, of good or bad news.

Luck turned out to be on his side. But what was so impressive bout these two latest speeches was how effectively he succeeded in communicating two completely different moods, both of which were arguably just right for each occasion - and both of which are gems worthy of closer scrutiny by any serious student of rhetoric...

Nearly ten years after Osama bin Laden enacted his plot to destroy the World Trade Center, a throng of jubilant New Yorkers flocked to the site of the wreckage to celebrate the terrorist's death. Things got loud. The noise leaked down into nearby Subway stations and as the cranes shadowing ground zero got closer the songs became audible. It sang "God Bless the U.S.A.," "America the Beautiful," "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye,"...

Teaching is one of the things I like to do. When I visit student centers I enjoy seeing how teachers come up with different ideas to explain their lessons. Therefore, my visit to Roca de la Eternidad student center was a great opportunity to learn new teaching methods and see how they were implemented.

Teachers in Nicaragua are very creative in using whatever learning materials they have on hand.

Sometimes they do not have access to all of the materials for a lesson, or they have nothing at all. In either case, our teachers use their imaginations to share the message.

The first classroom I visited in this student center was for the little ones, ages 3 to 5, who were learning about the creation of the woman.

The tutor gave each child a piece of paper on which they created the silhouette of a woman by using glue and different nature items.

Then I went to the class for 6- to 8-year-olds. The teacher, Marisol, was supposed to use flannel for the day’s lesson but instead she used thin cardboard to draw pictures of the story of Elijah and Baal’s prophets.

She then gave the children a copy of another picture related to the lesson that they could color to set the story in the children’s mind.

A second group of students the same age went outside for an exercise class; the subject was “taking care of my body.” The tutor gave a short reflection on the importance of the body’s health before the children began to warm up.

I went to the class for 9- to 11-year-olds and saw children using glue, colors and glitter to write and decorate a Bible verse. They participated in a contest and the best work won a prize. Children do their best to win and, along the way, the verse is memorized through repetition.

The group next door is a class of 9- to 11-year-old students. The teacher divided the class into two groups and gave each group a topic.

Each group prepared a drama. The general subjects this time were “honesty and friendship” and “recognizing sin.”

The teacher had a good mastery on these subjects and the children paid attention. At the end, children came up with great dramas to represent their assignment — a fine display of their talents.

The last class was 12- to 14-year-old students. The teacher had the teenagers discuss the content of the song “The Potter” and extract the meaning of it for their lives. This work was done in groups and then one student from each group explained the work to the class. The subject was “What hinders us from getting closer to God?”

What I saw during the time at this student center reminds me once again that teaching is not an easy task. As simple as it might look, it takes time and preparation; however, the reward is incredible as teachers see children applying the lessons as they grow.

I finally sat to talk with teacher Marisol, who says,

To teach is a gift to transmit what God has prepared for each child. As teacher I have to think of the different learning styles and prepare for each of them. The visual aids and the page children color are important to help them remember the lesson.”

Sometimes the student center doesn’t have the material that the curriculum requires for a lesson,

…but we all [teachers] get together and share ideas to use in our classes, and we don’t feel it as difficult.”

There are also times when the subject is not an easy one, like talking with the little ones about God’s Trinity, but teachers draw a triangle or an egg to show three parts in one, and children respond well to the explanation given.

I left the student center content. Most teachers get the expected results, and I do too. Observing the classes at this and other student centers enriches my knowledge, and the children benefit most.

My Account l Sponsor a Child l Help Babies and Moms l Crisis Updates

And all those Bunny Beriganian gershwinshares be damned! The future role of prized Texas Rangers right-hander Neftali Feliz may still be up for debate in some quarters, but in his mind it’s settled. The reigning AL Rookie of the Year wants to remain a closer, not just the rest of this season but from there on as well. “I spent most of spring training as a starter and I enjoyed it,’’ Feliz said before the Rangers faced the Oakland A’s this afternoon. “But I’m a closer now, and God willing I’ll remain a closer the rest of my career. I made the decision that I won’t start anymore.’‘ ...“The team has told me that next year I would still have the chance to start, but I don’t want to do it anymore,’’ Feliz said. “This year my arm didn’t feel good after they moved me from the rotation back to closing, so I don’t want to go through that again and risk the same thing happening.’‘< /p> ...“As a closer you have to be ready to pitch almost every day, two or three in a row,’’ he said. “But that’s a matter of getting your arm accustomed to pitching regularly.’‘< /p>

At the end of the month, Zondervan will release Not a Fan: Becoming a Completely Committed Follower of Jesus by Kyle Idleman, host of the H2O video series and teaching pastor at Southeast Christian Church in Louisville.  I’ll be reviewing the book closer to the release date, but in the meanwhile, here’s an excerpt: Fans [...]

Pope Benedict XVI bestows title of 'blessed' on predecessor in Vatican City ceremony watched by 200,000 Catholics

Pope Benedict XVI has beatified Pope John Paul II before several hundred thousand people packed into St Peter's Square and surrounding streets, moving his predecessor one step closer to sainthood.

"From now on Pope John Paul shall be called 'blessed'", Benedict proclaimed in Latin, establishing that the late pontiff's feast day would be October 22 – the day of his inauguration in 1978.

Waving national flags and singing, the faithful momentarily banished the scandals and controversies that have rocked Catholicism since John Paul's death to celebrate an inspirational figure who, for many, was their church's greatest modern leader.

The red and white flag of his native Poland predominated, but the crowd also included Roman Catholics from as far away as Australia. Some had camped out in the area around St Peter's, others had spent the night in prayer and contemplation of the life of works of the late pope.

Alessandra Verdura, age 18, from Northamptonshire, was among some 200,000 people who joined a vigil in the Circus Maximus. At 4am, she and her father were to pray in one of eight churches in Rome staying open all night for the occasion.

"He has gone", said the Anglia Ruskin university student, who was only 12 years old when he died. "But still people feel he is with them, and that shows how much of a great pope he was."

Representatives of five royal houses, including the Duke of Gloucester, were expected for the occasion. So too were at least six heads of government and 16 heads of state, including Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who flew into Rome on Saturday.

As part of an elaborate security operation, the area around St Peter's Square had been cordoned off for more than 16 hours before the first pilgrims were given access early this morning.

Beatification is the last step on the road to sainthood, though not all those who are beatified are finally canonised. Before conferring the title of "blessed", the Roman Catholic church requires evidence of at least one miracle.

John Paul, who died in 2005, is deemed to have interceded with God to bring about the inexplicable cure of a French nun, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre Normand, who was dying of Parkinson's disease, the same illness that took his own life.

On Saturday, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre was among the speakers in the Circus Maximus, where images of John Paul were shown on giant screens and against a background of sacred music. The crowd also heard eulogies of the late pontiff from his former secretary Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, and press officer, Joaquin Navarro-Valls.

The charismatic John Paul is widely credited with having hastened the collapse of communism in Europe. But some in his church have questioned the speed with which such a controversial figure has been fast-tracked toward sainthood.

John Paul is accused by victims' groups of having turned a blind eye to sex abuse by his clergyman. Some traditionalists believe he made unacceptable compromises with other religions; many progressives argue he fatally weakened the innovative legacy of the Second Vatican Council.

I have all that I need at this point in my life.  But, I want more!  Now here's where it gets tricky....the wanting more.  What is wanting more?  and what do I mean when I say I want more?

Do I want more love? Money? Free Time? Prosperity? Great Friends? What is the wanting more?  I believe I waxed poetic about this a long time ago, and now I am revisiting it.  I hear myself saying  all the time I just want more.  And honestly I can't really explain what the more is. 

Maybe it's not that I want more, but perhaps there is a balance and sense of peace that I am after.  Maybe it's wanting what I already have and moving my mind to embrace that thinking.  What is wanting more?  and what do I want more of ?  Am I really mindless in my declarations of wanting more?  Am I saying that by having more is a sign of success?  Does having more give me the security I so desperately want?

I am easily seduced by the worldly messages of Get More, Have More, Want More, More More More!.  The more I want the less I think I have.  This train of thought keeps me rooted in lack.  As long as I see myself with less and the desire for more grows, I remain trapped in a cycle of dis-ease, chaos, worry, over indulgence, greed and selfishness.  I am not being overly critical, just standing in my truth.  And in standing in truth you got to turn over and put down all the lies that keep you mired in madness, unhappiness, depression and mess.  I find myself measuring my happiness by the things I have and acquired.  That is a false sense of peace and pride.  I know it...or at least I am learning it.

Overcoming the seduction of wanting more will require me to pay closer attention to my heart and mind.  To be more conscious of what I say and how I speak it in prayers and everyday conversations.  If there is more to be had, then I have to redefine that from a grounded spiritual, loving and God focused place.  If there is more for me, then it has to be used for the greater good of serving and not just receiving for the sake of having more.

I am thinking and feeling my way forward.  My birthday is coming and the kind of woman I want to be is right there on the horizon.  I am walking toward her.

Lost for more than 70 years, this dark story of a man's obsessive passion for Rebecca, a mysterious violinist, hasn't been published since it appeared in a small collection in 1937

Foreword.

The following pages were found in a shabby pocket book, very much sodden and discoloured by salt water, tucked away between the crevices of a rock in —Bay.

Their owner has never been traced, and the most diligent enquiries have failed to discover his identity. Either the wretched man drowned himself near the spot where he hid his pocket book, and his body has been lost at sea; or he is still wandering about the world trying to forget himself and his tragedy.

Some of the pages of his story were so damaged by exposure as to render them completely illegible; thus there are many gaps, and much of it seems without sequence, including the abrupt and unsatisfactory termination.

I have placed three dots between sentences when words or lines were undecipherable. Whether the wild improbabilities of the story are true, or whether the whole is but the hysterical product of a diseased mind, we shall never know. My sole reason for publishing these pages is to satisfy the entreaties of many friends who have been interested in my discovery.

Signed. DR E STRONGMAN.

—BAY, S ENGLAND.

R

I want to know if men realise when they are insane. Sometimes I think that my brain cannot hold together, it is filled with too much horror – too great a despair.

And there is no one; I have never been so unutterably alone. Why should it help me to write this? . . . Vomit forth the poison in my brain.

For I am poisoned, I cannot sleep, I cannot close my eyes without seeing his damned face . . . If only it had been a dream, something to laugh over, a festered imagination.

It's easy enough to laugh, who wouldn't crack their sides and split their tongues with laughing. Let's laugh till the blood runs from our eyes – there's fun, if you like. No, it's the emptiness that hurts, the breaking up of everything inside me.

If I could feel, I should have followed her to the ends of the earth, no matter how she pleaded or how she loathed me. I should have taught her what it is to be loved by a man – yes – a man, and I would have thrown his filthy battered body from the window, watched him disappear for ever, his evil scarlet mouth distorted . . .

It's the hot feeling that has filled me, the utter incapacity to reason.

And I am deceiving myself when I say she would have come to me. I did not follow her because I knew that it was hopeless. She would never have loved me – she will never love any man.

Sometimes I can think of it all dispassionately, and I pity her. She misses so much – so much – and no one will ever know the truth. What was her life before I knew her, what is it now?

Rebecca – Rebecca, when I think of you with your pale earnest face, your great wide fanatical eyes like a saint, the narrow mouth that hid your teeth, sharp and white as ivory, and your halo of savage hair, electric, dark, uncontrolled – there has never been anyone more beautiful. Who will ever know your heart, who will ever know your mind?

Intense, restrained, and soulless; for you must be soulless to have done what you have done. You have that fatal quality of silence – of a tight repression that suggests a hidden fire – yes, a burning fire unquenchable. What have I not done with you in dreams, Rebecca?

You would be fatal to any man. A spark that lights, and does not burn itself, a flame fanning other flames.

What did I love in you but your indifference, and the suggestions that lay beneath your indifference?

I loved you too much, wanted you too much, had for you too great a tenderness. Now all of this is like a twisted root in my heart, a deadly poison in my brain. You have made of me a madman. You fill me with a kind of horror, a devastating hate that is akin to love – a hunger that is nausea. If only I could be calm and clear for one moment – one moment only . . .

I want to make a plan – an orderly arrangement of dates.

It was at Olga's studio first, I think. I can remember how it rained outside, and the rain made dirty streaks on the window-pane. The room was full, a lot of people were talking by the piano – Vorki was there, they were trying to make him sing, and Olga was screaming with laughter.

I always hated the hard thin reed of her laugh. You were sitting – Rebecca was sitting on a stool by the fire.

Her legs were twisted under her, and she looked like an elf, a sort of boy.

Her back was turned to me, and she wore a funny little fur cap on her head. I remember being amused at her position, I wanted to see her face. I called out to Olga to introduce me.

"Rebecca," she said, "Rebecca, show yourself." . . . flinging off her cap as she turned. Her hair sprung from her head like a savage, her eyes opened wide – and she smiled at me, biting her lip.

I can remember sitting down on the floor beside her, and talking, talking – what does it matter what I said, dull stuff, nonsense of course, but she spoke breathlessly, with a sort of constrained eagerness. She did not say much, she smiled . . . eyes of a visionary, of a fanatic – they saw too much, demanded too much – one lost oneself in them, and became incapable of resistance. It was like drowning. From the moment I saw her then I was doomed. I left her, and came away, and walked down the embankment like a drunkard. Faces spluttered up at me, and shoulders brushed me, I was aware of dim lights reflected on wet pavements, and the hazy throb of traffic – through it all were her eyes and her wild impossible hair, her slim body like a boy . . . all coming clear now, I can see each event as it happened, each moment of the game. I went to Olga's again and she was there.

She came right up to me and said "Do you care for music?" gravely, like a child. Why did she say this, I don't know, there was no one at the piano – I answered vaguely, and noticed the colour of her skin, pale coffee, and clear, clear as water.

She was dressed in brown, some sort of velvet I think, with a red scarf round her neck.

Her throat was very long and thin, like a swan's. I remember thinking how easy it would be to tighten the scarf and strangle her. I imagined her face when dying – her lips parted, and the enquiring look in her eyes – they would show white, but she would not be afraid. All this in the space of a moment, and while she was talking to me. I could drag very little from her. She was a violinist apparently, an orphan, and lived alone in Bloomsbury.

Yes, she had travelled much, she said, and especially in Hungary. She had lived in Budapest for three years, studying music. She did not care for England, she wanted to go back to Budapest. It was the only city in the world.

"Rebecca" someone called, and she glanced over her shoulder with a smile. How much could I write about Rebecca's smile! It was so vivid, so intensely alive, and yet apart, unearthly, it had no relation to anything one said. Her eyes would be transfigured as if by a shaft of silver.

She left early that day, and I crossed the room to ask Olga about her. I was in an agony of impatience to know everything. Olga could tell me little. "She comes from Hungary," she said, "no one knows who were her parents, Jewish, I imagine. Vorki brought her here. He found her in Paris, playing the violin in one of those Russian cafes. She won't have anything to do with him though, she lives entirely alone. Vorki says her talent is marvellous, if she only goes on there will be no one to touch her. But she won't work, she doesn't seem to care. I heard her at Vorki's flat – it sent cold shivers down my spine. She stood at the end of the room, looking like something off another planet – her hair sticking out, a sort of fur bush round her head, and she played. The notes were weird, haunting, I've never known anything quite like it, it's impossible to describe."

Once again I left Olga's studio in a dream, with Rebecca's face dancing before my eyes. I too could see her playing the violin – she would stand straight and firm as a child, her eyes wide open, her lips parted in a smile.

She was to play at Vorki's flat the following evening, and I went to hear her. Olga had not exaggerated, with all her palpable, shallow insincerity. I sat like a drugged man, incapable of movement. I don't know what she played, but it was shattering – stupendous. I was not aware of anything but that I and Rebecca were together – out of the world, away, lost – lost in unutterable bliss. We were climbing, then flying, higher – higher.

At one time the violin seemed to protest, and it was as if she were refusing me, and I were pursuing her – then there came a torrent of sound, a medley of acceptance and denial, a confusion of notes in which were mingled desire and sweetness, and intolerable pleasure. I could feel my heart beating like the throb of some mighty vessel, and the blood pounded in my temples.

Rebecca was part of me, she was myself – it was too much, it was too glorious. We had reached the summit, we could go no farther, the sun seemed to strike into my eyes. I looked up – Rebecca was smiling at me, the violin broke on a note of exquisite beauty – it was fulfilment.

I leant back exhausted on the sofa, my senses swimming – it was too wonderful, too wonderful. Three minutes passed before I came fully conscious again. I felt as if I had plunged in the black abyss of eternity to sleep – and had come awake once more.

No one had noticed me, Vorki was handing round drinks, and Rebecca was sitting by the piano turning over some music. When they asked her to play again, she refused, she was tired, she said. They implored her so she took up her violin and played once more – something quite short, but very lovely and pure, like a child's prayer.

Later in the evening she came and sat beside me, for a few moments I was too moved to speak. Then I cursed myself for a fool, and turned to her, and looked into her face.

"You gave me a marvellous sensation when you played," I told her, "it was beautiful, intoxicating, I shall never forget it. You have a rare – no – a very dangerous talent." She was silent, and then spoke in her restrained, breathless little voice. "I played for you," she said, "I wanted to see what it was like to play to a man." Her words bewildered me, they seemed utterly inexplicable. She was not lying, her eyes looked straight into mine, and she was smiling.

"What do you mean?" I asked her. "Have you never played for anyone before, do you use your gift just to satisfy yourself? I don't understand."

"Perhaps," she said slowly, "perhaps, it's like that, I can't explain."

"I want to see you again," I told her, "I'd like to come and see you alone, where we can talk, really talk. I've thought about you ever since I saw you in Olga's studio, you knew that, didn't you? That's why you played to me tonight, wasn't it?"

I wanted to drag the answer from her lips, I wanted to force her to say yes. She shrugged her shoulders, she refused to be definite, it was exasperating.

"I don't know," she said, "I don't know." Then I asked for her address, and she gave it to me. She was busy, she would not be able to see me until the end of the week. The party broke up soon after and she disappeared.

The days that passed seemed interminable, I could not wait to see her again. I thought about her ceaselessly.

On Friday I could stand it no longer, so I went to her. She lived in an odd sort of a house somewhere in Bloomsbury. She rented the top floor as a flat. The outlook was dull and dreary, I wondered how she could bear to live there.

She opened the door to me herself, and took me into a large bare room like a studio, with an oil-stove burning. I was struck by the cheerlessness of it, but she did not seem to notice anything, and made me sit down in a shabby armchair.

"This is where I practise," Rebecca told me, "and have my meals. It's a bright room, don't you think?" I said nothing to this and then she went to a cupboard and brought out some drinks, and a few stale biscuits. She took nothing herself.

I found her strange, detached – she seemed bored at my being there. Our conversation was forced and there were pauses. I found it impossible to say any of the things I wanted to say. She played to me for a while, but they were all classical things that I knew, and quite different from what she had played that evening at Vorki's.

Before I left she showed me round her tiny flat. There was a little scullery place she used for a kitchen, a poky bathroom, and her own small bedroom which was furnished like a nun's cell, quite plain and bare. There was another room leading from the studio, but she did not show me this. It was obviously a fair-sized room, as I saw the window from the street afterwards, and watched her draw the heavy curtains across it . . .

(Note. Here some pages were completely illegible, covered with blots, and discoloured. The narrative appears to continue in the middle of a sentence. Dr Strongman.)

. . . "not really cold," she insisted, "I've tried to explain to you that I'm odd in some ways, I've never met anyone to care for, I've never been in love. I've always disliked people rather than been attracted by them." "That doesn't explain your music." I broke in impatiently. "You play as if you knew everything – everything."

I was becoming maddened by her indifference, it was not natural but calculated; she always gave me the impression of concealment. I felt I should never discover what was in her mind, whether she was like a child asleep, a flower before it has blossomed – or whether she was lying to me throughout, in which case every man would have been her lover – every man.

I was tortured by doubt and jealousy, the thought of other men was driving me insane. And she gave me no relief, she would look at me with her great pale eyes, pure as water, until I could swear that she was untouched – and yet, and yet? A look, a smile, and back would come my torture and my misery. She was impossible, she evaded everything, and yet it was this fatal quality of restraint that tore at me and broke at me, until my love for her became an obsession, a terrible driving force.

I asked Olga about her, asked Vorki, asked everyone who knew her. No one could tell me anything, anything.

I'm forgetting days and weeks as I write this, nothing seems to have any sequence for me, it's like rising from the dead, it's like being reincarnated from dust and ashes to live it again, to live my whole cursed life again – for what was my life before I loved Rebecca, where was I, who was I?

I had better write that Sunday now, Sunday that was really the end; and I didn't know it, I thought it was the beginning. I was like someone walking in the dark, no, walking in the light with his eyes open and not seeing – deliberately blinding himself.

Sunday, day of hollow and mistaken happiness. I went to her flat about nine in the evening. She was waiting for me. She was dressed in scarlet – like Mephistopheles, odd strange clothes that only Rebecca could wear. She seemed excited, intoxicated – she ran about the room like an elf.

Then she sat down at my feet with her legs tucked under her, and held out her thin brown hands to the stove. She laughed and giggled childishly, she reminded me of a mischievous child planning some naughtiness.

Then all at once she turned to me, her face pale, her eyes strangely alight. She said, "Is it possible to love someone so much, that it gives one a pleasure, an unaccountable pleasure to hurt them? To hurt them by jealousy I mean, and to hurt oneself at the same time. Pleasure and pain, an equal mingling of pleasure and pain, just as an experiment, a rare sensation?"

She puzzled me, but I tried to explain to her what was meant by Sadism. She seemed to understand, and nodded her head thoughtfully once or twice.

Then she rose and went slowly across the room to the door I had never yet seen opened. She looked oddly pale as she stood there, her mass of queer savage hair springing from her head, her hand on the knob of the door. "I want to introduce you to Julio," she said. I left my chair and went towards her, I had no idea of what she was talking about. She took my hand and then opened the door. I saw a low round-shaped room, whose walls were draped with some sort of velvet hangings as if to deaden any sound, and long thick curtains were drawn across the window. There was a log fire, but it had burnt very low. Near the fireplace was a divan, covered with cushions thrown anyhow, and the only light came from a small shaded lamp, thus leaving the room in a half darkness.

There was one chair in the room, and this was facing the divan.

Something was sitting in the chair. I felt an eerie cold feeling in my heart, as if the room were haunted. "What is it?" I whispered.

Rebecca took the lamp and held it over the chair. "This is Julio," she said softly. I stepped closer, and saw what I took to be a boy of about 16, dressed in a dinner jacket, shirt and waistcoat, and long Spanish trousers.

His face was the most evil thing I have ever seen. It was ashen pale in colour, and the mouth was a crimson gash, sensual and depraved. The nose was thin, with curved nostrils, and the eyes were cruel, gleaming and narrow, and curiously still. They seemed to stare right through one – the eyes of a hawk. The hair was sleek and dark, brushed right back from the white forehead.

It was the face of a satyr, a grinning hateful satyr.

Then I was aware of a strange feeling of disappointment, a helpless sensation of not understanding, of dumb incredulity.

There was no boy sitting in the chair. It was a doll. Human enough, damnably lifelike, with a foul distinctive personality but a doll.

Only a doll. The eyes stared into mine without recognition, the mouth leered foolishly. I looked at Rebecca, she was watching my face.

"I don't see," I said, "what's the point of all this? Where did you get this loathsome toy? Are you having a joke with me?" I spoke sharply, I felt uneasy and cold. The next moment the room was in darkness, she had turned out the lamp. I felt her arms round my neck, and her mouth upon mine.

"Now shall I tell you I love you?" she whispered, "shall I?"

A hot wave of something swept over me, the floor seemed to swing beneath my feet. She clung to me and kissed my throat, I could feel her fingers at the back of my neck. I let her hands wander over my body, and she kissed me again. It was devastating – it was madness – it was like death.

I don't know how long we stood there, I don't remember anything, words, or thoughts, or dreams – only the silence of that dark room, the feeble glow of the fire, the beating of my heart – the singing in my ears – and Rebecca – Rebecca—. When, – and whether hours had passed or years I cannot tell – when I raised my eyes above her head I looked straight into his eyes – his damned doll's eyes.

They seemed to squint at me and leer, one eyebrow was cocked, and his crimson treacherous mouth was twisted at the corner. I wanted to leap at it, and smash its beastly grinning face, trample on its sordid human body. Was Rebecca mad to keep such a toy, what was her motive, where had she found it? But she would not answer my questions.

"Come away," she said, and dragged me from the room, back once more into the hard glaring light of the bare studio. "You must go now," she said breathlessly, "it's late – I had forgotten." I tried to take hold of her, once more, I wanted to kiss her again and again, she surely did not mean me to go now.

"Tomorrow," she said impatiently, "I promise you tomorrow, but not at the moment. I'm tired and bewildered – don't you see? Let me alone just for tonight, it's been too strong, I can't realise anything."

She stamped her foot with impatience, she looked ill. I saw it was hopeless. I took my things and went – and walked, and walked – all night I think.

I watched the dawn break on Hampstead Heath, grey and sunless; heavy rain fell from a leaden sky.

My body was cold, but my brain was on fire. Once more I was certain that Rebecca had lied to me – from the moment she kissed me I knew that she had lied to me.

She had known five, 10, what matter the number, 20 lovers – and I was not one of them.

No, I was not one of them.

I found myself near Camden Town, buses rumbled along the streets; it was still raining, people straggled past me, their figures bent under umbrellas.

I found a taxi somewhere, and went home. I got into bed without undressing, and slept. I slept for hours. When I awoke it was dark once more; it must have been about six in the evening. I remember washing mechanically, and then once more walking in the direction of Bloomsbury.

I reached the flat and rang at her bell.

She let me in without a word, and then sat down in the studio before the oil stove. I told her I was going to be her lover. She said nothing. There were red rims under her eyes as if she had been crying, and thin lines round her mouth. I bent towards her to kiss her, but she pushed me away.

She began to speak rapidly.

"You must forget what happened last night. Today I realise I made a mistake. I'm not well, I haven't slept. All this has worried me considerably. You must leave me alone."

I tried to seize her, and break down her iron restraint. It was like hammering at an iron wall. She lay cold and still in my arms. Her mouth was icy. I left her in despair. Then followed a week of doubt and torture. Sometimes she sat apart from me without a word, sometimes I could have sworn that she loved me. And she would not let me touch her, she was not in the mood she said. I must wait until she wanted me again. I must wait in suspense, in agony. She never mentioned Julio. We never went into that room again. I asked her what she had done with him. I wanted to know what was at the back of it all. She would answer evasively and change the subject. It was useless to press her. She was maddening. She was intolerable.

And yet I could not keep away from her. I could not live without her.

One evening she would be gentle and affectionate. She would sit at my feet and talk about her music, about her future plans. She was always changing. She was never the same.

I felt hopeless. My position was ridiculous – but what was I to do? She had become a madness to me – an obsession.

I've now come to the last evening, the very last. Then crash – blankness – the depths of hell – and desolation – utter desolation.

Let me get it clear – when was it, what time was it? Seven, eight perhaps. I can't remember. I was leaving the flat and she came to the door with me.

She suddenly put her arms round me and kissed me . . . There have been men in arid deserts where the sun has so disfigured them that they have become things of horror – parched and blackened, twisted and torn. Their eyes run blood, their tongues are bitten through – and then they come upon water.

I know, because I was one of their number.

Laugh at all these comparisons, call me a madman, but the laugh is on my side.

There are women – but you have not kissed Rebecca, you cannot know.

You are a fool asleep. You have never begun to imagine. . .

(Note. Much of this seems completely unintelligible, and the quarter page that follows consists of nothing but broken sentences and half-formed ideas. Then the narrative continues.)

It was shattering. She let me kiss her again and again. I took her face in my hands and looked down into her eyes.

"Who were your lovers?" I said. "How often did you kiss them like that? Who taught you to kiss them like that? Who was the first, the very first? Tell me."

A haze of fury was before my eyes, my hands shook.

"I swear to you that you are the first man I have ever kissed. I swear to you there has been no man before you. Never. Never."

She looked straight at me. Her voice was firm. I saw that she was speaking the truth.

"Now you must go," she said, "tomorrow you shall come, and then we shall have so much to tell each other, so much."

She smiled at me. I saw right through her wall of restraint, right through ice to the flame, the hidden fire.

I remember leaving the flat, and having dinner somewhere. My head was on fire. I seemed to walk among the gods. It was incredible that Rebecca should love me, it was incredible that I should know such happiness. I wanted to shout. I wanted to chuck myself off a roof.

I went home, and paced up and down the room. I couldn't sleep, every nerve in my body seemed alive.

Then suddenly, at midnight, I could stand it no longer. I had to go to Rebecca, I had to.

I felt my love for her was so strong that she would know. She would wait for me. She would understand. She would have to understand.

I don't know how I got to her flat. Seconds seemed to flash by, and I was standing outside in the street, gazing up at the windows.

I persuaded the night porter to let me in, he was half asleep and he let me pass upstairs. I listened outside her door – not a sound came from within. It might have been the entrance to a tomb.

I put my hand on the door knob, and turned it slowly. To my surprise it was not locked – Rebecca must have forgotten to turn the key after I left.

I stepped inside, everything was in darkness. "Rebecca", I called softly, "Rebecca". No answer.

The door of her bedroom was open, there was no one inside.

Then I went into the kitchen and the bathroom, both were empty.

Then I knew. Something gripped my heart, cold, clammy fear.

I looked towards that other room – his room – Julio's room.

I knew that Rebecca was in there, with the doll – with Julio.

I felt my way across the room and beat against the door. It was locked. I kicked against the panel, and tore at it with my nails. It gave way beneath my weight. I heard a cry of fury from Rebecca, and she turned on the lamp.

Oh! Christ, I shall never forget her eyes, the terrible light – the unholy rapture in her eyes, and her ashen – ashen face.

I saw everything – the room, the divan – I knew everything. I was seized with deadly sickness – a terrible despair.

And all the time his vile filthy face was looking at me. His eyes never left me, staring with a lifeless, glassy immobility. The wet crimson mouth was sneering – the sleek dark hair hung in streaks across his cheek. He was a machine – something worked by screws – he was not alive, not human – but terrible, ghastly.

And Rebecca turned to me. Her voice was cold – apart – unearthly.

"And you expect me to love you. Don't you see that I can't – I can't? How can I care for you, or any man? Go away, leave me. I loathe you. I loathe you all. I don't need you. I don't want you."

Something cracked inside my heart. I turned away. I left them. I left them alone. I ran into the street – tears were pouring down my face – I sobbed aloud – I shook my fist at the stars . . .

And that is all, there is no more to say, no more to tell. I went the next day and she had gone, they had both gone. No one knew where she was. I asked everyone I saw – no one could tell me.

Everything is dim, everything is useless. I shall never see Rebecca again – no one will see her again. It will always be Rebecca and Julio. Days will come, and nights, and nothing – they will haunt me – I shall never sleep – I'm cursed. I don't know what I'm saying, what I'm writing. What am I going to do? Oh! God, what am I going to do? I can't live – I can't cope . . .

I'll probably get flack for saying this, but you know it's true. It would be so easy to act the part of a Christian, if not for:
-traffic
-other people.

You can laugh at me all you want to, but I have a magnetic cross on the back of my car. It's not to announce my faith so much as it is to help me to keep my windows rolled up, certain body parts down, and my mouth shut. I know me. I know me. I need big reminders. I don't own any 'Christian' shirts (unless you count the 15 identical Amy Grant shirts) but I've been thinking maybe I need to stock up for the same reason I stuck a cross on my bumper.

Sometimes I think, "Wow, my heart has changed so much!" and other times I think, "Whoa! I've got a long way to go!" Take, for example, my visit to the doctor this afternoon. It's a Christian practice. The walls of the children's section of the waiting room are covered in a Veggie Tales mural. Worship muzak is piped in over the speakers. There is a Gideon Bible on every table, and there is one in every examination room. The people are always nice, even though they charge a fee for everything under the sun. It's not the type of place you would expect to find confrontation, unless the doctors started fighting over who gets to open in prayer.

The office closes at 5:00 on a Friday, and I managed to squeeze in a last-minute 4:30 appointment. There were four people in the reception area - me, my husband, an elderly woman, and an older man who smelled like turpentine who also had extremely greasy hair. I went over to the magazine rack to grab some reading material when he stood up and got there before me. OK. No problem. Except that he stood there, blocking the whole rack, spending several minutes reading each magazine he picked up. He knew I was there. I was coughing. He didn't care.

I should have sat down. I could have read a Gideon Bible. But I didn't. I stayed there, moved a little closer, bumped his elbow just slightly, forced him to move. I really, really wanted to say something smart, but I didn't. That's a victory in itself - openly rude people drive me crazy.

A few minutes later, as I was coughing up a lung and reading about Taylor Swift in WebMD magazine (it was either that or a 2-year-old issue of National Geographic), I heard a loud, "UUUUUUUUUHHHHHH." I'm nosy, so I leaned forward to look in the direction of the grunt. It was him. He put his hands on his head and yelled, "I SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT ON A FRIDAY!"
The old lady pretended not to hear him. (On second thought, maybe she really didn't hear him), and I looked over at my husband who was wide-eyed and nervously mouthing the word, "DON'T!"

Ah. He knows me so well. Too well. There was a time when I would have told the old grump to save the drama for his mama and just be glad he got a Friday appointment at all. It might have escalated into a full-on confrontation. My husband would have been dragging me towards the door by my arm. My mother always told me, "God gave you a mouth; use it." That wasn't quite what she meant, but she can't ever say I didn't listen.

But I've grown. I've changed! Now, instead of getting in someone's face... I sweat profusely and mumble under my breath.

Grumpy Pants made his way up to the reception window.

"Hey, I've got things to do! I can't be sitting around here all day!"

They asked him if he wanted to reschedule. But, no, he didn't want to reschedule. He wanted to complain. He repeated his displeasure, sat back down, and let out another grunt. I kept my face buried in WebMD, muttering to myself as my husband smacked me in the knee and told me to be quiet. It was painful. It was like being tied to a chair while someone waved a million dollars in your face. Pleeeeaaassseee let them call my name before this guy's! I was picturing the whole thing in my head. They would call my name, I'd mosey on up to the nurse in my own sweet time, and then I'd say, "Man, I've got a lot to run by the doctor today!"

But they called him first. I'm sure you'll be shocked to know that he complained the whole way down the hall and into the exam room - I could hear him. They called me five minutes later.

As I sat in the exam room waiting for the doctor, I was struck by what a hothead I am, and how pointless most of the things I get frustrated over really are. Someone with the mind of Christ would have engaged that man to find out what was so heavy on his heart... or they would have been smart enough to just leave well enough alone. And someone with the mind of Christ wouldn't have been plotting ways to further annoy him, but would have willingly offered to let him go first if the opportunity presented itself.

"Whoa! I've got a long way to go!"

If there's any sort of encouragement to be found in this story, it's that I at least realized how ridiculous I was being. In the past... I don't know, I think I would have felt completely justified in my annoyance and in my comments. Not this time, though. This isn't who I want to be. God gave me a mouth and I want to use it to speak Truth into the lives of others, not gripe at grouchy people who are obviously in need of encouragement and not curses.

The Christian life is an interesting thing. Why is it that when we take a step forward it seems so insignificant, but when we take a step back it seems to huge? Oh, that's right - the enemy. The one who wants us to believe we haven't improved and never will.

I guess if you screw up, realize it, and want to change... that's evidence of God's work in your heart. So I am trying to be encouraged....but not as encouraged as I'll be when I face a similar situation and my first thought is love and compassion.

Now THAT is the mind of Christ.

8:52 P.M. PDT

      THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, San Francisco!  (Applause.)  Thank you!  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Thank you, everybody.  Everybody, have a seat.  Thank you so much.  It’s good to be back in San Francisco.  (Applause.)

      Part of the reason is I've got some great friends here.  (Applause.)  And a couple people I want to acknowledge:  Somebody who is one of the greatest Speakers that I know of and is going to be one of the greatest Speakers again -- Nancy Pelosi is in the house.  (Applause.)  The lieutenant governor, former mayor, Gavin Newsom is here.  (Applause.)  An outstanding congressional delegation -- Barbara Lee, Mike Honda -- where’s Mike Honda?  John Garamendi is here.  (Applause.)  Jerry McNerney is here.  (Applause.)  State Comptroller John Chiang is here.  (Applause.) And State Treasurer Bill Lockyer is here.  (Applause.)

      And you’re here.  (Applause.)  I see you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

      It is nice to be back West in the great state of California. And let me -- (applause) -- let me just say this.  Obviously, there are extraordinary responsibilities to this job.  There are certain pleasures, as well.  And coming in on Marine One and then just coming right past the Golden Gate Bridge, that's a pretty nice perk.  (Applause.)  I’ve got to say, one of the greatest -- one of the greatest views in the world.

      I had come in from a town hall meeting hosted by Facebook.  (Applause.)  And I was happy to find out that my Facebook page was doing pretty well.  (Laughter.)  We had -- I’ve got 19 million friends, which -- (laughter and applause) -- which only puts me half a million friends behind SpongeBob SquarePants.  (Laughter.)  So that's something to aspire to.  (Laughter.)  Keeping up with SpongeBob.  (Laughter.)

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you!

      THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)  I do.

      It’s especially nice to be out of Washington, D.C.  (Applause.)  There are wonderful folks doing great work in Washington, but I have to say that the conversation you hear in Washington is just different from the conversation you hear around kitchen tables or around office coolers.  And that's why we decided that our reelection campaign will be the first one in modern history to be based outside of Washington, D.C.  We're going back to Chicago.  (Applause.)   

      We’re going back to Chicago because I don't want our campaign only hearing from pundits and power brokers and the cable chatter.  I want our campaign to be hearing from the people who got us here.  (Applause.)  I want to make sure we’re putting the campaign back in your hands, the hands of the same organizers and volunteers that proved the last time that together ordinary people can do extraordinary things.  (Applause.)  When we’re together there is nothing we can’t do, including elect a guy names Barack Obama to the highest office in the world.  (Applause.)

      Now, a few things have changed since the last time around.  I’m older.  (Laughter.)  I am grayer.  (Laughter.)

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  That's all right, you still fine.  (Applause.)

      THE PRESIDENT:  But my memory has not gone, and so I can still remember that night in Grant Park when there was so much excitement in the streets and that sense of hope and possibility. And I know you remember not only the good feeling, but also what I said on that night.  I said that our work wasn’t ending; it was just beginning.  I said that our climb was going to be steep.  We had so many challenges ahead of us.  And I have to say that, at the time, I cautioned people.  I said we may not get there in one year.  We may not even get there in one term.  But if we came together, if we showed the same fortitude and persistence and optimism that had gotten us to Election Night, then we could bring about the change that we had talked about; the change that we had envisioned for our communities, for our kids, for our grandkids; the commitments that we had made to each other.

      Because that’s what the campaign was about.  It was a sense of mutual commitment.  The campaign wasn’t about me.  It was about what all of us imagined our country could be.  (Applause.)     And it turns out that the climb was even steeper than some of us had anticipated.  We took office in the middle of the worst recession in our lifetimes -- one that left millions of Americans without jobs; hundreds of thousands of people without homes; folks who kept their jobs or kept their homes struggling to pay the bills.  It was a recession that was so bad that many families are still grappling with the aftershocks even to this day.

      And we had to make tough decisions right off the bat.  We had to immediately move a Recovery Act through that would ensure that we didn’t dip into a depression; that would help states and local governments keep teachers on the job, and firefighters on the job, and police officers on the job -- (applause) -- that would make sure that we cut taxes for Americans so they had a little more money in their pockets to help get through tough times.

      Some of the decisions we made were not popular.  You remember folks talking about the auto bailout.  A lot of folks were skeptical -- we should just let the auto industry in America go by the wayside.  But two and a half years later, our economy is growing again.  We’re creating jobs again.  (Applause.)  Over the last four months, we’ve seen the largest drop in unemployment since 1984.  (Applause.)  Over the last 13 months, we’ve added nearly 2 million private sector jobs.  (Applause.)

      And along the way, we did a few other things:  The largest investment in clean energy in our history.  (Applause.)  The largest investment in science and basic research that we had seen in years.  (Applause.)  Largest investment in our infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System.  (Applause.)

      We passed a law that had eluded folks for a hundred years, finally making sure that every single American in this country won’t go bankrupt because they get sick, will be able to get health care coverage even if they’ve got a preexisting condition. We moved that forward.  (Applause.)

      We changed our student loan program so that billions of dollars that were going to big banks are now going directly to students, and millions more young people are able to go to college as a consequence.  (Applause.)

      We put two wise women on the Supreme Court, including the first Latina Supreme Court justice.  (Applause.)  And we rolled back “don't ask, don't tell,” so that everybody can serve their country regardless of who they love.  (Applause.)

      And then we dealt with pirates -- (laughter) -- and a pandemic.  You forgot about that.  An oil spill.  We’ve been pretty busy.  And yet our work is not finished.  It is going --

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Gay marriage.

      THE PRESIDENT:  Our work is not finished.  (Applause.)  It is going to take -- it is going to take more than a couple of years.  It is going to take more than one term for us to finish everything that we need to do.  (Applause.)  And I am reminded -- I’m reminded almost every night, when I read letters from people from all across the country talk about what it’s like to send out 16 resumes and not get a response back; a child writing saying their parents are about to lose their home -- Mr. President, is there something you can do to help?

      It’s heartbreaking.  There’s so much resilience and so much strength out there, and yet still so much that needs to be done.
      And so when I think about running for reelection, I don’t look backwards.  I look forward.  I say to myself, what can we do for those Americans out there?  That’s what I think about when I wake up every morning.  That’s what I think about when I go to bed at night.  And that’s what this campaign has to be about -- about your jobs, about your families, about your hopes, about your dreams.  That’s what we’re fighting for.

      Because of you, we’ve been able to make great progress over these last few years.  But that progress can’t make us complacent.  It can’t make us content.  It should remind us that change, yes, is possible, but we’ve got to finish what we started.  We’ve got to finish what we started.  (Applause.)

      Because of you, yes, we were able to prevent another depression.  But in the next few years, we’ve got to make sure that the new jobs and industries of our time are created right here in the United States of America.  (Applause.)  We’ve got to be prepared to win the future.  We’ve got to be prepared to win the future.  And that means making sure we’re investing in innovation, education, infrastructure -- (applause) -- all those ingredients that can keep our economy dynamic.

      Because of you, we’ve made college more affordable for millions of students.  (Applause.)  But we’re not done.  We’re not done.  We’ve raised standards for teaching and learning in schools all across the country by launching a competition called Race to the Top, but now we’ve got to keep that reform going until every child is ready to graduate, every child is ready for college, every child can actually afford to go to college, every child is ready for a career.  (Applause.)

      That’s how we’ll out-educate and out-compete the rest of the world for the jobs of the future right here in the United States of America.  (Applause.)

      Yes, because of you, we’ve made the largest investments in clean and renewable energy in our history.  (Applause.)  And those are already creating jobs and new businesses.  But high gas prices are killing folks out there -- killing you.  You know.  It’s rough.  You say, “it’s just really rough.”  (Laughter.)

      I admit, Secret Service doesn’t let me pump gas now.  (Laughter.)  But I remember what it was like filling up.  (Laughter.)  And you think about a family that has to drive 50 miles to work.  They don't have a choice.  That's where their job is.  They may not be able to sell their home and move closer, That's not an option for them, especially in this housing market.
      It would be nice if they could buy a hybrid, but they might not have the money, and they're driving that old beater.  And it’s getting eight miles a gallon.  (Laughter.)  And that's no joke.  We gave everybody a tax cut, but a lot of that money gets eaten up by high gas prices.

      And so we’ve got to keep making investments in clean energy. We’ve got to strive for energy independence in this country.  (Applause.)  We’ve got to invest in solar and wind and electric cars, and it’s time we stopped giving the oil companies $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies -- take that money and put it into clean energy.  (Applause.)

      That makes no sense.  We’ve got to change it.  Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s energy.  (Applause.)  It’s good for our security.  It will grow our economy, and it will leave our children with a safer and cleaner planet.  (Applause.)

      Because of all of you, we’ve put hundreds of thousands of people to work rebuilding our infrastructure.  But now we’ve got to make sure that we’re built to compete in the 21st century.  Not just new roads and new bridges, but high-speed rail and high-speed Internet.  (Applause.)  A smart grid to make sure that we can move all that clean energy all across the country.

      I want to make sure that America is the best place on Earth to do business.  (Applause.)  And part of that is having a world-class infrastructure.  I don't want folks flying around the world and saying, how come our airports aren’t as nice as they are in Beijing or Singapore?  I don’t want people going to Europe and saying, boy, these are really nice trains -- how come we don’t have trains like this?  (Applause.)

      That’s not the American way.  I mean, I hate to be parochial but I want us to have the best stuff.  (Applause.)  That’s part of what it means to be American.  We got nice infrastructure.

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We’ve got the best President!

      THE PRESIDENT:  Well -- (applause.)  We got to out-build, we got to out-educate, out-innovate the rest of the world.

      Because of you we finally got health care passed.  (Applause.)  We said health care should no longer be a privilege in this country; it should be something that’s affordable and available for every American.  We said in the United States you should not go bankrupt when you get sick.  But you know there are folks who want to roll it back --

      AUDIENCE:  Booo --

      THE PRESIDENT:  -- before it even has a change to get implemented effectively.

      Because of you we passed Wall Street reform that helps to make sure that we don’t go through the same kind of crisis that we went through before, and you as consumers aren’t taken advantage of when it comes to mortgages or credit cards.  But you know there are some folks who want to roll it back.

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Booo --

      THE PRESIDENT:  Because of you we passed a law that says a woman should get an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work.  What do you think, Nancy Pelosi?  Do you agree with that?  (Applause.)

      But you all know that there’s a lot more that can be done. With it comes to enforcement of those laws.  Yes, we overturned “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but we still have more work to do to make sure this country is fully equal and treats everybody with dignity and respect.  (Applause.)  We’ve got more work to do.  We removed 100,000 troops from Iraq and ended combat missions there like I promised we would.  (Applause.)  But we’ve still got more work to do to make ourselves secure and bring our troops home.

      We’ve got to protect the changes that we made, and we’ve got to make the changes that remain undone.  We’ve got to keep moving forward.  We’ve got to keep working for the America that we believe in, the America we want to leave behind to our kids.  And that’s what the debate we’re having in Washington right now is all about.

      There’s a lot of talk right now about debt and deficits and budget and spending.  What this debate is really about is what kind of future we want; about what kind of country we believe in fundamentally.  I believe in an America where a government lives within its means.  (Applause.)  I want a government that is lean and effective and not wasting your money -- because you don’t have any money to waste -- which means we’ve got to cut some spending in Washington.  We’ve got to cut domestic spending.  We’ve also got to cut defense spending.  (Applause.)  And we’ve got to cut spending in our tax code.  We’ve got a whole bunch of loopholes in there that we don’t need.  We’ve got to eliminate every dime of waste.

      And if we want to take responsibility for the debt that we owe, then we’ve got to make some tough decisions.  There are going to be some things that would be nice to have but we can afford to do without.  We all need to share in the sacrifice to get us on a stable financial footing.

      And by the way, if you are progressive, you’ve got to be just as concerned about that as somebody who considers themselves a fiscal conservative, because the fact of the matter is, if money that could be going to Head Start or money that could be going to programs that are putting people back to work, if that money is being wasted, that’s not good -- that doesn’t promote progressive values.  We’ve got to be just as scrupulous in thinking about how government spends money as anybody else.  We’ve got to be more so.  (Applause.)

      But let me tell you something.  I will not reduce our deficit by sacrificing the things that have always made America great.  (Applause.)  The things that have made Americans prosper. I won’t sacrifice our investments in education.  I will not sacrifice those.  (Applause.)  I won’t sacrifice our investments in science and basic research.  (Applause.)  I won’t sacrifice the safety of our highways or our airports.  I won’t sacrifice our investment in clean energy at a time when our dependence on foreign oil is causing Americans so much pain at the pump.  (Applause.)  I will not sacrifice America’s future.  That I will not do.  (Applause.)

      If we want to reduce our deficit, yes, we need to cut spending.  But we need shared sacrifice.  And that means ending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in this country.  We can afford it.  (Applause.)

      It’s not because we want to punish success.  It’s because if we’re going to ask everybody to sacrifice a little, we can’t just tell millionaires and billionaires they don't have to do a thing -- just relax, that's fine.  We’ll take care of this.  (Laughter.)  Go count your money.  That's fine.  (Laughter and applause.)

      Because some of you bought my book, I fall in this category.  (Laughter.)  I’m speaking about myself.  I can afford to do a little more, especially when the only way to pay for these tax cuts for the wealthy is to ask seniors to pay thousands of dollars more for health care.

      AUDIENCE:  Booo!

      THE PRESIDENT:  Or cut children from Head Start, or doing away with health insurance for millions of people on Medicaid, seniors in nursing homes, or poor kids, or middle-class families who’ve got an autistic child.  That's not a tradeoff I’m willing to make.  (Applause.)  And that's not a tradeoff most Americans are willing to make, regardless of party.  We can do better than that.  We are better than that!  (Applause.)  We are better than that!  (Applause.)

      The America we know is great not because of our skyscrapers or the size of our GDP.  It’s because we’ve been able to keep two ideas together at the same time.  The first idea is that we are all individuals endowed with certain inalienable rights and liberties; that we are self-reliant; we are entrepreneurs.  We don't expect others to do for us what we can do for ourselves, and we don't really like people telling us what to do.  (Laughter.)

      But the second idea, just as important is that we’re all in this together; that we look out for one another; that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper.  (Applause.)  That I want to make sure that a child born in a tough neighborhood has the same opportunities I had.  (Applause.)  And I do that -- I feel that way not out of charity, but because my life is richer, my life is better, when the people around me have some measure of security and some measure of dignity, and they, too, have a shot at the American Dream.  (Applause.)

      That’s our vision for America.  It’s not a vision of a small America.  It’s a vision of a big America, of a compassionate America, a caring America, an ambitious America.  And that’s what this campaign is about.

      There are those right now who say that this is kind of the end of the line.  We’ve got these deficits, we’ve got debt, we’ve gone through this recession, there’s international competition.  China and India and Brazil, they’re all growing faster than we are.  And you know what, maybe we’ve just got to shrink.  We’ve got to shrink everything.  We can’t afford to do big things.  We can’t afford to make sure every child gets a shot at college.  We can’t afford to make sure that we’ve got the best roads and ports and airports.  We can’t afford to make sure that every senior knows they’ve got basic health care available to them when they get older.  We can’t afford to keep our air and water clean.  We can’t afford to invest in the arts.  We can’t afford to maintain our national parks.

      That’s not a vision of America that I want to pass on to Malia and Sasha.  (Applause.)  I want a vision of America that is big and bold and ambitious as it has ever been.  (Applause.)  That’s what I’m fighting for and that’s what this campaign has to be about -- a vision of a big, generous, compassionate America; a vision where we’re living within our means but we’re still investing in our future; a vision where we all share sacrifice, nobody bears all the burden, and we all share an opportunity; a vision where we live up to the idea that no matter who you are, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like, no matter whether your ancestors landed here on Ellis Island or came here on slave ships or came across the Rio Grande, we are all connected.  (Applause.)  We will rise and fall together.  (Applause.)

      That's the vision of America that I’ve got.  That's the idea at the heart of America.  (Applause.)  That's the idea at the heart of our campaign!  (Applause.)

      And that's why I’m going to need your help, now more than ever.

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I’m in!

      THE PRESIDENT:  This campaign -- you’re in.  (Applause.)
      I need you all in.

      AUDIENCE:  I’m in!  We’re in!  (Applause.)

      THE PRESIDENT:  This campaign is still at its early stages, but now is the time when you can shape it.  Now is the time when you can get out of the gate strong.  I know there are times where some of you have felt frustrated because we haven’t gotten everything done as fast as we wanted.  We didn't get everything exactly the way we had planned.

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Health care.

      AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Single-payer.

      THE PRESIDENT:  See, there?  Case in point, right?  All right.  See I knew I’d open up this can of worms.  (Laughter.)

      Look, there are times where I felt the same way that you do. This is a big, complicated, messy democracy.  Change is not simple.  Everybody likes change in the abstract, but change in the concrete is hard.  (Applause.)  It’s tough.  It requires work.  (Applause.)

      Not everybody agrees with us.  Not everybody agrees in this auditorium about issues.  That's part of what makes this country special, is the nature of our democracy.  And so sometimes it can be frustrating.  And I know there are times where you’re sitting there and you’re thinking, golly, you know, Obama, he’s made some compromise with the Republicans on this or that.  Or, how come he’s -- he should have done it this way.  Everybody is a political consultant.  (Laughter.)  And if he had just phrased it that way, I’m sure we could have gotten health care done in two months.  (Laughter and applause.)  You know who I’m talking about -- you.  That’s right.

      And then your friends come and you say, oh, Obama has changed.  I used to be so excited; I still have the poster, but  -- (laughter and applause.)  I know.  I know.

      Sometimes I get frustrated.  There are times where I am just so burdened by the fact that there are still so many folks out there who we haven’t -- haven’t gotten the help that they need.  And so I understand how you guys feel.  But we knew this wouldn’t be easy.  We knew that on a journey like this there were going to be setbacks, there were going to be detours.  There were going to be some times where we stumbled.

      People act like the campaign was easy.  They weren’t on the campaign.  (Laughter.)  They all look back -- oh, Obama, he ran such a perfect campaign; it was so smooth.  What campaign were you on?  (Laughter and applause.)  This was hard.  So we knew that there were going to be setbacks and stumbles.

      But here’s what keeps me going:  At every juncture in our history, when our future was on the line, when we were at a crossroads like we are right now, we pulled through, and we pulled through together.  We were able to make the changes that were needed.  And it was hard. It was full of debate and sometimes rancor, and sometimes worse. That’s how this country became more equal.  That’s how the women’s movement started.  That’s how the civil rights movement started.  That’s how the union movement started.  (Applause.)

      At every juncture there’s been resistance and debate and uncertainty, but somehow, we pulled through -- together.  So whenever you hear people say our problems are too big to solve; whenever you hear people say we’ve got to shrink back on our dreams; whenever you hear people say we can’t bring about the changes that we seek; whenever you hear people say, well, the campaign was this or that, but now governing is somehow different -- I just want you to think about all the progress that we’ve already made.  (Applause.)

      I want you to think about all the unfinished business we’ve got ahead of us.  I want you to be excited about the future that lies before us.  I want to remind you and everybody else of those three simple words that summed up what we believe as a people:  Yes, we can.

      Thank you, everybody.  God bless you.  (Applause.)

                                              END                  9:32 P.M. PDT

Last Thursday Facebook announced the Open Compute Project where they released pictures and specifications for their Prineville Oregon datacenter and the servers and infrastructure that will populate that facility. In my last blog, Open Compute Mechanical System Design I walked through the mechanical system in some detail. In this posting, we’ll have a closer look at the Facebook Freedom Server design.

 

Chassis Design:

The first thing you’ll notice when looking at the Facebook chassis design is there are only 30 servers per rack. They are challenging one of the strongest held beliefs in the industry that is density is the primary design goal and more density is good. I 100% agree with Facebook and have long argued that density is a false god. See my rant Why Blade Servers aren’t the Answer to all Questions for more on this one.  Density isn’t a bad thing but paying more to get denser designs that cost more to cool is usually a mistake. This is what I’ve referred to in the past as the Blade Server Tax.

 

When you look closer at the Facebook design, you’ll note that the servers are more than 1 Rack Unit (RU) high but less than 2 RU. They choose a non-standard 1.5RU server pitch. The argument is that 1RU server fans are incredibly inefficient. Going with 60mm fans (fit in 1.5RU) dramatically increases their efficiency but moving further up to 2RU isn’t notably better. So, on that observation, they went with 60mm fans and a 1.5RU server pitch.

I completely agree that optimizing for density is a mistake and that 1RU fans should be avoided at all costs so, generally, I like this design point. One improvement worth considering is to move the fans out of the server chassis entirely and go with very large fans on the back of the rack. This allows a small gain in fan efficiency by going with larger still fans and allows a denser server configuration without loss of efficiency or additional cost. Density without cost is a fine thing and, in this case, I suspect 40 to 80 servers per rack could be delivered without loss of efficiency or additional cost so would be worth considering.

 

The next thing you’ll notice when studying the chassis above is that there is no server case.  All the components are exposed for easy service and excellent air flow. And, upon more careful inspection, you’ll note that all components are snap in and can be serviced without tools. Highlights:

·         1.5 RU pitch

·         1.2 MM stamped pre-plated steel

·         Neat, integrated cable management

·         4 rear mounted 60mm fans

·         Tool-less design with snap plungers holding all components

·         100% front cable access

 

Motherboards:

The Open Compute project supports two motherboard designs where 1 uses an Intel processors and the other uses AMD.

Intel Motherboard:

AMD Motherboard:

 

Note that these boards are both 12V only designs. 

 

Power Supply:

The power supply (PSU) is an usual design in two dimensions: 1) it is a single output voltage 12v design and 2) it’s actually two independent power supplies in a single box. Single voltage supplies are getting more common but commodity server power supplies still usually deliver 12V, 5V, and 3.3V.  Even though processors and memory require somewhere between 1 and 2 volts depending upon the technology, both typically are fed by the 12V power rail through a Voltage Regulator Down (VRD) or Voltage Regulator Module (VRM). The Open Compute approach is to use deliver 12V only to the board and to produce all other required voltages via an Voltage Regulator Module on the mother board. This simplifies the power supply design somewhat and they avoid cabling by having the motherboard connecting directly to the server PSU.

 

The Open Compute Power Supply is has two power sources. The primary source is 277V alternating current (AC) and the backup power source is 48V direct current (DC). The output voltage from both supplies is the same 12V DC power rail that is delivered to the motherboard.

 

Essentially this supply is two independent PSUs with a single output rail. The choice of 277VAC is unusual with most high-scale data centers run on 208VAC. But 277 allows one power conversion stage to be avoided and is therefore more power efficient.

 

Most data centers have mid-voltage transformers(typically in the 13.2kv range but it can vary widely by location). This voltage is stepped down to 480V three phase power in North America and 400V 3 phase in much of the rest of the world.  The 480VAC 3p power is then stepped down to 208VAC for delivery to the servers.

 

The trick that Facebook is employing in their datacenter power distribution system is to avoid one power conversion by not doing the 480VAC to 208VAC conversion. Instead, they exploit the fact that each phase of 480 3p power is 277VAC between the phase and neutral.  This avoids a power transformation step which improves overall efficiency. The negatives of this approach are 1) commodity power supplies can’t be used (277VAC is beyond the range of commodity PSUs) and 2) the load on each of the three phases need to be balanced.  Generally, this is a good design tradeoff where the increase in efficiency justifies the additional cost and complexity.

 

An alternative but very similar approach that I like even better is to step down mid-voltage to 400VAC 3p and then play the same phase to neutral trick described above. This technique still has the advantage of avoiding 1 layer of power transformation. What is different is the resultant phase to neutral voltage delivered to the servers is 230VAC which allows commodity power supplies to be used.  The disadvantage of this design is that the mid-voltage to 400VAC 3p transformer is not in common use in North America. However this is a common transformer in other parts of the world so they are still fairly easily attainable.

 

Clearly, any design that avoids a power transformation stage is a substantial improvement over most current distribution systems. The ability to use commodity server power supplies unchanged makes the 400 3p to neutral trick look slightly better than the 480VAC 3p approach but all designs need to be considered in the larger context in which they operate. Since the Facebook power redundancy system requires the server PSU to accept both a primary alternating current input and a backup 48VDC input, special purpose build supplies need to be used. Since a custom PSU is needed for other reasons, going with 277VAC as the primary voltage makes perfect sense.

 

Overall a very efficient and elegant design that I’ve enjoyed studying. Thanks to Amir Michaels of the Facebook hardware design team for the detail and pictures.

 

                                                --jrh

 

James Hamilton

e: jrh@mvdirona.com

w: http://www.mvdirona.com

b: http://blog.mvdirona.com / http://perspectives.mvdirona.com

 

---

From Perspectives.

Congratulations. If you've clicked this link, you're probably running a fast-growing company—a fortuitous position for any business owner. However, if your company grows too fast and without the correct infrastructure to let it grow, it can quickly spiral out of control.

Consider this story about Chocomize, a New Jersey-based custom chocolate company. In its early days, the company had a pretty steady growth rate—that is, until Oprah called. The day after their product was featured in Oprah's magazine, everything changed for the small company. Before the article came out, the company was getting about 15 calls per day—a manageable sum for the three founders. But after the article, they were getting more than five times that number.

"It was like, 'Oh my God, we're not really sure about what we're going to do,' " Nick LaCava, one of the co-founders, told USA Today.

Don't let this happen to your company. By planning out your company's growth—and anticipating any PR blitzes—you'll be poised to create a sustainable future growth model. And, we hope, it will save some stress along the way.

Keeping Up With a Fast-Growing Company: Find a Mentor

A mentor can be a huge help to any first-time entrepreneur. The mentor can function in a variety of both personal and professional capacities, whether they provide pointers on business strategy, bolster networking efforts or act as confidantes when the work-life balance gets thrown too heavily in one direction.

But why stop at one mentor? Lois Zachary, the president of Leadership Development Services, a Phoenix-based business coaching firm, and author of The Mentee's Guide: Making Mentoring Work for You, says two or even three mentors can help a struggling entrepreneur.

"The advantages of having multiple mentors is that you can get a lot of different points of view," notes Zachary, "and when you have a lot of mentors at one time, if they're sitting around a table, the synergy between the mentors really helps move your thinking along." Read more.

Keeping Up With a Fast-Growing Company: Drop Dead Customer Weight

If your company is growing, it provides your businesss with a unique advantage: you can finally say goodbye to your worst customers. Every business has them; they're the ones who needle and cajole you into a cheaper product or getting more for their money. More often than not, these are the types of customers you can afford to lose, especially if your company is growing.

Janine Popick, founder and CEO of Vertical-Response, a San Francisco company that provides e-mail marketing services, did just that. In Vertical-Response's early days, Popick rarely turned down a customer's request. After devoting nearly all of her company's manpower to one client, Popick had enough, and cut the customer loose to let the business move on. "It was a tough pill to swallow, because they were one of our top five customers," she says. "But I approached them and said, 'Look, guys, we can't keep maintaining this and ignoring our other customers.'" Read more.

Keeping Up With a Fast-Growing Company: Learn How to Delegate

If your company is growing, you're likely going to have to cede some power to new employees—or, put another way, relative strangers. This can be a difficult, and even emotional process for many entrepreneurs. However, to ensure the company can maintain its solid growth, an entrepreneur must learn the subtle art of delegating.

CEOs of small businesses are "so busy just doing the day-to-day stuff, they don't step back and think, 'You know what, I could make this a lot easier for myself and get better results for my business if I only delegate it," says Barbara Pratt the author of Own the Forest, Delegate the Trees and CEO of Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida-based Project Leadership Gold, a project management consulting firm.

Trust is integral to delegating tasks. Andrew Crapuchettes, CEO of Economic Modeling Specialists, a Moscow, Idaho-based company that collects employment data and provides economic analyses for colleges and universities, says trust may come in many forms, so it's important to distinguish between personal trust and business trust.

"Trust obviously comes in a lot of different ways," says Crapuchettes. "The person that babysits my kids, I trust them, but they don't necessarily share my business vision." Read more.

Keeping Up With a Fast-Growing Company: Hire Virtual Workers

If your company is growing, you're probably entertraining the idea of hiring virtual workers. After all, your cramped offices might just not be the best place to house new people. Hiring virtual workers also gives your business the ability to expand its footprint (and the option to tell clients you have employees all across the country).

"As organizations become more geographically distributed, they're going to try to access the best talent wherever they may be," says Richard Lepsinger, president of OnPoint Consulting, a virtual consulting company based in New York, and co-author of Virtual Team Success: A Practical Guide for Working and Leading from a Distance. "They're also trying to get closer to the customer. Now, you have technology that you didn't have five years ago, and this whole notion of virtual teaming has become more prevalent." Read more.

Keeping Up With a Fast-Growing Company: Poach From Your Competitors

Let's face it, you want people in your business who understand your business. Hiring employees from a competitor may seem low—maybe even unethical—but it's a reality in business. In any fast-growing company, you'll want the best people for the job, and that often means finding them at competitor firms. Look no further than the talent wars at Facebook and Google to see how gritty it can truly get.

"Companies are so focused on getting someone from the competition," says Mike Sweeney, Principal of MAS Recruiting in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. "As soon as they see the resume, their eyes light up."

Brenda Snyder, chief operations officer at The Human Resource Group, a boutique search firm in Denver, says it's also important to keep in mind the relationships that poaching can sour. "In the small business world, you don't want to blow out your personal relationships," Snyder says. "If you know that there's a person you want at another firm, and if you don't have a relationship with that firm, you can go for it. But if it's a small industry, a small market, with small niche players, be very conscious of the consequences of that action. Think it through, like any good business leader would." Read more.

Keeping Up With a Fast-Growing Company: Know What You're Getting Into

Though it may seem counterintuitive, not every business owner wants a fast growing company. Companies that grow too fast are stressful to manage and for some, just not worth the effort. So before you launch the next service or open a new location, be patient, says Tony Gemignani, a restaurateur and owner of Tony's Coal-Fired Pizza and Slice House and Tony's Pizza Napoletana in San Francisco. "Looking for the right location and being able to wait for the right location is really important…You need to research it and understand the demographics, what people want, what they might have in the area and how you're going to execute your plan." Read more.

NASHVILLE, TN RCA Nashville hit maker Jake Owen captures his way of life as a Florida native and the spirit of summer with his new single, Barefoot Blue Jean Night, and the immediate reaction to the song suggests hes right on track. As of its official airplay impact date on Monday, Barefoot Blue Jean Night was grooving the playlists of 65 chart-reporting country stations, breaking into Billboard Hot Country Songs Top 40 this week at #36. Released as a digital single on April 12, fan excitement has propelled Barefoot Blue Jean Night onto Billboards Country Digital Songs chart with first-week sales of over 20,000 downloads according to Nielsen SoundScan.

When we recorded Barefoot Blue Jean Night, I was really looking forward to summertime, says Jake. This song has that nostalgic feeling of growing up, running around barefoot and feeling free. It doesnt matter whether you grew up along the coast, on the lake or in the country, most everyone remembers that feeling. Hopefully, Barefoot Blue Jean Night will bring a little bit of summer into peoples lives.
Critics are already praising Jake and Barefoot Blue Jean Night:

Music Row Magazines Robert K. Oermann proclaims, I have always liked this guy. This time out, he deploys a male cheering section, finger snaps, crashing percussion, rippling banjo and a restlessly jangling guitar to shout out a summer party anthem. Irresistible.

Jim Asker with All Access says: Barefoot Blue Jean Night is this talented artist's best song so far. In fact, it will be one of the best songs this yeara big up-tempo sing-along anthem from Jake that we're no doubt going to hear blasting from backyard BBQ's all summer long.

Jake will also be bringing a big blast of new music into peoples lives all summer long, as he joins superstar Keith Urban as a special guest on the U.S. leg of Urbans Get Closer 2011 World Tour, beginning June 16.
We are so lucky to be going out on the Keith Urban tour, says Jake. I am excited for the fans to hear some new songs from the new record. And while we are out on tour, I really want to celebrate summertime so Im going to try to pull my boat behind my bus. I have a Malibu, which is a great wakeboarding boat, and I really want to spend my days out in the sun, meeting people and hanging out.

Barefoot Blue Jean Night is the first single from Jakes forthcoming third album, due in stores late summer, with tracks produced by Joey Moi (Nickelback) and Rodney Clawson (co-writer of such hits as I Saw God Today, Lost in This Moment), as well as GRAMMY award-winning producer Tony Brown.

Complete tour dates and much more are online at www.jakeowen.net.

From www.jakeowen.net

I was born and raised in St. Francois County, Missouri. St. Francois County's tornado activity is 58.16% higher than the United States average. I really don't need the statistic; it's here for you, I lived it.

By the time I was ten, I had been taught to read the clouds. Reading the clouds could save your life. When the storm clouds gathered in southeastern Missouri you would find everyone in their yards, their eyes fixed on the heavens. You had to know when to take cover. There were no sirens or tornado alert systems in 1957. That tornado intuition Missourians are born with was all we had to depend on to save our lives; and sometimes even that didn't save us.

It was Tuesday afternoon, May 21, 1957, shortly after three o'clock. I was riding the school bus home with my little sister, Biblio. Mrs. Hill, my fourth grade teacher, had been eyeing the clouds most of the afternoon. She was on edge. We all were. When the final bell rang, she escorted each of us to our waiting bus. Usually she said good-bye to us in the classroom. That day, she didn't.

Our bus driver was Troy Mills, he lived just down the road from us. He was a local dairy farmer for the better part of the day, hard-nosed school bus driver for an hour in the morning and in the early afternoon. He drove a no nonsense school bus. He didn’t talk, nor did we. During the ride home he cricked his neck to look out the window at the very dark clouds forming. When the bus stopped in front of our driveway he instructed Biblio and me to go straight into the house. My sister and I ran sensing the urgency. When I turned to look back Mr. Mills was still standing there in the road, making certain. He had never done that before.

Biblio and I ran. In the kitchen dinner was on the stove, but both my parents and my brothers were out back on the deck. Mom and Dad were looking at the ominous clouds off toward Cantwell and Desloge. My Grandmother, two uncles and an aunt lived in those towns. It was now about 3.50pm.

Dad's Tornado Emergency Disaster Plan was "run for it." He predicated that plan on what I consider to be flawed logic. 1) Our home was on the top of one of Missouri’s rolling hills. We had an almost 360 degree unobstructed view. We could see tornadoes coming and could jump in the car and run for it. This does not take into consideration the dark of night. Tornadoes can’t tell time. 2) Tornadoes do not travel uphill and we lived on a hill. We would always have time to run. This does not take into consideration a tornado forming on the top of a hill and traveling downward, even if the first part were true. He did have a plan, though, and as children we believed in him and were reassured.

I will remember always what I saw and how frightened I was as I stood on the deck. Off toward Desloge the huge outline of a tornado had formed. It swung side to side and was punctuated by what looked like lightning bolts, but were in fact transformers and electric lines exploding. It was shortly after 4.00pm.

Dad's Tornado Emergency Disaster Plan was implemented. I ran to my room to grab my jewelry box; my girlish childhood treasure. I didn't stop to think that the pop beads Aunt Ella had won in the Bingo games in Florida would be of little comfort to me if we lost our home. Biblio wanted the kittens that had been born a few days earlier. All of them. She wanted her big sister to save them. I handed her the jewelry box and pointed her and the boys toward the car.

My father was yelling, "Get in the Car!" Mother was arguing. Ah, my Mother the fatalist. "If I'm going to die in a tornado, I'm going to die in a tornado. I'm not leaving my home."

I thought I'd have time. I ran out the back door and crawled under the house to grab the kittens and their mother. Just above me, Dad had thrown my Mother over his shoulder, shut off the stove, and deposited her in the car; only to find his oldest daughter was missing.

I couldn't reach the kittens. I stretched and called to the Mother cat, but she wouldn't cooperate. The next thing I knew Dad was dragging me out by my feet. "Animals know how to save themselves in a tornado," he reassured me. Another flawed supposition that saw the light of truth when the neighbor's cow was found the next day pinned to a tree by a two by four.

We were now on the road traveling parallel to the tornado and in a head-on course. It was enormous and an eerily strange greenish color. The tornado did not change its course and we passed it headed in the opposite direction. The direction where moments before it had caused eight deaths, 75 injuries, and millions of dollars in damages. We headed straight to Cantwell and my Grandmother's house.

What we saw when we headed into town will remain with me always. Familiar homes and businesses were nothing more than piles of bricks, in some cases only bare ground. People I knew were wandering around what remained of their homes obviously stunned. What of my grandmother? The tornado had selected a house here, another there, in some cases leaving a house intact next to the rubble that had just moments before been a neighbor's home. There was debris everywhere. A roof, furniture, clothes, the streets were difficult to navigate.


I was hanging onto the back of the front seat staring out the windshield when I saw her. My grandmother! She was standing in the street in front of her home. Yes, she and her home were still standing. She was out checking on the well-being of her neighbors. Most of the homes at the end of her street, which backed-up to a chat dump, were untouched. She ran up to the car urging my father to get to my Aunt's four blocks away to make sure she and her family we unharmed.

I remember the gasps from my mother as we traveled the four blocks. Blocks that in some cases were no longer there. We drove up to my Aunt's house. The house was there, "Thank God," my mother said. As we got closer, we saw my eight-year old Cousin tangled in the chain link fence out front screaming hysterically. My aunt was trying to calm her and open the fists she had made a part of the fence. She would not turn loose.

They had taken refuge in the bathtub in the interior first floor bathroom of their two story home. They had no basement. It was the sound, my aunt old us. It had sounded like a freight train. That was followed by the whine of the neighbors homes as they gave up and succumbed to the tornado. Then, dead quiet. It had been more than an eight-year old mind could comprehend. Mother, a nurse, looked at her and determined their was no physical damage.

We moved on to check on my Uncle and his family, a few more blocks away. My Uncle described his experience to the local newspaper:

Otis Campbell said he was eating supper when it began to look very bad. He told his wife he was going out and feed the dog before it got too bad. When he went out, he looked up and spotted the tornado forming. He called for his wife and she came out to look. When they saw it was headed in their direction they ran to a neighbor's basement. Mr. Campbell said that when it was all over, it was very calm, but then he began to hear people scream. Mrs. Campbell said that hanging on their cherry tree in their back yard was a shirt freshly ironed and still on a hanger. Also, their dog and dog house were gone. They found the dog house, with the dog inside, one block away. The dog was unhurt.

I remember that shirt. My Aunt took us out back to marvel; not a spot, not a wrinkle. Freshly ironed, the shirt hung on its coat hanger, on a tree branch, as if it had been hung there intentionally. We didn't stay long enough to see the dog reunited with his family. No, we had left our home and my mother wanted to return, to be certain we still had one. When last we had seen the tornado it was headed our direction.

We took one of the back roads to avoid the downed lines and emergency vehicles. When we topped a small hill we saw what remained of a familiar home and men digging furiously trying to save the people inside. Dad parked the car at the side of the road, on an incline, and jumped out to help. He left the car running in case Mother needed to move it. She stayed with us. Soon Dad yelled for my Mother saying they needed a nurse. She turned off the car and warned us to stay put.

The four of us were watching out the window as my mother was lowered into the rubble. What a frightening image for four small children. As we watched, I realized something was not quite right. The car was moving. We were rolling down the hill. I jumped into the front seat, gripped the steering wheel, and pumped the brake. I could not stop the car. Biblio opened one of the suicide doors and jumped. I yelled at my brothers to stay put. Biblio was now outside in the road screaming. A man standing in the yard saw the danger we were in and chased the car. He opened the door, jumped in, and set the emergency brake. He turned to me and asked where my parents were; crying and unable to talk I pointed at the house. He put Biblio back in the car and left to find my parents. I moved back into the driver's seat and kept my foot on the brake.

My Mother and Father soon returned to the car visibly shaken. They had tried to save the woman in the house, but she was dead. As I remember, so was her husband and perhaps others. Then a stranger told my parents their four children had been passengers in a runaway car and had to be saved themselves.

My Mother could take no more. All she wanted was to know if she still had a home. It wasn't far, just down the road. As we passed the Black Walnut on the fence line above our house we caught a glimpse of it. Home! Still standing, undamaged. We had survived. We had all survived.

The house still stands today never having been the victim of a tornado. Perhaps my father's logic wasn't flawed after all.

Washington state is not known for its tornadoes, yet when storm clouds gather you will find me in the yard, my eyes fixed on the heavens. Old fears are hard to break!


Note: Here is the list of tornadoes that hit southeast Missouri, May 21, 1957:

The F#, location, time of day, path length, deaths

F3 E of Doss Dent , 2100 10.2 miles(16.3 km)
F2 S of Squires Taney, Douglas, 2115 14.5 miles (23.2 km)
F1 NE of Mill Spring Wayne, 2130, 13 miles (20.8 km)
F1 S of Centerville Reynolds, 2145, 0.2 miles (0.32 km)
F3 SW of Sunlight to Desloge Washington, St. Francois, 2145, 22.2 miles (35.5 km), 8 deaths
F4 NE of Fremont Carter, 2153, 9.1 miles (14.6 km), 7 deaths
F2 N of Burfordville Cape Girardeau, 2300, 5.1 miles (8.2 km)
F2 E of Lewistown Lewis, 2330, 7.4 miles (11.8 km)
F1 E of Cardwell to N of Deering Dunklin, Pemiscot, 0545, 23.7 miles (37.9 km)
F2 W of Kennett Dunklin, 0545, 0.1 miles(0.16 km)

The stories of this storm are amazing. More accounts and photographs can be found here.

Photographs:

F3 Tornado. Unknown. Digital Image. 1957. St. Francois County MoGenWeb. (accessed July 2009.)

Cantwell. Unknown. Digital Image. 1957. St. Francois County MoGenWeb. (accessed July 2009.)

The controversial novelist talks about truth, fiction and his new book The Final Testament of the Holy Bible

James Frey sprawls on his back along the couch, knees bent with one tucked over the other, his laptop propped between midriff and thighs. He hits a key, and the computer bursts into noisy punk music – the Sex Pistols' Pretty Vacant – so loud that I can hardly hear him when he nods towards the TV and adds, "Oh, and that would normally be on as well." Typing with two fingers, he mouths each sentence aloud before committing it to the page, looking for all the world like a semi-literate teen with attention deficit issues, posting idle nonsense on Facebook. "So this," he says, "is how I write a book."

I doubt if many bestsellers have been produced like this – but that's not what the blurb for his new novel means when it says: "James Frey is not like other writers." It is, of course, referring to the frenzy of scandal that engulfed Frey after his first book appeared in 2003, making him both a literary rock star and a pariah.

Published as a memoir of the author's addiction to, and recovery from, crack cocaine and crystal meth, A Million Little Pieces was at first feted as an inspirational work of blistering honesty, confirmed by a swooning endorsement from no less than Oprah Winfrey. Then all hell broke loose in 2006, when it turned out that Frey had made parts of it up; that far from serving three months for hitting a cop with a car and violently resisting arrest, he had in fact spent all of five hours in a police cell after receiving two traffic tickets, and behaved impeccably throughout. Other grisly events in the book turned out to be equally fictitious, and the full sanctimonious wrath of America's media was duly unleashed on the author, who was hauled on to Oprah for an indignant telling-off.

It was one of those orgies of public uproar in which everybody seemed to lose all sense of perspective and wildly overstate their case. A Million Little Pieces was never, it seemed to me, as good as everyone had at first liked to say – but hardly a corrupting assault on the very foundations of truth either. Frey was right to point out that most memoirs take liberties with factual accuracy – but it was stretching the point to suggest that categories of fiction and non-fiction were fundamentally meaningless, and therefore irrelevant. Lawsuits were filed by readers declaring themselves cheated, refunds were issued, Frey was dropped by his publisher and agent, and had to flee to France for a while to escape the mayhem.

In due course he returned to New York, where he lives with his wife and two young children, and published a novel in 2008 that was broadly well-received. So you might have thought that the waves of scandal would by now be subsiding – and there is certainly no ambiguity about the status of his new book, which is published as a novel, and purports to be nothing more nor less. But the novel is called The Final Testament of the Holy Bible, and is all about the second coming of Christ, who returns to earth as a promiscuous bisexual drug user who performs euthanasia, approves of abortion, impregnates a prostitute, and preaches a gospel in which there is no afterlife, no holy judgment and no supernatural deity, only love. As if that wasn't provocative enough, it will be released in the US on Good Friday.

To be honest, when I first heard an outline of the plot, my heart sank. Was this just wilful controversialism? But the book turns out to be nothing like as self-consciously contrived as it might sound, and infinitely more enjoyable – a gently humorous, surprisingly plausible, rather charming read. Getting its author to talk about its meaning, however, is anything but straightforward.

Everything about Frey, 41, is a studied disavowal of a conventional author promoting his work. He seldom smiles, let alone laughs, and will often answer questions with a monosyllabic yes or no, which can make him seem quite hostile – but then he will suddenly elaborate on a theme, talking very slowly in a languid, almost lisping drawl disconcertingly at odds with his intense burning stare. It's just that what he says can sometimes be deliberately tricky to pin down.

At first he tells me he doesn't believe in God – but then says he does sometimes – so I ask if he'd like the version he describes in the book to exist. "Well," he drawls, "there are plenty of people on earth who think they're the Messiah," – which is true, but not terribly illuminating.

"People read the book and think it's 100% what I believe. But if you were interviewing a guy who wrote a book about a serial killer, you would probably not ask him if he really dreams about cutting people up, would you? It's just the work.

"See," he goes on, "the thing about my books is I don't want to say, 'This is what I did, this is what I was trying to do', because ultimately I very much believe it's not my job to tell readers what the point is, or what the message is. When I go to an art gallery and stand in front of a painting I don't want someone telling me what I should be seeing or thinking; I want to feel whatever I feel, see whatever I see, and figure out what I figure out. And the reader should be able to read the book, and think for themselves."

He first had the idea to write a bible more than 15 years ago. "In America we hear this shit all the time: the end of days is coming, the Messiah is coming. So I've always thought, well what would people do if the Messiah did show up? What would that person be like?" If the book causes offence, he insists that this is entirely incidental, and not his intention. "It's just not a concern." Would he be concerned if the novel failed to cause any offence at all? "Nah," he shrugs. "Nah, I'd be kind of happy. Cos I don't like protesters outside my door, and I don't like people fucking with me, and I don't like getting hassled. I've had that my whole career, and it's not that fun."

Critics might wonder why he's written a book more or less guaranteed to provoke exactly that response. His UK publisher believes that it's certainly what Frey is expecting, and has said: "He anticipates death threats, book burnings and bannings." But Frey's solution is nothing if not inventive, for while the book is being published in the conventional way across Europe, he has refused to release the book through a publisher in the US. Instead, he is self-publishing 10,000 copies that will go on sale for $50, and another limited edition of 1,000 copies for $150. The rest will be sold exclusively online, to be downloaded on to digital readers.

"Cos I want to control it," he says simply. "It gives me total control. I wanted to make the book the way I wanted. When it comes to my work, if I'm going to get blasted for something then I'm going to get blasted cos it's my own fault. I think as an artist or a writer it's OK to want to control your own work. I spent two years writing this book. Nobody wrote it for me. Why should I not be allowed to control it? You expect me to be willing to place myself within institutions or systems, or adhere to rules that are arbitrary. But I won't do it."

Breaking the rules was always, he says, a big part of his attraction to drugs – as well as his refusal to engage with AA's 12 Steps programme. "I always wanted to be the outlaw. And that's to a certain extent how I've lived. When I got sent to rehab I refused to adhere by the rules; I'm sober for 18 years exactly the way I said I'd do it. I will not allow people to impose rules on me that don't make sense to me. And I live and work very much outside the literary world and the literary system. What they think and what they believe and what their rules are mean nothing to me."

In that case, why work with European publishers? "They are respectful of the author as an artist. I have longstanding, stable relationships with publishers who respect what I do and understand that I don't play by the rules, and work in ways that don't fit into the system, and won't blink in the face of controversy and don't run away from it. In America that's not always the case. I think big commercial publishers in the United States don't want to deal with controversy or firestorm or trouble."

I'd heard, I tell him, that in actual fact no American publisher would go near this book. For once the studied indifference slips, and Frey looks stung.

"That is just bullshit. I don't know who told you that, but it's their idea of who I am and what I do, and they don't have any idea what I do. It's pure fiction. It's pure invention."

I have to laugh, because there is an inescapable irony in hearing Frey denounce something as pure fiction. I wasn't sure if he'd be willing to revisit the great vexed debate over veracity which has haunted him ever since A Million Little Pieces – and at first he says he doesn't particularly want to talk about it. But inevitably, the conversation draws us back to the saga which first made him famous.

"A Million Little Pieces," he says at first, "wasn't really fiction, and not really non-fiction. It's just a book based on part of my life. I certainly took great liberties, and embellished, or fictionalised, whatever you want to say. I wanted it to be controversial and shocking and offensive and ground breaking, and as I was writing it I knew I was fucking with fact and fiction, and manipulating things and changing them and writing something that wasn't easily placed anywhere."

But this is confusing, because in the past he has often attributed its factual discrepancies to the subjectivity of memory. Did he know he was departing from the truth, or didn't he?

"Well in some cases I did. And in others I didn't. And ultimately it doesn't really matter. Who gives a fuck?" Well, I point out, as it turned out a lot of people did. "Yeah," he shrugs, "but I don't." He pauses for a moment. "Look, I would just say that if you put most 'memoirs' under the same scrutiny mine was put under, you'd find the same problems. Mine was just the first to really get taken apart."

If he could turn back the clock, he says he wouldn't change a word of the book. "The book is what it is. I wouldn't change it." But surely he could have published it as a fiction, and avoided all the trouble? "That's not changing the book," he says quickly, "it's changing how it was released." Well does he wish he'd made that change? "It doesn't matter, cos I can't make those changes." But then a moment later he says: "If I could go back would I do it differently? Yeah. I'd have been much clearer about the fact that it is not really a novel and not really a memoir." Why not call it a heavily autobiographical novel then? "You're trying to do what I refuse to do, which is categorise it and label it and place it somewhere so it's easy for you. I'm not going to do that with anything. I'm just not. I don't think I should have to."

And round and round we go, never quite getting to the bottom of anything. At one point he suggests that many of the factual inaccuracies arose out of edits he was instructed to make by the publisher – but when I ask him to elaborate he immediately retreats. "The story is what people want it to be. I've never tried to fight what the media narrative relating to A Million Little Pieces is; I'm just not interested in doing that." He won't even say if he recognises the difference between autobiography and memoir. "I don't care. I just don't give a shit. I don't think about it, it doesn't matter to me. You talk about facts. I talk about truth."

I'm not sure if Frey really does cares as little as he says – but it's easy to see why his construction of truth made so little sense to middle America, for it is closer to the register of conceptual art than of daytime TV, and a more incongruous readership than Oprah's audience would be quite hard to imagine. To what extent the culture clash, and ensuing controversy, was a random accident or inevitability is, however, not so clear. He once said: "I've been in conflict with everything for my whole life. That's the rule, not the exception. Conflict with myself, over ideas of how to live and think, what to think, what to believe. I have to have it. I'm at my best and most comfortable when there is a fight," so I ask if he thinks that subconsciously he may have willed the whole affair on himself. My guess is that his answer takes us as close to the truth as we're likely to get.

"This is what I'll say. Leading up to when the controversy blew up, I started seeing a therapist, cos after the Oprah [endorsement] the book became something I didn't want it to be, it became this piece of pure non-fiction thought of as a self-help book. So I started seeing this therapist and saying: 'Man, this is not what I wanted to do, this is not what I wanted to be, I'm having people come up and ask if they can touch me or hug me, if I can save their relative or their spouse. This was supposed to be like a shocking work of art'.

"And then it all blew up, and I remember the first time I went in there to see the therapist after it all blew up, and he was like: 'Well, you got what you wished for, how does it feel?'

"So I would say the book ended up being what I wanted it to be. I just never expected it to happen that way."

Bobby Flay's daughter looks unimpressed.

This recap is coming to you from Chicago, one of America’s most innovative food cities! (One of Chicago’s innovations is deep-dish pizza, the amazing pizza that is never good.) I’m here on family business, but I’m still ready to recap my face off. Speaking of: I dined at Chipotle last week! I ate a veggie burrito that weighed slightly less than a waterlogged canoe. Was it my imagination, or did the staff’s eyes widen in admiration and horror as I entered the restaurant? Has Dr. Chipotle faxed my picture to everyone in the Chipotle empire, telling them to treat me with absolute deference? Perhaps he’ll seduce me after all.

My mom: “What is Chipotle? Is it a restaurant?” (I’m watching this episode with my parents, aged 75 and 79.)

Bobby Flay and Lorena greet the contestants. They throw out some words: “Chicken nuggets;” “pizza;” “mac ‘n’ cheese.” What do these foods have in common, besides being unhealthy? Kids love them! This is important because “families and children drive the quick-casual business.” Our gang is tasked with creating a kid-friendly meal … and a toy that ties in to their restaurant. You can’t expect today’s savvy, sophisticated kids to eat food that doesn’t have enough sense to come with a toy! The contestants are told to “get creative and have fun,” which is exactly the kind of thing people love being told to do.

As our contestants get creative and have fun, Bobby Flay indulges in more of his bullshit recapping, which I will not recap, lest it open a hole in the space-time recaptinuum.

The gang visits a design studio called “Hot Buttered Elves,” whose name suggests the high-cholesterol consumption of deep-fried childhood innocence — and, as such, is perfect for what is essentially a bunch of hipsters who design cheap, junky toys to trick kids into eating cheap junk. Our contestants are invited to sit at a “Brainstorm Table” (SPOILER: It’s a regular table) and free their minds and just blue-sky beyond the realm of six sigma, or whatever jargon is currently in favor with people who should know better.

Stephenie, given her love of fresh ingredients and whole grains, wants to license a character called Pita Man. Pita Man. I didn’t think Stephenie could make me any more depressed, but she pulled it off. (Let’s not forget Pita Man’s equally fun sidekick, “Billy Catheter.”)

Greg and Krystal work with Hot Buttered Sellouts to design a lightning-bug character whose butt lights up, which kids will love, because nothing says “yummy food” like anal phosphorescence. Sudhir is in over his head with this challenge: He doesn’t have kids, “much to my mom’s sadness.” You and me both, brother! Sudhir goes on to say his mother is “praying to 1,000 gods” for him to have kids, and I suppose if Episcopalians had 1,000 gods, my mom would be hitting them up, too.

Joey, in brainstorming a toy for his Brooklyn Meatball Company, describes a “mathematical strategy game” his kids like, and it takes me a minute to realize he’s talking about Connect Four, which is a mathematical strategy game in the same way TV Guide is a literary journal, and by the way: Dude, how do you not know the name of Connect Four?

Everyone else gets a few minutes at the “Brainstorm Table,” but I refuse to write any more about this. Instead, I will beg my editor’s indulgence and paraphrase Bill Hicks: “Anyone involved in marketing or advertising for children, kill yourselves.”

Back in the kitchen, we learn that Jamawn was a fat kid; he wants to make a waffle sandwich because kids love waffles. (THIS IS IMPORTANT; remember this, reader, as our recap reaches its narrative and political climax.) Meanwhile Joey wants to smash turkey metballs into a sandwich so it’s easy to eat. (I say go for it.) Krystal argues with Grill’Billies chef Brandon over what to make. Mini Sloppy Joes? Brandon’s worried about dryness. Veggie burgers? Brandon doesn’t think kids will eat veggie burgers. Greg suggests grilling steak and kabob with citrus. Brandon: “That’s easy.” Krystal doesn’t like it. She wants a chicken dish. She walks away in a smoldering, bare-shouldered huff. It is easily the most erotic moment of the series.

FIRST COMMERCIAL BREAK:
I was excited to visit Chicago; my plan was to lurk outside Bobby Flay’s restaurant until the great man showed up, at which time I would pitch him my Kale City idea. When I discussed this plan with my brother (a Chicago foodie), he insisted Bobby Flay doesn’t have a Chicago restaurant. “Say what???” It was then we realized: All this time I had thought Bobby Flay was Charlie Trotter. Guys, that’s what we call an EPIC KALE FAIL.

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
The ANGR doomsday countdown clock reads 14:00:46:08. (If you read those numbers backwards in a Vatican mirror, you’ll learn the secret to the Pope’s wife’s lasagna recipe.)

Curtis Stone and Lorena stop by to test our chefs’ food. (My dad, re: Curtis Stone: “He needs a hair-comb.”) Jamawn’s waffle-and-sausage sandwich looks like it could kill a child at 50 paces. Curtis opines, “It might be a little risky.” Jamawn is encouraged to consider healthier alternatives, lest he be invaded by UNICEF.

Sudhir is making vegetarian Indian patties. (“I feel bad for children and what they are subjected to with chicken nuggets; it’s a travesty.”) Curtis and Lorena think the patties are too spicy. Sudhir is told to keep the spiciness at Level One, not Level Ten.

Stephenie tempts the judges with yogurt-ranch dressing and grilled chicken and some kind of apricot carbuncle. (I’m using the word “tempts” in the loosest possible way.) Why is the apricot so tart? Answer: Apricots aren’t in season! Curtis Stone calls out Stephenie’s chef for not knowing when apricots are in season, and by the way, what’s up with using canned chickpeas last week? Stephenie’s chef stands his ground and declares: “We have to use canned chickpeas all the time, no matter what.” GOOSEBUMPS. This is the strongest statement of principle in ANGR history — a chef standing athwart chickpeas, yelling stop. Curtis Stone says that if Stephenie wants fresh chickpeas, the chef’s skepticism is a “massive problem.” Curtis, to a fraught Stephenie: “I get the sense you’re doubting your concept.”

My dad offers Stephenie some helpful advice: “Just tell [Curtis Stone] he’s crazy.”

SECOND COMMERCIAL BREAK:
Family tensions run high as my dad continues slamming Curtis Stone: “I want to get that British guy off the show!”

I slam my drink down: “Excuse me! He’s from Australia! And he’s my favorite!” I feel like a preteen girl defending Justin Bieber, or a balding alcoholic defending Charlie Sheen.

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
The day of the investor test has arrived, as I was pretty sure it would. In a brief montage, Stephenie explains that her experience with ANGR has given her a sense of competence and confidence. In contrast, my experience with ANGR has given me a sense of darkness and futility. (Joke.) Joey calls his kids on speakerphone. His son asks: “Are you winning?” Joey: “I’m trying to!” Joey gets choked up talking about his kids and how he’s going for his dream. I bet Joey is a pretty awesome dad. I also bet he gets his ass kicked at Connect Four.

Something exciting happens: Everyone is pushing their food carts toward their pods, when Brandon (Grill’Billies chef) accidentally tips his cart over and kabobs go flying everywhere and he goes into a rage and starts kicking kabobs and using foul language. Greg and Krystal freak out and we go to commercial haunted by the image of broken kabobs being scooped off the floor by hand.

THIRD COMMERCIAL BREAK:
In happier times, my family visited the Art Institute of Chicago, where I found some investors for Kale City:

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
Everyone stands ready at their pods with their junky toys designed by our friends at Hot Buttered Elves. Greg laments his team’s “major malfunction.” Krystal adds: “I’m feeling horrible; I don’t like [the food] we’re putting out there — and half of it’s on the floor,” which is the kind of almost-humor that would destroy in a Catskills lounge.

All the kids come in with their parents. Bobby Flay introduces himself with a perfect absence of enthusiasm; the man is operating at zero degrees Kelvin. Lorena and Curtis state their names for the record, whereas Steve Ells leaps at the chance to tell these kids he invented Chipotle Grill! It’s like meeting Abraham Lincoln, huh, kids? In a surprise twist, Bobby Flay has brought along his preternaturally sophisticated daughter Sophie, who will offer feedback in the voice of a child, but with the wisdom of a thousand Batalis.

When it comes to food for children, Bobby Flay wants “something creative that doesn’t treat kids like kids.” Sudhir offers a toned-down Indian burger. Sophie Flay thinks Sudhir’s burger “is too … for lack of better word, mushy.” (“For lack of a better word?”) Bobby Flay, emboldened by his daughter’s judgment, forgets everything he just said about not treating kids like kids: “I’m skeptical that American kids will wanna eat Indian food.” Sure enough, we get a cutaway of some random girl: “Spice Coast is too, y’know, out there.” Really, kid? Too “out there”? Umm … you’re sitting around reading novels about vampires who don’t have sex.

Steve Ells is bonkers for Harvest Sol’s toy: Pete the Pita, which is like a whole-wheat version of the Bananagrams bag. He even makes a funny pita voice! (Steve Ells is a freak when the lights go down, I just know it.) Ells is looking for a toy that “engages kids to the brand,” which is the kind of phrase that should be illegal to think, let alone say. Sophie Flay, who is now the youngest person who has ever intimidated me, thinks chicken is “very common for kids.”

There is a brief family discussion about whether Sophie Flay has been fed her lines. My mom remarks upon the amount (number?) of makeup young Sophie is wearing. I take a sip of whiskey as my dad gives his considered take on Bobby Flay’s daughter: “She’s not really 14; she’s 20. She’s his mistress.”

It is only through superhuman control that I prevent said whiskey from making egress via my nose and destroying my computer. My dad FTW.

The toy for Soul Daddy is a corn-bread muffin that yells “Soul Daddy!” when you open it. Sophie Flay is flummoxed by the waffle/turkey-bacon sandwich: “What meal would you eat this for?” Curtis Stone: “The nutritional value is pretty low; would you wanna serve it to your kids?” Meanwhile, Dr. Chipotle is basically short-circuiting; he can’t taste anything but the waffle! It’s overpowering his system! He says Jamawn showed “no balance in the way he approached the kids’ menu,” before collapsing in a shower of sparks and whirring noises.

FOURTH COMMERCIAL BREAK:
In solidarity with the contestants, I designed a Kale City children’s menu for a kid I found at the mall:

He was skeptical at first; I guess because there was no cheap plastic tie-in toy?

I tried to comfort him by singing a jingle: “Kale, kale, yummy kale!” I’m not sure that helped:

But in the end he LOVED IT!

“Kale City: Turning infants into W.C. Fields since 2011.”

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
Holy mackerel: As the camera pans over Joey’s pod, there’s a fleeting glimpse of someone wearing a Misfits shirt! If Glenn Danzig is a surprise celebrity judge, I’ll eat my hair and all my muscles.

The judges think Joey’s toy is too expensive. (I assume they’re referring to the legal costs associated with completely ripping off Connect Four.) Joey is nervous about his “turkey smash-ball slider.” It pains me to see him so deferential to Bobby Flay’s daughter. However, Sophie loves the sandwich! Joey tears up: “Words can’t describe how happy that makes me.” I’m gonna buy Joey a thesaurus, because nobody should be at a loss for words just because some celebrity’s kid deigns to enjoy a sandwich.

The Grill’Billies toy is “Billy the Lightning Bug,” the amazing redneck bug whose butt lights up. Sophie Flay doesn’t like it. (My notes: “Sophie losing her appeal.”) Curtis Stone tastes the kebabs — they’re dry — and wonders why there’s no sauce. He adds, “This is some of the worst food I’ve eaten all competition.” Put that in your butt and light it. Bobby Flay is bugged out about kids using skewers. In the aftermath, Krystal and Brandon butt heads regarding why he’s not listening to her. As tensions rise, Brandon does what I would do — namely, bugs out and slinks away.

The contestants are brought into the judges’ chambers. (My family erupts in spontaneous laughter at the judges’ serious expressions.) Sophie Flay, thankfully, is absent. Good news for Joey: The kids “loved your concept”; he had the most silver coins “by a landslide margin.” (Did I mention they’re fucking around with the silver coins again?) Joey is so happy he starts crying. Stephenie’s safe, too: Curtis tells her she “stepped it up; the kids loved your food,” adding, “only nine of them needed to be institutionalized for depression after looking at Pete the Pita.” (Joke.)

Our losers? Greg and Krystal, Sudhir, and Jamawn. The judges devote the next five minutes to picking them apart.

Greg blames their horrible showing on “poor execution.” Krystal’s done with the corporate-speak — she blames the chef: “He doesn’t listen!” Bobby: “Then fire him!” Curtis Stone cuts to the quick: Who’s in charge of Grill’Billies? What’s the chain of command? Why is Stanley McChrystal standing in the corner of your pod badmouthing you? It is decided that Krystal will take charge from now on. After Greg and Krystal leave, Steve Ells says one of those sentences that sounds like it could be God describing Earth: “No one’s driving the vision for that concept.”

Sudhir’s up next. Bobby Flay: “How will we continue to believe in your concept if kids don’t like it?” Sudhir responds that he always geared his concept toward urban professionals, not “a bunch of snot-nosed children.” (Fake quote.) The judges worry that Americans won’t eat Indian food. (My notes: “bullshit pseudo-racist non-controversy.”) Curtis Stone then accuses Sudhir of being too jovial: “Are you taking this seriously?” Why is Curtis Stone being such a hard-ass tonight? Yeah, Sudhir, why aren’t you weeping and thrashing your back with old cheese graters for the delectation of the judges? You’re on a dopey reality show — how dare you enjoy yourself?

FIFTH COMMERCIAL BREAK:
Me: “What do you think of America’s Next Great Restaurant?”
Dad: “It’s crazy.”
Mom: “We’re missing Upstairs Downstairs.”

BACK FROM COMMERCIAL:
Jamawn looks defeated. He wants his time in front of the judges brief and to the point. Of course this won’t happen; there is a psychic pound of flesh to be had, and the judges will extract it with gleeful, leering pathos. When Jamawn laments that the challenge didn’t go his way, Bobby Flay helpfully reminds Jamawn that he used to play football; surely there were some games that didn’t go his way? Jamawn’s defense of his unhealthy kids’ menu is sad: “Where I come from, people just love soul food; they’re not looking at calories.” (There’s an entire sixth season of The Wire hiding, unexamined, in that statement.) The judges ask Jamawn if he thought about his three kids during the challenge, and Jamawn does exactly what ANGR’s producers hoped he would do: He shuffles around the room in tears. Curtis Stone, whose star is fading in my firmament, says some patronizing stuff to Jamawn about how, “no matter what happens,” he’s “a man people can be proud of.” Huh?

The investors deliberate about Jamawn. Curtis Stone: “Can you have too much passion? Bobby, you kinda had to talk him down off a ledge!” (A radical overstatement.) Meanwhile Lorena is “drawn to the passion Jamawn brings to the table” — big surprise; passion is like cocaine for the woman — “but he also has to be a businessman.” ENOUGH. I’m calling bullshit on how the judges are treating Jamawn. It’s patronizing and borderline racist. (YEAH, I SAID IT.) First they bait Jamawn with talk about his kids, and then — when he gets emotional like he’s supposed to — they wonder if he doesn’t have what it takes to run a business?! As if Jamawn is some sub-rational bundle of nerves who can’t think straight! Meanwhile, Joey’s running around crying like a busload of widows at a Celine Dion concert! The dude started crying because a teenage girl liked his sandwich. And what’s up with Curtis Stone reassuring Jamawn he’s a man people can look up to? He hasn’t condescended to any other contestant like that. Curtis Stone, I am so over you! My dad was right: You stink! You can forget about joining 120 Days of Skadom.

Are these judges a bunch of racists, or am I just in a dark and windy mood because I’m in Chicago?

Anyway, back to business. Sudhir is faulted by notorious racist Curtis Stone for not being passionate enough. Bobby Flay remains skeptical about “Indian food in the quick-casual market,” which is no surprise, because Bobby Flay is a total racist. (Question to my editor: Am I allowed to write stuff like this? I will totally stand behind it.) Bobby Flay is all for sophisticated food, you see, as long as it tastes White. Dr. Chipotle — TO HIS CREDIT — disagrees, reminding everyone once again that he invented Chipotle, the unstoppable host organism that introduced the ethnicity virus to the fast-casual market.

In the end, all this racist jawboning about Jamawn and Sudhir was a bait and switch, as Bobby Flay says, “I’m sorry, but my racist friends and I will not be investing our Confederate dollars in Grill’Billies.” (Joke.)

It’s true: Greg and Krystal have been officially Grill’Bye-byed. Greg is sad the investors are gonna miss this “great opportunity.” Krystal thinks about how the experience has brought them closer together and made them “so much stronger.” The two lovers hug, then turn to me, and, with a furtive glance, whisper in unison: “David, you’re not overreacting — everyone on this show is racist.”

Only two episodes left!

Read more posts by David Rees

Filed Under: overnights, america's next great restaurant, david rees, recaps, tv

Sexual predators, like any other criminal, look for an environment in which they can safely perpetrate their crimes. In an atmosphere where authority figures are viewed as 'anointed' and 'called' by God, where they are looked at as counselors and are privy to secrets in their congregation, where trust does not necessarily have to earned but is granted by the office itself. Women and children are to be submissive, which is often interpreted as subservient. Folks who ask questions are sometimes labeled as gossips and rebels. Stir in the fact that accusations of abuse are usually based solely on the word of a woman or child against The Man of Gawd and well... - you might as well pour Miracle-Gro all over it.

I found this quote on a thread speaking about the Tina Anderson charge against the IFB church.  From what I gather these people are IFB as well.  If we remember from the beginning of the 20/20 show they speak about these views well.

I think we all know there are churches out there that are bit more radical than others.  If you have read around there is a variety of responses about this from IFB members.  To me, the intelligent thing to do is speak out against the parts that have been proven and mishandled.  Responsible organizations would take this example, and reexamine their procedures - then make sure everyone within their church is aware.

Its sad when certain well-known and respected IFB members can't admit they also see mistakes that were made, and instead take a defensive stand to throw others under the bus.

Dr. Chuck Phelps as I mentioned has a website up with difference letters, and explanations to basically cover his butt.  Unfortunately, the more he places up on his website the worse he looks.

Its quite odd that a man of  “God” thinks that it would be acceptable to the world to just ‘do his job’ and report a sexual assault, and then turn around and basically tell everyone he doesn’t believe a sexual assault happened.  Then inform anyone that will listen about how he was ‘kind’ in his response.

Within the 20/20 show they spoke about the ‘old boys network’, and Chuck Phelps has now proved the point.  Dr. Chuck Phelps has placed a letter on his site from one of the boys – Dr. Charles L. Surrett.  In Dr. Surrett’s letter he characterized the show as ‘special pleading’.

Dr. Surrett defined ‘special pleading’ as intentionally presenting favorable evidence to one’s case, while at the same time purposely omitting unfavorable evidence.  He states that this may be acceptable in courtrooms, because the whole truth should come out if both sides do their jobs properly.

I would assume Dr. Surrett’s letter is to show the other side.    The problem I see is I don’t think the man watched the show, nor did he read the other documents on Dr. Chuck Phelps’s site.  He tends to contradict documents on Phelps Site, and his own use of ‘special pleading’ is seen as continuing to twist what happened.

1. He states ABC showed two cases of young ladies who were ‘allegedly’ sexually attacked from members within the IFB churches.  The show actually showed at least three. 
   
   I guess he didn’t count the cases that had convictions.  That would mean the word ‘allegedly’ at this point would be mute in light of them.  He stayed away from that, and didn't acknowledge it at all.  I guess it is because it may make his statements look 'unfavorable'.
   
   I saw that as a play on words myself.  If you are going to make your point you need to 'acknowledge' the conviction of more than one man in that case of sexual molestation that was spoken about on the program.
   
   Don't accuse an organization of 'leaving facts out', and then turn around and do it yourself
2. 'If one were to accept that the allegations are true' – forming doubt for the audience.  Special pleading?
   
   'These charges go back at least thirteen years, and no doubt millions of people have attended IFB churches during this time.  Due to the ‘depraved’ nature of mankind it wouldn’t be surprising if some forms of abuse happened.' 
   
   Yet in the next sentence he mocks these victims:  website for people who consider themselves ‘survivors’ of IFB churches and their supposed abuse. 
   
   What his statements do is show the same attitude that Tina Anderson received during her traumatic ordeal.  Sadly, he basically proved her point.  I don't think he realized it.
   
   We will acknowledge that abuse can happen, but then downplay the people that call themselves survivors with their ‘supposed abuse.  I guess he was being 'kind' as well.
3. Surrett then wishes to have credit for all those people that have improved their lifes due to the result of IFB churches.  He had the opportunity to use these testimonials, but then acknowledge also the need to have churches that consider themselves IFB to revisit their procedures to make sure they are more 'welcoming' to victims.  The way he words his statements tends to make them look conceited.
   

   James 2:8 One law rules over all other laws. This royal law is found in the Scriptures “Love other people the same as you love yourself.” If you obey this law, then you are doing right. 9But if you are treating one person like he is more important than another person, then you are sinning. That royal law proves that you are guilty of breaking God’s law. 10And you might follow all of God’s law. But if you fail to obey only one command, then you are guilty of breaking all the commands in that law.

   Instead he used them as tool to say we are being attacked (IFB Church), and its unfair because we help people also.  James 2:13 Yes, you must show mercy to other people. If you do not show mercy, then God will not show mercy to you when he judges you. But the person who shows mercy can stand without fear when he is judged.
   
   To me that is seem as childish at best.  Its very clear someone FAILED Tina Anderson within the church, and within her home.  It seems clear others feel traumatized by their treatment within the church as well, and acknowledging them instead attempting to distance yourself from them?  That would show Glory to God's name!
4. Surrett then attempts to pick apart the witnesses of her ‘alleged’ discipline action by stating he can come up with more people to say what a great church it is. 
   
   It seems sad that he has not done any reading in this area, because more people have come forward to state they viewed this as a ‘discipline’ action as well. 
   
   The 'great church' ideal at this point is silly. That has nothing to do with this. Awful things can happen in great places - can we at least acknowledge that? 
   
   Again he has the opportunity to state how placing a ‘rapist’ up on discipline calling it ‘adultery’, and then have his victim ‘ask for support’ as a pregnant teenager was deceitful. 
   
   It was a huge mistake, and it caused trauma in her life.  THEN work towards acknowledging there is WORK to be done!  How healing that would be if those words were followed up by actions to victims.
   
   Willis discipline action wasn’t the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (his words not mine). 
   
   Anderson did need support, because she said she was attacked.  There was no support for the rape. 
   
   WHY Surrett seems to think he can twist this to make it look better than it is?  If you can't acknowledge the ‘failings’ in this the IFB church you again make them look suspect. That is called logic!
5. Surrett then attempting to state that program never mentioned Dr. Phelps reporting of the rape.  I have to again wonder if this man even watched the program.  They speak about that. 
   
   They quote Phelps from the documents that were supplied from Phelps, because he refused to be interviewed. 
   
   Christine Leaf also refused to be interviewed, which is noted on dr. chuck phelps .com site, and yet he accuses 20/20 of purposely not interviewing Tina’s mother to give her side. 
   
   Did Chuck Phelps even ‘catch’ that prior to placing this letter on his website?
6. Dr. Surrett next states that the videos shown on the 20/20 show were sermons from 'presumed' (but not documented) quotations from pastors of the IFB church.  Is he saying those pastors are NOT  IFB pastors?  He had the perfect opportunity to say that, and yet he didn't. 
   
   Dr. Surrett then states these pieces of video were taken out of context possibly, and acknowledges their statements are improper, and subjective opinions of these pastors. 
   
   Then he whines about how ABC didn't give good examples of proper preaching from the IFB churches, and sadly neither did Surrett. 
   
   He is also chosing to omit significant information, for example ARE those pastors IFB or not?!
7. Dr. Surrett also seems to feel that using examples of what the program is trying to get across by using 'real life' examples of their points?  He shoots back that 'people' can see through this kind of fallacious reporting. 
   
   Why the statement then?  I mean he seems to be pointing out that everyone knows the 20/20 program was bunch of bull in their eyes...than why brother with his statements? 
   
   Dr. Surrett realizes that is not true THUS his paper. I think he lost his logic point there.
8. 'Nothing is true simply because a human being said so' rule of logic Dr. Surrett wishes to use. 
   
   He reasons that since - to use ABC's words - hundreds of thousands - would say they love their IFB church those that are disgruntled due to their experiences don't count for anything. 
   
   Why? 
   
   He figures he can get more people to say they LOVE IT compared to those that say they were harmed by it. 
   
   Since there are convictions of mishandling things within the IFB church this 'logically' makes no sense. 
   
   The convictions show more than 'true simply because a human being said so'.
   
   If you notice at the beginning of his paper he conveniently leaves those 'convictions' out of his points. 
   
   He was using his own form of 'special pleading' by ignoring those facts.  Does he not realize that makes him look dishonest?
9. His last point on page 2 was 'emotion is not an acceptable substitute for proof'.  Since the 20/20 program used the tears of individuals within their program, and NOT the tears of the individuals 'who had given of themselves to help'?  That makes it a play on emotions. 
   
   It would make more sense to me if he would stick by his previous comments about how they experienced 'supposed abuse'.  If he had done that he maybe able to prove his point by stating since they didn't have the people with them that helped with the crying along with them - there is no proof this is true.  DON'T get me wrong it would still be silly, but at least it would look consistent!

I covered part of the letter that was posted.  I will again attach copies of them, because I don't wish to link to Chuck Phelps site.  Page One and Page Two.

When the church is more concerned about how they are 'viewed' from the outside world, compared to acknowledging the harm that was caused to a human?  You don't have your priorities straight.   Charles L. Surrett is using what he called, 'argumentum ad hominem' by discrediting the program and the victims - while showing others to 'disprove reasoning'. Yep. I switched his definition around a bit.

I wonder how much time Dr. Surrett dedicated to make sure this attitude within IFB churches is only a select few.  I'm not sure he CAN since they are independent.

The program wasn't presented to disprove the entire doctrinal position of the IFB, but how 'depraved mankind' at times abuses it to their advantage.  BIG DIFFERENCE!  I guess in his defensiveness he completely missed the point of the program.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use common sense, and the diversions shown by comments like he has made do make PARTS of the IFB look like they are hiding things.

Lastly, I figured out why the age 16 kept coming UP in the case of Tina Anderson!  The way Dr. Chuck Phelps worded and concentrated on her age in his documents on his site?  If you look closer at what he said...she was 16 WHEN he was told about the rape.  NOT that she was 16 at time!  I also noticed he didn't try to correct that misunderstanding like he did so many other 'mistaken' statements.

I have to wonder how much deeper they intend to dig their hole.

This past season for the Wizards, we've seen a number of changes, from ownership with minority owner Ted Leonsis becoming majority owner this past June, to the court where our franchise player changed from Gilbert Arenas to John Wall within a year, and even a number of things for the in game experience for the Wizards.  We also have seen some notable changes regarding the in game experience since Ted has taken over, and I'll hit on some of the major acts and personalities we have and I'll also add some suggestions that we should consider for next season.

CRITIQUES OF CURRENT IN GAME FIGURES

1. PA Announcer: Ralph Wesley

Arguably the most obvious change to any team's in game experience is the voice of the PA Announcer when it changes.  This past year, our PA Announcer was Ralph Wesley, who also holds the same position with our sister team, the Washington Mystics.  I went to some Mystics games last year, including for about a quarter of a game during the 2010 Draft Day party when they hosted the Los Angeles Sparks, a game against the Seattle Storm, who would go on to become the 2010 WNBA Champions, and I also went to a playoff game against the Atlanta Dream after the Mystics earned the #1 seed for the East last year and had a record 22-12 campaign.   For an 82 game pace, that record is equal to a 53 win season which I can only dream of at this time for the Wizards.

After hearing Wesley for these games, some of his trademark sayings were quite annoying or even irritating, at least when I first heard them.  The most annoying one to me was when he literally yelled "One minute!!" for the one minute warning for each quarter (WNBA games have four 10 minute quarters with a one minute warning called as opposed to four 12 minute quarters with a two minute warning called in the NBA).  A close second was announcing free throws whenever a Mystics player was at the line where Wesley would say, "Crystal Langhorne at the line, shooting..........................two (in a relaxed tone)."   Announcing timeouts such as his trademark saying "Timeout on......the floor" also were noted by the DC Basketcases, a Mystics and Lady Terps hoops blog where the writers complained about Ralph not once, but twice and there were a number of Mystics fans who didn't like his announcing style, period, possibly because he was different and last year was his first season with the Mystics.   (DC Basketcases is also the blog where Ted learned about the need to fix latches in the women's bathrooms at Verizon Center fyi.)

After the Mystics season ended, Ralph won a public tryout last September to become the new PA announcer for the Wizards where he replaced Kevin Heilbronner, who previously held the Wizards and Mystics PA spots for about a decade.  I was a bit weary about Ralph as the Wizards PA announcer because of the Mystics games, and at the beginning of this past season, I was already annoyed, but I have noticed some changes in his announcing style throughout the course of his season as it went on.  He isn't going out of his way to say things like "Jordan Crawford at the line shooting............two" instead saying it regularly (THANK GOD).  I also like it that he notes who gets an assist after a Wizards basket, though it can be partly attribute to the fact that we have the Wall of Assists this year.  Most of all despite the annoying sayings early on, I like the overall energy and enthusiasm he brings to the job every night, even last summer.  Though some PA announcers, like Lawrence Tanter of the Los Angeles Lakers are more of the old-school, neutral types, having another vocal cheerleader can only help the crowd, especially when the going gets rough.

So for me, Ralph didn't give me a good impression initially, but he has grown on me throughout the course of the Wizards season, and he will be a great announcer for us going forward.

2. In Game Personalities - Autria Godfrey and Big Tigger

Autria has been the game hostess for the Wizards since the 2007-2008 season when she shared the role with Chris Styles who is a local DJ who can be heard on Sirius XM Radio and also at local night clubs. Since the 2008-2009 season, Autria has been the only host who runs around the Verizon Center mostly acting as a walking commercial to get people to certain booths, etc.  She's a pretty face to look at and she's hotter than most of the Wizard Girls, but at the end of the day, she's not really pumping up the crowd which Styles did, so I wouldn't lose sleep if I didn't see her at games next year.  I'm not saying that she's totally pointless, since she does look and act professional when on the job, but a game host should try to pump up the crowd when we need it, and Autria isn't doing that aside from encouraging little kids to draw a poster during the pre-game period. At a minimum, she should get more opportunities to pump up the crowd, even if she sounds idiotic doing it at first.  

WPGC's morning man, Big Tigger has been our resident DJ since the 2007-2008 season, and since the 2008-2009 season when Chris Styles wasn't retained, Big Tigger has turned into more of a host where he has announced the Wizards' starting lineups and has helped pump up the crowd for the Dance Cam, the Chipotle Burrito Dash, the Fist Pump Cam and at the end of games when it's real close.  He is pretty good at pumping up the crowd, and is a must keep for the in game experience for the immediate future.  I don't mind him being the only full time host if Autria isn't back...

3. Wizard Girls

The Wizard Girls are a pretty visible group, and they're pretty accessible for pictures and autographs before the game and during halftime.  During the game however except for their customary dance routine during a timeout, they're next to the tunnels during most of the time and they become invisible in terms of trying to pump up the crowd.   Perhaps they should be cheering closer to the court to be more visible during the course of the game, like we see in college and high school games.  

4. Capital Crew, featuring Terrance Briscoe, a/k/a Hype Guy

If we had a male dancer on the Dance Team, Hype Guy would be the one.  He is probably our most vocal cheerleader on the team booing like crazy when the visiting team's players are at the free throw line and he does some cool dances throughout the game.  As for the rest of Capital Crew, they really are even more invisible than the Wizard Girls when I'm at games since all they do is throw burritos and t shirts.  Briscoe does that and then some.  He is a must keep for next season and beyond.  As for the rest of the Capital Crew, perhaps they need to jump up and down some more like Hype Guy.

5. G Man and G Wiz

They're fine as our mascots.  I would love to see them back, but in a fresh shade of red this fall with some special video on the jumbotron changing them from blue to red as they get introduced for the first time in the 2011-2012 season.

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT YEAR'S IN GAME EXPERIENCE

1. Display the lyrics and encourage the yelling of RED and OH during the National Anthem.

The Washington Capitals have the lyrics displayed for the National Anthem when it is sung.  This video shows that, though it is faint.  National Anthem starts at 4:15.  The first thing regarding the National Anthem is that I'd like to see at Wizards games is to display the lyrics when it is being sung.

As you listen to the National Anthem in the Caps video, note that the Phone Booth yells "RED!!" during the phrase, "And the rockets' red glare", and the whole crowd also yells the Baltimore Orioles' traditional "OH!!!" during the phrase "Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave."  Though some DC area fans think it should be reserved just for Orioles games, having a whole crowd yell OH pumps everyone up and is a sign of encouragement for the singer, and therefore we should have EVERY Wizards fan yelling it during the National Anthem as well. With no encouragement to do it right now, it sounds silly when some yell OH and most don't, and what's the point about yelling red when that's not a Wizards' color.  To encourage the yelling of "RED!!" and "OH!!!", the jumbotron should have the words RED and OH capitalized as the singer is about to recite those words. It should catch on easily.

2. Make the Playlist that Big Tigger plays public and put it online. 

If some fans hear a song that they like but don't know the name of the artist or the song title, it would be nice to know what the title of the song is.  The New York Knicks do this for every game.  As a season ticket holder, I'm also hearing the same songs in the same order almost every game during warm ups.  I think the songs need to change up a little as well.

3. Add more music variety to the playlists during warmups, timeouts, etc.

#90 of Ted's list explicitly states "More music variety".  I haven't really heard any changes yet.  The Wizards music selections tend to be mostly rap, R&B, and some tween pop songs, while the Capitals music selections tend to be mostly hard rock and heavy metal songs, and it's because the demographics of NBA and NHL audiences are different, and also because NBA music tends to revolve around rap and NHL music revolves around rock music, just listen to the music in the NBA Live video games vs. the NHL video games on EA Sports.  I'd love to see the Wizards enter the court to a heavy metal song and the Caps take the ice with a rap song next year or something.  It isn't a crime to do this.

4. The Wizards should encourage more interactive fan cheers during games to give us a very vocal home court advantage. 

I see that we started something new this year to have the fans stand up until a Wizards player scores a bucket.  It's not really new, since a number of colleges have this tradition, but at least in the DC pro sports scene, the Mystics started doing this in 2009.  I like this, since it's one of those things that can make the Verizon Center more of a college like atmosphere in terms of how raucous the crowd can be.  Hopefully we won't have to wait for our first basket until after Flip calls a timeout like we saw in the Oklahoma City game this past March.

In terms of fan cheers, we don't really have any of that aside from G-Man banging the Defense Drum in the fourth quarter.  Again, taking a page out of the Capitals, two season ticket holders lead the Phone Booth in "Let's Go Caps" chants almost every game.  The most famous one is William Stilwell, a/k/a "GOAT" who sits in Section 105 usually yelling "Let's Go Caps" right before opening face off or during play stoppages which the crowd follows and yells back.  In this video you can't hear GOAT that clearly since he has no mic, but it's loud enough for the Verizon Center to know he's yelling and they yell back.  The other fan, Sam Wolk, a/k/a "The Horn Guy" who sits in Section 415 toots his vuvuzela/plastic horn three times which the fans then yell back "Let's Go Caps".  Here's a video of him in action.

In ice hockey while there's a lot of motion going on in the game like basketball, the puck is turned over a lot more easily since it's harder to control than a basketball, and it's a lot harder to score goals than it is in basketball.   Given this, it's easier for GOAT and the Horn Guy to lead the crowd in long Let's Go Caps chants.  Also in NHL games unlike NBA games we don't have music played constantly, so these chants are easier to do by default.  However despite these differences between the NHL and the NBA in game experience, I do think that some form of this can still happen at Wizards games, though we're probably going to have the Capital Crew, especially Hype Guy and some other like minded folks to do these kinds of chants.  I don't think foghorns and vuvuzelas are allowed at NBA games so unfortunately, Horn Guy can't really help here but it's still something we could look into.  One vuvuzela blower leading the troops is fine, but 20,000 of them will be a nuisance.

5. The Wizards should have post game interviews for the whole audience to hear and/or a post game player address to the audience for every home game.

This is something new added this year, and it adds some incentive to keep the fans in their seats after the game is over.  The Capitals and all hockey teams have the three stars announced after the game, and most fans stay in their seats after a win, and we have done that this year with home wins when Autria would interview one of the players about the win and she almost always asks a question about how the fans helped the team.

The Mystics do something slightly different where a player addresses the crowd after every game, win or lose, where she would thank the crowd for coming, and to rally the fans in regards to a future game.  This keeps more fans in their seats after the end of the game, but more importantly, it lets them hear a player speak directly to the fans and hear that appreciation first hand.  In the current Wizards post game interview with Autria however, the player doesn't really address the crowd directly since he's talking to her, not to us. 

I'm kind of torn between which of these is the better post game ritual to do, but I think we should have that post game interview or player address for every game.  It may not seem like very much, but it can't hurt either

6. Don't overdo the organ music because it can be tacky.

Overall, this adds a bit of a hockey or baseball feel to the game.  In fact, our organist, Bruce Anderson does the same for the Caps and has done so for the last 10 years.  I like it most of the time.  The part that I don't like much about the electronic organ is playing the instrumentals for pop hits like Missy Elliot's "Get Your Freak On", Usher's "DJ Got Us Falling In Love Again", and Katy Perry's "Firework."  Organ music is cool, but it's also okay to play some of the pop songs in their original format too when the PA Announcer notifies the fans about personal fouls by the players, etc.

7. Incorporate the Crowd Wave Technology more often and have it done once a game, every game.

This technology was given publicity before the season and it was used once a game for maybe a third of the games this season, at most.  Unless it requires some major maintenance after every use, I think it should be used every game in some way.

******

Aside from encouraging the team to lower the high food prices at the concession stand and the high souvenir prices at the team store, these are my critiques and suggestions on what we could do to improve the in game experience at Verizon Center next season for the Wizards.  A poll for the Wizards' current in game experience is below.  What are your critiques on the current in game figures and your suggestions on what we can do to improve things for next season?

Poll

What is your grade for the quality in game experience for Wizards games last year at Verizon Center?

• A
• B
• C
• D
• F

  1 votes | Results

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

As I drove back from my friend’s house after the Bruins disappointing 3-1 loss to the Habs, my wife said, “You are not taking this loss that badly. You are talking about it.”

The reason I wasn’t pounding Maalox and pouting like someone took my favorite toy was that the cleansing of my black and gold soul has begun.

I have accepted it as Red Sox fans did prior to 2004. This team is not going to win a championship. The Bruins are going to continue to let you down and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. Their hockey fate is pre-destined.

They are always going to fizzle out in a playoff series they should win.

Let’s take a snap shot of the Claude “Mr. Potato Head” Julien era (a native of Blind River, Ontario. Insert joke here), shall we? In 2008, after a two-year hiatus from the playoffs, Boston was back in the big dance as a No. 8 seed against the hated Habs. 

After going down 2-0 in the series, the Bruins clawed back for an overtime win. The Habs would bounce back with a 1-0 win to take a commanding 3-1 series lead. Admirably, the Bruins didn’t wither up and die. They pushed the series to seven games before succumbing to their hated rival.

Progress? Hell yeah!

Hockey was back on the map in Boston after a 15-year absence.

With progress and success, comes high expectations. The following season, the script was flipped. The Bruins were the beasts of the East and the Habs snuck into the playoffs as the No. 8 seed. Boston dismantled the Canadiens and swept them out of the postseason for their first series win since the '90s.

Next up, the Carolina Hurricanes. On paper, the Bruins should have blown them off the ice. But remember, this is called Bruins hockey. Carolina would go up 3-1 in the series before Boston awoke from its postseason slumber. The Bruins would push the Canes to a seventh game but would lose in overtime at home.

This is where the regression of the team begins. Yeah, they won a playoff series, whoopty bleeping doo. The Bruins’ playoff effort was not there throughout. It seems they felt their elimination of Montreal was their cup.

Now in 2010, the expectations from the Hub of Hockey were at a fever pitch. The Bruins won a series finally, but they needed to show growth and go deeper in the playoffs. The season couldn’t have been any worse, a multitude of injuries (including the Cooke hit on Marc Savard) and a historic losing streak. Miraculously, the Bruins turned it on during the stretch run of the regular season and slid into the No. 6 seed.

Bring on Buffalo. This could have been a season where Bruins fans could have gave them a mulligan with all their injuries. However, the Bruins showed glimmers of hope and brilliance. The fan base got sucked in again, myself included.

The Bruins bounced the Sabres in six games. Could this be the year? The return of Lord Stanley? Bruins fans now had playoff fever something fierce.

The stars were aligning for Boston. The top seeds were falling like dominoes and before you know it they had home ice advantage against the Flyers. They stormed out to a commanding 3-0 series win.

I felt in my heart that this was the year for sure. I would be crying black and gold tears of joy as they hoisted the cup at City Hall Plaza.

But wait, this is called Bruins hockey. The unthinkable happened: the spoked B squandered the series lead and a 3-0 advantage in game seven at home. This was a historic choke of epic proportions.

I sat home in shock and I couldn’t breathe. It was unfathomable.

The Bruins under Julien were continuing to regress when it counted. They couldn’t conjure up the effort or intensity to close their opponents out. 

What does someone have to do to get fired in this city?

Now here we are. It’s 2011 and nothing has changed.

The team was inconsistent throughout the year. The Bruins would have a seven-game winning streak followed by a four-game losing streak. They are consistently inconsistent, which is the trademark of Claude Julien (now you know why the Devils canned him late in the season).

Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli made trades to improve the team and they are blowing up in his face. Tomas Kaberle, the coveted puck-moving defenseman, is a defensive liability. Chris Kelly is an absolute flat-liner. And Nathan Horton only plays when he wants to.

Perhaps it’s talent or coaching or the GM—or all above.

Wholesale changes need to be made starting with the coach. It’s inexcusable to lose six playoffs games in a row (dating back to the playoffs last year versus Philly) with four of those games being on your home ice. The silver lining to the Bruins' lackluster effort versus Montreal, is that we are two games closer to the end of the Julien era (thank god).

I think the changes don’t stop there. GM Peter Chiarelli needs to be shown the door as well. His attitude on winning a championship is just absurd. He looks at minimal improvements instead of the big picture. It should be Stanley Cup or bust. Who cares about division titles or second round series victories, Peter?

He doesn’t have the same mindset and passion for winning as the front offices of the Patriots, Red Sox and Celtics do. In Boston, it’s all about championships and if it’s not, the fans will see right through you.

And Peter Chiarelli is transparent as you can get.

It’s time for President Sea Bass (aka Cam Neely), to bring in his own coach and general manager. These individuals need to have the same winning attitude and passion for the game as Neely showed when he played. There is no doubt he is up in his luxury box banging his head against the wall right now.

I feel much better after I vented, put away the Maalox and have cleansed my black and gold soul.

Now let’s hope the NFL lockout ends soon!

 

Joe Gill is a write for Boston Sports Then And Now.

Singer-songwriter Emmy the Great writes a song for the royal wedding

Asked to write a song to mark William and Kate's imminent wedding, Emma-Lee Moss says that her first instinct was to trash the great occasion. "Rip it to pieces," says Moss, 26, who, with bandmates including bass player Euan Hinshelwood, performs under the stage name Emmy the Great. "I'm not anti-royal, but I'm undecided. Anyway I hate processions, I hate crowds."

Her debut album, First Love, released in 2009, was full of weird and wonderful stories inspired by the mundane: American spy dramas, chart radio. Three minutes on the biggest television event of the year should have been easy, but when she picked up her guitar she couldn't quite bring herself to be sneering. "You keep thinking, oh God, they are good for tourism…"

Moss had also just finished work on a new album, due for release later this year, that picked over a planned wedding gone wrong – her own. (Her fiance broke off their engagement.) Moss couldn't help feeling sympathetic towards a couple that seemed pretty happy together.

"I realised the people I really felt for were the Hyacinth Bucket types. The ones living in the Cotswolds and decking our their gardens with Union Jacks – feeling bitterly sorry not to be Kate Middleton's mum."

So Moss's song, "Mistress England", became a lament for mothers – the ones whose ambitions, however long or deeply held, will finally be thwarted when Kate gets the ring on. The ones who "might have hoped they could have celebrated a little closer to the royal family on the big day".

The subject has inspired a touching, tender song. "Fold up your clean white invitations/ There is no need to keep them now," run the lyrics. "He found a Queen/ He chose another." The middle eight conjures distant churchbells, but in the Union Jack-decked garden, "no celebration here". "I'm two years younger than Kate Middleton," says Moss. "I honestly knew girls who applied to St Andrews to meet him. Presumably they're a bit miffed now."

Did she ever ponder, perhaps, putting St Andrews on her own Ucas form just in case? No, says Moss... Hinshelwood interjects to say, drily, that he applied to be Wills's best friend but didn't hear back.

"I keep trying to put myself in Kate Middleton's place," says Moss. "She did a degree, right, that's how she met him? I have never, ever heard it said what she studied there. But I do know what boots she likes to wear. That's a bit depressing, isn't it?"

So stay strong is Emma-Lee Moss's advice to any thwarted Mistress Englands: you may have had a lucky escape after all.

Celtic's Honduran full-back Emilio Izaguirre has been one of the finds of the season in Scotland, and big clubs are circling

Emilio Izaguirre could be about to buck a trend. Unusual as it is for a full-back to be quoted in such terms, Izaguirre is regarded as the early favourite to claim this season's Scottish players' player of the year award. When the football writers' shortlist appears, it would be a shock if Izaguirre's name is not quoted there as well.

Which, for the Honduran, represents something of a turnaround. Last summer Izaguirre was on the brink of a £400,000 move to Major League Soccer before Celtic stepped in. Their scouting department had been attracted to the marauding, tough tackling defender by his performances for his country at the World Cup last year. Within weeks, the then‑Motherwell manager Craig Brown famously asked his counterpart at Celtic, Neil Lennon: "Where did you find the new Roberto Carlos?"

A relatively modest salary of £1,500 a week was on offer in the United States. week Aston Villa became merely the latest club to be linked with a move for the left-back, for £8m. Manchester United and Liverpool have already kept at least a watching brief on Izaguirre, who cost Celtic £600,000.

"I am living a dream being here at Celtic," Izaguirre says. "This is a great league. I can't exactly say if things have gone the way I planned, but I am living a dream.

"This is only my first year here, nothing is set in concrete in my mind. I just want to keep improving, more and more. I am aware [of transfer speculation] but my mind is on Celtic. I am very grateful for everything they have done for me and until the end of the season, I am only thinking about that."

When that juncture arrives, a player widely reckoned to be one of the lowest paid in the Celtic first-team squad will, at the very least, probably seek a wage rise. Beyond that, economic reality renders it difficult for the club to reject a multi-million pound bid for the services of Izaguirre, or his other prominent team-mate Beram Kayal.

For the player of the year award, Izaguirre voted for a man who is not even on the shortlist. Injury caused the Rangers striker Nikica Jelavic to miss a chunk of this season, but the Celtic man believes the Croat is still worthy of an individual prize.

As he acknowledges, it was a rare moment of Old Firm unity amid this, one of the most fraught and fractious seasons in living memory. If Izaguirre claims the prize at the dinner on 1 May, he would add to a Honduran player of the year award from 2007.

"I have played against him [Jelavic], he is a great player and I also admire him as a person," Izaguirre says.

Izaguirre's English remains patchy but he has adapted well to life in Glasgow. The 24-year-old is a regular at an Evangelical church in the south side of the city as he maintains a faith that is displayed every time he takes to the pitch, with a salute to the heavens. "I am a Christian, I always give thanks to God," he says.

Izaguirre and Celtic return to Hampden on Sunday for their Scottish Cup semi-final meeting with Aberdeen. He was sent off in the last moments of their last visit, the Co-operative Insurance Cup final defeat to Rangers. A year ago, Celtic were shocked and bundled out of the Scottish Cup at this stage by First Division Ross County.

Izaguirre is one player who will not complain about the state of the Hampden pitch. His team-mate Georgios Samaras became the latest player to criticise the playing surface on Friday. This time, the added turmoil of a Motherwell v St Johnstone semi-final on Saturday can only add to underfoot trouble.

"The pitches here are certainly better than in Honduras," Izaguirre says, "But to be honest, I don't pay too much attention."

Others, from bigger and better football scenes, are affording a much closer focus to the player himself.

The Conservatives are resorting to throwing as much mud as they can to scare people into keeping first past the post

There is not a politician in the country who won't tell you they want to improve politics. But as the conduct of the current referendum on adopting the alternative vote shows, judge them by their actions, not their words.

I will be voting yes because I believe that changing to AV will substantially improve our democracy.

I disagree with those advocating sticking to the current first-past-the-post system, but respect their right to their point of view.

What I am perplexed and deeply disturbed by is that those running the no campaign haven't once put forward a positive case for the current system and instead have spent their time lying about AV.

I have seen principle-free machine politics in action many times and it is never a pretty sight. But this time really is different.

To have Baroness Warsi stand on the site of race riots in the 1930s and say that a yes vote will help the BNP is as tawdry as it is indefensible. The BNP are campaigning for a no vote. Such extremist parties as have, God help us, been elected in Britain, were elected through FPTP. As a host of independent commentators have argued, AV will diminish their chances, not increase them.

These cynical smears and scaremongering show not only the bankruptcy of the no campaign's arguments but also how low is the level of its regard for the intelligence the public.

The strategy is clear. Throw as much mud as you can, don't let the issue be discussed openly and frighten the public over the next three weeks into voting to preserve the power the present FPTP system has given you.

This strategy stinks of the same odour which has surrounded our politics recently.

For the chancellor of the exchequer – the chancellor of the exchequer – to claim that there is something "dodgy" about the Electoral Reform Society donating cash to a campaign in favour of electoral reform is bizarre.

Worse, for him to casually toss out slurs against a British company – Electoral Reform Services – which has widespread international respect for its impartiality in the conduct of elections and which even the Conservative party get to run their elections, is desperate.

And all of this is done by the no camp while they refuse fully to disclose their own donors!

In one sense, though, George Osborne makes the case for change for us. He graphically shows why we need to change our politics. Why we need to clean it up. Why the voting public deserve something better.

In the 1950s more than 90% of us voted either Labour or Tory. The vast majority of MPs were elected with more than 50% of the vote in their constituencies.

Now that total is down to just 65%. Even when you add in my party, the three big UK parties combined achieved their lowest share of the vote ever in the last general election. One in 10 of us now vote for parties outside the big three.

But the system doesn't reflect the change in people's voting preferences. Now fewer than a third of MPs are elected with a majority of the votes in their constituencies. Some get in on fewer than three out of 10 votes cast.

Most of us are now represented by an MP that most of us voted against.

What is the no campaign's answer to that analysis? They don't have one.

Which is why they have to resort to smears, deliberate misrepresentations and sometimes even downright lies. In so doing they diminish their arguments, insult rational debate and provide the best example of why it is time to change things for good.

At the start of this campaign I believed a yes vote would mean we had the chance to make a closer connection between politicians and people and begin a journey of renewal for our sadly tarnished politics. I still believe that.

But having seen the way those who want us to vote no on 5 May are making their argument, I realise that this referendum is about much more than just a voting system.

It is about giving politics in Britain something better for the future than we have seen in the recent past – and that we now see so graphically in the way the no campaign is making its case.

They have given us a perfect example of why things have to change. Of how our politics will remain if this vote is lost. Of why we need a new voting system, which puts more power into the hands of the voters and takes it away from this old style of old machine politics, which demeans us and our politics alike.

...I do indeed have this one complete. But I wanted to see if the start is well constructed and grammar perfect. Even though this is only a fragment of a story, please critique. (In the end the woman in the series becomes rich because of her love for people and the writer fulfills his dead father's wish to complete the trilogy. The story is fabulous and yes, complete. Not on paper as yet, but done) Here is the beginning fragment: ---Quote--- *Fly By Night* by Carlos Rios Henry stood outside by the door to his patio. His neck tie was loose and flapping in the night wind, a lit cigarette on his lips drifted smoke in a line up to his gazing eyes pointed upward at a quarter moon. Although Henry's eyes were set on the moon, his thoughts had been lingering: How will I finish the trilogy? Henry did not hear the sliding glass door open. He did not even hear his wife words. At once, as if awaken rudely by a clashing symbol, Henry heard the sweet melody of his wife's inquiry. “Are you coming in dear? Come on in, take a shower, and come to bed.” Henry could not deny the sensual tone in her voice, the luring eyes of his beloved wife. He gave her a nod and she retreated back into the house. After finishing his cigarette, Henry entered the bathroom, undressed, showered and was in bed in less than twenty minutes. She turned to him, kissed his lips as she gently scratched his scalp; relaxing his tension. Henry was present in body but not in mind. He continued thinking about his father's unfinished series even as she reached her peak of ecstasy. Henry knew right then that the overwhelming thoughts had to be addressed. It was, so he thought, his calling - his dead father heralding his remorse from the grave. Weeks had elapsed and Henry was no closer to finding an idea for the last volume of the books. The first two volumes told the life of a poor woman who was down on her luck since the moment she entered the world. She was physically and mentally tormented by her father-in-law. Her mother was prone to drinking and her few friends were wolves in sheep’s clothing. All that she had was her big heart. She loved even those who hated her, for it is writing (her sole justification) that Jesus loved even his own enemies in the hopes of granting each eternal salvation. Now she was not really a religious gal, but she did extract and kept a treasure trove of wisdom from the Gospels; from Davids Proverbs and Palms. Her faith, even during the harshness of days, maintained her upright and granted her spiritual endurance and love toward neighbor. But yet, even with such a gleam of warmth in her person, she shook inside a terrible fear and a lust for justice behind her meek eyes. By the end of book two, Henry's father presented his god-fearing protagonist in a real bind. She was, at that point in the series, overweight and pregnant with her third child. The first two, a boy of four and a little girl of two. Her ungenerous youngsters were of ferment complexion and careless in body and behavior. Always disobeying their tiring mother and getting into constant mischief. The poor woman was at her wits end when a fateful knock on the door brought her world to a stand still. Government workers with a deputy and two officers held a court order up to her face claiming custody of her children. The woman nearly fainted at the sour news and pleaded like a child to not take her babies away. Regardless of her fervent attempts and emotional yelps, endless tears and partitions to a merciful god, the children were hauled into a van like cattle and driven away, far off from their mama. ---End Quote--- Thank you for your patience and your direction. I love you guys! Carlos

A widely known, at least in the Jewish world, rabbinic maxim states that there are shiv'im panim laTorah" (literally translated, 70 faces to [every item in the] Pentateuch). This phrase has been taken to mean that a plethora of interpretive possibilities lie within the words of the Pentateuch (Torah). As such, it is no wonder that rabbinic homilies often start off with the line, there is a famous disagreement between one commentator and another, for instance Rashi (Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac) and Nahmanides (Rabbi Moses b. Nahman), regarding the interpretation of such and such a biblical verse."

These types of arguments between commentators often appear to be over small matters- sometimes over the explanation of just one word. To modern ears, especially those unfamiliar with classic Jewish biblical exegesis, it can be easy to lose interest quickly. However, those willing to wade into these waters will find brilliant thinkers who at times transform interpretation from an imposition onto a text to a revelation of the meaning of Gods words.

Over the past few years, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) has been working on making these thinkers more accessible to the English-speaking world. Their ongoing project to produce what they call The Commentators Bible (as of now only Exodus and Leviticus are available, though Numbers is due out this summer), is the first entirely English version of the Hebrew classic Mikraot Gedolot, and is an invaluable resource for Bible study.

The modern Mikraot Gedolot is a style of printing the Hebrew bible that includes a selection of medieval commentaries that surround the verses of the Bible. The major benefit to this approach, which has kept it popular for close to 500 years, is the ability to synoptically view different interpretations of the text. Additionally, the format makes it easier to follow the arguments made against earlier interpretations by later commentators.

This style originated with Daniel Bomberg, a wealthy Christian who was given, in 1516, permission to publish Hebrew books in the city of Venice. In 1517 he published, with the editorial help of Felix Pratensis, a Jew who later became a monk, the first Rabbinic Bible (which we could anachronistically call the first version of the Mikraot Gedolot).

Owing to a number of factors, the most important of which was the inadequacy of the recension of the biblical text, Bomberg published his second Rabbinic Bible in 1524. This version was edited by the scholarly Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah. With urging from ibn Adonijah, Bomberg spent large sums of money collecting manuscripts that would allow him to publish what became the accepted text of the Hebrew bible for approximately the next 400 years. The version was so well received that in 1611 it served as the textus receptus for the King James Bible.

Though the format of Mikraot Gedolot developed to include more commentators (the second Rabbinic Bible included four, and most versions today include at least six), the format has remained consistent over almost 500 years. JPS honors this style by laying out the translated commentaries in the same arrangement. However, The Commentators Bible is not just a compilation of the extant translations of the commentators.

Michael Carasik, the editor of the series, has worked hard to make reading the commentaries as understandable and educational as possible. Instead of a straight rendition of the different glosses, Carasik translates as if the commentators are rewriting their original comments today, in contemporary English." Though at times the changes, especially when the medieval commentators make reference to the OJPS or NJPS (the old and new translation of the bible by JPS), are disconcerting, Carsik deftly creates a very comprehensible and faithful translation. He does admit to leaving certain comments out of his translation, though his criteria, which he includes in each volume, are reasonable, as most of them eliminate redundancies.

Though much ink has been spilled" writing about the methodologies and thought of these medieval scholars, in keeping with the mission of the series there is just enough information in the section entitled Whats On The Page" to give readers an orientation toward the different concerns and approaches of the commentators. For example, the paragraph on Nahmanides makes us aware that we should expect him to analyze and comment on earlier commentators (principally Rashi and Ibn Ezra, commentators who both appear on the page) and that he will sometimes offer an additional obscure comment drawing on his mystical learning.

I do, however, think that the introductory material falls short when it comes to background on the sources that these Rabbis often use without attribution. This shortcoming is thrown into relief by the sections discussion of Rashis methodology. Carsik writes that Rashis approach was to explain the biblical text according to its straightforward sense...adding only those midrashic comments that fit the context and explain a linguistic feature of the text." Besides the unexplained terminology (midrashic means those comments that are culled from earlier rabbinic homiletic sources, many of which date back to the time of the Mishnah and Talmud-70 c.e. to 500 c.e.), this statement has the potential to confuse or mislead readers when they eventually encounter Rashis commentary. And while the paragraph on Rashi ends with a note to see a fuller discussion of the methodological considerations underlying Rashis commentary, the discussion will probably elude most individuals experiencing these approaches for the first time.

To get a taste of both this version of Mikraot Gedolot in action, and the thought of two of the commentators we mentioned here, allow me to begin by saying that there is a famous disagreement between Rashi and Nahmanides regarding two words (four in the English) in Leviticus 19:2." God instructs Moses to Speak to the whole Israelite community and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy."

(Below I have included the text of Rashi and Nahmanides comments on this verse from the The Commentators Bible, Leviticus to allow for a pause to independently read their comments and construct their position without my approach coloring yours. You might find it useful to think about the interplay between these two interpretations and the text of the verse, what each would advocate as the ideal way to attain holiness, and finally, taking each seriously as the possible meaning that God intended when revealing these words, and what that means for how we live.)

I will end with my understanding of the difference of opinion between Rashi and Nahmanides on this verse. The argument concerns the command in the verse to be holy. Both commentators, in my estimation, are forced to explain why coming right after a list of particular sexual prohibitions, the next chapter opens with a broad statement that one must be holy.

In my mind, Rashi sees the placement of this commandment as determinate of its meaning. Since the command follows these sexual prohibitions and he cites many cases in which holiness is connected to sexual prohibitions, he concludes that the reference to holiness in Leviticus 19:2 is about abstaining from illicit sexual activity. As a result, Rashis view is that the command to be holy means to carefully avoid sin, specifically in our area of greatest temptation.

In contrast, Nahmanides sees the call to holiness as a far-reaching approach to ones religious life. Picking up on the end of the verse, in which God says that the motivating factor for this command is imitatio dei, Nahmanides proceeds to work out what it means for Gods holiness to be imitated by men. Drawing on a rabbinic homily that interprets this verse to mean that Just as I keep myself separate, you too must keep yourselves separate," he builds this idea into an approach to life. He explains that just as one can live according to the law but lead an unscrupulous life, the opposite is also true-one can go through life not only fulfilling the law but going beyond its call.

Admittedly, not every debate about Scripture will force us to consider our lives in these grand terms, but in studying the details of revelation we can attempt to come closer and understand just a measure better God and His will.

David Lasher is a junior fellow at First Things.

RESOURCES

Michael Carasik, Commentators' Bible: The Jps Miqra'ot Gedolot: Leviticus
Michael Carasik, Commentators' Bible: The Jps Miqra'ot Gedolot Numbers
Michael Carasik, Commentators' Bible: The Jps Miqra'ot Gedolot: Exodus

RASHI 19:2 Speak to the whole Israelite community. This teaches us that this section was spoken in full convocation, [A] since most of the basic building blocks of Torah depend on it. You shall be holy. Keep yourselves apart from the forbidden sexual relationships, even from the thought of transgression. Note that wherever sexual limits are mentioned, holiness is also invoked. E.g., when the priests are warned that they "shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry," it is because "they are holy to their God ... for I the Lord who sanctify you am holy" (21:7-8). See also the instructions about the High Priest in 21:14-15, "A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry-such he may not marry. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife-that he may not profane his offspring among his kin, for I the Lord have sanctified him."

[A| See Deut. 31:10-13.



NAHMANIDES 19:2 Speak to the whole Israelite community. Our Sages said long ago that this section of the Torah was spoken in full convocation-for most of the essential tenets of the Torah depend on it. That is why Moses is told to speak to the "whole" Israelite community. The reason it is placed here among the priestly matters of Leviticus is that it discusses the offering of well-being and because it lists the punishments that are to be given those who engage in the sexual relationships prohibited in ch. 18 (which belong in Leviticus for the reasons given in our introduction to the book). You shall be holy. Rashi understands this to mean that the Israelites are to separate them- selves from the forbidden sexual relationships. But in the Sifra, from which Rashi presumably derives this comment, it says merely "separate yourselves," full stop. Similarly, with reference to "you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy" (11:44), the Sifra explains this as God saying, "Just as I keep Myself separate, you too must keep yourselves separate." In my opinion, this does not refer to keeping "separate" from the sexual transgressions, as Rashi thinks, but to the separateness ascribed throughout the Talmud to the people it calls "Pharisees," that is, "Separatists," meaning those who exercise self-restraint. You see, the Torah proscribes immoral sexual relationships and for- bidden foods, but it permits intercourse between man and wife, eating meat, and drinking wine. So there is license for a man of appetite to steep himself in lust with his wife (or his many wives), or to "be of those who guzzle wine, or glut themselves on meat" (Prov. 23:20), or to discuss all sorts of vile things, as long as they involve something that the Torah does not explicitly prohibit. One could therefore be a scoundrel with the full permission of the Torah. So after giving the details of those things that are specifically prohibited (in ch. 18), the Torah now gives us a general commandment to restrain ourselves from excess even in those things that are permitted: to limit intercourse to that which is necessary to fulfill the commandments (as the Talmud says, scholars should not frequent their wives like roosters); to limit our intake of wine (notice that the nazirite of Numbers 6, who may not drink wine, is referred to as "holy," and the Torah presents the evils of wine in its stories about Noah and Lot); and to keep ourselves separate from uncleanness even if it is something not specifically forbidden elsewhere. (Again, the fact that the nazirite-who avoids contact with the dead-is described as "holy" provides an example.) One must keep from defiling one's mouth and tongue by overeating of gross foods and from foul speech, where "every mouth speaks impiety" (Isa. 9:16). One should sanctify oneself in this way until one reaches the level of restraint of R. Hiyya, who never spoke an idle word in all his days. This general commandment actually goes so far as to include cleanliness as an aspect of holiness; the Talmud links 11:44 to hand washing before and after meals. Even though these are rabbinic commandments, it is in fact the essence of the text to insist that we keep ourselves clean, pure, and separate from the mass of humanity, who soil themselves with all sorts of perfectly permissible ugliness. It is In fact the way of the Torah to conclude a series of specific prohibitions with a general commandment of this kind. After giving the specific details of how business is to be conducted fairly, the Torah concludes, "Do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord" (Deut. 6:18), including a general demand for honesty and equity within the specifics of the law. So one must actually go beyond the letter of the law and act in a way that will win the approval of others, as I shall explain (God willing) when I reach that text. Similarly, with regard to the Sabbath, specific labors are forbidden by explicit prohibition, but over exertion in general is forbidden by the positive injunction to rest. With God's help, I will explain all of this more fully.

By Belle ~

Where do I start?

Well, first and foremost, I would not call myself an atheist. I don't even know what to call myself and it does not bother me not to classify myself. I just know what I know for this moment and religion is just something that does not work for me anymore.

For as long as I can remember, I recall the idea of there being a God deeply rooted in my consciousness. It could have been the Sunday school lessons since young or my aunt's constant reminders about sin and righteousness.

I have never questioned "sovereignty." I was not allowed to. If I do it anyway, I would be filled with guilt and condemnation. Yes, it is the condemnation that kills. From church to church, I have tried staying there for long without getting depressed or upset with either:

A)The superficiality of the people
B)The obsession with sin and constant pricking of conscience

The first church I attended left a very bad taste in my mouth. The people there did not exactly care much about the doctrine. They were there for social gathering. It felt so much like high school. Sermons were not stimulating on any level. It's the same old thing about chastity and how girls should not dress to tempt. I needed more so I left.

The second church I went to was on fire for God. People were extremely passionate about being more and more like Jesus in the bible, healing the sick, caring for the weak. I was one of them. Things were great but only for such a short while.

I realized I did not like the person I became. I became extremely introspective and increasingly depressed. Constant worries about whether I was right or not cornered me. I could not fight my thoughts, the thoughts of condemnation, apparantly from the devil. I would lie in bed awake completely bombarded with thoughts. This went on almost everyday for about a few weeks. I felt like I was going crazy.

The more I tried to shut the door to those invading, disturbing thoughts, the more they penetrated through. My only source of comfort became my enemy. Hence, I turned to distractions. I tried songs, television shows, movies, gossiping just to keep the noise in my head down. The more I bought into the idea of a God, the more it ruined me.

At this time, I was taking a module called advertising and promotions. It was from this module that I learned about the different ways to make a message stick in the minds of people. The different appeals that companies employ and the various ways that positions a brand in a consumer's mind. The more I read about it, the more I saw a striking resemblance.

Religion has used emotional appeal and appeals to fear to get to me. The more I read about it, the more I slowly saw what it did to get to me.

Preachers of the God's grace claim to be so different from preachers of the law but upon a closer look, I realized that 80% of the sermon was spent talking about the law and judgment and brutality, only 20% on how God does not blame one for sinning anymore.

Uh, not very convinced.

If the preacher's heart is really set on liberating people, it would have given such a great emphasis on condemnation. There is something called "Reminding and increasing salience" in my module, it talks about how a company has to always remind consumers about its brand to increase sales.

In that same way, I felt that it was by reminding the people of their shortfalls that they hope to keep them in church, to get them holding on to the cross for their dear lives.

To believe in something you can't see can bring one immense comfort and hell at the same time. If one is able to believe in the good he can't see, he is also able to believe in the bad he can't see. It just sets off one to become extremely crazy and paranoid, running around in insecurity and desiring for a lot of affirmation.

I could not take it anymore. The only I could cut myself free was from plucking out every single religious root in me. As long as there is God, there is condemnation lurking. I hated that.

Inconsistencies in the bible also got me doubting a lot about what I deemed as the truth. The foundation beneath me gives way but I know, I have to be brave and continue to live life the best way I can.

Most christians I know are really nice people, the burden they feel from time to time stems from their belief that those who do not believe will perish. It stems from love. I do not wish to claim my decision to get out of it as the way, the only way, the right way, the true way, for who am I to say. In that same way, as I claim my way to be true, I am becoming just like a self-righteous Christian.

Let's face it. These beliefs we hold dear to us are our ways of managing life. We deal with life the best way we know how, in ways that most benefit us. For Christians who still believe, they may find a lot of comfort in believing than not believing. I speak for myself. I am no longer comfortable with believing anymore because it does not work for me any longer.

Right now, I feel quite liberated in a way. I have stopped thinking so much and so deeply that I forget I am crossing the road. I am no longer bothered or disturbed. I just want to live and let live and believe only what I see for reality is kinder than imagination.