Monday, October 11, 2004
Christopher Reeve died yesterday, in the middle of what everyone acknowledges was his most superheroic battle: to recover the use of his arms and legs. It wasn't lost on anyone, the irony that the actor most famous for playing Superman—a mythical fantasy figure who could so casually do things other humans couldn't—found it hard even to breathe without the help of a machine. Here was terrible proof of the chasm between real life and its depiction on-screen, where escalating levels of (often computer-generated) action show us nothing resembling the real world—and the real, fragile bodies—that we inhabit.
I wouldn't belabor this obvious, accident-as-metaphor idea if I hadn't been aware of the actor's vulnerability the first time I watched him on-screen. Two years earlier, I'd seen Reeve in a pre-Broadway New Haven tryout of a stupefying drawing-room play called A Matter of Gravity. He played Katharine Hepburn's grandson (or possibly nephew), and came bounding on stage in a plaid shirt and jeans. Then the fat cleaning woman entered and executed a painfully fake pratfall, and Reeve began to weave from side to side, and Hepburn said, "Would you close the curtain, please?" There was a pause—we thought she was talking in character to the maid. Then Hepburn said, again, "Close the curtain, please" and this time the theater curtain descended. When it went up, Hepburn, alone, addressed the audience: "He had a bad reaction to some medication," she explained. "He thought he could go on, but it doesn't look like he can. The understudy will play the part." With that, the curtain dropped and, ten seconds later, rose as another young man—this one about six inches shorter but in a plaid shirt and jeans—came bounding on stage and the fat maid executed the same painfully fake pratfall. A matter of gravity, indeed.
So it was odd watching Reeve defy gravity in Superman with the memory of him listing on stage so fresh. He was lanky opposite Hepburn, but he'd muscled up in the intervening year for the Man of Steel, and there was a charming disjunction between the swollen chest and the smooth face with its sky-blue eyes and huge, lopsided, slightly embarrassed grin. With the success of Rocky, we were about to enter an age of musclebound heroes, but Reeve was their antithesis. He stood outside his own body, beaming at the feats he could perform without trying. (He said he was inspired by Cary Grant's effortless elegance—and by the poise that the ex-vaudevillian Grant maintained even in the midst of a slapstick routine.) Reeve's Clark Kent wasn't just a klutz act to fool Lois. It was a heightened interpretation of how Clark/Superman really saw himself in a world in which there was no one one-to-one correspondence between an action and its supposedly equal and opposite reaction. Reeve's Superman was a triumph because it somehow embodied the precariousness of that 90-pound-weakling superhero daydream. Every step was a leap of joy.
Although he hit a comic and dramatic peak in Superman II (a vast improvement on the original, with more at stake emotionally) and was suitably moist in the sci-fi tearjerker Somewhere in Time (a real guilty pleasure), the disjunction that was so witty in his Superman looked hapless in most other roles. He wanted like hell to prove he was a real actor, and directors didn't protect him: The effort showed, and his body seemed like a blockish encumbrance. His histrionic contortions as a smitten priest in Monsignor were eye-rollingly awful, and he was unattractively wooden (opposite the glowing filament of Vanessa Redgrave) in The Bostonians. Morgan Freeman acted him off the screen in Street Smart. When the air went out of the Superman series, gravity took over and Reeve fell off the A-list like a stone.
But he was game, always game. In the late '80s and early '90s, I'd see him on the subway en route to the Public Theater, usually with his nose in a script. He put his celebrity to use by working for the Creative Coalition, an activist arts outfit where he was much beloved.
After the horse-riding spill that left him paralyzed, Reeve refused to leave the arena, once more putting his celebrity to use. It was hard to see the flicker of fear in his eyes before every machine-assisted breath, and read the horror in his face as his "instrument" (that's what they call it at Juilliard) atrophied. His Rear Window remake was painful, and I was relieved when he turned down the part of Lecter's vegetative archenemy (a child molester, among other things) in Hannibal. Now that he's gone, though, so quickly and unexpectedly, I'm sorry for my squeamishness. Reeve knew that, in Superman, he'd captured our imagination by making a comic ballet out of the distance between mind and body. He didn't choose his new role—it was forced on him. But it, too, was rooted in a mind-body disjunction, and the fact that he wanted to make something of it as an actor was a testament to his will and to something heroic in the compulsion to act. We'll never know if he could have brought it off, but damn it all that he didn't live another decade (or three) to try. The struggle to be super would have challenged us all. ... 3:26 p.m.
Last spring, I suggested to Slate's television critic Dana Stevens that she really exploit this here newfangled Internet medium and write a running TV column: not really a blog (no diaristic comings and goings) but something fast and casual, a lively catchall for shows that don't require 1,000 words and a lot of thumb-sucking. Well, her "Surfergirl" has been gangbusters, and now I feel, frankly, left out. Maybe it's time to try something similar on the movie front. If this column had been in place a few weeks ago, I might have taken a paragraph or two to explore the way my astonishment at the mise-en-scene (pardon my French) of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was superceded so quickly by languor and then complete disengagement. Only Angelina Jolie perked me up: As in her Lara Croft movies, she brought a Noel Coward buoyancy and bite to third-rate pulp material. I'd have said I was bored as hell by con-man movies but that Criminal was worth catching for John C. Reilly's bravura piggy-eyed self-satisfaction and for Gregory Jacobs' skill at staging Mamet-like power-struggles without Mamet's airlessness. And just to prove that I'm not always wrestling with my own ennui, I'd have said to go see Infernal Affairs now so that I could pick it apart in print in a week or so without spoiling any big surprises. There's so much to cover in reel time.
David Edelstein is Slate's film critic. You can e-mail him at movies@slate.com
I wouldn't belabor this obvious, accident-as-metaphor idea if I hadn't been aware of the actor's vulnerability the first time I watched him on-screen. Two years earlier, I'd seen Reeve in a pre-Broadway New Haven tryout of a stupefying drawing-room play called A Matter of Gravity. He played Katharine Hepburn's grandson (or possibly nephew), and came bounding on stage in a plaid shirt and jeans. Then the fat cleaning woman entered and executed a painfully fake pratfall, and Reeve began to weave from side to side, and Hepburn said, "Would you close the curtain, please?" There was a pause—we thought she was talking in character to the maid. Then Hepburn said, again, "Close the curtain, please" and this time the theater curtain descended. When it went up, Hepburn, alone, addressed the audience: "He had a bad reaction to some medication," she explained. "He thought he could go on, but it doesn't look like he can. The understudy will play the part." With that, the curtain dropped and, ten seconds later, rose as another young man—this one about six inches shorter but in a plaid shirt and jeans—came bounding on stage and the fat maid executed the same painfully fake pratfall. A matter of gravity, indeed.
So it was odd watching Reeve defy gravity in Superman with the memory of him listing on stage so fresh. He was lanky opposite Hepburn, but he'd muscled up in the intervening year for the Man of Steel, and there was a charming disjunction between the swollen chest and the smooth face with its sky-blue eyes and huge, lopsided, slightly embarrassed grin. With the success of Rocky, we were about to enter an age of musclebound heroes, but Reeve was their antithesis. He stood outside his own body, beaming at the feats he could perform without trying. (He said he was inspired by Cary Grant's effortless elegance—and by the poise that the ex-vaudevillian Grant maintained even in the midst of a slapstick routine.) Reeve's Clark Kent wasn't just a klutz act to fool Lois. It was a heightened interpretation of how Clark/Superman really saw himself in a world in which there was no one one-to-one correspondence between an action and its supposedly equal and opposite reaction. Reeve's Superman was a triumph because it somehow embodied the precariousness of that 90-pound-weakling superhero daydream. Every step was a leap of joy.
Although he hit a comic and dramatic peak in Superman II (a vast improvement on the original, with more at stake emotionally) and was suitably moist in the sci-fi tearjerker Somewhere in Time (a real guilty pleasure), the disjunction that was so witty in his Superman looked hapless in most other roles. He wanted like hell to prove he was a real actor, and directors didn't protect him: The effort showed, and his body seemed like a blockish encumbrance. His histrionic contortions as a smitten priest in Monsignor were eye-rollingly awful, and he was unattractively wooden (opposite the glowing filament of Vanessa Redgrave) in The Bostonians. Morgan Freeman acted him off the screen in Street Smart. When the air went out of the Superman series, gravity took over and Reeve fell off the A-list like a stone.
But he was game, always game. In the late '80s and early '90s, I'd see him on the subway en route to the Public Theater, usually with his nose in a script. He put his celebrity to use by working for the Creative Coalition, an activist arts outfit where he was much beloved.
After the horse-riding spill that left him paralyzed, Reeve refused to leave the arena, once more putting his celebrity to use. It was hard to see the flicker of fear in his eyes before every machine-assisted breath, and read the horror in his face as his "instrument" (that's what they call it at Juilliard) atrophied. His Rear Window remake was painful, and I was relieved when he turned down the part of Lecter's vegetative archenemy (a child molester, among other things) in Hannibal. Now that he's gone, though, so quickly and unexpectedly, I'm sorry for my squeamishness. Reeve knew that, in Superman, he'd captured our imagination by making a comic ballet out of the distance between mind and body. He didn't choose his new role—it was forced on him. But it, too, was rooted in a mind-body disjunction, and the fact that he wanted to make something of it as an actor was a testament to his will and to something heroic in the compulsion to act. We'll never know if he could have brought it off, but damn it all that he didn't live another decade (or three) to try. The struggle to be super would have challenged us all. ... 3:26 p.m.
Last spring, I suggested to Slate's television critic Dana Stevens that she really exploit this here newfangled Internet medium and write a running TV column: not really a blog (no diaristic comings and goings) but something fast and casual, a lively catchall for shows that don't require 1,000 words and a lot of thumb-sucking. Well, her "Surfergirl" has been gangbusters, and now I feel, frankly, left out. Maybe it's time to try something similar on the movie front. If this column had been in place a few weeks ago, I might have taken a paragraph or two to explore the way my astonishment at the mise-en-scene (pardon my French) of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was superceded so quickly by languor and then complete disengagement. Only Angelina Jolie perked me up: As in her Lara Croft movies, she brought a Noel Coward buoyancy and bite to third-rate pulp material. I'd have said I was bored as hell by con-man movies but that Criminal was worth catching for John C. Reilly's bravura piggy-eyed self-satisfaction and for Gregory Jacobs' skill at staging Mamet-like power-struggles without Mamet's airlessness. And just to prove that I'm not always wrestling with my own ennui, I'd have said to go see Infernal Affairs now so that I could pick it apart in print in a week or so without spoiling any big surprises. There's so much to cover in reel time.
David Edelstein is Slate's film critic. You can e-mail him at movies@slate.com
The official rationales for the war in Iraq now lie in tatters. Earlier in the week, the CIA and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Saddam Hussein had no links to al-Qaida. Yesterday, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney accepted the findings of Charles Duelfer, their chief weapons inspector, that Saddam didn't have WMD after all.
The Duelfer report, President Bush said to reporters on the South Lawn, "confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." Yet, he quickly added, going to war was still the right—the necessary—course of action.
Cheney, speaking in Miami, went further, claiming that the Duelfer report bolstered the case for war. "Delay, defer, wait," he said, "wasn't an option."
Is there any logic to this position? Is it legitimate to acknowledge that the reasons for war were mistaken, but the war itself was still justified? Let's take a close look at their words.
Bush's main point was this:
Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction. And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies.
"He retained the knowledge …"
Alas, knowledge of how to build an A-bomb slipped out as far back as 1946 when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission published the Smyth Report. Hundreds, maybe thousands of physicists throughout the world know how to put together a "nuclear device."
"… the means …"
Actually, the Duelfer report states that Saddam Hussein did not have the means. It concludes that, after the 1991 war, "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapon program progressively decayed." Iraq destroyed its chemical-weapons stockpile in '91, and "there is no credible indication that Baghdad resumed production." The biological-weapons program was "put on the shelf" after the last facility was destroyed by U.N. inspectors in 1996.
"… and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction."
This part is right. On the basis of interviews with Iraqi scientists, Duelfer concludes that Saddam intended to resume his WMD program if the sanctions were ever lifted. Even here, though, Duelfer makes clear that there was no nascent program ready to take off once the gate was lifted. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," the report says. As for nukes, Duelfer's team "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program." As for biological weapons, the report notes "a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level."
Still what Saddam might do after sanctions was a legitimate concern. As Bush said in his South Lawn speech, "The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program, once the world looked away." (Italics added.)
Duelfer's evidence on the corruption of the oil-for-food program is fairly staggering. But what's the proper inference—that the president of the United States needed to use all his diplomatic and economic leverage to ensure that the world did not look away, or that he needed to invade Iraq as soon as possible?
Cheney said yesterday that "the sanctions-regime was coming apart at the seams." But was it? In October 2003, when David Kay (Duelfer's predecessor) released an interim report on the search for Iraqi WMD, he said that Saddam had paid North Korea $10 million for Scud-type missiles, but that the North Koreans didn't deliver because the world was watching transactions with Iraq too closely. (True to form, though, Pyongyang kept the $10 million.) Duelfer's report says Saddam was exploiting loopholes to obtain conventional weapons, but nothing in the way of WMD was getting through.
Back to Bush's comments on the South Lawn about why Saddam's knowledge of WMD was a threat worth going to war for:
"And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies."
True, he could have. So could have the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and a few other countries—all much closer to building a bomb than Iraq ever was, some of them already nuclear powers. The question is: Did Saddam Hussein have relations with our terrorist enemies or an inclination or motive to give them nuclear secrets? All evidence indicates he did not. The newly leaked CIA report—which had been requested by Cheney—concluded that Saddam enjoyed no such relations, not even with Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaida lieutenant who had a training camp before the war in the Kurdish-controlled enclave of Northern Iraq.
(One might still justify the war on human-rights grounds. But it is important to note that neither Bush nor Cheney did so yesterday. They argued that war was the right course on national-security grounds alone.)
On the South Lawn yesterday, Bush explained why he was mistaken about Saddam's weapons:
The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong, and we must find out why and correct the flaws. … At a time of many threats in the world, the intelligence on which the president and members of Congress base their decisions must be better—and it will be.
There's a breathtaking chutzpah about this attempt to put the blame on the intelligence agencies. It brings to mind the joke about the boy who killed his parents, then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan. Recall that all through 2002, when the White House and Pentagon were preparing to invade Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld were annoyed that the CIA was stubbornly failing to find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. The New York Times reported in October 2002 that Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith had set up their own small intelligence shop in the Pentagon to pore over raw intelligence, looking for connections that the CIA had obviously missed. Meanwhile, Cheney was making trips to Langley, applying pressure at the source.
According to a remarkably detailed story in last Sunday's New York Times, there was also much controversy, within the intelligence community, over the administration's only physical evidence suggesting that Saddam might be resuming his nuclear program—his purchase of aluminum tubes, which National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the public at the time could only be used for centrifuges to build a bomb. The Times story reports that, in fact, every intelligence official who really knew about centrifuges—especially in Department of Energy's branch responsible for nuclear-weapons production—insisted otherwise. (It was later conceded by everyone that the Energy officials were right, that the tubes were bought for conventional artillery rockets.)
The intelligence community has its problems, but it's not to blame for this mistake. At worst, it was divided on the interpretation of evidence, as often happens. Bush and his most trusted aides wanted the analysis to tilt in the direction that it tilted. They came down on the wrong side of the divide.
Here's the key point. Imagine it's the fall of 2002. President Bush goes before the Congress and makes the following case: Saddam Hussein is trying to break the sanctions. If he succeeds, he might try to resume his program to develop weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I ask for your authority to invade Iraq now. Would anyone have signed on?
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.
Also in today's Slate:press box: God Bless Judith Miller: Two cheers for our courageous First Amendment martyr.moneybox: Tract Homes in Tijuana: Obscure Economic Indicators, Part 5: Mexican Mortgages explainer: I Want a Flu Shot: Does the doctor have to give it to me?
The Duelfer report, President Bush said to reporters on the South Lawn, "confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." Yet, he quickly added, going to war was still the right—the necessary—course of action.
Cheney, speaking in Miami, went further, claiming that the Duelfer report bolstered the case for war. "Delay, defer, wait," he said, "wasn't an option."
Is there any logic to this position? Is it legitimate to acknowledge that the reasons for war were mistaken, but the war itself was still justified? Let's take a close look at their words.
Bush's main point was this:
Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction. And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies.
"He retained the knowledge …"
Alas, knowledge of how to build an A-bomb slipped out as far back as 1946 when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission published the Smyth Report. Hundreds, maybe thousands of physicists throughout the world know how to put together a "nuclear device."
"… the means …"
Actually, the Duelfer report states that Saddam Hussein did not have the means. It concludes that, after the 1991 war, "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapon program progressively decayed." Iraq destroyed its chemical-weapons stockpile in '91, and "there is no credible indication that Baghdad resumed production." The biological-weapons program was "put on the shelf" after the last facility was destroyed by U.N. inspectors in 1996.
"… and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction."
This part is right. On the basis of interviews with Iraqi scientists, Duelfer concludes that Saddam intended to resume his WMD program if the sanctions were ever lifted. Even here, though, Duelfer makes clear that there was no nascent program ready to take off once the gate was lifted. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," the report says. As for nukes, Duelfer's team "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program." As for biological weapons, the report notes "a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level."
Still what Saddam might do after sanctions was a legitimate concern. As Bush said in his South Lawn speech, "The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program, once the world looked away." (Italics added.)
Duelfer's evidence on the corruption of the oil-for-food program is fairly staggering. But what's the proper inference—that the president of the United States needed to use all his diplomatic and economic leverage to ensure that the world did not look away, or that he needed to invade Iraq as soon as possible?
Cheney said yesterday that "the sanctions-regime was coming apart at the seams." But was it? In October 2003, when David Kay (Duelfer's predecessor) released an interim report on the search for Iraqi WMD, he said that Saddam had paid North Korea $10 million for Scud-type missiles, but that the North Koreans didn't deliver because the world was watching transactions with Iraq too closely. (True to form, though, Pyongyang kept the $10 million.) Duelfer's report says Saddam was exploiting loopholes to obtain conventional weapons, but nothing in the way of WMD was getting through.
Back to Bush's comments on the South Lawn about why Saddam's knowledge of WMD was a threat worth going to war for:
"And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies."
True, he could have. So could have the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and a few other countries—all much closer to building a bomb than Iraq ever was, some of them already nuclear powers. The question is: Did Saddam Hussein have relations with our terrorist enemies or an inclination or motive to give them nuclear secrets? All evidence indicates he did not. The newly leaked CIA report—which had been requested by Cheney—concluded that Saddam enjoyed no such relations, not even with Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaida lieutenant who had a training camp before the war in the Kurdish-controlled enclave of Northern Iraq.
(One might still justify the war on human-rights grounds. But it is important to note that neither Bush nor Cheney did so yesterday. They argued that war was the right course on national-security grounds alone.)
On the South Lawn yesterday, Bush explained why he was mistaken about Saddam's weapons:
The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong, and we must find out why and correct the flaws. … At a time of many threats in the world, the intelligence on which the president and members of Congress base their decisions must be better—and it will be.
There's a breathtaking chutzpah about this attempt to put the blame on the intelligence agencies. It brings to mind the joke about the boy who killed his parents, then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan. Recall that all through 2002, when the White House and Pentagon were preparing to invade Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld were annoyed that the CIA was stubbornly failing to find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. The New York Times reported in October 2002 that Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith had set up their own small intelligence shop in the Pentagon to pore over raw intelligence, looking for connections that the CIA had obviously missed. Meanwhile, Cheney was making trips to Langley, applying pressure at the source.
According to a remarkably detailed story in last Sunday's New York Times, there was also much controversy, within the intelligence community, over the administration's only physical evidence suggesting that Saddam might be resuming his nuclear program—his purchase of aluminum tubes, which National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the public at the time could only be used for centrifuges to build a bomb. The Times story reports that, in fact, every intelligence official who really knew about centrifuges—especially in Department of Energy's branch responsible for nuclear-weapons production—insisted otherwise. (It was later conceded by everyone that the Energy officials were right, that the tubes were bought for conventional artillery rockets.)
The intelligence community has its problems, but it's not to blame for this mistake. At worst, it was divided on the interpretation of evidence, as often happens. Bush and his most trusted aides wanted the analysis to tilt in the direction that it tilted. They came down on the wrong side of the divide.
Here's the key point. Imagine it's the fall of 2002. President Bush goes before the Congress and makes the following case: Saddam Hussein is trying to break the sanctions. If he succeeds, he might try to resume his program to develop weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I ask for your authority to invade Iraq now. Would anyone have signed on?
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.
Also in today's Slate:press box: God Bless Judith Miller: Two cheers for our courageous First Amendment martyr.moneybox: Tract Homes in Tijuana: Obscure Economic Indicators, Part 5: Mexican Mortgages explainer: I Want a Flu Shot: Does the doctor have to give it to me?
The papers all lead with election scuttlebutt in the United States, Iraq, or Afghanistan. The Los Angeles Times tops a Bush administration decision to put off an all-out assault on insurgent strongholds in Iraq's Sunni Triangle until after Nov. 2, fearful that a major offensive could upset the presidential race here. "When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," an SAO said. The New York Times leads with worries that many Iraqi Sunnis, hemmed in by violence and fearful of persecution at the hands of a Shiite majority, may boycott the January elections there. The Washington Post, meanwhile, leads with more positive news from Afghanistan, where disgruntled presidential candidates backed down from demands that Saturday's vote be invalidated because of alleged fraud. Back in the U.S., the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox highlights stumping in the run up to Wednesday's final presidential debate, and USA Today leads with the growing battle over provisional ballots. The paper suggests hundreds of thousands such ballots could be cast, only to be verified after Election Day; one election official warns that they "could be the hanging chads of 2004."
The LAT's lead, in effect, puts the kibosh on hopes expressed in the NYT's. Some Sunni leaders cited by the NYT say they are relying on the promised American-led offensive; once Sunni areas are opened up, they hope candidates will come forward to campaign for January's election. But it might already be too late: According to the LAT, Pentagon officials are saying it may not be militarily possible to recapture every Sunni Triangle city by January, regardless of what is said publicly. "The State Department can talk about people voting everywhere. But securing Iraq in time for the election can't happen without the U.S. military," a "senior military official" said.
The papers also mention, the NYT at greatest length, twin suicide car bombings in Baghdad. The blasts went off within 15 minutes of each other, killing at least 10 Iraqis and an American soldier. Iraq round-ups in the Post and the LAT (and a separate piece in the NYT) focus instead on Donald Rumsfeld, who dropped into the country yesterday for a photo-op (a.k.a. "town hall-style meeting") with soldiers.
According to the LAT, at least three of 15 Afghan presidential candidates who had complained about Saturday's election agreed, after some persuasion by the U.S. ambassador, to accept the results of a proposed independent investigation. Others are said to be close to coming around. The papers all say that the candidates backed down because most Afghans think the election actually pretty went well--although no one actually backs up this account of public opinion apart from quoting diplomats involved in negotiations. "Some candidates now believe they acted in too much of a rush. Their statements were not well received," said a "Western diplomat" who met with them, according to the WP. "Most of them are now looking for a way out without losing face."
The NYT reefers and the WP goes deep inside with a story that first appeared in Saturday's LAT: Conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its 62 stations, which reach 24 percent of American homes, to preempt regularly scheduled programming to air a film intensely critical of Sen. John Kerry's antiwar testimony in 1971. The papers say the group has invited Kerry to speak after the film, thereby skirting federal requirements to provide "equal time" to candidates during election season. But an expert quoted by the NYT says that the regulations are based on which candidate actually appears; since the film only features Kerry, he says the channels might have to show Bush or Nader if they request it.
As usual, the papers pack their news pages with election articles focused largely on strategy and horse metaphors. Sen. John Edwards worked the Sunday shows yesterday, winning himself rote hey-he's-going-higher-profile! stories in the WP and NYT. More interesting is the Post's front pager on the more than 14,273 political ads aired so far in Toledo, Ohio, which the paper says is ground zero for the campaign air war. And the paper goes inside with the metaphorical fox holes the campaigns are digging for the ground war in Iowa--or, as Gov. Tom Vilsack calls it, the "purple state."
Of course, everyone hits Florida. USAT goes to Pinellas County, on the Western end of the I-4 corridor, and finds--surprise!--that it's a tough race to handicap. The papers all offers trail pieces on Kerry's appearance at a Baptist church in Miami with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton ("We are taught to walk by faith, not by sight," Kerry said, drawing shouts of "Amen!" and "Teach it!"), while the LAT does one better, fronting efforts by local election officials in Gadsen County, a majority black district on the Panhandle, to turn out every vote. The NYT chimes in, too, fronting black Floridians, many of whom say they are still angry about 2000. Still, they haven't necessarily warmed to Kerry. "I guess he's all right," one man said, "but he's no Bill Clinton, downright homey-like."
O Superman ... And in late-breaking news, the LAT and USAT both catch word that Christopher Reeve died yesterday afternoon of heart failure. He slipped into a coma at home on Saturday and never regained consciousness. He was 52.Sam Schechner is a freelance writer in New York.
The LAT's lead, in effect, puts the kibosh on hopes expressed in the NYT's. Some Sunni leaders cited by the NYT say they are relying on the promised American-led offensive; once Sunni areas are opened up, they hope candidates will come forward to campaign for January's election. But it might already be too late: According to the LAT, Pentagon officials are saying it may not be militarily possible to recapture every Sunni Triangle city by January, regardless of what is said publicly. "The State Department can talk about people voting everywhere. But securing Iraq in time for the election can't happen without the U.S. military," a "senior military official" said.
The papers also mention, the NYT at greatest length, twin suicide car bombings in Baghdad. The blasts went off within 15 minutes of each other, killing at least 10 Iraqis and an American soldier. Iraq round-ups in the Post and the LAT (and a separate piece in the NYT) focus instead on Donald Rumsfeld, who dropped into the country yesterday for a photo-op (a.k.a. "town hall-style meeting") with soldiers.
According to the LAT, at least three of 15 Afghan presidential candidates who had complained about Saturday's election agreed, after some persuasion by the U.S. ambassador, to accept the results of a proposed independent investigation. Others are said to be close to coming around. The papers all say that the candidates backed down because most Afghans think the election actually pretty went well--although no one actually backs up this account of public opinion apart from quoting diplomats involved in negotiations. "Some candidates now believe they acted in too much of a rush. Their statements were not well received," said a "Western diplomat" who met with them, according to the WP. "Most of them are now looking for a way out without losing face."
The NYT reefers and the WP goes deep inside with a story that first appeared in Saturday's LAT: Conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its 62 stations, which reach 24 percent of American homes, to preempt regularly scheduled programming to air a film intensely critical of Sen. John Kerry's antiwar testimony in 1971. The papers say the group has invited Kerry to speak after the film, thereby skirting federal requirements to provide "equal time" to candidates during election season. But an expert quoted by the NYT says that the regulations are based on which candidate actually appears; since the film only features Kerry, he says the channels might have to show Bush or Nader if they request it.
As usual, the papers pack their news pages with election articles focused largely on strategy and horse metaphors. Sen. John Edwards worked the Sunday shows yesterday, winning himself rote hey-he's-going-higher-profile! stories in the WP and NYT. More interesting is the Post's front pager on the more than 14,273 political ads aired so far in Toledo, Ohio, which the paper says is ground zero for the campaign air war. And the paper goes inside with the metaphorical fox holes the campaigns are digging for the ground war in Iowa--or, as Gov. Tom Vilsack calls it, the "purple state."
Of course, everyone hits Florida. USAT goes to Pinellas County, on the Western end of the I-4 corridor, and finds--surprise!--that it's a tough race to handicap. The papers all offers trail pieces on Kerry's appearance at a Baptist church in Miami with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton ("We are taught to walk by faith, not by sight," Kerry said, drawing shouts of "Amen!" and "Teach it!"), while the LAT does one better, fronting efforts by local election officials in Gadsen County, a majority black district on the Panhandle, to turn out every vote. The NYT chimes in, too, fronting black Floridians, many of whom say they are still angry about 2000. Still, they haven't necessarily warmed to Kerry. "I guess he's all right," one man said, "but he's no Bill Clinton, downright homey-like."
O Superman ... And in late-breaking news, the LAT and USAT both catch word that Christopher Reeve died yesterday afternoon of heart failure. He slipped into a coma at home on Saturday and never regained consciousness. He was 52.Sam Schechner is a freelance writer in New York.
Mahatma Gandhi
Freedom through non-violent resistance
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born October 2, 1869 in the Gujarat province of India, the son of Karamchand Gandhi and Putlibai. When Mohandas was thirteen his parents chose for his wife Kasturba, who was from Porbandar.
In 1888, Mohandas Gandhi went to London, England, to study law. He became a lawyer in 1891, returned to India and. set up his practice as a lawyer in Rajkot. He received an offer to practice law in South Africa and lived there from 1893 to 1914.
Protesting the racism he encountered while living in South Africa Gandhi began to develop the principles of satyagraha, the practice of non-violent passive resistance. Despite arrests, imprisonment and violent retaliation, Gandhi and his followers adhered to the principle of satyagraha. In response to those who would argue that violent retaliation was sometimes justified, Gandhi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
In January of 1915 he returned to India. His goal became the independence of India from British rule. He encouraged organized boycotts of British goods and led a non-violent march over the issue of salt, a resource of India, which was controlled and heavily taxed by the British government.
These actions led to world-wide attention. Gandhi also began to fast as a method of protest, an action which was effective as his popularity among the Indian people, and around the world, grew. He was given the name "Mahatma" meaning the "Great Soul".
In 1947 India became an independent state after 300 years of British rule, a victory for Gandhi and non-violent resistance.
Mahatma Gandhi was assasinated in New Delhi, India on January 30, 1948. Describing Gandhi, Albert Einstein said "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."
Gandhi Virtual Ashram
Biography of Mahatma Gandhi
Posted by Contact on Sunday November 8, 1998.
Freedom through non-violent resistance
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born October 2, 1869 in the Gujarat province of India, the son of Karamchand Gandhi and Putlibai. When Mohandas was thirteen his parents chose for his wife Kasturba, who was from Porbandar.
In 1888, Mohandas Gandhi went to London, England, to study law. He became a lawyer in 1891, returned to India and. set up his practice as a lawyer in Rajkot. He received an offer to practice law in South Africa and lived there from 1893 to 1914.
Protesting the racism he encountered while living in South Africa Gandhi began to develop the principles of satyagraha, the practice of non-violent passive resistance. Despite arrests, imprisonment and violent retaliation, Gandhi and his followers adhered to the principle of satyagraha. In response to those who would argue that violent retaliation was sometimes justified, Gandhi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
In January of 1915 he returned to India. His goal became the independence of India from British rule. He encouraged organized boycotts of British goods and led a non-violent march over the issue of salt, a resource of India, which was controlled and heavily taxed by the British government.
These actions led to world-wide attention. Gandhi also began to fast as a method of protest, an action which was effective as his popularity among the Indian people, and around the world, grew. He was given the name "Mahatma" meaning the "Great Soul".
In 1947 India became an independent state after 300 years of British rule, a victory for Gandhi and non-violent resistance.
Mahatma Gandhi was assasinated in New Delhi, India on January 30, 1948. Describing Gandhi, Albert Einstein said "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."
Gandhi Virtual Ashram
Biography of Mahatma Gandhi
Posted by Contact on Sunday November 8, 1998.
Elvis Presley
The King of Rock 'n' Roll
Elvis Aaron Presley was born 8 January 1935 in Tupelo, Mississippi, the son of Vernon Elvis and Gladys Love (Smith) Presley. His twin, Jessie Garon, was stillborn. Elvis graduated from L.C. Humes High in Memphis, Tennessee 3 June 1953. He served in the U.S. Army from 1958 to 1960.
Elvis grew up in poverty, and from an early age worked long and hard to succeed. By age 10 he was working after school, and although he continued to work throughout his school years, Elvis loved to read and maintained good grades. He also began playing guitar and singing at an early age, and learned to play the piano. He began his career entering amateur talent contests and singing at county and state fairs.
On July 5, 1954, Elvis had his first official recording session with Sun Studios in Memphis, Tennessee. "That’s Alright Mama" was his first song played on the radio, on July 10, 1954, and was an immediate hit in the Memphis area. Elvis began touring throughout the South, and then the northern United States, and by the next year was invited to appear on national television. His television appearances included The Milton Berle Show and Ed Sullivan’s Toast of the Town.
In 1956 the single Heartbreak Hotel was released by RCA. It sold over one million copies, and became Elvis’ first gold record. Elvis recorded hundreds of songs including Hound Dog, Blue Suede Shoes and I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry. Elvis Presley sold over one billion records worldwide, with 110 albums and singles certified as either gold, platinum or multi-platinum.
The Beatles met Elvis Presley in person on August 27, 1965. In a piece named "Ze King and I" John Lennon wrote about meeting Elvis: "There was only one person in the United States that we really wanted to meet…and that was Elvis….I know Paul, George, and Ringo were feeling as nervous as I was. This was the guy we had all idolized for years--from way back when we were just starting out in Liverpool. He was a legend in his own lifetime…."
Elvis starred in over thirty movies, including Love Me Tender, 1956, Jailhouse Rock, 1957 and King Creole, 1958. Elvis was named "One of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation" by the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1971. He received the Bing Crosby Award (later re-named the Lifetime Achievement Award) from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences in 1971.
Elvis purchased Graceland Mansion in March 1957 where he lived until his death of cardiac arrhythmia at age 42 on 16 August 1977. Graceland has been preserved by Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc., which manages his estate, and is open to the public for tours.
He married Priscilla (Beaulieu) Presley 1 May 1967. They divorced October 9, 1973. They had one daughter, Lisa Marie Presley.
Write or call Graceland:P.O. Box 16508Memphis, TN 38186-0508(901) 332-3322(800) 238-2000
Click on the links below to learn more about Elvis:
Official Elvis Presley web site
Excellent early Elvis fan site - in frames
Posted by Contact on Monday November 23, 1998.
The King of Rock 'n' Roll
Elvis Aaron Presley was born 8 January 1935 in Tupelo, Mississippi, the son of Vernon Elvis and Gladys Love (Smith) Presley. His twin, Jessie Garon, was stillborn. Elvis graduated from L.C. Humes High in Memphis, Tennessee 3 June 1953. He served in the U.S. Army from 1958 to 1960.
Elvis grew up in poverty, and from an early age worked long and hard to succeed. By age 10 he was working after school, and although he continued to work throughout his school years, Elvis loved to read and maintained good grades. He also began playing guitar and singing at an early age, and learned to play the piano. He began his career entering amateur talent contests and singing at county and state fairs.
On July 5, 1954, Elvis had his first official recording session with Sun Studios in Memphis, Tennessee. "That’s Alright Mama" was his first song played on the radio, on July 10, 1954, and was an immediate hit in the Memphis area. Elvis began touring throughout the South, and then the northern United States, and by the next year was invited to appear on national television. His television appearances included The Milton Berle Show and Ed Sullivan’s Toast of the Town.
In 1956 the single Heartbreak Hotel was released by RCA. It sold over one million copies, and became Elvis’ first gold record. Elvis recorded hundreds of songs including Hound Dog, Blue Suede Shoes and I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry. Elvis Presley sold over one billion records worldwide, with 110 albums and singles certified as either gold, platinum or multi-platinum.
The Beatles met Elvis Presley in person on August 27, 1965. In a piece named "Ze King and I" John Lennon wrote about meeting Elvis: "There was only one person in the United States that we really wanted to meet…and that was Elvis….I know Paul, George, and Ringo were feeling as nervous as I was. This was the guy we had all idolized for years--from way back when we were just starting out in Liverpool. He was a legend in his own lifetime…."
Elvis starred in over thirty movies, including Love Me Tender, 1956, Jailhouse Rock, 1957 and King Creole, 1958. Elvis was named "One of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation" by the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1971. He received the Bing Crosby Award (later re-named the Lifetime Achievement Award) from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences in 1971.
Elvis purchased Graceland Mansion in March 1957 where he lived until his death of cardiac arrhythmia at age 42 on 16 August 1977. Graceland has been preserved by Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc., which manages his estate, and is open to the public for tours.
He married Priscilla (Beaulieu) Presley 1 May 1967. They divorced October 9, 1973. They had one daughter, Lisa Marie Presley.
Write or call Graceland:P.O. Box 16508Memphis, TN 38186-0508(901) 332-3322(800) 238-2000
Click on the links below to learn more about Elvis:
Official Elvis Presley web site
Excellent early Elvis fan site - in frames
Posted by Contact on Monday November 23, 1998.
Wash. Teen Found Alive 8 Days After Wreck
18 minutes ago
SEATTLE - After eight days, Laura Hatch's family had almost given the 17-year-old up for dead, and sheriff's deputies had all but written her off as a runaway. Then she was found, badly hurt and severely dehydrated, but alive and conscious, in the back seat of a crumpled car, 200 feet down a ravine.
AP Photo
A volunteer searcher who said she had had several vivid dreams of a wooded area found the wrecked car in the trees Sunday.
Hatch, who remained hospitalized Monday in serious condition, was last seen at a party on Oct. 2. When she did not show up by the next day, her family filed a missing person's report.
The initial search was slowed because there had been underage drinking at the party, and the young people who attended would not say where it had been held, sheriff's Sgt. John Urquhart said.
On Oct. 6, detectives learned the party had been in a neighborhood east of Lake Washington and searched along her likely route home, Urquhart said. But prospects dimmed as the days passed.
"We had already given her up and let her be dead in our hearts," her mother, Jean Hatch, told KOMO-TV.
Urquhart noted that in 24 years with the department, he had never known of a person to survive eight days without food or water. He said an investigation into the accident was under way.
During the search, a statewide bulletin was released and advisories were sent to local police agencies. But Urquhart said family and friends indicated "the most likely scenario was that she was a runaway."
Hatch's parents organized a volunteer search on Saturday, and that night Sha Nohr, a church member and mother of a friend of Hatch's, said she had dreams of a wooded area and heard the message, "Keep going, keep going."
On Sunday morning, Nohr and her daughter drove to the area where the crash occurred, praying along the way. "I just thought, `Let her speak out to us,'" Nohr told The Seattle Times.
Nohr said something drew her to stop and clamber over a concrete barrier and more than 100 feet down a steep, densely vegetated embankment where she barely managed to discern the wrecked Toyota Camry in some trees.
She called to her daughter, who flagged down a passing motorist. The man helped Nohr get closer to the car as aid was summoned.
"I told her that people were looking for her and they loved her," Nohr recalled, "and she said, `I think I might be late for curfew.'"
Hatch was being treated at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle for dehydration, a blood clot on the brain, and broken bones in her face, hospital spokeswoman Susan Gregg-Hanson said.
"She's a little bit confused. That's really standard course for what she's been through," Gregg-Hanson said. "I think everybody thinks it's an amazing story that she's doing as well as she is."
A call Monday to the family home in Redmond was answered by one of Hatch's sisters, who declined comment.
"We were afraid that we weren't going to find her, we weren't going to get her back," Hatch's other sister, Amy, told KING-TV in Seattle. "This is the best thing that could happen because there were a million awful scenarios."
Story Tools
Email Story
Post/Read Msgs
Formatted Story
Ratings: Would you recommend this story?
Not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Highly
18 minutes ago
SEATTLE - After eight days, Laura Hatch's family had almost given the 17-year-old up for dead, and sheriff's deputies had all but written her off as a runaway. Then she was found, badly hurt and severely dehydrated, but alive and conscious, in the back seat of a crumpled car, 200 feet down a ravine.
AP Photo
A volunteer searcher who said she had had several vivid dreams of a wooded area found the wrecked car in the trees Sunday.
Hatch, who remained hospitalized Monday in serious condition, was last seen at a party on Oct. 2. When she did not show up by the next day, her family filed a missing person's report.
The initial search was slowed because there had been underage drinking at the party, and the young people who attended would not say where it had been held, sheriff's Sgt. John Urquhart said.
On Oct. 6, detectives learned the party had been in a neighborhood east of Lake Washington and searched along her likely route home, Urquhart said. But prospects dimmed as the days passed.
"We had already given her up and let her be dead in our hearts," her mother, Jean Hatch, told KOMO-TV.
Urquhart noted that in 24 years with the department, he had never known of a person to survive eight days without food or water. He said an investigation into the accident was under way.
During the search, a statewide bulletin was released and advisories were sent to local police agencies. But Urquhart said family and friends indicated "the most likely scenario was that she was a runaway."
Hatch's parents organized a volunteer search on Saturday, and that night Sha Nohr, a church member and mother of a friend of Hatch's, said she had dreams of a wooded area and heard the message, "Keep going, keep going."
On Sunday morning, Nohr and her daughter drove to the area where the crash occurred, praying along the way. "I just thought, `Let her speak out to us,'" Nohr told The Seattle Times.
Nohr said something drew her to stop and clamber over a concrete barrier and more than 100 feet down a steep, densely vegetated embankment where she barely managed to discern the wrecked Toyota Camry in some trees.
She called to her daughter, who flagged down a passing motorist. The man helped Nohr get closer to the car as aid was summoned.
"I told her that people were looking for her and they loved her," Nohr recalled, "and she said, `I think I might be late for curfew.'"
Hatch was being treated at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle for dehydration, a blood clot on the brain, and broken bones in her face, hospital spokeswoman Susan Gregg-Hanson said.
"She's a little bit confused. That's really standard course for what she's been through," Gregg-Hanson said. "I think everybody thinks it's an amazing story that she's doing as well as she is."
A call Monday to the family home in Redmond was answered by one of Hatch's sisters, who declined comment.
"We were afraid that we weren't going to find her, we weren't going to get her back," Hatch's other sister, Amy, told KING-TV in Seattle. "This is the best thing that could happen because there were a million awful scenarios."
Story Tools
Email Story
Post/Read Msgs
Formatted Story
Ratings: Would you recommend this story?
Not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Highly
Dear Mike,
If the American people re-elect "Dubya", then they will, as the wise men say, "get what they so richly deserve" I will be the first one at my polling station on Election day and I will talk to anyone who will listen between now and then to try and persuade or encourage anyone who is possibly in doubt, (or has possibly been in a cave the last four years) to stand up for their right to be treated as citizens and participants in this "Democracy", and not as little children who need to be patronized or worse yet, deliberately deceived.
It is not acceptable to bring American troops into an operation where there will be death and serious injury, while soliciting the assistance of Allies who will face the same risk, on the deliberate manipulation of the intelligence and justification. Fuck all the other minutiae regarding who what when where and why.
THIS ADMINISTRATION LIED, AND THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. CASE CLOSED.
On a lighter note:
George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and John Kerry were sent to >>>face a firing squad in a small Central American country. >>>Clinton was the first one placed against the wall and just >>>before the order to shoot him was given, he yelled out >>>"Earthquake!" >>> >>>The firing squad fell in panic and Bill jumped over the wall and >>escaped in >>>the confusion. >>> >>>Kerry was the second one placed against the wall. The >>>squad was reassembled and John pondered what Bill had done. John >>yelled >>>out, "Tornado!" Again the squad fell apart and John slipped over >>>the >>wall. >>> >>>The last person, George Bush, was placed against the wall. >>>He was thinking "I see the pattern here, just scream out a >>>disaster >>and hop >>>over the wall." >>> >>>As the firing squad was reassembled and the rifles raised in his >>direction, >>>he grinned and yelled, "Fire!" >>
All Our Love and Thoughts,
Michael
P.S. The attatched photo is from 2001, but it is seasonal, pumkins and halloween.
If the American people re-elect "Dubya", then they will, as the wise men say, "get what they so richly deserve" I will be the first one at my polling station on Election day and I will talk to anyone who will listen between now and then to try and persuade or encourage anyone who is possibly in doubt, (or has possibly been in a cave the last four years) to stand up for their right to be treated as citizens and participants in this "Democracy", and not as little children who need to be patronized or worse yet, deliberately deceived.
It is not acceptable to bring American troops into an operation where there will be death and serious injury, while soliciting the assistance of Allies who will face the same risk, on the deliberate manipulation of the intelligence and justification. Fuck all the other minutiae regarding who what when where and why.
THIS ADMINISTRATION LIED, AND THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. CASE CLOSED.
On a lighter note:
George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and John Kerry were sent to >>>face a firing squad in a small Central American country. >>>Clinton was the first one placed against the wall and just >>>before the order to shoot him was given, he yelled out >>>"Earthquake!" >>> >>>The firing squad fell in panic and Bill jumped over the wall and >>escaped in >>>the confusion. >>> >>>Kerry was the second one placed against the wall. The >>>squad was reassembled and John pondered what Bill had done. John >>yelled >>>out, "Tornado!" Again the squad fell apart and John slipped over >>>the >>wall. >>> >>>The last person, George Bush, was placed against the wall. >>>He was thinking "I see the pattern here, just scream out a >>>disaster >>and hop >>>over the wall." >>> >>>As the firing squad was reassembled and the rifles raised in his >>direction, >>>he grinned and yelled, "Fire!" >>
All Our Love and Thoughts,
Michael
P.S. The attatched photo is from 2001, but it is seasonal, pumkins and halloween.
Las Vegas real estate millionaire is offering to put up half a 50 million dollar purse to keep American space exploration going.
Robert Bigelow made a fortune with Budget Suites and other businesses.
He's got a company called Bigelow Aerospace, and hopes that other benefactors will join him to create America's Space Prize. (Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Robert Bigelow made a fortune with Budget Suites and other businesses.
He's got a company called Bigelow Aerospace, and hopes that other benefactors will join him to create America's Space Prize. (Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
As Nevada goes, so goes the rest of the nation?
Officials say Nevada is increasingly being viewed as a presidential bellwether because it has one of the best election track records over the last 92 years.
Nevada has voted for the winner in all but one presidential election since 1912, in 1976 when voters narrowly favored incumbent Republican Gerald Ford over Democrat Jimmy Carter.
Overall, Nevada has a 25 -10 record in voting for presidential candidates since becoming a state in 1864.
Officials say Nevada is increasingly being viewed as a presidential bellwether because it has one of the best election track records over the last 92 years.
Nevada has voted for the winner in all but one presidential election since 1912, in 1976 when voters narrowly favored incumbent Republican Gerald Ford over Democrat Jimmy Carter.
Overall, Nevada has a 25 -10 record in voting for presidential candidates since becoming a state in 1864.
Yahoo! Picks
The Mongols in World HistoryThe Mongols have gotten an unfairly bad rap outside of Asia. You may have heard that Genghis Khan was a ruthless conqueror. But his real achievement was unifying the Mongolian tribes, so they honored him with the title "Chinggis Khan" (Khan of All Between the Oceans). Chinggis encouraged religious tolerance and created a legal code. OK, he did lead three invasions across China and central Asia. But Khan and his descendants made invaluable contributions to art, medicine, and architecture. They also forged a crucial trade link between Asia and Europe. This handsome site gives some respect to Mongol civilization and its legacy. (in Humanities > History)
The Mongols in World HistoryThe Mongols have gotten an unfairly bad rap outside of Asia. You may have heard that Genghis Khan was a ruthless conqueror. But his real achievement was unifying the Mongolian tribes, so they honored him with the title "Chinggis Khan" (Khan of All Between the Oceans). Chinggis encouraged religious tolerance and created a legal code. OK, he did lead three invasions across China and central Asia. But Khan and his descendants made invaluable contributions to art, medicine, and architecture. They also forged a crucial trade link between Asia and Europe. This handsome site gives some respect to Mongol civilization and its legacy. (in Humanities > History)
