Friday, December 17, 2004
December 18, 2004
Kerik Fallout Hovers Over Giuliani, but Only in New YorkBy JENNIFER STEINHAUER
or the last year, New Yorkers have watched in amazement as Rudolph W. Giuliani morphed into the shining star of a national Republican Party that is far more conservative than he is. The closer he moved to the Bush administration, the farther he seemed to move past the personal and political history that city voters remembered well.
Last week, when his business partner, Bernard B. Kerik, withdrew his nomination as secretary of homeland security and Mr. Giuliani had to apologize to the White House, New Yorkers were again reminded of the headstrong mayor they got to know during the 1990's, long before he became an American symbol. Many in the city spent a week of Christmas parties and subway rides chattering about the first chink in Mr. Giuliani's post-Sept. 11 armor and speculating about how much his advocacy of Mr. Kerik would damage his future in American politics.
But around the country, where Mr. Giuliani's reputation continues to glow, many Republicans seem unconcerned that Mr. Kerik's woes may complicate Mr. Giuliani's political future. Some simply see the problem as Mr. Kerik's alone, and are far less interested in the subject than New Yorkers are.
"He was close to Kerik, sure, but what does that mean?" asked Spencer Jenkins, the executive director of the Utah Republican Party. "Does that mean he was responsible for everything that Kerik did or thought? I don't see any negative here." A Quinnipiac University national poll of 1,529 registered voters, released on Thursday, said that 45 percent of those surveyed still wanted him to run for president, as did 68 percent of Republicans.
The one group that was angriest at Mr. Giuliani for his advocacy of Mr. Kerik were conservatives, a potent force within the party already disquieted by his liberal social views. Among these voters, so vital to President Bush's re-election, the Kerik incident spotlighted the hurdles Mr. Giuliani would face should he ever decide to run for national office.
Many in the party's right wing, already nursing concerns about Mr. Giuliani's judgment, insist that his appeal is akin to that of a rock star - sexy but no future - and see this as the final straw.
"The question becomes, how does he fit with the plurality of the rest of Republicans, and the answer is, not very well," said David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "And the Kerik thing does not help. It really goes to the flip side of what people like about Rudy, which is that he is not seen as someone who is very careful about much of anything. It raises the question of what kind of people and what kind of checking would he do if he were in the position of making those kind of decisions."
In an interview yesterday, Mr. Giuliani conceded that he had no idea of how Mr. Kerik's spectacular implosion would reflect on him. "I think it is too early to tell," Mr. Giuliani said. "If I do re-enter politics in some kind of direct way, that is really when you would find out." He added: "You could speculate either way."
Mr. Giuliani's history of entrusting and empowering people close to him even when others smelled trouble, and then standing by them under fire, was a hallmark of his eight-year tenure.
In 1998, Mr. Giuliani appointed Russell Harding, the son of the then-politically influential head of the Liberal Party, as president of the Housing Development Corporation, and defended his decision even though Mr. Harding was a college dropout with no experience in either housing or finance.
Mr. Harding pleaded guilty this year to making false statements to investigators about a vehicle bought with $38,000 of city funds and used for personal purposes.
Mr. Giuliani appointed JoAnna Aniello, the mother of Anthony V. Carbonetti, his chief of staff, as deputy general manager of the city housing authority, even though a division under her authority came under scrutiny in the 1990's after a spate of flash fires in the stairwells of public housing buildings. Mr. Giuliani then appointed her to a lucrative city board position during his last two weeks in office, a deal Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unraveled after his inauguration.
Memories of the mayor's missteps were revived among his many Democratic critics this week in a burst of holiday merriment, making his travails with the White House the talk of the city's party circuit.
"The narrative of Rudy Giuliani now is the 9/11 hero," said Mark Green, the former public advocate and longtime foe of the former mayor. "This is the first time in three years that the press has had a story that credibly questioned the Giuliani team's integrity."
Does he enjoy the party chatter?
"It's a good question," Mr. Green said. "And I am not going to answer it."
Since Mr. Giuliani has been out of office, he has been stunningly successful at attracting clients to his security consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, and gaining prominence in the national party, largely by talking authoritatively about national security issues and dodging conversations about social issues.
By all accounts, his company's client base is firm for now. In interviews with press officers for nine of his clients, all said they would happily continue doing business with Giuliani Partners.
"The work they have done for us is quite impressive," said Larry Gottlieb, a spokesman for Entergy. But one principal of a company that works with Mr. Giuliani said he hoped that Mr. Kerik's role would be marginalized in the partnership.
Yesterday Mr. Giuliani said that he had no plans to remove Mr. Kerik, and that his clients had assured him they still thought his services were valuable.
"The Bernie Kerik situation is a situation that really related to a group of questions that he has to answer, but do not affect our business," Mr. Giuliani said. If clients have concerns about Mr. Kerik, he added, "that is something I would talk to them about confidentially and then assess."
Two outside experts, however, said the incident could scare off new clients. "The potential damage in something like this is in your ability to attract new business," said James Fisher, director of the Emerson Center for Business at St. Louis University. "The fact that the consulting business focuses on issues of leadership values and integrity, I think this is a significant crisis for a firm like that."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
Straight Talk
Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A32
MOVEMENT TOWARD economic and political liberalization has slowed in much of the Arab Middle East. Saudi Arabia, awash in tens of billions of dollars thanks to high oil prices, has watered down or frozen the reform programs its spokesmen were promoting a year ago; some would-be reformers are in jail. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has appeased the Bush administration by casting himself as a champion of Palestinian accommodation to Israel instead of Egyptian accommodation to a free press or elections. The violence in Iraq has hardly been an advertisement for Western-style democracy, and the Bush administration itself has been modest in its efforts, dedicating far less funding to its Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative than to more prosaic aid programs elsewhere.
Yet impetus for change in the region has not expired, as it did after the first U.S. war with Iraq. This time the pressure for liberalization is coming not only from Washington but from Arab business and political elites as well as common citizens fed up with their countries' stagnation and exclusion from the freedom and prosperity spreading elsewhere in the world. That mood can be glimpsed in the strong support among Palestinians for elections and for reform of the Palestinian Authority. It can be seen also in the rise of independent civic groups and human rights movements around the region, which have been gathering to draft and deliver pro-democracy manifestos and insisting that their governments listen.
Last week 30 representatives of civic organizations from 13 Arab countries met in Rabat, Morocco, on the sidelines of the first meeting of the "Forum for the Future," the diplomatic instrument the Bush administration and governments of other industrialized countries created this year to encourage liberalization in the zone from Morocco to Afghanistan. Media accounts of the meeting focused on the predictable rhetoric of Arab ministers who rejected Western pressure for change and insisted that the real issue was not reform of their monarchies and dictatorships but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such rhetoric, delivered by many of the same people, has remained unchanged at Middle Eastern conferences for decades, regardless of the situation in Palestine or the character of U.S. policy. What was new in Rabat was the presence of the civil society delegation, which delivered an entirely different message.
"The main obstacle hindering reform," said the civil society statement, read by spokesmen such as Bahey Eddin Hassan of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, "is the lack of willingness on the part of most Arab governments to undertake real reforms." "Palestinian and Iraqi issues," it added, "should not be used as excuses for not launching reforms"; moreover, Western governments should "stop using double standards" in assessing "violations of human rights and democracy principles in each country." Instead, they should "relate their political and economic cooperation to the progress of reforms."
What reforms? The civil society representatives were explicit: "Allow free ownership of media institutions and sources"; "allow freedom of expression and especially freedom of assembly and meetings"; "ensure women's rights and remove all forms of inequality and discrimination against women in the Arab world"; and "immediately release reformers, human rights activists and political prisoners."
None of these demands will be met soon by Mr. Mubarak and his brethren. Yet the fact that their foreign and finance ministers were obliged to listen to them in the presence of the representatives of the world's richest nations -- rather than throwing their authors in jail -- was something new in the Middle East. We hope Mr. Bush will follow up his pro-democracy rhetoric with more money and more practical action in his next term. But even if the Forum for the Future succeeds only in perpetuating such exchanges, and protecting the civil society groups that participate in them, it will be worthwhile.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
'
Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A32
MOVEMENT TOWARD economic and political liberalization has slowed in much of the Arab Middle East. Saudi Arabia, awash in tens of billions of dollars thanks to high oil prices, has watered down or frozen the reform programs its spokesmen were promoting a year ago; some would-be reformers are in jail. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has appeased the Bush administration by casting himself as a champion of Palestinian accommodation to Israel instead of Egyptian accommodation to a free press or elections. The violence in Iraq has hardly been an advertisement for Western-style democracy, and the Bush administration itself has been modest in its efforts, dedicating far less funding to its Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative than to more prosaic aid programs elsewhere.
Yet impetus for change in the region has not expired, as it did after the first U.S. war with Iraq. This time the pressure for liberalization is coming not only from Washington but from Arab business and political elites as well as common citizens fed up with their countries' stagnation and exclusion from the freedom and prosperity spreading elsewhere in the world. That mood can be glimpsed in the strong support among Palestinians for elections and for reform of the Palestinian Authority. It can be seen also in the rise of independent civic groups and human rights movements around the region, which have been gathering to draft and deliver pro-democracy manifestos and insisting that their governments listen.
Last week 30 representatives of civic organizations from 13 Arab countries met in Rabat, Morocco, on the sidelines of the first meeting of the "Forum for the Future," the diplomatic instrument the Bush administration and governments of other industrialized countries created this year to encourage liberalization in the zone from Morocco to Afghanistan. Media accounts of the meeting focused on the predictable rhetoric of Arab ministers who rejected Western pressure for change and insisted that the real issue was not reform of their monarchies and dictatorships but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such rhetoric, delivered by many of the same people, has remained unchanged at Middle Eastern conferences for decades, regardless of the situation in Palestine or the character of U.S. policy. What was new in Rabat was the presence of the civil society delegation, which delivered an entirely different message.
"The main obstacle hindering reform," said the civil society statement, read by spokesmen such as Bahey Eddin Hassan of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, "is the lack of willingness on the part of most Arab governments to undertake real reforms." "Palestinian and Iraqi issues," it added, "should not be used as excuses for not launching reforms"; moreover, Western governments should "stop using double standards" in assessing "violations of human rights and democracy principles in each country." Instead, they should "relate their political and economic cooperation to the progress of reforms."
What reforms? The civil society representatives were explicit: "Allow free ownership of media institutions and sources"; "allow freedom of expression and especially freedom of assembly and meetings"; "ensure women's rights and remove all forms of inequality and discrimination against women in the Arab world"; and "immediately release reformers, human rights activists and political prisoners."
None of these demands will be met soon by Mr. Mubarak and his brethren. Yet the fact that their foreign and finance ministers were obliged to listen to them in the presence of the representatives of the world's richest nations -- rather than throwing their authors in jail -- was something new in the Middle East. We hope Mr. Bush will follow up his pro-democracy rhetoric with more money and more practical action in his next term. But even if the Forum for the Future succeeds only in perpetuating such exchanges, and protecting the civil society groups that participate in them, it will be worthwhile.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
'
News Home - Help
Good economic times roll for high rollers, that is
Fri Dec 17, 6:31 AM ET
In some ways, 2004 is starting to feel like the booming 1990s. Stock in stun-gun maker Taser International is up eighty-eight-fold in the past two years. XM Satellite Radio, which lost $637 million in the most recent year, has a market value of $8 billion. More than 200 companies had initial public offerings this year, including casino operator Las Vegas Sands, shares of which jumped 61% Wednesday, its first day of trading.
•
Bush signs intelligence reform bill
•
Pfizer's Celebrex could have a problem
•
Woman charged with killing woman, taking baby from womb
•
Orchestra conductor at Crystal Cathedral kills self after standoff
•
Bush: Social Security would have safety measures
Search USATODAY.com
Snapshots
USA TODAY Snapshot How many nationally certified massage therapists are there in the USA?More USA TODAY Snapshots
Call it the New, New Economy, or irrational exuberance redux. Hot stocks are hot again. IPOs are on a tear. Even big mergers are back: Sprint-Nextel and Johnson & Johnson-Guidant this week alone.
As the artist once again known as Prince used to sing: Let's "party like it's 1999!"
Only this time, the invitations are harder to come by. The recovery is showing up in stock values, corporate profits and other measures at the upper end of the economic spectrum. But in data more meaningful to most Americans, things don't look so rosy. Employment has trickled up during the past year, but still stands at 400,000 fewer jobs than in 2001. Productivity gains and outsourcing mean some U.S. jobs are gone for good.
Wages have risen, but only modestly. The ranks of those without health insurance grew by 1.4 million to 45 million in 2003.
Left unchecked, this type of disparity builds resentment. Until the captains of industry find ways to share more of the wealth with those in the trenches, they risk a political backlash against the policies that have made them wealthy.
Free trade, moderate regulation and low taxation may make sense for many reasons. But if the benefits are concentrated among a relative few, these policies will be hard to maintain over time.
Companies that want to preserve this benign regulatory environment, and maintain employees' goodwill, would do well to reconsider the balance between workers' pay and top executives' compensation. And President Bush (news - web sites) and Congress, authors of an absurdly large federal deficit, would do well to rebalance the tax cuts of 2001 and 2002 that primarily benefited the wealthy.
Some of those tax-cut recipients seem intent on displaying their riches as conspicuously as possible.
In such places as East Hampton, N.Y., and Seal Harbor, Maine, the $10 million weekend place is commonplace. Yacht sizes have swelled, and superluxury cars are selling like, well, Volkswagens. Volkswagen, for its part, is about to introduce a 1,000-horsepower Bugatti that does 250 mph. The price tag: at least $1 million.
To quote another artist, Billie Holiday: "Them that's got shall get. Them that's not shall lose." Great song. But not very good economic policy.
Story Tools
Email Story
Post/Read Msgs (102)
Formatted Story
December 16, 2004OP-ED COLUMNIST
Holding Up Arab ReformBy THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
UBAI, United Arab Emirates
For years now it's been clear that the Middle East peace process has left the realm of diplomacy and started to become an industry, with its own G.N.P. of conferences and seminars. But there is a new industry rapidly overtaking it in the Middle East, and that is the "reform industry." Every month there seems to be a new conference on reform in the Arab world. Indeed, I have been attending one here in Dubai, an amazing city-state on the Persian Gulf that is becoming the Singapore of the Arab East.
What the reform process and the peace process have in common is that neither advances when we Americans tell the parties in English that they have to change. Progress happens only when the people here tell themselves in Arabic that they must change. So I took heart from the blunt manner in which Dubai's crown prince, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, opened his conference by saying, in a speech broadcast by Arab satellite TV, "I say to my fellow Arabs [in power]: If you do not change, you will be changed."
I didn't hear talk like that five years ago. Nor did I hear an Egyptian friend remarking to me that she had absolutely no problem with Hosni Mubarak's son, Gamal, one day succeeding his father. Gamal is a good man. She just had one condition, that Gamal Mubarak succeed his father the same way George W. Bush succeeded his father: in a free election.
Meanwhile, last Sunday, about 1,000 Egyptians gathered in downtown Cairo, many wearing over their mouths yellow stickers with the Arabic word for "enough" written on them, to protest plans by President Mubarak to run for a fifth term.
Yes, there is definitely something stirring out here, but it has miles to go before meaningful changes occur. It is something America should be quietly encouraging, so it is inexplicable to me that the Bush administration is holding up publication of the next U.N. Arab Human Development Report. Let me fill you in:
In 2002, the U.N. Development Program sponsored a group of courageous Arab economists, social scientists and other scholars to do four reports on human development in the Arab world. The first one, in 2002, caused a real stir in this region - showing, among other things, that the Arabs were falling so far behind that Spain's G.D.P. was greater than that of the entire Arab League combined.
That first report, published in Arabic and English, was downloaded off the Internet one million times. It was a truly incisive diagnosis of the deficits of freedom, education and women's empowerment retarding the Arab world.
In 2003, the same group produced a second Arab Human Development Report, about the Arab knowledge deficit - even tackling the supersensitive issue of how Islam and its current spiritual leaders may be holding back modern education. This was stuff no U.S. diplomat could ever raise, but the Arab authors of these reports could and did.
So I eagerly awaited the third Arab Human Development Report, due in October. It was going to be pure TNT, because it was going to tackle the issue of governance and misgovernance in the Arab world, and the legal, institutional and religious impediments to political reform. These are the guts of the issue out here. I waited. And I waited. But nothing.
Then I started to hear disturbing things - that the Bush team saw a draft of the Arab governance report and objected to the prologue, because it was brutally critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Israeli occupation. This prologue constitutes some 10 percent of the report. While heartfelt, it's there to give political cover to the Arab authors for their clear-eyed critique of Arab governance, which is the other 90 percent of the report.
But the Bush team is apparently insisting that language critical of America and Israel be changed - as if language 10 times worse can't be heard on Arab satellite TV every day. And until it's changed, the Bush folks are apparently ready to see the report delayed or killed altogether. And they have an ally. The government of Egypt, which is criticized in the report, also doesn't want it out - along with some other Arab regimes.
So there you have it: a group of serious Arab intellectuals - who are neither sellouts nor bomb throwers - has produced a powerful analysis, in Arabic, of the lagging state of governance in the Arab world. It is just the sort of independent report that could fuel the emerging debate on Arab reform. But Bush officials, along with Arab autocrats, are holding it up until it is modified to their liking - even if that means it won't appear at all.
It makes you weep.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
Mudville on the Anacostia
Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page A36
"CAN'T ANYBODY here play this game?" Casey Stengel asked that question about the woeful 1962 New York Mets, whom he had the misfortune of managing, but it applies equally well to the executive and legislative branches of the 2004 District of Columbia government, as it boots around Washington's hopes of getting a big league baseball team.
On Tuesday night D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) introduced, almost literally at the 11th hour, a new amendment to the financing legislation for a Washington baseball stadium on the Anacostia River. It is a change that threatens to undo the city's deal with Major League Baseball. Surprisingly -- or perhaps not, given the recent political history of this question -- the council voted 10 to 3 to approve the amendment, after far less discussion or debate than it deserved. The full legislation then passed on a vote of 7 to 6.
Instead of the plan accepted by baseball, which includes public backing and relies on a combination of business taxes and rental fees and other income from the stadium, the Cropp amendment requires private financing of half the cost of the new ballpark. If the council doesn't reconsider the legislation by Dec. 31, Major League Baseball will begin looking for a home elsewhere, it announced yesterday. The council and its chairman did themselves no credit with their handling of this last-minute deal-breaker. As one anti-stadium member observed, what went on Tuesday night was a travesty of the legislative process. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), meanwhile, failed at a basic political task: ensuring that you have the votes when you make a deal for the city.
At this point, a majority of council members may see more political benefit in opposing the baseball deal than in supporting it. There is widespread opposition in the District to public backing for a stadium, especially since one of its primary effects would be to greatly enhance the price that baseball's owners will get for the orphaned Montreal franchise now in their custody. But the debate has come down to something of a battle between caricatures: greedy owners vs. poor Washingtonians, public expenditures vs. private profit.
We hope that the council will reconsider, and when it does, give serious attention to the somewhat more complicated reality by dealing honestly with these questions: Is money raised by a tax on the city's largest firms public or private, especially considering that without the stadium in the picture, it wouldn't be raised at all? Is the money that many thousands of people from Maryland and Virginia would spend in the city on more than 80 days and nights a year public or private? One thing is certain: It won't be coming into Washington if there is no ballpark. Is the money the team would pay for rent public or private? How about the taxes on refreshments, souvenirs and so on?
To get a baseball team, Washington will have to make an investment, and few investments are without risk. To some extent it's simply a matter of how much faith the city's legislators have in the future -- not only of the District but of the entire region.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page A36
"CAN'T ANYBODY here play this game?" Casey Stengel asked that question about the woeful 1962 New York Mets, whom he had the misfortune of managing, but it applies equally well to the executive and legislative branches of the 2004 District of Columbia government, as it boots around Washington's hopes of getting a big league baseball team.
On Tuesday night D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) introduced, almost literally at the 11th hour, a new amendment to the financing legislation for a Washington baseball stadium on the Anacostia River. It is a change that threatens to undo the city's deal with Major League Baseball. Surprisingly -- or perhaps not, given the recent political history of this question -- the council voted 10 to 3 to approve the amendment, after far less discussion or debate than it deserved. The full legislation then passed on a vote of 7 to 6.
Instead of the plan accepted by baseball, which includes public backing and relies on a combination of business taxes and rental fees and other income from the stadium, the Cropp amendment requires private financing of half the cost of the new ballpark. If the council doesn't reconsider the legislation by Dec. 31, Major League Baseball will begin looking for a home elsewhere, it announced yesterday. The council and its chairman did themselves no credit with their handling of this last-minute deal-breaker. As one anti-stadium member observed, what went on Tuesday night was a travesty of the legislative process. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), meanwhile, failed at a basic political task: ensuring that you have the votes when you make a deal for the city.
At this point, a majority of council members may see more political benefit in opposing the baseball deal than in supporting it. There is widespread opposition in the District to public backing for a stadium, especially since one of its primary effects would be to greatly enhance the price that baseball's owners will get for the orphaned Montreal franchise now in their custody. But the debate has come down to something of a battle between caricatures: greedy owners vs. poor Washingtonians, public expenditures vs. private profit.
We hope that the council will reconsider, and when it does, give serious attention to the somewhat more complicated reality by dealing honestly with these questions: Is money raised by a tax on the city's largest firms public or private, especially considering that without the stadium in the picture, it wouldn't be raised at all? Is the money that many thousands of people from Maryland and Virginia would spend in the city on more than 80 days and nights a year public or private? One thing is certain: It won't be coming into Washington if there is no ballpark. Is the money the team would pay for rent public or private? How about the taxes on refreshments, souvenirs and so on?
To get a baseball team, Washington will have to make an investment, and few investments are without risk. To some extent it's simply a matter of how much faith the city's legislators have in the future -- not only of the District but of the entire region.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-aquarium17dec17,0,1802852.story?coll=la-home-local
CALIFORNIA
Scarred by an Attack on Sharks
Three boys, all 13, are accused of killing animals at the Long Beach aquarium last month. Incident prompts emotional outpouring.By Nancy WrideTimes Staff WriterDecember 17, 2004Crouched behind the Long Beach aquarium, a foghorn moaning off the coast, the three Franklin Middle School boys waited. The Aquarium of the Pacific now deserted, the 13-year-olds climbed the wall and began dragging docile sea life from darkened pools, prosecutors allege.They stabbed three sharks and a ray with pipes and left all but one to suffocate out of water. They lobbed small sharks into tanks of bigger predators. They slashed a shark's translucent egg sac and severed the embryos. Then, they slid back over the fence.So, authorities claim, went last month's bewildering attack on harmless creatures that has shocked Long Beach and places far beyond. More than 1,000 people, some from as far away as Hong Kong and Nova Scotia, have contacted the aquarium, which was visited last year by 200,000 children on field trips. Some have attributed the attacks to youthful foolishness and felt sorry for the young suspects, but others have demanded harsh punishment: life in prison, or even that they "be cut up and fed to the sharks."More than 1,300 students wrote essays to express grief or outrage or to speculate on what had caused peers to commit such violence. Other Long Beach students held bake sales to raise money for new sharks.Yet the question the schoolchildren ask, that everyone asks, goes unanswered.Why? "It is the answer the aquarium wants, it is the answer the schoolchildren want, it is an answer that I want," said deputy district attorney Sheila Callaghan, who is prosecuting the case. "But I'm not sure the boys can articulate why…. I'm not sure we'll ever know."Four boys were charged — three who broke in the first night, and a 14-year-old who joined them the following night when they tried to reenter the shark lagoon area and were arrested.Two of the four have offered emotional apologies. One has pleaded guilty, and the other three will have a hearing in juvenile court next month."How do we save these kids?" aquarium President and Chief Executive Officer Jerry Schubel said. "If we come out of this and these kids are sociopaths cruel to animals, we have as a society failed."As juveniles, the boys have not been identified. Their court proceedings are closed to the public, so only the briefest of detail has been revealed. All four attended the same school in a working-class residential neighborhood at the eastern edge of downtown Long Beach.They were friends. One lived with an adult sister; some of their parents needed court proceedings translated; at least one has had fights and other problems at school.Two of them have apologized in writing. One of them was the 14-year-old, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit animal cruelty and was sentenced last week to three months in a juvenile camp. In court that day, he pulled a note out of a sock and read to the court a half-page apology full of misspellings. His mother and relatives crying softly behind him, he clutched the note with shackled hands and began, "Dear people" and concluded by stressing that he had not actually hurt any animals."I'm human," he wrote, "and humans make mistakes."The second boy wrote directly to the aquarium chief, who paraphrased most of what he took to be a genuinely remorseful appeal. One line in particular resonated."He said, 'I lost my dignity that night,' " Schubel recalled. "That got to me," he said. "That was moving to me. It gave me some hope he's not lost."A third boy is represented by attorney John Schmocker."He's a normal boy. This is not a monster or a disturbed child," he said. "I'm more disturbed by people's greater concern for fish than for people being killed."Schmocker said he hoped the public would understand that although the boys may have done something wrong, they were not hard-core criminals."You know what strikes me is, they're only 13. They're immature, and they're really facing adult consequences," he said. "It was juvenile mischief rather than anything darker."But why the boys were out so late on a school night — their whereabouts apparently unknown to parents and guardians — and what they did before arriving at the aquarium are questions to which the prosecutor doesn't have answers. She said, for some reason, juvenile authorities did not ask the boys about such details, possibly considering them moot after police said they had confessed.Two of the four boys' families who were reached by a reporter declined to be interviewed.The judge's comments before sentencing one youth hinted at what he called "instability" in the boy's home life, the boy's lawyer said.The youth was living with an adult sister at the time of the attacks, a result of friction with one or more siblings, the attorney said. And a stepfather who had not been living in the home moved back in before sentencing."The judge observed that [the boy] had been very well the past month in a structured setting," prosecutor Callaghan said, referring to a county juvenile camp. "And he ordered psychological counseling for the whole family."The boy's mother declined to be interviewed outside court, in part because she speaks almost no English.But in the courtroom after the judge's verdict, she offered a teary-eyed apology to the aquarium president who attended the proceedings."I'm sorry," she whispered to Schubel.Gallagher said the maximum sentence the 13-year-olds could face if convicted of all charges would be about nine years in the California Youth Authority. They also could be sentenced to varying terms in a lock-down juvenile camp operated by the Los Angeles County Probation Department.Lose the children or save the children — that is how the dialogue locally has been framed as to how to learn from what happened, said Schubel.Before news broke about the Nov. 7 attack, Schubel already had considered how the facility could team with other institutions to find some teachable moments in the case. He quickly thought of another Long Beach leader, Chris Steinhauser.Schubel and Steinhauser, superintendent of the 95,000-student Long Beach Unified School District, separately had ruminated over the question. In a matter of hours that Monday after the attacks, they had teamed up."We may never know what triggered these young people to do what they did, but there's usually some underlying things going on that we can try and address," Steinhauser said.So, the district and the aquarium sponsored an essay contest. The idea was to give students a chance to talk about the violence, to start a dialogue.They were overwhelmed by the response: 1,300 essays.Samantha Hing, 12, is one of 10 winners in the essay contest."She was very affected after reading the story of the attacks in the newspaper. She loves animals of every kind." said her mother, Sylvia Sar. Though Samantha urged civic leaders to send aquarium staff members to schools to educate children more about sea life and stated "that animals are alive like people," the tone of other essays and correspondence was of a wider range."Some of the essays," Steinhauser said with a whistle, "Phew! I mean, two wrongs don't make a right. But you could see that the kids' anger and their hurt was coming out."Included in the 14-year-old's sentence was a requirement of 150 hours of community service that the aquarium has asked to be in on."What I really want is for these kids to finish whatever consequence they need to pay for this — and there should be consequences — and sit across the table from our aquarium staff and look them in the eye to say, 'I'm sorry.' And then we'd like them to maybe help at the aquarium and learn firsthand about the animals."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
today's papersLetting Your Guard DownBy Eric UmanskyPosted Friday, Dec. 17, 2004, at 12:35 AM PT
The Los Angeles Times leads the Army National Guard announcing that it's fallen 30 percent short of its recruiting goal in recent months and will triple retention bonuses to $15,000. The Guard's commanding general also said the service needs $20 billion to replace equipment chewed up in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Otherwise, the Guard will be broken and not ready for the next time it's needed," he said. National Guard and reserve troops make up about 40 percent of the GIs in Iraq. The New York Times leads with the U.S. as well as European and Arab countries joining together to dangle the doubling of aid to Palestinians if the coming elections go smoothly and the resulting leaders crack down on militants. The Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox leads with and Washington Post's top non-local spot goes to Bin Laden's latest audio tape. In an apparent bout of patriotism, USA Today turns its lead over to the White House: "BUSH: IT'S TIME TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY." In fairness, the editors swung by to help with the subhead: "Investment Accounts Portrayed as Key Step." [Emphasis added]
The Post, alone, gloms on to Osama telling Saudis to give non-violent protest a shot. "Matters have exceeded all bounds," he said, "and when the people move to ask for their rights, security agencies cannot stop them." Bin Laden added that if that doesn't work, the old tactics, of course, are still on the table. A Saudi dissident group had also called for mass protests yesterday. Nobody turned out, except the Saudi government which "shut down large sections of two cities." The Post adds that taking to the streets, "would be risky behavior in a country where public protests of any kind are banned and criticism of the royal family is illegal."
The Post goes above-the-fold with word that the CIA has a previously unknown prison within Gitmo itself. Apparently, the CIA set up it after other countries decided they'd rather not hold the agency's prisons. "People are willing to help but not to hold," said one "CIA veteran." One "military official" described the unit as "off-limits to nearly everyone on the base." So the paper doesn't know much about it, including if it's still open.
The LAT noted back in July that the CIA seemed to be holding detainees on the base.
But there's also not much new here in a larger sense; it's just another example of a long-standing policy: The Post first reported two years ago that CIA has been holding some al-Qaida suspects incommunicado in various locales without access to the Red Cross or anybody else.
The Post's Anthony Shadid visits Baghdad's Sadr City, where he says millions of dollars in U.S.-funded reconstruction projects haven't done a lot to improve the quality of life and even less to improve residents' perceptions. "The disenchantment is so deep in some places that it leaves a question most U.S. officials prefer not to address," Shadid says, "Is the battle for hearts and minds already lost?"
About a half-dozen people, including one Italian, were killed in various attacks around Baghdad. And according to early morning reports, another Marine was killed somewhere in the Anbar province. It was likely in Fallujah, since there's still fighting there. But it's not clear because as TP has often noted the Marines have a policy of being as opaque as possible on casualty info.
The Post notices inside that former majority leader Senator Trent Lott joined the smattering of Republicans calling for Rummy's walking papers. "I am not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld. I don't think he listens to his uniformed officers," said Lott. "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so."
The NYT fronts Britain's top court overturning a counter-terrorism law and saying foreigners can't be held indefinitely without charge. The case involved nine Muslim men, at least one of whom has been held for three years.
The NYT's Paul Krugman makes a reasonable suggestion: His news-side colleagues should check out how privatization of Social Security-like programs has fared in other countries. (Krugman, of course, has his own answer: not well.)
The Post fronts Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych saying he'll renounce the results of the coming election is they show a win for his opponent, reformer Viktor Yushchenko. "Even if Mr. Yushchenko wins, he will never be a president of Ukraine," Yanukovych said, explaining that he "will not be able stop" his supporters.
Muammar Qaddafi has ended the debate about what factor was most responsible for the president's win. "LIBYA'S LEADER SAYS HIS PLEDGE ON WEAPONS RE-ELECTED BUSH"- NYT. "It was Mr. Bush who promised to reward Libya if we got rid of this program," said Qaddafi. "We know that with this withdrawal, we contributed by 50 percent to his electoral campaign."Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2111190/
The Los Angeles Times leads the Army National Guard announcing that it's fallen 30 percent short of its recruiting goal in recent months and will triple retention bonuses to $15,000. The Guard's commanding general also said the service needs $20 billion to replace equipment chewed up in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Otherwise, the Guard will be broken and not ready for the next time it's needed," he said. National Guard and reserve troops make up about 40 percent of the GIs in Iraq. The New York Times leads with the U.S. as well as European and Arab countries joining together to dangle the doubling of aid to Palestinians if the coming elections go smoothly and the resulting leaders crack down on militants. The Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox leads with and Washington Post's top non-local spot goes to Bin Laden's latest audio tape. In an apparent bout of patriotism, USA Today turns its lead over to the White House: "BUSH: IT'S TIME TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY." In fairness, the editors swung by to help with the subhead: "Investment Accounts Portrayed as Key Step." [Emphasis added]
The Post, alone, gloms on to Osama telling Saudis to give non-violent protest a shot. "Matters have exceeded all bounds," he said, "and when the people move to ask for their rights, security agencies cannot stop them." Bin Laden added that if that doesn't work, the old tactics, of course, are still on the table. A Saudi dissident group had also called for mass protests yesterday. Nobody turned out, except the Saudi government which "shut down large sections of two cities." The Post adds that taking to the streets, "would be risky behavior in a country where public protests of any kind are banned and criticism of the royal family is illegal."
The Post goes above-the-fold with word that the CIA has a previously unknown prison within Gitmo itself. Apparently, the CIA set up it after other countries decided they'd rather not hold the agency's prisons. "People are willing to help but not to hold," said one "CIA veteran." One "military official" described the unit as "off-limits to nearly everyone on the base." So the paper doesn't know much about it, including if it's still open.
The LAT noted back in July that the CIA seemed to be holding detainees on the base.
But there's also not much new here in a larger sense; it's just another example of a long-standing policy: The Post first reported two years ago that CIA has been holding some al-Qaida suspects incommunicado in various locales without access to the Red Cross or anybody else.
The Post's Anthony Shadid visits Baghdad's Sadr City, where he says millions of dollars in U.S.-funded reconstruction projects haven't done a lot to improve the quality of life and even less to improve residents' perceptions. "The disenchantment is so deep in some places that it leaves a question most U.S. officials prefer not to address," Shadid says, "Is the battle for hearts and minds already lost?"
About a half-dozen people, including one Italian, were killed in various attacks around Baghdad. And according to early morning reports, another Marine was killed somewhere in the Anbar province. It was likely in Fallujah, since there's still fighting there. But it's not clear because as TP has often noted the Marines have a policy of being as opaque as possible on casualty info.
The Post notices inside that former majority leader Senator Trent Lott joined the smattering of Republicans calling for Rummy's walking papers. "I am not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld. I don't think he listens to his uniformed officers," said Lott. "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so."
The NYT fronts Britain's top court overturning a counter-terrorism law and saying foreigners can't be held indefinitely without charge. The case involved nine Muslim men, at least one of whom has been held for three years.
The NYT's Paul Krugman makes a reasonable suggestion: His news-side colleagues should check out how privatization of Social Security-like programs has fared in other countries. (Krugman, of course, has his own answer: not well.)
The Post fronts Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych saying he'll renounce the results of the coming election is they show a win for his opponent, reformer Viktor Yushchenko. "Even if Mr. Yushchenko wins, he will never be a president of Ukraine," Yanukovych said, explaining that he "will not be able stop" his supporters.
Muammar Qaddafi has ended the debate about what factor was most responsible for the president's win. "LIBYA'S LEADER SAYS HIS PLEDGE ON WEAPONS RE-ELECTED BUSH"- NYT. "It was Mr. Bush who promised to reward Libya if we got rid of this program," said Qaddafi. "We know that with this withdrawal, we contributed by 50 percent to his electoral campaign."Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2111190/
