(CNN) -- Martha was tough on her children when it came to alcohol in their early teens. When she saw beer at a party her then-14-year-old daughter was attending, she broke it up and told all the kids to call their parents. When her son was about the same age, she grounded him for a month after learning he had a drinking episode.
But her outright prohibition softened when her children reached their late teens. She lives in Georgia, a state that allows parents to let their underage children -- but no one else's -- have alcohol in their own homes. She lets her now-18-year-old son have a beer or a little wine at home, in part to kill curiosity, but won't serve his friends.
Suspecting alcohol will be part of his senior prom experience, she's having him take a limo. While planning to escort him and his friends to a rented beach house for spring break this year, she expected to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but she wouldn't furnish alcohol, and she'd take away their car keys.
It's probably unrealistic, she says, for parents to forbid alcohol to older teens outright. Instead, she teaches moderation, safety and responsibility. "If you can be around your child and monitor them all the time and watch everything they do, and if it works for you and them, then [prohibit it]," said Martha, an Atlanta-area resident who spoke on condition that her last name be withheld. "But I think, given what's out there, you have to teach them how to be safe and considerate of others."
U.S. law requires states, as a condition of getting highway funds, to prohibit people under 21 from buying or publicly possessing alcohol. Some states have situational exceptions, but no state allows people to furnish alcohol to an underage person who isn't their child, ward or spouse, said Mike Hilton, deputy director of the division of epidemiology and prevention research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Yet minors find a way get alcohol elsewhere. About 10.1 million people ages 12 to 20 in the United States -- more than a quarter of that age group -- drank at least once in a certain month's period in 2008, according to that year's National Survey on Drug Use and Health. More than 30 percent of underage drinkers said they paid for their most recent drink; for those who didn't pay, the most common source was 21 or older and not a relative, according to the survey for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
With matters of health, safety, morality and legality to consider, what goes through parents' minds when they determine what stance to take with their children on alcohol? Debbie Taylor says she told her son, Casey, that she didn't want him to drink while underage, but if he ever did, he was not to drive. She wishes her message had been different.
Casey Taylor, of Casper, Wyoming, was 18 when he died of alcohol poisoning in July 2002. Just two months out of high school and one month into living away from home with a roommate, he had succumbed to a challenge from friends to chug a large amount of rum, his mother said. His blood-alcohol content, she said, was 0.41 percent.
Debbie Taylor said she'd never caught her son -- an honor roll student and varsity football player and wrestler -- drinking, but she twice found rum bottles hidden in her garage when he was 17 and suspected they were his. The first one she threw away. The second, she left.
"My reasoning for leaving the second bottle there was that all of the kids are doing it, and I did it growing up," Taylor, 52, said.
"If I could go back, I would make it absolutely clear that I didn't want him drinking at all -- that he was underage, that it is not legal," she added. "That's what I did with his younger brother [then 16] after Casey died. It was made perfectly clear to him that I didn't want him drinking at all until he was 21. And he didn't."
Taylor joined Mothers Against Drunk Driving in 2003 and is now the Wyoming chapter's spokeswoman. She said she now believes teens aren't ready to drink. MADD supports the minimum drinking age of 21 years, citing numerous studies showing that it has reduced alcohol-related fatalities and injuries since it was federally mandated in the 1980s, and arguing that drinking can be harmful to teens' still-developing brains.
Laura Dean-Mooney, MADD's national president, said parents can prevent underage drinking by discussing rules and consequences often and early -- starting around fourth grade, when peer pressure starts to kick in. "The tricky thing with letting kids in their late teens drink is that you're not always going to be home every time they choose to drink. You're not always going to be there to take away the keys," she said when asked whether she could understand parents who argue that absolute prohibition isn't the way to go.
As for Martha of Georgia, she says she generally discourages her 18-year-old from drinking and reminds him it's against the law outside her supervision at home. Putting him in school activities and encouraging him to study hard -- she says he's a straight-A student -- helps keep him out of trouble. "He has a good grounding in what's healthy and what's not. That's what I taught my children -- how to live with balance," she said. "I've seen people go extreme in either direction [with alcohol], and I don't think either one is totally healthy."
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
U.S.’s Toughest Immigration Law Signed in Arizona
NEW YORK TIMES
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it. Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.” The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”
As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.” The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.
Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”
While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.
The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions. It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it. Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.” The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”
As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.” The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.
Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”
While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.
The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions. It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Education cuts are nationwide
NEW YORK TIMES
By TAMAR LEWIN and SAM DILLON
School districts around the country, forced to resort to drastic money-saving measures, are warning hundreds of thousands of teachers that their jobs may be eliminated in June. The districts have no choice, they say, because their usual sources of revenue — state money and local property taxes — have been hit hard by the recession. In addition, federal stimulus money earmarked for education has been mostly used up this year.
As a result, the 2010-11 school term is shaping up as one of the most austere in the last half century. In addition to teacher layoffs, districts are planning to close schools, cut programs, enlarge classes and shorten the school day, week or year to save money.
“We are doing things and considering options I never thought I’d have to consider,” said Peter C. Gorman, superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools in North Carolina, who expects to cut 600 of the district’s 9,400 teachers this year, after laying off 120 last year. “This may be our new economic reality.”
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan estimated that state budget cuts imperiled 100,000 to 300,000 public school jobs. In an interview on Monday, he said the nation was flirting with “education catastrophe,” and urged Congress to approve additional stimulus funds to save school jobs. “We absolutely see this as an emergency,” Mr. Duncan said.
Some of the deepest cuts are in Los Angeles, where Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines sent notices to 5,200 of the district’s 80,000 employees last month, telling them that they were losing their jobs. “I’ve been superintendent in five major school districts, and had responsibility for cuts for years — but not this magnitude, not this devastating,” Mr. Cortines said.
And there is no end in sight, he said. He cut his district’s $12 billion budget this school year by $1 billion, has prepared $600 million in cuts for the term beginning in the fall and is looking ahead to a deficit for the following year of $263 million. “I don’t see this being over in the year 2014-15,” Mr. Cortines added.
In the economic stimulus bill passed in February 2009, Congress appropriated about $100 billion in emergency education financing. States spent much of that in the current fiscal year, saving more than 342,000 school jobs, about 5.5 percent of all the positions in the nation’s 15,000 school systems, according to a study by the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington.
Warning of an educational emergency, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, proposed a $23 billion school bailout bill last Wednesday that would essentially provide more education stimulus financing to stave off the looming wave of school layoffs. “This is not something we can fix in August,” said Mr. Harkin, chairman of the Senate education committee. “We have to fix it now.”
Senior Democratic aides said that because Mr. Harkin’s bill would add to the deficit, it was unlikely to pass.
A survey by the American Association of School Administrators found that 9 of 10 superintendents expected to lay off school workers for the fall, up from two of three superintendents last year. The survey also found that the percentage considering a four-day school week had jumped to 13 percent, from 2 percent a year ago.
The current round of cuts is particularly wrenching, superintendents said, because their financing was already cut to the bone last year. For example, Barbara Thompson, superintendent of the Montgomery public schools in Alabama, said the state used to give her district $975 per student for supplies, technology and library costs. “They cut it to zero,” Ms. Thompson said. “So they can’t cut it any more.”
In early April, the Flagstaff, Ariz., school district’s preliminary list of people who might not have jobs next year included almost a third of its 1,500 employees — every art, music and physical education teacher, every counselor and librarian, every teacher with three or fewer years in the district, and all temporary hires.
In the U-46 district in Elgin, Ill., José M. Torres, the superintendent, said he also had to contend with a budgeting roller coaster this spring. At this point, the only uncertainty is whether the district’s 53 schools in Chicago’s western suburbs will feel “high pain or low pain,” Mr. Torres said.
Seeking to cut at least $44 million from the district’s $400 million budget, Mr. Torres has eliminated early childhood classes for 100 children, cut middle school football, increased high school class sizes from 24 to 30 students, drained swimming pools to save chlorine, and dismissed 1,000 employees, including 700 teachers.
“This stuff really hurts,” Mr. Torres said. And what is worse, he said, “I think next year will be tougher than this year.”
By TAMAR LEWIN and SAM DILLON
School districts around the country, forced to resort to drastic money-saving measures, are warning hundreds of thousands of teachers that their jobs may be eliminated in June. The districts have no choice, they say, because their usual sources of revenue — state money and local property taxes — have been hit hard by the recession. In addition, federal stimulus money earmarked for education has been mostly used up this year.
As a result, the 2010-11 school term is shaping up as one of the most austere in the last half century. In addition to teacher layoffs, districts are planning to close schools, cut programs, enlarge classes and shorten the school day, week or year to save money.
“We are doing things and considering options I never thought I’d have to consider,” said Peter C. Gorman, superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools in North Carolina, who expects to cut 600 of the district’s 9,400 teachers this year, after laying off 120 last year. “This may be our new economic reality.”
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan estimated that state budget cuts imperiled 100,000 to 300,000 public school jobs. In an interview on Monday, he said the nation was flirting with “education catastrophe,” and urged Congress to approve additional stimulus funds to save school jobs. “We absolutely see this as an emergency,” Mr. Duncan said.
Some of the deepest cuts are in Los Angeles, where Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines sent notices to 5,200 of the district’s 80,000 employees last month, telling them that they were losing their jobs. “I’ve been superintendent in five major school districts, and had responsibility for cuts for years — but not this magnitude, not this devastating,” Mr. Cortines said.
And there is no end in sight, he said. He cut his district’s $12 billion budget this school year by $1 billion, has prepared $600 million in cuts for the term beginning in the fall and is looking ahead to a deficit for the following year of $263 million. “I don’t see this being over in the year 2014-15,” Mr. Cortines added.
In the economic stimulus bill passed in February 2009, Congress appropriated about $100 billion in emergency education financing. States spent much of that in the current fiscal year, saving more than 342,000 school jobs, about 5.5 percent of all the positions in the nation’s 15,000 school systems, according to a study by the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington.
Warning of an educational emergency, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, proposed a $23 billion school bailout bill last Wednesday that would essentially provide more education stimulus financing to stave off the looming wave of school layoffs. “This is not something we can fix in August,” said Mr. Harkin, chairman of the Senate education committee. “We have to fix it now.”
Senior Democratic aides said that because Mr. Harkin’s bill would add to the deficit, it was unlikely to pass.
A survey by the American Association of School Administrators found that 9 of 10 superintendents expected to lay off school workers for the fall, up from two of three superintendents last year. The survey also found that the percentage considering a four-day school week had jumped to 13 percent, from 2 percent a year ago.
The current round of cuts is particularly wrenching, superintendents said, because their financing was already cut to the bone last year. For example, Barbara Thompson, superintendent of the Montgomery public schools in Alabama, said the state used to give her district $975 per student for supplies, technology and library costs. “They cut it to zero,” Ms. Thompson said. “So they can’t cut it any more.”
In early April, the Flagstaff, Ariz., school district’s preliminary list of people who might not have jobs next year included almost a third of its 1,500 employees — every art, music and physical education teacher, every counselor and librarian, every teacher with three or fewer years in the district, and all temporary hires.
In the U-46 district in Elgin, Ill., José M. Torres, the superintendent, said he also had to contend with a budgeting roller coaster this spring. At this point, the only uncertainty is whether the district’s 53 schools in Chicago’s western suburbs will feel “high pain or low pain,” Mr. Torres said.
Seeking to cut at least $44 million from the district’s $400 million budget, Mr. Torres has eliminated early childhood classes for 100 children, cut middle school football, increased high school class sizes from 24 to 30 students, drained swimming pools to save chlorine, and dismissed 1,000 employees, including 700 teachers.
“This stuff really hurts,” Mr. Torres said. And what is worse, he said, “I think next year will be tougher than this year.”
Monday, April 12, 2010
West Virginia Coal Towns Mourn the Miners Lost
NEW YORK TIMES
MONTCOAL, W.Va. — This community turned from prayers for a miracle rescue to all-out mourning on Saturday, hours after officials confirmed that the last four coal miners missing after a mine explosion last week were dead. That news brought the death toll to 29, making it the nation’s worst mine disaster in four decades.
On Friday, scores of people filed into churches across the region for the first of what is to be a string of funerals in the coming days.
The Massey Energy Company, which owns the Upper Big Branch mine, has said it will pay for the miners’ funerals. Church officials said that donations for the families of the miners were being accepted at the Montcoal Mining Disaster Fund, which was being run by the West Virginia Council of Churches. And Gov. Joe Manchin III has asked for a national moment of silence at 3:30 Monday afternoon, a week after the blast tore through the mine.
Both the Senate and the House plan to conduct hearings on the explosion. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, said lawmakers would scrutinize Massey’s practices.
The 29 deaths are the highest in an American mine since 1970, when 38 miners were killed in an explosion at the Finley Coal Company in Hyden, Ky.
The explosion last week was the third major mining disaster in West Virginia in the last four years. An explosion at the Sago mine on Jan. 2, 2006, trapped 13 miners for nearly two days. Only one was found alive when a rescue crew was able to break through to the blast area. On Jan. 19 that same year, two miners died in a fire at the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1.
In Montcoal, during a nerve-racking 100-hour rescue effort, families and friends had clung to a sliver of hope that the four missing miners would be found alive. But, in a final foray into the heavily damaged mine, rescue workers found no survivors.
In a statement on Saturday, President Obama said the deaths had taken an “immeasurable” toll on all West Virginians. He vowed to “take whatever steps are necessary” to ensure that miners are safe and that there are no similar disasters. “We cannot bring back the men we lost,” Mr. Obama said. “What we can do, in their memory, is thoroughly investigate this tragedy and demand accountability.”
In shifting Saturday from rescue to recovery, emergency crews began the arduous process of trying to remove the 22 bodies still inside the mine. Seven bodies were recovered shortly after the blast, which also injured two people.
Officials believe the explosion was probably caused by a methane buildup, though that has not been verified. The Upper Big Branch mine has had repeated problems with methane buildups, as well as other ventilation violations.
In Whitesville, Beckley and other towns near the Upper Big Branch — which is about 30 miles south of Charleston — signs remained at churches and stores calling for people to pray for the miners and their families. Flags hung at half-staff. Black ribbons adorned several storefronts.
Much as the veins of coal lace the Appalachian Mountains, coal is ever-present among the residents of the hollows and towns that dot this rugged terrain.
Faith runs deep here, too.
“Their loved ones are now smiling down upon them,” Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat whose district includes the Upper Big Branch mine, said shortly after the announcement that all 29 miners had died. “And we all know that they are in a better place, and that they did not suffer in getting there.”
MONTCOAL, W.Va. — This community turned from prayers for a miracle rescue to all-out mourning on Saturday, hours after officials confirmed that the last four coal miners missing after a mine explosion last week were dead. That news brought the death toll to 29, making it the nation’s worst mine disaster in four decades.
On Friday, scores of people filed into churches across the region for the first of what is to be a string of funerals in the coming days.
The Massey Energy Company, which owns the Upper Big Branch mine, has said it will pay for the miners’ funerals. Church officials said that donations for the families of the miners were being accepted at the Montcoal Mining Disaster Fund, which was being run by the West Virginia Council of Churches. And Gov. Joe Manchin III has asked for a national moment of silence at 3:30 Monday afternoon, a week after the blast tore through the mine.
Both the Senate and the House plan to conduct hearings on the explosion. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, said lawmakers would scrutinize Massey’s practices.
The 29 deaths are the highest in an American mine since 1970, when 38 miners were killed in an explosion at the Finley Coal Company in Hyden, Ky.
The explosion last week was the third major mining disaster in West Virginia in the last four years. An explosion at the Sago mine on Jan. 2, 2006, trapped 13 miners for nearly two days. Only one was found alive when a rescue crew was able to break through to the blast area. On Jan. 19 that same year, two miners died in a fire at the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1.
In Montcoal, during a nerve-racking 100-hour rescue effort, families and friends had clung to a sliver of hope that the four missing miners would be found alive. But, in a final foray into the heavily damaged mine, rescue workers found no survivors.
In a statement on Saturday, President Obama said the deaths had taken an “immeasurable” toll on all West Virginians. He vowed to “take whatever steps are necessary” to ensure that miners are safe and that there are no similar disasters. “We cannot bring back the men we lost,” Mr. Obama said. “What we can do, in their memory, is thoroughly investigate this tragedy and demand accountability.”
In shifting Saturday from rescue to recovery, emergency crews began the arduous process of trying to remove the 22 bodies still inside the mine. Seven bodies were recovered shortly after the blast, which also injured two people.
Officials believe the explosion was probably caused by a methane buildup, though that has not been verified. The Upper Big Branch mine has had repeated problems with methane buildups, as well as other ventilation violations.
In Whitesville, Beckley and other towns near the Upper Big Branch — which is about 30 miles south of Charleston — signs remained at churches and stores calling for people to pray for the miners and their families. Flags hung at half-staff. Black ribbons adorned several storefronts.
Much as the veins of coal lace the Appalachian Mountains, coal is ever-present among the residents of the hollows and towns that dot this rugged terrain.
Faith runs deep here, too.
“Their loved ones are now smiling down upon them,” Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat whose district includes the Upper Big Branch mine, said shortly after the announcement that all 29 miners had died. “And we all know that they are in a better place, and that they did not suffer in getting there.”
Justice John Paul Stevens announces his retirement from Supreme Court
WASHINGTON POST
Justice John Paul Stevens announced Friday that he will retire this summer, and President Obama said he will move quickly to replace the Supreme Court's liberal leader and longest-serving member with someone who shares the belief that "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
Stevens, who will turn 90 on April 20, said in a letter addressed to "My dear Mr. President" that he will leave the court when the current term concludes at the end of June.
A Republican named to the court in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford, Stevens leaves a legacy of defending abortion rights, expanding protection for gays, restricting the availability of the death penalty and ensuring a robust role for judges in interpreting the nation's laws and curbing executive power.
He probably leaves with a sense of frustration as well: The court's conservative wing has become increasingly dominant under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The success Stevens enjoyed in putting together slim majorities for liberal outcomes made way for stinging dissents in which he has accused the current court of ignoring years of precedent.
Appearing in the White House Rose Garden shortly after his return from a trip to Europe, Obama described Stevens as a "brilliant, non-ideological, pragmatic" justice who "applied the Constitution and the laws of the land with fidelity and restraint."
Obama said he hoped the Senate would make sure Stevens's successor is in place for the beginning of the court's new term in October. The president listed the qualities he will look for in a nominee: "an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people."
Stevens has made clear for months that he was thinking of retiring, and the White House has been preparing for another opening.
This will be Obama's second chance to leave a mark on the court; because of justices' lifetime tenure, the decision can be one of a president's most lasting legacies. Last summer, Obama made history by nominating the court's first Latina member, Sonia Sotomayor, an appellate judge from New York.
But even with another choice, Obama will not shift the court's ideological balance. The court has four justices, including Stevens, who consistently are on the left and four, including Roberts, consistently on the right. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy often provides the deciding vote in close cases, and more often sides with conservatives.
But Stevens's departure will change the inner workings of the court. As the senior justice, he speaks second, after Roberts, in the private conferences in which the court makes its decisions. If he, instead of the chief justice, is in the majority, Stevens decides who will write the court's opinion. Legal experts say that at times he turned over an opinion to Kennedy, or former justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to secure five votes for limiting the death penalty, for instance, or defending affirmative action.
For that reason, the loss of Stevens will be felt even if he is replaced with a justice who shares his views. It is unlikely in the near future that any of the court's conservative justices would willingly step down.
Justice John Paul Stevens announced Friday that he will retire this summer, and President Obama said he will move quickly to replace the Supreme Court's liberal leader and longest-serving member with someone who shares the belief that "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
Stevens, who will turn 90 on April 20, said in a letter addressed to "My dear Mr. President" that he will leave the court when the current term concludes at the end of June.
A Republican named to the court in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford, Stevens leaves a legacy of defending abortion rights, expanding protection for gays, restricting the availability of the death penalty and ensuring a robust role for judges in interpreting the nation's laws and curbing executive power.
He probably leaves with a sense of frustration as well: The court's conservative wing has become increasingly dominant under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The success Stevens enjoyed in putting together slim majorities for liberal outcomes made way for stinging dissents in which he has accused the current court of ignoring years of precedent.
Appearing in the White House Rose Garden shortly after his return from a trip to Europe, Obama described Stevens as a "brilliant, non-ideological, pragmatic" justice who "applied the Constitution and the laws of the land with fidelity and restraint."
Obama said he hoped the Senate would make sure Stevens's successor is in place for the beginning of the court's new term in October. The president listed the qualities he will look for in a nominee: "an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people."
Stevens has made clear for months that he was thinking of retiring, and the White House has been preparing for another opening.
This will be Obama's second chance to leave a mark on the court; because of justices' lifetime tenure, the decision can be one of a president's most lasting legacies. Last summer, Obama made history by nominating the court's first Latina member, Sonia Sotomayor, an appellate judge from New York.
But even with another choice, Obama will not shift the court's ideological balance. The court has four justices, including Stevens, who consistently are on the left and four, including Roberts, consistently on the right. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy often provides the deciding vote in close cases, and more often sides with conservatives.
But Stevens's departure will change the inner workings of the court. As the senior justice, he speaks second, after Roberts, in the private conferences in which the court makes its decisions. If he, instead of the chief justice, is in the majority, Stevens decides who will write the court's opinion. Legal experts say that at times he turned over an opinion to Kennedy, or former justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to secure five votes for limiting the death penalty, for instance, or defending affirmative action.
For that reason, the loss of Stevens will be felt even if he is replaced with a justice who shares his views. It is unlikely in the near future that any of the court's conservative justices would willingly step down.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack. Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”
In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.
He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons. But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.
The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.
There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack. Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”
In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.
He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons. But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.
The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.
There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Strains Easing, Obama Talks With Chinese Leader
NEW YORK TIMES
BEIJING — Tensions between China and the United States have ebbed significantly in recent days, with an hour-long conversation between their two presidents Thursday night and the countries working together to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the Obama administration backs off a politically charged clash over China’s currency.
In the call Thursday night, President Obama spoke by phone with Mr. Hu for about an hour — so long that Air Force One had to be held for 10 minutes on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base after landing so that Mr. Obama could finish up the conversation. Chinese television reported that Mr. Hu expressed a desire for healthier ties while stressing Beijing’s positions on Taiwan and Tibet, and the White House said Mr. Obama stressed for China press Iran on its nuclear ambitions to ensure the country “lives up to its international obligations.”
The warming trend that began earlier this week gained momentum on Thursday by the announcement that President Hu Jintao will attend Mr. Obama’s nuclear security summit meeting in Washington later this month. American officials had feared that Mr. Hu would skip the talks to convey China’s anger over recent diplomatic clashes, including a White House decision to sell arms to Taiwan and President Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader.
For now, the United States is setting aside the most potentially divisive issue, deferring a decision on whether to accuse China of manipulating its currency, the renminbi, until well after Mr. Hu’s visit, according to a senior administration official. That decision, the official said, reflects a judgment that threatening China is not the best way to persuade it to allow the renminbi to appreciate against the dollar.
Many economists expect China to act on its own to loosen the tight link between the renminbi and the dollar — a policy that keeps the currency’s value depressed and makes Chinese exports more competitive in global markets.
Still, the administration’s decision not to force the currency issue now could carry political risks at home. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation calling for trade sanctions against China if it does not change its currency policy. And unions and manufacturers cite the undervalued Chinese currency as a major culprit for lost jobs.
On Wednesday, China appeared to throw its support behind new United Nations sanctions aimed at putting pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. The Security Council has been stymied by China’s insistence on diplomacy over sanctions. But in its own statements on Friday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry appeared to steer clear from any commitment for sanctions, saying that all parties should “step up diplomatic efforts, and show flexibility, to create the conditions to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiation.” Still, earlier this week, Mr. Obama expressed optimism that the major powers could unite this spring behind a resolution that would apply new pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.
Mr. Hu’s visit will take place only two days before the Obama administration faces a deadline to decide whether to label China a “currency manipulator,” meaning that it intervenes in currency markets to gives its exporters an artificial advantage. Pressure in the United States has been building to take that step, which could initiate a Congressional process that would lead to slapping tariffs on Chinese imports.
But given the potential for embarrassing Mr. Hu — and for sending bilateral relations into another tailspin — the administration decided not to report on April 15, one of the deadlines set by Congress and the Treasury Department to issue a report on possible currency manipulation.
Although their telephone conversation did not touch on the issue of the renminbi, Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu reportedly talked about trade, the Iranian nuclear crisis and China’s positions on Tibet and Taiwan, which remains a paramount concern to the Chinese. “The Taiwan and Tibet issues are key to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and relate to China’s core interests,” the state media quoted Mr. Hu as saying. “Appropriately handling these issues is key to ensuring the healthy and stable development of U.S.-China ties.”
Relations between the countries began to fray in November, soon after Mr. Obama went to China on a state visit that was more circumscribed than American officials would have liked.
In the months that followed, tensions increased. Chinese leaders threatened to punish the United States for a $6 billion weapons deal for Taiwan, and in February, China’s Foreign Ministry called in the American ambassador for a scolding about Mr. Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, whom China calls a separatist.
BEIJING — Tensions between China and the United States have ebbed significantly in recent days, with an hour-long conversation between their two presidents Thursday night and the countries working together to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the Obama administration backs off a politically charged clash over China’s currency.
In the call Thursday night, President Obama spoke by phone with Mr. Hu for about an hour — so long that Air Force One had to be held for 10 minutes on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base after landing so that Mr. Obama could finish up the conversation. Chinese television reported that Mr. Hu expressed a desire for healthier ties while stressing Beijing’s positions on Taiwan and Tibet, and the White House said Mr. Obama stressed for China press Iran on its nuclear ambitions to ensure the country “lives up to its international obligations.”
The warming trend that began earlier this week gained momentum on Thursday by the announcement that President Hu Jintao will attend Mr. Obama’s nuclear security summit meeting in Washington later this month. American officials had feared that Mr. Hu would skip the talks to convey China’s anger over recent diplomatic clashes, including a White House decision to sell arms to Taiwan and President Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader.
For now, the United States is setting aside the most potentially divisive issue, deferring a decision on whether to accuse China of manipulating its currency, the renminbi, until well after Mr. Hu’s visit, according to a senior administration official. That decision, the official said, reflects a judgment that threatening China is not the best way to persuade it to allow the renminbi to appreciate against the dollar.
Many economists expect China to act on its own to loosen the tight link between the renminbi and the dollar — a policy that keeps the currency’s value depressed and makes Chinese exports more competitive in global markets.
Still, the administration’s decision not to force the currency issue now could carry political risks at home. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation calling for trade sanctions against China if it does not change its currency policy. And unions and manufacturers cite the undervalued Chinese currency as a major culprit for lost jobs.
On Wednesday, China appeared to throw its support behind new United Nations sanctions aimed at putting pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. The Security Council has been stymied by China’s insistence on diplomacy over sanctions. But in its own statements on Friday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry appeared to steer clear from any commitment for sanctions, saying that all parties should “step up diplomatic efforts, and show flexibility, to create the conditions to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiation.” Still, earlier this week, Mr. Obama expressed optimism that the major powers could unite this spring behind a resolution that would apply new pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.
Mr. Hu’s visit will take place only two days before the Obama administration faces a deadline to decide whether to label China a “currency manipulator,” meaning that it intervenes in currency markets to gives its exporters an artificial advantage. Pressure in the United States has been building to take that step, which could initiate a Congressional process that would lead to slapping tariffs on Chinese imports.
But given the potential for embarrassing Mr. Hu — and for sending bilateral relations into another tailspin — the administration decided not to report on April 15, one of the deadlines set by Congress and the Treasury Department to issue a report on possible currency manipulation.
Although their telephone conversation did not touch on the issue of the renminbi, Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu reportedly talked about trade, the Iranian nuclear crisis and China’s positions on Tibet and Taiwan, which remains a paramount concern to the Chinese. “The Taiwan and Tibet issues are key to China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and relate to China’s core interests,” the state media quoted Mr. Hu as saying. “Appropriately handling these issues is key to ensuring the healthy and stable development of U.S.-China ties.”
Relations between the countries began to fray in November, soon after Mr. Obama went to China on a state visit that was more circumscribed than American officials would have liked.
In the months that followed, tensions increased. Chinese leaders threatened to punish the United States for a $6 billion weapons deal for Taiwan, and in February, China’s Foreign Ministry called in the American ambassador for a scolding about Mr. Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, whom China calls a separatist.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Bullied girl commits suicide
By Shane Hickey
INDEPENDENT IE NATIONAL NEWS
THE official in charge of a US school where an Irish teenager was bullied before she took her own life has defended how staff handled the situation which has resulted in nine students facing charges.
Schools superintendent Gus Sayer said staff at the school where Phoebe Prince was a pupil only became aware of the degree of bullying the 15-year-old was facing a week before her suicide.
Phoebe had been living in Massachusetts since last year after her family moved from Fanore in Co Clare where she had grown up. She killed herself after a tirade of bullying from a group of so-called 'mean girls' which followed a brief relationship she had with a football player in her school.
Officials have come in for substantial criticism since the death in January with the possibility of legal charges being laid against them not being ruled out. However, Mr Sayer has told US media that they took "very strong action" once they became aware of the abuse, which extended to social networking websites. "We don't have knowledge of any bullying or other incidents before that. No one turned their back on this. I think we did everything we could. If I thought I had done something wrong, I would resign. But I think we did our best," he said.
Earlier this week, local district attorney Elizabeth Schiebel said the bullying had been common knowledge amongst the student body, criticising the alleged lack of action on behalf of some members of staff at South Hadley High School.
Phoebe hanged herself in her family's apartment on January 14, after a final, horrific day of abuse.
Mr Sayer disagreed with the district attorney and said her claims countered the findings of an investigation conducted by school principal Dan Smith. "Based on our investigation, that wasn't the case. He followed up every lead, but we didn't get any other reports," he said.
He said the abuse happened outside of the awareness of adults. "The kids have a way of communicating with each other without us knowing about it,'' he said. "They really have their own world.'' These comments in turn were responded to by Ms Schiebel who accused the schools official of "lashing out" and being unaware of the evidence.
Nine students, including seven girls, have been charged with offences including civil rights violations, statutory rape, stalking and inflicting bodily injury to Phoebe Prince.
INDEPENDENT IE NATIONAL NEWS
THE official in charge of a US school where an Irish teenager was bullied before she took her own life has defended how staff handled the situation which has resulted in nine students facing charges.
Schools superintendent Gus Sayer said staff at the school where Phoebe Prince was a pupil only became aware of the degree of bullying the 15-year-old was facing a week before her suicide.
Phoebe had been living in Massachusetts since last year after her family moved from Fanore in Co Clare where she had grown up. She killed herself after a tirade of bullying from a group of so-called 'mean girls' which followed a brief relationship she had with a football player in her school.
Officials have come in for substantial criticism since the death in January with the possibility of legal charges being laid against them not being ruled out. However, Mr Sayer has told US media that they took "very strong action" once they became aware of the abuse, which extended to social networking websites. "We don't have knowledge of any bullying or other incidents before that. No one turned their back on this. I think we did everything we could. If I thought I had done something wrong, I would resign. But I think we did our best," he said.
Earlier this week, local district attorney Elizabeth Schiebel said the bullying had been common knowledge amongst the student body, criticising the alleged lack of action on behalf of some members of staff at South Hadley High School.
Phoebe hanged herself in her family's apartment on January 14, after a final, horrific day of abuse.
Mr Sayer disagreed with the district attorney and said her claims countered the findings of an investigation conducted by school principal Dan Smith. "Based on our investigation, that wasn't the case. He followed up every lead, but we didn't get any other reports," he said.
He said the abuse happened outside of the awareness of adults. "The kids have a way of communicating with each other without us knowing about it,'' he said. "They really have their own world.'' These comments in turn were responded to by Ms Schiebel who accused the schools official of "lashing out" and being unaware of the evidence.
Nine students, including seven girls, have been charged with offences including civil rights violations, statutory rape, stalking and inflicting bodily injury to Phoebe Prince.