text:
How does natural selection account for language? Darwin wrestled with it, Chomsky sidestepped it, and Pinker claimed to solve it. Discerning the evolution of language is therefore a much sought endeavour, with a vast number of explanations emerging that offer a plethora of choice, but little in the way of consensus. This is hardly new, and at times has seemed completely frivolous and trivial. So much so that in the 19th Century, the Royal Linguistic Society in London actually went as far as to ban any discussion and debate on the origins of language. Put simply: we don't really know that much. Often quoted in these debates is Alfred Russell Wallace, who, in a letter to Darwin, argued that: "natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape whereas he possesses one very little inferior to that of an average member of our learned society".
This is obviously relevant for those of us studying language evolution. If, as Wallace challenged, natural selection (and more broadly, evolution) is unable to account for our mental capacities and behavioural capabilities, then what is the source behind our propensity for language? Well, I think we've come far enough to rule out the spiritual explanations of Wallace (although it still persists on some corners of the web), and whilst I agree that biological natural selection alone is not sufficient to explain language, we can certainly place it in an evolutionary framework.
Such is the position of Prof Terrence Deacon, who, in his current paper for PNAS, eloquently argues for a role for relaxed selection in the evolution of the language capacity. He's been making these noises for a while now, as I previously mentioned here, with him also recognising evolutionary-similar processes in development. However, with the publication of this paper I think it's about time I disseminated his current ideas in more detail, which, in my humble opinion, offers a more nuanced position than the strict modular adaptationism previously championed by Pinker et al (I say previously, because Pinker also has a paper in this issue, and I'm going to read it before making any claims about his current position on the matter).
At its core, Deacon's proposal is that the relaxation of selection pressures allows genetic control to be offloaded onto epigenetic processes. This in turn allows for a greater influence of social transmission due to development being open to experiential modification. Our capacity for language, then, is a story of how developmental and evolutionary dynamics interact. As a recent post over at Babel's Dawn notes, this is basically a three-phase scenario:
- Standard primate brain in which midbrain areas (older parts of the brain) control vocal emotional communications.
- A duplication of a section of the genome leads to "relaxed selection" and extensive cross talk between many cerebral cortical systems (newer parts of the brain).
- "Unmasked selection" fixes new functional coordination and drives the brain's anatomical reorganization.
The first aspect we need to appreciate is how Darwinian-like processes operate at the developmental-level. Deacon cites many instances, such as the fine-tuning of axonal connection patterns in the developing nervous system, where developmental processes are achieved through selection-like operations. Importantly, though, the logic differs from natural selection in one respect: "selection of this sort is confined to differential preservation only, not differential reproduction. In this respect, it is like one generation of the operation of natural selection".The point he's trying to get across is that these intraselection processes are taking place right across nature. Take, for instance, the genus Spalax (the blind mole rat): during development its thalamic visual nucleus is dominated by brainstem auditory and somatic projections. This is because the blind mole rat has vestigial eyes (hence the name), with projections from their small retinas being out-competed in favour of somatic and auditory functions. As Deacon notes:
Experimental manipulations in other species, in which projections from one sensory modality are reduced in early development, likewise exhibit analogous takeover effects, and manipulations of the sensory periphery likewise demonstrate that intraselection adapts neural functional topography with respect to functional experience.
Such developmental flexibility is crucial in that it provides a general mechanism for natural selection to recruit in brain evolution. And as such, it is almost certainly relevant to the evolution of the human brain in relation to language. From this evodevo perspective, Deacon goes onto highlight how Darwinian processes characterising natural selection (replication, variation, and differential fitness) have analogous counterparts in intraorganismic processes (redundancy, degeneracy, and functional interdependencies):
First, they involve processes that produce functional integration and/or adaptation even though they are generated by mechanisms that are dissociated from this consequence. Second, they all involve the generation of redundant variant replicas of some prior form (gene, cell, connection, antibody, etc.) brought into interaction with each other and with an external context in a way that allows these differences to affect their subsequent distribution. And third, their preservation and expression are dependent on correlation with context.
According to Deacon, these parallels with evolutionary processes are generally distinguished through the level at which selection operates — and how these interactions generate functional redundancy. Specifically, he looks at three types of redundancy: (i) internal redundancy; (ii) external redundancy; and, (iii) global external redundancy.
Types of Redundancy
In internal redundancy, duplicated genes enable relaxed selection. It's an odd inversion natural selection, where instead of the competitive elimination of gene variants, evolution favours preservation. Under this scenario, the original gene will continue its functional role, whilst the duplicate gene is allowed to accrue mutations, subsequently increasing the possibility of deleterious interactions and exposing synergistic possibilities. Selection then either removes these deleterious interactions or takes advantage of the these new synergistic interactions. Furthermore, this is happening both within and between organisms, as Deacon explains:
For example, the duplication and differentiation of regulatory genes, such as the well-studied homeobox containing genes that control segmental organization in insects and vertebrates via their regulation of the expression of a diverse range of other genes, enables duplication-degradation-complementation at the phenotypic level. The generation of structural redundancy of body parts (e.g., limbs) via segmental duplication similarly relaxes selection on some with respect to others. Again, this increases the probability that random walk degradation will expose synergistic possibilities (e.g., locomotor function) that will become subject to selective stabilization in their own right.
Next is external redundancy which is the product of functional duplication, rather than gene duplication. Here, an extrinsic source provides the organism with a function previously supplied by a particular gene. Although these forms of duplication are analogous to one another in influence, they can produce significantly different consequences. Take, for instance, the loss of endogenous vitamin C synthesis in some lineages. Instead of internally synthesising vitamin C, humans, and some other species, must frequently acquire vitamin C from external sources. But as Deacon notes, "the human genome includes a pseudogene for the final enzyme in the ascorbic acid synthesis pathway: l-gulono-gamma lactone oxidase (GULO)". Thanks to external sources of vitamin C, the human GULO gene underwent functional degradation and, if you think about it, shifted selection pressures onto a form of dietary addiction:
Because this essential nutrient was only available extrinsically, selection to maintain its antioxidant function shifted to any sensory biases, behavioral tendencies, and digestive-metabolic mechanisms that increased the probability of obtaining it. What was once selection focused on a single gene locus became fractionally distributed across a great many loci instead.
His last type, global external redundancy, is basically when the relaxation of selection produces global dedifferentiation effects. An example of this is when a species is not under strict reproductive and survival limitations, as seen in domestication. One example Deacon focuses on is the White-Backed Munia: over the course of approximately 250-years, Japanese breeders bred the Munia for colouration, and eventually came up with Bengalese Finch. What's relevant about these domesticated hybrids is in their ability to acquire songs via social learning. Conversely, the White-Backed Munia does not acquire its song via social learning; rather, it's genetically inherited. This leads to differences in the rigidity of the songs — the Bengalese Finch having far more variability within and between individuals than their wild cousins.
Oddly enough, it appears that by inhibiting the stabilising effects of natural and sexual selection for birdsong, the Bengalese Finch actually underwent behavioural complexity. This is clear in how the socially-acquired songs require far more forebrain nuclei and their interconnections, than the innately pre-specified song of the White-Backed Munia. As Deacon explains:
As constraints on song generation degraded with prolonged domestication, other neural systems that previously were too weak to have an influence on song structure could now have an effect. These include systems involved in motor learning, conditionally modifiable behaviors, and auditory learning. Because sensory and motor biases can be significantly affected by experience, song structure could also become increasingly subject to auditory experience and the influence of social stimuli. In this way, additional neural circuit involvement and the increased importance of social transmission in the determination of song structure can be reflections of functional dedifferentiation, and yet can also be sources of serendipitous synergistic effects as well.
By appealing to the dedifferentiation and redistribution effects of relaxed selection, Deacon argues for a tendency to shift from an innate, localised function onto a more distributed array of systems. Of course, Birdsong is far simpler than human language, and we'd be careful to avoid drawing too many conclusions. But there are, however, some interesting parallels between the differentiating aspects of human language and primate vocal communication and the Finch/Munia example:
These include (i) a significant decrease in the specific arousal-coupling of vocal behaviors, (ii) minimization of constraint on the ordering and combination of vocal sounds, (iii) reduction, simplification of the innate call repertoire, (iv) subordination of innate call features to a secondary role in emotional tone expression via speech prosody, (v) a significantly increased role of auditory learning via social transmission, (vi) widely distributed synergistic forebrain control of language compared with highly localized subcortical control of innate vocalizations, and, of course, (vii) an increased social-cognitive regulation of the function of vocal communication.
All this basically leads to the following question: Are humans a self-domesticated species? If so, genetic dedifferentiation of the nervous system may not only have led to the functional complexity in human language, but also contributed to more widespread degeneration; influencing our suite of seemingly unique cognitive, social and emotional abilities. Deacon's central point is that these processes are not exclusively the products of natural and sexual selection. Instead, we must also appreciate the many levels of inter-linked dynamics at play, including phylogeny and ontogeny. It is also the case that language itself exhibits an evolutionary dynamic. This additional twist allows language to evolve and adapt irrespective of human biological evolution, which, as I mentioned here, can account for the arbitrary features of language, such as X-bar theory and case marking, without appealing to a domain-specific language module.
This is somewhat of a return to Deacon's older argument: a coevolutionary scenario between language evolution and biological evolution. So that whilst our brains have undergone adaptation to the special demands of language processing, languages themselves are also utilising similar evolutionary mechanisms to favour advantageous variants. We should therefore see language adapting to constraints like learnability: where languages become increasingly learnable for their speaker-hearer community. Importantly, language is generally evolving faster than biology:
This means that brain functions selected for the special cognitive, perception, and production demands of language will reflect only the most persistent and invariant demands of this highly variable linguistic niche. This is another reason to expect that the synergistic constellation of human brain adaptations to language will not include specific grammatical content, and to suspect that much of the rich functional organization of any language is subject to influences on this extragenomic form of evolution. In other words, the differential reproduction of language structures through history will be dependent on the fidelity and fecundity of their transmission.
We're only dealing with the basic framework here, and not any systematic treatment for how language evolved. What's now needed is to incorporate findings, and test specific hypotheses, relating to these three basic evolutionary systems: phylogeny, ontogeny and glossogeny (picture taken from Kirby & Hurford, 2001).
Citation: Deacon, T. (2010). Colloquium Paper: A role for relaxed selection in the evolution of the language capacity Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (Supplement_2), 9000-9006 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0914624107


text:
Thank You for Volunteering
Now, let's get you registered.
All regional volunteers must be registered. No exceptions.
When registering on the National System, indicate Regnl Volunteer if you are not a coach or referee.
If you are a Returning, Previously Registered Volunteer - Simply Goto http://eayso.org and Renew
NOTE: Click for Privacy Policy - Adults must enter SSN and Driver's License Number
to our National eAYSO system for the FBI Background Check
- eAYSO is our National Registry System. We must register all volunteers to meet federal Child Protection Act requirements, insurance requirements, and City of Palo Alto and PAUSD obligations. Whether you work directly with children or not in your volunteering capacity, as a volunteer of Palo Alto AYSO you are required to be registered in our national registry.
- eAYSO is secure. Access to the information is controlled and limited to only certified persons who have a need to know, and your personal identity information such as SSN or Drivers license is not visible to anyone except the few people at national headquarters responsible for FBI national background checks. That information is not visible to any other staff, and not visible to any volunteers, including ALL Palo Alto AYSO personnel.
Procedure for New Volunteers
You are a new volunteer if you have not previously registered in eAYSO. If you have an account in eAYSO, simply go to http://eayso.org and login, and click the blue link, "Apply as a returning adult volunteer".
Your account must be unique. Make sure your email address, name and login are unique and not used by a spouse, friend or child.
Create an Account for Yourself and Register

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Nuggets backup PG Julyan Stone out possibly until January
Julyan Stone is still recovering from his hip surgery, and today Nuggets coach George Karl said his No. 3 point guard could be sidelined all the way until January.
The Nuggets love the undrafted 6-6 point guard who, as a rookie last season, showcased a strong work ethic and the ability to play the point at such height. Still, he didn't play much last season and probably wouldn't have played too much this fall, but the team continues to develop Stone, who works out often with the touted assistant coach John Welch.
At the point, Denver starts Ty Lawson and Andre Miller comes off the bench, giving Denver, what Karl calls, "two starting point guards."
While the Nuggets have 15 guys under contract, the still have two additional PGs in camp – Anthony Carter and Ben Uzoh.
Asked about how his team will handle the PG position with Stone out, Karl said, "It's a philosophical discussion to have at the end of camp."
Benjamin Hochman: firstname.lastname@example.com or twitter.com/nuggetsnews


text:
20 million viewers expected for Pro Cycling Challenge telecast
COLORADO SPRINGS — Notes down the side of a Colorado state map during the USA Pro Cycling Challenge's self-congratulatory press conference Sunday:
• Race CEO Shawn Hunter said between Versus and NBC, 161 countries will see the inaugural race. That adds up, he said, to more than 20 million viewers. Colorado Springs mayor Steve Bach expects 50,000-75,000 spectators on the streets for this afternoon's 5.2-mile prologue from Garden of the Gods to downtown Colorado Springs.


text:
About twenty minutes before President Bush announced that John G. Roberts, Jr., was his choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, he telephoned Harry Reid, of Nevada, the Senate Minority Leader. As Reid recalls the brief conversation, Bush said, "This guy is really smart, and you'll like him." Reid replied, "I hope so," and added that, during the search, he had enjoyed working with the White House legal counsel, Harriet Miers. (A few days earlier, Reid had met with Miers and had suggested ways to avoid a divisive confirmation process.) Mentioning her name, Reid said, was a signal—his way of telling Bush, "Thanks for not giving us any of these crazies." Or, as he put it a little later, the President "didn't give us somebody who people like me were jumping up and down screaming the first time the name was uttered."
Reid has been the Democrats' leader in the Senate for six months. He is sixty-five, a trim man with short, graying hair and slightly stooped shoulders, and not someone who appears likely to jump up and down screaming. When we met last week in his Capitol office, it was clear that the Roberts nomination had come as a relief. "There were lots of people we didn't want, and I made sure he knew what those names were," Reid said, and mentioned the federal judges Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown, among others. "I think the President submitted someone who he thinks won't be much trouble." Nonetheless, Reid was reserving judgment until the F.B.I. investigation and the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were completed. "Roberts is not a slam dunk," he said. "I'm just keeping, as some have heard me say, my powder dry until we find out what the deal is." And yet he couldn't quite conceal his pleasure.
The day after Bush made his choice public, Roberts went to Capitol Hill to meet with some of the senators who will eventually be asked to vote on his confirmation. Reid, who is a former trial lawyer, spent thirty minutes with Roberts. One thing he asked him was how he felt about Supreme Court precedents—in particular, on what grounds they might be overturned. "Precedent is so important to me in the law," Reid told him.
Roberts, Reid recalled, said, " 'Oh, on the Supreme Court you can change precedent only if there's this and this,' and he was rattling them off. I hope I didn't act surprised, but I'd never heard anything like that before." Roberts, in Reid's view, left no doubt that he would be very reluctant to overturn precedents. To do so, Roberts had said, the Court would first have to consider a series of objective criteria, two of which stood out: whether a precedent fostered stability in the nation; and the extent to which society had come to rely on an earlier ruling, even a dubious one. "I thought it would be more of a weaselly answer than that, but he said you have to meet all these standards before you can change a precedent," Reid said. Roberts's view of precedent is likely to be an important issue during the upcoming confirmation hearings. Earl Maltz, a conservative and a professor at the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, says that what Roberts told Reid could be "very significant," because it runs counter to the "originalist" approach of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who believe that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted, according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers; on that premise, some previously decided cases, including Roe v. Wade, would be ripe for overturning. "The Constitution is not a living organism," Scalia has said.
The other important part of their conversation, as Reid recounted it, had to do with an environmental case that Roberts had successfully argued before the Supreme Court in 2002—"one of the biggest environmental victories in decades," Reid said. As a private attorney, Roberts had represented the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which had been sued for imposing a building moratorium in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Under questioning by the Justices, Roberts had cited the potential for "irreparable harm" to the lake, and at one point said, "A temporary ban on development doesn't render property valueless." The environment is one of Reid's causes, and what impressed Reid was that Roberts's argument had been reasoned, not doctrinaire—"He based it on the facts." Reid felt that the case demonstrated Roberts's ability to grasp both sides of a debate.
Reid more than once compared Roberts to Justice David Souter, who was appointed by the first President Bush, in 1990, and today is widely detested by conservatives because he frequently sides with the more liberal Justices. Souter and Reid are friendly. "He's my favorite man on the Court," Reid said. "I think he's such a wonderful man, and he believes in precedent. That's all he's doing. He's just following the law." Reid smiled, and continued, "If somebody is a real lawyer and not a Clarence Thomas or Edith Jones, who is there not to be a judge but to be a legislator, it gives us some hope, and so, if he is approved, I would hope he would turn out like Souter or somebody like that." There is, to be sure, little in Roberts's early record to suggest that he is anything but a conservative. A Washington Post report last week, for instance, quoted documents suggesting that Roberts had been an aggressive advocate of Ronald Reagan's agenda when he served as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith.
Reid, though, believes that Bush chose Roberts in a moment of political weakness. Two months earlier, the Democrats had been successful in beating back the so-called "nuclear option"—Senator Trent Lott's infelicitous name for the Republican attempt to change long-standing Senate rules on the filibuster. That issue had occupied the Senate for months, and for good reason: Republicans have a ten-vote advantage in the hundred-member Senate, but it requires sixty votes to stop a filibuster; the Republican leadership wanted to change that to a simple majority of fifty-one votes, which would have made it almost impossible for the Democrats to block a controversial Supreme Court nomination. "I don't want to stick my finger in his eye, at this stage," Reid said, speaking of Bush. "I'm trying, in a nice way, to say I think everyone's experience here with the nuclear option has made everyone, including the President, more cautious about judges, because, as it turned out, we spent a third of the Senate's time so far this year basically on it." The filibuster issue was finally resolved by means of a complex bargain worked out by a group of centrist Republicans and Democrats, who became known as the Gang of Fourteen. In the end, the filibuster was preserved. The result was widely seen as a victory for Reid and a setback for his counterpart, Majority Leader Bill Frist, of Tennessee.
After that, Reid said, Bush "just didn't need another fight." He added, "He's had plenty." He pointed to a drop in Bush's approval rating, and cited a recent Wall Street Journal / NBC News poll in which only forty-one per cent of the respondents said they believed that Bush was honest and straightforward. Reid attributed the President's declining popularity to bad news from Iraq, the investigation into whether his key political adviser, Karl Rove, leaked the name of an undercover C.I.A. agent, and his proposal, now faltering, to privatize part of Social Security. "He's always been king of the hill," Reid said. "His numbers have been good, but they're not good now." Reid also thought that Bush had come to have a different view of him. "I just don't think he estimated me at all—under or over." Now, Reid said, "I think he understands me a little bit more than he used to."
This spring, I went to see Reid in Nevada, which he has represented in Washington since 1983, in the House of Representatives for two terms and, since 1987, in the Senate. Outside his home state, or the orbit of the United States Capitol, though, he is not widely known. During one stop, Reid called around the country to some committed Democratic donors. In two out of three calls, he had to identify himself several times before the recipient figured out who he was. "This is Harry Reid." Pause. "I'm a U.S. senator." Pause. "Harry Reid. I'm the Senate Minority Leader. Harry R-E-I-D." When he hung up, he turned to me and said, "I guess I'm not too well known in that household."
In Nevada, a state where the federal government owns nearly ninety per cent of the land and politics can be incestuous, Reid's power and influence are widespread. He was embarrassed two years ago when a Los Angeles Times story revealed that one of his sons and his son-in-law had lobbied in Washington for "companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate." Over the previous four years, the newspaper reported, these efforts, supported by Reid, brought more than two million dollars in business to firms that employed family members. At the time, Reid's four sons, ranging in age from thirty to forty-two, worked for Nevada's largest law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins. The story noted that the Howard Hughes Corporation alone "paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of [Reid's] son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development" in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. When I asked Reid about the L.A. Times story, he pointed out that his son-in-law had been a lobbyist before his daughter married him. Susan McCue, Reid's chief of staff, said in an e-mail that when the newspaper started making inquiries "Senator Reid (and I) agreed that we needed to put up a wall between any family members lobbying and this office for the sake of appearances, even if they're working on issues that benefit Nevada." Soon after he was interviewed by L.A. Times reporters, Reid banned relatives from lobbying his office.
Reid seems, at first, an unlikely choice for party leader in the Senate, especially given the tradition of men like Lyndon Johnson, whose method of leadership was to cajole and threaten his colleagues. Reid doesn't have the sort of domineering personality that L.B.J. had; in fact, despite an occasionally quick temper, he can seem almost shy. But, if Reid is no Johnson, he has, unlike his immediate predecessor, Tom Daschle, of South Dakota, or Frist, been able to keep his party largely united. That is due, in part, to his attentiveness; he is in constant contact with colleagues, and even reserves a pocket in his suit for their written requests. Susan McCue says that Reid is always assessing a person's vulnerabilities in order to "disarm, to endear, to threaten, but most of all to instill fear." And Reid has made it plain that there are consequences for stepping out of line. Without Reid's approval, Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota, who was making a bid to chair the Democratic National Committee, announced that he had Reid's support. Reid—a friend of Dorgan's—promptly and publicly withdrew his backing.
Like L.B.J. and other Southwestern politicians, such as Barry Goldwater, Reid has a habit of using language that his critics say is inappropriate for a Senate leader. "I think Senator Reid often says what we're all thinking but perhaps are afraid to say," Senator Edward Kennedy says. Reid has called Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, a "political hack," said that Clarence Thomas was an "embarrassment," and labelled Bush a "loser" and a "liar." He surprised the Democratic operative Jim Johnson, who was conducting John Kerry's search for a running mate, by sharply criticizing a long list of potential candidates, including John Edwards.
In public presentations, Reid is sometimes barely audible, which forces his spokesman to stand very close to him to hear what he says. In his haste to finish a speech, he sometimes mangles the text, and he is not much liked by television—he suffers from a certain charisma gap. When I asked him one day which former Senate leader he most admired, he mentioned Mike Mansfield, of Montana, who was the Majority Leader from 1961 to 1977. "He hated going on programs like 'Meet the Press,' and he was so bad they eventually hated having him on," he said. Yet the aversion to television also works to Reid's advantage. As former Senator John Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana, says, "It's easier for an elected official like Harry to be more trusted and accepted by his colleagues if they don't think that he's out in front trying to do it for the media."
To most politicians, this kind of anonymity would be torment. But Reid is not aspiring to be the face of the Democratic Party, or even its voice. "I know my limitations," he said, and added, "I haven't gotten where I am by my good looks, my athletic ability, my great brain, my oratorical skills." Reid is a Mormon, and differs with most of his Democratic colleagues on social issues. He is opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, and supports the death penalty. He voted for both Persian Gulf wars. At a time when the White House and Congress are controlled by Republicans, Reid's essential role is defensive—to hold the line for his party when the Bush agenda threatens to trample what Democrats most value. And, despite his relative anonymity, Reid has certainly been noticed by conservatives. When the Senate finally reached a deal on the filibuster, James Dobson, the ultraconservative chairman of Focus on the Family, delivered a backhanded compliment to Reid. "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," Dobson said.
When Reid talks to constituents, he likes to single out staffers for particular praise. He told a group of Las Vegas businessmen that Susan McCue was one of ten children and that "she worked like a dog to get through college." McCue, who is thirty-nine, and has worked intermittently for Reid since 1990, rolled her eyes at Reid's description. When Reid speaks about Bush, his tone changes; he has called Bush "King George," and in Las Vegas he told a group of community activists that the President's view was "If you're poor it's your fault. Go out and be part of America's success. Go out and get a job and be rich." And he added, "I wish it were so." When I asked McCue about this apparent class sensitivity, she said, "It's not resentment on Reid's part. But he knows they"—Reid and Bush—"are from different sides of the track." She urged me to visit Searchlight, Nevada, where Reid was born and has a home—a place that does double duty as a political backdrop, evoking the authentic Old West.
Seven years ago, Reid wrote a history of his home town, "Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail," published by the University of Nevada, in which he observed, "There are no permanent towns that survive on mining alone. When the tide goes out, when the boom is over, the debris is all that is left. . . . When the town fades, those with money, talent, and initiative generally depart quickly, leaving behind the diehards, the outcasts, the mavericks, or those too old or too sick to move on." Today in Searchlight, which is about a mile long, one can see the two-room cinder-block schoolhouse that Reid attended, a small casino on the main street, and a McDonald's. Almost all the houses are double-wide mobile homes, with no landscaping.
There were about two hundred people left in the town when Reid was born, in 1939, the third of four sons of Harry Reid, Sr., a gold miner with an elementary-school education, and his wife, Inez, who did laundry for some of the local bordellos, which were by then the town's primary business. Reid's boyhood home was built out of scavenged railroad ties; it had no indoor toilet and no hot water. There were no telephones in Searchlight until the nineteen-fifties. When Reid's younger brother, Larry, broke a leg in a bicycle accident, the leg was never set. "We didn't go to doctors in those days unless it was a matter of life and death," Reid said. "And he just lay there. It was so painful, and you couldn't touch the bed. And that's the way it just was for several days." (Larry and another brother are retired; the third, an alcoholic, died in 1977.) Reid's parents drank and his father often got into brawls. "He didn't like people coming around and wouldn't let us answer the door even if we were home," Reid said. When he could no longer work, because of silicosis, a miner's cough, Reid's father stopped drinking, but at the age of fifty-eight he committed suicide, with a gunshot to the head. "He was always depressed," Reid said, adding that his father's depression was evident to him only in hindsight. "We always joke that Dad sobered up and killed himself." His mother tacked to the wall a blue pillowcase with gold fringe and a message of perseverance that originated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt: "We can. We will. We must."
Because the school in Searchlight went only up to eighth grade, every week Reid hitchhiked forty miles to Henderson, a factory town, where he boarded with relatives while he went to the public high school. "I always knew I wanted to get out of there," he said of Searchlight. "I knew that from the time I was a little kid." In Henderson, Reid met Landra Gould, the woman whom he eventually married. Reid said that Gould's parents, who were Jewish, liked him until they realized how serious the couple was—"They wanted their daughter to marry a Jewish boy"—and tried to end the relationship. Her father, Landra Reid told me, "would tear up Harry's letters, hang up the phone on him. They had a fight in the front yard." Reid has said that the fight ended when he knocked his future father-in-law, a chiropractor, to the ground. Landra says, "I remember a lot of yelling and pushing." In 1959, when Harry was twenty and Landra was nineteen, they eloped. After a honeymoon dinner at a Chinese restaurant in Las Vegas, Landra called home to report the news; within days, she got a letter from her parents saying that, despite their misgivings, their daughter's happiness came first. Reid now wears his father-in-law's ring.
In Henderson, Reid also met Donal (Mike) O'Callaghan, who arrived at the high school to teach government and boxing. O'Callaghan, who had lost a leg in the Korean War and was just ten years older than Reid, became a hero to Reid after he faced down a school bully. Reid, a catcher on the school's championship baseball team and a guard on the football team, learned to box from O'Callaghan, who helped him win a partial athletic scholarship to a junior college in Utah and later helped pay his way through law school. O'Callaghan, like Reid, had larger ambitions: in the seventies, he served two terms as governor of Nevada, and he went on to become the executive editor of the Las Vegas Sun and a sometime columnist for the paper. When he died, last year, Reid eulogized him as the best friend he had ever had. McCue told me that the only time she ever saw Reid cry was at the news of O'Callaghan's death.
While Harry was in college, he and Landra converted to Mormonism. "The thing that was so impressive to me—in addition to the spiritual aspects that I'd never experienced before—was the emphasis on family," Reid said. "The biggest jump for me," Landra Reid said, "was to try to understand the connection between Judaism and the Old Testament and the New Testament, and how to make any sense of how Christianity fit into it." She added, "Before we got married, we had talked about it and decided we were not going to let religion divide us after what we'd been through. If we found something, we were going to find it together." Until both of her parents died, Harry Reid said, the family observed the Jewish holidays. "My two oldest children have great affection for things Jewish, and my three younger children are aware of their mother's lineage, and all of them are very proud of the fact that they are eligible for Israeli citizenship." On the doorway of their house in Searchlight, the Reids have a mezuzah.
The Reids' house, a Mediterranean-style two-bedroom home that faces the open desert, is situated on a hundred acres at the end of a long dirt road. They had it built four years ago, after living for years in a double-wide. Reid's friend Jay Brown, a Las Vegas lawyer and a Brooklyn native, said, "You should have seen the trailer," and complained that simply getting there ruined the tires of his car. Reid is a former marathoner—he ran twelve races before an injury and then a fall sidelined him. Now he takes an hour-long walk each morning, often with Landra, whose presence appears to put him in a lighter mood.
The Reids took me on a tour of the house, which is decorated in a Western mining motif, including a gate from one of the town's mines that hangs on a wall in the entry hall. Next to it is an abstract oil painting of Martin Luther King, Jr. Reid showed me his high-school yearbook; when he was sixteen, his nickname was Pinky. A painting of what appeared to be a mountain man with a white scraggly beard caught my attention. "That's my brother Larry," he said."He still looks that way." He pointed to a skeletal structure in the distance, the remains of one of the mines where his father worked.
As George W. Bush has learned, Harry Reid does not ignore slights. "I believe in vengeance," he once told a reporter. In May, he began a commencement address at George Washington University Law School by saying that the last time he had set foot on the campus was January, 1964—the year he graduated from the school. "I've been holding a grudge," he said. Law school was difficult. "We managed to get by, but just barely," he said. At one point, while Landra was pregnant with their second child and he was working six days a week as a Capitol police officer, the transmission of their car, a 1954 Buick Special, broke down. He was desperate. "No car," he continued. "No way to get to work. Too many bills." When he approached a dean for help, he recalled, the dean said, " 'Why don't you just quit law school?' I don't remember exactly what I thought he would say, but that was not it," he said. "Since that day, I've harbored ill will toward this school."
Reid told the graduates that he regretted his pettiness, but it's fair to say that payback has been a factor in his career. When I asked what got him interested in politics, he had a one-word reply: "Rudeness." He explained that not long after he returned to Henderson to practice law, a client, a doctor, had asked him to accompany him to an administrative hearing at a hospital. "As we walked in, the chairman of the board of trustees said, 'We don't need lawyers here. We do what we want to do,' " Reid recalled. "It was just so rude. I wasn't there to say anything. I was there just to watch. As a result of how rude he was, I decided to run for the hospital board." He was elected in 1966, and not long afterward, he said, "we got him"—the administrator—"fired." Soon, Reid decided that he could accomplish more in the state assembly, and in 1968 he announced his candidacy. This time, he went after the telephone company. "Service was so bad then, and they were dumb enough to respond to me," Reid has said. "So I had an issue." Reid served in the assembly for only two years, but he acquired a reputation as a consumer advocate, and he still holds the Nevada record for introducing the most bills in a session.
In 1970, Reid was barely thirty, and preparing for another state run, when it was suggested that he enter the lieutenant governor's race. His good friend Mike O'Callaghan was running for governor as a Democrat—a long-shot candidacy—and Reid decided to run, he says, "within fifteen minutes." His law partners gave him a party, and, as Reid tells it, "one of the local columnists wrote that I must be supported by Howard Hughes—otherwise how could I have a big party like that. Howard Hughes had just come to town. Of course it wasn't true, but who was I to deny that he was helping me?"
Reid believes that the pseudo-Hughes connection may have frightened off challengers, and both O'Callaghan and Reid, running separately, won. But success, he says, made him overconfident. Reid had been lieutenant governor for four years when Senator Alan Bible announced his retirement. "I was a shoo-in," Reid says. "Everything was in my favor. But I was young and impulsive and I attacked everybody. Every day, we would get up and find out who we were going to attack that day." His pollster was Pat Cadell, who went on to work for Jimmy Carter's Presidential campaign in 1976. Cadell assured him that he couldn't lose. "I showed him," Reid says. "I lost by six hundred and twenty-four votes," to Paul Laxalt. When friends told him that such reverses always turn out for the best, he said, "I wanted to kick them in the shins."
In 1977, O'Callaghan appointed him to the chairmanship of the Nevada Gaming Commission, which oversees casinos, and that was an experience that made his other work look easy. Before Reid took the job, O'Callaghan introduced him to the outgoing chairman, Peter Echeverria. "Pete was telling us, 'I've had people out here watching me, these gangsters,' and he said, 'I think they've tapped my phone,' " Reid recalled. "I thought he was making all this stuff up. It just didn't make sense. I had no concept of the Mob. It meant nothing to me." There had been a decrease in Mob activity, but organized crime was again investing in Las Vegas, and for four years Reid confronted wiseguys like Tony (the Ant) Spilotro, who had been sent to Las Vegas by a Chicago branch of La Cosa Nostra, "the Outfit," and was known for killing his victims by squeezing their heads in a vise. In 1979, Reid barred Spilotro from all casinos.
In July of 1978, a man named Jack Gordon, who was later married to LaToya Jackson, offered Reid twelve thousand dollars to approve two new, carnival-like gaming devices for casino use. Reid reported the attempted bribe to the F.B.I. and arranged a meeting with Gordon in his office. By agreement, F.B.I. agents burst in to arrest Gordon at the point where Reid asked, "Is this the money?" Although he was taking part in a sting, Reid was unable to control his temper; the videotape shows him getting up from his chair and saying, "You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me!" and attempting to choke Gordon, before startled agents pulled him off. "I was so angry with him for thinking he could bribe me," Reid said, explaining his theatrical outburst. Gordon was convicted in federal court in 1979 and sentenced to six months in prison.
One day in 1981, Landra Reid noticed that the family station wagon was not running properly, and she discovered a cable under the hood and "something" sticking out of the gas tank. Police found a device that would have exploded had it been correctly grounded. Reid always blamed Gordon for the bomb, and the incident frightened his family—by then there were five children, four sons and a daughter—so that for a year they started the car by remote control. Gordon died in April, at the age of sixty-six, and his connection to the bombing attempt was never proved. McCue, Reid's chief of staff, says that the episode changed Reid. Whatever the issue, she says, his approach is always "No one is going to kill me over this."
When Reid's Gaming Commission appointment expired, in 1981, he went back to private practice. He was at work on a liability lawsuit stemming from the M-G-M Grand fire, the 1980 blaze in which eighty-four people died, when Nevada was given another seat in the House of Representatives. Reid ran as a New Democrat, in a state that was tilting Republican. "Part of it, I'm sure, was my narrow loss in the Senate race, and it was also to show people I could make a comeback," Reid said of his desire to run. He won the election and went to Washington in 1983.
After visiting Searchlight, Reid and I drove to Las Vegas, fifty-five miles away, through the Mojave Desert. On the drive, he talked about his relationship with Bush, whom he regularly disparages; there appears to be no chance that Reid and Bush will duplicate the unusually friendly relationship that Ronald Reagan had with Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, or even the businesslike partnership between Speaker Sam Rayburn and President Eisenhower. At an appearance at the Doris Hancock Elementary School, in Las Vegas, which some of his children attended, Reid began by talking about how his life had become more pressured since he'd become Minority Leader, but he was soon asked about Bush. "I didn't come here to beat up on President Bush," he said. "But I have served three Republican Presidents. President Reagan—I cared a great deal for him, and he got most of what he wanted. If you disagreed with him, he did not hold it against you." He went on, "President Bush No. 1 is such a nice person. Some of my most prized possessions are the three letters he wrote me. But this President is totally different. He takes after his mother. It's either his way or no way. It's very, very difficult." Even Reid seemed surprised by the depth of his reaction. "I'm sorry to give you this report on President Bush," he said, "but that's how I feel."
Reid had been head of the school P.T.A., and the parents of some of his children's friends were in the audience. One was the mother of a college roommate of one of his sons. Like Reid, she is an observant Mormon and they were old friends; but she was a Republican and clearly upset that Reid did not support Bush, especially on the partial privatization of Social Security. Later, she told me that she had voted for Reid in every election except the last one. "He became too liberal," she said. "I love his wife, but I feel he's left a lot of his beliefs behind." While we were talking, Reid approached and she told him that one of her son's friends, a professional football player, had been at the White House on Valentine's Day. "They said Bush was so nice," she said. Reid raised his eyebrows.
What happened between him and Bush? Their first meetings, right after Bush's 2000 election, were cordial enough, Reid told me. "He was an extremely personable man—the kind of guy you'd like to go to a ballgame with." But, he went on, "I have a lot of history now that I didn't have then. First of all, he started out on a real bad foot with me because of Yucca Mountain"—a site a hundred miles northwest of Las Vegas, which the federal government wants to use as long-term storage for tens of thousands of tons of radioactive waste. Al Gore opposed this plan in the 2000 campaign, and Bush seemed to oppose it as well, promising that he would base any decision on "sound science." Reid believed Bush, but, he said, "my belief was short-lived." Barely a year into his first term, Bush approved the project, and Reid accused him of lying: "I thought he had misled the people of Nevada on nuclear waste." Of calling Bush a liar, Reid said, "If somebody doesn't tell the truth, how else would you describe it? I guess I could have said he didn't tell the truth." Reid said that, in a private meeting in the Oval Office in February, 2002, he told Bush, "You sold out on this." The Wall Street Journal later reported the Yucca Mountain decision as the "biggest defeat" of Reid's career, but added, "The fact that the campaign went on for so long is testimony to Mr. Reid's formidable persuasive powers—a gift that still could put him in line to be his party's next leader."
The moment came on November 3, 2004, the day after the election. Tom Daschle had just lost his Senate race in South Dakota, becoming the first Senate leader in half a century to be defeated, and the Republicans had picked up five other seats being vacated by Democrats. Reid, who, as the Democrats' Minority Whip since 1998, had been Daschle's No. 2, had assiduously attended to his colleagues' needs, monitoring legislation on the Senate floor while earning a reputation as trustworthy. By 11 a.m., Reid had the votes he needed. Neither Bush, who had been unsure of his own victory until early that morning, nor Reid, who had spent much of the night on the phone, had slept much. Bush called Reid in Nevada, and, Reid recalled, "he said, 'This is a new term for me. I'm not running for anything ever again and I want to work with you again.' " Reid was pleased, and reported the conversation to his staff. "He had a significant majority in both the House and the Senate, and I thought he would work with us to try to get things done, that we could agree on," he said.
Reid has not been particularly tough on Bush's appointments so far. He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State and even announced that he would probably support Scalia as Chief Justice if William Rehnquist retired and Bush wanted him. He didn't push for a filibuster against Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, despite the opposition of all eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Yet, on February 7th, the Republican National Committee attacked Reid's record on its Web site, citing the Los Angeles Times story on his family, in which Reid was accused of voting for legislation that benefitted his sons and son-in-law. (One passage quoted on the R.N.C. Web site said, "So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.") On the Senate floor, Reid denounced the story as "scurrilous" and rebuked the President. Coincidentally, Bush had invited the Reids to dinner at the White House that night, along with three other senators and their wives. Reid initially thought about not going, but decided that "it would be too easy for them for me just not to go." Still, it was clear that he and Landra were angry. Reid recalled that Bush said, "You know, I didn't have anything to do with that. I don't know what they do." Reid wasn't mollified. The next day, he reminded reporters of Bush's campaign pledge to be a "uniter." "I'm beginning to think those statements were just absolutely false," he said.
There is no longer anything about Reid's family on the R.N.C. Web site. The offending lines were removed on orders from Karl Rove. According to Rove, following the dinner Bush told him to tell Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the R.N.C., to "never mention Reid's family again." When I asked Reid about this, he said he was aware that the section had been deleted, but not of Bush's role. "That's nice of him," he said.
Reid said that relations with Bush got worse in April, during the filibuster dispute, at a breakfast meeting in the White House between Bush and the congressional leadership. Reid said that he appealed to Bush to stay out of the fight, telling him, "I hope you're going to help us on this nuclear option." The President, he said, "was very direct and blunt: 'I have nothing to do with this. This is your business. It's not mine.' " Reid thought that would remove one powerful obstacle. But, within days, Vice-President Dick Cheney announced that, as acting president of the Senate, he would provide the tie-breaking vote if it was needed to change the rule. Bush, Reid said, had pulled a "halfback's stutter step"—a fake—on him. "He was just trying, it appears to me, to mislead me. He just wasn't telling me the truth at that breakfast meeting. No question about it. He could have said to me, 'What you've done is wrong and I'm going to do everything I can to get it exercised. I want all my judges.' But he didn't." Reid paused. "Just tell me what I have to work with. Don't mislead me. How do I say this—because I don't want to appear holier than thou—but relationships are built on trust, and that's the problem that I'm having with the White House today. It's that I don't think they want to establish trust with me." Reid paused again and shrugged. "I'm not important to them. They can just go around me." He sounded weary, but then his voice strengthened. "He's not a dictator. He's a President. And he has the same power that I do. He individually may have more power. But his branch of government has no more power than mine."
About a month later, at a point when negotiations on resolving the filibuster issue seemed to have stalled, Reid made his only phone call on the issue to the White House—to Rove. "This thing should be worked out," Reid said he told Rove. "It's craziness." At the time, Bush had re-submitted the names of seven appellate-court nominees whom Senate Democrats had previously blocked, using the filibuster tactic. "We let this continue to go on, twenty years from now, if either of us is still alive, we're going to look back and be ashamed of what we allowed to happen," Rove said. He said that harsh attacks were driving out possible nominees who were leery of the confirmation process. "I get it," Reid responded. He told Rove that he had been trying for years to improve the process, and added, "I'm just trying to find a way out of this."
For Rove, the most painful example was Miguel Estrada, who had worked in the Solicitor General's office, and who was Bush's first appellate-court nominee, in 2001. Estrada withdrew his name twenty-eight months after being nominated. During the confirmation struggle, Estrada's wife miscarried; in November, 2004, she died, of an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills. The death was ruled accidental by the medical examiner. Rove said that Mrs. Estrada had been traumatized by the nastiness of the process. Reid told Rove that he empathized with Estrada, but said that the Republicans' treatment of President Clinton's nominees—more than sixty were never voted on by the Judiciary Committee—had created victims, too. Rove, according to Reid, replied, "We need to sit down and talk about this," adding that the ugliness of the confirmation process had reached a new low.
Rove recalls that the conversation was mostly about making a deal on the judicial nominees. According to Rove, Reid said, "They're all unqualified, but you can pick the one you want," and eventually it got to two. At one point, Rove asked Reid, "If they're unworthy, why are you letting us have any?" And he said, "Harry, it's like you're asking us to pick one of our children and kill them." He said that Reid kept jumping around with the numbers: "It was a nutty conversation." For Reid at this point, the individual nominees were a secondary issue. "I didn't like the judges," he said later, "but there was a principle higher than any of those men or women"—the preservation of the Senate filibuster rule. When the discussion ended in an impasse, Reid was disappointed, but he said, "I wasn't owed anything, that's for sure."
Reid had always regarded a full Senate vote on the "nuclear option" as a gamble. Frist appeared to hold the advantage; with Cheney in the wings, he needed only fifty senators to make the rules change, while Reid needed to persuade six Republicans to cross over. And although Reid thought that he had those six votes, he was certain only of four. "Each day, I started losing people," he recalled. By May 23rd, the day before the scheduled vote, Reid believed that neither he nor Frist really knew for sure who had the votes, and when the seven Democrats in the Gang of Fourteen told Reid that they were ready to make a deal with the Republicans he acquiesced. "I thought we might have the six votes, but I wasn't positive, and I wasn't willing to take the chance. He"—Frist—"didn't know that he had the votes, but he was willing to take the chance." In the final compromise, three of the seven Bush judicial choices that Reid and Rove had discussed were approved by the Senate, and it was simultaneously agreed that senators could filibuster a nominee "under extraordinary circumstances"—somewhat vague language that has yet to be tested. For the Democrats, though, the agreement preserved the power to block a Bush Supreme Court choice.
Standing before reporters, Reid, who had worked behind the scenes for this result, looked euphoric. Frist, who appeared later, looked glum—understandably, some observers thought. Frist had staked a lot on the issue; he has said that he plans to retire from the Senate in 2006, and it is believed that he may seek the Presidency. "I was not a party to that agreement nor was the Republican leadership," Frist said. "Now we move into a new and uncertain phase." The Senate that Frist purportedly led had suddenly been taken over by a bipartisan group beyond his reach. And, for Reid and others, it is not a stretch to see the connection between the filibuster compromise and the relatively noncontroversial nomination of John G. Roberts. ♦


text:
If anything, there was probably one guy who didn't like the Giants winning the World Series this year. I'm not saying he wasn't happy for the guys or the organization, but rather, he was probably disappointed because their win probably put the lid in terms of him playing next year with the Giants.
That person was Jesus Guzman.
Could Guzman be a good player? I don't know. His minor league numbers (.885 and .886 OPS; 16 home runs and 18 home runs in 2009 and 2010 in Fresno) aren't extremely impressive, but they're solid and he did show improvement from 2009 to 2010 in the Pacific Coast League (his K/9 rate dropped from 18.3 to 15.1 percent and his BB/K ratio improved from 0.45 to 0.56). Of course, Guzman has no Major League numbers to fall back on (.250 average, .500 OPS in 20 plate appearances) and his defense isn't exactly heralded (he played five different positions last year, and the best one for him was DH). Despite this, Guzman still remains an interesting player who is still young enough (he's 26 years old) to have some kind of career at the big league level.
But then again, we said the same thing about John Bowker and Todd Linden.
The comparison between Bowker and Guzman is very interesting. Granted, Guzman broke into professional ball earlier than Bowker (Bowker played college ball at Long Beach State; while Guzman was playing ball in Venezuela at 17 years old), but they are pretty similar career-wise in terms of minor league numbers.
Both had big seasons in Double-A ball (Bowker posted an .886 OPS in Connecticut in 2007; Guzman had a .948 OPS in 2008 for Midland, the A's Double-A affiliate). Both had down initial campaigns in Triple-A (Bowker struggled in his brief time in Fresno in 2008, though that was probably affected by the fact that he played most of the year in the Big Leagues; Guzman struggled down the stretch in 2008 with Sacramento, posting only a .649 OPS in 65 plate appearances). And both rebounded to have solid seasons in Triple-A the following year (Bowker had a ridiculous 1.047 OPS, while Guzman posted a very commendable .885 OPS).
So is Guzman on that Bowker track? (e.g. a prolonged stint in the minors without ever having a solid chance to prove himself at the Major League level?) Most likely. When your team wins the World Series, you don't rebuild and take a waiver on guys like Guzman. You re-load with free agents or stick with the guys who got you there (and the latter is a very strong possibility if I know Brian Sabean).
That being said, I think Guzman has a bit more upside than Bowker simply because he has had a better history in terms of plate patience. Guzman has only posted a BB/K ratio under 0.45 once in his career (his 2008 in Sacramento). As for Bowker, sans his ridiculous 1.16 BB/K ratio in 2009, plate patience was always an issue for him (he never had a BB/K ratio above 0.40 at any level prior to 2009). Yes, Bowker showed more power in the minors (only 11 less home runs than Guzman in almost 1000 fewer at-bats), but I'll take a guy with better plate discipline any day. Don't get me wrong. I liked Bowker. I rooted for him to succeed with the Giants hard. But, unlike Bowker, I think a decent Major League career isn't a stretch for Guzman.
It just won't be with the Giants.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Is Jesus Guzman the Second-Coming of John Bowker?
Posted by Kevin O'Brien at 3:44 PM
2 comments:
- AnonymousJune 10, 2013 at 5:38 AM
Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It actually was a amusement accountReplyDelete
it. Look advanced to more brought agreeable from you!
However, how could we communicate?
Also visit my blog post - forex trading signal software
- AnonymousJune 10, 2013 at 5:39 AM
What's up i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i read this post i thought i could also make comment due to this good article.ReplyDelete
Here is my webpage ... what is day trading
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
60 seconds with Matt Hudson on his favoured UK sectors
Matt Hudson explains why the return of inflation looks set to boost the case for financial and commodity stocks as we head into 2017.
A tough year
UK investors have had to deal with a lot this year, not only a slowing global economy but the fallout from the vote to leave the European Union.
In a period of uncertainty, investors are focused on those assets they feel add security, high yield and they've sought out companies with exposure to overseas currencies.
But we think there's a more interesting outlook.
Financials favoured
We are moving into an environment where inflation is going to pick up and it will be a more fiscally expansive period.
That premium of safety investors have been craving in defensive1 assets is going to be challenged by a more reflationary and inflationary environment.
In that context, the type of assets we think are interesting are financials, some commodity cyclicals and, broadly speaking, value areas of the market.
These are stocks that haven't yet delivered but in an environment where nominal growth is picking up, earnings can grow.
With the market yields just under 4% yield, we think it is an attractive time to be investing in UK equities.
1. Defensive Assets: more conservative, lower risk investments which generally earn returns from interest but offer lower long-term returns.↩


text:
The SaltStick is a unique water-resistant dispenser for salt capsules designed to fit inside triathlon, TT, and MTB hanlebars, and on running belts. Turn the knob and out pops a capsule!.
Free Shipping on all orders over $75 to the US
Same Day Shipping M-F until 3:00pm Pacific (excludes holidays)
This site and its contents are Copyright © 1997-2015 Tri-Zone, Inc. All rights reserved.


text:
by Jody Kessler
Facing Germantown Academy in the Independence Hockey League playoffs, Chestnut Hill Academy could not get up for the big stage and lost 7-3. It was 6-0 before they got their first goal. The fifth seed, they won the play-in game against Penington Monday, but could not get it going versus the top seeded Patriots at Wissahickon Ice Arena last Wednesday. Still it was a very successful season for the young team, ending at 15-5-1. GA would finish the year 13-2-1 after moving on to beat Academy New Church in the final.
GA got two shorthanded goals. They got two goals each from Ryan Hoffman and Will McNamara. The Blue Devils Jason Bright, Zack Baron and Harmar Rappoport scored, all in the third period when the game was already out of reach. GA outshot CHA 46-39.
GA's Will Vaeth showed early why he was feared by Chestnut Hill. He made a great effort skating through players and putting a shot on goal, but Crosby Harris was up to task. Next CHA's Baron got off a good shot. Bright then got clear right in front of net, but could only shoot right at Patriot goalie Jake Adoni. GA then got their first goal. The puck hovered in front of the net, several players jabbing at it. Crosby tried to cover it up but couldn't, and Bill Oppenheimer was credited for the goal, assisted by McNamara. The teams traded penalties, neither scoring. But when CHA went on a 5-on-3 advantage GA got a shorthanded goal, Vaeth skating all the way up ice again and this time scoring. It came with 2:15 left in the period and the score would stay 2-0 into intermission.
CHA went on the powerplay one minute into the second period, and again they gave up a shorthanded goal. Crosby tried to clear the puck but he gave it right to Justin Manro, who passed it to Ryan Hoffman who scored easily. CHA started to get frustrated, roughing with GA every chance they got.They were not strong with the puck, and their defense was off. At 10:19 they gave up another goal, similar to the first when Crosby could not clear it. There was just no urgency to the Devils game, and they gave up two more goals before the zamboni came out.
The Devils must have recieved a good speech at the intermission because they looked like a different team in the third period. They scored the first of three goals at 11:19 when Rappoport passed to Bright for the goal. They almost had another moments later. Five minutes then went by but they did get another goal, this time Baron scoring off Adoni's body. All in all there was too much individual play by CHA. GA answered that goal, McNamara scoring assisted by Oppenhiemer and Hoffman. GA picked up a couple of penalties and CHA was back on the 5 on 3. They took advantage, Rappoport scoring but it was too little too late. GA had the 7-3 win.
It was a very physical game," said CHA coach Phil Pulley. "They put a couple of big hits on our scorers and that seemed to back them down a little bit. Other than that the boys kept battling. We didn't come out in the third period and lay down. All in all both teams should be proud."
Overall Pulley said, "Season was great, everybody played well throughout the whole year. We ended up fifth. Second year in the league, second year we made the playoffs. So we're pleased about that. Some great games, I think we grew as a team, we're still a young team. I think we're going to grow as a program."
CHA captain Ben Pulley said, "Our team came out here expecting to have a great game against GA like last game when we lost by a goal. GA came out quick and hard, we tried to shut down Will Vaeth, I thought we did a good job of that, rest of GA really stepped up today, played a great team effort. I kind of think the atmosphere got to us all; the fans, all the guys try to be Wayne Gretzky, we settled down between the second and third."
Crosby said, "Just didn't really back check enough, played lazy. GA played stronger than us. Nerves caught the best of us. Everyone was really excited, maybe a little too excited, not enough focus on the game. People not watching their men enough. (Overall) great season, great group of kids, lot of fun."
GA coach Matt Rominger talked about the game.
"We got up on them early, we were able to establish our game which is high pressure putting their defenseman under stress, they turned the puck over to us and we were able to capitalize on the turnovers, second period we were able to extend our lead, I thought we had great life throughout the game, it was physical, there were a lot of emotions flying around between the crowd and players. Everyone was into it, it was fun."
About CHA's effort and their strong third period he said, "that's exemplary of what they do over here at CHA. Their guys don't quit, we knew they weren't going to go away, they didn't."


text:
Using Hadooop (HDInsight) with Microsoft - Two (OK, Three) Options
Microsoft has many tools for "Big Data". In fact, you need many tools – there's no product called "Big Data Solution" in a shrink-wrapped box – if you find one, you probably shouldn't buy it. It's tempting to want a single tool that handles everything in a problem domain, but with large, complex data, that isn't a reality. You'll mix and match several systems, open and closed source, to solve a given problem.
But there are tools that help with handling data at large, complex scales. Normally the best way to do this is to break up the data into parts, and then put the calculation engines for that chunk of data right on the node where the data is stored. These systems are in a family called "Distributed File and Compute". Microsoft has a couple of these, including the High Performance Computing edition of Windows Server. Recently we partnered with Hortonworks to bring the Apache Foundation's release of Hadoop to Windows. And as it turns out, there are actually two (technically three) ways you can use it.
(There's a more detailed set of information here: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/solutions-technologies/business-intelligence/big-data.aspx, I'll cover the options at a general level below)
First Option: Windows Azure HDInsight Service
Your first option is that you can simply log on to a Hadoop control node and begin to run Pig or Hive statements against data that you have stored in Windows Azure. There's nothing to set up (although you can configure things where needed), and you can send the commands, get the output of the job(s), and stop using the service when you are done – and repeat the process later if you wish.
(There are also connectors to run jobs from Microsoft Excel, but that's another post)
This option is useful when you have a periodic burst of work for a Hadoop workload, or the data collection has been happening into Windows Azure storage anyway. That might be from a web application, the logs from a web application, telemetrics (remote sensor input), and other modes of constant collection.
You can read more about this option here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2012/10/24/getting-started-with-windows-azure-hdinsight-service.aspx
Second Option: Microsoft HDInsight Server
Your second option is to use the Hadoop Distribution for on-premises Windows called Microsoft HDInsight Server. You set up the Name Node(s), Job Tracker(s), and Data Node(s), among other components, and you have control over the entire ecostructure.
This option is useful if you want to have complete control over the system, leave it running all the time, or you have a huge quantity of data that you have to bulk-load constantly – something that isn't going to be practical with a network transfer or disk-mailing scheme.
You can read more about this option here: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/solutions-technologies/business-intelligence/big-data.aspx
Third Option (unsupported): Installation on Windows Azure Virtual Machines
Although unsupported, you could simply use a Windows Azure Virtual Machine (we support both Windows and Linux servers) and install Hadoop yourself – it's open-source, so there's nothing preventing you from doing that.
Aside from being unsupported, there are other issues you'll run into with this approach – primarily involving performance and the amount of configuration you'll need to do to access the data nodes properly. But for a single-node installation (where all components run on one system) such as learning, demos, training and the like, this isn't a bad option.
Did I mention that's unsupported? :)
You can learn more about Windows Azure Virtual Machines here: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/home/scenarios/virtual-machines/
And more about Hadoop and the installation/configuration (on Linux) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Hadoop
And more about the HDInsight installation here: http://www.microsoft.com/web/gallery/install.aspx?appid=HDINSIGHT-PREVIEW
Choosing the right option
Since you have two or three routes you can go, the best thing to do is evaluate the need you have, and place the workload where it makes the most sense. My suggestion is to install the HDInsight Server locally on a test system, and play around with it. Read up on the best ways to use Hadoop for a given workload, understand the parts, write a little Pig and Hive, and get your feet wet. Then sign up for a test account on HDInsight Service, and see how that leverages what you know. If you're a true tinkerer, go ahead and try the VM route as well.
Oh - there's another great reference on the Windows Azure HDInsight that just came out, here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/brunoterkaly/archive/2012/11/16/hadoop-on-azure-introduction.aspx


text:
Airport Community Events
At Reno-Tahoe International, the airport's involvement in local organizations and community events is critical in reaching out and giving back to the region. The airport is located in the center of town and is vital to the community; our involvement keeps us connected to the people who make this area great.
The team of management and staff participate in a wide range of community events including the American Cancer Society Relay for Life or the Expedition Man endurance race. Staff deliver food to local families and plan award winning Career Events with the airport's Partner in Education, Swope Middle School, and walk in support of animals in the Nevada Humane Society's Walk for the Animals or donate blood to the United Blood Services.
Members of the Airport Authority serve on the board of United Way and the Nevada Women's Fund, and are active in Rotary Clubs, Neighborhood Advisory Boards, or the Reno-Sparks Leadership program. Partnerships with these service clubs have led to events such as Fantasy Flight and Snowball Express which help disadvantaged children enjoy the holiday season with gifts from Santa and a trip to Disneyland.
Whether it's coordinating a Hawaiian Luau at 5 a.m. in the airport lobby to send off a Make-a-Wish child to the islands, or sprinting in the 100-meter alongside a counterpart from a local business, Reno-Tahoe International Airport believes in the spirit of collaboration and is proud to give back to the community.