text:
This article is more than 1 year old
IBM paints the cloud-scape blue
Offers the works, including a standards body
IBM has backed the creation of a standards body that comprises 40 "leading cloud organisations" but none of its main rivals in the battle to dominate the next big thing in computing.
The Cloud Standards Council was wafted into public view as Big Blue unveiled a slew of cloud products and services and reset its stall to grab [big] customer spend.
IBM will push two cloud services under the SmartCloud brand. The first of these is the Enterprise cloud service, which is available immediately, and expands "on our existing development and test cloud". This will be Windows and Linux-based and pitched at developing and deploying new application designs. It promises 99.5 per cent availability and virtual and "some physical" security.
The second, Enterprise +, available later this year, is described as a "robust multi-tenant solution including managed production services". It is pitched at migration of traditional and higher availability applications, and will support AIX as well and Windows and Linux. Availability is promised at 99.9 per cent with security coming at "multiple levels of isolation".
For those prepared to wait until later this year, IBM will also offer IBM SAP Managed Application Services on the IBM Smartcloud. The vendor makes a range of promises here, including cutting the install of DB2 or Oracle from 24 hours to 12 minutes, database cloning from two or three days to 20 minutes, and OS install from one day to 30 minutes.
IBM will also offer a range of its own brand software across the cloud, including LotusLive TivoliLive, IBM Sterling Commerce and IBM Converged Communication Services.
No strategic announcement would be complete without its own talking shop, and IBM doesn't disappoint.
It has unveiled the Cloud Standards Customer Council for Open Cloud Computing, which spans 40 major organisations. Members, other than IBM, include AT&T, CSC, Lockheed Martin, PwC, Red Hat and Software AG. It styles itself as "an end user advocacy group dedicated to accelerating cloud's successful adoption, and drill down into the standards, security and interoperability issues surrounding the transition to the cloud".
It seems churlish to question how it expects to do this without input from the likes of Microsoft, Oracle and HP... unless the members believe you can have any cloud you want, as long as it's Blue. ®


text:
GANG Sharks | |
Sharks in GTA Vice City.
| |
Games: | GTA Vice City GTA Vice City Stories |
Locations: | Prawn Island, Vice Point |
Type: | Street Gang, formerly criminal organization. |
Enemies: | Bikers, Cholos, Los Cabrones/Cubans, Patrol Invest Group, Diaz's Gang |
Affiliations: | Haitians |
Colors: | GTA VC: Denim Jackets, red or white shirts GTA VCS: Brown, white, blue, gray pants and colorful berets |
Vehicles: | Gang Rancher (in GTA VCS) Gang Burrito (in GTA VC) |
Weapons: | GTA VC: Pistol, TEC-9 GTA VCS: MAC-10, Uzi, AK-47, Scorpion (see notes), Chainsaw (see notes) |
Businesses: | Drug dealing, robbery, smuggling, Extortion, Prostitution, Loan Shark. |
Members: | Kanye Diggit |
The Sharks are a band of thugs in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories. The gang is also called the Streetwannabe's as listed in GTA Vice City's statistics.
GTA Vice City
In GTA Vice City, the gang hangs around the outside of the North Point Mall and several dilapidated houses Prawn Island but are not a threat to any other gang in Vice City. They can also be seen driving their Gang Burritos (the vehicle of the second generation of the Sharks). It is suggested that they are involved in arms smuggling and drug trafficking . They seem to be on bad terms with Mitch Baker's Vice City Bikers; in a mission, they even stole his prized motorcycle and store it in their garage depot in Downtown Vice City . The leader of the band betrays Ricardo Diaz and steals his shipment of drugs, causing Diaz to order Tommy Vercetti to kill him and many others in an airstrike. They are listed as "Streetwannabe's', with the use of the apostrophe in the stats menu, but Shark logos on the backs of their denim jackets, with graffiti on buildings and cars gang shows that they are actually the Sharks. They are usually seen wearing denim jackets, jeans and red bandanas.
GTA Vice City Stories
In GTA Vice City Stories, the gang hangs around Vice City Beach, east of Vice City. They manage a number of drug, smuggling, robbery and extortion businesses which Victor Vance finally took over. The Sharks continue to attack Victor until all their businesses were taken. They often hunt Victor in their Gang Ranchers (the vehicle of the first generation of Sharks) and sometimes try to destroy his empire sites. They are seen wearing brightly colored shirts, light brown or gray pants and berets with a shark logo.
The Sharks in GTA Vice City are not especially hostile to the player, unless he attacks them, in this case they will defend themselves, despite the fact that their (or one of their) leader(s) has been murdered by Tommy Vercetti under the orders of Ricardo Diaz, with the help of Lance Vance, a helicopter, and an M-60.
Sharks are commonly seen congregating, moving in groups or driving Gang Burritos in Vice Point and Prawn Island They are not ordinarily hostile to Tommy, and will only attack in self-defense, if the player carjacks a Gang Burrito, or if the "Riot" cheat or the "Pedestrians Hate You" cheat has been activated.
Sharks patrolling Prawn Island and Vice Point may attack or be attacked by the Vercetti Gang if they enter or go near the grounds of InterGlobal Films. The Sharks are frequently in conflict with the Patrol Invest Group over turf, and gunfights between both parties are not uncommon; police act against both parties when gun battles occur. In addition, policemen will pursue and kill Sharks gangsters in the same manner as they do with other gang members and street criminals, allowing the player to attain "Good Citizen Bonuses" worth $50 each for each punch/kick/attack delivered to a fleeing Shark. The player must be careful though, as the Shark (or any nearby Sharks) may attack player with a pistol. Also, accidentally hitting the cop will give the player a one star wanted level, killing the cop will give the player two.
- The Sharks' favorite radio stations in GTA Vice City are Flash FM and Wave 103.
- Some independent gangs/factions in Vice City are also listed as Streetwannabes according to statistics from the game. This includes soldiers at Fort Baxter Air Base and "gangs" that appear in some missions, such as the Forelli Family members in "Keep Your Friends Close...", the French agents in "All Hands on Deck!", and the bodyguards of the counterfeiting syndicate in "Hit The Courier".
- The Scorpion is used by Shark members if the player attacks their business.
- The Chainsaw is not used by all members, but is used by a member of the Sharks in "Leap and Bound".
- In Vice City Stories (1984), the Sharks are seen in Ocean Beach, Washington Beach, Prawn Island, Vice Point and even have influence in Viceport, but their influence has shrunk into a small street gang. The only territory they have left are Prawn Island and the Vice Point region.
- In Vice City Stories (1984), the Sharks are in a war with the Vice City Bikers and are constantly attacking each others' Empire Buildings. This explains why the Sharks stole Mitch Baker's bike (which Tommy had to retrieve in Hog Tied). It is implied the Sharks still hold hatred towards the Bikers.
- True enough, if the player modifies the pedgrp.dat file to add Sharks (Sga, Sgb), Bikers (Bka, Bkb), and Haitians (Hna, Hnb) to any area, all three gangs will be in conflict with each other. This not only confirms the Sharks' continued hatred towards the Bikers, but will also contradict the Sharks' affiliations with the Haitians.
The Sharks leader only appearing in The Chase and Phnom Penh '86.
The Sharks in GTA Vice City Stories.
The Sharks gangcar in GTA Vice City, the Gang Burrito.
The Sharks gangcar in GTA Vice City Stories, the Gang Rancher.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Operators are Standing By at Pentagon Whistleblower Hotline
New ombudsman reaches out to employees, other agencies.
News consumers may not be aware that many of the front-page scandals -- mishandling of bodies at Arlington Cemetery and Dover Air Force Base, sexual assaults in the military, bribery of naval officers by contractors in Asia -- came to light because of whistleblower complaints to the Pentagon's anonymous hotline (www.dodig.mil/Hotline or 800-424-9098).
Patrick Gookin, installed in March as the first to hold the title of director of the Defense Hotline Program and whistleblower protection ombudsman, has been trying to change that by reaching out to the workforce, hotline officials at other federal agencies and, as of this month, the press.
"We're the unsung hero of the department in that we don't tell people who we're chasing, but we do tell people when we've caught them," he told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon's version of the hotlines used throughout the government, he noted, was called into 24/7 service after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and after 2005's Hurricane Katrina.
Use of the hotline -- which has telephone, online, facsimile and U.S. mail formats -- has shot up 125 percent from 2009 to 2013, reaching a high of 31,000 contacts last year, with 4,862 of them resulting in referrals for investigation in fiscal 2012, Gookin said. Callers are not required to identify themselves. "Veracity trumps motivation," he said. "You could call for the wrong reason, like a jilted lover, but if it's true, we'll take it on."
A former Marine criminal investigator who also worked for the Defense Logistics Agency inspector general, Gookin said, "I was a customer and received action items from the hotline" before moving over to the Defense inspector general's office.
His staff of 30, mostly investigators and support staff, does not conduct the probes of waste, fraud, abuse and violations of law, but performs triage to cull out the highest-priority cases for referral to appropriate bodies. Though heady topics of complaints range from retaliation against whistleblowers to human trafficking to intelligence breaches, as much as 60 percent of the traffic turns out to be irrelevant or spam.
Queries on pay and benefits, for example, or employment discrimination are re-rerouted to other offices. Complaints considered actionable for further probing are ranked. Top priority goes to complaints affecting life, health or safety and intelligence matters, which must be moved on the first day of the contact. Second-priority items tend to involve misconduct or reprisals and require action within three days. The remainder tend to be routine, of the "my boss yelled at me" variety, Gookin said.
As of Oct. 1, the hotline office was no longer taking complaints by email because the "unstructured" format involves too much back and forth. Tipsters who call by phone are encouraged to go online, though some accommodations can be made. Phone calls are never recorded, Gookin said, and the only progress updates staff are allowed to give to repeat callers are indications of whether a case is open or closed.
The hotline staff follow up on how the separate agency investigators receiving the referrals resolved the issue, and the hotline's work is evaluated retrospectively under Quality Assurance Review Procedures.
Asked whether Edward Snowden, the terminated Booz Allen contractor who this spring spilled National Security Agency domestic surveillance documents into the public eye, could have chosen the Defense hotline route, Gookin said he could have, initially. "He had every opportunity to go through us, though we wouldn't have told him his complaint's status, so there wouldn't be instant gratification. But it would have been highest priority. Once he went outside the system," Gookin said, "as far as I know, he violated the law."
(Image via Keith A Frith/Shutterstock.com)


text:
4618.0 - Water Use on Australian Farms, 2002-03
ARCHIVED ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 31/03/2005
Page tools: Print Page Print All | |||||
Pasture for grazing the biggest user of irrigation water Pasture for grazing was the most extensively irrigated crop in Australia in 2002-03, according to a new survey on agricultural water use released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In a period which saw the peak of a severe drought affecting most of Australia, pasture for grazing used 27% of the total volume of irrigation water and amounted to 30% of the total area irrigated nationally. The thirstiest crop was rice, with an application rate of 14.1 megalitres per hectare (ML/ha), more than three times the national average rate across all crops and pasture (4.4 ML/ha). Cotton had the next highest irrigation water use at 6.5 ML/ha. Western Australia reported the highest average application rate (6.5 ML/ha) and Tasmania the lowest (2.4 ML/ha). New South Wales was the largest irrigating state or territory, applying 4,273 gigalitres (GL) (41% of the Australian total volume), followed by Victoria (24%) and Queensland (21%). In total during 2002-03, 43,774 farms irrigated, which was nearly a third (33%) of agricultural establishments in Australia. These farms applied 10,404 GL of irrigation water to 2.4 million hectares, or 0.5% of agricultural land under pasture and crops. The most common source of irrigation water nationally was surface water, such as rivers and dams, reported by 72% of irrigating establishments. Recycled or re-used water from off-farm sources was reported by 2.4% of irrigating establishments. Surface irrigation, such as flood irrigation, was the prevalent irrigation method nationally, used on 1,344,000 ha, or 57% of the area irrigated. Nationally, 27% of irrigating establishments reported irrigating without a water entitlement of some form. Almost two-thirds of reported entitlements were based on volume. Reported volume entitlements totalled almost 14,000 GL, of which 9,250 GL (66%) was allocated to farmers for the 2002-03 year. Today's release, Water Use on Australian Farms 2002–03 (cat. no. 4618.0), also includes information on water trading, irrigation water management and irrigation finances, as well as information on climatic conditions provided by the Bureau of Meteorology. Media note: 1 Gigalitre (GL) = One thousand million litres, or a volume of approximately 444 Olympic swimming pools. 1 Megalitre (ML) = One million litres, or a volume of approximately half an Olympic swimming pool. 1 Hectare (ha) = 100 metres by 100 metres, or 10,000 square metres 1 Megalitre per hectare = 100 millimetres depth over each hectare. (ML/ha) Document Selection These documents will be presented in a new window. |


text:
Ready to talk the talk? Give your Arduino the power of speech. This easy-to-build circuit includes a voice synthesizer and amplifier.
Old MacDonald Hacked A Farm
My kids have a plastic farm toy. It neighs, it baas, and frankly, it grates. But since I tricked it out with a microcontroller brain, at least it can play Simon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


text:
In the last week of July I attended the Innovation Summit @ Stanford sponsored by AlwaysOn, an online social network for people in the technology, media and business worlds. AlwaysOn was founded by Tony Perkins who was previously the creator and editor in chief of Red Herring and Upside. I met Tony and some of his AlwaysOn colleagues last November at a breakfast roundtable in Palo Alto. My blog is among those published by AlwaysOn.
At the Stanford Innovation Summit I participated in a panel around the theme "Does America Still Have a Lock on Innovation?" This is a subject being widely discussed, in particular whether the US can continue to be an innovation leader given the increasingly competitive world we live in. An important companion question is whether it matters where innovation comes from, and whether talking about any country's having a "lock on innovation" makes sense in our highly integrated, flat world.
The panel was moderated by Andreas Kluth, technology correspondent for The Economist, and included Robert Suh, chief technology strategist at Accenture; Bill Tai, general partner at Charles River Ventures; and Netanel Jacobsson who describes himself as a "globetrotting entrepreneur with many strings on his harp." Netanel also posted an entry on our panel in his blog. The webcast of the panel appears here.
The panel discussed a range of topics, from Intellectual Property to China as an emerging innovation power. But the key topic in our discussions was immigration. There was a consensus in our panel that immigration has been one of the key engines of innovation in the US. I expressed my strong belief that countries and companies that have a tradition of welcoming and accepting different peoples - a culture of diversity - will have a built-in advantage in our increasingly global, collaborative world. Whether talking about innovation or business, the fact that we are a multi-cultural society with many different views and skills is a major advantage for the US and for US businesses that share this diversity culture.
But the panel was also unanimous in its concern that the US is now closing itself off and making it much harder for talented people to come here to study and work. It was natural for the US to become more vigilant after the 9/11 terror attacks and continuing security threats around the world. But I worry that our open, multi-cultural society is under attack from within, and that the visa problems being encountered by professionals and students are a manifestation of an increasing populist nationalism - a kind of "go it alone" isolationist, nativist culture. Through history we have seen that it is hard for a country to become or remain an innovation leader if it closes itself from the world.
In this regard, I expressed my dismay at the negative tone being displayed by some powerful figures in the media and politics in the current immigration debates in the US. Being a first generation immigrant, as well as the son of immigrants, I am very unhappy with the mean-spirited streak that has entered these debates. Let me try to explain why.
The issues surrounding immigration are certainly complex. There is no doubt that we need a comprehensive immigration solution in the US that involves tightening the security of our borders; being more diligent about enforcing existing workplace rules; looking for a better fit between labor demand and supply; and finding a practical and decent way to deal with the existing population of illegal immigrants. Last May the US Senate took an important first step by passing an immigration bill with bipartisan sponsorship - including Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy - that was commended by the President as providing a solid basis for comprehensive immigration reform.
Whether you like the Senate's bill or feel that it needs further improvements, one might have hoped that we would now be engaged in a civilized debate to build a consensus around such an important national issue. Unfortunately that is not happening. Instead, the hard-line critics of immigration reform have redoubled their efforts to adopt a much simpler approach: get tough on immigrants, period. They are portraying illegal immigration as the most urgent threat the country faces, responsible for the economic anxiety felt by many middle and low income workers. In fact, immigration reform has been portrayed by some as part of a "War on the Middle Class" being conducted by government, business and others.
Blaming powerful institutions like government and business for the ills of society is fair game, even if the blame is totally unjustified. These powerful institutions have the wherewithal to defend themselves. But we have seen through history that when you choose a powerless, disadvantaged group - like poor illegal immigrants, demonize them and try to make them the scapegoats for whatever anger the country might be feeling, not only is it highly unfair, but has often ended with very bad consequences.
Will the US continue to be an innovation leader into the 21st century? There is little question in my mind that we will. A fast-changing world requires flexibility and adaptability, both of which are underlying strengths of America. The fact that our society is deeply grounded in democratic institutions and free-market principles is all-important. We have gone through other nationalist, isolationist periods in the past, which eventually we corrected. I am confident that we will do so again.
We need to remember that, since America's founding, our culture has grown in diversity and openness, assimilating and benefiting from many different cultures without at the same time obliterating them. Experts generally agree that diversity - of perspective, ideas, information, thinking, etc. - is an essential element for innovation to flourish. And America's deep-seated diversity has been one of the key factors that made us an innovation leader. Those qualities will be even more important as the global competition for innovation leadership intensifies.


text:
I'm starting a open source project which involves web based Java, JBoss application server and Struts. I'm a student and I work on the project in my free time for training. Every one who want to take a part in this hobby project in his free time is invited.
Send me e-mail.
peter. penzov(at)gmail. com
I will send you development information


text:
Santa Barbara Weekly Gas Price Update and Outlook
This compares with the national average that has increased 5.7 cents per gallon in the last week to $3.55/g, according to gasoline price website GasBuddy.com.
Including the change in gas prices in Santa Barbara during the past week, prices yesterday were 25.2 cents per gallon higher than the same day one year ago and are 42.5 cents per gallon higher than a month ago. The national average has increased 28.2 cents per gallon during the last month and stands 7.2 cents per gallon higher than this day one year ago.
"If anything positive came about as a result of Winter Storm 'Nemo' it may be that the resulting 'demand destruction' seems to have flattened out the rate at which prices had been increasing in the Northeast and the Midwest too," said Senior Petroleum Analyst Gregg Laskoski. "On the west coast motorists are less fortunate. With western refineries producing at 75% capacity (less than any other region), California has seen its average price increase by 14 cents per gallon over the past week; doubling the rate of increase over the same period for the rest of the country."
About GasBuddy:
GasBuddy operates SantaBarbaraGasPrices.com and over 250 similar websites that track gasoline prices at over 140,000 gasoline stations in the United States and Canada. In addition, GasBuddy offers a free smartphone app which has been downloaded over 25 million times to help motorists find the lowest gasoline prices in their area.


text:
Psalm 99
The Lord is great in Zion—Exalt the Lord and worship at His footstool, for He is holy.
1 The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the acherubims; let the earth be moved.
2 The Lord is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people.
3 Let them praise thy great and terrible aname; for it is bholy.
4 The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob.
5 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his afootstool; for he is holy.
6 Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name; they called upon the Lord, and he answered them.
7 He spake unto them in the acloudy pillar: they kept his testimonies, and the ordinance that he gave them.
8 Thou answeredst them, O Lord our God: thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions.
9 Exalt the Lord our God, and aworship at his bholy hill; for the Lord our God is holy.


text:
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Republican with libertarian leanings, recently questioned the provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bans discrimination in restaurants, hotels, and other businesses. Bloggers and editorialists responded with a deluge of negative, and often unfair or inaccurate, commentary about the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws.
The most serious charge has been that libertarian skepticism of antidiscrimination laws that apply to private entities reflects, at best, insensitivity to race discrimination. One blogger, reflecting a significant swath of progressive sentiment, argued that no matter how committed to racial egalitarianism any individual libertarian claims to be, "Libertarianism is a racist philosophy. Libertarians are racists."
This is a rather odd criticism. For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons, libertarians are presumptively strongly opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. It naturally follows that libertarians presumptively oppose restrictions on private sector discrimination. It's hardly an indication of racial animus, or even insensitivity, for libertarians to enunciate the exact same position on antidiscrimination laws that they take in all other contexts.
The progressive libel of libertarians as racial troglodytes for their consistent defense of private-sector autonomy is ironic, given that similar illogic has so frequently been used against modern liberals. When liberals defended Communists' free speech and employment rights in the 1950s, their critics accused them of being Communist sympathizers, if not outright Communists. More recently, progressives have been accused of being American-hating jihadist sympathizers when they stood up for the rights of terrorism suspects. Critics have even charged civil libertarians with abetting racism for opposing hate speech laws.
The hate speech example is particularly telling. Some progressives argue that if libertarians were more sensitive to the concerns of minorities, they would sacrifice their anti-statist principles to the goddess of antidiscrimination. If so, progressives should similarly sacrifice their support for freedom of speech.
Confronted with the hate speech analogy, progressives will typically reply that supporting freedom of speech is completely different from supporting the right to engage in discriminatory action. After all, speech is just speech—sticks and stones, and whatnot—while discriminatory actions cause real distress to the victims. And besides, they argue, the marketplace of ideas can be trusted to ensure that egalitarian views will emerge victorious.
This argument does not stand up to close scrutiny. Hate speech can directly harm members of minority by causing psychological distress or inciting violence. And indirect harms from hate speech can be catastrophic if advocates of racist views are able to win control of the government. While minorities can generally find productive economic niches in even highly prejudiced but market-oriented societies, there is no safe haven for minorities if racist ideas dominate politics and lead to harsh discriminatory legislation.
Also, a free economic market protects minorities from discrimination to some degree because businesspeople have an economic incentive to hire the most productive workers and to obtain the most customers. By contrast, individual voters and political activists have no corresponding incentive to overlook or overcome their personal prejudices. Concern for the financial bottom line mitigates the temptation of economic entrepreneurs to discriminate; concern for the electoral bottom line, meanwhile, often leads politicians to stir up resentment against minorities.
As suggested above, supporters of antidiscrimination laws typically focus on laws banning racial discrimination. They do so because opposition to race discrimination has great historical and emotional resonance in a nation that had institutionalized racial oppression, including chattel slavery, for hundreds of years. However, federal antidiscrimination laws also apply to discrimination based on religion, sex, age, disability (including one's status as a recovering drug or alcohol addict), pregnancy, marital status, veteran status, and even military recruiters. State and local antidiscrimination laws cover everything from sexual orientation to political ideology to weight to appearance to membership in a motorcycle gang.
The proliferation of antidiscrimination laws explains why libertarians are loath to concede the principle that the government may ban private sector discrimination. There is no natural limit to the scope of antidiscrimination laws, because the concept of antidiscrimination is almost infinitely malleable. Almost any economic behavior, and much other behavior, can be defined as discrimination. Is a school admitting students based on SAT scores? That is discrimination against individuals (or groups) who don't do well on standardized tests! Is a store charging more for an item than some people can afford? That is discrimination against the poor! Is an employer hiring only the best qualified candidates? That is discrimination against everyone else!
The obvious retort is that antidiscrimination laws should be limited to "real" discrimination. But there is no consensus as to what constitutes "real" discrimination, nor, not surprisingly, does there appear to be any principled definition that legislatures have followed.
One can, for example, define discrimination as treating the alike unequally, but antidiscrimination law does not always follow this definition. Federal antidiscrimination law, for example, requires employers not simply to treat disabled and non-disabled alike, but to make costly "reasonable accommodations" for the disabled. Employers have the same legal obligation to their religious employees.
In short, to concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the government. Libertarians, however, are often willing to make certain exceptions to their opposition to antidiscrimination laws, so long as they can identify an appropriate limiting principle.
Consistent with longstanding classical liberal suspicion of monopolies, many libertarians would allow the government to ban discrimination by such entities. Even more libertarians would endorse antidiscrimination laws applied to monopolies that were created or sustained by government edict. For example, if the government grants labor unions the exclusive power to represent workers, there is nothing "unlibertarian" about insisting that unions represent all employees without discrimination. The Anglo-American common law, much beloved by libertarian legal scholars, required at least some public accommodations—particularly those granted exclusive government charters or otherwise exercising monopoly prerogatives—to serve all comers.
This brings us back to the issue that got Rand Paul into hot water: Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations. At least one prominent commentator, Bruce Bartlett, has suggested that libertarian opposition to Title II should serve as a reminder that the existence and persistence of Jim Crow in the South reflected libertarian sensibilities.
Bartlett's position is incoherent philosophically, and counterfactual historically. From a philosophical perspective, libertarianism and Jim Crow laws are completely at odds. Consistent with their classical liberal heritage, libertarians believe that the government must treat all its citizens as individuals with equal rights, and therefore may not discriminate on arbitrary grounds, like race. The government must also apply its laws fairly and impartially, including by protecting members of unpopular minority groups from private violence. A penumbra of this opposition to government discrimination is that the right to vote must not be denied for arbitrary reasons. Finally, the government may not require private parties to discriminate.
Historically, many of the leading advocates of civil rights for African Americans in the late 19th and early 20th century—for example, Moorfield Storey, the first president of the NAACP—were, if not hardcore libertarians, at least classical liberal fellow travelers. In more modern times, the few prominent libertarian commentators of the early 1960s, such as Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, supported the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination by state and local government officials. Conservatives, by contrast, typically bought into the notion of "States' Rights."
Rand, Friedman, and other libertarians, however, opposed on principle the application of antidiscrimination laws to private parties. Many libertarians today, including me, think our predecessors were wrong in their blanket opposition to such laws, in part because they neglected some of the legal and historical context.
First, the absence of formal discriminatory legislation did not mean that libertarian principle was being respected. I've already noted that the common law rule barred discrimination in places of public accommodation. After the Civil War, courts, both north and south, manipulated, changed, or ignored their preexisting common law to deprive African Americans the benefit of that rule. Similarly, courts that consistently invalidated minor contractual restraints on the alienation of private property nevertheless upheld ethnically restrictive covenants that at times barred most of the residents of a given city from purchasing encumbered properties. The refusal to apply a general legal rule because the beneficiaries would be African Americans was a violation of their right to equal protection of the law.
Second, to say the least, segregation and exclusion of African Americans in public places in the South wasn't entirely a voluntary choice of business owners. Jim Crow segregation involved the equivalent of a white supremacist cartel. The cartel was enforced not just by overt government regulation like segregation laws, but also by the implicit threat of private violence and extra-legal harassment of anyone who challenged the racist status quo. This violence and extra-legal harassment was often undertaken with the approval of local officials; the latter, in fact, were often the perpetrators.
To break the southern Jim Crow cartel there were two options: (1) a federal law invalidating Jim Crow laws, along with a massive federal takeover of local government to prevent violence and threats against, and extralegal harassment of, those who chose to integrate; or (2) a federal law banning discrimination by private parties, so that threats of violence and harassment would generally be met with an appeal to the potential victim's obligation to obey federal law. The former option was arguably more appealing from a libertarian perspective, but it was completely impractical. Not surprisingly, many prominent libertarians who have commented on the issue recently have stated that they would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including its public accommodations provisions.
Critics of the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws argue that to avoid being deemed reactionary or irrelevant, libertarians must more generally abandon their opposition to private sector antidiscrimination laws. One major underlying reason for this insistence is the belief that antidiscrimination laws somehow magically transform members of despised minority groups into full equal citizens in the eyes of the majority. Even a generally sober commentator like George Will believes that Title II "not only got African-Americans into public accommodations, [but] changed the thinking of the white portion of the country as well."
Antidiscrimination laws can plausibly accelerate trends toward greater tolerance of minorities. These laws can also force a local majority, such as southern whites in the 1960s, to heed the values of a national majority, such as non-southern whites, who by 1964 had turned strongly against racial segregation.
But antidiscrimination laws are unlikely to provide much protection to a minority group when the majority of the voting population is hostile to that group. America's landmark civil rights legislation was enacted and implemented in the 1960s, when racial attitudes of whites had already liberalized substantially; in the 1930s, when white public opinion was solidly hostile to African-Americans, President Roosevelt refused to support even anti-lynching legislation.
Antidiscrimination laws, in other words, typically follow, rather than cause, the liberalization of attitudes toward minority groups. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the effect of antidiscrimination laws on public attitudes is rarely dramatic. Even the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not noticeably accelerate the pace of liberalization of whites' racial attitudes.
Given their strong anti-statist presumptions, libertarians will generally remain presumptively opposed to the panoply of modern private sector antidiscrimination laws. (This includes, by the way, libertarian opposition to conservative attempts to ban private sector affirmative action preferences.) Many libertarians, however, would likely support antidiscrimination laws if they evolved into default rules that parties could contract around if desired. For example, an antidiscrimination law could replace the common law "at will" employment with a default rule that no employer may discriminate based on a variety of criteria. If an employer nevertheless wished to retain the right to discriminate on one of the prohibited bases, it would have to acknowledge that desire to potential employees, and, therefore, inevitably to the public at large. The subject of default rules, however, requires significantly more attention than this essay can give it.
Beyond that, my own view is that the basic federal laws banning discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, as originally conceived in 1964—before the courts and civil rights bureaucracies devised problematic doctrines like "disparate impact" liability—were relatively benign. If everyone from farmers to military contractors to ACORN is able to successfully lobby the government to protect their interests, I don't find it especially troubling that members of minority groups, who have more legitimate grievances than most legislative supplicants, also use legislation to protect their interests.
That doesn't mean that libertarians have some obligation to support basic private sector antidiscrimination legislation; rather, I think that from both a moral and tactical perspective, opposition to such legislation should be rather low on the libertarian priority list. Indeed, I would be troubled if there was a sudden popular move to repeal antidiscrimination legislation, if it were unaccompanied by broader libertarian political trends, because it would suggest that opposition to such laws came arose from hostility to minority groups, not from opposition to Big Government.
I think, however, libertarians can and should insist that a line be drawn at the point where such laws infringe on the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, expressive association, and other civil liberties. The drafters of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were reasonably sensitive to such concerns, and limited the scope of the Act accordingly. For example, religious organizations, small businesses, and private clubs were exempted from provisions of the Act. In the decades since, though, civil liberties have increasingly come to be seen by antidiscrimination activists as inconvenient and unnecessary obstacles to a discrimination-free world.
The result has been, for example, attempts to force private Christian schools to hire unmarried pregnant teachers, to suppress campus speech that allegedly creates a "hostile environment," to force private membership organizations to enact politically correct membership policies, to force individuals to live with gay roommates, and to prosecute neighborhood associations for objecting to the placement of halfway houses in their neighborhoods. (These and many more examples are documented in my book You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidscrimination Laws (Cato Institute 2003).)
Americans can't rely on the courts to protect them from antidiscrimination laws that infringe on constitutional rights. In the 1980s, a series of Supreme Court rulings suggested that the government's purported "compelling interest" in "eradicating" even trivial forms of discrimination justified running roughshod over the First Amendment. The Supreme Court seems to have backed away from this position, but the prevailing sentiment among the younger generation of legal scholars is that the Court's earlier stance was correct. Few law professors, for example, were willing to defend the Boy Scouts' right to establish its own membership policies when the Scouts defended that right before the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.
Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress, frustrated with the refusal of his liberal colleagues to accept religious exemptions to civil rights laws, has noted that antidiscrimination principle "is taking on a quasi-religious status. Maybe for some people questioning civil rights [legislation] is like questioning God." If so, it's not surprising that the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws attracts such fierce criticism.
The laudable goal of the ever-broadening antidiscrimination edifice is to achieve a fairer, more just society. Laudable goals, however, don't justify giving the government excessive authority, or disguising the implications of doing so. I'm reminded of the "Sexual Harassment Panda" episode of South Park. Kyle's father explains that antidiscrimination law tells us what we can say and do in the workplace and elsewhere. Kyle responds, "But isn't that fascism?" His father retorts, "No, because we don't call it fascism."
David E. Bernstein is the Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law.


text:
It's MORNING EDITION, from NPR News. Good morning. I'm Steve Inskeep.
And I'm Renee Montagne. The shooting was supposed to stop in Syria tomorrow. Now we can't be sure. Syria's regime made last-minute demands that appear to have derailed the peace plan, including a ceasefire scheduled for Tuesday.
The Syrian government is under increasing pressure, as we'll hear in a moment. But it remains defiant, as NPR's Grant Clark reports.
GRANT CLARK, BYLINE: In a statement yesterday, the Syrian government said it would not withdraw its troops from towns and cities by tomorrow without a written guarantee that armed dissidents would stop fighting if they do. A ceasefire agreement, brokered by international envoy Kofi Annan last week, has the military retreating by tomorrow, with a truce starting on Thursday. The regime also wants Annan to guarantee that three of its most prominent critics in the region - Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - would not fund the rebels.
The envoy did not directly respond to the demand, and has not said what would happen if the deadline was not met. The country's largest armed rebel group, the Free Syria Army, yesterday restated its commitment to lay down arms if the military withdraws, but says it would not give any written guarantees to a regime it did not recognize.
Grant Clark, NPR News, Beirut. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
In the new issue of Glamour, country superstar Carrie Underwood opens up about her new album, her husband and trying to stay grounded.
A few snippets from Carrie's interview in the June issue:
On her new album, Blown Away:
"There's a happy-go-lucky feeling to some of it: A nice spring day, put the top down, turn it up, enjoy the world. But there's a darker feeling too. We kill a couple people. It wouldn't be a Carrie Underwood album without a revenge song on it. People really like when I do that. I don't mean to. I don't hate men that much. But it turns out so well!"
On the song writing process:
"I'm not a creative person who's up until 4:00 A.M., writing songs and being weird. I write with people, sharing stories, catching up. I feel I could easily sit down and write a song by myself, but when you get three people, different emotions pour out, and you take them all, round them up, and make them into one coherent thought."
On what she wishes were different about her voice:
"I'm competitive. When I hear somebody else do something I can't, it drives me nuts. Steven Tyler–that screamy thing he does? I can't do that. I have too much control over my voice. Or people like Mariah Carey, who can do whistle tones [notes that are at the highest point of the vocal register]. I've tried, but I can't train myself to do it."
On whether or not she could write a country song about her fame and fortune:
"With no irony? I don't think so, because country music is for real people. I think it would be very hard to write about my Louboutins. Do you know what I mean? My giant house, it's not relatable. But my husband came from a small town and hardworking parents like I did, and I don't think we've lost the mind-set. We don't have a bowling alley in our basement. We don't have houses on the beach and one in New York and one in L.A. I drive a three-year-old Ford Escape Hybrid. We don't care about stuff like that."
The everyday chores she insists on doing herself, and those she'd rather pass off:
"I love to be at the grocery store. It makes me happy to have a full fridge and a full pantry. I hate sending my laundry out. I don't like the thought of other people washing my clothes. What am I happy not doing? Lawn care. And I have a business manager who pays my bills. I did all that myself in college, but I only had one credit card back then."
On being in a relationship with her husband, Mike Fisher, in the public eye:
"A plus is, he knew what to expect. In Canada he was a big celebrity, so he knows what it's like living under a microscope. And he travels a lot, which is good for both of us. We're both independent people, so we can't have somebody around 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The drawback is that we can go weeks without seeing each other. But he's the only guy I've never had to worry about. Any guy I've ever dated, there would always be that doubt: 'He didn't answer his phone. What's he doing? It's late.' I'm not the crazy-girlfriend type, but there was a little voice in the back of my head. I don't have to worry about Mike. I don't think twice. He's going out? I don't care; it doesn't bother me. I don't bat an eye."
Photos courtesy of Glamour


text:
Source: Link
CHARTIER, ÉTIENNE, journalist, lawyer, educator, Roman Catholic priest, school administrator, and Patriote; b. 26 Dec. 1798 in Saint-Pierre-de-la-Rivière-du-Sud, Lower Canada, son of Jean-Baptiste Chartier and Marie-Geneviève Picard Destroimaisons; d. 6 July 1853 at Quebec.
Étienne Chartier was the son of a farmer, and the sixth in a family of ten. His childhood was spent in an environment firmly rooted in the values of rural society and the religious traditions that were part of it: work in the fields, close relations between neighbours and exchanges of information about the crops, strict observance of religious practices, and the strong moral authority of the parish priest. At Saint-Pierre-de-la-Rivière-du-Sud, where they had settled shortly before 1760, the Chartiers were considered difficult, quarrelsome, and formidable as neighbours. On occasion they would take issue with the priest. In 1803 for example, when the curé of Saint-Pierre-du-Sud, Joseph-Michel Paquet, decided to abolish the patronal feast-day, which was accompanied by celebrations with all kinds of excesses, Chartier's father openly showed his disapproval. The hostility of the Chartiers towards the British was also well known. This attitude was scarcely surprising in a family in which paternal and maternal grandfathers had joined with the Bostonnais during the American occupation in 1776 to repulse the British troops that had moved into the parish. Consequently, from childhood Chartier had learned to curse British tyranny, and had begun to develop a spirit of independence which he would increasingly manifest as he grew up.
Chartier could have followed in the footsteps of his father and brothers. But since he was not robust his parents thought he would not make a good farmer, and decided to send him to the Latin primary school in Saint-Pierre-de-la-Rivière-du-Sud, at which the principal teacher was M. Lavignon, the former sacristan of the Jesuits' chapel at Quebec. Among other things, Lavignon initiated him into an austere piety, thus playing a crucial role in nurturing Chartier's earliest religious beliefs. After a year of Latin in 1810–11, Chartier went directly into the second form at the Petit Séminaire de Québec in September 1811. Quebec, with its House of Assembly, the scene of parliamentary debates and numerous political struggles, strengthened the country lad's sense of belonging to the nationalistic milieu in which he had been brought up. Chartier felt drawn to the French Canadian cause. He no doubt was able to discuss these questions with his classmate Elzéar Bédard*, son of Pierre-Stanislas*. When he reached the higher forms, he took even greater interest in public life, which fascinated him. Like his colleagues, he closely followed the career of Louis-Joseph Papineau*, at the time when Papineau was emerging more and more clearly as the new leader of the French Canadians. He was a fervent admirer of Papineau, and was a witness to the signing of his marriage contract in April 1818.
That year Chartier successfully completed his studies at the Petit Séminaire de Québec. An exceptionally gifted student, he stood among the first in his class, and at the end of the year was awarded most of the prizes on the honours list. He was drawn to the priesthood, and formed friendships with classmates who shared the same aspirations. During his years at the seminary he probably spent more time with Ignace Bourget*, later bishop of Montreal, than with anyone else. However, the two young men apparently did not have much influence on each other, for their personalities were already very different.
At the end of his studies, Chartier decided to become a priest, and then, changing his mind, chose a legal career. His choice hardly seems surprising: it corresponded to the vogue for the liberal professions among classical college graduates at the beginning of the 19th century. With the advent of the parliamentary régime and the decline of the seigneurial class, men in the liberal professions commanded respect in French Canadian society by their outstanding qualities and leadership. By the same token, they assumed the direction of their compatriots' nationalism, articulating French Canadian interests, values, and themes. Some of them were even persuaded to the ideals of republicanism, democracy, and secularism. Once out of the seminary and the certainty of its universe, Chartier felt in harmony with the ideals of the new professional class, the beginning of an important shift in his thinking.
In the autumn of 1818 Chartier decided to stay at Quebec and study law. He began his training under Louis Lagueux*, who was to become member for Dorchester in the House of Assembly in 1820. A nationalist of liberal bent, Lagueux received Chartier courteously, and secured lodgings for him with his father, Louis. Chartier was a young newcomer in a law office, without money or support, but he had a liking for ideas and books. Everything interested and excited him. At the beginning of the 1820s, when the question of providing for the civil establishment was the focus of political conflict, Chartier was consumed with desire to intervene in the debate, and it was in all probability to this end that he accepted the position of editor for Le Canadien, which had been revived by François Blanchet*. There he met Augustin-Norbert Morin*, his associate in taking over the direction of the paper. He got on very well with Morin, who was young, nationalistic, and intellectual, and they established a lasting friendship. Both of them wrote leading articles: Chartier was interested in the question of education and Morin gave his attention to the granting of supplies. However, in 1821, a year after their appointment, the two young journalists resigned because of ideological differences with the owners over the orientation to be given the paper.
His hopes dashed, Chartier decided that year to resume legal studies under Denis-Benjamin Viger* at Montreal. Viger's law office was undoubtedly the best that Chartier could have chosen for his training in this professional milieu. At that time at least six students were articled to Viger, who, next to Papineau, was the most prominent leader of the Canadian party. Chartier continued his apprenticeship in an environment that stimulated him and kindled his enthusiasm. He was in contact with young men who were passionately nationalistic and steeped in liberal ideals. On 31 Dec. 1823 he was given his lawyer's commission by the governor-in-chief, Lord Dalhousie [Ramsay*], and thus joined the crowded professional ranks. Montreal already had at least 50 lawyers, and in this field the English-speaking lawyers were giving relentless competition. Burdened with debts contracted while articling, for which his creditors threatened to sue, Chartier was at a disadvantage when he took up practice.
In January 1825 Rémi Gaulin, the priest of Saint-Pierre-du-Portage (parish of L'Assomption-de-la-Sainte-Vierge) at L'Assomption, invited him to set up a fabrique school there. When he left Montreal that month, Chartier felt the need for a period of reflection and still had only vague plans about his vocation. As soon as he had settled in the parish, he lost no time in bringing the neighbourhood children together to begin classes. Until then Chartier had been well received by the clergy as a whole and had encountered no difficulty with his superiors. On 25 Dec. 1825 Jean-Jacques Lartigue*, Quebec's auxiliary bishop at Montreal, conferred the tonsure on him in Saint-Jacques church. Yet Chartier remained preoccupied and anxious about his priestly vocation. In the final period it became harder and harder for him to be clear about his own intentions. Sometimes he did not have the courage to respond to a vocation growing steadfastly for more than a year; at other times he declared that he would become a priest when the clergy paid his debts. He even accused Jacques-Guillaume Roque*, his confessor, of having hastened his tonsuring. His ambivalence about his vocation would surely heighten the inner vacillation that would dog his ministry. It was obvious that priesthood would not bring peace to this unstable, passionate man. For this reason and others that are unknown, various ecclesiastical authorities opposed his entering the Grand Séminaire de Québec. But they soon changed their minds, for the dioceses of Quebec and Montreal were short of priests, the clergy was ageing, and there were few recruits.
In the autumn of 1826 Chartier entered the Grand Séminaire de Québec, a few weeks after his brother Pierre had agreed to make him a loan so he could repay his debts. Chartier thus complied with the rule that all candidates for the subdiaconate be free of debts. During his stay at the seminary he was engaged largely in teaching and supervision and like his colleagues had little time to devote to his theological training. He indeed was quite satisfied with this state of affairs, since his theological studies struck him as inferior and humdrum. In February 1828 a brief illness forced him to take a rest. He seized this opportunity to read works on education. Learning of his research, Charles-François Painchaud*, the priest of Sainte-Anne parish at Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière (La Pocatière), contemplated making him principal of the new Collège de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, and invited him to submit a proposal outlining the educational scheme that he would set up there. Chartier applied himself resolutely to the task.
Imbued with liberal ideas, Chartier centred his report on the concept of liberty, and made himself the voice of reason. At the college corporal punishment would be abolished, close friendships would be tolerated, certificates of confession would be forbidden, and confession and communion would not be obligatory, even at Easter. For all practical purposes discipline would be replaced by the student's sense of responsibility and feelings of honour and loyalty. Political education would take the same direction. As in the community at large, the students would be invited to choose their representatives; they would also have their own newspaper, and the authorities would not be involved in it. A tribunal consisting of a jury of duly elected students and chaired by the principal would be responsible for reprimanding those who committed offences. Such a political apprenticeship would also serve as a powerful means of imparting a patriotic education. The college would become, as it were, a large city in which each person would discharge his duties but also exercise his rights. As for specific teaching methods, the teachers would emphasize reasoning and systematically reject memorization as a learning process. Chartier was by no means alone in proposing reforms in education. From the beginning of the century various members of the liberal bourgeoisie had been denouncing the discipline prevailing in the colleges and advocating a fresh pedagogical approach. Whether he was aware of it or not, Chartier wrote his proposal in a period of unrest and discontent. A tireless worker, he also started on a short analytical French grammar for use in the college.
Chartier took the final steps to the priesthood at the end of 1828. On 8 December he received the diaconate, and three weeks later was ordained priest in the cathedral of Quebec. However, he had to wait another eight months before the Collège de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière accepted him. In the mean time the bishop of Quebec, Bernard-Claude Panet*, appointed him curate of Saint-Gervais parish, near Quebec. At that period of his life Chartier was still a priest known only in the restricted milieu to which he devoted himself. His own ideas were slowly maturing but he avoided expressing them openly. It was at the college that he would have the chance to communicate them. Chartier was officially appointed principal at the beginning of September 1829 and on his arrival he was invited to deliver the inaugural address for the college. In the presence of local dignitaries and Joseph Signay*, the coadjutor to the bishop of Quebec, he used the occasion to attack the British oligarchy, which he held responsible for the woes of the colony. In his speech he also condemned some of his compatriots as propagandists of doctrinaire liberalism. These last assertions might suggest that he had finally rejected liberalism and moved closer to his ecclesiastical colleagues on this issue. However, other statements would later show that he had not rejected any of his earlier liberal ideas.
Chartier's comments caused an outcry. The English-language papers in Lower Canada seized on the affair and demanded his dismissal. The French Canadian press riposted and applauded his attacks on British officialdom. The incident assumed the proportions of a state crisis. The matter was brought up in the British House of Commons. At the beginning of November the administrator of Lower Canada, Sir James Kempt, and the bishop of Quebec summoned him and insisted on an explanation for his conduct. Chartier was not relieved of his office, but he remained none the less hurt and shaken. Furthermore, after this incident his educational plan met with a poor reception. He was increasingly regarded as an intruder and, at that, one who liked to make trouble. The curé Painchaud and the young teachers did everything they could to drive him out of the Collège de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière. It was insinuated, among other things, that he had corrupted some of the students, and this rumour spread like wildfire through ecclesiastical circles. During the summer of 1830 Chartier became increasingly vulnerable because of the tension caused by the reactions to his speech and the many rumours of sodomy being spread about him. Brought up to date on the affair, Bishop Panet placed him in a closed retreat at the Grand Séminaire de Québec. By now Chartier was a priest with a stigma, condemned for ever by the ecclesiastical authorities. His early beginnings would be mirrored in his enduring experiences through countless ups and downs.
In March 1831, after six months of seclusion, Chartier was appointed priest of Sainte-Martine parish near Châteauguay. In this heavily populated community where, however, settlement was widely scattered, he was charged with a difficult ministry, made more burdensome by constant travelling. He carried out his duties honourably but did not manage to rid himself of debts contracted after his ordination. Despite his difficult experience at Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, his political convictions had not changed. He continued to read La Minerve, and corresponded with Ludger Duvernay, who had been imprisoned at the beginning of 1832. His frequent trips to Montreal also led him to maintain a steady connection with the Patriote circle. Consequently he quickly awakened Bishop Lartigue's distrust and the two soon came into conflict.
The difficulty began when Chartier opposed the churchwardens' use of parish funds for the restoration and decoration of the church vaulting. Chartier thought that the fabrique of Sainte-Martine had insufficient resources to assume such expenses. The churchwardens, with the support of prominent parishioners, then declared open war on him. In the circumstances, Bishop Lartigue sought to avoid the worst by offering Chartier another parish. The incident was minor, given that in this period a number of priests met a similar fate in the course of their careers. But Chartier refused to submit to the decision, and asked to meet the bishop of Quebec in the hope of obtaining a parish in that diocese. Lartigue was annoyed and reprimanded him vehemently. A rift was created between them which with time would widen into a chasm. The conflict was temporarily resolved when the two bishops agreed to appoint Chartier priest of Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets (at Les Becquets), a parish no priest wanted, in which the diocesan authority placed priests offering "few guarantees."
Indeed, for some ten years this parish had been caught up in violent quarrels provoked by the problem of getting its church built. Two factions had split the community along classic lines: the first, which included the seigneur, small merchants, and professional men, insisted that the church be erected in the village; the second, composed of farmers, wanted to have it built a little farther out, in the countryside. Chartier arrived at Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets at the end of 1833 when the crisis reached its peak. The affair burst into the newspapers, and one of the factions launched a lawsuit. The new parish priest hesitated to take a stand at the outset; then he changed his mind and lent his support to the farmers' group. He met with resentment everywhere for having backed it. The village notables approached the new bishop of Quebec, Joseph Signay, and demanded that Chartier be dismissed from the parish. Once again his bishop sacrificed him and assigned him to another charge.
Chartier could never reconcile himself to having been abandoned by the bishop of Quebec, and seems to have been more affected by the attitude of Signay in 1834 than by that of Lartigue the year before. These transfers, which he considered ill timed, led him perforce to criticize a system which gave parish priests no certainty of tenure. According to Chartier, this system had made the clergy in Lower Canada effectively dependent upon their bishops. Consequently he demanded the application of the Tridentine right, which guaranteed permanent tenure to the incumbents of parishes. In this respect Chartier happened to be reviving on his own account the rumblings of discontent which especially in the past ten years or so had been disturbing the lower ranks of the French Canadian clergy. Nevertheless, it was not the only claim he articulated against episcopal authority. His difficult experience as a rural priest made him also much more critical of the institutional and disciplinary arrangements of the church, so that his curiosity was directed to problems often overlooked: the locus of decision-making within the church, the priesthood as a career, and the use of sanctions against the most refractory clergy. Quite clearly it was the whole edifice of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, with its decision-making processes and its modes of participation, that Chartier was inclined to call in question. Of course his individual action failed to carry the day at a time when the diocesan authorities had succeeded in re-establishing ecclesiastical discipline and put an end to a disputatious trend in the church. Left to himself, Chartier was carried along more and more swiftly towards disaster.
During the autumn of 1834 Chartier also ventured to challenge the political authorities, and rallied the Patriote party on the question of the Jesuit estates [see Antoine-Nicolas Braun*] and the issue of meetings of the fabriques [see Louis Bourdages*]. From then on Chartier began to associate regularly with the principal leaders of this party. He took an active part in the election campaign in Nicolet riding, and passionately defended the objectives of the 92 Resolutions. In the same year he insisted that the clergy should not stay out of political struggles. Despite the division that developed between the clergy and the members of the assembly during debate on the bill concerning fabrique meetings, he urged his colleagues to give their support to the Patriote party. Chartier's latest stand meant open conflict with his superiors. At the end of 1834 the bishop of Quebec officially dismissed him as priest of the parish of Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets and assigned him to the wretched parish of Saint-Patrice (at Rivière-du-Loup). In the months that followed Chartier did not alter his convictions in the slightest, and defended them with the same determination. But the weight of his debts continued to plague him and made it necessary for him to seek a better parish. During the summer of 1835 Bishop Lartigue refused point-blank to grant Chartier a parish in his diocese. Then he changed his mind and agreed to appoint him curé of Saint-Benoît parish (at Mirabel), on condition that he cease to fight against the Executive Council and abandon his views on the permanent tenure of parish priests and on the fabrique meetings. After the 1837–38 rebellion, when his relations with Lartigue were extremely strained, Chartier would even accuse his bishop of having driven him into a trap in giving him Saint-Benoit.
In 1836 Saint-Benoit was already one of the principal centres of political agitation. Numerous public meetings were held there; several leaders of the Lac des Deux-Montagnes region, notably Jean-Olivier Chénier* and Jean-Baptiste Dumouchel*, came to preach revolution. In this partisan setting, Chartier lost no time in becoming extremely active in local Patriote circles. He sat on the committees, attended the meetings, and took part in nearly all the popular demonstrations in the county. He likewise made himself conspicuous by the violence of his comments, particularly in his sermons, in which he raged against the British government and the colonial régime. He continued also to attack his superiors, always with the same vigour and persistence as in earlier years. Any excuse sufficed to fight against Bishop Lartigue, who distrusted his temperamental excesses and considered him "wrong-headed."
For their part, the Patriote leaders had a high regard for Chartier and increasingly sought his support to establish broad public trust. In May 1837 he was invited to take part in Ludger Duvernay's election campaign in Lachenaie riding. At a meeting in Saint-Scholastique (Mirabel) in June, Chartier harangued his fellow-citizens and introduced Papineau as "the country's saviour." In the autumn he preached several sermons inciting his parishioners to armed revolt. Always active and impassioned, he even visited the neighbouring parishes in an endeavour to rally the farmers to the Patriote cause. At the end of October Lartigue's pastoral letter gave him another opportunity to support the revolutionary aims of the Patriote movement and to attack the church's official stand on the rebellion. Chartier reproached Lartigue primarily for having adopted in this letter the theory of theocratic absolutism, which identifies as the only authority in human society the power of sovereigns appointed by God and destined to rule in an absolute manner over mankind. There are, he said, "cases where a sovereign may lose his authority, namely when he oppresses the religion of his people or when he violates the fundamental laws of his state."
No other parish priest had dared to criticize the pastoral letter from this angle. Furthermore, most priests blindly followed their superiors' directives and condemned the revolutionary movement in violent language. Like their bishop, these priests idealized the ancien régime and divine right monarchy, ardently defended obedience to the civil authority, and affirmed their fierce hostility to any revolution. In fact Chartier was the only priest who engaged himself in the revolutionary movement. On the eve of the battle of Saint-Eustache on 13 Dec. 1837, he went to this parish to harangue the armed forces in the village. On the same day he attended an important meeting at the headquarters of the Deux-Montagnes battalion of militia. He was still in the parish when fighting broke out, but he soon realized the cause was hopeless and fled to the United States. His participation in the battle of Saint-Eustache gave rise to the gravest conflict so far. On 27 Jan. 1838 Bishop Lartigue committed himself to institute proceedings against him under canon law and suspended him from his parish charge. The British government offered a reward of £500 for his capture.
Once he was settled in the United States, Chartier established contact with the principal Patriote leaders who had taken refuge near the border. On 9 Jan. 1838 he attended a meeting at Swanton, Vt. Robert Nelson* and Cyrille-Hector-Octave Côté* won those assembled to their views and proposed to draw up a plan to invade Lower Canada. Chartier certainly subscribed to these objectives, but at the time he wanted above all to find himself a new parish. Hence his role among those who had fled Lower Canada remains difficult to determine. He certainly did not take part in the attempted invasion in February. After the meeting at Swanton he went directly to Pennsylvania, settling first in Clearfield and then a few months later at Philadelphia. There he met the bishop of the diocese, Henry Conwell, who entrusted him with St Augustine parish. He got on very well with Conwell, who drew his warm admiration, for in Chartier's eyes he personified the democratic, liberal prelate. Chartier then urged Conwell to use his influence with Lartigue to get him to restore his right to serve as a priest. In August 1838, through the good offices of the bishop of Philadelphia, Lartigue agreed to a compromise: Chartier could exercise his ministry in the United States but could not resume his duties in the Montreal region. Chartier made an even more direct approach to John England, the bishop of Charleston, S.C., who was the papal legate to the United States, with the intent, basically, to prepare for a fresh struggle against Lartigue's pastoral letter of October 1837.
Chartier did not remain idle in Philadelphia. He gave his attention to St Augustine parish, where he was amazed to find men and women won over to liberalism, who admired democratic institutions and were sworn enemies of the British monarchy. In his writings he expressed on many occasions the firm hope of seeing the two Canadas become independent. In July 1838 Papineau stayed in Philadelphia for a few weeks. Chartier was able to meet the Patriote leader and introduce him to the bishop of Philadelphia. Although he did not at that time exercise a direct influence on the revolutionary endeavour, Chartier none the less remained in touch with some of the refugees. At the beginning of October he learned that plans were being readied near the Canadian-American border for a new insurrection. Without the slightest hesitation he left Philadelphia, and he managed to obtain a new parish at Salina near Syracuse, N.Y. From there he journeyed regularly to Plattsburgh, Swanton, and St Albans to maintain communication with the refugees. He even joined personally in the preparations for a rising in November, making clear in this way his unconditional support for the radical group under Côté and Nelson. Gradually, through his role within the revolutionary structure, he assumed as important a place in it as he had occupied in 1837.
After their failure in November 1838, the insurgents turned more and more against Papineau. Meetings at Swanton on 24 Jan. 1839 and at Corbeau, N.Y., on 18 March reflected this state of mind. During the deliberations, Chartier unhesitatingly gave his support to Nelson and Côté. He had idolized Papineau too much to refrain from calling him to account for his role and his participation in the rebellions of 1837–38. He was one of those who, although not accepting the radicals' ideology, were ready to reject Papineau and embark on a new revolutionary adventure, telling themselves that ideological differences would moderate after victory. With Nelson, Côté, Édouard-Élisée Malhiot*, and several other associates, he urged Papineau to go to France, for his passive, even disapproving attitude was causing considerable harm to the movement. It was he who approached Julie Bruneau, Papineau's wife, asking her to try to influence her husband's decision. Subsequently, with Nelson and Côté, he attempted unsuccessfully to devise several plans for the invasion of Lower Canada. In 1839 he went there incognito, with the hope of rallying farmers anew to the revolutionary cause.
But conflicts quickly arose between Chartier and Nelson's group. While remaining very much a partisan of independence, the revolutionary priest continued to profess a moderate form of liberalism. He could not bring himself to accept the social program of the radicals, who demanded in particular separation of church and state and abolition of both the tithe and seigneurial rights. Disillusioned, he turned against them and decided to support Papineau once more. In November 1839 he wrote Papineau a long letter reproaching him for his cowardice and inviting him to place himself at the head of a new revolutionary movement. He also denounced his conduct before and during the rebellion. In February 1840 the revolutionary committee, probably to get rid of Chartier, sent him to France where he was to evaluate Papineau's success in finding political allies. He was instructed to replace Papineau if that proved necessary. The task, which required him to deal directly with the former Patriote leader, suited Chartier, for he wanted to know Papineau's real intentions with regard to the revolutionary movement. It also gave him an opportunity to plead his case in Rome against Bishop Lartigue. In Paris Chartier met Papineau, who was ill disposed to cooperate and not anxious to seek support for organizing another revolt. Chartier declared him "purely and simply a demagogue, and in no way a statesman." He was bitterly disappointed. In his distress and discouragement he began to have doubts about his mission. With the death of Lartigue in April 1840 a trip to Rome was pointless, and he embarked for the United States in August. In these few months all he had gained from his actions was the hostility of Papineau and of Nelson's radical group. On his arrival he settled in Indiana, where Célestin de La Hailandière, the bishop of Vincennes, made him priest of the parish of Madisonville (Madison).
As a result of the numerous disappointments he had experienced in the Patriote milieu, and the void left by the failure of the rebellion in 1837–38, Chartier decided to abandon the revolutionary movement. In 1841 he returned to Lower Canada, to ask pardon publicly of Bishop Bourget, Lartigue's successor. On 10 December he published a long letter in Le Canadien disavowing his previous activities. Bourget persuaded him to remain for a period of time in the United States, so that people in Lower Canada would forget their image of him as a revolutionary. In March 1842 Chartier settled once more in Madisonville; he subsequently proposed to enter the community of the Brothers of St Joseph. He seems to have abandoned this plan, since in 1843 he was appointed principal of the Catholic seminary at Vincennes. Then in 1844–45 he was in Louisiana, where he served the parish of Avoyelles at Marksville. His passionate fondness for travel was certainly a factor in these journeys, although the real motives remain somewhat obscure. In any case, Chartier could not miss such a fine opportunity to learn more about American society. However, the plight of the blacks and of the French minority soon aroused his indignation. In these circumstances, the annexation of Lower Canada to the United States no longer seemed a valid means of preserving the institutions and language of his compatriots. Following his difficult experience in Louisiana, Chartier wanted to return home. At the end of 1845, after several fruitless approaches to the bishops of Quebec and Montreal, he finally got Bourget to grant him Saint-Grégoire parish (at Mont-Saint-Grégoire).
On his return from exile, Chartier openly adopted the moderate ideas of the group around Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine* and categorically rejected those of his former Patriote friends. The rancours, past frustrations, and innumerable denunciations led him increasingly to keep his distance from his new superiors. In his parish he again displayed unbounded energy: he gave consolation and comfort, and saw to it that his parishioners regularly received the sacraments. Eager to gain Bourget's confidence, he openly led a struggle against the Protestant proselytizing that was spreading in the Dorchester (Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu) region [see Henriette Odin*]. In 1849 La Fontaine's moderate group, fearing the strength of the Rouges and the consequences of Papineau's return from exile, approached Chartier and urged him to publish in the papers his famous 1839 letter addressed to Papineau. Unaware of what lay behind this move, Chartier agreed, believing that in this way he was working for the emancipation of his compatriots. His action brought down upon him the fury of various papers and of former Patriote friends. In fact this was his last foray into politics; bitterly disappointed by those around him, he never again experienced any desire to involve himself in public affairs.
In 1850, as a result of conflicts with some parishioners, Chartier asked to be transferred to the parish of Sainte-Philomène (at Mercier). There he again found himself at the centre of a quarrel provoked by the problem of repairs to the church. Fearing the worst, he urged the bishop of Montreal to send him as a missionary to Arichat, N.S. A year later he asked to be brought back into the diocese of Quebec and was made priest of the parish of Saint-Gilles near Quebec. He was a broken man who had almost no contact with the politicians and priests around him. He was still in debt and in 1852 claimed £455 from the Rebellion Losses Commission for possessions pillaged by the volunteers at Saint-Benoît. He died at the Hôpital Général at Quebec on 6 July 1853 from the after-effects of a liver complaint, and was buried at Saint-Gilles. Only one member of his family and two priests from the Séminaire de Québec were present at his funeral.
Throughout his adult life, Étienne Chartier as a parish priest was totally different from his colleagues. He was a man of his time, who took close interest in the problems of his contemporaries and adopted stances that condemned him to isolation. In his day Chartier was a catalyst of strong passions, which unfortunately made sport of him and finally reduced him to the state of victim, spurned, detested, and scorned by all.
[Étienne Chartier is the author of essays dealing primarily with educational issues. His writings include a descriptive curriculum for the Collège de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière (La Pocatière, Qué.) prepared in 1828 as well as a short analytical French grammar for the students and an educational plan for the college produced in 1829. The curriculum and the educational plan are held in the Arch. du collège de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, in Collège, 112-II and 51-VI respectively.
There is a great deal of material relating to Chartier in various archival collections. For documents concerning his childhood, youth, and education, see: ACAM, 355.114, 826-3; ANQ-M, CN1-28, 18 sept. 1821; Arch. de l'évêché de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, Saint-Pierre-du-Sud, corr. J.-M. Paquet; corr. M. Vallée; and PAC, RG 4, B8, 21: 7659–62.
For his career in the priesthood, the following sources should be consulted: AAQ, 210 A; 26 CP, VI: 45; ACAM, 420.048; RLL; RLB; Arch. de l'évêché de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, Sainte-Anne (La Pocatière), Chartier à C.-F. Cazeau, 12 juill. 1830, and Saint-Patrice (Rivière-du-Loup), corr. Étienne Chartier; Arch. du collège de Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, Collège; Fonds Painchaud; ASN, AP-G, L.-É. Bois, G, 6: 348; 8: 40–42; 10: 235; 12: 291–96; ASQ, Séminaire, 9, no.84; ASSH, F, Fg-2. See also the following collections of Chartier correspondence: Arch. de la chancellerie de l'évêché de Saint-Hyacinthe (Saint-Hyacinthe, Qué.), XVII.C.33; Arch. de la chancellerie de l'évêché de Valleyfield (Valleyfield, Qué.), Sainte-Martine, and Sainte-Philomène (Mercier); Arch. de l'évêché de Nicolet, Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets (Les Becquets); Arch. de l'évêché de Saint-Jérôme (Saint-Jérôme, Qué.), Saint-Benoît (Mirabel), V1A20K.
For Chartier's activities as a Patriote and revolutionary, it is necessary to turn to different collections. The ANQ-Q undoubtedly offers the richest source material for this aspect of his life. Relevant collections here include the Papineau family papers (P-417), the Ludger Duvernay papers (P-68), and the papers concerning the events of 1837–38 (E17/6–52). The Viger–Verreau collection at the ASQ, which contains numerous documents on his political activities, is also useful, as are the extensive Ægidius Fauteux papers deposited at the BVM-G. The PAC also holds several documents on Chartier and his participation in the rebellion of 1837–38, notably in the Papineau papers (MG 24, B2), the Perrault papers (MG 24, B37), and the L.-É. Bois papers (MG 24, K36). The Univ. of B.C. Library (Vancouver), Special Coll. Division, has a letter from Chartier to Robert Nelson, written in July 1839. Chartier's birth and burial records are in ANQ-Q, CE2-6, 26 déc. 1798, and CE1-1, 8 juill. 1853, respectively.
The most important of the published studies of Chartier are: F.-J. Audet, "L'abbé Étienne Chartier," Cahiers des Dix, 6 (1941): 211–23; Ægidius Fauteux, "Les carnets d'un curieux: Étienne Chartier ou les avatars d'un curé révolutionnaire," La Patrie, 9 déc. 1933: 36–37, 39–40; Pascal Potvin, "L'aumônier des patriotes de 1837," Le Canada français (Québec), 2e sér., 25 (1937–38): 417–32. See also "Un document important du curé Étienne Chartier sur les rébellions de 1837–38: lettre du curé Chartier adressée à Louis-Joseph Papineau en novembre 1839, à St Albans, Vermont," Richard Chabot, édit., Écrits du Canada français (Montréal), 39 (1974): 223–55; Chabot, Le curé de campagne; "Le rôle du bas clergé face au mouvement insurrectionnel de 1837," Cahiers de Sainte-Marie (Montréal), 5 (1967): 89–98. r.c.]
© 1985–2024 University of Toronto/Université Laval
Image Gallery
Cite This Article
Richard Chabot, "CHARTIER, ÉTIENNE," in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 8, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed March 2, 2024, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/chartier_etienne_8E.html.
The citation above shows the format for footnotes and endnotes according to the Chicago manual of style (16th edition). Information to be used in other citation formats:
Permalink: | http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/chartier_etienne_8E.html |
Author of Article: | Richard Chabot |
Title of Article: | CHARTIER, ÉTIENNE |
Publication Name: | Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 8 |
Publisher: | University of Toronto/Université Laval |
Year of publication: | 1985 |
Year of revision: | 1985 |
Access Date: | March 2, 2024 |


text:
I doubt the folks at Pixar, given their credentials, have need of crude measures. But when you return to a franchise after 11 years, you never know whether the inspiration may be running dry. I did think Toy Story 2 was getting a little stiff in the joints, and at times this third outing, also directed by Lee Unkrich, shows similar signs of fatigue. It doesn't resort to scatology, but it does succumb to sentimentality, repeating platitudes about loyalty and family and the usual palaver.
Such bromides almost smother the grown-up theme at the heart of the series: transience, loss, and mortality. Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz (Tim Allen), and the gang are analog toys in a digital world. They are talismans that open a child's imagination, as we see in the exhilarating fantasy of the opening sequence. But this is all in flashback. The toys' owner, Andy, is now 17 (he should be closer to 21, since the first film came out in 1995) and is on his way to college. His retro playthings are nostalgic clutter, fated for the attic, the trash (as in other Pixar hits like WALLE and Ratatouille, garbage plays a major role, for some reason), or day care.
The toys manage to visit each of those places, and a few others, too, but the film doesn't spring to life till they arrive at that last destination. At first, day care seems like a heavenly reward for the abandoned toys, a candy-colored world of adorable anthropomorphic items like themselves. But then the kids show up, all apparently in need of Ritalin. Worse, the other toys are not as friendly as they seem. The avuncular Lots-o-Huggin' Bear (Ned Beatty) turns out to be like the warden in Cool Hand Luke, and his henchman Big Baby, with her zombie demeanor and wall-eye, seems like one of the Tim Burton–esque monstrosities made by sinister Sid in the original Toy Story.
To his credit, though Lotso might be treacherous and smell like strawberries, he doesn't kid himself about the nature and destiny of all toys: after the owner grows up, the magic disappears, and they become once again a manufactured product, threadbare, unloved, and doomed for the dump. Pitted against that inevitability is the spunk and ingenuity of Woody and Buzz and their pals — not to mention the genius of the filmmakers who give them life. It might be G-rated, but Toy Story 3 is fully mature.
Table of Contents
Cover Archive
Masthead | Authors | Contact us
See all articles by: PETER KEOUGH
All Slideshows


text:
The Los Angeles Lakers, in a surprising move, announced Monday morning that they have signed former Phoenix Suns and New York Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni to replace Mike Brown as head coach.
A league source said D'Antoni gets a three-year deal worth $12 million with a club option in the fourth year. D'Antoni's agent Warren LeGarie confirmed the deal late Sunday night, several hours after the Lakers beat Sacramento 103-90 for their second straight win under interim coach Bernie Bickerstaff.
The deal was signed around 11:30 p.m. PT Sunday night, a source close to the situation told ESPN. Sources confirmed a Los Angeles Times report that D'Antoni quickly agreed to coach the Lakers after L.A.'s weekend of negotiations to bring back Phil Jackson broke down.
D'Antoni, speaking to SI.com on Monday morning, declined to elaborate on the details of the deal.
"They asked me not to talk, so I'm not going to," D'Antoni said.
The Lakers said they plan to hold a news conference most likely on Tuesday or Wednesday. In a statement released by the team, Lakers spokesperson John Black said team owner Jerry Buss, executive vice president Jim Buss and general manager Mitch Kupchak were "unanimous that D'Antoni was the best coach for the team at this time."
"I love PJ but I'm very excited about D'Antoni," Kobe Bryant told ESPN early Monday.
Sources told ESPN that Jackson's triangle offense was seen as a benefit to Bryant and Pau Gasol but not as conducive to the rest of the players on the roster -- namely point guard Steve Nash and center Dwight Howard. Another strike against the triangle was the fact that this Lakers team struggled mightily to pick up the similarly complicated Princeton-style offense being instituted by Brown.
A league source indicated late Sunday night that Jackson was "stunned" when the Lakers called to inform him they had chosen D'Antoni. He had been prepared to accept the job Monday if negotiations between his agent and the Lakers went well. Jackson's agent Todd Musberger had been scheduled to fly to Los Angeles on Monday
Jackson and the Lakers had never spoken about a salary, the source said, "but he knew coaches don't make what he used to make anymore." Despite reports to the contrary, Jackson, the source said, also never intended to miss any more road games than he had in his previous years with the Lakers.
"Phil would come back only to win and skipping games doesn't lead to winning," the source said.
D'Antoni had knee surgery at the beginning of November and hasn't yet been cleared to travel, according to sources. "It'll be a couple of days before he comes in, but he's further along than people believe," a source said.
Another source said D'Antoni must receive clearance from his knee specialist to fly and also to limit his medication. He is expected to arrive in L.A. on Wednesday at the earliest and Thursday at the latest. It's doubtful, though possible, he coaches Friday's game, the source said.
There is a possibility that Bickerstaff will remain interim head coach even after D'Antoni's introductory news conference, according to a source, if D'Antoni isn't feeling physically able to coach games just yet.
Part of the current crop of leftovers from Brown's staff are expected to be retained by D'Antoni, and he will bring in "one or two" new coaches, according to a source. Two candidates to join D'Antoni are his older brother and longtime assistant, Dan D'Antoni, as well Phil Weber, another longtime aide.
D'Antoni spent five seasons coaching Nash in Phoenix. Nash won two MVP awards while running D'Antoni's signature up-tempo offense, and they won at least 54 games in each of D'Antoni's last four seasons.
D'Antoni then coached New York for the past four seasons, resigning last March after a largely unsuccessful tenure featuring just one playoff appearance and no postseason victories.
Nash and Bryant expressed enthusiasm about the prospect of playing for D'Antoni, although Bryant eagerly campaigned for a third stint for Jackson on the Lakers' bench. Bryant idolized D'Antoni while growing up in Italy, where D'Antoni was a star player in the Italian league.
"Obviously I think everyone knows how much I love Mike," Nash said Sunday night prior to the hiring. "If (D'Antoni) were to coach, it would be seamless and terrific for me, and I think the team as well."
The Lakers have improved to 3-4 after following up their winless preseason with four losses in their first five regular-season games, the club's worst start since 1993.
Brown was fired after the Lakers stumbled badly out of the gate, struggling to learn his Princeton-inflected offense and playing mediocre defense. D'Antoni has a reputation as an offensive-minded coach.
The Lakers' next game is Tuesday night against San Antonio. Phoenix visits Staples Center on Friday.
Information from ESPNLosAngeles.com's Dave McMenamin and Arash Markazi, ESPN.com's J.A. Adande, and The Associated Press was used in this report.


text:
SAN MARTIN, Calif. — After a year spent traveling the world, Brooks Koepka suddenly is in a position to play a lot more golf at home.
In his first regular PGA Tour event, Koepka surged to the top of the leaderboard Friday in the Frys.com Open with a 7-under 64, giving him a one-shot lead over Jason Kokrak going into the weekend at CordeValle.
Kokrak, a runner-up at this event last year, hit 6-iron to the par-5 ninth to a foot for eagle and a 65.
Koepka, a 23-year-old Floridian, received a sponsor's exemption into the PGA Tour season opener between stops in Scotland and Shanghai. He had no status at the start of the year after failing to advance beyond the second stage of Q-school last year. Instead of trying to qualify for Web.com Tour events, Koepka packed his bags and passport for a 15-country journey that has served him well.
He won three times on the Challenge Tour to earn his European Tour card. He played the Dunhill Links in Scotland two weeks ago and in two weeks heads to the BMW Masters in Shanghai.
If he were to win the Frys.com Open, he would have a two-year exemption on the PGA Tour.
"There's no pressure. Just enjoying it right now," Koepka said. "Looking forward to the weekend. I don't see any pressure. Yeah, it would be big. Obviously, be nice to win and get status over here. But you play good, everything kind of takes care of itself."
It has so far — not just the last two days, but all year.
Koepka, who make eight birdies and an eagle, was at 11-under 131.
With no wind in the afternoon, the cut was at even-par 142. Because more than 78 players made the cut, there will be a 54-hole cut Saturday for the top 70 and ties.
Robert Garrigus (63) and Jim Herman (66) were two shots behind, while Camilo Villegas shot 66 and was another shot behind at 8-under 134. Kevin Tway, son of former PGA champion Bob Tway, had a 65 and was among those at 135. Lurking five shots behind were the Japanese duo of Hideki Matsuyama (66) and Ryo Ishikawa (67).
Koepka made most of his birdies with a wedge in his hand, and picked up two more birdies on the par 5s by missing eagle attempts from about 12 feet.
He was at the same course at Q-school where Jordan Spieth failed to advance. Spieth started out on the Web.com Tour, did well enough in his PGA Tour starts to get some money and momentum, and wound up with a win, a PGA Tour card, a trip to the Tour Championship and a spot on the Presidents Cup team.
Koepka, missing the amateur credentials and sponsor exemptions of Spieth, went a different direction.
South Africa. Switzerland. Kenya. Kazakhstan.
Much like the European Tour, its developmental circuit goes all over the world. Like the time in Kenya that his driver turned a 15-minute trip into over three hours, stopping on side streets along the way and making Koepka more nervous than he has been behind the wheel of his luxury courtesy car at CordeValle this week.
Sure, he thought about how much more comfortable it would have been to try a Web.com Tour schedule mainly in America. But he wouldn't trade the experience.
"You're traveling the world at 23," Koepka said. "That's good. And it's a good experience playing overseas. I think you'll see a lot more guys doing it. ... I think everybody wants to be a worldwide player. At least for me, that's what I want to be able to do — play the European Tour and the PGA Tour. I just need to get established over here a little bit more."
The tournament is only halfway over, though Koepka is surely helped by having won four times in the last year on the Challenge Tour in Europe.
Herman also is on good form, though he can be excused if this doesn't feel like a PGA Tour opener. His offseason was one week. Herman played well late in the year but still didn't make it to the FedEx Cup playoffs. He played four of five weeks in the Web.com Tour Finals to earn his card back, and one week later, he was at CordeValle putting up rounds of 67-66 to assure himself a late tee time Saturday.
The low round Friday came from Andres Gonzalez, who also could use a big week.
Gonzalez thought he had his card wrapped up at the Web.com Tour Championship until Lee Williams made a 55-foot birdie putt on the last hole, and Andrew Loupe made a 5-foot par putt right behind him to knock Gonzalez out. He's only in the Frys.com Open because he finished in the top 10 in the previous PGA Tour event in August.
Gonzalez shot a 62 and was five shots out of the lead.