text:
|Thread Tools
I am searching for the best heads for my SB.What r better the 202 or the 194's? 64cc or the 75. Is it better to buy them from like jegs or summit or can I get some worked heads cheaper.Lots of questions.
I just kind of have a personal rule of thumb 1.94 and smaller heads are ok for a 350 or smaller, anything over a 350, or anything seeing over 6000 rpm use 2.02-2.08 heads.
As far as combustion chamber size, use what size you need to get the desired compression ratio. But generally go with the smallest combustion chamber you can to run flat tops or dished pistons. Don't go too big of a chamber and have to run domes though, domes kill ignition, flame and efficiency.
As far as best heads go, AFR is tough to beat, they are far Superior to 95% of other heads. They do come with a price tag though, BEWARE!
Hope this helps
- Cody
Lots of options out there where ever you buy them but they must match your other components such as cam grind, intake type, exhaust type, and cubic inches.
A good set of SBC heads can run as high as $1500 and as low as $500 a pair.
Valve size is proportional to flow rates and some 194/150 heads flow the same as a 202/160.
The CC volume will dictate the CR for a specific application such as 72CC will give a lower CR than a 64CC on the same motor.
The max valve lift for a specific head will restrict the size of cam you can use.
On a 350 SBC with a mild cam to .480 lift you could look at the GM Performance Vortec cast iron heads that have 194/150 valves BUT have 170CC intake runners and 64CC combustion chambers.
They are the lower priced heads but you have to buy a Vortec intake and self aligning rockers that my defeat the savings on the heads themselves.
In the $1000+ price range for a mild 350 look at 202/160 valves, 64-76cc chambers (depending on desired CR), .500"+ max valve lift, 170/60 intake/exhaust runner, screw in studs, and push rod guides. Also check if they call for longer push rods (More$$)
Buying fully assembled heads turn out to be cheaper in the long run than trying to have a machine shop build you a set unless you want stock.
WORLD, Summit, and Jegs sells good iron heads in the 6-$800 range and will back up the sale if you have problems.
Like I said, match the heads to your motor parts. I've seen matched systems sold by name brand manufacturers that take all the guesswork out of the equation. See what they put together in the way of parts.
Good Luck
a machinist told me that taking a 1.94 1.50 valve head and cutting it to 2.02 1.60 and blending it with a die grinder flows pretty good because of the open chamber. but by the time i spend the money on machine work i could get a set of aftermarket vortec heads.
non-specific answers to a non-specific question.
It would help us a lot if you gave us some clue at to what you are trying to acheive for what amount of money. Even then you are going to get a myriad of opinions.
This topic has been covered 4-5 times in the last 3 weeks.
I have heard of the vortech heads from several people but get mixxed opinions some say they r ok some say they suck and would not use them for a boat anchor. I am building a 350,I am trying to decied if I want to spend the money for a stroked crank and machine work on the block or go with a stock crank. I have been givin a great combo for a stroker motor but the money to stroke it is alot. Right now I have a stock block that looks to be rebuilt,it has a 4 inch bore looks like stock pistons very clean motor.I do not feel any ridge in the tops of the cylinders besides a little carbon that cleans up easy.It was in a 57 chevy belair show car.It was never really ran on the open road just started to pull on and off the trailer and around the show grounds.They installed a large towwing cam just for a little thump in the exhaust and they lost oil pressure shortly after (it ran around 20 lbs) I bought the engine for very cheap pulled it apart and found the cam and bearings wiped out but every thing else looks good. I am trying to build a engine on a budget.I understand that speed is money.Down here we say for every second you want to drop in time will cost you a 1,000 dollars. Seems about right. So see I want to pull as much tourqe and power as possible for the 1/8 as cheap as I can without building junk. I have had my hands in a few circle track motors 600-800 horses but that knowledge I have found does not apply for the 1/8 mile. The guys I race at the track are just throwwing things together and trying to run top. The guys who really run good times either will not tell you anything or they r running blown big blocks which does nothing for me since I am a SB lover. I can imagine what I want my car to do but getting it there is a diffrent story. I will have to do this a little at a time but I don't want to do one thing a then have to back up the build to apply somrthing else.I am hoping to get everything together then send my block to the shop so when it returns I can put it together and break it in.I do not want it to set half together for any period of time. I have rambeled enough.Looking forward to your comments.
Shut up, Buckle up and hang on!
Anyone who says that Vortec L31 heads are only good for boat anchors, doesnt know much about teh smallblock Chev engine. theyare the highest flowing Gen 1 head that GM ever put into a production vehicle. They outflow the 1993-97 LT1 head on the intake side. they even outflow the Phase 2 Bowtie race head(not as durable however).
the Vortecs do require a specific 8 bolt intake manifold withraised intake runners. These bolts are located in pairs at the corners of the intakes. They have a 170cc intake port and 64cc chamber.
GMPP now makes the 207cc intake port Largeport Bowtie Vortec head along withteh Smallport Bowtie Voretc head with 175cc intake port.
These heads flow close top what teh aluminum 210cc intake port head flows.
Then there are the 180 and 200cc Edelbrock ETEC heads which are also aluminum.
theVoretc L31 heads have a lift limit of .475" stock. But with retainers and springs much more is attainable.
The Vortecs have a high flow intake port, but teh exhaust side isnt as good when compared to teh intake. This is why you should run cams with at LEAST 10° more exhaust duration than intake.
I suggest full porting of the exhaust ports.
Vortec heads as boat anchors lol, give them to me if you dont want them.
That depends on the valve/bore ratio and the required LSA lobe separation angle of the cam. They are designed for 350s.
When you do that, you are blowing the exhaust out sooner and crutching the overlap with a too wide LSA.
PLease explain what you said--you are blowing the exhaust out sooner and crutching the overlap with a too wide LSA-- blowing out exhoust to soon is bad? LSA? Never seen anyone work a flow bench so I don't understand.
As far as bang for the buck goes, I beleive that there are two ways to go, vortecs or AFR's. For the price they are both great heads. I have had cars wtih both of them and have been very impressed with each. Just a few questions...
How much can you spend on a set of heads?
how much does your car weigh?
Do you want to run pump gas?
What is the max stall you want to run?
how much hp are you after?
What gear are you running?
What tranny are you running?
What kind of cam are you going to be using?
Is there an RPM range you want to stick to?
I will answer those for you adam,
#1-as little as I can get away with
#2- Its a stock 85 S-10 blazer right now maybe 3500 lbs
#3-sure if I can get away with it but I dought it
#4-Something around 3500 I think I want to drive it on the road
#5-As much as I can get of course
#6-Have not decided
#7-as of now a 350 turbo , I would like a 2 speed power glide
#9-Well I am learning that high rpm's are more for the circle track
fullthrottle, your #'s 1 and 5 are contradicting. Spending as little as you can on heads isn't going to get you as much power as possible.
3500 stall is a little much for street use.
Stick with a T350, don't bother with the Powerglide. You'll thank yourself for keeping the additional gear in a street vehicle.
You'd be surprised what you can do with pump gas. You can still build a substantial amount of power using 92 octane. Of course, using cheap heads with poorly designed or old fashioned combustion chambers will make that harder to accomplish. Spending a bit of money on a set of efficient, well designed heads will go a long way.
Vortecs would be the cheapest performance heads you could buy.I would replace the pressed in studs,with screw in studs and guides,Port the exaust side,Bowl blend,Install bigger springs,and better locks and retainers.Although some places sell Vortecs already done.For around $625 a set.Split duration cams are better for vortecs.One I like is the new Thumper cams
But there's nothing wrong with using flat tappet cams.The XE comp cams and lunati Voodoo cams are fairly good.I also like an Isky.But Lazer cams can also recomend the right cam.
And so can comp cams
LSA is determined by the valve/bore ratio. Not by duration or flow benches. Only one LSA is right for each situation. You chose duration to put the torque peak where you want it rpm wise by duration. Get all the lift you can.
A 2" valve feeding a 302 is better than a 2" feeding a 502. In fact, you can't put a big enough valve in a 502 to flow the amount proportionately equal to a 302/ 2". So bigger cubes need different LSA and longer duration. That is why a 240 cam in a 302 is radical..... but the same specs in a 502 idles like grandma's car.
In order to get the power people desire they up the duration and then spread the LSA to preserve pressure and idle. A wider LSA kills the low-mid and adds some up higher.
When you open an exhaust valve sooner in the power stroke, the expanding gasses are blowing out the exhaust valve instead of pushing down on the piston. You start losing torque. As rpm increases..... the inertia of the air is such that a longer cam can be beneficial..... since hp is a function of torque x rpm.... so a long cam kills the low and mid range(less dynamic compression)..... but ups high rpm hp since TIME for the airflow is increased. Remember at 6000 rpm there is only about 14 milliseconds to fill a cylinder,,,,, whether it be on a 302 or a 502.
Here's some good basic stuff..... if you search around on the site you can get a decent understanding of cams.
Edited= I guess I should add, that contrary to popular belief, the exhaust valve is more sensitive to duration changes than lift, because the gasses are being pushed out and they are expanding at the same time and often exceed the speed of sound velocity out the ports.
This really isn't something that can be handled in a couple paragraphs. Study Vizard's articles on the cam and the charts. He regularly makes more hp with less cam than most everybody.
Last edited by xntrik; 01-21-2007 at 08:38 PM.
|Recent Engine posts with photos
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|Thread Tools
|Similar Threads
|Thread Starter
|Last Post
|AFR or Vortec heads? Cam?
|Which Heads to use?
|sbc heads
|Heads and Intake combo
|looking for some head(s) now i'm gonna explode!
|General Rodding Tech


text:
I'm sure most photographers have entertained the dream of making their living through photography. It's a fun dream and for some it comes true. From the handful of professionals I've chatted with it's not an easy life. It's a lot of hard work and hustle which is often accompanied a healthy dose of existential angst.
I admire dreamers and think you have to be one if you want to be an artist. But there's a dangerous side effect to being a dreamer and that's self-delusion. For the dreamer photographer with tendencies of self-delusion there maybe no more lethal a narcotic than internet popularity. You can watch this play out on social media platforms. As comments, reblogs, favs and followers add up a photographer gains more confidence in their work and can quickly slip into a bubble of self-delusion.
I often wonder about the true benefits of exposure on the internet. I remember talking to a friend who had a project that was picked up all over the place, including mainstream websites. I asked them if they received any calls or jobs because of the exposure. They said no. Then again, they didn't exactly take a proactive approach either.
The internet is a pretty awesome and powerful tool for distributing photography and building connections, but I also think we sometimes overestimate the true value we're creating. Look no further than the first internet bubble for a prime example. There are some that say we're in another internet bubble right now, one that's driven by over valuing social media.
For photographers, I think it's important to step back and think about the value of the connections you're making. Do you really have 500 followers? Or is it more like 50 true followers and 450 superficial digital acquaintances?
Photography is expensive
Forget earning a living, it's difficult to pay for photography no matter what, especially if you ambitiously enter contests and portfolio reviews. This topic was recently covered by Aline Smithson on LENSCRATCH, which naturally rippled through photo land.
The photography-competition-portfolio-review-exposure-complex is a complicated behemoth to take on without sounding superficial. I think we're at a point though where it'd be wise to have discussions about it to see if there aren't creative alternatives for promoting and exposing photography.
Perhaps instead of setting aside money for competitions, photographers can re-distribute some of that money toward purchasing independent books and zines. It'd be great to see those niche verticals flourish and grow. It would a wise investment too because at some point I'm sure you'll end up putting out a book and searching for an audience.
No matter though, I think you have to be prepared for the fact that it's going to be incredibly difficult to make money with your fine art work. Even if you do land a solo show, how much money are you going to make off of that? And then what? You need to eat and pay rent next year. Making ones living by selling prints seems far fetched at best for most.
Screw Making Money Through Photography
Isn't there something incredibly rewarding about producing a great image every now and then, out of one's own, very personal engagement with this world? Why would one want see that as less important than whether the results of those truly precious moments (that, let's face it, also come with a lot of hard work) are packaged appropriately for commerce? - Joerg Colberg
Those that have followed Hin Chua's work for the last few years know that he's flown around the world to make photographs for his project 'After the Fall'. How has been able to do that? He's held down a pretty good day job. He hasn't had to turn to Kickstarter or do print sales. He's able to self-fund his work. Removing the stress of paying for rent and food has allowed him to focus his energy on developing his photography.
Each of us have our own reasons for making photographs. I don't begrudge anyone with ambition or dreams of earning a living through photography but I would hope that you understand the realities and challenges of whichever path you choose to take.
If you want your work to be vetted by the photography-competition-portfolio-review-exposure-complex then you're going to have to play by their rules and pay their monetary dues. That's just how it is right now.
We're living through a very interesting time for creatives and artists. There are certainly immense challenges but also new opportunities that are emerging almost daily. Why should we limit ourselves to the old models or the way its always been done? That's not very interesting. Maybe the most interesting photography in the next decade will come from those that choose a different path, the passionate, studious seekers who create their own occupations, in other words, the delusional dreamers.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Showering BEFORE surgery...
- Newbie322
- West Texas
- Last updated: 4 years ago
So, here I sit, the night before surgery and I'm reading all the billions of rules and to-do's - and they give you this antibacterial soap, you know? They say to avoid hair, face and vaginal area with the antibacterial soap. It ALSO says "NO REGULAR SOAP" - so does that mean that there will be no washing of, I'll call her, Ms. Lily - at all!?! No washing at all!? I dont understand!


text:
ValentineP... Photographer
Miss TiModel Female Herndon, Virginia, US
My MM URL: http://www.modelmayhem.com/missti
Mayhem # 729408
About Me
Please drop me a note if you would like to shoot any of the below themes/ideas or if you have anything specific in mind. I have a MUA who I work with who also has many projects and ideas that she would also like to shoot.
Please note - I am NOT looking to do lingerie and swimsuit at this time. I would like to do fashion, makeup, editorial, and commercial work to build my portfolio.
I live in Northern VA and will travel around the DMV. My availability is generally limited to weekends due to my normal 9 to 5 but evenings can be worked out.
NO NUDITY, NO FETISH, NO BONDAGE, NO EROTIC/SEXUAL SCENES for professional and personal reasons.
I would like to shoot:
* Headshots
* Fashion-oriented/focused (such as advertisements, editorials, etc., where the focus is mostly on the clothing)
* Hair
* Mod
* Retro
* Glamour
* Photojournalistic/editorial
* Asian/ethnic
* Urban chic (i.e. baby phat, Ecko Red)
* Make-up focused
In short...not really physically qualified for Maxim or Victoria's Secret images...would like more Sephora (make-up based), Allure, and Cosmo type of fashion and make-up spreads.
Have you worked with Miss Ti? Add Credits for Miss Ti! >>
Credit Notes
Brock McClung #716375
photoswo #331595
BareJournal #665215
Robert Matthews #26010
Import EyeCandy Studios #334223
Face Beating by Renny #624980
NoVa Jay #62702
Gerville #103979
Chubs Photography #516419
Valentine Photography Studio #717952
Nika Photos #269391
Richard Powers #616406
Retrato Studios #812633
Cloud Eagle #344756
Paula Gordley - Pro-Fashional #740885 - the BESTEST BESTEST BESTEST MUA, hair stylist, stylist, manager, big sister, mentor (and the list goes on) EVER!!
ValentineP... Photographer
Paula Gordley Makeup Artist
Brockstar Photography Photographer
psp_37 Photographer
Import EyeCandy Studios Photographer
photoswo Photographer
Loading Content


text:
Assault Weapons of Ohio (USA receivers )and Czech Point (Czech receivers).
I found some VZ 58 kits with original receiver stubs and 4 mags for 250.00 each . Who make a receiver for these kits ? I checked out CNC warrior and non listed . Also is this a good price ?
Assault Weapons of Ohio (USA receivers )and Czech Point (Czech receivers).
CNC Warrior has been working on a receiver for a while, but its never come to market. Unless you want to keep waiting, AWO or Czechpoint are your options. AWO receivers are from the Ohio Rapid Fire auction, I believe.
I did not realize that reciever prices would be as high as they are and have been. I think they never went much below $200. I'm not ready to go there yet so I just bought a vz2008 for less than a parts kit and a reciever. I still have a parts kit. It was $170.00 in 2007 and came with everything---4 mags, pouch, bayo , cleaning kit, etc. I know the barrells on vz2008 are bigger, so you can not just shop out for a military. I think I remember I got the parts kit for the front sight with bayo lug and other parts and want to one day swap out front sight base and install brake on my Czechpoint while I'm at it.
A milled receiver will not be below $200. The only time that ever happened were some of the ORF stuff as they were going out of business. I got a few back then., M70, M64, M76. But on averale $250 -$350 for a milled receiver for any semi-auto rifle.
Unless you are an experienced welder and can use the stubs and cut pieces that Apex and others sold at one time. Even those are scarce these days. Some folks jig & weld them up into functioning receivers.
Last edited by AKBLUE; 09-08-2012 at 07:14 PM.
Just too much work and cost to produce them any cheaper.
When your smiling the whole world smiles with you
Yea, without an extension of some kind on the original barrel, a VZ-58 is a short barreled rifle. That's something to remember when thinking about muzzle brakes and kit building with these.
That is a pretty easy fix. CNC Warrior makes an extended slant brake and other types to silver solder or blind pin etc. The original barrels are chromelined and nice. But the journals do vary and can be a fitment issue like other commbloc/euro machining tolerances they vary a good bit.
I called Assault weapons of Ohio and I can get one for 239.00 shipped to my ffl .
"$49.99" If I had only been smart enough to buy a bunch back then. But I say that about a lot of stuff now.
Did someone say bore snake?
49.99 , I saw them at that price and wished I would have bought some .
Didn't buy any at $50 because people her said they were a pain to assemble.
I'm older now and know not to always listen to what people say
coulda, woulda., shoulda..., the lament of the folks with their nose on the window looking in at the display.
All been there., done that.


text:
Opinion: GOP Should Welcome the Spending Cuts They Bargained For
Republicans' initial support for the sequestration cuts that are about to rein in Washington spending was a lapse in judgment bound to be a PR nightmare. But the party of fiscal discipline doesn't do itself any favors by running from these cuts now.
Rep. Buck McKeon, for instance, told Politico that he regrets backing the measures and other GOP lawmakers like Susan Collins have expressed their displeasure with the outcome too. Whatever the short-term consequences, Republicans have to stand their ground now. And if that helps to save the government from financial ruin, it might all have been worth it.
Republicans lobbied for the Budget Control Act, part of a last-minute negotiation to end last summer's debt ceiling crisis, to include a sequestration mandate requiring $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts to defense and more over the next decade if Congress fails to agree on a plan for equal savings before January 2, 2013. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 15 percent of the cuts would come from entitlement spending, 43 percent from defense, and the other 42 percent from non-defense spending. But the prospect of 2 million lost jobs and 9 percent unemployment now have the GOP's congressional leadership predicting catastrophe and blaming President Obama.
The GOP's main complaint now is the extent to which the proposed cuts could affect the Pentagon, along with other defense-related jobs and manufacturing. Sequestration could divert $492 billion over the next decade from the Defense Department—10 percent of its budget. That doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Hacker groups manage to function with a handful of people. But the DOD claims to need 140,000 to secure the Web alone. This could force it to economize a little. The cuts are also expected to force a 100,000-man reduction in troop size. That might be a good excuse to get out of Afghanistan and to close some of the useless US bases in Europe and elsewhere. And there's no shame in that either: It's restructuring, not retreating.
But here's the craziest part: For all the hoopla about "catastrophic" cuts, the Number One drain on the federal budget—welfare spending—is almost exempt from sequestration. Under Obama, millions of people have been added to the food stamp rolls, Bill Clinton's welfare-to-work requirements have been gutted, and the number of people claiming disability insurance has soared to 8.7 million—more than the whole population of New York City! But the projected $171 billion cut to entitlement spending amounts to just 0.6 percent of the $26 trillion that the government will be spending on welfare programs between now and 2021, according to the CBO. Yep. That's zero percent. Leave it to Washington, huh?
It speaks ill of the GOP's congressional leadership that it agreed to such a lopsided stab at austerity. But this is a chance for the Republicans to reclaim the mantle of fiscal discipline.
Democrats will make that as hard as possible. I predict no shortage of heartwarming commercials depicting this or that helpless person rising from the ashes of sorrow with the help of one federal government program or another. But a national debt of $16 trillion is insurmountable. Congress has been running trillion-dollar deficits since 2009. Something has to happen, and it has to happen now. The spending cuts have to start somewhere. If not now, when? If not this, what?


text:
Current Canisius men's lacrosse head coach Randy Mearns led the Canadian National Team to victory in his debut at the "Duel in Denver" with the help of four former Golden Griffin standouts. Mearns and Canisius graduates Angus Dineley '07, Adam Jones '11, Kevin Ross '07 and Matt Vinc '05 led Team Canada to a win over the rival United States, 11-9, on Saturday.
Both Jones and Ross contributed two points to the winning effort, scoring a goal and adding an assist, while Dineley and Vinc were both apart of a strong defensive effort. In goal, Dineley recorded 10 saves in the second half of play to shut down a strong United States attack.
The matchup was the first between the sport's top two nations since the 2010 FIL World Championship. The "Duel in Denver" served as a prelude to the 2014 FIL World Championship, which will be held in Denver from July 10-19, 2014. The countries have split the last two world championships with Canada taking the 2006 title and Team USA winning in 2010.


text:
Foodie's Guide To New OrleansRecommendations on the best restaurants to visit and best food to try while visiting New Orleans
Best Seafood Cities In AmericaA brief profile on seven of the best seafood cities in America
48 Hour Guide To New OrleansA travel guide of New Orleans for visitors who have just 48 hours to see one of America's most fascinating cities
O'Brien: Hoyer Out Of Concussion Protocol, Will Start SundayHoyer missed the fourth quarter of the Texans' win last week over the Bengals and Sunday's win over the Jets with a concussion.
A Food Lover's Guide To New OrleansOne of the best parts about going on vacation is being able to sample new cuisine options and trying food that you may not have back home. This is one of the reasons why many food lovers make plans to visit the New Orleans area.
A Music Lover's Guide To The SouthGuide to five of the most important cities to visit in the South for music lovers
5 Must-See New Orleans SitesThere are so many things to see and do in the New Orleans area, but only a handful are sights you do not want to miss seeing.
Fire On Coastal Louisiana Oil Platform ExtinguishedA fire that burned for more than a day on an oil production platform off Louisiana's coast was extinguished early Saturday, the Coast Guard said.
New Orleans Woman Killed Her Two Children, Then Herself, Say PoliceNeighbors say Michelle McCullum was going through marital and career problems.
Lawyer: Louisiana Gun Case Against Robert Durst DroppedBy dropping the state case, Louisiana clears the way for a federal prosecution on similar charges.
Best Waterfront Destinations In The USMost every popular destination in America shares something in common — a waterfront setting.
Getting To Know Michiel Huisman, Hollywood's Dutch Leading ManIf you've watched television in the last two years, chances are you've seen the tall, muscular man with long, brunette-colored hair and a Dutch accent.


text:
Trend bucked. Chelsea flirted with point dropping yesterday — much as they did against Southampton last Wednesday.
But for once there were cheers for the final whistle at Stamford Bridge — rather than boos, curses against the name of Rafael Benitez and the tramp of damp feet heading early to the exits.
It was Chelsea's first home win since Christmas. They just about deserved it.
Sometimes we forget how much genius is in Chelsea's first XI. Much of it is in Juan Mata's boots. His goal yesterday was one of the loveliest you'll see — even if, technically, it shouldn't have been scored, since Francis Coquelin had had his foot tenderised by Ramires during the build-up.
Cesar Azpilicueta's crossfield pass to Mata was beautiful and true but the ease with which Mata brought down the ball on his left foot, before using the same to smash it past Wojciech Szczesny was something else.
There is grace in football; art too. Juan Mata is an artist. (By the way, don't we think that Mata looks somewhat like a sixteenth-century Spanish aristocrat? The thick half-beard, the slightly haunted eyes, the strong jaw and broad features: he would suit a ruff and a pair of those silly Habsburg-era tights. But I see I have wandered from my point.)
Anyway. During yesterday's first half in particular, Mata was outstanding in Chelsea's layered midfield. He was at least as good in attack as the man of the match, Ramires, was in defence.
It was entirely unsurprising that he was also involved in Chelsea's second goal: his ball finding Ramires to draw the penalty that Frank Lampard stroked home.
There were only two blots on Mata's brilliance yesterday.
The first was of his own making. In the second half, when Chelsea were struggling, he lost his rag, picking up an uncharacteristic yellow card for booting the ball away. The second blot was more comparative.
For Mata's goodness served as an unwelcome counterpoint for his countryman Fernando Torres's continuing badness.
And yes, I hear you saying it: uh-oh. This isn't turning into another one of those Torres-basher columns, is it?
Um. Well.
Kind of yes. It actually is.
The first thing to note about Torres yesterday is that he had had a haircut. The second thing to note is that, as usual, he was a shambles.
So if the haircut was an attempt at a sort of reverse-Samson — a symbolic shearing in the hope that his potency would be restored — it did not work.
Poor Nando lumbered about once again looking slightly terrified of what might happen if he was called upon to kick the ball in, or even near, the goal. It was slightly harrowing to watch.
The worst of it came on 68 minutes, when he received the ball with his nose pointing goalwards, Thomas Vermaelen to beat in a footrace and about a third of the pitch his to devour.
It was the sort of position that, back in the day, only ever ended in a goal. But Torres's touch, almost inevitably, let him down. Rather than bursting the net, the ball just trickled into Szczesny's arms.
A minute later, Torres was back on the ball, bursting into a good position on the right from which to whip a low cross.
Alas: his newly uninsulated brain froze, and a tame delivery pinballed off two defenders and away.
When Torres was withdrawn after 80 minutes, it was to the sound of dispiritingly loud cheers for his understudy, Demba Ba.
As the Spaniard picked his way through the dugout, he took the usual pats on the rump and words of encouragement from his team-mates. But his eyes were cast down and he looked very, very glum.
Ghastly. It's no good riffing on a man's pain like this every week. But Torres on the team-sheet right now means Chelsea are playing their biggest matches with 10½ men. Mata mopped up yesterday. No doubt he will again. But really, how long can this go on?
Twitter @dgjones
- More about:
- Chelsea F.c.
- Fernando Torres


text:
Are you looking to travel somewhere that offers amazing scenery, fascinating culture, friendly locals and the opportunity of having the experience of a lifetime? A trekking holiday in Nepal meets all of these requirements and much, much more.
I think a lot of people dismiss the idea of trekking mountains in Nepal (or anywhere for that matter) because it sounds really intimidating. They have visions of mountaineers, weighed down with heavy equipment, scaling sheer cliffs and battling snowstorms.
The reality of course couldn't be any more different (although this kind of more extreme adventure for experienced mountaineers is available in Nepal too – approximately 5,000 climb Everest every year).
There are treks in Nepal that are suitable for even the most unfit and inexperienced hikers. Children can trek, the elderly can trek, overweight people can trek – you get the picture! And if you're not a person who's into sports or active holidays, a trekking holiday might sound like your idea of a nightmare but give it a go and it could change your opinion and your life.
Get fit, see amazing sights, have an adventure
I think a lot of people are attracted to the idea of travel because they think it will make them cooler, thinner, more tanned and so on, rather focusing on the actual travel itself. Well, trekking in Nepal will actually do all of these things! I guarantee that on even a short trek you will lose weight, feel amazing, increase your confidence and start to believe you can do anything.
Misconception number 1 – you need to be fit to go on a trekking holiday
Not true!
In fact you can start from a very low fitness level and increase it in a very short period of time. I would go so far as to say that a trekking holiday is the fastest way to get fit and lose weight.
I was kind of middle of the road when I did my trek in Nepal. I walked to work quite often but I was not a serious hiker by any means. I'd dabbled in jogging and going to the gym in the past but most days I sat at my computer nearly all day and although not technically overweight, I definitely had a spare few pounds.
After my short 5-day trek, my clothes were all dropping off me. You use up so much energy from hiking up mountains that you could eat all day and still lose weight. I also felt amazing, full of energy and wishing I'd signed up for a longer trek. Like many forms of exercise, trekking can be quite addictive.
Hiking up mountains is not easy, and this is definitely not a no-work solution to losing weight and getting fit but it's the closest you're going to get to an intensive fitness program that you can't opt out of and has guaranteed results.
It's also easy – you have a trekking guide and a porter to carry your backpack, there are restaurants and guesthouses along the way and awe-inspiring views to spur you on and climb that last few hundred metres.
How to plan a trekking holiday in Nepal
There are a few different ways you can go about planning your trek in Nepal.
The first is to buy your plan tickets, book a couple of nights accommodation in Kathmandu and plan your internal travel and find a guide and porter when you get there. This is perfectly possible and lots of people do it but it's probably not the best option for inexperienced travellers.
Another option is to book yourself on to a group trek, which organizes everything for you. This is a great option for nervous solo travellers as not only does it take all the hassle out of planning, but you also have some ready-made travelling companions in the form of your trekking group.
There are some downsides to trekking in a group however. As everyone in the group has to be accommodated, you won't have the option of changing your itinerary half way through. Also if you end up with a group of people that you don't really get along with, you're stuck with them until the end of the trek.
The third option is sort of a compromise between the two and is what I decided on – a private trek organized through a trekking company. This way you have the option to tailor the trek exactly to your requirements and have full flexibility, but it's also a really easy option for newbie travellers and trekkers. No need to worry about trekking on your own either – trekking guides make excellent companions and you'll meet up with lots of people along the way in the guesthouses you stay in over night.
If you do choose to arrange your trek through a company, take the time to research properly and make sure that they are committed to responsible travel. You want to ensure that your guide and porter are getting a fair wage and your trek has minimal impact on the environment.
What to pack for trekking in Nepal
What you need to pack will depend somewhat on the trek you are doing but if you are doing a short and relatively easy trek, you can get away with minimal equipment. Pretty much everything you need can be bought in the outdoor equipment stores in Kathmandu for very reasonable prices so rather than bringing everything from home, you may just want to spend a couple of days shopping in Kathmandu before you set off.
In general, keep your supplies down to the absolute minimum. Yes, Nepalese porters can carry huge loads but that doesn't mean you can take advantage of them. Also bear in mind that they may be carrying the equipment of several people on a group trek.
- A good quality backpack is of course essential. Your porter will probably carry this, although of course you have the option of not hiring a porter (I would recommend to do so as it provides jobs and brings money into the area).
- You'll also need a daypack to carry your water, sunscreen etc.
- Keep your clothing to the minimal amount possible and don't bring multiple changes of clothes. Long trousers or a long skirt are essential (it's not culturally appropriate to wear shorts in Nepal although many trekkers do) and you'll want a t-shirt and long-sleeved shirt. Look for tech fabrics that wick sweat away from the skin.
- Hiking boots are another essential item – try to get them broken in before you start your trek and pair them with some good quality cushioned socks.
- Rain jacket – hiking in wet clothes is miserable so you'll want to make sure to stay as dry as possible
- Fleece or down jacket – aim for lightweight but warm.
- Sleeping bag – it gets cold in the mountains. Although my trek was not particularly high altitude, I was so cold some nights wearing all my clothing, fleece, two pairs of socks and thin sleeping bag that I couldn't sleep. Try and invest in a good quality warm sleeping bag.
- Sunglasses – the sun is very strong at high altitudes and you need to protect your eyes.
- Sunscreen – as above.
- Water bottle and purification tablets. The water in the mountains is not safe to drink. Even boiled water may contain bacteria and parasites, as it doesn't boil at a high enough temperature once you go past a certain altitude. As an alternative to purification tablets, you can also buy a handheld UV light purifier, which can be very handy and is a great talking point with fellow travellers!
- Baby wipes – prepare not to shower for a few days. Most of the guesthouses have shower facilities but it is very bad for the environment to use hot water in the mountains and the cold water is COLD!
- First aid kit
- Flip flops or sandals for use in the evening around the guesthouse.
- A torch for nighttime trips to the toilet.
- Minimal toiletries.
- Camera, charger and spare batteries – this is one of those times when you really don't want to be without a camera! Power supplies can be unreliable so try to bring spare batteries and charge them when you can.
Which trek to do in Nepal?
There are so many different trekking options to choose from depending on the kind of scenery you want to see, your experience level and how long you want to trek for.
The Poon Hill trek is a great short trek for beginners in the Annapurna. It usually takes only 5 days and yet you'll get to see some amazing scenery and ascend to the highest point of 3,210m. There are some steep sections but at around 10km a day, you can take it easy.
For a longer trek, you might want to consider the Annapurna Circuit, which passes through diverse scenery over 16-20 days and reaches a height of 5,300m. The Annapurna Sanctuary trek is another popular option, taking you up to the base of Annapurna and usually taking between eight to ten days. More experienced trekkers might want to consider the Mount Everest Circuit which offers a range of different trekking options ranging from 2-3 weeks long. To trek in this area, you'll need to fly to Lukla first.
All photos copyright Rachel Adnyana


text:
Motor Tour 2013
Save the date!
Motor Tour 2013
North to South
Lincoln College has been arranged for our Hall of Fame Banquet. There will be 240 tickets available for this event.
- 9897 reads
Got Content?
We welcome your Route 66 news, stories, photos and events for publication in our newsletter or on our web site!


text:
Saw II is the second installment of the seven-part Saw film series. The entire film was shot over a span of 25 days. It was released in most parts of the world on October 28, 2005, but not released in Australia until December 1, 2005. Darren Lynn Bousman took over directing duties, and also co-wrote the story's script with Leigh Whannell, the original film's co-writer.
The film features the antagonist of the previous film, the Jigsaw Killer, finally being apprehended, but trapping the arresting officer in one of his own games while showing another "game" of eight people in progress at the same time. It also explored the character's back story, explaining why he became a serial killer.
The film is currently #16 on Bravo's Even Scarier Movie Moments. Following the film's opening weekend gross of $31.5m, Lions Gate Films commissioned Saw III, released on October 27, 2006.
- Oh yes... There will be blood
- New game. Different pieces
- We dare you again
Michael Marks , a police informant, awakens to find a spike-filled mask locked around his neck. A videotape informs him that he has one minute to retrieve the key from behind his right eye with a scalpel, but he cannot bring himself to do so and is killed when the mask closes. Detective Eric Matthews is later called to the scene by Detective Allison Kerry when she discovers a message for him. Initially reluctant to become involved with the case, Eric decides to join Kerry and Sergeant Daniel Rigg in leading a SWAT team to an abandoned steel factory, where they find John Kramer , who is weak from cancer, as well as computer monitors showing eight people, including Daniel Matthews, Eric's son, and Amanda Young , the only known survivor of John's games. They are all trapped inside a house and have only two hours before a nerve agent filling the house kills them, but John assures Eric that he will find his son in a "safe, secure state simply talks with him alone. Pressured by Kerry, Eric reluctantly agrees in order to buy time for the police tech team to arrive and track the signal from the house.
The eight victims - Daniel, Amanda, Xavier Chavez, Jonas Singer, Addison Corday, Laura Hunter, Obi Tate, and Gus Colyard- - are told by micro cassette recorder that antidotes are hidden throughout the house. One antidote is in the safe, the combination is "in the back of their minds" and the order found "over the rainbow". Gus is shot by the booby-trapped door, and the group makes their way to the basement, where it is revealed that Obi helped kidnap the others, which is supported by Laura when she recalls her abduction. He enters the furnace to retrieve two antidotes, but inadvertently activates it and is burned alive. As they continue searching the house, Jonas leads them to an upstairs room that Xavier and Addison break into, which houses an antidote behind a steel door and a needle-filled pit containing the key. The test is meant for Xavier, but he throws Amanda into the pit instead; though she retrieves the key, Xavier fails to unlock the door in time and abandons the group out of frustration.
Meanwhile, John passes the two hours with both idle and cryptic conversation with an increasingly frustrated Eric. He eventually reveals that after learning that he had cancer, he tried to commit suicide by driving off a cliff, but survived and found a new appreciation for life; with the time he has left he hopes to inspire the same appreciation in others by testing their will to live. The tech team arrives, and John reveals that all of the current victims aside from Daniel were framed by Eric for various crimes, providing police files as evidence, and if his identity is discovered, Daniel will be in danger. At Kerry's suggestion, Eric destroys several documents and sketches around the area, though John doesn't appear to care.
Xavier returns to the first room, where he discovers a colored number on Gus's neck and realizes that one number from the combination to the safe is written in colored ink on the back of each of their necks. Now desperate the antidote, he kills Jonas in a fight and begins hunting the others. Laura succumbs to the nerve agent, having been more affected than the others, and Amanda and Addison both abandon Daniel after learning that Eric is his father, though Amanda returns after finding Jonas's body. Addison finds a room with an antidote in a glass box, but her arms become trapped in the razor blade-lined sockets, and Xavier leaves her to die after reading her number. Amanda and Daniel return to the first room and find a tunnel that leads to the abandoned bathroom, which still contains Lawrence Gordon's severed foot and the decomposing bodies of Adam Stanheight and Zep Hindle . Daniel collapses inside just before Xavier finds them. Amanda points out that he cannot read his own number, but Xavier cuts the skin from his neck. As he moves to kill them, Daniel slashes his neck with a hacksaw having feigned collapse.
Having seen Xavier chasing Daniel, Eric assaults John and forces him to take him to the house at gunpoint. The sitting area they were in turns out to be a freight elevator, which they use to leave the factory. The SWAT team simultaneously trace the video feed to a similar, but different house where Rigg finds VCR's playing previously recorded images, revealing that the events in the gas house took place before they raided the factory. The factory's timer expires and a large safe opens, inside which Kerry finds Daniel bound and breathing into an oxygen mask. Unaware of any of this, Eric enters the house alone, and eventually locates the bathroom, where he is attacked by a pig-masked figure. He awakens to find himself shackled at the ankle to a pipe, and a microcassette recorder beside him reveals that Amanda has become John's protege. She appears in the doorway and seals the bathroom door, leaving Eric to die. Outside John hears his screams and slowly forms a smile.
|Jigsaw/John Kramer
|Tobin Bell
|Shawnee Smith
|Eric Matthews
|Donnie Wahlberg
|Daniel Matthews
|Erik Knudsen
|Franky G
|Glenn Plummer
|Emmanuelle Vaugier
|Bevereley Mitchell
|Timothy Burd
|Dina Meyer
|Lyriq Bent
|Noam Jenkins
|Tony Nappo
|SWAT Member Pete
|Kelly Jones
|SWAT Member Joe
|Vincent Rother
|Mother In Cancer Ward
|Linette Robinson
|Nurse In Cancer Ward
|Gretchen Helbig
|Boy In Cancer Ward
|Kofi Payton
|Video Techie
|John Fallon
|Security Officer
|Ho "Oyster" Chow
Critical Reaction
Reviews on Saw II were generally mixed. Many critics who liked the first film hated the second film. Peter Travers, Film critic of Rolling Stone and Editor, gave Saw II a negative review despite liking the first installment. Stating that "...Saw II does have a lot more traps than the original but throughout the film,there's nothing but stupid plot-points and new characters that fall flat though I did like only two new characters in Saw II and those are Daniel Matthews and Alison Kerry. I like the characters because they have strong acting and well done performances." Travers gave the film one out of four stars but however did well recieve Erik Knudson and Dina Meyer's roles. Positive reviews came from people such as Grae Drake, the editor for Rotten Tomatoes, who did enjoy Saw II, stating that "A lot of people say that Saw is a fantastic horror film and I agree with them. Then came Saw II and after I came out of the theater after seeing the film and I was blown away, actually. I think the best scene in the second film is the ending where the character of Amanda Young ceils Eric Matthews in the bathroom from the first film and leaves him to die just like what John Kramer ceils Adam in the bathroom in the previous one." Due to the negative reception of Saw II, Rotten Tomatoes gave the film 35 out of 100, much to Grae's dismay.
Saw II: Original Motion Picture SoundtrackEdit
Uncut Edition
Saw II has been released on a standard as well as a "Special Edition" uncut DVD. Differences in this edition include:
- When the police are entering Wilson Steel, three short cuts are shown of Jigsaw eating Cheerios upstairs and realizing the police have arrived. When he realizes this, he calmly goes back to what he was working on.
- Jigsaw has a few extra lines of dialogue with Detective Matthews, mentioning that he has "wiped the slate clean", and that most people are merely "sleepwalking".
- When Obi is trapped in the oven, he attempts to break the glass on the far side as he is burning alive.
- The scene of Amanda thrashing around in the Needle Pit is extended.
- In the bathroom, Charlie Clouser's score begins as Xavier begins cutting off his skin, and continues until he dies from his throat being slashed.
- The opening scene with "The Venus Headtrap" is extended and the song "Irresponsible Hate Anthem (Venus Headtrap Mix)" is playing in the background.
- The scene where Matthews is beating up Jigsaw is extended with one extra punch.
This is the shortest unrated version in the series at 93 minutes, whereas Saw and Saw III's unrated versions are close to two hours.
Box office gross
- Made for only $4 million, Saw II grossed over $144 million worldwide, which includes $87 million in the United States.
- One of the posters for the film Scary Movie 4 parodied the "severed fingers" poster for this film. But instead of a two, three fingers form the number four, and one has a Hello Kitty bandage. The tagline is "The funniest thing you ever sawed."
- When Jigsaw tells Kerry over the walkie-talkie the location of the file containing information everyone in the house, he says "Brown desk, second drawer". The desk the file is found in, however, is white.
- The code/combination for the safe is (Red) 2, (Orange) ?, (Yellow) 16, (Green) 11, (Blue) 9, (Indigo) 25, (Violet) 8.
- In the Uncut Edition, as with the first Saw, there is an easter egg called "Saw 2 in 62". It has three "takes", the first one is using clay figures modeled after the characters in the film, the second replaces the character with common materials, and the third one uses photos from the film which are animated.
- Contains several references to the 1972 film The Last House on the Left. Most obvious when John tells Eric that his son is in "the last house on the left".
- When Kerry and Eric are talking at the station, Darren Lynn Bousman is seen (with an afro) on a wanted poster. He also wore a robe to act out the part of Jigsaw for Michael's tape at the beginning of the film.
- The house number 237 is also the same number of the room in The Shining.
- In the scene where Kerry tells Matthews to threaten Jigsaw that he'll destroy his work, you can clearly see a drawing of the Razor Box Trap, which soon follows in the film.
- During the raid of Jigsaw's hideout in the opening of the film, when cars/armored vehicles drive by the camera, you can faintly see for a short time shadows of the crew. This was confimed in a commentary for the movie.
- During the scene when Eric finds Jonas's body (next to the trap door), he locates an antidote syringe. Knowing both Amanda and Daniel are meant to survive this game, and that Amanda never really showed poisoning symptoms, the antidote was presumably for Daniel. This would also explain how he survived his prolonged exposure to the toxin.
- It took 120,000 syringes to complete the needle pit sequence, and it took four days for four people to replace the needle tips with fiber tips.
- In Saw, the shackle was on Adam's left leg. However, in Saw II, The shackle is seen to be on Adam's right leg.
See Also
External links
- Official website
- IMDb
- Saw III: Jigsaw Cuts Loose Video interview with Tobin Bell on MTV.com
- Donnie Wahlberg interview for Saw II
Saw (short film) • Saw • Saw II • Saw III • Saw IV • Saw V • Saw VI • Saw 3D • Jigsaw


text:
Lee Horsley, Lancaster University
Early twentieth-century American crime fiction wasn't entirely 'hard-boiled'. America also produced its share of classic Golden Age whodunits, written in the 20s, for example, by S. S. Van Dine, and in the 30s by Ellery Queen and John Dickson Carr. But the distinctively American contribution of the 1920s and 1930s was the tough guy crime fiction of the hard-boiled tradition that started with the stories of 'the Black Mask boys'. These 'noir thrillers' are stories that can be seen as very directly related to the socio-economic circumstances of the time. Raymond Chandler wrote that the 'smell of fear' generated by such stories was evidence of their serious response to the modern condition: 'Their characters lived in a world gone wrong, a world in which, long before the atom bomb, civilization had created the machinery for its own destruction and was learning to use it with all the moronic delight of a gangster trying out his first machine-gun. The law was something to be manipulated for profit and power. The streets were dark with something more than night.'
This type of crime fiction, then, began to develop as a popular form in the aftermath of one devastating war and came to maturity in the two decades that terminate in a second world war. In its most characteristic narratives, some traumatic event irretrievably alters the conditions of life and creates for its characters an absolute experiential divide between their dependence on stable, predictable patterns and the recognition that life is, in truth, morally chaotic, subject to randomness and total dislocation. In the best-known parable of ordinary life disrupted, Dashiell Hammett's Sam Spade (Maltese Flacon) tells the story of Flitcraft, who comes to realise life's arbitrariness and absurdity when he is nearly killed by a falling beam. The American thrillers of the period repeatedly represent the sort of transformation that leaves the protagonist feeling, as Flitcraft does, that 'someone had taken the lid off life and let him look at the works.' The sense of disillusionment in the years between the wars was heightened by political and economic disasters for which people were wholly unprepared: there was the folly of Prohibition and its attendant gangsterism, as well as growing evidence of illicit connections between crime, business and politics in American cities. Crises afflicted both American and European economies, bringing the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, which Keynes saw as the worst catastrophe of modern times. In the 'hard-boiled' and 'noir' fiction of this period, the anxious sense of fatality is usually attached to a pessimistic conviction that economic and socio-political circumstances will deprive people of control over their lives by destroying their hopes and by creating in them the weaknesses of character that turn them into transgressors or mark them out as victims.
The Black
Mask Boys
The most important publication of the 20s in encouraging and marketing the new kind of hard-boiled crime story was Black Mask. The magazine was founded in 1920 by H. L. Mencken and George Jean Nathan; in the early 1920s, Dashiell Hammett and Carroll John Daly began writing for Black Mask, and the identity of the magazine became more sharply defined when the editorship was taken over in 1926 by Captain Joseph T. Shaw. Shaw encouraged a high standard of colloquial, racy writing, favouring 'economy of expression' and 'authenticity in character and action', all of which are important features of the hard-boiled style. Shaw greatly increased the circulation of Black Mask, and other pulp magazines (for example, Dime Detective, Detective Fiction Weekly, Black Aces) were soon competing in some numbers. Amongst the regular contributors to Black Mask, in addition to Daly and Hammett, were Paul Cain (George Sims), Raymond Chandler and Horace McCoy.
The most immediately recognisable iconic figure to emerge in the crime stories of this period is the hard-boiled investigator - a tough, independent, often solitary figure, a descendant of the frontier hero and cowboy but, as re-imagined in the 1920s, a cynical city-dweller: 'He finds no way out. And so he is slugged, shot at, choked, doped, yet he survives because it is in his nature to survive' (Herbert Ruhm, The Hard-Boiled Detective). He can achieve a degree of control, but, unlike the classic Holmesian detective, he cannot restore order and set all to rights. The basic narrative pattern pits this lone investigator against brutal criminals, often in league with a corrupt power structure.
One finds, in the hard-boiled stories and novels of this period, two main types of investigators: on the one hand, those who possess some form of moral superiority (like Chandler's Marlowe); on the other, those who are more implicated in the world of corruption, depicted as entering into a scene of disorder and acknowledging their own anarchic tendencies and capacity for violence (as in the novels of Hammett). These 'compromised' investigators are key figures in the evolution of literary noir, which, as it develops in the late 1920s and the 1930s, turns to the portrayal of deeply flawed, transgressive, often criminal protagonists.
The unsettling manipulation of point of view and the unstable position of the protagonist are key characteristics of the darker (more 'noir') types of hard-boiled crime story. We are often brought close to the mind of a protagonist whose position vis a vis other characters is not fixed; we see treacherous confusions of his role and the movement of the protagonist from one role to another. The victim might, for example, become the aggressor; the hunter might turn into the hunted or vice versa; the investigator might double as either the victim or the perpetrator. Whereas the traditional mystery story, with its stable triangle of detective, victim and murderer, is reasonably certain to have the detective as the protagonist, much of the crime fiction of this period deliberately violates this convention. Victim, criminal and investigator can all act as protagonists. An exploration of guilt is fundamental, and there can be no clear distinction between guilt and innocence.
Hammett and
Hammett's output was surprisingly small: he wrote all of his novels between 1929 and 1934. His influence, however, has been enormous. He introduced characters who often quite closely conform to the description of the private eye as 'half gangster' - a man whose innocence has become so tarnished as to be no longer visible. Hammett's impact was due in part to his ability in creating a distinctive voice, a true 'hard-boiled' style that is in itself an implicit rejection of bourgeois hypocrisy and conventional values. His spare, unembellished prose is appropriate to his no-nonsense protagonists. Hammett's flawed, vulnerable narrators and his hard, direct representation of contemporary material give him an ability to lay bare the 'heart, soul, skin and guts' of a corrupt town (Red Harvest).
Hammett's most famous successor, Raymond Chandler, started writing for Black Mask in December 1933. Chandler's work is characterised by a much more consistent lightness of tone, combining witty detachment with an underlying sentimentality and romanticism. When Marlowe develops beyond the sketchily realised narrator of early stories like 'Finger Man', the fictional world created is always reliably mediated by the voice of a protagonist who unfailingly combines honourable conduct with penetrating judgement and self-mocking humour. Though Marlowe is caught up in plots of notorious complexity (and is significantly less in control than, say, the figure of the classic detective) he continues to provide the reassurance of a stable and trustworthy perspective. His detachment places him much closer to the masculine competence and 'rightness' of traditional detective fiction, and so moves him away from a noir sense of uncertainty.
The protective presence that Marlowe establishes is above all stylistic. The witty, ironic aloofness of his narrative acts to evaluate and to contain the moral disorder of the society he investigates. Marlowe's self-ironising manner simultaneously acknowledges his limitations and draws attention to his separateness: '"Don't make me get tough," I whined. "Don't make me lose my beautiful manners and my flawless English"' (Farewell, My Lovely). Marlowe's superiority to his environment is not, though he is resilient, a matter of physical prowess but of a subtle intellect that can manage a self-deprecating joke even when he's been sapped and imprisoned and 'shot full of dope and locked in a barred room'. Unlike Hammett's Op, Marlowe would never 'go blood-simple'. As critics have often observed, when Marlowe does enter into conflict with the depraved society around him, his preferred role is that of the questing knight.
James M.
Cain and Horace McCoy
In the early thirties, James M. Cain and Horace McCoy arrived in California - 'the nightmare at the terminus of American history' (Mike Davis, City of Quartz). The first novels of Cain and McCoy, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1934) and They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1935), can be seen as the real starting place of the Los Angeles novel, the fictional undermining of a frontier myth in which California figures as the fabled land of opportunity. In place of this myth, a new image emerges, with California as the site of disappointment and failure, of disastrous endings for rootless characters who arrive at a dead-end of hopelessness. It is a mood captured, for example, in Edgar G. Ulmer's 1945 film, Detour, in which the journey of Al Roberts (Tom Neal) across America to Los Angeles leads only to murder, entrapment and despair.
Cain and McCoy were yoked together in Edmund Wilson's essay on the 'boys in the back room', which classed both of them as 'hard-boiled'. Neither liked to be labelled as hard-boiled, but there are good reasons for seeing grounds for comparison between the two. Dismissed as pulp novel hacks by many American critics of the time, both Cain and McCoy were treated by European critics as the equals of Hemingway and Faulkner. This European acclaim is in fact one of the most important links between the two writers, both of whom were cited as influences by French existentialists and seemed to European audiences to have anticipated absurdist themes. They represented isolation, alienation, loneliness and dread. They chose 'insignificant' protagonists under sentence of death, struggling to make sense of a random and unstable world, epitomised in Los Angeles, with its population of strangers and drifters. The earliest screen adaptations of Cain's novels were in fact French, Camus cited Postman as an inspiration for L'Etranger and McCoy's They Shoot Horses, Don't They? was hailed by the French as an American masterpiece.
McCoy, who started writing stories for Black Mask in 1927, was a contributor contemporary with Hammett, Paul Cain and Chandler. He depicted decent, gullible, ineffectual protagonists, ill-equipped to cope with the world. Firmly embedding his wider absurdist themes in American life of the thirties, he was one of the crime writers to capture most starkly the deprivation experienced in the years of the Great Depression. Although Cain does not offer sustained social criticism, the Depression years are mentioned in passing or taken as given, a constant determinant in characters' actions and movements. He presents his characters as victims of a society traumatised by national economic disaster but nevertheless driven by myths of limitless opportunity, success and unhampered self-determination. They follow the ignus fatuus of the American dream, and when they have (opportunistically) attained their wishes they find that all they have really secured is defeat and entrapment.
W.R Burnett
If the novels of W. R. Burnett were to be judged on the basis of their influence, he would counted as one of the most important writers of his time. He saw himself as the writer most responsible for the shift towards depicting crime from the point of view of the criminal himself. Little Caesar was, he said, 'the world seen through the eyes of the gangster. It's commonplace now, but it had never been done before then...The criminal was just some son-of-a-bitch who'd killed somebody and then you go get 'em.' Little Caesar stands at the start of a period of fascination with the criminal's own perspective, not only in gangster narratives but in the other central noir roles of investigator (as in the work of Whitfield and Paul Cain) and victim (the destitute young outlaws of Anderson's Thieves Like Us or the love triangle murderers of James M. Cain's novels). Written in 1929 and filmed in 1930, Little Caesar was the most influential of the gangster sagas. It was imitated in dozens of early thirties films and novels, amongst them Scarface by Armitage Trail.
Paul Cain
Paul Cain's Fast One, one of the most brutal and compelling of gangster novels, was originally written, starting in March 1932, for Black Mask. Cain's first piece of fiction and his only novel, Fast One is the ultimate expression of Chandler's half-jesting suggestion that hard-boiled writers use the simple expedient of having a man come through the door with a gun whenever the action threatens to flag. Followed faithfully, the method produces an image of a savage and random universe.
Copyright © 2002 Lee Horsley
Supplementary articles:
Black Protest in the Mid-Century American Crime Novel
Fatal Women in the Hard-Boiled Fifties
For further discussion of the above
writers, see:
Lee Horsley, The Noir Thriller (Palgrave, 2009).


text:
Stained Glass Trees
To make your own cookie shapes, draw a simple Christmas-tree or ornament shape onto a manila folder, and cut it out. Place the cutout on rolled-out cookie dough, and cut around it with the tip of a paring knife. Alternatively, you can cut out cookies with cookie cutters (wide shapes work best). Use the knife tip to cut out the centers of the cookies.
- Servings: 36
- Yield: Makes about 3 dozen
Source: Holiday Cookies 2005, December 2004
- 2 cups all-purpose flour, plus more for work surface
- 1/4 teaspoon coarse salt
- 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
- 1/2 cup (1 stick) unsalted butter
- 1 cup sugar
- 1 large egg
- 1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract
- 7 ounces assorted clear colored hard candies, such as Jolly Rancher, colors separated and finely chopped (about 30)
Sift together flour, salt, and baking powder into a large bowl; set aside.
Put butter and sugar in the bowl of an electric mixer fitted with the paddle attachment; mix on medium speed until pale and fluffy, about 3 minutes. Add egg; mix until smooth, 1 minute. Reduce speed to low. Add flour mixture, and mix until combined. Stir in vanilla.Wrap dough in plastic, and refrigerate until cold, about 45 minutes.
Preheat oven to 325 degrees, with racks in upper and lower thirds. Roll out chilled dough on a well-floured surface to a little more than 1/8 inch thick. Cut out shapes using a 5-inch tree-shape cookie cutter. Using a metal spatula, space 2 inches apart on baking sheets lined with parchment paper. Using the tip of a paring knife, make a triangular cutout in center of each cookie for candy filling. Reroll scraps, and cut.
Sprinkle candy in a single layer in hole of each cookie, avoiding edges of triangle. Refrigerate until dough is firm, about 15 minutes.
Bake cookies until candy has melted and completely filled cutout and cookie edges are just starting to turn pale golden brown, 11 to 12 minutes. Do not let the cookies brown, or the candy centers may become bubbly. Let cool completely on sheets on wire racks. Use a metal spatula to remove cookies from parchment.


text:
What on earth was the Downing Street political operation thinking? Maria Miller had been damaging the government for a week before she resigned. Single handedly, she'd ended a run of positive news coverage for the government, reignited the expenses scandal, and created an impression of the government as a bunch of bungling bullies, trying desperately to throw their weight around to save one of their own from justified criticism.
I asked myself, Why on earth not just cut her loose?
I actually want to read defence of Maria Miller that explains why No 10 are resisting sacking her. It baffles me. There must be some reason?
— Hopi Sen (@hopisen) April 8, 2014
Cutting Miller loose fast and viciously seemed the obvious political move.
Maria Miller is hardly a household name. Few people know who she is, even fewer could pick her out of a line-up of MPs. If she'd gone straight away, there would have been barely a susurration. Nor did she have a significant following in the Tory party. There were few Miller partisans who needed placating before the grim dispatch.
I couldn't understand why the Downing Street operation decided to put so much on the line to defend a minister marginal in popularity, in cabinet significance, and in factional power.
When political operations do apparently suicidal things, there's usually a semi-comprehensible reason. It seemed not so this time. That mysterious defence of a doomed minister is, for me, as interesting as the scandal itself, because it says something about a group of people who do matter, the Downing street political team, and how they see their priorities.
So here is my attempt to justify a stupid decision, and answer my own question: Why try to save a doomed minister?
1. Leave no (wo)man behind.
This government is often accused of neglecting their dull loyalists, those willing to do the drudge work of keeping the government going. The wealthy, the connected and the flashy, such as a Johnson, a Dorries or a Goldsmith can get headlines by making waves, but what does the loyal PPS get? Patronised and ignored, used and exploited, then dumped on when things get ugly.
It's not an attractive proposition. Made to feel sufficiently disposable, maybe your middle ranking plodder will stop waiting patiently for a promotion to higher office and begin to return the calls from that nice chap from the Telegraph.
The very least you can offer a loyalist is a bit of loyalty in return.If you don't the next minister will know that when it comes down to it, they'll be on their own. If they think that, you can say goodbye to any chance of them taking any risks on your behalf. At least this way every Minister in the Cabinet will think that the Prime Minister will expend some political capital on their behalf.
2. This too could have passed.
Jeremy Hunt went through this fire. People like me said he should resign as culture secretary.
@hopisen Hunt's dreams are probably still scuppered by the weak way he dealt with Adam Smith
— Jim the Hedgehog (@jimthehedgehog) June 13, 2012
But he survived, and prospered.1 Why did the Hunt story run out of steam? Because other things came along, and there wasn't much more to say, and Hunt could put together a half credible account of his own actions. A special adviser had to be dunked, but the main man was kept.
So could Maria. If events had intervened, everyone might have forgotten about her again. Unfortunately, only Ukraine and Peaches Geldof were huge stories, and both were imperfect substitutes for Broadsheet headlines and pen-sucking leader-writers.
3. It could have been you.
Forget the briefing to the papers. I'd bet that a lot of Tory MPs are heartily sick of the expenses regime and the various guardians of public morality getting a decent wedge from the taxpayer for popping up on TV to tell the world how awful MPs are.
I bet they're even more annoyed by the fact former commissioners os parliamentary sin, no matter how bumptious, incompetent or self aggrandising they were in the actual job, are always quoted in newspapers with the sort of awed reverence normally reserved for the pope, or Davina McCall.
So even Tory MPs they can't quite believe how badly Maria Miller handled the complaint against her, they might be privately pleased that Downing Street is willing to take some heat on this issue. She might have messed up, they'll be thinking, looking at their receipt for petrol, gum and a can of beans, but at least she was a good human shield for the rest of us.
4. Even given the inevitable, your actions can control the consequences thereof.
If Maria Miller was always going to have to go, it's arguable that the government was only then right to appear to defend her to the last ditch. That way, she leaves believing that the government carried her for as long as they could, and is in no position to brief the press about the incompetence or duplicity of No10.
You never know the whole story about a scandal. Maybe Miller had enjoyed several detailed conversations with No 10 advisers about how to protect her career and manage her case.
If she'd left angry and embittered, maybe some of these would have found their way into the papers. A week of stonewalling before conceding the inevitable might have bought months of silence, without affecting the outcome either way.
5. If it walks like a Tu Quoque…
David Cameron is running for election against Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, not the editor of the Telegraph. Does it really matter if a Cabinet Minister looks bad if your opponents are chary of pushing the dagger in too deep?
If Ed Miliband wants to raise Maria Miller, fine, let's break out that picture of Denis MacShane's cake, eh? This is a war no-one can win, so no-one will want to fight too hard. That makes it easy to defend, because you're not defending against your real enemy.
So, that's my rationale for the inexplicable.
Does all of this wash? Sort of. But it was still a terrible strategy.
Here's my alternative defence strategy:
1. Apologise unreservedly, even if you don't mean it. Do it at length and really explain where you went wrong. Don't be afraid of criticizing your own actions, once you've given them some context. That way at least you'll get the context in.
2. Sack the SpAd (and find them a nice job in three months). Sorry, but they've got to go. 'I'll answer for my mistakes in the court of public opinion, but no-one should have tried to shush the free press'
3. Apologise again, and only then mawkishly point to the family stress you were under.
4. Once you've grovelled, phone a friend and get them to ask why the focus is on poor average anonymous you, not for example wealthy, more famous politicians who don't pay inheritance taxes on their expenses paid property, or wealthy people who claimed big mortgages.
5. As soon as the storm seems so have eased, do a big interview with the Spectator, or perhaps ConservativeHome. 'The Maria story you don't know" Once you've grovelled, you might just have people in a position to with sympathise you. You'll need to exploit your family story shamelessly and cynically, but it's your last line of defence.
- I still think he's an ex-future leader though [↩]


text:
Death by a Thousand Cuts:
This file is also available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format
Chapter 1
At the heart of this story lies a mystery about politics and persuasion. For almost a century, the estate tax affected only the richest 1 or 2 percent of citizens, encouraged charity, and placed no burden on the vast majority of Americans. This tax was grounded on a core American value: that all people should have an equal opportunity to pursue their economic dreams. Yet it became so despised and generally unpopular that a wide majority of Congress voted to repeal it. How, in a democratic society, did this happen? And what does its demise signal about our future?
A law that constituted the blandest kind of common sense for most of the twentieth century was transformed, in the space of little more than a decade, into the supposed enemy of hardworking citizens all over this country. How did so many people who were unaffected by the estate tax--the most progressive part of the tax law--and who might ultimately see their own taxes increased to replace the revenues lost if the estate tax disappeared, come to oppose it? Who made this happen?
The answers to these questions reveal a great deal about how American politics actually works in the age of polls, sound bites, think tanks, highly organized membership organizations, and single-issue coalitions. The standard depiction of policy-making in Washington tends to focus on the incestuous relationship between the nation's lawmakers in Congress and the slick, well-heeled lobbyists who ply their trade between Capitol Hill and K Street by day and grease political wheels through campaign contributions and fundraising parties by night. The tale of the estate tax's demise--an epic whose final chapter has yet to be written--is different. It defies what we think of how big money influences politics. And the forces that killed this tax are now poised to take on much larger prey.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, inside-the-beltway machinations from Gucci Gulch did not send the estate tax to its grave. Rather, the movement to kill the "death tax" (as its opponents very effectively renamed it) first started, and until the mid-1990s operated almost exclusively, outside the nation's capital. The tax's assailants ranged from farmers to florists, from cattle ranchers to newspaper owners, from the humblest of small businesses to some of the largest fortunes in the nation. For years Washington insiders viewed the movement to repeal the tax as a pipe dream. They tinkered at the tax's edges, hoping to ease its burden here or there. But the outsiders never wavered in their quest to eliminate the tax entirely, picking up support in Congress slowly but steadily. The force that brought this change about drew its strength, if not from the grassroots, at least from the grass-tops of a large swath of American society.
To be sure, repeal would not have happened if this incredibly broad coalition of outsiders had not eventually come together under centralized leadership, deploying savvy Washington representatives and ideologically sympathetic insiders. By the late 1990s, this band of outsiders had united with Republican antitax philosophers, activists, and legislators, who regard all progressive taxation as morally obnoxious and economically destructive. Seeds of this movement date back to the late 1970s. It flowered a bit during Ronald Reagan's presidency, but it did not gather genuine political strength until the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. Since then, eliminating all taxes on wealth or income from wealth has become a matter of Republican orthodoxy. Indeed, as stunning as the estate tax repeal was, it is a bellwether of a larger conflict--over the future of progressive taxation in America. Estate tax repeal is one important strand of a looming effort to strip from our nation's tax system the very idea that those who have more should shoulder a larger share of the tax burden.
Many observers, who have become cynical about the role money now plays in our nation's political process, will not be surprised that the interests of the wealthy triumphed here. But money did not lubricate this particular legislative change in the way that most people would expect. Tax policy has always been a prime area where moneyed interests attempt to work their wiles on willing politicians. Yet in the estate tax debate, the big money players who stood to gain the most from repeal--the multimillionaires and billionaires looking to escape future taxes--remained in the background, giving relatively small campaign contributions and refraining from direct lobbying. The large sums of money that facilitated repeal did not buy legislators' votes. Money did play a crucial role, but a more indirect one, a role that cannot be curtailed within the American constitutional system.
The political movement to repeal the estate tax achieved a great victory with the passage of George W. Bush's massive 2001 tax-cutting bill. That unprecedented piece of legislation began a decade-long phaseout of the estate tax, culminating in a repeal scheduled for 2010. But the entire 2001 tax law "sunsets"; the repeal disappears in 2010 unless subsequent legislation extends it or makes its changes permanent. Because a new law is needed, Democrats remain complacent. Having failed to learn any lesson from their trouncing in 2001, they are in danger of losing the larger war.
Conceived at a time of huge projected surpluses in the federal budget, the 2001 tax cuts are now caught in a kind of limbo: with the surpluses gone, replaced by deficits as far as the eye can see, final repeal of the estate tax is by no means certain. But Democrats underestimate the power of the forces working to eliminate progressive taxation in America. The coalitions and their leaders are working as hard as ever. Their agenda for progressive taxation in America is simple: death by a thousand cuts.
This is a story about how power in this country actually works today. The unexpected and often counterintuitive events that led to the 2001 repeal have important implications for lawmaking--not just lawmaking about taxes and the redistribution of wealth or income, but about the entire machinery of persuasion that goes into creating legislation in twenty-first-century American politics. The stakes in this battle could not be higher. At issue is what kind of government we shall have and who shall pay to finance it.
The law at the center of this tale is simple enough. When a person who is among the very wealthiest in this country dies, his or her estate has to pay a portion of the value of its assets to the United States government before the rest of the estate can be passed on to children or other heirs. But there are several important caveats. If the estate is passed to a spouse, there is no tax. If the person leaves the money to a charity or sets up a charitable foundation, as so many of America's wealthiest individuals have over the years, none of the money donated is taxed. Depending on where the person lives, state estate taxes may also apply, although, until the 2001 legislation, most of these payments could offset what the estate owed the federal government.
Until the passage of the 2001 tax bill, the tax affected only individuals with assets of more than $650,000, or married couples with assets of more than $1.3 million--figures known as "the exemption." That is to say, the first $650,000 of any individual's estate was "exempt" from the tax, and the exemption was scheduled to rise to $1 million by 2002. Any amount above that would be taxed. In 1999, just 2.3 percent of all estates were taxed by the federal government; the other 97.7 percent of adults who died that year owed no estate tax. The average size of the estates taxed that year was $2.5 million. The average estate tax paid was $469,000, for an average tax rate of just under 19 percent. Combined, the taxes collected from these estates totaled $24.4 billion. This amount would fund nearly one-half of the total spending in 2004 of the Departments of Homeland Security or Education and is more than twice the size of annual Pell grants, the federal government's largest expenditure to help students attend college. Of the total revenue from the tax, more than half came from the richest 7 percent of taxable estates, those valued at $5 million or more, the wealthiest 0.1 percent of our society. Nearly one-quarter of the total revenue--$5.7 billion--came from the 550 estates with $20 million or more of wealth. And nearly two-thirds of the wealth taxed by the estate tax is publically traded securities and other liquid assets, not family business or farms.
First adopted in the nineteenth century to fund various wartime government revenue shortfalls, the estate tax in its modern form has been on the books continuously since 1916. While the tax rate levied on large estates went up and down over the years, the tax itself was, until the movement we describe, generally considered an uncontroversial means of raising federal revenue from those most able to pay. Perhaps the most amazing accomplishment of the network of coalitions that worked to repeal this tax is the way in which it changed so many people's opinions about who was affected by the tax and its fairness as a means of funding government. One poll showed 77 percent of the population believing that the estate tax affects all Americans. Many polls show that more than one-third of Americans believe that they themselves will have to pay the tax.
As effective as the repeal forces were, they benefited greatly from an inept and inattentive opposition. The more traditionally liberal forces, who thought they could defeat the repeal movement simply by pointing out the fact that only the richest 2 percent are taxed, utterly misread the political dynamic at work.
Why did appeals to economic self-interest fail? One reason is Americans' enduring belief in the personal attainability of great wealth--our enduring optimism. In the 2000 presidential race, speaking before rallies of middle-class citizens across the country, George W. Bush again and again received his most enthusiastic applause when he declared his intent to end the death tax. It was a political lesson that he and his advisors would not forget.
It would be wrong, however, to think that the president, the coalitions, and business groups merely hoodwinked people into mistaking the interests of the super-rich for their own. They also managed to win in the court of public opinion, by making a philosophical argument over the very legitimacy of taxing large accumulations of wealth. The death tax was brought to its knees by a decade-long assault on its political support, its philosophical underpinnings, indeed, its moral character. The philosophical argument about fairness and justice that was marshaled on behalf of repeal animates the entire story this book tells, and its origins run at least as far back as the founding of the country.
Is inheritance a natural right or a social privilege? That is a long-standing question. Is the wealth that is accumulated during a lifetime, either through work or investment, the sovereign possession of its current owner to dispose of entirely as he or she chooses? Or does society have some claim on it from having provided the markets, the rules of law, the security, and the enforcement that allowed the wealth to grow and develop? If inheritance is a natural right, government has no business taxing it. Such a levy would represent what repeals forces call "double taxation," because the money is taxed once when it is earned and again when it is passed on to the next generation.
But if inheritance is a privilege in a society that has helped the wealth come into being, then the government can legitimately tax it as it has throughout most of our history. Indeed the failure to tax large inheritances of wealth threatens the fundamental American value that everyone deserves an equal opportunity to succeed--an equal shot at the American Dream.
This argument, while in principle applicable to any and all inheritance, has in practice focused only on the legitimacy of taxing large fortunes. No one, not even the most ardent advocate for the estate tax, believes that middle-class Americans should have to pay the government any portion of whatever savings or assets they have managed to accumulate when they die. The question is and always has been how to treat the wealthy and the super-wealthy.
When he endorsed the idea of a tax on inheritance back in 1906, Theodore Roosevelt said that its "primary objective should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes, which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate." Andrew Carnegie agreed, believing unfettered inheritance of huge fortunes makes people idle and profligate. In the early part of the twentieth century, when the nation's images of wealth came from Rockefellers and railroad barons, the general public also tended to agree. They didn't like the idea of an economic aristocracy perpetuating itself generation after generation in a country founded on the idea of equal opportunity for all.
Today, the images--if not the realities--of wealth have changed. Despite the well-publicized greed of the Dennis Kozlowskis, Martha Stewarts, and Kenneth Lays, our most famous rich citizen is a computer entrepreneur who started his business in a garage and became a billionaire. If Bill Gates can do it, so can you--at least that is how the thinking goes. And if you start the business, work the long hours, earn the money, and pay income tax on it, why should the government get anything when you die, no matter how rich you become?
Moreover, we have become a nation of capitalists and wanna-be capitalists. Although the financial assets of most are quite small, more than half of all Americans--70 percent of those who vote--now have some stock market investments through their retirement plans. When Ronald Reagan became president, the number of investors was closer to 20 percent. And if, as George W. Bush has suggested, a portion of Social Security taxes is allowed to be invested rather than paid over to the government, the number of people with some stake in the stock market will grow dramatically. Protecting one's wealth is no longer a concern of only the upper crust.
Taking advantage of this changed view of wealth, and sometimes manipulating it, repeal forces effectively turned their cause into a moral crusade. Once the issue became one of abstract fairness to all rather than the best policy for treating giant accumulations of wealth in a democratic society, the philosophical argument had been won. Opponents of repeal were then on the defensive--never a good place to be in politics.
Within the larger mystery--how this change in the climate of opinion and political fortunes occurred so quickly and unexpectedly--lie two further mysteries. How did the coalitions for repeal stick together even after they were offered compromises that most observers would have expected to splinter them? And why was the opposition to the repeal incredibly paltry, late, and disorganized? Why were the Democrats and other groups who opposed repeal unable to stop the repeal juggernaut? Why was there no modern Teddy Roosevelt to warn the public of the dangers of rewarding dynastic wealth in America? What does the opposition's failure here tell us about their ability to thwart the coming attacks on progressive taxation in this country?
By the time the 2001 tax bill was being negotiated in Congress, Democrats and other repeal opponents were willing to raise the estate tax exemption well above $650,000 to $3 million, $4 million, or even $5 million. At this level the tax would have applied to only a miniscule slice of Americans, about the top one-quarter of one percent, but it would have still generated significant revenue. The vast majority of the small businesses that comprised the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), one of the most important and effective advocates for repeal, would have faced no tax liability whatsoever. Nor would most of the members of the other trade associations that had banded together to seek elimination of the tax. The number of farmers still subject to the levy would have been tiny. The choice became stark: an immediate, substantial increase in the estate tax exemption offered by the Democrats, or the Bush plan--a slowly phased-in repeal, with outright elimination postponed until the year 2010.
But by the time these reform proposals appeared as realistic legislative alternatives, the movement to repeal the death tax had already been absorbed into a larger Republican antitax crusade, an effort to reduce the size and functions of American government. The leaders of this wing of the Republican Party regard the tax issue, not the wedge issues of social policy, as the linchpin to a long-term Republican majority. One of its most effective and outspoken leaders, Grover Norquist, insists that taxation is "the central vote-driving issue." "You win this issue," he says, "you win--over time--all issues." The antitax forces and their strategists have no intention of stopping with the estate tax. How they won this campaign tells us much about what may lie ahead in the most contentious upcoming battles over tax policy.
The antitax zealots bided their time during the 1990s, winning votes and support wherever they could, patiently awaiting their next opportunity. By 2001, estate tax repeal provided just such a chance. The repeal coalitions had built up broad-based support among the voters and won over a majority of Congress by the late 1990s. When the 2000 presidential election brought us George W. Bush--a president who was willing to support repeal and who also subscribes to the more fundamental antitax philosophy--the stage was set. Not only did the conservative antitax zealots embrace estate tax repeal, an issue they had come to late, but they also fused the death tax coalition, which had been a single-issue movement, with their broader attack on taxation as we know it.
Once we understand the place of the estate tax in the long-term war against progressive taxation, it becomes easier to see why even a long-delayed and uncertain repeal became preferable to a certain and substantial reform. Accepting reform would have meant conceding the justice of the estate tax. But the antitax movement has built up a powerful philosophical attack on the very concept of progressive taxation that underpins the estate tax. And by 2001 their attacks on progressivity had fundamentally changed the nature of tax politics in America, reviving a debate that had seemingly been settled in the first decades of the twentieth century. The antitax fighters wanted to get repeal on the books, no matter what the form. They were willing to gamble that they would be able to take the next step and make repeal permanent. The story of how and why this occurred, based on extensive conversations with the players and powerbrokers on both sides, unmasks the hidden dynamics of lawmaking.
The opposition's mysterious weakness is another aspect of our story, and in unraveling it we see a mirror image of the repeal movement's "perfect storm," with its motivated activists, grassroots organization, articulate spokespeople, and eventual presidential backing. Opponents of repeal, such as they were, were completely outmaneuvered. They never saw repeal coming until it was well on its way down the tracks. They consistently underestimated the diverse array of forces--including minorities, gays, and environmentalists, as well as farmers and small businesses--that would press for repeal. When they offered any responses at all, they answered moral attacks with numerical and tactical replies. "But you don't pay the estate tax!" was their battle cry. An opposing philosophical case was never made. Those who wanted to retain the tax mainly played catch-up and closed stable doors. If the stories of the organized coalitions and their drive for repeal constitute a textbook for effective political action, the disarray of the opposition is a cautionary tale about relying on stale assumptions and diffuse preferences in a battle against intense and organized opponents.
Well beyond the particulars of the estate tax, the American public stands to learn a great deal from understanding what happened in this endeavor. Regardless of ideological or political commitments, whatever one's stand on this tax or any other, the public needs to know how power and politics actually operate in Washington today. And, whatever the final outcome, one thing is certain: this contest has radically altered the political landscape. The broader antitax force is marching forward in Washington and in the great heartland. The fundamental principle of progressive taxation is under attack. The movement to repeal the estate tax has been the vanguard in this crusade. How this occurred is, in the end, a peculiarly American story peopled by buccaneering newspapermen, political climbers, crusaders and ideologues, farmers and entertainers, beer distributors and billionaires. This is a story about the carnival of politics in the United States in the twenty-first century, and how it is shaping the world in which we all live.
File created: 8/7/2007
Questions and comments to: firstname.lastname@example.com
|New Book E-mails
|New In Print
|PUP Blog
|Princeton APPS
|Sample Chapters
|Princeton Legacy Library
|Exam/Desk Copy
|Recent Awards
|Princeton Shorts
|Freshman Reading
|PUP Europe
|About Us
|Contact Us
|PUP Home


text:
Kimberly's father insists that she hold on to her innocence until marriage if she wants his inheritance. His views are so extremely that he submits her to regular doctor's visits to insure her purity. But she can't get around her budding sexuality - especially when she goes to "the club" and is tempted by all sorts of sin. Jared loves her and although her father doesn't approve of him, he will stop at nothing to make her his. Eliza Foss seductively brings this erotic romance to life with her sultry voice and performance full of desire.
Kimberly has run from Jared for a year now, sensing the weakness he could be to her future. But she never expected the sacrifice he would make for her. One that will rock her soul, and destroy the very foundations of all her beliefs. Her sexuality, her heart, and all she's fought for in the last six years will be tested when an assignment takes her to Jared's farm, and into his bed.
There she will learn the true meaning of hunger, of love... as well as the deception and the lies that have governed her life for so long. Anything worth having is worth sacrificing for. Kimberly is about to find out if she can pay the price, and risk not only the inheritance that should be hers, but also her heart to the one man who can still the fires that rage in her soul. Book 5 of the Bound Hearts series.
©2004 Lora Leigh (P)2013 Audible, Inc.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
"My least favorite Lora Leigh book."
Plausibility in any part of the plot.
The sudden "everything is fine" ending. Parents with that degree of malice aren't misunderstood. You do not make nice, you dump them.
Why does she answer his calls? Block his number you idiot.
You don't threaten to kill scum, you fire it.
If you took out the sex it read like a 30 minute sitcom.
Way too much screaming.
Not really
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.


text:
Gulf Storm is a Reminder for Preparedness
This weekend's storm that popped up in the Gulf and fizzled out is a reminder that the Gulf coast doesn't always get advanced notice of impeding storms.
Forecasters called the storm that formed early Friday, Invest 92L since it wasn't strong enough to be called a tropical depression. Had the storm continued to grow it could have hit the Houston area within two days. Which would not have given much time to take appropriate action.
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett hopes people take the, not-so-close call to heart, "It could come up within 48 hours and suddenly be on us. So we don't always get a week or ten days to watch the storm come across the Atlantic (ocean)."
Judge Emmett reminds people to make sure and have a hurricane kit, know your evacuation plans, and have supplies for riding out a storm if you are not in an evacuation zone.