text:
Welcome Speech by Professor Chen-Ning Yang
Vice-Chairman of Board of Adjudicators
The first Shaw Prize ceremony took place in 2004. In the eight years up to tonight, twenty-five Prizes have been awarded to forty-three scientists in three different fields: Astronomy, Life Science and Medicine, and Mathematical Sciences. These three fields represent active, productive and extremely exciting research areas that have tremendous potential for discoveries beneficial to mankind in the 21st Century and beyond, as I outlined briefly at last year's ceremony.
Tonight, the Shaw Prize is proud to present the Shaw Prizes of 2012 to five scientists in these three fields. With this presentation we are happy to have among our distinguished group of forty-eight Laureates the first female Shaw Prize winner.
Speech by Professor Peter Goldreich
Chairman of Astronomy Selection Committee
Sir Run Run, Honored Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen. The Shaw Prize in Astronomy for 2012 is awarded in equal parts to David Jewitt and Jane Luu for their discovery and characterization of the Kuiper belt, an archeological treasure dating back to the formation of the solar system and the long-sought source of short period comets.
Observations of the motion of heavenly bodies date back more than 2,500 years. Nevertheless, as recently as 1992, immediately prior to the detection of the first Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) by Jewitt and Luu, little was known about the contents of the solar system beyond 30 AU. Distances quoted here are relative to the Sun. An AU, short for astronomical unit, is the mean radius of the Earth's orbit about the Sun. Neptune's orbital radius is 30 AU and the nearest stars are at distances of about 150,000 AU. Distant bodies are dim because they reflect little sunlight back to Earth. Moreover, our most powerful telescopes can only image small angular regions at a single pointing. Thus searches for widely-spaced, faint images are tedious and resource intensive. Before Jewitt and Luu's discovery, Pluto and its large satellite Charon were the only directly detected bodies orbiting beyond Neptune.
Comets provide indirect information about reservoirs of bodies beyond 30 AU. Although comets are directly detected only when they come within a few AU, their orbits can be traced back to show where they came from. By 1950 it had been established that most long-period comets are visitors from distances in excess of 10,000 AU and that their orbits are randomly oriented with respect to the mean orbit plane of the solar system. These facts led Jan Oort to hypothesize that comets are stored in an enormous spherical cloud beyond 10,000 AU and that gravitational deflections by nearby stars are responsible for injecting those we detect into the inner solar system. Oort's model is widely accepted and the hypothetical comet cloud carries his name.
Short-period comets are rare in comparison to long-period comets, Their orbits are mostly prograde and of low-inclination. Oort proposed that gravitational scattering by planets transforms a small fraction of long-period comets into short-period comets. However, during the 1980s, dynamical studies aided by numerical simulations demonstrated that Oort's proposal for the origin of short-period comets was untenable. Instead, they showed that an origin in a disk just outside the orbit of Neptune provides an excellent fit to the orbital characteristics of short-period comets. Jewitt and Luu began to search for KBOs during the period these theoretical advances were being made. Success did not come quickly. It took them five years to find their first KBO.
After their initial discovery, Jewitt and Luu continued to lead efforts to characterize the spatial distribution and size spectrum of KBOs for more than a decade. As other astronomers joined the hunt, progress accelerated. Now, in the 20th anniversary year of the first discovery, more than 1,400 KBOs have been found. It has been established that the region between 30 and 50 AU is populated by a vast array of icy bodies with tens of thousands having diameters in excess of 100 kilometers. There are even a few whose diameters exceed 1,000 kilometers and one of comparable size to Pluto (diameter 2,000 kilometers) discovered by a team working with Mike Brown. This finding led to Pluto's demotion from its high status as the ninth planet to merely a charter member of a new class of dwarf planets.
A significant fraction of KBOs are trapped in orbital resonances with Neptune. That is, their orbit periods are related to Neptune's by the ratio of two small integers. Pluto is in a 3:2 resonance so Neptune circles the Sun three times while Pluto goes around it twice. As a result of this resonance, Pluto is protected from close approaches to Neptune even though its eccentric orbit crosses Neptune's circular one. By sheer coincidence, a paper by Renu Malhotra proposing that Neptune's outward migration was responsible for the esonant trapping of Pluto's orbit was published in 1993 in Nature, the same year and the same journal in which Jewitt and Luu's seminal article appeared. Other resonances known to have substantial populations include the 2:1, 5:2, 7:4, and 5:1. Similar dynamics apply to all orbital resonances, so Malhotra's proposal has been widely embraced as the explanation for the large fraction of resonant KBOs.
In summary, Jewitt and Luu discovered a new component of the solar system and the source of the short-period comets. KBOs grew by the accretion of solids during the early stages of planet formation until some undetermined process, probably involving perturbations by Neptune while its orbit evolved, increased their relative velocities to the extent that further accretion could not take place. Owing to their great separations, large KBOs have suffered little collisional evolution since. Thus they offer us a frozen record of the early stages of planet formation. As impressive as progress has been, much unexplored territory remains. Almost nothing is known about the content of the solar system from 100 – 10,000 AU. These and other challenges remain for the future.
Speech by Professor Yuet-Wai Kan,
Chariman of Life Science and Medicine Selection Committee
Protein molecules are assembled as long chains of amino acids that have to be folded into correct 3 dimensional structures before they can perform their proper functions. Incorrectly folded proteins not only do not function properly, but may be rapidly degraded, or form harmful aggregates that cause cell damage in some diseases. While the sequence of the amino acids can guide protein folding, additional assistance from other molecules acting as chaperons are often required to shield them from extreme environments within the cell, or to overcome changes or modifications of the amino acids.
The 2012 Shaw Prize in Life Science and Medicine is awarded to Franz-Ulrich Hartl, Director, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry in Martinsried, Germany and Arthur Horwich, Professor of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine. Working separately and in collaboration, they characterized a complex class of chaperon proteins known as chaperonins and their mechanism of action. Their experiments created a coherent picture of the physiologic, biochemical and biophysical processes that cells use to fold proteins.
In an extraordinary body of work Hartl defined, resolved, and reconstituted the complex pathway by which molecular chaperonins cooperate to fold proteins. Electron microscopy images taken by him and his colleagues offered the first indication that folding occurs within the cavity of a chaperonin called GroEL, and its lid-shaped cofactor GroES. A series of ATP-driven conformational steps change the shape of the wall of the chamber to accept an unfolded domain and then closes the chamber to reinforce the folding event.
In 1994 and 1997, together with the late Paul Sigler, Horwich solved the atomic structure of GroEL-GroES complex, which was one of the largest protein complexes solved at the time. An elegant analysis using mutant GroEL proteins then confirmed that an unfolded protein binds in the center of the hollow cylindrical GroEL complex. The inner cavity of GroEL undergoes a massive conformational change upon GroES binding within which proteins up to about 60,000 daltons in size are free to fold. This structure also identified the mechanism of ATP hydrolysis, allowing his laboratory to work out the reaction cycle.
Through their contributions, investigators now have the understanding of the balance of protein folding, misfolding, and protein degradation that govern normal and abnormal cell functions. Drugs that target the folding process and stabilize misfolded proteins are being tested for treatment. An example is the treatment of a mutant form of Cystic Fibrosis that may show promise in other genetic diseases. Similarly, the misfolded amyloid peptides that characterize Alzheimer's disease are a potential target for drug therapy to prevent amyloid peptide aggregation that disrupts brain function. These new approaches to treat diseases of defective protein folding arose from the pioneering work of Hartl, Horwich and others who define the molecular events of protein folding.
Speech by Professor Yakov Eliashberg
Member of Mathematical Sciences Selection Committee
From his technical brilliance in solving central mathematical problems to his visionary insights and very original ideas, Maxim Kontsevich has played a major role in shaping modern algebra, algebraic geometry, mathematical physics and especially the connections between these fields.The impact of theoretical physics and in particular string theory on pure mathematical subjects like algebra and geometry is striking and relatively recent, and it has attracted some of the best talents in both physics and mathematics. While many have contributed to these developments, few have had the impact of Kontsevich.
His early work on a conjecture of Witten concerning an unexpected connection between the geometry of the space of Riemann Surfaces and integrable dynamical systems, made him a household name (more accurately in the houses of mathematicians) and he followed this with many brilliant works.
His proof of the existence of the so-called deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds resolved a foundational problem in the mathematical theory of quantization. He introduced Motivic Integration, a powerful analogue of the usual integral which takes values in a large ring associated with the collection of all algebraic varieties. Kontsevich himself used it to resolve some basic questions in birational algebraic geometry and it has become a standard language and tool in various domains including that of counting points on varieties over finite fields and rings.
The discovery by physicists of mirror pairs of Calabi-Yau manifolds has led to a rich and evolving mathematical theory of "mirror symmetry". Physics predicts that there is a relation between the symplectic geometry of a manifold and the complex geometry of its mirror manifold. In special cases this led to striking and very explicit conjectures in classical enumerative geometry.
From the beginning to the present Kontsevich has played a leading role in developing the mathematical theory of Mirror Symmetry. In particular, his homological mirror symmetry conjecture further enriched the conjectural relations between symplectic and complex geometry of mirror manifolds and became a major driving force in the development of the theory. This conjecture and its generalizations have been proven in significant special cases.
In his recent work he continues to revisit the original formulation to provide clearer conceptual answers to the mathematical question "What is Mirror Symmetry".
Besides these major achievements Kontsevich has outstanding works in a number of other areas .We are delighted to have been part of the process leading to Kontsevich receiving the 2012 Shaw Prize in The Mathematical Sciences and to congratulate him on this prestigious recognition of his contributions to mathematics.


text:
Posted on 09th August 2017 by Media Relations
Minimising the risk
Even though shark attacks are random events and remain an unlikely danger for humans entering the water there is always a level of risk involved (albeit small). People cannot always control the natural environment but they can control their own behaviour. In terms of minimising shark bites to humans culling sharks indiscriminately because they occasionally bite people is not the answer. All life on earth is important and the natural world needs to stay in balance to better support humans who rely on nature to survive. Nature and a balanced ecosystem are not expendable or separate from us - we are part of it and without it humans would certainly die out.
As more people enter the aquatic environment it is inevitable that more encounters with aquatic animals will occur. In some of these encounters sharks will interact with humans and occasionally some people will get bitten.
To minimise the risk of encountering a shark it is essential we increase our knowledge of shark behaviour and their biology. People can take personal responsibility for where they go and what they do and use this information to better assess the risk of encountering a shark when they swim in the ocean, harbours or rivers around Australia. They can further minimise that risk by planning their trip to the beach and identify potential safety risks. The Australian Shark-Incident Database (formally known as the Australian Shark Attack File) has a number of safety and risk minimisation strategies to consider.
The following safety points should be considered and may help minimise the risk:
- Swim at beaches patrolled by Surf Life Savers (they are there to keep an eye on your safety, to look for signs of danger and to assist if you get into trouble)
- Do not swim, dive or surf where dangerous sharks are known to congregate
- Always swim, dive or surf with other people (the presence of a companion may deter a potentially attack and your companion can assist you if you get into trouble or are bitten by a shark)
- Do not swim in dirty or turbid water (there is little chance of seeing a shark in these conditions)
- Avoid swimming at dusk, dawn or at night (many sharks are more active during these times and in low light conditions you may not be able to see an approaching shark)
- Avoid swimming well offshore, near deep channels or along drop-offs to deeper water (sharks are more likely to inhabit the deeper water)
- Avoid entering the ocean near a river mouth, especially after a rainstorm (rain can wash potential food items into the sea that might attract fish and sharks)
- If schooling fish congregate in large numbers, leave the water (sharks can be feeding on the baitfish schools)
- Do not swim near people fishing or spear fishing (as these activities can attract sharks)
- Dolphins in the area do not indicate the absence of sharks (dolphins and sharks sometimes feed together and some sharks feed on dolphins)
- Kayaker should raft up together if a large shark is seen in the area (this makes for a larger object that a shark may not be interested in)
- Do not swim with pets and domestic animals (sharks can be attracted to non-aquatic animals in the water)
- Look carefully before jumping into the water from a boat or wharf (people have jumped on top of sharks)
- Be careful wading through shallow water as Wobbegong sharks are known to hide among the kelp in shallow water and it is easy to accidentally step on one and get bitten without knowing it was there
- Wearing shiny jewellery can reflect light that resembles the sheen of fish scales (sharks can be attracted to the reflected light)
- If a shark is sighted in the area leave the water as quickly and calmly as possible
Taking Personal Responsibility
Water safety and an enjoyable visit to the beach can be enhanced by taking personal responsibility and using common sense as to where one swims and what activities they undertake whilst in the water. Taking personal responsibility for ones own safety is an important step in living with nature and enjoying the natural world. There is a much higher risk of drowning at the beach (288 average a year) than from being injured or fatally bitten by a shark. As more knowledge is acquired about the sharks' normal behaviours and about the circumstances surrounding shark encounters, it may be possible to develop an effective repellent in the future. However, at this point in time there is no 100% effective shark repellent - although there are some electric impulse devices commercially available that may give a level of protection in some circumstances.
If you see a shark
Stay calm! Some previously stated methods of repelling sharks such as blowing bubbles, waving arms about, splashing the water, etc, could actually attract a shark possibly resulting in an altering of the shark's initial response and may unintentionally attract a shark to investigate the disturbance. Leave the area as quickly and as quietly as possible. However, if a close encounter with a shark is imminent try to keep the shark in sight and if it gets too close then any action you take may disrupt its behavour pattern, such as hitting the shark's nose, gouging at its eyes, kicking it, etc which may deter it.
If someone is bitten by a shark
First aid - once the patient is removed from the water:
- Treat the patient immediately on site
- Stop the bleeding immediately by applying direct pressure above or on the wound, a tourniquet may be used if bleeding cannot be controlled by a pressure bandage
- Reassure the patient at all times
- Send for an ambulance and medical personnel (if possible do not move the patient if badly injured)
- Cover the patient lightly with clothing or a towel
- Give nothing by mouth

subset: commoncrawl


text:
There's an old musician's joke that if you die and go to Heaven, the first thing they do is hand you a harp; if you go to Hell, they hand you an accordion. But with the release of Sacred Treasures III, that joke can now be amended: upon entering Heaven, you'll be handed a Russian liturgical score.
The fourteen selections comprising Sacred Treasures III feature music from the Russian liturgical canon recorded in sumptuously reverberant settings by leading Russian choruses. With a state-of-the-art mastering job to fully display the subtle harmonic interplay of the singers, this release offers pure balm for the ear and soul.
The music covers a wide burst of historically important pieces, from ancient Greek Orthodox chant through early 20th Century choral masterpieces of Rachmaninov, plus one modern fantasy setting of Bach's Apollonian masterpiece "Komm Susser Tod" ("Come Sweet Death") by Scandinavian composer Gunnar Eriksson.
The collection opens with an anonymous 13th Century Russian "Alleluia," set in the calmest tradition of the Orthodox service, followed by a "Sourp, Sourp" ("Holy, Holy") from the Divine Liturgy. Both are sung by the ST. PETERSBURG CHAMBER CHOIR, directed by Nikolai Korniev. More familiar, perhaps, are the four sections of Rachmaninov's Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom from 1910, sung by the large Russian State Symphony capella. There are three additional sections from Rachmaninov's Vespers collection of 1915, sung by the USSR MINISTRY OF CULTURE CHAMBER CHOIR under Valery Polyansky's direction. Should you know of savage beasts in need of calming, the Kiev Chant "Peaceful Light" (track 10) from Rachmaninov's Vespers will turn away all monsters.
The recording also aims to represent the reverential dignity of the music. Following the traditions of the Orthodox Church, no instruments are sounded - not even bells. Everything about the music and the physical setting in which it is heard is designed to produce a feeling of heavenly peace. The music is never harsh, but rather blends into the richly decorated surroundings, lit primarily by candle light. All of these selections are designed to fit within the soft golden glow of ecclesiastical tranquillity.
Rachmaninov's seven pieces are spread among a variety of other unusual works ranging from the wordless "Chorale" by Josef Ketchakmadze to the little "Serenade" by Rachmaninov's composition teacher, Sergei Taneyev (1850-1915), sung by the LEGE ARTIS CHAMBER CHOIR under Boris Abalian's direction in St. Catherine's Lutheran Church, St. Petersburg. (Yes, they have Protestant and Catholic churches in Russia.)
Easily the most unusual and unexpected item in the collection is the setting of "The Lord's Prayer" by of all people Rimsky-Korsakov. Known for his virtuoso orchestral music, few will expect so deeply devout and reverent a piece from this composer. Although his choral music is rarely performed or recorded, he published several collections of religious texts, as well as 39 superb choral settings of Russian folk tunes. This version of "Our Father" is drawn from Rimsky's Opus 22 collection.
Only with the fall of the Iron Curtain ten years ago has much music of this warmly spiritual type made inroads into the Western world. That which has emerged has indeed proven to be a sacred treasury, individual in that it combines spiritual dignity with unabashed human emotion music reflecting aspiration and pure love. All are couched within pure syllabic settings, free of formal counterpoint. While this music offers a high level of artistry, at the same time it refuses to call attention to its internal workings. (When first you encounter Sacred Treasures III, listen to Track 10 and you'll hear what I mean.)
Hearts of Space enjoyed healthy sales of the first two volumes in their Sacred Treasures series. There is every reason, judging from the music compiled in the most recent installment, to expect at least the same level of success from Sacred Treasures III. Expertly chosen by producer ELLEN HOLMES, beautifully recorded and lovingly mastered, these are works of timeless magnificence.
List of Songs


text:
Our pinstripe is available in a range of colours, widths and multi-stripe combinations and can be used for many projects, not limited to automotive.
Go to our full pinstripe listing and use the page filters to search for colour/width varieties.
* Please note that it is difficult to provide an accurate photographic image of pinstripe tape. Some of the images supplied are graphical renders only and true colours will differ from technical drawings.
Barcode | 9348391004193 |
Length | 125mm |
Width | 100mm |
Height | 10mm |
Cubic | 0.0001m³ |
Weight | 0.10kg |


text:
As late as 1950, investigators who set out to discover an American conservative movement would have failed abysmally. They would have found a large and fractious right wing ranging from isolationist followers of Senator Robert Taft (who insisted on calling himself a "liberal") to the anti-Semites and racists who joined Gerald L.K. Smith's Christian Nationalist Party. They might also have come across a group of Ivy League intellectuals such as McGeorge Bundy and August Heckscher who called themselves the "new conservatives" but would later be described as establishment liberals.
The conservative movement that began emerging in the mid-1950s, particularly with the founding of William F. Buckley's National Review, was a novel creation that bore at best a family resemblance to the older American right and to British and European conservatism. It produced a new synthesis in American politics, blending militant anticommunism and opposition to the welfare state with nostalgia about America's rural and small-town past. It incorporated some parts of the older right, including its opposition to the New Deal and Soviet communism and rejected or suppressed others, including the older right's isolationism, nativism, and anti-Semitism.
Since this movement's emergence, it has appeared to be on the verge of collapse at least twice -- in November 1964 after Senator Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat and in August 1974 after President Richard Nixon's resignation. Each time it has regrouped, readjusted its political focus, and reemerged even stronger than before. In 1980 and 1984, it achieved its greatest triumph, helping to carry Ronald Reagan to landslide victories. In the early 1980s, as conservatives scaled Washington's bureaucratic heights and corporate contributions poured into conservative think tanks, the conservative movement seemed to attain the same dominance over American politics that liberalism had achieved during the 1930s and the 1960s.
But scarcely two years after Reagan's retirement, his new morning has become the conservatives' long day's journey into night. Conservatives now find themselves more embattled than they have ever been. To be sure, the country continues to be receptive to many ideas that might be described as "conservative," and self-described conservatives continue to hold office. But the conservative intellectuals and activists who sustained the movement are in complete disarray. The prospect now looms that over the next decade the conservative movement will join the know-nothings, populists, and other bygone movements on the bottom of the historical seas.
Signs of Disarray
The most obvious evidence of the conservative crackup is at the very top. From the early 1950s, when Senator Joseph McCarthy led a national anticommunist crusade, through the Reagan '80s, conservatives have always had a national standard bearer who could unite the different factions. But today's pretenders, from Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp to televangelist Pat Robertson to Vice President Dan Quayle, represent only factions within the conservative movement. More important, conservatives not only lack common leaders but also a common enemy In the past, conservatives fought over everything from fluoridated water to the Panama Canal, but they were able to rise above these disputes because of a shared fear of what Reagan called the "evil empire." With the collapse of communism, conservatives no longer have a central rallying point.
And the spats themselves have become more bitter and protracted. As the threat of communism has receded, and as the world has reverted to the kind of polycentric economic rivalries that plagued it before World War 1, many of the conflicts that divided conservatives in earlier periods have begun to resurface. Instead of going forward into the 1990s, conservatives appear to be going backward into the 1920s, '30s, and '40s -- quarreling over internationalism and isolationism, free trade and protectionism, and hurling charges of disloyalty and anti-Semitism at each other.
The noisiest conflict pits a group calling itself the "paleoconservatives" against the New York-Washington based "neoconservatives." This factionalism reveals the reemergence of issues that bedeviled the American right earlier in the century but were suppressed during the Cold War. The paleoconservatives, who include Russell Kirk, the author of the 1954 movement classic, The Conservative Mind, and columnist Pat Buchanan, claim to personify older conservative traditions. They charge that the neoconservatives are not really conservatives, but welfare state liberals and Wilsonian internationalists. The neoconservatives, who include Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, and Irving Kristol, editor of The Public Interest, see themselves as having made conservatism into a respectable governing philosophy. They accuse the paleocons of wanting to revive what the neocon author Richard John Neuhaus calls the "forbidden bigotries once confused with conservatism."
The two groups recently have come to blows over how the United States should respond to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. While the neoconservatives almost uniformly backed President Bush, urging him, if anything, to go farther and topple Saddam Hussein, the paleoconservatives raised doubts about the administration's action and accused the neoconservatives of ignoring the national interest. Describing neoconservatives as "ex-liberal Democrats who got their baptismal certificates at the Reagan transition office," Buchanan warned that "the war for which the neocons pant has quagmire written all over it."
But the feud between the two groups is now almost a decade old. It first broke out in 1982, when the paleocons promoted University of Dallas scholar M. E. Bradford to be chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the neoconservatives backed William Bennett. Besides patronage, the differences boiled down to civil rights: Bradford, the more accomplished scholar, was also an anti-Lincoln, pro-Confederate former George Wallace supporter, while Bennett was a former Democrat and civil rights activist who had become a protégé of Kristol and historian Gertrude Himmelfarb. The paleocons proved no match for the neocons, who were able to marshal Washington and New York pundits on Bennett's behalf.
But in conservative meetings the paleocons used their older movement pedigree to advantage. At a 1986 meeting of the Philadelphia Society a conservative group that sponsors annual philosophical discussions, the paleocon speakers characterized the neocons as "interlopers" opportunistically trying to dominate the conservative movement and the Reagan administration. Stephen Tonsor, a historian at University of Michigan, declared in a speech, "It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far."
The two factions differ on government's domestic role (the paleocons would have disbanded Bennett's Department of Education), social policy (the paleocons fear America's European stock is being corrupted by Third World immigration), and on the definition of America's role in the world. The paleocons are neo-isolationists, opposed to foreign aid and intervention except where U.S. interests are directly threatened, while the neoconservatives tend to believe that America should spread free-market capitalism and parliamentary democracy around the world, by force if necessary.
As long as both factions saw the Soviet Union directly threatening the U.S., these foreign policy differences had little practical effect. But as the Cold War wound down, the debate became very heated. In March, 1989, neocon Ben Wattenberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), wrote a column proposing that the quest for global democracy replace anticommunism at the center of conservatives' foreign policy agenda. "Americans have a missionary streak, and democracy is our mission," Wattenberg wrote. He proposed an eighteen-fold increase in the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the government agency headed by former Social Democrats U.S.A. apparatchik Carl Gershman, and increases in the budgets of the U.S. Information Agency and State Department. Wattenberg called on the United States to intervene in Third World countries to promote political democracy and free market economics.
In a September 1989 column in The Washington Times, Buchanan, borrowing a phrase from Dean Acheson, took Wattenberg to task for "messianic globaloney." "We are not the world's policeman, nor its political tutor," Buchanan wrote. "Whence comes this arrogant claim to determine how other nations should govern themselves, or face subversion by the NED, the Comintern of the neocons?" Buchanan argued that with its economic problems, the U.S. did not have the money to fund a global democratic crusade. "Democracy über alles is a formula for permanent conflict and national bankruptcy," he wrote.
The quarrel over foreign policy has threatened to degenerate into a clash over Zionism. Some paleoconservatives charge that in pressing for an interventionist foreign policy, the neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, are really trying to justify continued American aid to Israel. In an October 1988 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Kirk threw down the gauntlet. "Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent neo-conservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States -- a position they will have difficulty in maintaining as matters drift," Kirk said. Midge Decter, the director of the Committee for the Free World, called Kirk's remark "a bloody piece of anti-Semitism."
The issue surfaced again during the debate over U.S. intervention against Iraq. In columns and television appearances, Buchanan accused neoconservatives of stirring up war fever at the instigation of the "Israeli foreign ministry." Writing in The Washington Times, Mona Charen, a former Reagan administration official, accused Buchanan of using "neoconservative" as a synonym for "Jew."
The neoconservatives see the paleoconservatives reviving the anti-Semitic charge of "dual loyalty" -- a smear going back over five decades, when right-wing anti-Semites attacked the Roosevelt and Truman administrations for being instruments of an international Jewish conspiracy. For the anti-Semitic right, the Truman administration's recognition of Israel confirmed that American foreign policy was being run by the Rothschilds and other Zionist elders. The paleocons don't hold this conspiratorial view of international Jewry, but there is a disquieting echo in their charges of dual loyalty, which appears to be an expression of prejudice rather than historical analysis. The fact is that most neoconservatives were Wilsonian liberals well before the Six Day War in 1967, when the defense of Israel came to the fore. Their foreign policy is not an expression of Zionism as much as it reflects a continued commitment to the Cold War liberalism of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson well into the post-Vietnam '70s and '80s.
The End of Coexistence
Until last year, the two sides conducted their debate in newspaper columns and rival journals, but they still saw themselves as feuding factions within the same movement. Their hostile coexistence was symbolized by the connection of Neuhaus, a neoconservative, with the paleoconservative Rockford Institute in Rockford, Illinois. Under the Rockford Institute's name and funding, Neuhaus published a regular newsletter out of his Center for Religion and Society in New York. But in March 1989, Neuhaus and Podhoretz took strong exception to two articles published in Rockford's glossy journal, Chronicles. In one of them, Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming called for stricter quotas to prevent the United States from "being dominated by Third World immigrants," and in the other, novelist Bill Kauffman defended Gore Vidal, who had earlier attacked Podhoretz for putting Israel's interests before America's. In a letter, Podhoretz wrote Neuhaus, "I know an enemy when I see one, and Chronicles has become just that so far as I am concerned."
In May the Rockford Institute made the next move by locking Neuhaus out of the center and confiscating his files. When Neuhaus left, three foundations linked to the neoconservatives, Olin, Smith Richardson, and Bradley, withdrew their funding for the Rockford Institute, costing an estimated $700,000 a year. In the aftermath, both sides began firing angry polemics at each other. In the September 1989 Chronicles, Fleming accused the neoconservatives of wanting to expand rather than reduce government and of trying to create a new "elite class that will share power with the left." In the first issue of his new journal First Things, Neuhaus accused Fleming and the paleocons of reviving "forbidden bigotries." "One notes renewed attempts to invite back into the conservative movement a list of uglies that had long been consigned to the fevered swamps," Neuhaus wrote. "The list includes nativism, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, a penchant for authoritarian politics and related diseases of the ressentiment that flourishes on the marginalia of American life."
Like leftists from the '30s, both sides also began organizing factional coalitions against each other. Last fall Fleming set up a meeting at the Rockford Institute with a group calling themselves "paleolibertarians." The paleolibertarians, led by economist Murray Rothbard and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Von Mises Institute, reject what they describe as the "libertine" side of the libertarian movement. The paleocons and paleolibertarians decided to establish a select new scholarly society, the John Randolph Club, named after one of the paleocons' Southern agrarian heroes. Limited to 120 members, the club has its founding meeting in Dallas this fall. Fleming will be its president and Rothbard its vice president. Neoconservatives are not encouraged to apply.
It is doubtful, however, that the alliance between the two groups will create a new power on the right. The two groups share a distaste for the neocons' interventionist foreign policy and for neoconservative support of government welfare or arts funding. But the paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives have fundamentally different social ideals. Paleolibertarians like Rothbard are urban anarchists who favor eliminating the public sector entirely, including public police, while many of the paleocons are Southern agrarians who yearn for the ordered plantation life of the old South. Russell Kirk once declared that he felt closer politically to the socialist Norman Thomas than to Rothbard.
On the neoconservative side, Neuhaus tried to organize a united front against the paleocons. Last January he pulled together a special dinner meeting at New York's Union League Club and invited most of the East Coast conservative elite, including William E Buckley, Jr., Kristol, Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Edwin J. Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, and Paul Weyrich, the president of the Free Congress Foundation.
For six hours, the participants debated the future of the conservative movement, disagreeing over the legalization of drugs, the significance of abortion, and the basis for a new post-Cold War foreign policy. At another meeting of the group last May in Washington, the participants discussed a paper on populism written by Weyrich. This time, by Neuhaus's own admission, "there was no attempt to reach a consensus." As Neuhaus unwittingly acknowledged, deep political differences now exist even among those who were close allies. The conservatives who met in New York and Washington were united against the paleoconservatives' nativism and their imputations of dual loyalty but not on much else. Most important, they have come to disagree about the basic issues of foreign policy that have defined modem American conservatism.
A Rendezvous with Manifest Destiny?
The neoconservatives have become increasingly divided over what America's mission in the world should be. At least three distinct alternatives have emerged. Some neoconservatives, including former defense officials Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney, appear determined to maintain the old orthodoxy, even in the face of the disintegration of communism in Eastern Europe and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's attempts at perestroika and glasnost. They reject any measures that they say might strengthen the Soviet Union and favor those that will weaken it. Gaffney, for instance, denounced the strategic arms agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union -- which The Wall Street Journal called "lopsided in most respects in favor of the U.S." -- as "the worst strategic miscalculation on the part of a president of the United States since the Yalta Conference of 1945." At the April meeting in Washington of the Committee for the Free World, Gaffney declared, "Never since 1945 has the Soviet Union been so close to military preeminence in Europe as it is today."
On the other hand, many neoconservatives, including Gershman, Decter, and Wattenberg, believe that the Cold War is in its last stages, if not over, and that the United States should begin redefining its global objectives. Some, like Decter and Eugene Rostow, former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director, define America's role as that of a great power with a responsibility for keeping order and, where possible, promoting democracy in the world. Wattenberg and Gershman argue strenuously that the United States should attempt to promote global democracy, whether in the Soviet Union or Latin America. As Gershman wrote in The National Interest, the United States should "insist upon adherence to political norms and provide support and encouragement to those seeking to establish democratic systems."
A third, small, but highly influential group of revisionists led by Kristol and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former ambassador to the United Nations, reject the ambitious program of these neoconservatives and call for a narrower definition of the American national interest. In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Kristol defended a post-Cold War strategy of "national interest realism" in contrast to both "liberal internationalism" and "conservative internationalism." Criticizing those "who believe there is an 'American mission' actively to promote democracy all over the world," Kristol wrote, "this is a superficially attractive idea, but it takes only a few moments of thought to realize how empty of substance (and how high of presumption) it is." At the Committee for the Free World meeting, Kristol mocked Gaffney's warming of Soviet power. "Listening to Frank Gaffney, I thought I was listening to someone in a time warp," Kristol said.
These differences in perspective led to sharp disagreements among neoconservatives over how the Bush administration should respond to Lithuania's demand for independence from the Soviet Union. Most of the neocons, including Decter and Podhoretz, saw the battle over Lithuania's independence as the last round of the Cold War. They urged the Bush administration to recognize the separatist Lithuanian government and to pressure Moscow to accept Lithuania's independence.
In stark contrast, Kristol and Kirkpatrick praised Bush's cautious stance and called for conservatives to distinguish between events that directly threaten U.S. interests and those that do not. "Maybe the breakup [of the Soviet empire] is good, maybe it's bad, but it's not our responsibility," Kristol declared at the Committee for the Free World meeting. In a Wall Street Journal column, Kristol wrote, "The Bush administration, quite sensibly, has decided that it is not in the national interest for the U.S. to precipitate a crisis in our relations with the Soviet Union because of Lithuanian and the other Baltic nations."
On this issue, Kristol's foreign policy position is remarkably similar to that of the paleoconservatives. Indeed, Decter characterizes the differences between her and Kristol in terms that could also be used to describe the clash between the paleocons and the neocons. As Decter herself puts it: "The great struggle in the neoconservative movement is going to be between the people who used to be called unilateralists like Irving who are now isolationists and us old interventionists who still think the U.S. has to be a strong and great military power, to keep things steady in the world."
Changing Places on Free Trade
If the end of the Cold War has thrown conservatives into turmoil, so has the end of America's unchallenged economic supremacy Before World War II, the Republican right was not only isolationist; it also favored high tariffs to protect American manufacturers. But just as the new movement of the '50s repudiated isolationism, it also rejected protectionism. In opting for free trade internationalism, the new conservatives were moved both by ideological and practical concerns. Ideologically, they saw free trade as the extension of free market principles they favored at home. Practically speaking, they realized that most American firms no longer needed protection from imports.
In the 1970s, many small and medium-sized manufacturers who formed the financial backbone of the conservative movement began to be battered by imports. Then in the 1980s, chronic trade deficits appeared to signal the overall decline of American industry, and some conservative groups began to recast their position. The most important group to do so was the Business and Industrial Council. The council had been founded in 1933 to oppose the Roosevelt administration's fledgling attempt at an industrial policy It made a name for itself in the 1950s, pushing right to-work laws in states and fighting federal welfare and labor legislation. Its base was primarily among small manufacturers in the Midwest and South. In Washington, through its director Anthony Harrigan, it was known as part of the far right that had backed Goldwater in 1964.
But in the early 1980s, Harrigan began to worry about the trade deficit and the havoc he saw imports wreaking in many of his members' businesses. Over the decade, he shifted the council toward what he described as a policy of "economic nationalism" or "economic containment." In American Economic Preeminence, Harrigan and William R. Hawkins dismissed free trade as "sophistry' and called for the United States to adopt what amounted to an industrial strategy of protectionism.
Harrigan also steered the council toward coalitions with his former archenemies, the labor unions. The council was a prime mover in setting up LICIT, the Labor-Industry Coalition for International Trade, to fight attempts by American multinationals and foreign governments to weaken U.S. trade laws that prohibit imports from being "dumped" in U.S. markets below cost.
Equally significant was the political journey undertaken by one of the council's most politically influential members, Roger Milliken. Milliken, the chairman of one of the country's most profitable textile firms, had been a key financial supporter of National Review in the 1950s and of Barry Goldwater's vice presidential bid in 1960 and his presidential race in 1964. Later, he and Joseph Coors helped fund the Heritage Foundation, the most important conservative think tank of the 1980s.
But as a textile manufacturer threatened by cheap imports, Milliken, like Harrigan, became convinced that the U.S. had to protect its own manufacturers. Not only did Milliken back Harrigan's change of course; he even joined labor unions in funding a new think tank, the Economic Strategy Institute. Founded by Clyde Prestowitz, a critic of America's economic relations with Japan, the institute is promoting an industrial strategy for the U.S. and a trade posture that classical liberals consider protectionist. At the same time, Milliken reduced his contribution to conservative organizations that remained wedded to free trade internationalism.
The main conservative organizations championing internationalism were the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
These think tanks continued to espouse free trade, attacking even modest attempts to protect domestic industries from foreign price cutting or to survey foreign investment. In defining the conservative movement's priorities for the 1990s, Heritage's President Edwin Feulner put "ensur[ing] free trade" and "resist[ing] efforts to 'protect' certain national industries" at the top of his list.
The conservative think tanks also sought funding from the same foreign companies and business associations that Harrigan's council and Milliken saw as the enemy CSIS, for instance, accepted a contribution from Toyota to found a Japan chair; Heritage received substantial contributions from Korean and Taiwanese companies to set up an Asian Studies Center.
As foreign contributions have poured in, the Business Council and its supporters have questioned the think tanks' patriotism and independence from foreign interests. Both Milliken and Coors have complained to Heritage, and Milliken has cut his contribution. On the other side, Heritage representatives have accused Harrigan of being a "socialist."
The controversy has spread to conservatives in Congress. In an interview in the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review, Representative Vin Weber, a charter member of Representative Newt Gingrich's Conservative Opportunity Society lamented that "some of my best friends in the conservative movement have been seduced by economic nationalism." On trade votes, Weber, Gingrich, and other Heritage conservatives are now likely to find themselves siding with liberal internationalists while Senators Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond joined labor-backed Democrats.
Relations between the proponents of free trade and those of protection have not yet approached the open warfare between the neocons and the paleocons, but the two controversies have begun to converge. While Heritage has sided with the neocons, the Business and Industrial Council has allied itself with Rockford and the paleocons. In the January issue of Chronicles devoted to "economic nationalism," Harrigan wrote a cover article attacking transnationals and called for "a strategic economic policy that serves America's needs." Harrigan has also lined up with Rockford and Fleming on the importance of restricting immigration.
Domestic Squabbles
During the Carter and Reagan years, conservatives rarely quarreled about domestic social policy. They were united against common enemies -- Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the spate of regulatory agencies created by liberal Congresses. But after a decade of conservative deregulation, defunding, and privatization, the problems that the Great Society and the alphabet agencies were created to solve -- from affordable housing and health care to pollution and illiteracy -- still remain; and there is little agreement among conservatives about what, if anything, to do.
HUD Secretary Kemp, Stuart Butler (the Heritage Foundation's Director of Domestic Policy Studies), and Gingrich and his Conservative Opportunity Society have tried to develop new policies that directly address these issues that conservatives formerly left to Democrats. Most of their programs attempt to encourage what Kemp calls "entrepreneurial capitalism," through such devices as enterprise zones or tenant management of public housing. While pressing for capital gains tax cuts for the wealthy, Kemp and the Heritage conservatives have also backed increased state spending for housing and education and increased tax breaks for the poor, as a strategy of catapulting them into the productive mainstream.
As Kemp's dismal showing in the 1988 Republican presidential primary revealed, he faces a dicey political problem. Proposals for a conservative "war on poverty" have encountered a chilly reception from other conservatives. Both the paleoconservatives and their libertarian allies charge that Kemp and Heritage have become captive to neoconservative welfare state policies. But more important, conservative activists, particularly in the South, have taken umbrage at what they see as Kemp's coddling of the black poor. Whatever its appeal to conservative policy activists as a governing philosophy, Kemp's and Heritage's ideas run counter to the principles, prejudices, fears, and enthusiasms of the conservative base. Their efforts are another symptom of the movement's disunity and disintegration.
Under the Volcano
As the think tanks, journals, and other intellectual institutions of the movement have became hopelessly embattled, the movement's political groups have suffered decline and in some cases disappeared altogether. And without these groups, the movement's intellectuals have been deprived of a means of communicating their ideas to the greater public. As a result, they have become increasingly dependent upon their clout with individual politicians and the Bush administration.
The main political casualty of the 1980s was the new right. Once the scourge of liberal Democrats, and an important contributor to the conservatives' political resurgence in the late 1970s, the new right's main organizations atrophied during the Reagan years. Even before the death of its founder, Terry Dolan, the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) had lost its ability to influence elections and had gone deeply into debt. After Dolan died of AIDS, it dissolved amid a bitter split between Dolan's family and his political lieutenants.
Howard Phillips' Conservative Caucus, which led the opposition to the 1978 Panama Canal Treaty, was a victim of the end of the Cold War. The Conservative Caucus still exists, but Phillips has the status within the movement of a soapbox crank -- a man whose harangues now embarrass fellow conservatives. Direct mail whiz Richard Viguerie teetered on the edge of bankruptcy after an unsuccessful race for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1985 and a string of unsuccessful mailings. He was finally bailed out by businesses associated with Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, but like Phillips he has become a fringe figure in American politics.
The evangelicals who furnished the shock troops for the new right's political assault against liberalism have either disappeared or drastically reduced their participation in politics. The Reverend Jerry Falwell disbanded the Moral Majority. Pat Robertson has retreated to Virginia Beach after the failure of his presidential campaign and has transformed the Christian Broadcasting Network into a commercial entertainment outlet. Like other parts of the new right, the evangelicals have suffered from the growing backlash against the right wing's cultural authoritarianism. In the wake of the Supreme Court's Webster decision, the new right's rigid opposition to abortion -- once a political plus -- has turned into a minus.
The only veteran of the new right who remains influential is Weyrich, but Weyrich's influence is largely a function of his skill as a movement operator and Washington coalition builder. Unlike Dolan or Viguerie, Weyrich never acted as a link between the average voter and Washington, but instead as a kind of general secretary of the conservative politburo. And while Weyrich was among the first to sense that the movement was in serious political and ideological trouble, he has been unable to provide a new perspective around which conservatives could unite.
Over the last decade, Weyrich has hoisted up and then lowered a succession of political banners, from new right to populist to cultural conservative. Now he appears to have returned to "populist." Each has been an attempt to replace the anticommunist center of conservatism with a pre-'60s ideal of American culture, based upon stable nuclear families and neighborhoods and enforced by authoritarian fiat. At the Neuhaus meetings, Weyrich responded to Buckley's support for legalizing drug use with demands for a congressional declaration of war on drugs, chemical contamination of the drug supply to make users "wretchedly ill, preferably with distinctive symptoms;' and widespread drug testing. To combat crime, Weyrich proposed that college scholarships be contingent upon service in police ROTC forces and that high school students be banded together "into platoons under military leadership to undertake direct, non-violent action in support of the civil police." These proposals were as controversial among conservatives as they would be among the general public.
In the absence of a significant political base, Washington conservatives have been unable to develop a politics independent of Bush and his administration. While Viguerie and Phillips have railed against Bush from the sidelines, Weyrich and the Heritage Foundation have tied their fate to a president who clearly regards the conservatives as merely another political interest group that he has to appease. Although criticizing the administration on minor issues, they have become loyal foot-soldiers on key veto fights.
For instance, Weyrich and Heritage both backed the Bush administration's refusal to sign a bill granting asylum to Chinese students -- an astounding repudiation of the traditional conservative attitude toward China, but in line with their cultivation of the Bush administration. In exchange for their loyalty, they are welcomed into administration and Republican National Committee political strategy meetings and allowed to veto minor appointments. But in the foreign policy decisions closest to the President's heart, even friendly conservative activists are kept at arm's length.
Shine On, Paper Moon
As conservative activists and political organizations in Washington have fallen on hard times, they have often been picked up by groups connected to Moon's Unification Church. In the 1980s church-connected businesses not only funded the movement's main newspaper, The Washington Times, but also several small activist and policy groups such as the International Security Council, the Conservative Action Foundation, and a still more ambitious project, the American Freedom Coalition, initially conceived as a third party alternative to both the Democratic and Republican parties.
These Moon-backed organizations have themselves begun to flounder, the victim of the same ideological malaise that has affected other parts of the conservative movement. The American Freedom Coalition's founders have repeatedly had to scale down the organization's goals and purposes until it now resembles a minor rightwing lobby And The Washington Times, once projected as an alternative to The Washington Post, has had to reduce its international coverage drastically, going from eleven foreign bureaus to one in five years.
In its choice of stories and editorial policy, the Times suffers from the movement's ideological malaise. Like other conservative organizations, the paper has been reduced to defining its politics through relatively peripheral issues, such as homosexuality allegedly obscene art, or desecration of the American flag. In the past, the movement could use these issues to win assent to its core convictions on the economy and foreign policy. But there are no more core convictions; the peripheral has become the core.
Regression to the Mean
Conservatism appears to be returning to what it was before 1956 -- not just to its forbidden bigotries, but to a welter of contradictory and inconsistent beliefs. From 1776 to 1956, from John Adams through the Tafts, some politicians and intellectuals identified as conservative embraced Alexander Hamilton's neomercantilist industrial policy, while others endorsed Jefferson and Jackson's laissez-faire agrarianism. Some accepted Calhoun's defense of slavery, others rallied to Lincoln's appeal to individual rights. Some defended the interests of the average American, others the interests of large landowners and capitalists. Some upheld the power of Congress, others the authority of the presidency Now the same situation prevails. There is no longer any set of fixed beliefs that characterizes conservatives.
In a 1964 essay, political scientist Philip Converse made a distinction between elite and mass beliefs that sheds some light on the decline of the conservative movement. In American politics, Converse observed, elite beliefs tend to be highly structured and coherent, while mass beliefs -- those held by the average voter -- tend to be contradictory and inconsistent. Even at the height of liberalism's ascendancy, there were relatively few people in America who subscribed to the general tenets of Keynesian deficit financing, just as at the zenith of the Reagan presidency, few Americans endorsed the mysteries of supply-side economics.
Modern conservatism was an elite doctrine, developed largely in the pages of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s National Review and in books by Whittaker Chambers, Russell Kirk, and James Burnham. But through the efforts of politicians and organizations, it was able to bridge the gap between elite and mass: It became a movement and not simply a sect. The elite was able to achieve a certain congruence with the fears, hopes, and beliefs of average voters through the mediation of politicians and organizations.
The match was never perfect, but it was close enough for conservatives to win the presidential nomination in 1964, sweeping the deep South, and to win the presidency in 1980. Most conservatives of the early 1960s rejected the overt racism, nativism, and anti-Semitism of the older right, but when white Southerners resisted integration, conservative politicians were able to use their support for states rights to win more support from Southern voters. In the 1964 election, Goldwater, who was best known in conservative circles for his opposition to labor unions, Social Security, and the Soviet Union, received his greatest popular support because he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In the 1970s, the conservative elite took advantage of the nation's mood, as Americans turned right in response to the economic slowdown that began in 1971, American humiliation in Vietnam and Iran, and liberal experiments in affirmative action and busing. Again, the match was not perfect, but conservatives were able to adjust their laissez-faire, pro-business philosophy to public revulsion at taxes and inflation; they were able to adapt their anticommunism to concern about the country's declining prestige; they were able to forge their constitutional doctrines into a rejection of busing and quotas, and they were able to adapt their moralism to the revulsion against the counterculture.
After the 1980s, conservative ideas, broadly speaking, still have a significant hold on the public. Many Americans are still highly skeptical of government; many whites remain highly resentful of affirmative action; many voters continue to be concerned with national decline, and associate liberals and Democrats with high taxes, a flagging economy, an overweening bureaucracy, and military weakness and defeat. But at the same time, the crucial connection between mass and elite has been severed.
As communism collapsed and the economy continued to decline, the conservative elite began to fall apart; it became a collection of factions no longer united by a common enemy or a common political leader. At the same time, the public mood of reaction has subtly changed. Americans continue to be concerned about national decline, but they are now preoccupied with economic rather than perceived military decline. Circumscribed by Cold War imperatives, the conservative movement has been incapable of adapting to this new meaning of national decline.
A new conservative movement might yet emerge in the '90s, but it would probably have the same distant resemblance to the Goldwater-Reagan movement that Goldwater-Reagan conservatism had to the Republican right of Coolidge and Taft. It would have to be a new synthesis based upon new historical circumstances. In the meantime, conservatism could degenerate along opposite paths. It could become a kind of American Toryism, most closely identified with Wall Street's internationalism and the power of foreign capital, and shaped by Thatcher émigrés like Butler and National Review's John O'Sullivan. It would combine free trade internationalism and tax cuts for the wealthy with Kemp's and Heritage's entrepreneurial schemes for the poor. It could play an advisory role within a Tory-style Republican Party dominated by Bush and Jim Baker, but it would lack a popular base of its own. It would be an elite without a movement.
Alternatively, conservatism could also submerge itself in an unsavory stew of racism, nativism, populism and economic nationalism -- modeled perhaps on David Duke's campaign in Louisiana. Its forebears would not be the Goldwater-Reagan movement, but the George Wallace movement. It would become, in effect, a movement without an elite.
Conservatism's ultimate fate depends upon factors outside the immediate purview of the conservative movement. For one thing, it depends upon how successfully the Bush administration recasts the Republican Party as a moderate suburban-based bloc, fiscally conservative, fearful of urban crime, but also socially cosmopolitan. For another, it depends upon how successful Democratic liberals are in reviving their own moribund movement. Even more than conservatives, liberals lack a common leader and are divided about free trade and protectionism and America's obligations in the world.
It is too early to tell, however, what direction American politics will take. What can be said now is that the decline of conservatism brings down the curtain on the period of political history that began in the late 1940s when America assumed leadership of world capitalism. For four decades, both liberal and conservative politics have been shaped by the increasingly outmoded priorities of free trade internationalism and Cold War militarism.
Conservatism's decline leaves the United States without a regnant political movement. This has happened before: America suffered political drift and disillusion in the 1820s, 1850s, 1890s, and late 1920s. But not even in those decades have the waters of political opinion seemed quite so muddied. Conservatism and liberalism have both lost their unity and clarity of direction. It remains to be seen whether, in the new circumstances of the 1990s, either can regain its sway.


text:
Obama visits Louisiana Monday after Isaac, praises rescuers
LAPLACE, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Barack Obama praised rescuers and volunteers helping clean up after Hurricane Isaac on Monday, September 3rd and offered federal help to beef up flood protection in the stricken area.
Obama viewed storm damage in St. John the Baptist Parish, west of New Orleans, which suffered extensive flooding after Isaac struck the northern Gulf Coast last week. Thousands of residents were driven from their homes when the storm drove water over the banks of Lake Pontchartrain, but there were no fatalities in the parish.
"I want to commend everybody who's here for the excellent work they've done in making sure that lives were saved -- that although there was tremendous property damage, that people were in a position to get out quickly," Obama told reporters after viewing the damage Monday afternoon.
He praised authorities who carried out rescues despite their own losses and the "resilient" people of Louisiana and Mississippi, many of whom still face the threat of flooding.
"We are going to make sure at the federal level, we are getting on the case very quickly about figuring out what exactly happened here, what can we do to make sure that it doesn't happen again and expediting some of the decisions that may need to be made to make sure we've got the infrastructure to protect people's properly and protect people's lives," Obama said.
Authorities have blamed eight U.S. deaths on Isaac, six of them in Louisiana. The latest came Monday, when a 90-year-old man was found dead in his home in suburban New Orleans, Jefferson Parish Coroner Gerry Cvitanovich said.
The home was equipped with air conditioning, but the system didn't work with the electricity out, Cvitanovich said. Temperatures in the area were in the low 90s on Monday.
"It's the very young and very old and chronically ill people that are affected," he said. "The folks in my office are urging everyone to please check on family and get them in air conditioning or get them to a shelter."
Isaac struck the Gulf Coast south of New Orleans as a Category 1 hurricane early Wednesday, the seventh anniversary of the devastating Hurricane Katrina. It had already killed 19 people in the Caribbean nation of Haiti, where it struck before moving into the Gulf of Mexico.
The storm posed the first real test to New Orleans since a $14.5 billion federal effort to reconstruct the city's flood control system after it failed during Katrina in 2005. Katrina killed nearly 1,800 people, most when the storm overwhelmed the levee system and flooded the city.
Most of the areas hit hard by Isaac were outside the rebuilt levee system.
Obama was accompanied by officials from the parishes around New Orleans, the state's two U.S. senators and Gov. Bobby Jindal, a prominent Republican. His visit came three days after his Republican opponent in November, Mitt Romney, visited the region and three days before he's scheduled to accept the Democratic nomination for a second term.
During his stop in LaPlace, the president praised volunteers who were helping people gut their flooded homes "because they care about their neighbors and they care about their friends."
"That's what we do here in the United States of America. That's what we do here in Louisiana," he said. "When disasters like this happen, we set aside whatever petty disagreements we may have. Nobody's a Democrat or a Republican -- we're all just Americans looking out for one another."
More than 100,000 utility customers on the Gulf Coast remained without power nearly a week after landfall, while about 2,800 were still in shelters because of flooding. Authorities are still dealing with threats posed by rain-swollen rivers and lakes -- particularly in St. Tammany Parish, northeast of New Orleans.
The Pearl River, along the Mississippi state line, was projected to crest at more than 5 feet above flood stage on Tuesday, while authorities kept an eye on a weakened lock on an adjoining canal. Parish officials warned people to stay away from the area, but authorities lifted a mandatory evacuation order over the weekend after they released water from the lock to relieve pressure.
More flood warnings were posted for parts of the Mississippi coast, where rivers north of Pascagoula and Gulfport were running high.
As of Monday morning, about 2,700 Louisianans were still registered in shelters inland from the coastal parishes, said Christina Stephens, a spokeswoman for the state emergency management agency. She said state officials were working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local parishes to get those residents back home or into temporary housing soon.
"Our goal is to get them back to their communities so that their children can go to school, they can return to their jobs and start rebuilding their homes," she said. But she added, "We're not going to kick anyone out of shelters if they don't have anyplace else to go right now."
In Mississippi, fewer than 100 people remained in shelters, according to the state emergency management agency.
Stephens said more than half of St. John the Baptist Parish and Plaquemines Parish, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, remain without power. Both parishes suffered extensive storm damage and flooding, she said.
In St. James Parish, between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, a dusk-to-dawn curfew was imposed after the Blind River crested at flood stage, flooding nearly two dozen homes. National Guard troops were deployed to the area to help with security and possible evacuations, Jindal's office said.
Crews in Lafitte, on the outskirts of New Orleans, were considering breaching two spots in a levee along Bayou Barataria on Monday to help drain up to 5 feet of floodwater brought by the storm surge, officials said.
State officials have promised that money from fines paid by BP over the Gulf oil spill will be used to reinforce the area levees, Lafitte Mayor Tim Kerner said.
But so far, he says, that hasn't happened.
"Yeah, it's frustrating," Kerner told WWL. "It makes you feel like you're not doing your doggone job. But I can't help it if the Corps actually looks me in the face and promises that we're going to get things and we don't."
As many in Louisiana entered their sixth day without power, frustration with the pace of restoration efforts also grew.
At the height of the storm, more than 850,000 customers were reportedly without power in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Arkansas. By Monday, there were about 108,000 customers without power in Louisiana, with 59,000 of them in Jefferson Parish, according to Entergy Louisiana.
"Some areas are delayed due to high water conditions," the power company said on its website.
But for Tyrone Wilson, who relies on an electric scooter for transportation, the return of power means the return of his mobility.
"I got to go put it up because I got no power," Wilson told WWL. "I have no way to get around. I have to get medicine and go to the doctor. I have no way to get there."
CNN's Matt Smith, Rick Martin, George Howell, Greg Botelho, Chelsea J. Carter and David Ariosto contributed to this report.
CLICK HERE for additional Isaac coverage via FOX6Now.com.


text:
Few Saturdays back, the PR manager from Equatorial Hotel Melaka called Jasonmumbles up and invited him for a food tasting at Seri Nyonya, an award winning Nyonya restaurant which is located right inside Equatorial Hotel itself. This time he was asked to invite some others bloggers to go with him and I happened to be one of them. ^^
We were given a bowl of peanuts while waiting for the food. At the mean time, the PR manager, Chris briefed us about the restaurant and the Nyonya chef who is behind it. It appeared that the Chef is a real Peranakan and prepares all her dishes like how she did it at home to preserve the originality of the taste.
After a while, the food is ready and served. Here are the dishes we had that day.
P/S: I did not had my camera that day, so all the credits for the photos goes to Jasonmumbles.
Asam boi with Lychee: – A nice sour drink to open up the appetite with some lychees to chew at. My first time to have semboi drink with lychee. Something strange but nice. 😛
Otak-otak: – Personally I like this more than Muar Otak-Otak, I never did like Muar's otak-otak unless I can regrilled them myself. Anyway, its quite good and taste a bit different from others. From what I heard, the Chef made everything from scratch. Original! 😀
Popiah:- Like how Jasonmumbles said there's something missing in the Popiah.
Sop Hee Peow:- A soup made out dried fish bladder, mixed vegatables, fish balls and eggs. No comment on the soup tho as I didn't manage to have a bowl of it. T___T They forgot about my portion.
Cincaluk Omelette:- I never had this before back in Kuching. I guess its either a Nyonya dish or a Melaka local dish.
Deep Fried Fish Fillet:- Wooohoo I like this! I like fried stuffs. Some more its fish!! 😛 nice~~~
Ayam Buah Keluak: – I think this is not a dish anyone can handle. The chicken meat was okay but the Buah Keluak tasted weird, nothing like what I tasted before. I was told the preparation of this dish is not easy as the Buah Keluak (Black Nuts) is a poisonous fruit to begin with and the chef need days to remove the poison from it. And I would like to apologize here for not finishing the dish that took so much work to make. 🙁
Mixed Vegetables:- The cat don't eat vege. Nuff say. Lalalalala~~ *dance*
PongTeh Chicken:- A must have dish, the Pongteh chicken. Not bad I would say but I prefer it to be thicker and more gravvy but Jason begs different. 😛
Lemak Nanas Prawn:- This is the win!! Oh.. I just love this dish a lot!! I just love the thick milk taste with every slurp taken followed with a bit of spicyness in it. Woohoo.. Nice~~ Not forgetting the fresh prawns~~ Aww.. I'm missing it already. *tears*
Cendol:-As for dessert, we had cendols but it didn't turn out good. It lacked a bit of coconut milk in my opinion.
I'm not really a proffesional in this field like JasonMumbles but overall it was nice and with a some changes it can be better . Neither less it was a satisfy lunch. 🙂 I would like to thanks both Jason and Equatorial Hotel for it!! By the way, please visit Jason's post for a better review of it.
I had another round of lunch after that as someone happened to be in Melaka that day. Hehehe


text:
Thank you for using King County's My Commute Map. Here you will find tools to help you plan your commute through unincorporated King County. The map features real-time traffic cameras from King County and other agencies like the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and travel alerts from King County and WSDOT.
You may also be interested in King County Road Alerts and our @kcroads X (Twitter) feed.
Please note that short-term road closures related to traffic collisions or downed powerlines are not reported on Road Alert or the My Commute Map, as those closures are managed by outside agencies. During normal working hours, King County will attempt to tweet or retweet closure information of this type on our X (Twitter) account.
Map legend |
Closed | Traffic camera |
Upcoming closure | Weight restricted bridge |
Restricted | |
Open |
The Search feature lets you search for a location by address, intersection and place name. After you type part of your search it will suggest matches that it finds in our database. Use the "&" symbol to separate street names for an intersection search.
Search by address, intersection or place – for example:Bridges in the King County unincorporated area that are owned and maintained by King County are displayed on the map with a green dot and the bridge's name and number. You can also locate bridges by name using the map's search feature.
Bridge weight restrictionsKing County bridges with updated bridge vehicle weight restrictions are displayed on the map with an orange icon featuring a truck. Learn more about King County's weight restricted bridges.
Email firstname.lastname@example.com if you have questions about the map.
The King County Road Services Division provides Road Alerts and the My Commute Map as a service to the public. While we try to provide accurate and timely information, estimates of the nature and duration of closures are subject to variables such as weather and traffic conditions that are beyond the control of King County and, therefore, difficult to predict. People relying on this information should do so at their own risk. Neither King County nor its employees or agents shall be liable for the accuracy of this information or any actions taken as a result.
Information concerning state and some city routes is provided by non-King County agencies and included for the convenience of the public. If it is critical that you have more current information about the status of a road or a service request, please call 206-477-8100 or 800-527-6237. In major events, phone lines will be very busy and your patience is requested. Please do not e-mail for emergency road status information.
Please note that short-term road closures related to traffic collisions or downed powerlines are not reported on Road Alert or My Commute as those closures are managed by outside agencies. During normal working hours, King County will attempt to tweet or retweet closure information of this type on our X (Twitter) account.
Please read these terms carefully before using this site. By using this site, you agree to these terms of use. If you do not agree to these terms of use, please do not use this site.
GeneralThis site is owned and operated by King County. King County reserves the right to change or discontinue any aspect or feature of the Web site, temporarily or permanently, with or without notice to you. King County provides this Web site as a public service. This Web site is used to provide many types of information and to provide access to other traffic-related information. You agree that King County will not be liable to you for any modification, suspension or discontinuance of this Web site.
Restrictions on useThe content of this site, including all text, graphics, compilations and other documentation, is the property of King County and is protected by copyright law. By using this Web site, you agree to abide by all applicable laws in connection with our property rights, and by these terms of use. Except as may be otherwise provided in these terms, you may not publish, display, distribute or commercially exploit any of the content or Web site without the prior written permission of King County.
Disclaimer of warranty; limitation of liabilityKing County attempts to provide the best service reasonably available, but situations will occur that disrupt service or cause misinformation. The material presented on this Web site cannot be guaranteed as to accuracy, completeness, reliability, usefulness, or timeliness. This information depends on a number of items, including Internet availability, communications networks, and computer equipment which are beyond the control of King County and difficult to predict. The information on this Web site is not intended to constitute advice nor is it to be used as a substitute for specific advice from a professional. You should not act (or refrain from acting) based upon the information on this Web site without independently verifying the information and, as necessary, obtaining professional advice regarding your particular facts and circumstances. Because weather, road and traffic conditions change rapidly, drivers are in the best position to perceive such conditions and adjust their driving accordingly. Those relying on information presented on this Web site do so at their own risk, and you assume the risk that the information provided may be incorrect, as well as the risk that any information or material downloaded by you may cause loss of data or damage to your computer systems and neither King County, nor any of its officials, employees or agents shall be liable for either the accuracy of this information or any actions taken based on the information and nor do they represent the use of any information will not infringe privately owned rights.
All information on this Web site is provided "as is", "with all faults" and "as available" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, accuracy, or non-infringement nor shall the distribution of this information constitute any warranty. King County assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the information or software or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this Web site. Under no circumstances, including, but not limited to, negligence, shall King County, its officials and employees, or any contributor to this Web site be liable for any direct, indirect, even if both parties are aware of the possibility of such damages, including without limitation loss of profits or for any other incidental, special, consequential or exemplary damages, however caused, whether based upon contract, negligence, strict liability in tort, warranty, or any other legal theory, arising out of or related to your use of, or the inability to use, this Web site or its content. King County is not responsible for or liable for any damage, including damage caused by viruses, to your computer, computer system, or other property, during or on account of access or use of this Web site or any sites to which this Web site provides links. We welcome feedback on the Web site at www.kingcounty.gov, but provide no guarantee that feedback will result in site changes. If you are dissatisfied in any way with any of these terms of use, your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue use of this Web site.
IndemnificationYou agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless King County, its officials and employees, from and against any and all claims, actions, liabilities, costs and expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees (referred to collectively as "claims"), arising out of or related to your breach of any provision of these terms of use, or otherwise in any way arising out of or related to your use of this Web site. You will cooperate fully in the defense of any such claims. King County reserves the right to take exclusive control of the defense of any such claims. Furthermore, King County expressly disclaims any responsibility to defend or indemnify you against claims which others may assert based on your use of any of the information on this Web site.
Third party contentKing County provides links to Internet sites and data maintained by third parties. Because we do not operate or control any of these sites, we cannot be responsible for their content or availability.
Changed termsKing County has the right at any time to change or modify the terms and conditions applicable to use of the site or to impose new conditions. Any use of the Web site indicates that you accept the terms and conditions as posted at the time of use.
MiscellaneousThese terms of use constitute the entire agreement between you and King County with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all previous written or oral agreements, if any, between you and King County with respect to such subject matter. These terms of use shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. You consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in King County, Washington in all disputes arising out of or related to these terms of use and the use of this Web site. The invalidity of any term or provision of these terms will not affect the validity of any other term or provision. Waiver by King County of strict performances of any provision of these terms will not be a waiver of or prejudice King County's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision of these terms. No waiver by either party of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach or default. The section headings used herein are for convenience only and shall not be given any legal import. Comments or questions about this site or the terms of use should be directed to email@example.com.
Terms of use last updated on April 15, 2010. Copyright © 2024, King County Department of Local Services.
Tweets on this page do not display in Internet Explorer


text:
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Advanced Search About the Fed News & Events Monetary Policy Supervision & Regulation Payment Systems Economic Research Data Consumers & Communities Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, provides the nation with a safe, flexible, and stable monetary and financial system. Home > News & Events > Press Releases Press Release March 14, 2012 Federal Reserve survey provides information on mobile financial services For immediate release Share One out of five American consumers used their mobile phone to access their bank account, credit card, or other financial account in the 12 months ending in January 2012 and an additional one out of five indicated they would likely use mobile banking at some point in the future, according to a Federal Reserve Board survey (2.5 MB PDF) | HTML. The survey's findings suggest that the use of mobile banking is poised to expand further over the next year, with usage possibly increasing to one out of three mobile phone users by 2013. However, the survey indicates that many consumers remain skeptical of the benefit of mobile banking and the level of security associated with the technology. The use of mobile banking is highly correlated with age, according to the survey results. People between 18 and 29 account for approximately 44 percent of mobile banking users, relative to 22 percent of all mobile phone users. Conversely, people age 60 and over account for only 6 percent of all mobile banking users, but 24 percent of mobile phone users. The survey showed a significantly higher level of mobile banking uptake among African Americans (16 percent) and Hispanics (17 percent), relative to 11 percent and 13 percent of mobile phone users, respectively. The widespread use of mobile technology has the potential to expand access to financial services for previously underserved populations. Underbanked individuals (people with bank accounts but who use check cashers, payday lenders, or payroll cards) make relatively heavy use of mobile banking, according to the survey. Of this group, 29 percent used mobile banking in the year ending in January 2012. The survey found that the most common mobile banking activities are consumers checking their account balances or monitoring recent transactions. Less frequently used mobile banking functions include making online bill payments from a bank account, locating an in-network automated teller machine, and depositing a check by phone. The majority of consumers who have a mobile phone but do not use mobile banking said they either had no need for these services or expressed security concerns. When asked to rate the security of mobile banking, non-users were more likely to report that they believed it was unsecure or that they simply didn't know how secure the technology was. The survey was conducted on behalf of the Board by Knowledge Networks, an online consumer research firm. Data collection began December 22, 2011, and was concluded on January 9, 2012. Nearly 2,300 respondents completed the survey. A report summarizing the survey's mobile financial services findings may be found at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/mobile-devicereport-201203.pdf (2.5 MB PDF) | HTML. Appendix tables provide responses to all of the survey questions. For media inquiries, call 202-452-2955. Last Update: March 14, 2012 BOARD OF GOVERNORS of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM About the Fed News & Events Monetary Policy Supervision & Regulation Payment Systems Economic Research Data Consumers & Communities Financial Stability TOOLS AND INFORMATION Contact Publications Freedom of Information (FOIA) Office of Inspector General Budget & Performance | Audit No FEAR Act Español Website Policies | Privacy Program Accessibility STAY CONNECTED BOARD OF GOVERNORS of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 20th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20551