text:
Sr. Walsh soldiers on...
Previous posts at dotCommonweal on the HHS decision to change agencies helping the victims of human trafficking showed the usual Catholic fractiousness, but seemed to overlook the due process issues involved.Sr. Mary Anne Walsh, USCCB spokesperson has tracked down some more information. "I have been informed that six organizations applied for anti-trafficking grants from HHSs Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Four scored so low they did not make the cutoff when evaluated by an independent review board. Two applicants scored well. Heartland Human Care Services scored highest and MRS came in second, very close to Heartland, even after losing points for not being willing to refer for contraceptives and abortions. Yet, after finagling by Sharon Parrott, one of three politically-appointed counselors to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, ORR awarded $4.5 million, spread across Heartland, which earned the award, and United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and Tapestri, groups that hadnt made the grade according to the independent review board."HHS denies any hanky-panky. Show me the data."
About the Author
Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, a former editor of Commonweal, writes frequently in these pages and blogs at dotCommonweal.
53 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Hi, Margaret, the article provides some additional details, but doesn't really advance the story much, from what I can tell. Do you agree? What do you think is really going on here? Are the bishops doing the right thing by continuing to press this issue?
Maybe I'm not understanding the problem. It seems the Catholic agency is being turned down not because what they offer is sub-standard but because it is incomplete. Contraception information is a necessary part of health care for women, especially women who have been the victims of human trafficking. Why would the government opt to choose an agency that doesn't offer this? Unless I'm mistaken, it's not as if the agency is required to give out contraceptives or do abortions, they are asked to inform/refer.
Jim P: Who knows what the bishops are doing! I think Sister Walsh is saying that MRS lost the grant because a political appointee at HHS intervened in a process ruled by a review committee that found MRS a good choice for the grant despite its position on contraception and abortion.She does all of us a favor by pursuing an effort to find out the facts, even if the grant is gone forever. Whatever our views on reproductive rights, we should care that the people MRS has been assisting continue to get services equal to or better than MRSs.
Are there any independent studies showing the effectiveness of MRS? That would help. As far as I know government awards are always political. Rarely are they not. So what is the surprise. As I wrote before, if you send letters to your pulpit every election day to vote for the other party what do you expect. Whatever one's views about grants it is a legitimate question as to how much the RCC in the US is political in its pulpit.
I agree that MRS has to push hard here, even if it's a lost cause. Politicians get away with this stuff only because it never makes the headlines. Journalists are used to it - it seems normal to them and thus not news. It's also necessary to let the politicians know that there will be a steep price to pay - a bright spotlight on their back-room deals, which work well only in the dark.
It is always amazing to me that Catholics cannot sort through our own views and opinions to see some of the other and perhaps bigger issues at stake in these discussions. Of course, that applies to the bishops as well.Good institutions doing good work are being squeezed out of the public square because they are caught between the bishops and their ideology and the pro-choice and pro-gay world and their ideology. The price is being paid by those who need the services of good institutions.
The Walsh "Memo to HHS" strikes me as juvenile. If you are serious about doing business involving competitive legal contracting and funding, you should sound as if you mean business, which would suggest leaving out the wisecracks, insults, and flipness for a start. Her apparent surprise that counselors and senior policy advisors would counsel and advise, given the size of the Secretary's Department, is surprising, especially in view of the fact that MRS had prior experience with HHS. Similarly, her dismay at ORR favoring proposals it had said it would favor is puzzling. She poses questions about how men and women involved in trafficking think about sex but, having no data, offers no answers. The best thing the USCCB could do would be to have this "Memo" disappear ASAP in case they might care to bid again someday.
A post by Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, a professor at the Chicago Theological Seminary ... What about the women? Sex trafficking victims need comprehensive health services ... makes the point that I tried to make above, which is that this isn't about anti-Catholicism, it's about helping the victims.
I think there are many, many things going on at one time, and it's way too simplistic (and sounding like a political jab) to say it is all about the Obama Administration trying to "get back" at the USCCB, especially as others have pointed out, the USCCB have received increases in funding in other programs.First, let me agree with the desire for the program to continue to get funding. Second, let's look at the real world; many good programs, in all administrations, lose funding from the government -- often not because of any "punishment" but just as a way of life; sometimes administrations like to move things around to give many people the opportunity to get funding (sort of like how colleges might reward a student a scholarship one year, but not the next). Sometimes they want to look like they are not playing favorites (something I think Sister Walsh ignores). Sometimes, budgeting is on the decline, and again, they need to try to encourage as many entities as possible (and the USCCB looks stable, while others could be lifted up). Nonetheless, the constant call of religious persecution when the USCCB doesn't get funding for a specific program, and the name-calling is not going to fix the situation, but make things worse; you are likely to create the atmosphere which you decry if it is not there. I wonder if this is not exactly what _some_ at the USCCB (from the "pro-life" wing) want -- since that wing seems to be leading the USCCB for quite some time, often with shoddy claims (health care reform and abortion funding, etc). It does look like some in the USCCB are going with the politics and the rest are clueless at how they are being used.
It seems to me that Crystal has a good point. Anybody have an answer for her precise points--that will be persuasive to those who don't think contraception is always immoral?My worry about this whole debate is that those claiming the exemption don't seem to recognize that their are consciences on both sides of the debate. Try looking at it from the perspective of the decision-makers. What should one do if one conscientiously believes that women have a right to contraception --especially if they are at risk of sexual assault (remember the Belgian nuns in the Congo)-- and a service organization not only won't provide the service, but won't refer for that service?The underlying problem facing the church is that common morality is diverging from Church teaching on key issues. It is a conflict of moral claims. And it's not merely attributable to political correctness. From the perspective of the non-Catholics who think contraception and abortion are licit services, they may well ask why their tax money is going to service providers who aren't going to give these vulnerable women everything they need. What's the answer to their moral question?
Cathleen, you stated much better the points I tried to make in the earlier thread. These contracts are not awarded for the purpose of giving the Church a chance to show its social justice mettle. It is not anti-Catholic to want to ensure the provision of comprehensive services to women who are, after all, the purpose for which this funding is being made in the first place. Contraception and abortion are legal, and these women in particular are highly vulnerable to coerced sexual activity, even when they are not in the sex trade. Domestic servants are often sexually exploited by male members of the families they work for (for instance, teen aged sons) and the trafficking ringleaders. To say, as someone did, on the other thread that he is sure that these women's dignity can be respected without providing them with those services is just beside the point. An overarching principle in assisting trafficking victims is to allow -- and sometimes force -- these women to start makign decisions on their own behalf, to control their own destiny, their own physical person, for one thing, so they are not re-trafficked. Thus, it is very important that they ultimately be the decision makers in whether they get a referral for contraceptive or abortion or any other services. I work with trafficking victims, I should say, and being refused a referral on ideological grounds is just inconsistent with these principles. It subjugages the woman's decision about her own body to the beliefs of others -- even if those beliefs are conscientious and not explicitly intended to harm her. There is also the prospect that the Church's prior performance was "rated up" by a board that had become used to working with certain organizations. I still don't understand why the USCCB didn't contest the award if it thought it was so deficient on the merits.
CK: A thorough moral calculus on this depends on fact that we do not have and/or on facts that will become apparent only in the future. The framework for this calculus would be the total "good," i.e., services provided for all the victims able to reach MRS (or that MRS is able to reach), including women, men, and children. That "good" should be measured against the "good" of providing contraceptives and/or abortions to the women who want them. The HHS review committee seems to have concluded that except for contraception and abortion, MRS supplied the "good" that was needed. The unknown future facts: Will the alternate agencies not only supply contraceptive and abortions services but the other "goods" required by the victims, which include men and children as well as women?Also unknown is the degree to which MRS professionals, in fact, ensure contraceptive and/or abortion services to women who need them, but, of course, do not advertise that; or as Crystal Watson suggests refer women for those services.
Barbara: Another thing I don't know is where these services are deployed; I have the impression some of this occurs outside the U.S., in which case, abortion is not always legal. How do U.S. funded services cope with that?You use the expression "force" women to take responsibility; I am going to assume you mean by verbal persuasion of a gentle sort. Otherwise how are these services any different than the operations from which the victims have fled or been rescued?
Peggy, I think it is important to remember that what is at stake is NOT the PROVISION Of these services, but rather referral for them. NO one is asking the bishops' conference to provide these services, as I understand it--they are being asked to tell them where they can obtain them. Now, as to the RFP: Consider this analogy.Suppose I want to have a party Friday night. The best caterer in town is run by an orthodox Jewish firm, that refuses to cater on Friday nights. It seems to me I have two choices: I can give my guests the best food, or I can have the party when I want to. IF I decide to have the party on Friday, and go with the second best caterer, that is not discrimination against the Orthodox Jews. If HHS really believes that referral for these services is an essential part of the services they want available to victims of sex trafficking, then it is not discrimination not to contract with someone who won't provide the full range of services.The question in this case, of course, is whether it is reasonable to place REFERRALs for contraception and abortion as essential criteria, rather than merely including them among the factors that are balanced in evaluating competing service providers. I suspect there's a moral issue lurking here--not about the provision of services, but about the referrals. A government contractor not providing services to which it morally objects is one thing. But not referring for services which are not only legal but constitutionally protected is something on a different level--especially when you have a population which probably doesn't know how to get those services otherwise.(I am assuming that the US government is not requiring its contractors to refer for services in countries in which those services are illegal-that would create an international incident, I think!)I don't think the moral calculus is necessarily a total cost/benefit analysis. There are principles involved too. Suppose you have a fabulous service provider, that takes care of 98 percent of the population better than anyone else. But it refuses to take care of the mentally ill, because it believes they are cursed by God. I'm not going to go with them as a government provider, because their fundamental principles are inconsistent with my purposes. Suppose you have a provider that believes that pain medication in childbirth is prohibited by God. I'm not going to with them either --even if they're the best provider overall.So my sense is that it's not the provision of services that's the moral deal breaker, but the refusal to refer for constitutionally protected services. And unless we grapple seriously with the conflicting moral principles--conflicting consciences, not merely OUR consciences, we're not going to get beyond a shouting match.
The point is to make it as clear as possible that women should be the ones making important decisions in their life -- whether they stay in the U.S. or go back home and so on -- many are so used to being out of control that they will defer to what the "service providers" signal as what they should be doing. As a service provider you have to be vigilant about this.
You can come up with all kinds of outlandish examples -- a fabulous emergency service provider that is run by the Jehovah's Witnesses that won't provide emergency blood transfusions. Blood transfusions are against their faith, but most of us would be outraged at being put in harm's way if our local municipality decided to contract with an entity to provide emergency room services at a public hospital if it refused to provide blood transfusions because it violated their conscience. Jehovah's Witness is marginal, an outlier in the public perception of religious organizations -- but the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception, at least, is just as much of a marginal and outlier position. How far is one entitled to go in asserting the primacy of conscience in refusing to provide services that are legal and legitimately the subject of a public contract before the government can be seen to be acquiescing in, if not actually imposing, the provider's moral point of view on those who are supposed to be receiving services under the contract?
Another thing I find wrong with Sister Walsh's argument: she is making the assertion, and demanding proof of a negative. That really works well with conspiracy theorists; no matter what you show as a negative, there is always a way to read it as a part of a greater conspiracy. The way is not to demand proof of the negative, but to show evidence of the actual deed. The "they didn't give it to us this time" is not proof of a conspiracy or an attack on the Church, and as such, more needs to be proven in order to make a case.
As far as I can tell from the original Washington Post story the USCCB worked with a variety of subcontractors providing services to victims of human trafficking, and that subcontractors were allowed to arrange these services, though the USCCB would not reimburse with federal dollars. It appears from the National Review story that some of the subcontractors shared the USCCB's views on abortion. There may be rights protected under the constitution for individuals to use contraception and to have abortions. Those rights do not extend to payment for contraception and abortion. Payment for contraception is probably legislated in a number of states and for a number of federal programs, but that doesn't extend to abortions.So back to Square One: Wasn't the decision of the HHS Counselors (who are political appointees) an exclusion of the better service provider for ones rated lower by the review committee? That exclusion was based not on lack of merit, but on the decision to have agencies that might excel at providing contraception and abortions, but be lackluster on the rest of the package. In any case, how do abortions get paid for in this arrangement, if federal funds are barred from paying for abortions?
Here are the links:Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/health-abortion-issues-split-obam... here's the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282053/trafficking-victims-take-bac... also note that the Washington Post story must flow from the internal dissension at HHS over the decision.
If we grant that there is dissension at HHS(at least for the sake of argument) and if we grant that high marks went to Church service providers, does that still answer Barbara's question about contract referals?And, does it answer the major issue of services to those caught up in trafficking?Is contraception as a service vital to many????Unfortunately, i don't find clear naswers to those questions here yet.
1. A foolproof way to discourage programs for refugees - - require all subcontractors to be open to the full panoply of "reproductive rights."2 . A foolproof way to put USCCB groups out of business - - for bids on all relevant contracts currently held by Catholic groups allow HHS to privilege bids from groups providing full "reproductive rights" even if these groups are otherwise rated as substandard.3. A foolproof way to pit traditional religious groups against the welfare state - - pursue #1 and #2 with full vigor as a matter of principle.After following these three simple stepsprepare for Congressional hearings, campaign debates and very likely a reversion to the previous policy following a Republican victory. Then denounce the Bishops as cretins and bigots. Ignore collateral damage to refugees.
Sorry Bob, don't quite get the questions about contract referrals.On the contraception issue: I think the bishops are foolish, sadly so, to raise it to an invariable principle in the public square. On the abortion issue, they have solid principle on their side.
That's what I'm trying to say. It's referrals--not actual provision of services at issue!
But according to the WashPost referrals are provided by the sub-contractors.
Margaret, we can argue principles in general but the WaPo is just not specifc or authoritative enough to provide factual answers to real questions that are being raised here. It is entirely possible that the board wanted the contract to go to a vendor that it liked and had forged personal relationships with -- this happens in federal agencies. There is a process for challenging an award on the merits but the USCCB does not seem to have done that, and is pleading its case through news organizations. We keep ping ponging between the principles and the facts as if the latter are clear, and thus inform the former -- bu they are not clear and what is being reported to the press might itself be highly biased.
Much of what seems to be attributed explicitly and implicitly to the "independent" "review" board is puzzling to me based on some experience on similar boards for another large department. Barbara is right, repeatedly, on the need to describe what the process under discussion actually has been if one hopes to understand it. A clarifying definition would show the actual purpose, scope, functions, products, reporting, and, especially, financial and contracting legal authority of the HHS board receiving so much attention. And, finding advisors between a board and final decision authority should be viewed as desirable, not malfeasance. The underlying premise is that nobody knows everything, but smart ones can learn. Henry Karlson usefully noted a few of the factors that may affect contracting and funding authorities after a review board does its work and before final decisions on contracts and funding are signed. See his "Second, lets look at the real world; ." (11/08/2011 - 5:38 am). In addition, roles and priorities in Congress matter since that is where the funds and laws originate. And that is why Bishop Lori and others are testifying to Sub-Committees on grave threats emerged since June. USCCB members are hardly merely charitable workers seeking support in DC for obviously praiseworthy projects. An example of their activity was offered by Richard Doerflinger, USCCB pro-life lobbyist, about USCCB activities: " during health care reform debate; Doerflinger said they actually helped Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) write the controversial anti-abortion amendment,". If bishops are going to do what other lobbyists and legislative encouragers do in the back room, they can expect to face the same questions and suspicions the others get about money, back-scratching, and vote bargaining. Sr. Walsh's Memo is embedded in a context worth recognizing. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-to-congress-illegal-conditio... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/the-men-behind-the-war-on_n_106...
Why hasn't the USCCB appealed the decision? Good question! I am going to put on my girl reporter's glasses and see if I can find out.In the meantime, I am a bit disappointed that we are bailing on the issue because the WashPost is only a newspaper and not a semester course in federal grants.
IMHO this controversy illustrates the contradiction implicit in contracting with faith-based organizations to carry out government (secular) services. Ultimately the government, in giving some grants and denying others, will be criticized for engaging in either religious favoritism and/or discrimination. On the other hand, faith based agencies will be forced to engage in the messy business of lobbying and they will surely have to compromise some of their preferred social service procedures in order to qualify for government grants.The USCCB, as witnessed by the substantial level of government funding for Catholic Relief Services and diocesan Catholic Social Services, has been very successful in its lobbying efforts. As professional lobbyists, they surely know these prudential norms: (a) because you fail to win a contract, dont publically discredit the grant-awarding process unless you dont intend to seek future grants; and (b) dont pass on to the media the statements of anonymous bureaucrats who are critical of the agencys decision unless you want to be seen as an untrustworthy provocateur. So why does the USCCB continue to add fuel to this controversy?(a) The Bishops see themselves as morally inspired whistle-blowers with the obligation, regardless of the consequences, to expose the politics of the HHS staff. (b) The Bishops expect the resulting political uproar to compel HHS to be more accommodating in the future. (c) The Bishops are willing to sacrifice temporary lobbying access in order to substantiate their claim that secularists (many of whom serve in the Obama Administration) are determined to destroy the religious liberty of the American Catholic Church. (d) Or all of the above?
"Contraception information is a necessary part of health care for women, especially women who have been the victims of human trafficking. Why would the government opt to choose an agency that doesnt offer this?"Without getting into the question of contraception, it seems that HHS had a choice in awarding this bid: they could award the bid to:o agencies that can help victims of human trafficking (which seems to be the point of the bid) in a myriad of ways, but don't directly provide access to contraception and abortion; oro agencies that do directly provide access to contraception and abortion, but *aren't qualified to help victims of human trafficking* - aren't even staffed up to meet the requirements of the contract.If the choice was between two agencies who are equally adept at helping victims, where one provides those contraceptive/abortion services and the other doesn't, the HHS selection decision would be legally, politically and maybe even philosophically defensible (albeit not to my personal taste). But that wasn't the choice. The choice was to choose competence + no direct reproductive services; or reproductive services + incompetence. HHS chose the latter. HHS prefers ideology to helping victims. Did I mention that Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, is ultimately responsible for this unconscionable decision?
JimDo you have proof that those who got funding are incompetent?
HHS denies any hanky-panky. Show me the data.The government doesn't just give you your competitor's data because you have asked for it. Sr. Walsh must realize, of course, that HHS actually has a system of records that tells them when to show what data to whom and that it could get sued for giving the wrong data to the wrong party. It's ironic that the USCCB could be in such a lather about the irregular process used to award the contract (allegedly) and yet working so hard to avoid or evade the rather obvious process that does exist to correct the alleged wrongdoing. I really and truly don't understand and it makes me suspicious.
Henry, I am running with the claims of incompetence that Sr. Walsh has presented.
Years of daily WashPo reading suggest a few observations on the Markon WP story of Oct 31, 2011 to which Margaret links (I bypass the 2084 comments for now.) - From a Governrnent agency with over 60,000 employees, Markon writes of uncounted, nameless "senior political appointees", "career staffers", "federal officials", "career officials", "HHS officials", "some HHS staffers", and finds one quotable respondent. The streets and bars of DC overflow with anonymous authoritative speakers on any subject. It's worth waiting for some information attributable to named, knowledgable sources who will own up publicly to verifiable information. - He writes of "some Catholics" with no indication of whether that is 1000 in and near the USCCB or most of the 70 million over whom Abp. Dolan claims episcopal shepherdship. Most notably in light of the key part played by the subject of contraception, he omits any mention of what most American Catholics believe, which is in striking, well-known contrast to the bishops' teachings on the subject. - An inevitable consequence of competitive federal procurement is disgruntled losers. The quotable USCCB Director of Media Relations is presumably supporting the organization's legal strategy, said to be kicking off with an FOIA request. Barbara's comment (10:02am) applies as do the questions from j p farry (11/08 9:22pm).
Back from my investigations. This: MRS is studying its options. It is unclear whether an appeal can be made in this case. (Don't know why or why not)Henry Karlson/ Jim Pauwels: Perhaps incompetence is the wrong word. Perhaps "not as good as" MRS in providing services would be a fairer reading of the review committee's findings--at least according to the Wash Post story.Jack Berry: "Its worth waiting for some information attributable to named, knowledgable sources who will own up publicly to verifiable information." We are all newspaper readers (or I certainly hope so), and we all know that anonymous source(s), for better and worse, are prime sources for journalists. I have assumed in this case that the prime source is likely a member of the review committee, or someone with access to its report. That's a bit closer than the 60,000 HHS employees wandering in DC bars! I don't know the Wash Post's rules for anonymous sources, but generally a reporter has to be able to tell an editor who the source is and the editor has to judge the merits. For that reason an FOIA request makes sense--though how soon it will be forthcoming is unpredictable.
Margaret - WashPost ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote about his paper's rules and unsatisfactory practices on anonymous sources a couple of years ago: "Post Often Ignores Its Own Rules on Anonymous Sources". Today, that's a very illuminating precursor to reading articles like Markon's as well as many others. More on the subject from a Google search on [ Washington Post ombudsman "anonymous sources" ]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR200908... I would be very much interested in knowing the USCCB-HHS story and so far find it coming no closer from hopeful guesses, unsupported assumptions, anonymous sources, and Walsh wisecracks.
Right, incompetence is not the right word. To say "We are better" is not to say someone else is incompetent. That is the kind of language and exaggeration which is causing problems here, and demonstrates a rather dualistic ideology on top of a politically charged rhetoric that has yet to be proven.
Jack BarryThat is the problem I have with the story -- it is guesses, speculations, sources we not know, and a desire by Sister Walsh for some reason to antagonize the administration and create a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that sources now seem to indicate there might not be a case for an appeal suggests there are more things with this story, and I think the "pro-life" leaders who began with the attacks on health care reform are pulling no punches while not being so upfront and honest.
I read Walsh as claiming that at least one or two of the awardees aren't able to deliver the services for which they've been awarded the contract - e.g. that they are not up and running in the requisite amount of time. That is a lack of competence to perform the services one is contractually bound to deliver. "Incompetence" seems as good a word to describe that situation as any.
I don't know whether or not there are grounds to appeal the decision, nor whether such an appeal would be successful. I agree with Barbara that ultimately HHS, as the contracting agency, has a lot of leeway to set whatever decision criteria it wishes, so it's quite possible that there are insufficient grounds to appeal. By the same token, I'd imagine that nobody disputes the USCCB's right (or any concerned citizen's or group of citizen's right) to shine the sunlight of publicity on this unseemly and morally repugnant decision by an agency of the Obama Administration - indeed, the same agency charged with implementing the administration's controversial health care reform bill.
As far as I have heard, MRS has not been criticized for the quality of its past work. The money associated with the contract under discussion ($4.5M) or a share of it may be life and death to MRS. To put that amount in perspective, it would represent 0.1% of HHS's 2010 Grant Liability ($4.2B) and 25% of what the USCCB just received recently from HHS for other purposes ($19M). Why isn't the USCCB's #1 problem how to dig up, somewhere, a couple of million dollars so MRS can carry on this year? That would seem a more worthwhile expenditure of their available good will, diplomacy, connections, energy, wisdom, and strategizing than the present effort, depending on USCCB priorities. What are their priorities?
Jack Barry: Do you really think the bishops can raise $4.5millon for MRS? Who would give it to them? Not most Catholics, I wager. Maybe a really, really rich Catholic, but who would that be? While I think Sr. Walsh is doing the right thing in pursuing this issue (and yes, I know you all don't agree), the bishops continue to squander their authority and good will.
Margaret - Abp. Dolan, Pres. of the USCCB, claims in his religious liberty letter that the bishops are shepherds of over 70 million US citizens. If he and the hierarchy knew how to persuade just one out of every 16 of those Catholic citizens to contribute $1 each next year for this cause, they'd collect roughly $4.5M. I agree with your conclusion, though; they seem to act as if determined to squander their strengths and potential. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/dolan-le...
"Shepherds of over 70 million US citizens"? Hmmm! You'd think shepherds could actually count their sheep, including the ones that have gone astray.
I have no problem with someone shining light on the politically skewed or unfair decision making at an agency. It's a good thing, but there are two strands running through here: the one has to do with the agency's actions and the other with the agency's motives. In my view, the agency's actions are what they are -- the procurement process results in lots of suboptimal contracting decisions that are motivated by a variety of unfair (not to say improper) reasons, the most common being: I like the current contractor (overrating of past performance, in contract speak). Some of these motivations are actually sanctioned by the process itself -- I prefer a small business; I really want more than one organization providing these services; I want to buy items made in the U.S.That's why there are legions of people who can make a living counseling and litigating in the area. Thus, there might have been something skewy about the award -- but absent a lot more on the record information about the process, the rfp itself and a lot of other things, people are arriving at conclusions that go way beyond what can be supported on available information, and frankly, the USCCB seems to be looking for bias so that it can use it as yet another club to hammer the administration with. In other words, its claims of bias prompt suspicions about its own bias in the matter.
Aren't the real losers here the people who might have been helped with the $4.5 million in the hands of MRS. Will he hear the end story about how the new grantees perform with that amount?You DC insiders also seem to be confirming every Republican claim about government incompetence in spending our tax dollars.
No, Margaret, what you seem to be missing is that the government, unlike private actors, makes certain decisions unacceptable (I'm choosing you because I like you -- perfectly proper in the private world if it is not illegally discriminatory) and a process to try to correct for situations when the decision ends up being contrary to the rules. It also has to provide reaasons -- what you are pointing to as incompetence, on a relative scale, is really the transparency that allows you to know more about the government than a private actor.
To be clear, I do not share the Republican view....But do we really know more about this particular process and its adherence to the rules than we have read in the WashPost? Can you describe the transparency in this particular case?And, of course, any HHS person who would like to share what they know with dotCommonweal is welcome to do so.
All I can say is that HHS awards can typically be protested on the merits. Within that process, attorneys and others get data subject to a protective order that allows them to view competitive scoring and try to determine whether the government erred in awarding the contract one way or the other. If you go around talking to the press during that period there is a good chance you are violating the PO -- but in any event, you typically have a very narrow window of time in which to complain and trigger review. I don't know whether that window has closed. My instinct tells me that MRS was aware that the referral issue would be viewed as a bigger deal this time around, does not agree with that (which I understand) and therefore is really going after what it sees as the issue for itself -- which is WHETHER the referral for health care services deserved to receive the importance that it did, and one way of doing that is asserting that the agency's focus on that issue, even if it was a legitimate agency decision, led to an inferior contractor. That's a much harder issue to win on because that's like asking to rewrite the RFP.
So...it's in the hands of MRS. Let's see what they do.
Hi, Barbara, re: your analysis in your 9:51 comment - I basically agree with the way you've broken it down. My reading of the "hammering" is that what the USCCB is pounding is, not the administration per se, but its policies and how those policies influence HHS procurement. That strikes me as eminently hammerable, and it doesn't require an ulterior conservative-politics motive, although it's understandable and probably inevitable that such thoughts would come to mind.
I agree with Jack Barry. Major Catholic donors are out there. If Archbishop Dolan took the lead, and then asked for assistance from the bishops of perhaps fifteen other large dioceses, the money could be achieved in six months' time. $10,000 here; $30,00 there. This is not at all unrealistic.The excellent service of MRS could then continue and without compromising Catholic teaching. I think the bishops would thereby have made an important point, and that it wouldn't go unnoticed in that city a mile from which I write.
John Page: An the important point would be....?
Margaret - According to his Post bio, the reporter Jerry Markon to whose story you link covers the Justice Dept for the paper and has years of experience covering various court houses, national security trials, a war crimes trial, judges, and the Supreme Court. Only the latest one of his 12 headlines shown relates to the HHS and anti-human-trafficking procurement issue. That raises the question of how familiar he is with the HHS area of the federal government -- the areas differ substantially in many complex ways, as does the area competence of individual reporters and their products. http://www.washingtonpost.com/jerry-markon/2011/03/02/ABFbf0M_page.html Partial Answer ** Recommended Reading ** What's the Problem? ** An excellent story by Markon in 2007 in the late months of the Bush administration is much to his credit and the Post's: "Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence -- U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short", 9/23/07. He draws on numerous named sources, including the author of the NRO article linked above, Steven Wagner, ex-HHS, to describe the genesis and bi-partisan promotion of the human-trafficking issue in DC. He details the extraordinarily wide uncertainties surrounding it. A 20111 credible update (is one available?) would clarify a lot of programmatic and funding priorities in the face of finite funds and personnel in the US and USCCB. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/health-abortion-issues-split-obam...


text:
Apologies, I'll simplify my question: Are there any degaussers or HDD shredders out there in the $500-1500 range designed for use as such that you would recommend for low-volume use?
I could have sworn this has been asked before, but I can't find a close duplicate...
With only 10 disks to get rid of, you should do what I do: take the covers off and take the voice coil magnets out. They're rare earth magnets and some of them are quite large, they make great fridge magnets, and are useful for lots of other things.
If you want to be very, very sure no-one could get the data off, the first thing to do is to wipe the voice coil magnet over the surface of the platter you can see, which will mess up the servo tracks, making it essentially impossible to recover the disk. (I have one magnet from an old DEC 1GB drive that is 1cm thick and can wipe a hard drive without taking the cover off.)
I usually stop at getting the voice coil magnets out, but for an HR machine I once took the platters out and broke them and disposed of half of the pieces at work, half at home.
We use an inexpensive drill press. One or two passes and the platter is done.
Thermite (be careful)
If the drives aren't capable of being wiped with software, mechanical destruction of the platter is about your only option (Good news! It's usually the fun way as well!).
If you don't have a lot of devices to get rid of, you can try using thermite which is typically fairly inexpensive to obtain (depending on where you live) and is completely irreversible (some military aircraft use thermite to destroy stored records in flight computers if the aircraft crashes in a foreign country). Take the top cover off of the first drive to make sure you're placing the thermite so that it melts through as much of the platter as possible.
A less fun but equally destructive method is to remove the individual platters and run the surface of them randomly across a bench grinder. You can probably borrow or rent one for a couple of hours and not have to spend much money compared to buying a degausser.
My father was a mechanic, and he used to say "the only two tools a good mechanic needs are a hammer, and a bigger hammer." I'd pull the platters, and smash them with a big hammer. Probably a good stress reliever. On place I worked would occasionally get PCMCIA hard-drives back from Cardiologiests with patient data on them, we found that banging the hard-drive flat on a bench would shatter the platters into tiny pieces, you coulc hear the glass shatter, then rattle around inside. Full-Size Hard drives are probably going to be a little tougher, but you should be able to damage them enough.
On the LTO tapes, I'd probably open them up and take a knife to the tape while its on the reel, cutting the tape into a series of 3-4 inch sections.
3 pieces of wood (at least 1" thick, 8" - 12" long) laid flat & lined up parallel to each other, attach the pieces to a 1/2 or 3/4" plywood base as follows. Allow about 2.75" between 1 & 2 (3.5" drive) and about 1.75" between 2 & 3 (for 2.5 drive). The drives will sit on top of the wood, you want a hollow space under them.
One 2lb hammer, 1 railroad spike or other very large nail. Get a length of pipe (any kind) with a diameter just large enough to fit the spike, cut pipe length about 1/2"- 3/4" shorter than the length of the spike.
Place drive(s) on platform (longer pieces of wood allows multiple drives at once), strike with hammer, repeat as needed, the pieces will be as small as needed or energy permits.
Cheap, fast (no dissembly of drive required), pretty safe (goggles?) as thorough as you need it to be, no electricity required and the operation is very satisfying.
Use a belt sander on the platters. About $50-$150.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
ST. CLAIRSVILLE - Denver-based Antero Resources plans to spend $1.65 billion this year, fracking wells and producing natural gas in Ohio's Utica Shale and West Virginia's Marcellus Shale.
Roughly one year after Antero agreed to pay $5,900 per acre with 21 percent royalties for mineral rights in Monroe County, the company is proceeding with its drilling operations. One of Antero's Monroe County wells in the name of Rubel has reached 8,132 feet in depth, Ohio Department of Natural Resources records show.
Belmont County records indicate Antero has about 800 separate lease agreements there with the intention to drill.
Article Photos
Photo/Casey Junkins
Sam Bonasso, president of Morgantown-based Reinforced Aggregates Co., is filling old tires with gravel to help natural gas companies build roads.
"We are here to stay," said Alvyn Schopp, vice president of administration and accounting for Antero. "This is the largest budget we have ever had for that part of the country, and we intend to keep moving forward."
In West Virginia, the state's Department of Environmental Protection has approved 15 well permits for Antero since Monday. The department also received several additional drilling applications for Antero in counties such as Tyler, Doddridge and Ritchie.
During 2013, Antero plans to operate an average of 12 drilling rigs in the Marcellus and two rigs in the Utica. These 14 rigs will be supplemented by four shallow rigs that will drill the vertical section of some horizontal wells down to the point at which the wells will turn horizontally, about 6,000 feet under the ground.
Of the $1.65 billion projected budget, Antero plans to use $1.15 billion specifically for drilling and fracking; $350 million for building gathering pipelines; and $150 million to acquire new leases. Antero's net production in West Virginia and Ohio is expected to increase by as much as 138 percent in 2013.
Antero is also looking to reduce truck traffic on narrow, rural roads by building an 80-mile water pipeline to service the company's fracking sites across northern West Virginia. The company estimates this process will actually save it roughly $600,000 per well, a considerable discount on wells estimated to cost around $7 million each to drill and frack.
"It will basically run across Doddridge, Harrison and Ritchie counties. It will connect our water impoundments and pools to carry water to our sites," Schopp said of the pipeline. "These are fresh water pipes only, so no one needs to worry about one of them rupturing and releasing flowback water."
Flowback water results when drillers finish with a frack job, which requires as much as 6 million gallons of water. Since some of this water flows back up through the well when fracking is finished, drillers need to take this briny substance to injection wells.
"One of the major complaints everyone in this industry gets deals with truck traffic. This system should help us significantly reduce our impact there," Schopp said.
As companies such as Antero look for ways to reduce their traffic, one Morgantown company has a new method to help drillers searching for economical ways to move their trucks. Sam Bonasso, president of Reinforced Aggregates Co., is filling old tires with gravel to help natural gas companies build roads.
"They can use these by themselves for a temporary solution, or they can pave over them," said Bonasso is describing his "geo-cylinder confinement system." He said his company removes both sidewalls from the used tires before filling them with gravel.
"This is a way to make a 'green' use of these old tires," Bonasso said, noting the process keeps tires out of landfills.


text:
MARLIN (January 12, 2013)--The Marlin Police and Fire Departments sponsored a basketball tournament to raise money for Marlin police chief Darrell Allen who was severely injured in a car accident in November.
"We really feel alot of loyalty to people like Chief Allen and we want to support him," said Buck Rogers, Marlin police department chaplin.
The "One City-One Team Hoop It Up Tournament" kicked off at noon at the Marlin High School gymnasium.
"I just had numerous people come to me and ask how is he doing, when is he coming back , what can we do to help?" Damien Eaglin, Marlin police officer said. "This is what they can do to help."
Those who attended purchased raffle tickets.
Many items were donated for the event including a flat screen TV, $100 gift card for gas and a Xbox 360.
The Marlin police department also made t-shirts for the game that say "One City, One Team."
"It's chiefs motto, he promotes one city, one team and we all have to come together to get things accomplished," Eaglin said.
Allen suffered fractured ribs, a punctured lung and a traumatic brain injury in the car accident.
Allen wasn't wearing a seat belt and was ejected from the SUV.
"Theres no excuse for not wearing it, but I do have mixed feelings because physicians have told me had I had it in place, I probably would have perished," Allen said.
He is now in a wheelchair but is expected to make a full recovery.
"It was an eye opener, I have a second chance at life I look at things a whole lot different," Allen said.
Allen will go back to working part-time at the Marlin police department this week.


text:
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
1a.Objectives (from AD-416):
As described in USDA AFRI-funded grant where Dr. Niikura is a co-PI, we will:
1. Identify and correlate specific genetic and functional changes in the MDV genome that occur during the in vitro attenuation process with virulence.
2. Confirmation of the relevance of the data obtained in objective 1 to the attenuation process.
1b.Approach (from AD-416):
With respect to Objective 1, we will:
1. Serially passed BAC-cloned Marek's disease virus (MDV) Md5 strain in triplicate and test for virulence.
2. Characterize genetic changes in the MDV genome using next generation sequencing, and correlate the allele frequency results with the level of virulence.
3. Characterize sequence changes that occur during the attention process using next generation sequencing, and correlate the expression differences with the level of virulence.
4. Determine SNP allele frequencies in MD vaccines.
With respect to Objective 2, we will:
1. Validate changes identified in objective 1 but introducing defined mutations in our MDV-BAC clone.
3.Progress Report:


text:
The Lourdes boys' basketball team, which defeated Exeter-Milligan 49-44 in the MUDECAS tourney semifinals on Thursday, will play at 6 p.m. tonight in that event's championship game against Southern at the Beatrice City Auditorium.
Mitch Gude hit 6-of-9 from three-point range to lead the Knights with 18. Aaron Miller had 13 and Jameson DeFreece chipped in with 10.
Although the Knights got the win and advanced to the tourney title game, Coach Joe Tynon said the team still has a lot to work on going forward.
"We really didn't play that sound of a game still had too many turnover to play championship basketball but it was better," said Tynon. "That was a big focus in practice and it games for the future is to be strong with the ball. At times we did that well, but when we had the chances to extend our lead into double digits we were not able to take care of the ball and let them go on their own runs to cut the lead."
"Other areas we need to improve on is finishing quarters. We have had issues with late game clock management and are looking to correct those," said Tynon. "For example, before halftime, we were up 23-18 with under 40 seconds left in the quarter. We were looking to take the last shot and turned it over giving them an extra possession and they cashed in on a basket making it 23-20 at half. If we execute at worst it would have been 23-18 at half."
"We are improving and I feel our confidence is growing, but by no way are we a finished product or should believe we have arrived," said Tynon. "We have a bigger picture a bigger goal at mind and we are not going to get there from having a few good weeks of practice and playing better in four games. Winning helps, but we still need to stay focused and continue to develop our individual skills and the team's ability."
The Southern game is an opportunity for the Knights to continue their process.
"Southern is a 9-2 team," said Tynon. "They are athletic and will get after you. This is an area that we have struggled with this season. "We just need to play solid defense."
Location, ST | website.com


text:
5 Disturbing Ways Insects Can 'Hack' Nature
Nature is a giant computer: a vast mechanism of endless complexity and variety. It calculates, compiles, evolves -- and, of course, it renders genitals in exquisite detail. But if Hollywood has taught us anything about computers, it's that they will all be hacked by unreasonably attractive nerds. Sometimes while rollerblading. Nature has its hackers, too: At this very instant they're out there, cracking the most primeval codes in existence. But they don't hack machines. They hack lives.
Man, that was a good tagline. Somebody get on the Murder-hackers script while we write this stuff about crazy bugs, would you?
#5. Malaria Hacks Your Body Odor to Make You Delicious to Bloodsuckers
Alexander Zhiltsov via Photos.com
Malaria is one of the biggest killers in Africa. It is an unholy bastard of a disease, caused by a parasitic protozoa transmitted through mosquitoes, and, oh yeah ... it causes your blood to explode. Your red blood cells, your very life essence, literally detonate in your veins as this deadly parasite multiplies inside of them until they burst. But on the plus side, it also makes you smell pretty awesome.
On the minus side, you only smell awesome to bloodsucking insects.
Via Full-Malaria
The marinading process.
When the malaria protozoa is ready to reproduce and move on from its host, it calls for an airlift to a new location, which it accomplishes by making you smell like a barbecue dinner with all the fixin's to a mosquito. Studies show that people infected with malaria are substantially more attractive to mosquitoes than people without it. Even weirder, people with transmittable malaria are more attractive than people with the non-transmittable phase. The contagious strain is specifically more delicious smelling to mosquitoes, which is astounding when you consider that malaria kills them, too. That's right: Those annoying little blood suckers aren't immune to the effects of the disease. If you think malaria sucks for you, imagine if your absolute favorite meal was fucking malaria.
Via Celnet.org.uk
Maybe with a white wine vinaigrette, some caramelized onions ...
#4. Gall Wasps Reprogram Oak Trees to Build Themselves Guarded Fortresses
Gall wasps lays their eggs inside of oak blossoms, which seems like a real dumb idea. What a dumb, dumb wasp. That flower is going to change into an acorn, dummy! Go back to Wasp College.
At best, the baby should be pushed out; at worst, it'll be smothered and crushed inside of a slowly forming wood-nut, right? That's a bad way to go. It is, at the very least, embarrassing for the parents to explain. "I left my baby in a tree until the tree grew around him and killed him. How could I have known?!"
anemone projectors
"Now he's an alien freak corpse! Man, fuck parenting!"
But the gall wasp larva can take care of itself: It has a battery of weapons that allow it to chemically hack oak trees and reshape their very nature. These baby wasps give off a substance that radically alters the development of the acorn, forcing it to grow a "gall" -- which is basically a house designed specifically for the squatting insect to live in for the rest of the year. It'd be like your shitty college friend showing up at your doorstep and doing something to your brain that forced you to build him his own room, rather than crash on your couch. Man, fuck you, Doug. Go stay at the Y.
Ah, but it's not all Wasp-Nintendo and Wasp-cereal in their Wasp-bathrobes. There are other, parasitoid wasps -- wasps equipped with literal, metal-tipped drills on their hindquarters -- that can burrow through even the hardened woody shell of a gall to get to the gall larva. If left unprotected, gall larva can end up becoming the hosts of still other, even jerkier wasps. Provided, of course, that the invader can get past the last line of defense built into the gall: bodyguard ants. The outside of the mutated acorn gives off a sweet honeydew that attracts ants who will, naturally, defend their food source. So the gall wasp larva doesn't just trick something into building it a fortress -- it hires mercenaries to patrol the walls.
Via Wildaboutants.com
In 10 years, those things will learn how to make guns, and then we're all fucked.
#3. Baculovirus Hijacks Caterpillars, Turns Them into Parasitic Rainfall
Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
The baculovirus sounds like a chrono-STD you get from boning the guy from Quantum Leap. But in reality, it's closer to the plot of the Alien movies: The baculovirus infects gypsy moth caterpillars (who are kind of pests anyway, so do try to keep that in mind when we tell you what happens to the poor lil' guys), then makes them climb to the top of the canopy and hang upside down. Which ... hey, is pretty much all right with the caterpillars? If an alien virus hacked your brain and forced you to sit on your couch and watch every episode of Three's Company back to back, you probably wouldn't mind it so much. You were going to do that anyway. The caterpillar is doing pretty good so far. Ah, but the baculovirus isn't done yet: After it maneuvers its host into a good position high up, suspended upside down ... they make it rain.
Via Npr.org
Not our fault. You should know by now to never read Cracked while eating breakfast.
The baculovirus causes the caterpillars that it infects to liquefy. It's a disease that turns baby moths into drippy death pudding. The virus uses up just about every part of the caterpillar to reproduce, then they start making enzymes which liquefy the caterpillar. The infected puddle-formerly-known-as-caterpillar drips down on other caterpillars, infecting them, too. It would be awful to behold, if we didn't want those bastard gypsy moths dead, anyway. Mostly this disease spreads by human means, in that we friggin' spray it onto them as insecticide.
BananaStock/BananaStock/Getty Images
"Of course the same virus wouldn't work on humans. We'd have to modify it slightly."
That's right: We were the sinister corporate shill trying to infect Ripley all along.


text:
As the title says 11 hilarious videos I've gathered from the last week. Enjoy Webcam singing goes wrong - The wedding slapper dance - Wedding couple runs into door - Bloody skate crash - 5 car crashes in 55 seconds - Woman attacked by Bull - Granny gets run over by her own car - Check out my new scooter - LSD Jumping - Mama mama I'm an Idiot! - Rollercoaster accident
My first post and 11 Hilarious videos
I really liked some of them specially Rollercoaster accident
good ones


text:
The Bowling Green Fire Department is investigating an arson of a business.
Just after 11:30 p.m. on October 16, the Bowling Green Fire Department received a call of a structure fire at 637 31W Bypass. When firefighters arrived, they found the building behind Container World was on fire.
After the fire was extinguished, arson investigators were called. Investigators located this video surveillance which shows two men by the building just as the fire starts.
If you can recognize these men, call Crime Stoppers at 781-CLUE.
You can "text a tip" to Crime Stoppers. Text "SCKY" plus your message to 274637 (Crimes). All information is secure and you will remain anonymous.
If you have any information about this or any crime, please call South Central Kentucky Crime Stoppers at 781-CLUE, toll free at 866-842-CLUE, or click here to go to their web site.
Crime Stoppers only wants your information, not your name. Their telephone lines are not recorded and they don't use caller ID or *69.


text:
A band that had a singer that got his head up his ass. He needs to remove it and reform the group.
Refused is better than anything you listen to.
by Andrew El Taco July 24, 2004
Trending Now
Top Definition
Who I believe to be one of the greatest hardcore/punk bands ever. If you say that you know music and dont know Refused, you are lying. Though they are know disbanded, this band will live forever through their masterpiece "The Shape Of Punk To Come".
Refused changed the face of hardcore forever.
by UnstableVagrant May 23, 2004
one kick ass band from sweden. they are now disbanded. whyyyy???
as i said...whyyyy???
by no hay problema February 29, 2004
Dead Swedish Socialist Hardcore/Metal/Punk band (You heard me) headed by Dennis Lyxzén.
by IkeM October 20, 2003
The best hardcore band ever. Just listen to Rather Be Dead or Liberation Frequency. Probably the best thing to come out of sweden.
Alex Trebek: Better than sex.
Jeopardy Contestant: What is Refused.
Jeopardy Contestant: What is Refused.
by Hej! July 13, 2011
1. Something that started out fused, became unfused then got fused again.
2. Keeps blowing the fuse.
2. Keeps blowing the fuse.
1. I refused his offer as it was not altogether together
2. I maxed up the system and it refused.
2. I maxed up the system and it refused.
by Eduardo Tuttiboy August 01, 2006


text:
I have heard that the exchange rate of Nicaragua's currency is "pegged" to the US dollar, and varies at a fixed, predicable rate rather than varying naturally with the markets. What is the rate currently, and how can I find what the rate will be for a given date in the future?
Currently the NIO is about US$0.0445. As for how it changes, I can't find that, and would be surprised if that is what happens - perhaps on the black-market as in somewhere like Uzbekistan where the rate is different from the official rate, but others may have some more information.
http://www.currencyconverter.co.uk/currencies/nicaragua-cordobas090326155555 has a really good summary of the history of the currency, how to get it, including through the 'coyote' street money traders, what to watch out for, and how the evolution of the currency has caused massive inflation.
For the current rates, try Google:
(And keep in mind that Google quotes the international bank rates, you should add some 2.5% to the quoted rates)
You can always check the National Central Bank for the exchange rate. "Tipo de Cambio" is the current value of a dollar in NIO. Of course there is always an unofficial exchange rate. But in Nicaragua the dollar is pretty common so most of the malls (Metrocentro, Galeria, Plaza Americas) have dollar prices but with local stores and markets (Oriental and Huembes) you would be better off carrying Cordobas (NIO).
Courtesy of Olsen & Associates:


text:
I'm beginning to notice an increase on the number of things that fail to meet basic SO expectations:
- Zero research
- No actual question, just a vague specification of what should happen, without any sample code
- <50% acceptance rates from repeat questioners
Granted, newcomers to the site might be unaware of these problems, but that, in itself, is a problem.
I don't believe these expectations are well communicated to users. If I roll my mouse over the upvote and downvote arrows, it indicates why I might want to do so and refers explicitly to research.
However, when I ask a question, at no point am I informed that I should have
- Done some research
- Indicated what research I have done.
In addition, there is no explicit indication that basically asking SO to write your application for you is A Bad Thing.
As for the last part, since my acceptance rate isn't low, I don't know what occurs - do low acceptance users get a warning that they're unlikely to get responses if they have low acceptance percentages?
I guess what I'm saying is: can we do more to help newcomers write questions that aren't automatically downvoted and closed? It's a lot nicer to handle messages from the system while you're writing your question than handle comments, votes and closes in a public forum.


text:
A discussion of the 2012-2013 term & a look forward to '13-'14. Steve Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU and an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, will provide an overview of the term and moderate the discussion. Professor Ted Shaw will discuss the voting rights and affirmative action cases. Professor Sarah Cleveland will discuss the Alien Tort Statute case. Professor Kendall Thomas will discuss the gay marriage cases. The panel will also take audience Q&A. We hope to see you there.Refreshments will be served. Hosted by SJI.
© Copyright 2016, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York.
For questions or comments, please contact the web administrators.
435 West 116 Street, New York, NY 10027 — 212-854-2640


text:
A Chat with Pope Francis
Commonweal presents an unprecedented exclusive: Pope Francis's first interview with a lay Catholic publication. The transcript of the editors' conversation with the pope has been translated from the original Italian into Latin, then English, and then back into Italian, and then discarded and reconstructed from memory.
Commonweal: Your Holiness—
Pope Francis: Please, call me Francis.
CW: This seems like an awfully…informal location for an interview with a pope.
PF: Ah, Roma Termini, I come here to meet the people. [Aside] Such a beautiful baby! May I kiss? Also, the number sixty-four bus goes from the train station right to the Vatican. Very convenient, but watch out for pickpockets.
CW: Does the papal staff know you're here?
PF: Eh, they don't need to know everything.
CW: You seem like a hard man to keep up with.
PF: I like to talk with people. I suppose there is always the danger that I may say something I will regret. After all, that is why my predecessors stuck to speeches and carefully orchestrated encounters with the press: to prevent embarrassing gaffes. You can see how well it worked.
CW: You may have heard that there is some consternation among conservatives in the American church about your recent pronouncements, and how different your style is from the previous pope's—
PF: Pope Benedict, yes, he was a wonderful man and everything he did was exactly right.
CW: And yet you're quite different.
PF: I can't help it, I am just so undisciplined, you see. I picked up so many bad habits in my Jesuit days. If only I were less naïve, I would stop myself from talking to disaffected Catholics in such a friendly way. It gets their hopes up, or so I am told.
CW: Some conservatives are worried you'll undermine the teachings of the church by appearing to downplay doctrinal orthodoxy.
PF: It would certainly be a shame to deflect attention from the church's teachings on homosexuality and birth control—just when they were catching on!
CW: There has been some confusion about the accuracy of your reported conversation with the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari. Did you really say that "the court is the leprosy of the papacy"?
PF: Was I too mild? I thought I was just saying what everyone was thinking.
CW: It seems unlikely that everyone agrees with you.
PF: Maybe not. This is why I have assembled a new group of cardinals to advise me; I'm hoping that they will tell me what people are really thinking. Some say this is dangerous, because my job is to tell people what they ought to think. Something about giving in to the dictatorship of relativism. But figures of speech about "dictatorships" don't get very far with me. So I will listen, maybe I will hear something interesting. Maybe a good joke. I do like jokes.
CW: Have you received much resistance to your plans to reform the curia?
PF: Well, there was the time somebody passed me a zucchetto with a note inside. It said "Back off or else," and it was composed of letters cut and pasted from L'Osservatore Romano.
CW: Wow, what did you do?
PF: I blessed it and tossed it back. As for the curia, let them complain. There are plenty of parishes in mission territory that need priests.
CW: That's awfully blunt, even for you.
PF: Ah, but this is for Commonweal, yes? No one at the Vatican will read it.
CW: Pope Francis…
PF: Please, call me Frank.
CW: Can you say more about your thoughts on women in the church?
PF: Oh, women, women, they are so important. The church herself is a woman, yes? And that is why women are really so much better than men, forgive me if I speak plainly! Without its women the church is like a bumblebee at the post office, as we say in Argentina. We must talk about women very much, in Rome and everywhere. Maybe we should even talk to women. That is how important they are.
CW: And the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood…
PF: Not a chance. Next question.
CW: Have you given any thought to what you might do about the damage from the sex-abuse crisis?
PF: Is that still going on?
CW: In a way, yes.
PF: You know, when bishops come to see me they never bring it up. Surely they would want me to know if it were still a problem. I keep waiting for them to talk about it.
CW: Maybe you should try asking someone else?
PF: Hmm. I might just do that. As we say in Rome, stranger things have happened.
CW: Do they say that in Rome?
PF: They do now.
33 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Too bad the transcript was discarded. I'd love to see the Latin version. Appellate me Frank!
Is today April Fool's Day?
What the editorial is not: Funny, clever, thought-provoking, profound, or worthwhile. What the editorial is: weak, juvenile, thoughtless, wholly without merit.
Better suited for a high school newspaper than a Catholic journal of ideas. Then again I am not sure that it would pass muster even at the 9th grade level.
The editors insult the notion that Catholicism is a thinking religion.
Priceless. But maybe we in mission countries don't want a curial official for pastor.
Well, Editors, I loved it. It's right up there with the Christmas Cookie Recipe - 2 chalices of flour, etc.
Love it.
I picked up so many bad habits in my Jesuit days.
Did he expand on that?
CW, how come he didn't ask you non-rhetorical questions? I thought he did and took a personal interest in the person he was conversing with.
Well, very funny in any case. Juvenile, I don't know since I wouldn't be able to tell - I still enjoy scatological humor, so this is highbrow for me - but in any case, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
darn funny!
@Kenneth Ray:
Again with the stream of grave censorious adjectives. As GKC wrote, recalling the "deep levity" of "the most earnest medieval art," it is too true that "solemnity flows out of men naturally, but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity."
Being able to laugh at ourselves is one important characteristic of being a human being. I am not perfect and I have never met anyone else or any organization or institution that is perfect, including the Church aka the People of God. Thanks for the laughs.
As Lawrence Welk said: wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
"Ceci n'est pas un Pape."
Please, call me Frank(ly) amused.
if Pope Francis had no problem bonding with an Italian atheist journalist, he no doubt could handle a candid conversation with an American lay Catholic publication.
@JJI: If Satan fell by the force of gravity, the editors are falling from self-absorption. Despite your fondness for the author, G. K. Chesterton remains a minor figure in Western thought.
I suggest you try applying some Shakespeare: "....the unyoked humor of your idleness..."
The editorial of which we speak is nothing if not the product of idleness: formulaic, intellectually lazy, and forgettable. To continue along this path is to guarantee that this journal, and other "counterpoint" publications like it will forever be relegated to the margins of Catholic thinking.
National Lampoon's Vatican Vacation: Join in the hilarious adventures of the Griswold family as they make a wrong turn (Who knows where? Venice? Genoa?) and end up in The Vatican City! Where they meet the Pope -- and a whole bunch of frumpy old guys in shiney red clothes who speak a strange language and burn incense1 Really! It's the family comedy of the year!
Nice to see Commonweal poke fun at itself since America got the real scoop on the interview with Pope Francis.
Bravo, bravissimo. The Pope called me just a little while ago, and he loved it too. Honest..
Didn't Luther say that the only thing the devil can't stand is laughter?
@Justus George Lawler:
Maybe just a phenomenal pope, not a noumenal one? May the shades of Magritte and Kant forgive us.
Wonderful piece!!! Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall watching this post being put together.
Turned on tv and saw a bit of the Pope during his speech at the Vatican interacting with a young boy who it appears wandered onto the stage with him. Bet you've seen the photos. My goodness does Francis ever seem to have his priorities in order.
Too cute by half.
@Kenneth Ray:
My, my. Disparagement of Chesterton usually comes from a very different quarter --from those often suspected of inadequate "fondness" for the Catholic tradition. And combining the put-down with one-upping, like that of The Topper in "Dilbert" (I'll see your GKC and raise you a WS)? A dialectic of that sort can only go from bad to worse (Maybe Prince Hal did become king, but Falstaff got a beer named after him, so there, smarty!). A disappointing rhetorical gambit, from one so ready to impute immaturity to others.
Your Griswoldian paraphrase recalls the old saying "Oyen campanas y no saben donde." While not as mysteriously evocative as the one about the bumblebee, this saying is authentic and undoubtedly well known to Francis. It's about those who hear the sound of bells but can't tell where the bell-tower is. Years ago I.A. Richards marshalled abundant evidence to demonstrate how badly sense, feeling, tone and intention can be misread, and your reading of the fictional interview adds one more example. Far from being a crude mockery aimed by ignoramuses at what they don't understand, the "interview" is a knowing and gentle spoof, not so much of Romanità as of the glib representations of Francis and of responses to him in clueless mass media; of the pitfalls of translation; of pontificating taiking heads; of the tendency we all have to create our own images of any public figure; and of Commonweal itself (as Alan Mitchell has observed).
I must say that that was a fascinating interview! The Pope certainly can be sarcastic!
However, I am beyond disgust. When, oh when, is a Pope going to make it clear to the global Church and to the world that the NUMBER ONE ISSUE IS PEDOPHILIA IN THE CLERGY.
I would have started out with the most important first question: How is it that you are going to cooperate (participate?) in the canonization of John Paul II who barely spoke out about the huge number of pedophile priests in the Church for, likely, hundreds of years till the present day, and who gave the infamous Cardinal Law of Boston protection, an escape, as he ran from the irate citizens of Boston and of his Archdiocese after he ignored written letters and calls from parents pleading and begging him to do something about the late Father Geoghan, Rev. Paul Shanley, a convicted child abuser who is serving time in prison now and who was a friend of Cardinal Law, and others whom he merely transferred from post to post as they continued to rape and molest children? How can this Pope Francis not refuse to participate in the canonization of the late Pope John Paul II who not only did virtually nothing to address the global crisis of priests who rape children and adults (he barely spoke about it) and who coddled Cardinal Law when he made flight from Boston, making him Bishop of the largest basilica in Rome? Cardinal Law is known for his army of defense lawyers who refused to turn over the letters from the parents begging for his intervention until these letters and other documents were ordered to be handed over by a Boston judge. This is so shocking that John Paul II was beatified and now we see that "Frank" has no intention of stopping the canonization. I have never been able to get over how none of the last 3 popes have made the issue of pedophilia the Number One Issue to be addressed in the Church.
Robert, you are too right. I loved the article.
Of course, the bishops never bring up the subject of the abuse of children or anything else they have been involved in. They covered up the crimes and sent the abusers to other parishes. Is this interview for real?
@Eileen M. Ford:
Two suggestions:
1. Read the text in italics that precedes the "interview."
2. Have a look at this:
@Eileen M. Ford: That link didn't come through correctly the first time. Trying again:
@Eileen M. Ford:
Still not right. To get the right article you need to be sure you use the entire url, which describes the radio drama rather than the H.G. Welles novel. For some reason the last part keeps getting left off the link. The disambiguation page on Wikepedia should take care of it.
Men will never ordain women, poppycock! It's already being done-we're sitting in the male-only section of the pews and saying we won't take it anymore because everyone has been cheated for over 1500 years by only half of humanity leading at the table. We are leading the Church in more ways than one--in that he's right and we do not need a Theology of Women written and reasoned by men because we know who and what we are because we've been here the whole time, even though they haven't acknowledged it--we do not need to be told who and what we are as women, they are the ones who need to learn who we really are as female humans--the other half of humanity. Is 'Frank' aware of WOC or RCWP, or not? Women ARE called and doing it--he IS naive!
Rignt on, Janice! A priest from RCWP is my pastor. She is an inspiration to the women and men in our community.
Delightful! But you forgot to tell us how Pope Francis was dressed when he took bus 64 from Vatican City to Stazione Termini. White cassock? No! Black cassock? No! Too recognizable... If in lay clothes, people would remark his face looked a bit like Pope Francis. Even John XXIII used to sneak out of the Vatican to have a glass of wine with some friends among the elderly priests in a Rome hospital...
Dekightful! But you forgot to tell us how Pope Francis was dressed when he took bus 64 from Vatican City to Stazione Termini... White cassock? No! Black cassock? No! Too recognizable... In lay clothes, people woulf just remark his face looked a bit like Pope Francis... Even John XXIII used to sneak out of the Vatican to have a glass of wine with some friends among the elderly priests in a Rome hospital,,,
It was TOO. I laughed and laughed! Especially about the translations! Then I periodically got caught up short. Forget women priests. Humph. Maybe this counts as being profound, or at least thought-provoking. But then I laughed and laughed again! Call me Frank! Now I know what's been missing in the Catholic Church. May we all learn to laugh at outselves. It's part of the Good News. May the Lord be with you.
:-) !


text:
Reaching out What are Connecticut Republicans to do about the sharp growth in a constituency they historically have failed to attract — Hispanic Americans? Appealing to Hispanics' worst instincts usually fails; Republicans always are outpandered by Democrats. They've also tried to tap Hispanics' cultural tendency toward conservatism on social issues, again without much success. How about a different approach this time? As President Obama and the Democrats secured Ohio on Nov. 6 by maintaining a strong presence in the Buckeye State throughout the president's first term, Republicans should develop a ground game. That means letting Hispanics (and African-Americans, too) who live in urban communities know there's an alternative to the Democrats' policy pabulum. It also means running a candidate in every legislative race and giving each candidate the help he needs to become a familiar, friendly face of urban Republicanism. It can be done. Waterbury has elected almost as many Republicans as Democrats to the mayor's office in the past 50 years. The Brass City, which has the third highest Hispanic population in the state, has three GOP legislators, and reliably has put Republicans on the Board of Aldermen in at-large elections. Many in Connecticut's Hispanic communities will vote for GOP candidates, but only if Republicans reach out to them and engage them respectfully.
Read more of this story and more!
7-Day Subscribers have FREE access to everything on rep-am.com and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE to register and activate your access,.
Not a subscriber?
You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.
Follow Us
Post a reader commentWe encourage your feedback and dialog.
Please be civil and respectful.
If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican.
Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.
Log In
|Register / Forgotten Password?


text:
Instructor Keyword FAQs
Click on a question to see the answer. You can also use the search box on the right.
- How can I add the new Instructor Resources to my existing Bb Learn class?
- How do I request or obtain Teaching Assistant (TA) support for my web class?
- What access does each role in the learning management system (Bb Learn) have?
- How do I add someone to my class shell?
- Why doesn't my co-instructor or teaching assistant have access to my class shell in the learning management system?
8 faqs shown


text:
Do you know what this computer sound is?
From time to time my work computer makes a sound very much like when you run your finger around the rim of a wine glass. Very high pitched crystal ringing noise. It often does it when I reboot it in the morning, and after about an hour it quits. Our IT person can't hear it (I have very acute hearing). Nothing's going to get done about it, but I was just curious if anyone knew what it might be. It bothers me so much sometimes that I manufacture something to do outside my office for the first hour of the day till it quits.
30 Answers answer
last time i heard a noise like that it ended up being one of the fans. a couple little kicks usually solved the problem temporarily until i could install a new fan.
I agree it's spinning parts.
Fans or hard drives are usually implicated.
The former is not tragic, otherwise backups are a good idea in any case.
eta: when I saw the post, I was expecting to be clicking on an mp3 link or youtube video :)
Maybe your computer is an alcoholic magician
I think the IT guy put it in there to mess with you.
"..and then I tell 'em I didn't hear anything! Bwa ha ha!"
Edit: Is there a disc in the CD/DVD/Blu-ray drive? Those things can whine when they get up to speed.
Fan. You can sometimes stop it for a while by giving the fan blades a good cleaning, because build-up of gunk can cause the fan to get unbalanced. If it gets out of balance but corrects itself as it gets warm, that means the blades have some "wiggle room" - and that means it is time for a new fan. Fans are ridiculously cheap and simple to replace. Even if your IT guy can't hear the noise, the fan is not running efficiently, which means it is not cooling the inside of the computer as well as it should. New fan = cheap. Overheated mainboard, processor, or power supply = not cheap.
I've heard that sound before myself. I agree with @j5 and @carl669, its going to be something with moving parts. The two most likely culprits are fans and hard drives. To be safe I'd back up what you have.
Motherboard sprites.
I'm going to go with a Fan as well. If it is a fan, it is more than likely the processor fan. It would make sense that it would start up when you first boot up the PC as it will typically run faster. Once everything is loaded, it will slow down to an idle speed which may not be fast enough to produce the sound.
Purchase a can of compressed air, take the tower outside and blow it all out. Get into the fans and clear everything out as well. Just make sure not to shake the can or turn it sideways or up side down as you don't want to accidentally freeze your processor. Not sure if it would do any damage, but I can't imagine it would be good for it.
I'm going to disagree with everyone else and say that if the sound is at such a high pitch that some people can't hear it, it's in the power regulation circuits either in the power supply or on the motherboard. It may be as simple as a capacitor beginning to fail.
@bsmith1: Nope, just checked.
@adadavis: I cannot imagine the coronary that would happen if I were caught opening the case of my office computer. LOL. If I can;t convince the IT person there's a problem, nothing's going to happen till smoke starts coming out. But this is all good to know if one of my home computers starts making a similar noise. I have had fan and HD malfunction noises and this is much, much higher pitched. I have wondered if it could be a very, very light rubbing of metal on metal.
@samstag: Interesting. I haven't ever had that happen so I don't know what it sounds like. My hearing is sufficiently acute that I wear earplugs at the theater and have to use a white noise generator to keep passing cars from waking me even though my bedroom is at the back of the house. I end up telling people all the time that their phone is ringing, because they can't hear it in their pocket or purse and it's quite clear to me. I often can hear stuff that no one else can. I have been thinking about DLing one of those ring tones that older people are supposed to be unable to hear just to see if I can hear it.
If you believe it is the Hard Drive I recommend you take a look at your hard drive's SMART data info (self monitoring information that let's you see how likely your hard drive is to failing, or if it has bad sectors).
Some PCs have diagnostic utilities provided by the manufacturer otherwise you can download programs to review this data... I usually use the "Disk Utility" provided in Ubuntu to review this... but if you are on Windows you'll need to download a program like PassMark's DiskCheckup to view this info.
Anyways, if it all checks out it may just be normal hard drive spinning or the fan like others have pointed out.
@samstag: Good point.
It's a fan, almost for sure. When you start it up in the morning, and the bearings are cold it is making that sound. Once it gets warmed up and moving it shuts up.
As above, ideally it should be replaced. In the real world, I don't think that the IT guys are going to put it high on thier "must do" list. Heck, my big system (which is old and due for replacement anyway) makes tons of fan noise when it starts cold. I avoid that (and problems with the PSU being funky and not wanting to start) by keeping it running all the time.
@moondrake: Is your work computer a Dell by any chance? If so, which one? Actually, providing the model and maker would be helpful in any case. I have the same type of hearing you do, and I have sympathy for you.
I agree with @samstag, who said it might be a capacitor or issue with the power supply. I've had a Dell (of the famous bulging capacitor era) that made precisely the high pitched nooneelsecanhear_it noise, until it started to go south. They still couldn't hear it, but it became a visible problem. I've also ripped out a power supply because of a noise (verified that it was the power supply first, though). Bad fans make a noise, but it's audible to anyone with normal hearing.
Your IT guy is an idiot, but then, you knew that already.
With the lid off the sound should be much easier to hear. But I do not know, I am not there.
I am trying to help you.
From the IT person's point of view:
You may have caught your IT person at a bad time, was s/he rushing somewhere? Did you go through the proper channels? Were you respectful to you IT person last time you needed help? PC and software can suck, we all know it, never take it out on your IT person.
Things make noise. Noise is hard to diagnose, in most cases. In even more cases noise goes away on its own, I wait until a 2nd request to look at something "making a weird noise" else I would spend all day listening to things.
Perhaps you IT person did diagnose all the fans and it was not them, do you want IT to replace a $500 working PC because it makes a weird noise?
My advice pay attention to your IT, if it seems like a slow time for them ask for help again, and tell him/her it's louder. I have 1000 things on my todo list
Good luck! @shrdlu: dell = HD fan or capacitor
@shrdlu: Yes, it is a Dell. I can't see the model number, it's sandwiched between my desk and the wall so I can only see the front of it. I have this enormous executive desk that I can't move on the carpet. But it's an old tower. Probably 7 or 8 years old.
@caffeine_dude: I always treat my co-workers with respect and friendliness. She's the right channel, she's in the department and is our first stop for IT problems. She'll make up a work order for things that need fixing and the IT for the City will come. But she has to recognize and understand the problem, and she got tasked with this job because, she knew more about computer hardware than anyone else in the department. She's had no formal training, so she is often at sea in making the required identification of the problem. It's a stupid system, but when you are a bureaucrat you get used to it. I doubt anything would get done about it at this point as they are knocking down City Hall in March and we are being told we can only bring our chairs. I have cynically backed up my whole section's work weekly as I have serious doubts about the servers coming back online promptly after the move. I mostly posted for future reference on personal computers rather than a plan for repair.
@moondrake: "but it's an old tower, probably 7 or 8 years old" - dang! get a new computer. for how much they prolly pay someone with a huge executive desk, the loss in productivity while a computer is down is prolly worth much more than a new computer would cost.
If IT is useless at helping you with an IT problem, "accidentally" spill some water on it,
problem solved.
@dmmutti: not if they don't get her a new one until after the move.
@no1: I'd be filling out accident report forms until then anyway. I am hoping I will get a new one when we move, but I am not holding my breath. The City pretty much works equipment till it just can't work anymore. Ideas like loss of productivity are entirely foreign to them. It is a pretty solid machine, it hasn't ever gone down. It is a bit slow, but we are still on WinXP (yay) and Office 2003 (boo) so it's able to handle the workload.
Maybe there is a new underling you can pass your computer down to and get a quiet replacement? A noise like you are describing would drive me crazy although it is my dh who would be hearing it.
Any thing important should be saved on the server. I only keep things on my PC that I am working on (for speed and consistency, I can always throw away my PC version or upload it if a successes.)
Is it this one?
IF so:
remove blue shield.
Unplug one fan at a time (when powered off to see if the sound goes away).
On the left and right of the blue shield. Their is one more under the hard drive in most cases, the hard drive comes out tool less but the dummies put a single screw in the fan assembly of the HD fan.
Look bad capacitors.
@caffeine_dude: Cool, I haven't ever seen a capacitor. No, mine is fatter and solid black except for a grey sort of shield shape on the lower third with the Dell logo on a silver coin shaped inset. Even if I knew exactly what I was doing I couldn't disassemble it, we aren't allowed to plug in speakers from home or update programs. The IT Dept is supposed to do that. I do keep all work documents on the server, only some personal crap on the HD. But I have low confidence in the servers for the move. They ran an update on our financial program and we couldn't pay bills for 3 months. I can just imagine what's going to happen when they unplug those things and load them up on trucks. So I am backing up my sections work from the servers.
@pattiq: Can't give it away as a hand-me-down or sneak in here in the middle of the night and switch 'em. They are bar coded and assigned by IT. Amusing idea, though.
@moondrake: Extremely likely a bad capacitor then. Is there a ring around the power button with a model number? Models like the GX260, GX270, and GX280 had very notorious, very bad problems with leaking capacitors. One day you will come in and the whole thing will refuse to turn on and the power light will be amber instead of green. The good news is that I haven't seen it take out a hard drive so hopefully your data will be retrievable. YMMV and this should in no way deter you from making backups.
@caffeine_dude: But which one is the FLUX capacitor?
@sjw02001: Ah, you are correct! It is an Optiplex GX280. Good call!
OP did you get it resolved?
@belyndag: The one that is fluxing.


text:
Who is responsible for the partition of Palestine? What governmental bodies or individual governmental actors were the driving force behind the action? If there were non-governmental actors that played a role in this I would like to know that too.
Most recently the borders were mandated by the United Nations after WWII. A two state solution was proposed and essentially forced on the Israelis and Palestinians. Since then there has been near constant fighting and the borders have moved as a result of successful military campaigns by Israel most notably the Six-Day War.
The area has been in a near constant state turmoil though for hundreds of years and truth is really a matter of perspective of what time frame and side you want to focus on.
TL;DR: Responsibility for the existence of "Israel, East Jeruaslem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip" instead of just "Palestine" or "Eretz Israel" can be attributed to: the British Mandatory authorities, the Zionist movement, local Arab populations, the leadership of the nascent Palestinian Arab movement, and the Jordanian and the Egyptian governments.
The region known historically to Europeans as Palestine was divided among a number of villayets or districts of the Ottoman empire until World War 1.
When Britain and France had defeated the Ottomans they divided up the spoils, and assigned a chunk of territory to British suzerainty as the British Mandate for Palestine. The British decided to support the Zionist movement among European Jews and, for a time, favoured Jewish immigration to Palestine and national claims.
British policy however was two-faced and as time passed their support was flagging and inconsistent. By the immediate post-WW2 period the British were exhausted by years of total war and multiple colonial crises. The Mandate was due to expire in 1948 and there was no remotely graceful British "exit strategy." They punted the question to the United Nations General Assembly, which issued a non-binding recommendation for partition into Jewish and Arab states.
The majority leadership of the Zionist movement accepted the partition plan, although right-wing Revisionist Zionists openly demanded more territory, and it is probably fair to say that Ben Gurion et al. anticipated having to "normalize" the new state's borders by military means. Almost all Arabs rejected the partition. Aside from flat opposition to the establishment of any Jewish state in Palestine, they also objected to the proposed borders, which would have entailed a very large population of Arabs living as minority citizens within the new Jewish state.
In the end the impending British exit and the contemplated partition led to a civil war between Jewish and Arab militias within Palestine (mostly local Palestinian Arab militias, with some involvement of volunteers from Jordan, Syria, etc.) The Zionist forces rapidly gained the upper hand and consolidated their territory. Atrocities and expulsions magnified by rumour and confusion led to a mass exodus of Arabs from Jewish-held zones.
After the formal termination of the Mandate the civil war became an international war with the intervention of multiple Arab armies in May 1948, almost simultaneous with the Jewish community of Palestine's declaration of independence as the State of Israel. The situation was initially very difficult for Israel as a powerful Egyptian offensive moved up the coast from Gaza and a large Jordanian army besieged Jerusalem. However their better co-ordination allowed them to stabilize the situation, and diplomatic support gained them a series of cease-fires and an arms embargo which in practice they could circumvent while the Arab forces could not.
By wars end the Egyptian forces has been almost entirely expelled, except for a narrow strip of territory around Gaza City and Rafah which became known as the Gaza Strip. The Jordanians fared somewhat better, holding the Jordan Valley, the Old City of Jerusalem and a broad re-entrant around the western approaches thereto, and most of the rough hilly territory in between. This became known as the West Bank (including East Jerusalem, which is also sometimes discussed as a separate territory still.)
Later, in 1967, Israel captured these territories from Egypt and Jordan. These occupied territories have been de facto integrated into Israel proper in many ways, and an expanded Israeli-defined East Jerusalem has been de jure annexed, although pretty much every country in the world defines this as an illegal and unrecognized claim.
So, roughly speaking:
"Palestine" is not an entirely well-defined area, and all the myriad political entities that have existed on its territory have been sliced, diced, and partitioned every which way since time immemorial, just like most places on Earth.
The current division between pre- and post-1967 Israeli-controlled territories -- I and most of the world would prefer to say, between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories -- resulted from the 1948 international war between Israel and the Arab states. This war resulted from the 1947-48 civil war between Zionist and Arab militias, which resulted from the mismanagement of the British Mandatory authorities, the territorial ambitions of the Zionist movement, the intransigence of local Arab populations in the face of Jewish settlement, and the incompetence and anti-Semitism of the men the British had promoted as Palestinian Arab leaders. So all of the above bear responsibility.