text:
Guests: Chris Cillizza, Michelle Bernard, Courtney Reagan, Michael Hirsh, Willie Brown, Josh Marshall, Kelly Wallace, Bob Shrum, Thurston Clarke
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Fighting words.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews up in New York.
Leading off tonight: Words and actions. Are people affected by what they hear? If not, why do people speak? If the messages people get day after day have no effect on their behavior, why do big corporations spend millions on advertising? Why do politicians? Does the daily climate of attack, the constant torrent of angry attack and questioning of loyalty, of legitimacy, of Americanness, stir people up? Does it trigger the zealots, the unstable, those who are a bit of both?
The politically correct judgment is that we can't blame anyone for what we've seen recently, that words don't matter in this discussion of people's violent actions. But do we really believe words don't matter, that they don't incite, that they don't cause trouble? Do we really believe you can say anything you want about someone and not expose them to the actions of a zealot or a nut?
Michael Hirsh has written in a cover article in "The National Journal" that no assassin is an island. The history of this country has proven that turbulent political times have often given way to political violence. And it doesn't just happen once. Look at the 1960s—JFK, Dr. King, RFK, Malcolm X. So is it time for politicians to rethink how they talk about their opponents in public? Is it time to do away with the killing metaphors and gun talk? That's our top story tonight.
Plus, Senator Joe Lieberman is exiting politics, stage right, you might say. And while he's committed his fair share of self-destruction, it was the netroots perhaps that finally forced him out. That's power. Tonight, who's next on the list?
And it was the most talked about column in memory, and now it's on the cover of "Time" magazine," the essay by a Chinese-American mother who has raised two academic superstars through a strict, some would say brutal regimen of all work and no play. The author goes on to say American kids are failing, falling behind because Western parents—that's us—are soft and permissive. All this feeds right into our fears, or some people's fears that the United States is losing its competitive edge in the world to China.
And tonight, we look at perhaps the most famous political call to duty in American history.
JOHN F. KENNEDY, 35TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!
MATTHEWS: Well, since Jack Kennedy's famous inaugural address 50 years ago, many have wondered about the origin of that famous "ask not" phrase. Tonight, I'll show you a source way back in Jack Kennedy's past.
And "Let Me Finish" tonight with Kennedy's call to duty and how it had done something to one person and to other people that had never been done before. It got people off their butts. It asked them to get involved.
Let's start with the connection between political rhetoric and violence. And with us is Michael Hirsh of "The National Journal." He wrote this week's cover story, "Why political violence erupts in times of political division." And former mayor Willie Brown, of course, of San Francisco, the former Speaker of the California Assembly.
Let's start with Michael Hirsh and your view. Give me your sense here of the connection here between this wild talk from the birthers about the president not being one of us, not being American, the very, I would argue, over-the-top references to guns all the time by people like Sarah Palin. What's the connection between talk of guns, talk of hatred of government, and action with guns against government?
MICHAEL HIRSH, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": Well, there's no hard and fast connection, Chris. I reported this. We went to the FBI, the behavioral sciences unit in Quantico, and asked them. They said they hadn't really studied it. But a number of historians and psychologists, sociologists I spoke to said, clearly, going back to the beginning of the republic, there is a correlation between times of very heated division and rhetoric and political violence.
And you know, I think you've seen it here. I think it really is a bit much to think that the 8th district of Arizona, where Congresswoman Giffords was, was only—you know, was just a coincidence that it happened to be a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry, as the Pima County sheriff, Clarence Dupnik said, that it was one of the most polarized places in the country.
So I think that it's fair to draw this correlation, to say, Look, whenever you're demonizing the other side, as we've seen so much in the rhetoric in recent months in this country, and calling the other side, you know, a fraudulent American, in effect, the birther movement does with President Obama, that you're going to be, you know, inciting someone who perhaps does not have all his wits about him out there to think that the country would thank him or her if they took action.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Mayor Brown, let's go back to your mindset back in the 1960s. I remember the fears on behalf of John Kennedy before he ever went to Dallas, a fear that the right would get him, some racist would get him. It turns out someone who was a sort of a deranged communist sympathizer did the job. But the sense that Bobby Kennedy was facing trouble, riding around in those flatbeds out in your state, and Martin Luther King was talking about it on the Carson show, about what was facing him. It wasn't like these things came out of nowhere.
WILLIE BROWN (D), FORMER SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR: No, and they don't come out of nowhere. We politicians know exactly what we're trying to generate when we make our speeches and when we (INAUDIBLE) our words. We will not admit nor acknowledge that we intend to have some nut actually do something, but we do intend to have our audience react and follow our leadership by electing us to the position which we seek or by embracing whatever we're advocating. We don't accept the idea that violence comes as a result of it, but in reality, in some cases, it does, and we ought to accept it.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at some language here. I'm not pointing any fingers yet, but we can all judge these words—talk about "repealing" the president, not running against him or hoping your side wins the next election, but language that really sounds pretty definite here.
Let's take a look at Michele Bachmann and what she had to say last night in Congress. Let's listen.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA: "Obama care," as we know, is the crown jewel of socialism. It is socialized medicine. And to those across the United States who think this may be a symbolic, we have a message for them. This is not symbolic. This is why we were sent here. And we will not stop until we repeal a president and put a president in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that will listen to the American people and repeal this bill!
MATTHEWS: I haven't heard language like this. I'm sorry. I've been following politics a long time, Michael, and forget about—this isn't necessarily incendiary, but it's so final. It's like we're not (INAUDIBLE) we're not arguing health care here, we're talking about eliminating a presidency, getting rid of this guy in the next election. Of course, that's what she means.
But the way it comes across, it's so fundamental and it's so total of opposition. And I want to go back to some other things that Palin always talks about, reloading and targeting and—and everything, the language she's always used, this ballistic language over and over again. What do you think it means? What does it do?
HIRSH: Well, I agree that it's extremely incendiary. You have to wonder how it infects some of the less stable minds out there. But there's an important distinction to be made here, Chris. Hook, harsh rhetoric goes back to the beginnings of the republic, the battles among the Founders themselves, Madison and Hamilton, very extreme rhetoric. Thomas Jefferson, you know, actually hired a spinmeister of his time, James Callender (ph), to do dirt on John Adams, you know, during their battles.
MATTHEWS: Yes, and Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton. But what a standard that is. Are we going back to that standard? I mean, wasn't it Sarah Palin, in her intelligence, saying, Well, we're better off than duelers. Well, yes!
HIRSH: Well, we don't want any more duels. And thankfully, that was the last one, at senior levels in American history. But the point I was trying to make is that you can draw a line, particularly in the use of certain kinds of metaphors, the use of gun metaphors, killing, murdering, "taking out," which is another metaphor that Michele Bachmann used in one of her statements. Sharron Angle, the Nevada Senate candidate's, now infamous comment about, quote, unquote, "2nd Amendment remedies" to deal with the problem of Harry Reid, her opponent. Those are the—that's the kind of language that I think we've got to have a hard think about now. Do we really want to continue to use that kind of language at these levels, or should there be a kind of a social sanction, not a legal one, but a moral sanction in the way that we've stopped using, you know, certain epithets, like the N-word in public forums—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
HIRSH: -- stop—to stop using that kind of language, those kinds of metaphors.
MATTHEWS: Well, Mayor Brown, I wish the NRA, which has a lot of influence over people, would do something simple like say, We have a right to bear arms, it's in the Constitution, it's protected all the way back to the Constitution, but stop bringing guns to political events. How about that for a start?
BROWN: Well, that would be a start—
MATTHEWS: Just don't bring guns! Why bring a gun to a political event? I've never understood what role it will play. What will happen at that political event that will require the use of that weapon? What could happen? You don't bring a gun to no reason. I can see carrying a gun in a tricky neighborhood, perhaps, or if you're carrying something or whatever. I can see a guard on a truck carrying one. But what it this about bringing political (SIC) guns into a political debate?
BROWN: Well, it's obviously what is intended to be a fear factor. They intend to intimidate their opposition with just the subtle threat of something violently happening to that individual or threat of something violently happening to that individual or to those human beings, based upon previous conduct.
I say we politicians, when we utter the words, should assume the responsibility for the end product of those words, if some deranged person decides to implement those words in their fullest meaning. That Bachmann woman should be responsible for whatever occurs as a result of somebody being so inspired and so directed by her utterance. That's the only thing. Assuming the responsibility, be in charge with the responsibility is the only thing that's going to stop politicians from being irresponsible in their own utterances.
MATTHEWS: I want to congratulate Michael Hirsh of "The National Journal" for running this big front page piece. I caught it this morning at my house. I think it's a very important piece. It goes all the way back to Lincoln and to Garfield and to McKinley and to the shot that was taken at Franklin Roosevelt, that killed the mayor of Chicago, the shot that was taken at Teddy Roosevelt, almost killed him, the attempt to shoot and kill Mayor—President Truman, the assassination of Jack Kennedy, of course, the almost assassination of Reagan, the two shots, one of them in San Francisco, against Jerry Ford. We've had a horrid history.
We lost a lot of people—Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, George Lincoln Rockwell on the other side, George Wallace was shot. This is a very violent country, politically speaking. And that's something we better get a handle on.
Anyway, thank you, Michael Hirsh, and thank you, Mayor Willie Brown.
Coming up: Joe Lieberman's not running for reelection. Now, this is news. And what role did the netroots play in all this, the Democratic left? What role did it play in pushing this fellow out of electoral life? Lieberman's gone, and what's it say about the power of the netroots? We think about it all the time. Can it push a—you could call him a centrist Democrat, I'll call him a hawk—out of the Senate?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Well, another healthy milestone for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords as she recovers from being shot in the head. Doctors say she's now able to stand up, walk over to the window, and even scroll through an iPad. But they caution she has a long road to recovery in front of her. Her husband, Mark Kelly, talked to reporters today.
MARK KELLY, CONGRESSWOMAN GIFFORDS'S HUSBAND: I mean, she is a fighter like, you know, nobody else that I know. So I am extremely confident that she's going to be back here and back at work soon. I've been telling the hospital staff that they should expect to see her walking through these halls and into the ICU within a couple months.
MATTHEWS: Congresswoman Giffords will leave the hospital tomorrow. She'll move to a rehab center down in Houston, Texas. Research shows, by the way, that patients in these conditions recover much faster the earlier they're moved into rehab.
HARDBALL will be right back.
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: I have never shied from a good fight, and I never will.
LIEBERMAN: So the reason I've decided not to run for reelection in 2012 is best expressed in the wise words from Ecclesiastes. To everything, there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was, of course, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut announcing yesterday that he won't seek reelection in 2012 next year. He says he hasn't changed, but he thinks politics has. Let's listen to this argument.
LIEBERMAN: I've not always fit comfortably into conventional political boxes. Maybe you've noticed that.
Politics of President Kennedy, patriotic service to country, support of Civil Rights and social justice, pro-growth economic and tax policies and a strong national defense are still my politics. So maybe that means that JFK wouldn't fit neatly into any of today's partisan political boxes, either.
MATTHEWS: Well, Josh Marshall is founder and editor of TalkingPointsMemo, and "The Washington Post's" Chris Cillizza's an MSNBC political analyst. I disagree, by the way, completely with his use of Kennedy. Kennedy was not a hawk. Kennedy was a very balanced defender of this country. He was very careful about employing U.S. force overseas. We didn't go to war in Berlin. We didn't go to war in Cuba twice. We cut a deal in Laos. He did everything he could to avoid bloodshed and also defend the country. He wasn't Joe Lieberman.
What do you think of this? And Lieberman was pushed out because he supported the Iraq war and still does.
JOSH MARSHALL, TALKINGPOINTSMEMO.COM: That was the core issue, but I think there was a dance that went on between Lieberman and the core of the Democratic Party over several years, and they each got under each other's skin. And I think, you know, Iraq was the key thing, but remember—
MATTHEWS: Why did he double down by backing McCain in the last election? Wasn't that just shoving it to the Democrats?
MARSHALL: You know, I think a lot of this comes from—Lieberman
felt very bitter 2004. He thought he at least should have the kind of the
the—you know, the—he should have been a contender for the presidential primary in 2004, and he wasn't even close.
MATTHEWS: Ah!
MARSHALL: And I think that that embittered him, and I think a lot of things sort of came out of that. I think that that's a bigger—played a bigger role than people realize.
MATTHEWS: What do you think of that, Chris? You study politics in a nonpartisan way.
CHRIS CILLIZZA, "WASHINGTON POST," MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Do you think he was ripped about the fact—I know he went nowhere in that, but he was pretty hawkish after supporting the war. He should have known there was a problem.
CILLIZZA: I think Josh has a very good point here. You know, I think, look, Joe Lieberman was the—this is the thing I always remind myself about Joe Lieberman. In an eight-year span, he went from the Democratic vice presidential nominee to speaking at the Republican national convention. Something happened there.
MATTHEWS: And trying to get on ticket perhaps.
CILLIZZA: Politics didn't—politics change that much. His relationship with John McCain personally wasn't that important. And I do think that race, as Josh pointed out, that 2004 race—look, he was the 2000 vice presidential nominee. I think he got into the '04 race thinking, I'm—you know, I'm in the top tier of this thing. He wound up in New Hampshire, making that now famous line, you know, a three-way tie for third, when he had finished in fifth place in New Hampshire. And I do think that that embittered him—
CILLIZZA: -- in some way, that he felt like the party had left him. Now, Chris, just very quickly—the party may have left him a little bit, but he clearly left the party, too. Look, it's never been OK, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, to endorse the other guy in a presidential race and speak at the other guy's convention.
MATTHEWS: Yes, and he was all by himself in supporting that war. Here's DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsos wrote this morning about Lieberman. Quote, "We were going to kick his butt." That was my translation. "And it was going to feel great, but I'll take this." In other words, he'll take his departure.
Josh, this is really important, the power of the netroots. I look at the numbers. I don't think they have a majority of the Democratic Party that are really that liberal or that left, if you will. I don't mind the word "left," by the way. I hope they don't. But they do have intensity. And the question is, does their intensity give them power to knock off another senator they don't like because of, say, his war policies or his economy policy?
MARSHALL: It's certainly possible.
I think the thing with the netroots is, they may be a little more liberal than the—the entirety of the Democratic Party, but it's not just an ideological thing. It's more of a kind of a fighting spirit that—
MATTHEWS: Yes. I agree with that.
MARSHALL: -- and people like him have.
So, yes, I think they could knock off another, but Lieberman is sort of sui generis, I think. He's on his own. And, again, I think the thing is that there was—even after 2006, Lieberman, with all the bitterness, he could have done stuff in—over the last four years that would have made it possible for him at least to have a fighting chance.
MATTHEWS: He also says things that are just not believable.
Like, here he is talking to "The Washington Post": "There's such an ideological orthodoxy among Democrats that, if you're not there 100 percent of the time, you're not there."
Well, give me a break. You opposed them on the major foreign policy issue of our time, the war in Iraq. And he's getting—he expects to be loved for that.
Let's take a look at something he said on "Morning Joe," because I want to argue about this for about three years now, but I only have a few minutes. I want you guys to do the arguing.
I couldn't disagree more with what he said today on "Morning Joe." Let's listen to Joe Lieberman in his ridiculous defense of his hawkish foreign policy. Here he is. Let's listen.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: My answer is, yes. My answer is yes because Saddam was threatening the stability of the entire region. He'd shown that by his actions. I believe that the evidence is very clear that he was developing weapons of mass destruction. Obviously we don't have evidence that he had a big program. But the most official and comprehensive report show that's true.
He was also, the evidence shows, beginning really tactically to support the terrorist movements that had attacked us on 9/11 and today, to make a long story short, instead of a brutally repressive dictator in Iraq, we've got a government that was elected that's self-governing and the country is self-defending.
MATTHEWS: Guilty, guilty, guilty. And I rarely get this upset, but guilty, guilty, guilty, once again using the right-wing trick of conflation, using phrases like weapons of mass destruction.
If you think they have got a nuclear in development, tell us. Stop using words weapons of mass destruction. If you think they're tied in with al Qaeda, say so. Don't say they have tactical involvement with some of these groups.
Everybody knows they were helping out Hamas in that region over there. Nobody has had any evidence they had anything do with the groups that attacked us, with al Qaeda. No one has any belief that had a nuclear weapon on development.
So he uses that mushy language of weapons of mass destruction, the perfect lingo of the neocons. And then he throws in this tactical—what does this mean? You go to war because somebody's tactically involved with some regional terrorist groups? And it's an Arab country. Big surprise.
You don't go to—there's a lot of those countries involved tactically with terrorists.
MATTHEWS: And you don't go to war with them. So, what kind of B.S. is he shoveling at us now, my question to you, Chris Cillizza, nonpartisan Chris Cillizza.
CILLIZZA: Here's what I would say, Chris.
I think that statement is vintage Lieberman.
MATTHEWS: It sure is.
CILLIZZA: I'm not asking you to like it. I'm not asking you to like it or not like it.
But he views himself—and, again, agree or disagree.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CILLIZZA: He views himself as acting out of moral rectitude, that he does the right thing morally. The right thing was to go in and unseat Saddam Hussein. And he has dug in on that position.
MATTHEWS: You're right.
CILLIZZA: I just wanted to quickly go back to what Josh said, too, which I think is important.
Joe Lieberman did this to Joe Lieberman. If in 2006 he had said, you know what, Democrats, I hear what you have to say, let me reexamine where I'm at, and he spent the next six years fixing that problem, he could have won. But it doesn't pass the political smell test, what he said in his retirement announcement, that he's never run from a fight.
CILLIZZA: There is a simple fact. He could not win a Democratic primary, period.
MATTHEWS: He goes into that lachrymose manner, that post-nasal drip he does, which is so serious and, oh, God, I understand your feelings. And to me it's an act. I'm sorry. He's a man of the right. Fair enough. He's in the wrong party.
MARSHALL: Yes. I mean, the thing is, when he's saying this stuff about as you call it conflation, you talk a Don Rumsfeld now. He's past that. He's not even pulling that out.
MARSHALL: President—ex-President Bush isn't. So it's almost sad to see him like—that's like 2004, man. I mean, even—
MATTHEWS: The great irony is that I like Joe Lieberman. I disagree completely with the guy.
MATTHEWS: And I like him. I'm sorry. It's so weird in politics.
CILLIZZA: It comes more from this moral—this belief that politics is about doing the morally right thing. And he believes this is the morally right thing. And he's not going to walk away from it.
MARSHALL: I think Lieberman believes that, if he did it, it must be moral. I think that there's some of that there too.
MATTHEWS: The voice of the oracle of feebs.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, sir, Josh Marshall. I'm falling in love with you. That is exactly it. If I'm there and I'm moral, this is moral.
MARSHALL: Right.
MATTHEWS: This is going to be fought over in history.
I thought Buchanan had the right question for him. I think his answer was unconsidered.
Anyway, good luck, Joe Lieberman and Hadassah. I hope you find—I do agree it's time to move on for a lot of these guys. I think a lot of them stay past their fresh dates, their sell dates.
MARSHALL: Yes.
MATTHEWS: You don't have to stay in the Senate your whole life.
Anyway, still ahead, we're going to hint at the origin, I think, and I have worked on this pretty hard, of John F. Kennedy's famous words. Let's listen.
KENNEDY: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
MATTHEWS: Where did that great president get that great construction, ask not, ask? Let's figure it out. I think I got the answer.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Love that laugh.
Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
Lawmakers are fond of making historical analogies. All too often,
it's a bad idea. Exhibit A, freshman Tea Party Morgan Griffith of Virginia
yesterday, on the House floor, he compared the passage of health care reform to the reign of King George III.
REP. MORGAN GRIFFITH, ®, VIRGINIA: I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This team last year, as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, defending that Constitution, I was proud to cast my vote for House Bill 10, which mandated no Virginian shall be required to buy health insurance. As Virginians, we did not accept the chains of George III, nor will we accept the chains of Obamacare.
MATTHEWS: OK, Patrick Henry, can't we just disagree on health care itself? Do we have to claim a bill passed by a majority of elected American congresspeople and signed by an elected president constitutes colonial rule by George III?
Now, Democratic Steve Cohen of Tennessee earlier this week, he compared Republican pushback on health care to the lies put out by Joseph Goebbels. Let's listen.
REP. STEVE COHEN (D), TENNESSEE: They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie, just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and, eventually, people believe it, like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing.
The Germans said enough about the Jews, and the people believed it, and you had the Holocaust.
MATTHEWS: Another case from the other end. Congressman Cohen, who is Jewish himself, apologized today to anyone he thinks he offended by his remarks. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But he insisted that never actually called the Republicans Nazis.
Well, what a swell fellow he is.
My experience tells me the moment you even mention Nazis and certainly the Holocaust in relation to your opponents, you're in big trouble already.
Now to tonight's "Big Number." It's Speaking John Boehner's most distinguishing characteristic: he cries in public.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I have spent my whole life chasing the American dream.
I put my—myself through school working every rotten job there was -
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Love you, John.
BOEHNER: -- and in every night shift I could find. And I poured my heart and soul into running a small business.
MATTHEWS: Well, is what you see a negative? Not necessarily.
A Quinnipiac poll found that 27 percent of Ohio voters consider Boehner's tendency to cry a weakness? How many consider it a sign of strength? Thirty-six, a higher number. Home state gives him the thumbs up. Thirty-six percent say—tonight's "cry me a river" "Big Number."
You know, I like the American people. They're a lot nicer than some people think.
Up next: Do Chinese parents do a better job raising kids than
American ones? What a heated debate this has become. That question is
raised by a new book by a Chinese-American mother of two kids that's
causing a big stir about the way we raise our kids and whether America has
what it takes to stay on top of the world. Tiger mothers and what they
mean for American competitiveness next. What a strange topic for HARDBALL,
You're watching it, only on MSNBC.
COURTNEY REAGAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Courtney Reagan with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks slumping today on some mixed bank earnings, the Dow Jones industrial slipping 12 points, the S&P 500 giving up 13, the Nasdaq tumbling 40 points.
Banks taking a beating in the wake of double-digit surges for some starting back in December. Yesterday, we had weaker-than-expected results from Citi, though today we get some interesting news here from Google. Google is going ahead and shaking things up on the management side here. Co-founder Larry Page is taking over as CEO. Eric Schmidt is actually stepping down as chairman. Sergey Brin will still remain there, of course, and he will be working with the products.
H.P. also shaking up their board today, five new board members coming in, including eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
That's all for now—back to HARDBALL with Chris Matthews.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Fifty years later, our generation's Sputnik moment is back. This is our moment.
MATTHEWS: Wow. Our Sputnik moment is back.
Welcome back to HARDBALL.
President Obama invoked Sputnik to kick-start American innovation in education and to point out we're in a race now. Just look at the space race with the Russians. Just like it.
OBAMA: And the hard truth is this. In the race for the future, America is in danger of falling behind.
You have got a—a billion people in India who are suddenly plugged into the world economy. You have got over a billion people in China who are suddenly plugged in to the global economy. And that means competition is going to be much more fierce. And the winners of this competition will be the countries that have the most educated workers.
MATTHEWS: Well now comes a new book that's going to shake everybody up. It's on parenting by a Chinese-American mother whose approach to raising her daughters might remind you of "Mommy Dearest."
MATTHEWS: The kids are superstars academically, but her treatment is so severe as to forbid some people even to think about it.
She forbid the use of sleepovers by the kids. They couldn't have play dates. They—they couldn't be in a school play. They had to get an A. They absolutely had to get an A and not be—if they weren't the number one in every subject, except in gym and drama, they were in trouble. She calls herself the tiger mother.
And her method is the "TIME" magazine cover story that just came out?
Is this what America wants or needs?
Michelle Bernard is a friend of mine, MSNBC political analyst. Kelly Wallace, another pal of mine, is chief correspondent for iVillage, mothers, both of you.
KELLY WALLACE, IVILLAGE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: I want to know what you think.
First of all, just right off the top, Michelle Bernard, do you want to be "Mommy Dearest"?
MATTHEWS: Do you want to be—does the end justify the means? Does terrorizing the kid, if it gets them to be a virtuoso piano player, a nuclear scientist, is it worth it to the kid and to you and your family?
MICHELLE BERNARD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think that Amy Chua is "Mommy Dearest."
Some of her methods are a little bit too strict for me. But, as you know, in the article that she wrote and in her book, she talks about being a Chinese mother as not all—necessarily being Chinese. And she said she's met many Ghanaians, Jamaicans and people of other cultures that are - - quote, unquote—"Chinese mothers."
I think that the nation does itself a disservice by not pushing our children to be the very best that they can absolutely be. I think you make a mistake when you say it's OK to be second, it's OK to be third, it's OK to be last.
MATTHEWS: Wow.
BERNARD: No.
BERNARD: Why not be first? Who wants to be second?
MATTHEWS: Michelle Bernard, you are on her side.
BERNARD: I am.
MATTHEWS: Score one for the tiger mom.
MATTHEWS: Your thoughts, Kelly?
WALLACE: Everyone's a winner in the Wallace household.
You know, no—
MATTHEWS: Do you give trophies to kids who come in last?
WALLACE: We give trophies, sweetheart, even if you come in last.
No, I think what's so interesting about this story is kind of—yes, there was an outrage about this mother and these tactics that she had with her kids. But I think part of the outrage, Chris, is what does this say about mothers? Mothers are insecure anyway. These American mothers are saying, what does it say about us? Are we too touchy-feely? Are we too lax? Are we not doing a good enough job for our kids?
So, I think maybe some moms out there are saying, maybe it's not so bad to demand—
MATTHEWS: Let's look at the worldwide score here right in—a survey of 15-year-olds in these industrialized countries of the world ranked the United States 14th in reading, way behind Shanghai. Shanghai was first. In science, the United States ranks 17. Again, Shanghai was first.
In math, the United States ranks 25th, way below the average. Here again , Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea topped the rankings.
So, they're all Asian countries. Here's President Obama on education.
Let's listen.
OBAMA: I sat down with President Lee of South Korea, and I asked him, what—what's the biggest problem you have in education?
He said: "You know, these parents, they come to me and they're constantly pressuring me. They want their kids to learn so fast, so much."
MATTHEWS: You know, Michelle, we all watch this. We look at the best schools in America, and we see people who are maybe one generation parents come here from Asia, South Asia, Far East Asia, and they come here and they make—they make it within one generation. They're there. They're at the very top of American academic life.
What are they doing different? They must be doing something to achieve the goal.
BERNARD: There is—it depends on the culture, but, you know, in many of these cultures, you will see that from day one, you're embedded with this sense of bringing honor to your family. You are told from day one that education is absolutely the key to achieving success anywhere in the world that you live.
And a lot of times you look at people, particularly immigrants coming from other countries to the United States and they are leaving horrible, horrible countries. They realize something we don't always realize as home born Americans that without the best education you can possibly get, you are going to have great difficulty in this country. And as we go toward a more global economy, we don't have the luxury, particularly I will say in the African-American community, we don't have the luxury of sitting around and saying to our children, you know, it's OK if you come in last.
You want your children to say, "There is absolutely nothing I can achieve and I want to be first. I want to be president, not vice president. I want to own the basketball team, not be the basketball player."
MATTHEWS: I have a good measure of fatalism in me. I accept the fact that different - young people are better than other people. Some may have creative talents, some may have better disciplined.
WALLACE: Right.
MATTHEWS: Disciplined kids have their advantages and they're disciplined, the other kid may have advantage in creativity. I don't think Steven Spielberg was 4.0.
WALLACE: Right.
MATTHEWS: I don't think he went to Yale. I look at people like Bill Gates. I don't know whether they were superstars in school.
MATTHEWS: I wouldn't ask them for an original idea because I wouldn't get one - but that's my American attitude.
WALLACE: Right. I mean I think some of I hear what Michelle is saying and, obviously, you know, we all sort of want to demand the best for our kids. But, you know, there are bigger issues here at work in terms of U.S. competitiveness, Chris, we know that. We know the state of American schools and we know teacher salaries and the priorities that we need to make in terms of our educational system. I think, of course, in our household.
So, I think there's more at stake and I think there is—you know, there are more—there's something to be thought of. If everyone in this country—
MATTHEWS: OK. If you were to have a slightly neurotic kid that got into Harvard or a slightly happier kid that went to a regular school, Michelle Bernard, if you have to choose between a little less happy and a little better getting ahead, which would you go with?
BERNARD: I want my children to be happy, and I can tell you, as adults, they will be much happier if they are in the position to take care of themselves.
MATTHEWS: There is, Chinese mother.
MATTHEWS: Because that's what the Chinese mother says.
BERNARD: I'm a Chinese mother.
MATTHEWS: Now, here's something that's so interesting. We're talking about this at work today, our producers and I. Some things are fun to do as you practice it. No kid ever complained about practicing basketball. I mean, regular school yard out in the backyard with your buddies on the playground. It's fun to get to basketball. You play into the dark, it's dark, you're shooting a thousand baskets a night, and you get better and better and it's always fun. But there is no fun the first five years of piano, it is just—or violin. It is just work.
WALLACE: Right. And also, you know, maybe if you're only giving your kid five, 10 years of piano, maybe she's an artist in another way or a gymnast, or a thinker, a great writer.
MATTHEWS: Michelle, it used to be, you can get the girl if you can play the piano. That was the argument. It's come in nicely on the piano. I don't know if that's true or not.
Anyway, Michelle Bernard, this is a lively discussion. Kelly Wallace. Excellent people, they're friends of mine. Thank you for coming on and arguing.
WALLACE: Good to be with you.
MATTHEWS: We like an argument.
BERNARD: Any time.
MATTHEWS: Coming up: 50 years ago today, President John F. Kennedy inspired a new generation of Americans to serve as he himself was sworn into office.
KENNEDY: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
MATTHEWS: And a little later in the show, I'm going to try to unlock a big mystery about the origin of that wonderful construction. Ask not, ask, (INAUDIBLE) accent.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Like son, like father. Texas Congressman Ron Paul is said to considering running for that Senate seat of retiring Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Congressman Paul is, of course, the father of newly elected U.S. Senator Ron Paul of Kentucky, and, of course, a national figure among libertarian people. A new poll shows he'd be a top contender if he does decide to go into the race. And he tells "The Hill" newspaper it certainly crossed his mind.
We'll be right back.
KENNEY: And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
MATTHEWS: What a moment that was. That was, of course, President John F. Kennedy speaking 50 years ago today on a crisp cold afternoon in Washington with snow all around. It was a Currier and Ives day half a century ago. That was the speech considered one of the best ever given. I think it's one of the top four or five.
Here he is, by the way, here to talk about it, two people that know all about it. Bob Shrum, a great times speechwriter and former adviser to Ted Kennedy, of course. And Thurston Clarke has written a great book "Ask Not: The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the Speech that Changed America."
I want first to you, because you put all the time to this great book, and it's got all the rich background to the book.
THURSTON CLARKE, HISTORIAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: And when you first heard it, what did it say to you, because it think it had a different reaction immediately from the one that developed over time. Your thoughts about the first smack of we heard it. What was the reaction of hearing those "Ask Not" words?
CLARKE: When I heard it, two members of the World War II generation burst into tears. So, it said to me, these were powerful words. I was only 14. I thought that words that could make adults that fought in World War II cry, they had to be powerful words. So, that stayed with me all my life, that image.
MATTHEWS: I love the line in your book, a young woman who joined the Peace Corps early on—I joined in the '60s, I went from '68 and '70 -- that said, no one ever asked me before.
CLARKE: That's right. For me, it was the civil rights movement, and I got involved in voter rights and civil rights. I was at Selma, and I think that the speech is what motivated me.
MATTHEWS: I like about it because I think sometimes when people—with the president, I won, you lost, it's all mine. And here Kennedy comes in and says, I want this whole generation involved. I brought war buddies, and they gave them all jobs, remember? He got Red Fay and Jim Reed. Everybody came to work. He wanted everybody he knew involved. And then he said everybody he didn't know, hey, join the Peace Corps, join the Special Forces, get in to this thing.
BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, I don't know if he understood. And Thurston's book, by the way, is a fabulous book and everybody ought to read. I've read it, and if you care about the power of words or the poetry of politics, you need to read it.
MATTHEWS: And the best thing is, you can read it in a couple of days.
That's what I always say about any book.
SHRUM: Kennedy, I don't know if he understood that he was summoning not just a new generation, but he was summoning generations to come.
MATTHEWS: Yes, it's on television.
SHRUM: Because what happened is that he widened and deepened and enriched our conception of what America is. I mean, Lincoln did that, the Roosevelts did that, Ronald Reagan, from the other side of the spectrum, did that. And that's why I think it endures so powerfully 50 years on.
I mean, Thurston says he was drawn into the civil rights movement, but that citizen activism that began then and that he inspired widened out to all the causes that come since, the environment, women's right, equal rights for the differently able and the ethnically different, for gays and lesbians.
MATTHEWS: Let's go to the more troubling language which could be taken a number of ways. I think it is considerably more hawkish than the rest of the speech. Here he is giving the lines that many people believe led to Vietnam. Here it is. Let's listen.
KENNEDY: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and success of liberty.
KENNEDY: This much we pledge—and more.
MATTHEWS: Thurston, was that war-like—I mean, it has been taken by the hawks as a statement of license, let's go fight the commies. And I remember how subdued he was in cutting a deal for the neutralization of Laos where I said you got to fight for the cork in the bottle. And he said, no, I'm not going to fight for it.
He was restrained to Vietnam, although he did begin moving us in there. He avoided fighting in Africa. He kept us out of war in Berlin for the whole three years and he kept us of Cuba, both times, '61, '62, when the hawks wanted to go in.
CLARKE: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: So, I would argue he was not a hawk. He was a very balanced leader who was trying to avoid bloodshed. Your thoughts?
CLARKE: I call him a nonviolent cold warrior. And throughout his administration—in fact, he would not pay any price or bear any burden. He would not on bomb the missile sites in Cuba. He wanted a blockade. He would not send combat troops to Laos.
He would not—on five different occasions, his advisers wanted him to send combat units to Vietnam. Every single time, he refused.
The rest of the speech was an invitation to negotiation, a reduction of tensions. And the newspapers at the time understood this. The headlines the next day weren't about the saber-rattling, Cold War speech. They were all "Kennedy, new quest for peace," "Kennedy's peace speech."
MATTHEWS: Bob Shrum?
SHRUM: Well, I think you have to take the end of that sentence, "to ensure the survival and success of liberty." He was obviously serious because in Cuba, when the generals are pressing him to do a first strike, he says, "We don't have to do that." And I think you could argue actually that his restraint combined with strength probably saved the world during the Cuban missile crisis.
Then you move on from that to the test ban treaty which I regard as really the beginning of the end of the Cold War, very long end of the Cold War.
MATTHEWS: And it wasn't that popular. He stuck his neck out and said, we want—we're going to begin to find peace with the Soviets.
SHRUM: Well, Thurston knows and as you know because you're writing about this now, that when he went to American University and gave that speech proposing that we negotiate a test ban treaty, he didn't run the checks—normal checks with the State Department because he thought the bureaucrats would all say, no, we don't want to move ahead on this.
MATTHEWS: Bob Shrum knows the '60s. Thurston Clarke, the book is called "Ask Not." It's in paperback. It's not expensive and it won't take a whole year to read it. It's a really good book.
When we return, "Let Me Finish" with how Kennedy's most famous words perhaps came to be.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: "Let Me Finish" tonight with words that matter—just a very few words, if you count them; a very short speech, if you time it. Let's listen now on the 50th anniversary.
KENNEDY: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
MATTHEWS: I'm working on a book now on Jack Kennedy for Simon & Schuster. Now, I'm coming across an interesting document that hints that the origin of that historic phrase "Ask Not." John Kennedy attended Choate School in Wallingford, Connecticut. It's now Choate Rosemary Hall.
The headmaster in Kennedy's time was George St. John. The first page of his notebook contains a portion of an essay by Dean La Baron Briggs who was St. John's dean at Harvard.
Let me read to you the last lines of that essay, which St. John used
for his chapel sermons. "In and out of college, the man with ideals helps,
as far as in him lies, his college and his country. As his often been
said, the youth who loves his alma mater will always ask not, 'What can she
do for me?' but 'What can I do for her?'"
I also have a letter written to this school 25 years ago, complaining to the school that Kennedy had, quote, "plagiarized" the headmaster's "Ask Not" phrase. I think it's an absurd complaint. Students are supposed to remember what their teachers tell them.
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country—you can do for your country. People joined the military, the Special Forces, the Apollo program. Most of all, they join the Peace Corps. I spent two years in that outfit, two years that may not have changed the small businessman of Swaziland when I worked with them, but certainly changed this young American.
Service involves work, but not necessarily sacrifice. In my case, it was one wild, never-to-be forgotten adventure.
Sargent Shriver, who just died—as I said the other night—had much to do with taking his brother-in-law's words and turning them into an exciting organization.
I remember the moment that brought the whole magic of Kennedy together, a fellow Peace Corps guy, Steve Hank, now a professor at the University of New Orleans sat on a hillside with his people from his village that he was working with in community development. It was nighttime. The month was July, 1969.
As he sat with his Swazi friends and neighbors, he pointed to the white blur darting across the sky. He explained it was his fellow Americans, their fellow humans, heading towards the moon. That was the wild, exciting legacy of a man who asked Americans to think big of what they could do for their country.
Tonight, we honor, a half century later, that legacy.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
Vintage Inspired Rainbow Animal Air Freshie
The Rainbow Air Freshie features a sublimated image suspended from an elastic cord, either with the addition of essential oils or left unscented.
Processing Times Per Item Type
Vinyl crafts such as shirts, bags, and decals will be made within 5 to 7 days of your purchase.
Crochet crafts depending on the size may take anywhere from 5 days to 4 weeks to make. Larger items taking longer. If your item is expected to take longer than 4 weeks to be made, you will be given an estimated shipping date via email. Optional photo progress updates as well.
Resin items take 1 to 2 weeks to fully harden before they can be shipped.
Shipping Carrier Infomation
All packages are sent USPS with tracking. If your package is valued over $30, it will be shipped insured.
Returns & Custom Order Cancelations
I gladly accept returns, exchanges, and cancellations on non custom items.
Contact me within: 14 days of delivery
Ship items back within: 30 days of delivery.
Custom items cannot be restocked so they may not be returned or exchanged.
The following items can't be returned or exchanged
Because of the nature of these items, unless they arrive damaged or defective, I can't accept returns for:
Custom or personalized orders
Gift Cards
Digital downloads
Intimate items (for health/hygiene reasons)
Conditions of return
Buyers are responsible for return shipping costs. If the item is not returned in its original condition, the buyer is responsible for any loss in value.
Request a cancellation within: 2 days of purchase.
Custom Order Cancelation
Custom orders will still be subject to material cost if canceled during or after completion. Material cost is to be determined per item but will be no less than 30% of the total cost of the order. If your invoice is unpaid after 30 days, you will receive another invoice for cost of goods. After 90 days of nonpayment the material cost amount will be sent to collections.
For Additional Return & Cancelation Terms & Conditions

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Why M4's have reliability issues…and why it's our fault! By Michael Pannone December 24, 2008 I fired 15,000 rounds through a semi-automatic M4/M4A1-type direct-gas-impingement (DGI) carbine in 31 weeks without a single malfunction attributable to anything except bad ammunition or bad magazines, with a grand total of 9 malfunctions. The least number of rounds fired between cleanings was 960 rounds, …Read More »
Tag Archives: m16
TangoDown ARC Polymer 30-round Magazine for Tactical AR-15 Carbines and SBRs
By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com December 17, 2008 DefenseReview has been using TangoDown "Rail Grip" polymer rail covers (a.k.a. rail panels), "BattleGrip" vertical foregrips and "Rifle Grip" pistol grips (for rifles) on tactical AR-15 carbines and subcarbine/SBRs (Short Barreled Rifles) for quite awhile, now. These products have always performed well, and we've been satisfied with them. TangoDown's …Read More »
DefRev Photo Analysis: U.S. Secret Service PPD CAT Operator Tactical Hardware
By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com November 24, 2008 Updated on May 6, 2009 Ever since he won the presidential election, the press has been following President-Elect Barack Obama around Chicago like a bunch of hungry (and annoying) puppies. Whether he's going to his transition office in the Kluczynski Federal Building in the Loop (dowtown Chicago professional district, …Read More »
GDATP IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle)/Ultimax 100 MK5 LMG/SAW (Photos!)
By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com All of the photos contained in this article were taken by Chen Lee a.k.a. "SMGLee" at the 2008 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exhibition, and he owns the copyright on these photos. Additional photos may be added to this article, later. October 21, 2008 Speaking of IARs, General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products …Read More »
Noveske Rifleworks N4 Light Recce Carbine: John Noveske Interview, Part One
By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com The following is Part One of the transcript from a phone interview that David Crane, owner/editor-in-chief of DefenseReview, conducted with John Noveske of Noveske Rifleworks, LLC a number of months ago about his gun builds (tactical AR rifle builds a.k.a. tactical AR-15 rifle builds, specifically). We would have published it sooner, but …Read More »
AR Five Seven (AR-57): 50-Shot 5.7x28mm AR-15 Carbine
By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com August 11, 2008 An outfit called 57 Center is making an interesting patent-pending 5.7x28mm upper receiver for AR-15/M16 lower receivers called the AR Five Seven (AR-57) that utilizes 50-round FN P90/PS90 PDW magazines. The magazines are top-loaded and horizontal-mounted, just like on the P90/PS90. It would appear that that an emptied-out standard …Read More »
Stag Arms 6.8mm SPC Tactical Carbine with Samson STAR-C Tactical Rail
By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com All photographic images contained in this article were taken by DefenseReview.com at SHOT Show 2008, and they are the exclusive property of DefenseReview.com. DefenseReview.com owns the copyright on these photos. July 27, 2008 DefenseReview has been been writing about 6.8mm cartridges, lately, so it's only appropriate that we mention Charlie Cutshaw's article …Read More »
Sabre Defence Industries Awarded M16 Rifle Contract (M16A3 & M16A4 Rifles)
The following is a Saber Defence Industries press release: NASHVILLE, TN (July 15, 2008)- Sabre Defence Industries, LLC (SDI), a government contractor for the manufacture of machine gun parts and accessories and commercial XR15 rifles, is proud to announce that Sabre Defence has been awarded an IDIQ contract for a minimum of 4,952 M16A3 and 702 M16A4 rifles to support …Read More »
The 6.8 Remington SPC as an Animal Control or Patrol Rifle Cartridge…
By Captain D. July 15, 2008 Usually, a police agency does not spend a lot of time utilizing unusual calibers or cartridges in its rifles for animal control. My town, which is a first ring suburb of a major mid-west city, is in an area known for record class whitetail deer. To protect my administration, I will not identify myself …Read More »
6.8x45mm Kramer Urban Combat Cartridge (UCC) for Urban Warfare Ops
By David Crane defrev at gmail dot com DefenseReview has covered the 6.8 SPC (a.k.a. 6.8 Remington SPC a.k.a. 6.8x43mm SPC a.k.a. 6.8mm Remington SPC a.k.a. 6.8mm SPC) round for quite some time now. We're a proponent of the cartridge, due to its superior efficacy over 5.56x45mm NATO (5.56mm NATO)/.223 Rem. within its (6.8 SPC) operational envelope of 400-500 yards, …Read More »


text:
The Black Rock || Iceland
The incredible Svartifoss, one of the most famous and beautiful waterfalls in Iceland
Colors of Jokulsarlon || Iceland
A dazzling and colorful sky lights up the beautiful icebergs of Jokulsarlon Iceland.
Dance With Me || Iceland
As the Northern Lights danced in the sky above, my heart sang along to the rhythm of motion.
Radiant Flow || Seljalandsfoss Iceland
Colors seem to dance as the soft light warms the waterfall Seljalandsfoss in the Southern Icelandic Countryside.
Heaven and Earth || Iceland
We watched in awe as the Aurora Borealis danced around us, all alone in the Icelandic Countryside.
Burning Sky || Iceland
The sky burns over jokulsarlon Glacial Bay, one of the wonders of Southern Iceland
Londrangar Cliffs || Iceland
A breathtaking view of the Londrangar Cliffs in western Iceland
Winter Lights || Iceland
A dazzling display of the northern lights over the Jökulsárlón Glacier Lagoon in Southern Iceland. Winter always brings such great aurora activity.
Frozen in Time || Iceland
Exploring an extaordinary glacial ice cave in southern Iceland.
Winters Grasp || Iceland
A burning sky over Aldeyarfoss, one of the most spectacular waterfalls in Northern Iceland.
Winters Radiance || Iceland
Seljalandsfoss - One of the most spectacular waterfalls in Iceland, covered with a blanket of beautiful snow.
Snow Fall || Iceland
A beautiful sunrise at Godafoss Waterfall as the first snow falls in Northern Iceland.
Sky Fire || Iceland
An intense display of the Northern Lights ignites the sky with brilliant colors over the pristine winter landscape of Northern Iceland.
Momentum || Iceland
The incoming tide creates beautiful swirling patterns along the black sand beaches of the Stokksnes peninsula in Southeastern Iceland.
Radiant Flow - (Seljalandsfoss, Iceland)
Frozen in Time


text:
What Lies Beneath: The 12-Year Kitchen
Our kitchen renovation project started out with a couple of hidden land mines, and moved quickly into a series of hidden works of art.
Fortunately for us, we were working with an architect and contractor who knew how to anticipate landmines, and we'd been living in the house long enough to know where the likely locations were. We'd had trouble with termites before, particularly on the side of the house where we were about to build, and Keith had seen lots of houses with termite damage. So our contract anticipated having to replace lots of old wood—and it's a good thing, because there certainly was termite damage.
It was hard to believe the old extension was actually standing at all—we discovered that it was held up at each corner by a single 2×4 planted on a brick. And the extent of the termite damage was simply amazing—one of those corner 2x4s was chewed through to almost nothing. Entire chunks of flooring were eaten through—including the floor right under where our refrigerator had been standing.
Since so much of the damage was in the extension that was coming down anyway, we could just marvel at it as it was carted away. But the sill under the main house had evidence of termites, too, along with signs of water damage from a long-ago leaky sink, so that all had to be repaired or replaced. We unearthed the old gas pipes, fortunately empty and disconnected, that once fueled the lights in our house. Two mysterious water pipes reached high up the kitchen wall—we theorize that they once fed a wall-mounted heater, and we're grateful they were no longer connected to anything.
The hidden works of art lay in the framing and roofing that Keith built over the next few weeks. Norm's plan had called for a walk-out bow window, a single unit we could order from a window manufacturer. Keith was worried about how he'd be able to match the existing casing on such a unit, so he asked us to order three individual windows instead. Then he went to work framing it—by hand, calculating angles and miters in the rim, joists, and studs, and cutting everything with amazing precision.
That was impressive enough until I watched him creating the new hip roof. Also by hand, also one angle and miter cut at a time—now I find myself looking at hip roofs in a whole new way. They are amazing structures indeed, and it's a shame nobody gets to see the craftsmanship that goes into building a great one. And we have a great one! (We threw Keith a curve ball by deciding we wanted a skylight in it, but he never missed a beat.)
The down side is that doing things right takes time, and we were well into May by the time the walls and rafters were done. We still needed plywood sheathing, and windows and door installed, before we'd be enclosed. I will be eternally grateful that we had taken Keith's advice and waited on the start date—we ended up open to the elements from the first week in March until the second week in June, more than three months. I shudder to imagine those months if they'd been December, January, and February!
Next: Small Choices, Big Decisions—and Hoping It All Comes Together
For more on kitchen remodeling, consider:
2011 Kitchen Trends
Create an Outdoor Dream Kitchen
Quick Tip: Budget Kitchen Remodeling


text:
Web Development 1
Free Geek
1731 SE 10th AvenuePortland, OR 97214, US (map)
Public WiFi
Access Notes
Please register for class via Eventbrite: https://freegeek.eventbrite.com Please check in at the front desk when you arrive to let them know you are here for the class. Bags must be checked at the front entrance.
Interested in creating a website, but don't know where to start? Join us at Free Geek for an introduction to the building blocks of the web: HTML and CSS.


text:
Press Releases
Feinstein: Forest Service Will Resume Nighttime Firefighting
Long overdue, but critical tactic to containing California's dangerous wildfires
Aug 16 2012
Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) today announced the U.S. Forest Service will resume its nighttime firefighting program to battle out-of-control wildfires in Southern California. Previously, the Forest Service restricted aerial firefighting operations to daylight hours only.
In August 2009, the deadly Station Fire burned out of control when the fire escaped containment overnight. The fire ultimately became the largest fire in Los Angeles history, destroying 209 homes and structures, blackening more than 160,000 acres, and tragically taking to the lives of two firefighters.
"This is long overdue, but a welcome policy change by the Forest Service," said Senator Feinstein. "With California's hot, dry conditions, wildfires are increasingly dangerous and difficult to contain. Attacking fires from the air at night can bolster firefighting efforts because temperatures are cooler, humidity is higher and Santa Ana winds die down. This new policy will allow the Forest Service to use aviation assets around the clock to save lives and property in California."
Congressman Schiff said: "The Forest Service's decision to allow night flights is a welcome announcement. We will never know with certainty if night flying could have extinguished the Station Fire in those critical first hours, but I'm glad we will have a better chance in the future. With temperatures hitting triple digits this summer, it's hard for California residents not to worry that another fire could sweep through and devastate our region once again. This step today by the Forest Service is long overdue, but will provide an important new line of defense against fire for our neighborhoods."
Congressman McKeon said: "Each year wildfires threaten our homes, businesses, families and livelihoods. It is gravely important that we learn from past fires to make the changes necessary to help our firefighters in the future. We appreciate the efforts to address changes to policy that are needed to save lives. Allowing nighttime flights will help firefighters better do their jobs and fight these dangerous fires. We are pleased to see that the Forest Service has taken the GAO recommendations seriously and have begun to implement these much needed changes."
In letters sent after the Station Fire, Senator Feinstein and Congressmen Schiff and McKeon urged the Forest Service to update its firefighting tactics to allow for nighttime operations, provided flights could be conducted safely.
The Forest Service is not the only firefighting agency in California to determine that nighttime aerial firefighting is cost-effective and can be done safely. Fire departments in the cities of San Diego and Los Angeles and the counties of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Orange and Kern already have effective nighttime aerial firefighting programs in place.


text:
The Woman Panelled Jogger 17 // mint
The Woman Panelled Jogger 17 // mint
Sale Sold out
Regular price €45.90 EUR
Regular priceUnit price per
Sale price
These TheG cotton pants ideal for any weather have been made with high-quality materials and attention to detail. TheG creates comfort in dressing and therefore each one piece is individually cut and Made in Slovakia.
If you are interested in another color, please contact us email@example.com
Specific sign:
- Signature panel on the bottom
- Embroidered 5cm logo on front site
- White elongated laces
- Waistband
- Model is wearing size S and is 5'74"
- 95%medium weight cotton 5%elastane
- Machine Wash 30°C (86°F)


text: {-# OPTIONS -fallow-undecidable-instances #-} -- Search for -fallow-undecidable-instances to see why this is needed {- | Module : Control.Monad.Cont.Class Copyright : (c) The University of Glasgow 2001, (c) Jeff Newbern 2003-2007, (c) Andriy Palamarchuk 2007 License : BSD-style (see the file libraries/base/LICENSE) Maintainer : email@example.com Stability : experimental Portability : non-portable (multi-parameter type classes) [Computation type:] Computations which can be interrupted and resumed. [Binding strategy:] Binding a function to a monadic value creates a new continuation which uses the function as the continuation of the monadic computation. [Useful for:] Complex control structures, error handling, and creating co-routines. [Zero and plus:] None. [Example type:] @'Cont' r a@ The Continuation monad represents computations in continuation-passing style (CPS). In continuation-passing style function result is not returned, but instead is passed to another function, received as a parameter (continuation). Computations are built up from sequences of nested continuations, terminated by a final continuation (often @id@) which produces the final result. Since continuations are functions which represent the future of a computation, manipulation of the continuation functions can achieve complex manipulations of the future of the computation, such as interrupting a computation in the middle, aborting a portion of a computation, restarting a computation, and interleaving execution of computations. The Continuation monad adapts CPS to the structure of a monad. Before using the Continuation monad, be sure that you have a firm understanding of continuation-passing style and that continuations represent the best solution to your particular design problem. Many algorithms which require continuations in other languages do not require them in Haskell, due to Haskell's lazy semantics. Abuse of the Continuation monad can produce code that is impossible to understand and maintain. -} module Control.Monad.Cont.Class ( MonadCont(..), ) where class (Monad m) => MonadCont m where {- | @callCC@ (call-with-current-continuation) calls a function with the current continuation as its argument. Provides an escape continuation mechanism for use with Continuation monads. Escape continuations allow to abort the current computation and return a value immediately. They achieve a similar effect to 'Control.Monad.Error.throwError' and 'Control.Monad.Error.catchError' within an 'Control.Monad.Error.Error' monad. Advantage of this function over calling @return@ is that it makes the continuation explicit, allowing more flexibility and better control (see examples in "Control.Monad.Cont"). The standard idiom used with @callCC@ is to provide a lambda-expression to name the continuation. Then calling the named continuation anywhere within its scope will escape from the computation, even if it is many layers deep within nested computations. -} callCC :: ((a -> m b) -> m a) -> m a


text:
The United Nations, or UN, is an international organization made up of states; most but not all countries are members. It was founded on October 24, 1945 in San Francisco, California, following the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington, DC, but the first General Assembly, with 51 nations represented, was not held until January 10, 1946 (held in Central Hall Westminster, London). Before World War II, there existed a somewhat similar organization under the name of League of Nations, which can thus be considered the UN's precursor. UN membership is open to all "peace-loving states" that accept the obligations of the UN Charter and, in the judgment of the organization, are able and willing to fulfill these obligations. The General Assembly determines admission upon recommendation of the Security Council. As of September 2002 there were 191 members.
The idea for the United Nations was elaborated in declarations signed at the wartime Allied conferences in Moscow and Tehran in 1943. United States president Franklin Delano Roosevelt suggested the name "United Nations" and the first offical use of the term occurred on January 1, 1942 with the Declaration by the United Nations[?]. During World War II, the Allies used the term "United Nations" to refer to their alliance. From August to October 1944, representatives of France, the Republic of China (now on Taiwan), the United Kingdom, the United States, and the USSR met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Estate in Washington, D.C. Those and later talks produced proposals outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, as well as arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation. These proposals were discussed and debated by governments and private citizens worldwide.
On April 25, 1945, the United Nations Conference on International Organizations began in San Francisco. In addition to the Governments, a number of non-government organisations, including Lions Clubs International were invited to assist in the drafting of the charter. The 50 nations represented at the conference signed the Charter of the United Nations two months later on June 26. Poland, which was not represented at the conference, but for which a place among the original signatories had been reserved, added its name later, bringing the total of original signatories to 51. The UN came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council - Republic of China, France, USSR, United Kingdom, and the United States - and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.
In October 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the General Assembly, expelling the Republic of China and replacing the China seat on the Security Council with the People's Republic of China. It declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations" and thus labeled the Republic of China a renegade authority. Multiple attempts by the Republic of China to re-join the UN have failed.
In the 1960s new General Assembly and Secretariat buildings were built in New York, but there are major agencies located in Geneva, Switzerland and elsewhere.
Arms Control and Disarmament The 1945 UN Charter envisaged a system of regulation that would ensure "the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources." The advent of nuclear weapons came only weeks after the signing of the Charter and provided immediate impetus to concepts of arms limitation and disarmament. In fact, the first resolution of the first meeting of the General Assembly (January 24, 1946) was entitled "The Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy" and called upon the commission to make specific proposals for "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction."
The UN has established several forums to address multilateral disarmament issues. The principal ones are the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and the UN Disarmament Commission[?]. Items on the agenda include consideration of the possible merits of a nuclear test ban, outer-space arms control, efforts to ban chemical weapons, nuclear and conventional disarmament, nuclear-weapon-free zones, reduction of military budgets, and measures to strengthen international security.
The Conference on Disarmament[?] is the sole forum established by the international community for the negotiation of multilateral arms control and disarmament agreements. It has 66 members representing all areas of the world, including the five major nuclear-weapon states (the People's Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the U.K., and the U.S.). While the conference is not formally a UN organization, it is linked to the UN through a personal representative of the Secretary-General; this representative serves as the secretary general of the conference. Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly often request the conference to consider specific disarmament matters. In turn, the conference annually reports on its activities to the General Assembly.
Human Rights Related entry: United Nations Convention on the Abolition of Slavery
The pursuit of human rights was one of the central reasons for creating the United Nations. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations.
The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though not legally binding, was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all. The General Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues. The UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC[?]), under ECOSOC[?], is the primary UN body charged with promoting human rights, primarily through investigations and offers of technical assistance. As discussed, the High Commissioner for Human Rights[?] is the official principally responsible for all UN human rights activities (see, under "The UN Family," the section on "Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights").
The U.S. considers the United Nations to be a first line of defense of the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also a means by which those principles can be applied more broadly around the world. A case in point is support by the United Nations for countries in transition to democracy. Technical assistance in providing free and fair elections, improving judicial structures, drafting constitutions, training human rights officials, and transforming armed movements into political parties have contributed significantly to democratization worldwide.
The United Nations is also a forum in which to support the right of women to participate fully in the political, economic, and social life of their countries.
Democracy in the UN Now, there is a claim for UN reform to obtain more democracy. I.e. Inocencia Arias[?], Spanish ambassador in UN, indicates that UN has democracy deficit, like the veto in the UN Security Council. Examples are the attack of Kosovo outside the auspices of the Security Council because of the suspicion of a possible Russian veto, the U.S. veto to re-election of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, etc. Another deficit is the lack of representation for citizens of democratic countries via direct election of the members of the UN General Assembly, which otherwise occurs in the European Parliament and the national parliaments.
International Conferences The member countries of the UN and its specialized agencies - the "stakeholders" of the system - give guidance and make decisions on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout each year. Governing bodies made up of member states include not only the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Security Council, but also counterpart bodies dealing with the governance of all other UN system agencies. For example, the World Health Assembly[?] and the Executive Board oversee the work of WHO. Each year, the U.S. Department of State accredits U.S. delegations to more than 600 meetings of governing bodies.
When an issue is considered particularly important, the General Assembly may convene an international conference to focus global attention and build a consensus for consolidated action. High-level U.S. delegations use these opportunities to promote U.S. policy viewpoints and develop international agreements on future activities. Recent examples include:
Financing The UN system is financed in two ways: assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. In the case of the UN, the General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by national income statistics, along with other factors.
The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a 'ceiling' rate, setting the maximum amount any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000, the Assembly agreed to revise the scale of assessments to make them better reflect current global circumstances.
As part of that agreement, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25 to 22 percent; this is the rate at which the U.S. is assessed. The U.S. is the only member that pays this rate; all other members' assessment rates are lower. Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany (9.82%), France (6.50%), the U.K. (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%) and Spain (2.53%).
Special UN programs not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP) are financed by voluntary contributions from member governments. In 2001, it is estimated that such contributions from the US will total approximately $1.5 billion. Much of this is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations, but the majority is financial contributions.
U.S. Arrears For many years the United Nations has had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations charter. Many states have at times refused to pay their dues for various reasons, but the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the United States. The US pays more dues than any other member nation, as well as hosting the UN building in New York. This puts the United States in a very unique position. For a number of years the United States Congress has refused to authorise payment of the United States' significant UN dues, in order to try to extract reforms from the organization and a reduction in the US assessment.
The United States and the United Nations after much dispute, negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the United Nations would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%.
The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation[?], which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.
U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; there are no current plans to pay these amounts.
Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seek elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.
UN peace operations are funded by assessments, using a formula derived from the regular scale, but including a surcharge for the five permanent members of the Security Council (who must approve all peacekeeping operations); this surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries. In December 2000, the UN revised the assessment rate scale for the regular budget and for peacekeeping. The peacekeeping scale is designed to be revised every six months and is projected to be near 27% in 2003. The U.S. Administration intends to pay peacekeeping assessments at these lower rates and has sought legislation from the U.S. Congress to allow payment at these rates and to make payments towards arrears.
Total UN peacekeeping expenses peaked between 1994 and 1995; at the end of 1995 the total cost was just over $3.5 billion. Total UN peacekeeping costs for 2000, including operations funded from the UN regular budget as well as the peacekeeping budget, were on the order of $2.2 billion.
The six official languages of the United Nations include those of the founding nations: Chinese, English, French, Russian. In addition, two widely spoken tongues -- Arabic, Spanish -- were added later. All formal meetings are interpreted at least in these official languages. And all official documents, in print or online, are translated in all six languages.
United Nations System Main article: United Nations System
The United Nations System has six principal organs:
For more information on the organizational structure see the main article.
Search Encyclopedia
Featured Article


text:
As an actor, you spend a lot of time aloneYou travel the world by yourself. You don't have your buddies that you see on the weekend or at the office every day. You make temporary families, and you can only see your friends between jobs. I'm actually not a naturally super-chatty person. It's a skill I've had to teach myself. – Henry Cavill
BURBANK, Calif. — With his dark eyebrows deeply furrowed and gleaming white teeth firmly clamped shut, Henry Cavill winces when asked if Superman is treated like a terrorist in "Man of Steel." His reaction is somewhat understandable. The charming British actor should feel very protective of the character — one of the biggest icons in pop culture.
Besides, Henry Cavill is Superman now.
It's a fair question though, given that Cavill's Superman, his bulky frame encased in a deep-blue rendition of the Superman uniform, is handcuffed and attacked by the military at certain points in the retelling of the superhero's origin. While the idea of Superman as a threatening outsider has been explored in other mediums, it's new to the big screen.
"In the previous movies, it was just kind of accepted that he was a superhuman, but what would happen if this dude really did exist?" said Cavill. "If he was discovered, he would probably be put in a room and experimented on. That's very clear in his choices throughout the movie. He's become very adept at being who he is — but just not so openly."
"Man of Steel" centers on an adult Clark Kent — or Kal-El, as he's known back on his home planet of Krypton — at the inception of his superheroic identity. (The name Superman is actually only uttered a couple of times in the film.) It's a matter-of-fact account of how a much more hesitant Clark rises up and responds when earth is threatened by Kryptonian outcasts.
At the beginning of "Man of Steel," which opens Friday, this version of the character doesn't wear spectacles, work at The Daily Planet, soar through the skies or own any clothes with a giant S plastered across the chest. He's a drifter. He says more with actions than words, something the 30-year-old star of 2011's "Immortals" completely understands.
"As an actor, you spend a lot of time alone," said Cavill. "You travel the world by yourself. You don't have your buddies that you see on the weekend or at the office every day. You make temporary families, and you can only see your friends between jobs. I'm actually not a naturally super-chatty person. It's a skill I've had to teach myself."
With an emphasis on folksy imagery instead of high-flying action, early "Man of Steel" footage suggested a darker take on the superhero. While the tone is certainly more emotional than previous live-action adaptations, the filmmakers — which include "The Dark Knight" director Christopher Nolan as a producer and writer — haven't diagnosed Superman with depression.
"It's not darker," said director Zack Snyder. "It's just a more realistically realized version of Superman. We tried to apply logic to the story. He lives in our world. That's it. It's a straightforward protocol. We put him in our world without it being a joke. If we had made it a little lighter, maybe it would feel more like the Superman of the past."
That's exactly what the filmmakers didn't want to do.
Nolan, Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer traded the bumbling, nerdy Clark in favor of a more contemplative one who stays under the radar working odd jobs. It's far, far and away from Christopher Reeve's jocular interpretation of the role, which Cavill won after earlier missing the part in 2006's "Superman Returns" to Brandon Routh.
Still, Snyder is quick to note this edition of the Metropolis Marvel is "not not Superman." For everything that feels different about the Superman in "Man of Steel," there's still plenty that's recognizable, most notably, Clark's highly principled attitude instilled in him by his Midwestern adoptive parents (played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane).
"There's a snarkiness to the world now, and the nice thing about Superman is that he's a volunteer in the classic sense," said Snyder. "If you really think about it, he has no life, other than to serve. I think that Henry, without making him sound like too much of a saint, naturally has that characteristic in himself. He's not putting it on."
Faith — to both God and country — is an integral theme in "Man of Steel." There's no looking past the religious allegories that have been associated with Superman mythology for decades. This Man of Tomorrow is 33 years old today and seeks counsel at a church in a time of crisis. Snyder believes his Superman supports religion but also questions it.
"It's more interesting when someone is flawed," said Amy Adams, who plays Lois Lane. "In the past, Superman is so hard to get into because he's so perfect. I love that Henry plays him as a conflicted human being — or alien, as it were — with all these identifiable traits like fear, which we've never really seen before in this character."
Another contrast to previous Superman lore is the evolution of the relationship between Clark and Lois, who's portrayed by Adams as a take-no-prisoners, Pulitzer Prize-winning war reporter. She encounters the last son of Krypton before even he fully understands his intergalactic backstory. Ultimately, Superman needs Lois as much as she needs him.
"I loved how this relationship between Clark and Lois allowed for a subtle chemistry and mutual respect to develop," said Adams. "I just thought there was something different to be explored within their relationship that we're able to touch on a little bit in this film. She believes him, and that's really rare for Lois. There's an authenticity there."
The expectations for "Man of Steel" are higher than any building in Metropolis. The film could accomplish for Warner Bros. what "Superman Returns" failed to do, namely, launch a film franchise akin to "The Dark Knight." Paul Dergarabedian, box office analyst for Hollywood.com, expects it to leap over the $100 million mark in a single bound on opening weekend.
http://manofsteel.warnerbros.comFollow AP Entertainment Writer Derrik J. Lang on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/derrikjlang.


text:
Bob Perry, megadonor behind 'swift boat' ads, dies
Bob Perry donated over $75 million dollars to political causes, including bankrolling the 'swift boat' attack ads against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race.
Once in a rare interview, the Texas tycoon who gave at least $75 million in political contributions over his lifetime argued that writing big checks didn't buy big influence.
"It is my view that government is not owned by anyone, least of all wealthy contributors," Bob Perry told the Houston Chronicle, his hometown newspaper, in 2002.
Perry was remembered Monday by friends and foes alike for his prolific bankrolling that gave him both stature and notoriety. Republicans chiefly benefited from the wealthy Houston homebuilder, who became a titan of spending in modern American politics.
Perry died at age 80 Saturday night "peacefully in his sleep," said former Texas state Rep. Neal Jones, a close family friend. Public word of his death didn't spread until late the next day — perhaps a final victory for Perry and his aversion to the spotlight. He rarely spoke to the press, skipped fancy fundraisers and was a mystery to even some of his benefactors.
That top was blown off that low profile in 2004 when Perry spent $4.4 million financing the famous 2004 Swift Boat Veterans campaign against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, which remains among the most famous political television ads in history.
Critics sought to highlight the buying power Perry's largesse afforded — particularly as the issue of campaign finance and the role of big money came before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2000s and vaulted to new levels of public consciousness.
Perry's supporters saw him as a quiet champion of conservative causes who wasn't merely an ideologue.
"His astonishing success story as a businessman serves as an inspiration to anyone who ever dreamed of bigger things, and his selfless dedication to the people and causes he believed in serves as an inspiration to anyone who has ever felt the call to get involved," said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is of no relation and has received reliable financial support from Bob Perry.
Bob Perry was a fixture of GOP fundraising in Texas — and nationally — dating back to former President George W. Bush's Texas gubernatorial races in the mid-1990s.
Last year alone, Bob Perry gave more than $18 million to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and organizations that backed his candidacy. That ranked him third among all Romney donors, behind only Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons.
Calculating exactly how much Perry donated in his lifetime is difficult. Since 2004, Perry has given a total of at least $45 million in federal contributions — excluding direct donations to candidates, according to Federal Elections Commission records, a 2012 AP analysis and figures tabulated by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
In his native Texas, Perry donated slightly less in statehouse campaigns but was peerless in his spending. He gave at least $32 million since 2000, according to an analysis of campaign finance reports by Mark Jones, who chairs the department of political science at Rice University.
That is three times what any other single donor in Texas spent over that span.
"Perry is someone who believed in the Texas model. He put his money where his mouth was," Jones said. "But what distinguishes him from some other conservatives was that while he was very conservative, he was realistic and pragmatic in terms of how he approached politics."
Perry vaulted to the top ranks of conservative donors in 2004 with the Swift Boat ads. He became involved at the urging of his friend John O'Neill, a Houston attorney who co-wrote "Unfit for Command," a book that questions Kerry's military service.
Bill Miller, an Austin lobbyist who Perry hired as a spokesman when scrutiny surrounding the ads erupted, said in 2004 that Perry's donation to the Swift Boat Veterans reflected his belief in the group's message.
"In my conversations with Bob, he just said, 'John contacted me, told me what he was trying to do, and it sounded good to me.' That's really the way he does it," Miller said in 2004. "People call him and pitch him, and if he likes what he hears, he'll write a check."
Raised by a father who was a teacher and later became dean of students at Baylor University, Perry started his career as a high school teacher after college. But he switched professions in 1968 and established Perry Homes, where he made his fortune.
Associated Press Writer Stephen Braun in Washington and Will Weissert in Austin contributed to this report.