text:
With the release of Angry Birds Star Wars II comes incredible responsibility… To remember all of the characters, that is. As Yoda would say, "Do or do not, there is no try." The purpose of this guide is to provide you a one-stop reference to all playable characters found in Angry Birds Star Wars II. We put names to faces, explain their abilities, and hopefully answer a few questions along the way. Be sure to use the quick links below to jump between the Bird Side and the Pork Side.
Bird Side
Qui-Gon JinnLightsaber, Single-Swipe
Qui-Gon Jinn features a single swipe of a lightsaber. While not the most powerful, it is effective enough to slice through chains and wooden blocks with ease.
Obi-Wan KenobiDirectional Force Push
Obi-Wan Kenobi is strong with the Force. His ability features a single strong push directed by the user.
YodaLightsaber Spin
Yoda features a lightsaber spin attack, causing him to pinball around the level for several seconds. The ability must be activated manually before contact.
Jar Jar BinksTongue Swing
Jar Jar Binks can use his tongue to grab nearby objects and swing via his tongue. Aiming his tongue is done manually by the user, as is releasing his tongue upon a second tap/click.
Anakin Skywalker, Episode I (Podracer)Podracer
Anakin features a aloud racer, which can be directed in a relatively straight line toward a user-selected direction. Anakin himself will trail behind, swinging into blocks.
Captain Panaka Blaster, Two Triple-Shots
Captain Panaka carries a special laser blaster which fires a spray of three lasers at a time. He fires twice in quick succession, for a total of six lasers.
Padme Amidala Gravity Push
Padme Amidala features a tractor beam capable of pushing large objects. The direction of the beam is user-controlled with nearly-unlimited range.
Anakin, Episode II (Padawan)Lightsaber, Single-Swipe
Anakin now wields a basic, single-swipe lightsaber while he assumes his role as a Jedi Apprentice. He is not particularly powerful, but can still slice through wooden blocks cleanly.
Jedi YounglingTriple Split
As is to be expected, the Blue Bird assumes the role of a Jedi Initiate. While Force-sensitive, Jedi Youngling can only attack by splitting into three Younglings.
Mace WinduBoomerang Lightsaber
Mace Windu wields a boomerang lightsaber capable of slicing through large quantities of chains and blocks. It has an extremely far range and is only destructible by permanent items, such as land.
Chewbacca (*)Earthquake
Our fantastically fuzzy friend Chewbacca is as massive as ever. Plow your way through any structure using his huge frame, in what we call an Earthquake Attack.
R2-D2Electric Shock
Beep boop! Our friendly droid R2-D2 features his patented ability to shock any nearby enemies with electricity.
C-3POSplit Apart
Invaluable in his friendship, partially because he is made of gold, C-3PO has the ability of breaking into fragments at your command. Each piece has capable to doing some damage to any block or enemy it touches.
Princess Leia (T)Gravity Pull
Princess Leia, similar to Padme Amidala, features a tractor beam. However, Leia's beam will pull at objects instead of pushing them. Makes you wonder if the two gals are related...
Luke Skywalker (Pilot) (T)Lightsaber, Single-Swipe
Our young hero from the original trilogy, Luke Skywalker wields a basic lightsaber capable of a single swipe.
Luke Skywalker (Endor) (T)Lightsaber, Double-Swipe
As his Jedi training progresses, Luke Skywalker is now capable of two swipes with his lightsaber. I'm no mathematian, but that seems like double the power!
Luke (Jedi) (T)Lightsaber, Triple-Swipe
With his training complete courtesy of Master Yoda, the full Jedi Luke Skywalker now swipes his lightsaber an unprecedented three times in quick succession!
Han Solo (T)Blaster, Three Single-Shots
Han Solo wields a simple laser blaster. With it, he is capable of taking three quick shots wherever the user aims.
Silver C-3PO (*)Split Apart
Just like his golden equivalent, Silver C-3PO breaks apart into pieces, each if which can pop enemies and topple structures.
Kit Fisto (T)Lightsaber Spin
Kit Fisto features a lightsaber spin, though far less extreme than Yoda or Droideka.
Carbonite Han Solo (T)Freezing
When Han Solo is frozen in Carbonite, his blaster is rendered useless. Instead, this character turns every block in its immediate vicinity into ice.
Lando Calrissian (T)Blaster, One Triple-Shot
Lando yields a blaster capable of a single triple-shot.
Wicket the Ewok (T)Three Triple-Splits
Three Ewoks are launched from the slinghsot, each with the capability of splitting into three more!
Ezra BridgerLaser Gun
Shoots one laser beam, that is deflected by metal
Sabine WrenSticky Bombs
She will place three sticky bombs on the surfaces she hits
Chopper (T)Thruster Fire
Spews fire from his thrusters
Hera SyndullaHoming Cannon
She will drop a blaster cannon that will shoot visible targets
Kanan Jarrus (T)Laser Gun
Kanan Jarrus possess a massive laser gun that penetrates everything
Garazeb "Zeb" Orrelios (T)Hulk Smash and Boom!
With a huge force Zeb will smash right thru just about anything, getting more and more furious along the way until he is red in the face and explodes.
Pork Side
Darth SidiousForce Lightning
Darth Sidious, aka Emperor Palpatine, can conjure and direct lightning. It is particularly effective against metallic objects, such as chains. It has little effect on wood, however.
Jango FettSingle Missile
Jango Fett features a single missile that can be aimed wherever the user pleases. Be aware that both Jango and the missile are metallic, and thus heavily effected by magnets.
Battle DroidBlaster, Three Single-Shots
The Battle Droid carries a simple laser blaster capable of taking three quick shots wherever the user aims.
Darth MaulDouble Lightsaber
Darth Maul features his patented double-ended lightsaber, able to reduce most blocks to rubble in a single spin.
Count DookuBoomerang Lightsaber
Count Dooku's boomerang lightsaber is an extremely strong weapon. It is indestructible unless it contacts a permanent structure such as the ground. It has exceptional range and is capable of detonating any TNT that stands in its path.
DroidekaSpin Attack
Droideka can tuck into a tight ball, resulting in a spin attack capable of great destruction. Similar to Yoda, Droideka can pinball around a level and topple many structures at once.
Zam Wesell Rope Swing
Zam Wesell has a grappling hook in her repertoire. This allows her to grab nearby objects and swing around them. The user must tap-to-aim the initial firing of the rope swing, then may tap again to release Zam.
General Grievous (*)Quadruple Lightsaber!
Quite possibly the most powerful straight-attack character in the game, General Grievous features an unprecedented quadruple lightsaber attack! No blocks stand in the way of this four-pronged fury.
Anakin, Episode III (Sith Apprentice) (*)Radial Force Push
The Force is strong with Anakin as he falls to the Pork Side. His ability pulls nearby objects closer temporarily before launching them with great power in all directions.
Darth Vader (*)Radial Force Push
This is CNN. Oh wait, wrong voiceover line. Anyways, to avoid any spoilers, Darth Vader has an ability that bears an uncanny resemblance to that of Anakin. We can just leave it at that, shall we?
Boba FettDouble Missile
Perhaps the most beloved member of the Pork Side, Boba Fett features a double missile attack. Be aware that neither missile actually travels at the user-determined location. Rather, they travel approximately 10-15 degrees above and below that line.
Biker Scout (*)Speeder Bike
The Biker Scout behaves similarly to Anakin with his Podracer. The Scout will follow behind the Speeder Bike, which can be redirected toward any other location on-screen. The Scout will tail behind, knocking down structures as he goes.
TIE Fighter Pilot (*)Blaster, Two Double-Shots
The TIE Fighter Pilot wields the most powerful blaster in the game. Capable of pulling the trigger twice in quick succession, each pull fires a double-dose of laser glory.
Stormtrooper (*)Blaster, Five Scattered Shots
The Stormtrooper is the typical bad guy minion who is absolutely incapable of hitting anything it shoots at. A Stormtrooper can five shots, but the shots are pretty scattered. Nonetheless, this can be useful if aiming for five different targets, I suppose.
Red Battle Droid (*)Blaster, Three Single-Shots
Similar to its non-red equivalent, the Red Battle Droid fires three quick shots with its laser blaster, directed toward wherever the user aims.
Hologram Darth Sidious (*)Invisibility + Force Lightning
Hologram Darth Sidious, like his non-hologram equivalent, uses lightning to heavily attack metallic objects. The hologram effect allows him to pass through objects without touching them. Note that the hologram disappears after the normal ability is activated.
Shadowtrooper (*)Invisibility + Blaster, Five Scattered Shots
The Shadowtrooper is a tweak of the Stormtrooper, as so fires five scattered shots. However, the Shadowtrooper can pass through objects, just like Hologram Darth Sidious. Note that the hologram disappears after the normal ability is activated.
Shocktrooper (T)Blaster, Two Triple-Shots
The Red Clone Trooper, aka Shocktrooper, wields a blaster capable of two shots of three blasts each.
Jabba the Hutt (T)Massive Bulk
Jabba the Hutt has been meaning to go on a diet, but sometimes the first step is the hardest: PUTTING DOWN THE FORK! As he struggles, his massive bulk will throw blocks across the entire level.
Royal Guard (T)Spear
The Royal Guard carries a spear that allows him to grab onto a single item. The Guard will pull the item and hold on for dear life.
Tusken Raider (T)Single Sniper Shot
The Tusken Raider is a classic baddy and an extraordinarily good shot. He takes a single shot anywhere on screen, sniping that item despite any blocks between the character and the target.
The Inquisitor (T)Double Lightsaber
The Inquisitor has double-ended lightsaber, Spinning his way thru most blocks and debris.
Imperial Officer (T)Aimed Multi Shots
The Imperial Officer shoots like a maniac, machine-gun style and continuously or where ever you tap to aim until his clip is empty or if he smashes into something.
AT-DP PilotLaser Gun
The AT-DP Pilot with a laser gun that is reflected by anything metal, he can do great damage when the angles are just right.
Cikatro Vizago Three Shockwave Bombs
Cikatro Vizago carriers 3 shockwave bombs and will release them where ever the aiming point is. If the bombs bounce just right he can damage an entire section.
Vizago DroidSplit Apart
He sacrifices himself and split himself into a lot of different pieces attacking from multiple points and doing damage to anything it hits.
Agent KallusTwo Triple-Splits
Joined by two mini stormtroopers Agent Kallus engage the target, waiting for a surprise attack by splitting the Mini stormtroopers in to a trio on demand. Creating a small army which he leads.
The characters above appear in the same order as their levels in the Reward Chapter. To unlock a character's Reward Level, you must earn a specified amount of damage points with that character. For a complete layout of point thresholds, see our achievements list.
Some characters are not yet playable via normal gameplay. As of v1.2.x, we will mark characters with:
- an asterisk (*) is we believe the character will be added via normal gameplay in a later update, or
- the letter (T) if we believe the character will only be playable via Character Swaps or TELEPODs. For more information, see our post.
Update Log:
May 28, 2014: Four characters (Padawan Anakin, Mace Windu, Jedi Youngling, Boba Fett) added to normal gameplay in v1.5.0
Feb. 07, 2014: Eight characters added in v1.3.0
Nov. 04, 2013: Three characters (Captain Panaka, Padme Amidala, Zam Wesell) added to normal gameplay in v1.2.0
Nov. 03, 2013: Four characters (Silver C-3PO, Red Battle Droid, Hologram Darth Sidious, Shadowtrooper) added in v1.1.0
Oct. 01, 2014: 12 New characters (Ezra Bridger, Sabine Wren, Chopper, Hera Syndulla, Kanan Jarrus, Garazeb "Zeb" Orrelios, The Inquisitor, Imperial Officer, AT-DP Pilot, Cikatro Vizago, Vizago Droid, Agent Kallus) added in v1.7.1


text:
Why us?
⭐ Over 5,000 people cartoonified
🚀 Fast turnaround time
📞 24/7 customer service
How to order?
👨👩👧👦 Select the number of people/animals to include (have more than 6 people? Email us here)
🏆 Select your background (have another background in mind? Email us here)
🤓 Upload clear facial photos of each person
👕 Underneath each photo select the style you want that person to be drawn in (if applicable)
Our designers will get to work on your custom order. We'll email you a preview of your design before completing your order
Tiffany Galea Digital
Sale Sold outShipping calculated at checkout.
- Regular price
- $124.70
- Sale price
- $124.70
- Regular price
- Unit price
- /per
Adding product to your cart
Will be 3 Panthers
1 Sea Eagles
1 Roosters
1 Knights
1 Dolphins
Stadium will be Accor
Use left/right arrows to navigate the slideshow or swipe left/right if using a mobile device
- Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
- Press the space key then arrow keys to make a selection.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
Chat Home
Welcome to Baseball Prospectus' Wednesday January 09, 2013 1:00 PM ET chat session with Dan Evans.
Former Los Angeles Dodgers GM and current BP columnist Dan Evans takes your questions about baseball and the Hall of Fame.
Dan Evans: Hello, and thanks for joining me today for a live chat. With the HOF announcement in less than an hour, let's get started & don't be afraid to ask questions! Let's get going...
John (Vegas): Which geogrpahic region plays the highest level of high school baseball ?
Dan Evans: Hello, John from Vegas. You're leading things off today. While I have a lot of respect for your region and level of play, Southern California is the best and annually produces the most Major Leaguers and draft choices. Florida, Texas, Georgia are the next three best in my opinion. Las Vegas has done a great job the last five years elevating itself, and now is among the better areas too, and will have some high selections again this year. Southern California wins because of the weather and ability to,play year round
jlarsen (chicago): What is the point of a HOF vote when you send in a blank ballot or a ballot with just 1 vote?
Dan Evans: Jake, I'm guessing that you're hanging out in the burbs today in my hometown. You ask a really good question. Everyone has their right to cast their ballot as they desire, consider that in the USA people skip voting altogether and I would suggest that elections are a little more important. Everyone has their own beliefs and decisions to make, and this year's balloting will display that fully within an hour. Personally, I would only cast a blank ballot if I did not believe
firstname.lastname@example.com (Florida): Thoughts on Nick Longhi draft vs. college and as a player.
Dan Evans: Thanks for your question, firstname.lastname@example.com. Wondering what part of Florida you're from. I have seen Nick Longhi enough to know that he will hit, and that is either in the college game or in the pros. The ball sounds different off his bat than most of his peers. He has bat speed and pop. I saw him hit the hardest foul ball of the summer and won't forget it. My only question about him is where will he play defensively, not that he cannot defend, but his value is dependent on where he ends up playing. He is one of the high school players that intrigues me because few at his age can swing the bat like he can.
Alex (Anaheim): What team do you believe will be the surprise of 2013?
Dan Evans: Thanks for your question, Alex. How is the OC today? Two teams come to mind immediately, but keep in mind that there is a lot of roster building still to do between now and Opening Day. I think Terry Francona will immediately impact the Indians, as i respect him immensely - they'll be better. I also believe the Twins will make a lot of improvement in 2013, and they have too much core talent to have another year like 2013, plus I think Ron Gardenhire is outstanding. In another 30 days, we might have another team or two to discuss.
BR (NYC): Dan, I saw your BP-Hall of Fame ballot this morning. With your limited number of selections, do you feel the current HoF system is flawed? If so, do you think it needs fixing, and what would you do? Thanks in advance!
Dan Evans: BR from NYC...I think there are two elements that need to be considered: 1) I would like there to be no limit to the number of selection a voter can make. Limiting it to ten may inadvertently leave someone off a ballot, and an 11th guy should not be harmed; 2) I would like to see the voting pool increased by adding broadcasters and media members who have a daily investment in the game. When you are within the sport on a daily basis, seeing the best of the best, you're a better-prepared person to cast a ballot. Someone like Vin Scully not being able to vote makes no sense to me. I have a lot of respect for baseball writers after working with them for as many years as I have, but they shouldn't be the only voters.
jwfisher (Milwaukee): Any thoughts or advice for someone who is starting a career in Baseball Ops at the intern level this spring/summer?
Dan Evans: Thanks for your question, jaw fisher from Milwaukee. I started as an intern with the White Sox, and it was an incredible experience. You are joining one of the best-run teams in the game, as their GM, Doug Melvin, and his assistant, Gord Ash, are among the best in the game and have exceptional interpersonal skills. Their scouting director, Bruce Seid, is really good also. My biggest advice would be to make a complete investment in yourself, and plunge into this opportunity head-first, with no distractions or limitations. If you go in with an attitude that time is not an issue and weekends are more opportunity to learn, you'll walk out of this with new horizons and knowledge you won't be able to believe. But it takes a full commitment.
19braves77 (Pensacola, FL ): How fast are scouting reports updated in the front office on Minor League players to the GM ?
Dan Evans: Good question, 19braves77 from Pensacola. In a perfect world, scouting reports are moving to the GM and his top decision-makers on a daily basis, whether it is on players from his own organization or others. Clubs can get as much info on their own players as they desire, and the good ones have nearly limitless information, allowing them to stay on top of guys and know who is doing what. Clubs that are slow in this process will likely make slow decisions and won't be on top of players as they should be ideally. When I worked for clubs, I did not go to sleep until all the minor league games were done, as that allowed me to start the next day fully aware of what was going on.
kcboomer (KC): You must have had fun defending your HoF ballot to your colleagues. Clearly, you were making an anti-PEDS statement with your ballot that excluded a number of players. Bur why didn't you vote for Schilling??
Dan Evans: Regarding your question, kcboomer from KC, I did not vote for Schilling but I really wrestled with that one. He was a terrific pitcher, and I wish I had more time to explore his candidacy. I understand his JAWS and WAR numbers, just not sure if he was HOF. I definitely debated his candidacy the most.
Jon (Alexandria, LA): If you were the Rangers would you go with Cuban prospect Leonys Martin in center or go after Bourn?
Dan Evans: Thanks for your question, Jon from Alexandria, LA. It isn't that easy. We don't know how the Rangers evaluate Martin's candidacy for the Majors in 2013. We also do not know what Jon Daniels' budget is in 2013. Plus, Bourn would cost the Rangers a first round selection. These are two talented guys, but there is more to it than just picking a guy over another since they have different sets of concerns.
Jerry (Milwaukee): I saw your ballot for the BP hall vote, you did not vote for any of the suspected PED users. Is that just because you do not want to honor them with a first year selection or do you feel they disgraced the sport and should not be elected. Also can you expound on Frank Thomas's impact on the discussion.
Dan Evans: I did not vote for some players because, like many people, I just do not know enough about the individual situations and the players are eligible for 15 years, not just one. If there is more information or guidance, my vote might change. Regarding Frank Thomas, someone I saw play nearly every game of his first decade in the Majors, I am looking forward to seeing him inducted in 2014, because he was incredible.
Bill (New Mexico): Thanks for doing these chats; I always appreciate insights from someone with front-office experience. Here's a Q pertaining to that experience. One of the arguments against Jack Morris as a Hall of Famer is that pitchers like him in his generation -- Dave Stieb, Frank Tanana, etc. -- got rejected by HoF voters very quickly. My question is: if guys like Stieb and Tanana were so good, why weren't the high rollers of the time bidding for their services when they hit free agency? Was there an unspoken rule (collusion?) against poaching other GMs' free agents? Or did they not understand talent evaluation very well? Something else?
Dan Evans: I enjoy these chats, Bill from New Mexico. Thanks for your question. I saw Morris a ton during his career, as I worked in the AL my first 19 years in the game and was in the same league. Jack Morris was damn good, a winner, and a guy who grinned out wins and threw tons of innings. It is hard to evaluate each player's career in regards to roster decisions unles you're his agent, because that's the only person who really knows what was really out there. I certainly did not reject him as a HOF candidate, just felt he was REALLY good, not HOF.
jj0501 (washington): From an insider's perspective, how close was "Moneyball" in conveying deal making for a GM ? Do things really happen based on one or two quick phone calls, if the fit is right ?
Dan Evans: jj0501 from Washington, I am not even sure if Moneyball portrayed the A's correctly. Every trade scenario is unique because there are 30 different ways of doing business, and 30 different sets of needs and expectations. Sometimes a deal is done in one or two calls, other times they can be extremely complex. The more players involved, and the more money included within a deal in terms of contracts, the more time it usually takes. I thought the we're a lot of parts of that movie that portrayed facets of the game and some people within the sport much different that they really are, but that's Hollywood.
Alex (Anaheim): Who's the GM of the offseason thus far? Is Anthopoulos the obvious choice?
Dan Evans: I think it is too early to decide which GM made the best set of moves to bolster his team, as it is the first full week of 2013 and there are a lot of moves still to be made. I really think the best moves are made in January, when good decisions on subordinate players can impact your club, plus some of the creativity needed to sign free agents at this stage. I think Alex certainly has made great moves this off-season, and would have to have him right there with teams like Atlanta, Toronto, KC, and Detroit.
chiroclimber (Kansas City): With all the $$$ being thrown around in LA, the expectations for the Dodgers must be World Series or bust. What is the team doing to manage those expectations and keep the team focused?
Dan Evans: They have great leadership in Stan Kasten, and Ned Colletti knows what he is trying to accomplish. Managing expectations is the toughest part of the sport, and the difficult aspect is that there are so many variables out of your control. They still have the Giants in their division and I am not sure that Ramirez is a good enough everyday shortstop defensively.
Steve G. (STL): Do you see any significant changes to the voting methods for the HOF?
Dan Evans: Just learned that no one was selected in this year's Hall of Fame election, with Biggio the top vote getter at 68%. I am not sure if there will be any significant changes to the process for 2014.
JuanBobo (The Sun, AZ): Is Kevin Towers a crazy person? How can he possibly justify signing aging free-agents to multi-year contracts at over-crowded positions, while accepting cut-rate value for a good asset (Trevor Bauer) in order to address need? Is there some secret GM wisdom behind these moves I'm missing? Thanks!
Dan Evans: Thanks for your question, JuanBobo from The Sun, AZ. Kevin Towers is one of the best GMs in the game, and has been for an extended period. He has managed rosters in difficult situations and has been really good for a long time. If he has secret GM wisdom, he doesn't have to share it with us. I am certain there is a method to his actions.
allangustafson (San Diego): Sold out a good pitching staff for elite hitting in a 5 x 5 roto league. Second year of five years, going of the strategy of streaming three pitchers per week, but only have two keepers, Medlen and Zimmermann. I need two good K pitchers that will not ruin the Whip. Exclude you're top 50 pitchers, who would secure in a draft?
Dan Evans: I need to stop my session at 1230pm MST due to a previous commitment, sorry. Not sure who the top 50 are, but I would lean towards pitchers with better defense behind them and a better chance of winning games. More strikeouts in the Central Division of the AL than any other, right?
jlarsen (waukegan): Outside of sifting through rumors, it seems that Rays fans are split between Chris Archer and Alex Cobb. Alex Cobb has consistency, a higher "floor" and MLB track-record. Archer, on the other hand, has a higher ceiling, better "stuff" but is inconsistent throughout majority of career. Archer made improvements to his command and has improved his change-up enough to where it's an avg pitch and not irrelevant anymore. If you had to decide between the 2, who would you choose?
Dan Evans: Nice "problem" to have for the Rays, eh? Why make a decision before you have to in my opinion. They are both going to contribute to the Rays in 2013, and they'll need both to climb back into the postseason. Plus, different answers for short term and long term.
Rob (DC): Following up on John's (Vegas) question, the first of the day: Are there regions of the United States that represent "market inefficiencies" at this point? I think of Mike Trout. Granted, he was a first-round pick, but in retrospect he clearly deserved to be a much higher first-round pick. Was the issue there that the level of competition in New Jersey is such (i.e., lower than in Southern California) that the comparison population makes all players there tough to scout? Or could it be that there should have been more scouts in New Jersey?
Dan Evans: Great question, Rob from DC. Some clubs have an issue drafting high school position players, and most value pitching over offense, and those factors came into play I am sure. Plus, Trout playing in Jersey is a tougher high draft due to the amount you got to see him play in his senior year and the level of competition was just okay. He really impressed the heck out of me in showcases and tournaments prior to his senior year. Hitting is the toughest thing to scout, and Eddie Bane made a great decison.
Shawnykid23 (CT): Shouldn't the Sox trade for Morse and forget Napoli? Similar age and power and both have defensive limitations, except Morse would be cheaper and for less years (I believe). Could something like Breslow/A. Miller and B- type propsect get this done?
Dan Evans: Thank you for your question today, Shawnykid23 from CT. We don't know what is going on wi the Napoli situation, and since it is so confidential between the parties it is tough. I like Morse, know him from his Mariner days, and he can help a team. Tough to decide without all the information involved plus need to know budgets too.
kenny915 (ri): I was impressed by Ben Revere season last year, does he have the makings of a younger Ichiro
Dan Evans: Kenny from ri, I love your state. While I like Ben Revere a lot, he is not as talented as Ichiro, one of the best defenders I have ever seen with an outstanding and accurate throwing arm combined with the most unique offensive approach I've seen. But he is a very good player.
BeplerP (New York City): New Yorkers are taken aback by the behavior this off-season of BOTH their teams. The Yankees have been fixated on lowering payroll to get below the "luxury tax" threshold. The Mets have been extremely passive other than signing up their franchise player, David Wright, to a long term extension. This behavior is completely uncharacteristic of both clubs. Somethiong must be driving it, but I can't figure it out. Is it the new CBA? Is its effect THAT profound? Help. Regards,
Dan Evans: Thank you for your question, beplerP from The Big Apple. The Yankees' decision to lower their payroll doesn't necessarily mean they won't be as good - you can accomplish both. Cashman is a great GM and has exceptional staff with him. The Mets had a lot of financial issues in the past, and we are not sure whe their budget is in 2013. Both are run by among the best GM's in the game.
BR (NYC): Piggy-backing on Bill (New Mexico)'s question. Do you think Morris' late-career overlap with Clemens affect his balloting? Which if any of the following contemporary pitchers would you rank as "better" or "about equal to" Morris' career or peak performance? David Cone, Dennis Martinez, Saberhagen, Steib, Tanana, Bob Welch. Any others who stick out in your mind as "about equal?"
Dan Evans: I feel that Dennis Martinez and Dave Stieb were better pitchers than Morris. Saberhagen would have been the best of the group were it not for injuries.
jlarsen (waukegan): Speaking as a former GM, how would you approach the current position that Mike Rizzo is in with Mike Morse? He is in final year of his contract, basically positionless due to horrible fielding skills and other players ahead blocking him at the 2 positions that he can "play" at. However, he's stated that he's against being a DH. Most of the teams interested in Morse are in need of DHs and he doesn't have a no-trade clause to block any trade. As Rizzo, do you deal him for a left-handed reliever or high-upside pitching prospect(See Mark DeRosa Indians/Cubs trade for similar deal) and let new team decide how to approach Morse's distaste towards DHing?
Dan Evans: Keep in mind that he doesn't have to make his move today, but taking on a salary is something that has to be taken into consideration versus the remaining free agents. As you go deeper into the off-season then into ST, budgets tighten up. Sometimes you like the player, but cannot maneuver your payroll enough to make a move.
Dan Evans: I have to end this chat due to a previous commitment. As always, thanks for your great questions. Too bad Biggio did not get into HOF. Wishing you all the best.
Major League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of MLB Advanced Media, L.P. All rights reserved.Copyright © 1996-2023 Baseball Prospectus, LLC.


text:
Our little dude is one step closer to getting a real name! And literally more than 500 names were suggested.
We poured through the entire list and came up with five that we really like. Now we need your help picking the final name. Keep reading to see the finalists and how you can vote.
But first, I'd like to give a public tip of the hat to the core team that helped Social Media Examiner become the site it is today.
Continue Reading about Help Name the Social Media Examiner Mascot →


text:
There's nothing quite like a nice, aged cheese, but even the most adventurous cheese connoisseurs would be put off by a recent discovery from an an ancient Chinese tomb. Archaeologists uncovered perfectly preserved mummies whose chests were sprinkled with extra aged, 3,5000-year-old cheese—the world's oldest cheese by a long shot.
Since dairy has a tendency to decay pretty quickly, cheese isn't exactly known for its staying power. It just so happened that the conditions at Small River Cemetery Number 5 in northwestern China—the site at which the cheese-covered mummies were discovered—created the perfect storm of prime cheese preservation. USA Today explains:
First documented by a Swedish archaeologist in the 1930s, it sits in the fearsome Taklamakan Desert, one of the world's largest. A mysterious Bronze Age people buried dozens of their own atop a large sand dune near a now-dry river, interring their kin underneath what looks like large wooden boats. The boats were wrapped so snugly with cowhide that it's as if they'd been "vacuum-packed," Shevchenko says.
The combination of dry desert air and salty soil prevented decay to an extraordinary degree.
The cheese isn't just remarkable for its age, though; the discovery also sheds light on the ancient cheese-making technologies. An analysis showed that the cheese had been made using a mix of bacteria and yeast, creating something that we might liken to cottage cheese that was also lactose-free.
And while scientists do have evidence of cheese-making strainers dating back over 7000 years, any cheese from that time is, presumably, long gone by now. Here's to hoping the archaeologists take a page out of this scientist's book.


text:
Uber, Lyft estimates
Use RideGuru
All results are estimates and may vary depending on external factors such as traffic and weather.
TaxiFareFinder's fare estimates are known to be the most accurate of any taxi website. Find out why.
Please leave your comments, feedback, and questions below. We continuously strive to improve our website, and we appreciate your input!
NOTE: We do not provide fare estimates or taxi quotes over email. TaxiFareFinder is not associated with taxi companies or limo services.
Fare Information
Trip Information
- Add $2.00 for each additional passenger over 4
- Add $1.00 for each large bag
- $50.00 clean up fee. Also includes 8% GA sales tax.
- Some companies offer discounts for longer trips. E.g. 10% off over $50.000.
- Tolls & surcharges may apply


text:
William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley
Quick Facts
|English statesman
|William, Baron Burghley Cecil, William, 1st Baron Burghley Cecil, 1st ...
|England United Kingdom
|13 September 1520, Bourne
|4 August 1598, Westminster (aged 77 years)
|Star sign
|Burghley House, Cecil House, Theobalds House
William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley KG PC (13 September 1520 – 4 August 1598) was an English statesman, the chief advisor of Queen Elizabeth I for most of her reign, twice Secretary of State (1550–53 and 1558–72) and Lord High Treasurer from 1572. Albert Pollard says, "From 1558 for forty years the biography of Cecil is almost indistinguishable from that of Elizabeth and from the history of England."
Burghley set as the main goal of English policy the creation of a united and Protestant British Isles. His methods were to complete the control of Ireland, and to forge an alliance with Scotland. Protection from invasion required a powerful Royal Navy. While he was not fully successful, his successors agreed with his goals. Derek Wilson (2013) says, "Few politicians were more subtle or unscrupulous than William Cecil." He was the founder of the Cecil dynasty which has produced many politicians including two Prime Ministers.
Early life
Cecil was born in Bourne, Lincolnshire, in 1520, the son of Sir Richard Cecil, owner of the Burghley estate (near Stamford, Lincolnshire), and his wife, Jane Heckington. Pedigrees, elaborated by Cecil himself with the help of William Camden the antiquary, associated him with the Welsh Cecils or Seisyllts of Allt-Yr-Ynys, Walterstone, on the border of Herefordshire and Monmouthshire, and traced his descent from an Owen of the time of Harold Godwinson and a Seisyllt of the reign of William Rufus. Seisyllt is the original Welsh spelling of the anglicised Cecil. There is now no doubt that the family was from the Welsh Marches and Lord Burghley himself acknowledged this in his family pedigree painted at Theobalds. The family had connections with Dore Abbey. However, the move to Stamford provides information concerning the Lord Treasurer's grandfather, David; he, according to Burghley's enemies, kept the best inn in Stamford. David somehow secured the favour of the first Tudor king, Henry VII, to whom he seems to have been Yeoman of the Guard. He was Sergeant-of-Arms to Henry VIII in 1526, Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1532, and a Justice of the Peace for Rutland. His eldest son, Richard, Yeoman of the Wardrobe (died 1554), married Jane, daughter of William Heckington of Bourne, and was father of three daughters and the future Lord Burghley.
William, the only son, was put to school first at The King's School, Grantham, and then Stamford School, which he later saved and endowed. In May 1535, at the age of fourteen, he went to St John's College, Cambridge, where he was brought into contact with the foremost scholars of the time, Roger Ascham and John Cheke, and acquired an unusual knowledge of Greek. He also acquired the affections of Cheke's sister, Mary, and was in 1541 removed by his father to Gray's Inn, without having taken a degree, as was common at the time for those not intending to enter the Church. The precaution proved useless and four months later Cecil committed one of the rare rash acts of his life in marrying Mary Cheke. The only child of this marriage, Thomas, the future Earl of Exeter, was born in May 1542, and in February 1543 Cecil's first wife died. Three years later, on 21 December 1546 he married Mildred Cooke, who was ranked by Ascham with Lady Jane Grey as one of the two most learned ladies in the kingdom, (aside from another of Ascham's pupils, Elizabeth Tudor, who was later Elizabeth I) and whose sister, Anne, was the wife of Sir Nicholas Bacon, and later the mother of Sir Francis Bacon.
Early career
William Cecil's early career was spent in the service of the Duke of Somerset (a brother of the late queen, Jane Seymour), who was Lord Protector during the early years of the reign of his nephew, the young Edward VI. Cecil accompanied Somerset on his Pinkie campaign of 1547 (part of the "Rough Wooing"), being one of the two Judges of the Marshalsea. The other was William Patten, who states that both he and Cecil began to write independent accounts of the campaign, and that Cecil generously contributed his notes for Patten's narrative, The Expedition into Scotland.
Cecil, according to his autobiographical notes, sat in Parliament in 1543; but his name does not occur in the imperfect parliamentary returns until 1547, when he was elected for the family borough of Stamford.
In 1548, he is described as the Protector's Master of Requests, which apparently means that he was clerk or registrar of the court of requests which Somerset, possibly at Hugh Latimer's instigation, illegally set up in Somerset House to hear poor men's complaints. He also seems to have acted as private secretary to the Protector, and was in some danger at the time of the Protector's fall in October 1549. The lords opposed to Somerset ordered his detention on 10 October, and in November he was in the Tower of London.
Cecil ingratiated himself with Warwick, and after less than three months he was out of the Tower. On 5 September 1550 Cecil was sworn in as one of King Edward's two secretaries of state. In April 1551, Cecil became chancellor of the Order of the Garter. But service under Warwick (by now the Duke of Northumberland) carried some risk, and decades later in his diary, Cecil recorded his release in the phrase "ex misero aulico factus liber et mei juris" ("I was freed from this miserable court").
To protect the Protestant government from the accession of a Catholic queen, Northumberland forced King Edward's lawyers to create an instrument setting aside the Third Succession Act on 15 June 1553. (The document, which Edward titled "My Devise for the Succession", barred both Elizabeth and Mary, the remaining children of Henry VIII, from the throne, in favour of Lady Jane Grey.) Cecil resisted for a while, in a letter to his wife, he wrote: "Seeing great perils threatened upon us by the likeness of the time, I do make choice to avoid the perils of God's displeasure." But at Edward's royal command he signed it. He signed not only the devise, but also the bond among the conspirators and the letters from the council to Mary Tudor of 9 June 1553.
Years afterwards, he pretended that he had only signed the devise as a witness, but in his apology to Queen Mary I, he did not venture to allege so flimsy an excuse; he preferred to lay stress on the extent to which he succeeded in shifting the responsibility on to the shoulders of his brother-in-law, Sir John Cheke, and other friends, and on his intrigues to frustrate the Queen to whom he had sworn allegiance.
There is no doubt that Cecil saw which way the wind was blowing, and disliked Northumberland's scheme; but he had not the courage to resist the duke to his face. As soon, however, as the duke had set out to meet Mary, Cecil became the most active intriguer against him, and to these efforts, of which he laid a full account before Queen Mary, he mainly owed his immunity. He had, moreover, had no part in the divorce of Catherine of Aragon or in the humiliation of Mary during Henry's reign, and he made no scruple about conforming to the Catholic reaction. He went to Mass, confessed, and in no particular official capacity went to meet Cardinal Pole on his return to England in December 1554, again accompanying him to Calais in May 1555.
He was elected to Parliament as knight of the shire for Lincolnshire in 1553 (probably), 1555 and 1559 and for Northamptonshire in 1563.
It was rumoured in December 1554 that Cecil would succeed Sir William Petre as Secretary of State, an office which, with his chancellorship of the Garter, he had lost on Mary's accession to the throne. Probably the Queen had more to do with this rumour than Cecil, though he is said to have opposed, in the parliament of 1555 (in which he represented Lincolnshire), a bill for the confiscation of the estates of the Protestant refugees. But the story, even as told by his biographer, does not represent Cecil's conduct as having been very courageous; and it is more revealing that he found no seat in the parliament of 1558, for which Mary had directed the return of "discreet and good Catholic members".
Reign of Elizabeth
The Duke of Northumberland had employed Cecil in the administration of the lands of Princess Elizabeth. Before Mary died he was a member of the "old flock of Hatfield", and from the first, the new Queen relied on Cecil. She appointed him Secretary of State. His tight control over the finances of the Crown, leadership of the Privy Council, and the creation of a highly capable intelligence service under the direction of Francis Walsingham made him the most important minister for the majority of Elizabeth's reign.
Foreign policy
Dawson argues that Cecil's long-term goal was a united and Protestant British Isles, an objective to be achieved by completing the conquest of Ireland and by creating an Anglo-Scottish alliance. With the land border with Scotland safe, the main burden of defence would fall upon the Royal Navy, Cecil proposed to strengthen and revitalise the Navy, making it the centerpiece of English power. He did obtain a firm Anglo-Scottish alliance reflecting the common religion and shared interests of the two countries, as well as an agreement that offered the prospect of a successful conquest of Ireland. However, his strategy ultimately failed. His idea that England's safety required a united British Isles became an axiom of English policy by the 17th century.
Though a Protestant, Cecil was not a religious purist; he aided the Protestant Huguenots and Dutch just enough to keep them going in the struggles which warded danger from England's shores. But Cecil never developed that passionate aversion from decided measures which became a second nature to Elizabeth. His intervention in Scotland in 1559–60 showed that he could strike hard when necessary; and his action over the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, proved that he was willing to take on responsibilities from which the Queen shrank.
Generally he was in favour of more decided intervention on behalf of continental Protestants than Elizabeth would have liked, but it is not always easy to ascertain the advice he gave. He left endless memoranda lucidly (nevertheless sometimes bordering on the ridiculous) setting forth the pros and cons of every course of action; but there are few indications of the line which he actually recommended when it came to a decision. How far he was personally responsible for the Anglican Settlement, the Poor Laws, and the foreign policy of the reign, remains to a large extent a matter of conjecture. However, it is most likely that Cecil's views carried the day in the politics of Elizabethan England. The historian Hilaire Belloc contends that Cecil was the de facto ruler of England during his tenure as Secretary; pointing out that in instances where his and Elizabeth's wills diverged, it was Cecil's will that was imposed.
Leimon and Parker argue that Burghley was the principal protector of Edward Stafford, the English ambassador to Paris and a paid spy who helped the Spanish at the time of the Spanish Armada. However, they do not claim Burghley knew of Stafford's treason.
Domestic politics
Cecil's share in the Religious Settlement of 1559 was considerable, and it coincided fairly with his own Anglican religious views. Like the mass of the nation, he grew more Protestant as time wore on; he was happier to persecute Catholics than Puritans; and he had no love for ecclesiastical jurisdiction. His prosecution of the English Catholics made him a recurring character in the "evil counsellor polemics", written by Catholic exiles across the channel. In these pamphlets, polemicists painted a black picture of Burghley as a corrupting influence over the queen. "The Queen will listen to none but unto him", exiled Catholic intelligencer Richard Verstegan wrote, "and somtymes, she is faine to come to his bedsyde to entreat him in some-things." He warmly remonstrated with John Whitgift, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, over his persecuting Articles of 1583. The finest encomium was passed on him by the queen herself, when she said, "This judgment I have of you, that you will not be corrupted with any manner of gifts, and that you will be faithful to the state."
In Parliament
He represented Lincolnshire in the Parliament of 1555 and 1559, and Northamptonshire in that of 1563, and he took an active part in the proceedings of the House of Commons until his elevation to the peerage; but there seems no good evidence for the story that he was proposed as Speaker in 1563. In January 1561, he was given the lucrative office of Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries in succession to Sir Thomas Parry. As Master of the Court of Wards, Burghley supervised the raising and education of wealthy, aristocratic boys whose fathers had died before they reached maturity. These included Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, and Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland. He is widely credited with reforming an institution notorious for its corruption, but the extent of his reforms has been disputed by some scholars.
In February 1559, he was elected Chancellor of Cambridge University in succession to Cardinal Pole; he was created M.A. of that university on the occasion of Elizabeth's visit in 1564, and M.A. of Oxford on a similar occasion in 1566. He was the first Chancellor of University of Dublin, between 1592 and 1598.
On 25 February 1571, Queen Elizabeth elevated him as Baron Burghley. The fact that Burghley continued to act as Secretary of State after his elevation illustrates the growing importance of that office, which under his son became a secretary of the ship of state. In 1572 Burghley privately admonished the queen for her "doubtful dealing with the Queen of Scots." He made a strong attack on everything he thought Elizabeth had done wrong as queen. In his view, Mary had to be executed because she had become a rallying cause for Catholics and played into the hands of the Spanish and of the pope, who excommunicated Elizabeth in 1570 and sent in Jesuits to organise a Catholic underground. By 1585–6 these missionaries had set up a secret, but highly effective, underground system for the transport and support of priests arriving from the Continent. Elizabeth's indecision was maddening; finally in 1587 Elizabeth had Mary executed.
In 1572, Lord Winchester, who had been Lord High Treasurer under Edward, Mary and Elizabeth, died. His vacant post was offered to Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, who declined it and proposed Burghley, stating that the latter was the more suitable candidate because of his greater "learning and knowledge". The new Lord Treasurer's hold over the queen strengthened with the years.
Burghley and Theobalds
Burghley House near the town of Stamford was built for Cecil between 1555 and 1587 and modelled on the privy lodgings of Richmond Palace. It was subsequently the residence of his descendants, the Earls and Marquesses of Exeter. The house is one of the principal examples of 16th-century Elizabethan architecture. A new Theobalds House just off the main road north from London to Ware, was built between 1564 and 1585 to the order of Burghley. The Queen visited eight times between 1572 and 1596.
Lord Burghley collapsed (possibly from a stroke or heart attack) in 1598. Before he died, Robert, his only surviving son by his second wife, was ready to step into his shoes as the Queen's principal adviser. Having survived all his children except Robert and Thomas, Burghley died at his London residence, Cecil House on 4 August 1598, and was buried in St Martin's Church, Stamford.
His elder son, Sir Thomas Cecil, who inherited the Barony of Burghley on his death, was later created Earl of Exeter. His younger son, Sir Robert Cecil (later created Baron Cecil, Viscount Cranborne and finally Earl of Salisbury), inherited his political mantle, taking on the role of chief minister and arranging a smooth transfer of power to the Stuart administration under King James I. His daughter Anne became the first wife of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, in 1571; she served as a Maid of Honour to Queen Elizabeth before her marriage.
Burghley's descendants include the Marquesses of Exeter, descended from his elder son Thomas; and the Marquesses of Salisbury, descended from his younger son Robert. One of the latter branch, Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (1830–1903), served three times as Prime Minister under Queen Victoria and Edward VII.
Private life
In contrast to his public unscrupulousness, Burghley's private life was upright; he was a faithful husband, a careful father and a dutiful master. A book-lover and antiquarian, he made a special hobby of heraldry and genealogy. It was the conscious and unconscious aim of the age to reconstruct a new landed aristocracy on the ruins of the old, Catholic order. As such, Burghley was a great builder, planter and patron. All the arts of architecture and horticulture were lavished on Burghley House and Theobalds, which his son exchanged for Hatfield.
Public conduct
His public conduct does not present itself in quite so amiable a light. As the marquess of Winchester said of himself, he was sprung from the willow rather than the oak, and he was not the man to suffer for convictions. The interest of the state was the supreme consideration, and to it he had no hesitation in sacrificing individual consciences. He frankly disbelieved in toleration; "that state," he said, "could never be in safety where there was a toleration of two religions. For there is no enmity so great as that for religion; and therefore they that differ in the service of their God can never agree in the service of their country." With a maxim such as this, it was easy for him to maintain that Elizabeth's coercive measures were political and not religious. To say that he was Machiavellian is meaningless, for every statesman is so more or less; especially in the 16th century men preferred efficiency to principle. On the other hand, principles are valueless without law and order; and Burghley's craft and subtlety prepared a security in which principles might find some scope.
Nicholas White
The most prolonged of Cecil's surviving personal correspondences is with an Irish judge, Nicholas White, lasting from 1566 until 1590; it is contained in the State Papers Ireland 63 and Lansdowne MS. 102, but receives hardly a mention in the literature on Cecil.
White had been a tutor to Cecil's children during his student days in London, and the correspondence suggests that he was held in lasting affection by the family. In the end, White fell into a Dublin controversy over the confessions of an intriguing priest, which threatened the authority of the Queen's deputised government in Ireland; out of caution Cecil withdrew his longstanding protection and the judge was imprisoned in London and died soon after.
White's most remarked-upon service for Cecil is his report on his visit with Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1569, during the early years of her imprisonment. He may have published an English translation of the Argonautica in the 1560s but no copy has survived.
In popular culture
Cecil has been a character in many works of fiction and documentary essay concerned with Elizabeth I's reign. Richard Attenborough depicted him in the film Elizabeth. He was played by Ben Webster in the 1935 film Drake of England. He was a prominent supporting character in the 1937 film Fire Over England, starring Laurence Olivier, Vivien Leigh, and Flora Robson; Burghley (spelled Burleigh in the film) was played by Morton Selten. He also appears in the television mini-series Elizabeth I with Helen Mirren, played by Ian McDiarmid; was portrayed by Ronald Hines in the 1971 TV series Elizabeth R; and by Ian Hart in the 2005 miniseries The Virgin Queen. He is portrayed by David Thewlis in Roland Emmerich's Anonymous.
Cecil appears as a character in the novels I, Elizabeth by Rosalind Miles, The Virgin's Lover and The Other Queen by Philippa Gregory, and is a prominent secondary character in several books by Bertrice Small. He also appears prominently in the alternative history Ruled Britannia, by Harry Turtledove, in which he and his son Sir Robert Cecil are conspirators and patrons of William Shakespeare in an attempt to restore Elizabeth to power after a successful Spanish invasion and conquest of England. In addition, he is portrayed as a young man in Lamentation by C. J. Sansom.
Cecil is also portrayed by Ben Willbond in the BAFTA award winning children's comedy television series Horrible Histories.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The judgment is affirmed.
Justice STEVENS, concurring.
Although I agree that a summary affirmance of the judgment of the District Court is entirely appropriate in these cases, what has been written in dissent prompts me to make two important points.
First, there is little, if any, resemblance between the argument advanced in the dissenting opinion and the specific questions presented in the parties' jurisdictional statements. This Court has determined that summary affirmances "reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 , 97 S. Ct. 2238, 2240 (1977). The only questions presented [469 U.S. 1002 , 1003] in the jurisdictional statement that the Mississippi Republican Executive Committee filed in case No. 83-1722 read as follows:
Second, the dissent does not fairly characterize the opinion of the District Court. That opinion does not "in effect" construe the recent amendment to 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 96 Stat. 134, 42 U.S.C . 1973, as entitling "minority plaintiffs, in a State where there exist present effects from past discrimination, to have a state redistricting plan invalidated if it has failed to provide at least one district in which the 'minority' is a majority of the eligible voters." Post, at 1005 . The dissent buttresses this incorrect impression by attributing the following statement to the District Court:
The District Court's conclusion that its remedy was required was not based on any notion that the law gives every minority group an entitlement to some form of proportional representation. Its conclusion was quite the contrary. It rested on specific findings of fact describing the impairment-or "dilution" if you will-of the voting strength of the black minority in Mississippi. Those factual findings reveal that Mississippi has a long history of de jure and de facto race discrimination,2 that racial bloc voting is [469 U.S. 1002 , 1005] common in Mississippi, and that political processes have not been equally open to blacks. 3
Because I find no merit in any of the specific challenges presented in the parties' jurisdictional statements,4 and because the record supports the District Court's findings of fact, as the dissent notes, post, at 423, I join the Court's summary affirmance.
Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.
The District Court's ruling in these cases presents important questions concerning the construction of the recent amendment to 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 96 Stat. 134, 42 U.S.C. 1973. The District Court in effect has construed the amendment to entitle minority plaintiffs, in a State where there exist present effects from past discrimination, to have a state redistricting plan invalidated if it fails to provide at least one district in which the "minority" is a majority of the eligible voters. This is so even though the challenged redistricting plan is constitutional, is not the product of discriminatory intent, and indeed was intended by the [469 U.S. 1002 , 1006] court which adopted it to "deal fairly with [the State's] black citizens by avoiding any scheme that has the purpose or effect of unnecessarily minimizing or fragmenting black voting strength."
In 1982, the District Court in these cases adopted a redistricting plan for Mississippi's congressional districts in order to remedy district population disparities, revealed by the 1980 census, of up to 17%. In choosing from among several plans offered by the litigants, it sought a plan that would "satisfy the one person, one vote rule and avoid any dilution of minority voting strength." Jordan v. Winter, 541 F.Supp. 1135, 1142 (ND Miss.1982) (Jordan I ). The court further observed that "[w]hat is required is that the state deal fairly with its black citizens by avoiding any scheme that has the purpose or effect of unnecessarily minimizing or fragmenting black voting strength." Id., at 1143. The court chose the so-called "Simpson" plan because it satisfied most of the State's policy considerations in districting, created two districts with 40% or better black population, and included a district where nearly 54% of the population was black.
On appeal to this Court, the judgment of the District Court was vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration in the light of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. Brooks v. Winter, 461 U.S. 921 (1983). On remand, the District Court found that the very plan which it had approved and adopted in 1982 was unlawful under the amended 2 of the Voting Rights Act because "the structure of the Second Congressional District in particular unlawfully diluted black voting strength." Jordan v. Winter, No. GC82-80-WK-0 (ND Miss., Apr. 16, 1984) (Jordan II ). I think the rather remarkable conclusion that the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act made unlawful a plan adopted by the District Court, which plan the District Court had adopted with a view to the requirement that "the state deal fairly with its black citizens by avoiding any scheme that has the purpose or effect of unnecessarily minimizing or fragmenting black voting strength," 541 F.Supp., at 1143, should receive plenary review by this Court.
After being presented with the census data revealing the previously mentioned population disparities between existing congressional districts, the Mississippi Legislature in 1981 enacted a new redistricting plan. The Attorney General of the United States refused preclearance, however, and the legislature adjourned without enacting a new plan. A three-judge District Court was convened to hear actions filed by two groups of Mississippi voters [469 U.S. 1002 , 1007] seeking a court-ordered interim plan for the 1982 congressional elections. That court refused to place in effect the legislative plan which had not been precleared, and held the existing districting statute unconstitutional because of the population disparities. It then adopted the "Simpson" plan from among several plans submitted to it by the litigants. Jordan I, supra.
In choosing the "Simpson" plan, the court followed the teaching of Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (1982), which requires courts to fashion interim plans that adhere to a State's political policies. The court identified Mississippi's political districting policies as follows: (1) minimal change from 1972 district lines; (2) least possible population deviation; (3) preservation of the electoral base of incumbent congressmen; and (4) establishment of two districts with 40% or better black population. The court specifically rejected two plans proposed by a group of black plaintiffs. These plans would have kept the predominantly black northwest or "Delta" portion of Mississippi intact, and would have combined that area with predominantly black portions of Hinds County and the city of Jackson. Each of these plans would have resulted in one congressional district with a black population of approximately 65%. The "Simpson" plan, on the other hand, combined 15 Delta or partially Delta counties with six predominantly white eastern rural counties, and resulted in a congressional district with a 53% black population, but a 48% black voting population. The District Court found the "Simpson" plan most nearly in accord with the State's policies articulated above. The rejected plans would have resulted in only one district with greater than 40% black population; this was contrary to the reasonable state policy established to assure that blacks would have an effective voice in choosing representatives in more than one district. In addition, the court noted that the black plaintiffs had managed to place a high percentage of black voters in a single congressional district only through obvious and unseemly racial gerrymanders.
When this Court subsequently vacated the District Court's judgment for reconsideration in the light of the 1982 amendment the District Court held further evidentiary hearings, and concluded that its own plan violated the amended section. This violation occurred, in the opinion of the District Court, because "the structure of the Second Congressional District in particular unlawfully diluted black voting strength." Under the plan adopted by the District Court in 1982, the Second District had a [469 U.S. 1002 , 1008] black population of 53.77%, but blacks comprised only 48.09% of the voting age population. The District Court felt it was obligated, under the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, to redraw the district map so that the redefined Second District would have a "clear black voting age population majority of 52.83 percent." In doing so, the District Court " recognize[d] that the creation of a Delta District with a majority black voting age population implicates difficult issues concerning the fair allocation of political power." Jordan II, supra.
Any statute that would lead a District Court to reject a plan which it had previously found fair to all concerned in favor of one including an obligatory district with a majority black voting age population deserves careful attention, and so I turn to the language of the Voting Rights Act as amended in 1982. The District Court in its most recent opinion set out the statutory provisions toward the beginning of its opinion, but scarcely mentioned that language again, and instead went on to quote extensively from the Senate Report of the 1982 amendments. The applicable statutory language is this:
"(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b).
"(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population." 96 Stat. 134, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (emphasis in original). [469 U.S. 1002 , 1009] Applying the statutory language to the situation confronting the District Court after our remand, the "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure" to which the amended statute is to be applied is obviously the 1982 plan adopted by the District Court. That court clearly thought so, and no other " qualification . . . standard, practice, or procedure" suggests itself. There has never been any suggestion that the plan adopted by the District Court in 1982 denied or abridged the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color, so if that plan does violate the amended Act it is because it contravenes "the guarantees set forth . . . in subsection (b )."
Subsection (b), in turn, provides that a violation of subsection (a) is established if "it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a)." The District Court read subsection (b) as if it were totally divorced from subsection (a), and proceeded to enumerate factors in the political history of Mississippi which it felt indicated that the plan it had adopted in 1982 "unlawfully dilutes minority voting strength." Jordan II, supra. The District Court did not state what it understood the term "unlawfully dilutes minority voting strength" to mean, and since that term is nowhere used in the statutory language one is left to infer that the court derived the necessary meaning for the language from the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee which it cited at some length. The District Court's understanding of what is required by 2 is highly questionable in light of the statute's language and legislative history. To fully evaluate the District Court's analysis it is necessary to review the events preceding the amendment of 2.1 [469 U.S. 1002 , 1010] In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980 ), this Court wrestled with the question whether legislative "intent" to discriminate must exist in order to find that a particular legislative action violates the Voting Rights Act, or whether it was enough that the legislative action have a "discriminatory effect." In Mobile black plaintiffs had brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the city's at-large method of electing its commissioners. We produced six different opinions debating among ourselves whether discriminatory intent was required to find a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, or whether " an invidious discriminatory purpose could be inferred from the totality of facts." Id., at 95 (WHITE, J., dissenting). None of the opinions challenged the conclusion of the plurality that the Voting Rights Act as it then existed added "nothing to the appellee's Fifteenth Amendment claim." Id., at 61 (opinion of Stewart, J.).
It is clear that the 1982 amendment was precipitated in large part by the holding of Mobile. But the language used in the amended statute is, to say the least, rather unclear. The legislative history indicates that Congress was well aware of the "intent effects" dichotomy, and of the problems with identifying actions with discriminatory "effects." The bill originally passed the House under a loose understanding that 2 would prohibit all discriminatory "effects" of voting practices, and that intent would be "irrelevant." H.R.Rep. No. 97-227, p. 29 (1981). This version met stiff resistance in the Senate, however. Two Senate Subcommittees held extensive hearings, at which testimony was given concerning the tendency of a "results" approach to lead to requirements that minorities have proportional representation, or to devolve into essentially standardless and ad hoc judgments. See, e.g., Hearings on S. 53, S. 1761, S. 1975, S. 1992, and H.R. 3112 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess ., 1309-1313, 1334-1338 (1982). The Subcommittees could not agree on the proposed amendment, and at that point Senator Dole stepped in with a proposed compromise. The compromise bill retained the "results" language but also incorporated language directly from this Court's opinion in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and strengthened the caveat against proportional representation. The debates on the compromise focused on whether the "results" language would nevertheless provide for proportional representation, or merely for equal " access" to the political process. Senator [469 U.S. 1002 , 1011] Dole took the position that "access" only was required by amended 2: "[ T]he concept of identifiable groups having a right to be elected in proportion to their voting potential was repugnant to the democratic principles on which our society is based." 128 Cong.Rec. 14132 (1982) ( remarks of Senator Dole). This position was adopted by many supporters of the compromise in the Senate, and the bill passed as written.
The District Court apparently felt obliged to reach a conclusion in tension with this legislative history because of language in the Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the 1982 amendment stating that the "results" language of 2(a) was meant to "restore the pre-Mobile [v. Bolden ] legal standard which governed cases challenging election systems or practices as an illegal dilution of the minority vote." S.Rep. No. 97-417, p. 27 (1982 ). The Report then enumerates the factors courts may consider in deciding whether plaintiffs have established a violation of 2, factors apparently derived from this Court's opinion in White v. Regester, supra. 2 Applying these "factors," the District Court found that Mississippi has a long history of de jure and de facto race discrimination, which has present effects in impeding black voter registration and turnout. It noted that although blacks constitute 35% of the State's population, no black has been elected to Congress since the Reconstruction period, and none has been elected [469 U.S. 1002 , 1012] to statewide office in this century. Furthermore, the court found socioeconomic disparities between blacks and whites in the Delta area, and finally, that voters in Mississippi have previously voted and continued to vote on the basis of the race of candidates for elective office. The District Court concluded from this that the adoption of a plan in which the Second District contained less than a majority of voters from a protected class "diluted" the class' voting strength.
Thus we have a statute whose meaning is by no means easy to determine, supplemented by legislative history which led the District Court in this case to conclude that only the inclusion within one congressional district of a majority black voting age population could satisfy the Act. I think it can be fairly argued from the legislative history, and from the express caveat that the section was not intended to establish a right to proportional representation, that in amending 2 Congress did not intend courts to supersede state voting laws for the sole purpose of improving the chance of minorities to elect members of their own class.
To best understand the meaning of the Senate Committee's references to our decisions in Mobile and White v. Regester, it is essential to remember that those cases dealt with challenges to multimember legislative districts. It is only in this context that phrases such as "vote dilution" make any sense, for the phrase itself suggests a norm with respect to which the fact of dilution may be ascertained. In the case of multimember districts, the norm available for at least theoretical purposes is the single-member district. But when we turn from attacks on multimember districts to attacks on the way lines are drawn in creating five single- member congressional districts, as in the cases at hand, phrases such as " vote dilution" and factors relied upon to determine discriminatory effect are all but useless as analytical tools. Neither White v. Regester, Mobile v. Bolden, nor Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (CA5 1973), a case also dealing with challenges to multimember legislative districts, ever suggested that their analysis should be carried over to challenges addressed to single-member districts. And whichever of the views espoused in Mobile is found to have been adopted by the 1982 amendment, it would seem that a plan adopted by the District Court under the command "that the state deal fairly with its black citizens by avoiding any scheme that has the purpose or [469 U.S. 1002 , 1013] effect of unnecessarily minimizing or fragmenting black voting strength" should be home free under either test.
Under this view, the District Court's most recent opinion and judgment seem to me to present virtually insuperable difficulties. Although we may regretfully concede that the District Court's findings were correct, it nevertheless seems a non sequitur to say that the past discrimination, and its present effects, have "resulted" in "dilution" of minority voting strength through the adoption of this particular districting plan. To the extent that fewer blacks vote due to past discrimination, that in itself diminishes minority voting strength. But this occurs regardless of any particular state voting practice or procedure. As the plurality opinion in Mobile recognized in another context, "past discrimination cannot, in the manner of original sin, condemn governmental action that is not itself unlawful." Mobile, 446 U.S ., at 74. Here the only finding even remotely related to the boundaries of the Second Congressional District under the 1982 plan is what the District Court referred to as "socioeconomic disparities between blacks and whites in the Delta area." The findings as to the history of racial discrimination and bloc voting apparently obtained throughout the State. It is obvious that no plan adopted by the Mississippi Legislature or the District Court could possibly have mitigated or subtracted one jot or title from these findings of past discrimination. What we have, therefore, is in effect a declaration by the District Court that because of these past examples of racial discrimination throughout the State, any plan adopted either by the legislature or by a court which did not give blacks one of five congressional districts in which they had a majority of the voting age population violated the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. Under this analysis, cause and effect are entirely severed.
For these reasons, I think the judgment of the District Court presents substantial questions concerning the interpretation of a new amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that the Court seriously misapprehends its obligation in such a case when it summarily affirms the judgment of the District Court.
[ Footnote 1 ] The jurisdictional statement that William A. Allain and others filed in No. 83-2053 presents two questions that are similar to those presented in No. 83-1722 and also presents the question whether the District Court erroneously found as a fact that black persons in Mississippi-and especially in the Delta generally-have less education, lower incomes, and more menial occupations than white persons, and that there has been racially polarized voting in Mississippi. See n. 2, infra. Nothing in the dissenting opinion indicates that it believes these questions merit full briefing and argument. In my judgment the jurisdictional statement in No. 83-1865 raises a more serious question, but I do not understand that the dissenting opinion favors review of that question.
[ Footnote 2 ] Regarding past discrimination, the District Court carefully found that Mississippi had often used poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements, white primaries, and violence to intimidate black persons from registering to vote. More importantly, the court found "that the effects of the historical official discrimination in Mississippi presently impede black voter registration and turnout." App. to Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 83-1722, p. 9a. Additionally, the court wrote:
[ Footnote 3 ] The court also found that there existed "persuasive evidence" that Mississippi's political processes have not recently been open to black persons. In addition, the court particularly noted the following message accompanying a campaign television commercial:
The commercial opened and closed with a view of Confederate monuments ; the candidate that ran the commercial used "He's one of us" as his campaign slogan. Ibid.
[ Footnote 4 ] Indeed, it should be noted that the District Court's plan would be an acceptable remedy for the violations even if it did not regard the Simpson plan itself as a violation of 2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended. For after our remand, the District Court could have appropriately decided that the policy of that Act, coupled with the findings of fact concerning the effects of historic discrimination, particularly in the Delta area, required a remedy that established at least one district in which black persons represented an effective majority of the eligible voters.
[ Footnote 1 ] Justice STEVENS' concurrence suggests that my analysis is unwarranted because the problems I perceive with the District Court's opinion were not specifically raised by the "questions presented" in appellants' jurisdictional statements. I believe, however, that several of the "questions presented" "fairly include" the issues that I address. In particular, question 3, quoted ante, at 1003 (STEVENS, J., concurring), raises the question of the scope of activity Congress intended to proscribe under 2. I need not agree 100% with appellants' position-that 2 only proscribes intentionally discriminatory conduct-to reach the question whether the District Court misconstrued Congress' intent.
[ Footnote 2 ] Those factors are:
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
What's a life worth?
We commonly say that lives are invaluable, that saving a life, any life, is worth any effort, any expense. But we do not mean it.
This note is prompted by a recent article on the consequences of raising the speed limits on American highways. The authors estimated that in the decade after 1995, states decisions to raise posted speeds increased road fatalities by over 3% over 12,000 additional deaths. Thats about quadruple the death toll of 9/11. Yet, it is clear that Americans wanted and still want to drive that extra 10 or so miles per hour faster. What does that show about how invaluable each life is?
How much we consider a human life worth has increased substantially over the last century, by one estimate about 30-fold. Yet, we do not spend all we can to save a life. Moreover, how much we do spend to save a life is inconstant and fickle, rather than thought-out and planned; the number typically depends on whose life we are saving. The question is whether we can and will make studied decisions based on how we actually value a life.
Cash value
We do not, in practice, treat lives as sacredly "invaluable," no matter our rhetoric. Analysts have sought to figure out how much we, in practice, actually do value a life. It is important to insurance companies and to government agencies. The EPA, for example, needs to justify expensive interventions, say, in cleaning up pollution, by showing that more money based on the monetary value of deaths avoided would be saved by the project than would be spent on it. The agency could never defend its policies in Congress by arguing that saving even one life makes environmental action worthwhile; it has to use a cost-benefit analysis that tallies up the dollar worth of saved lives.
So, how much is a life worth? The answer can bounce around quite a bit depending on all sorts of assumptions. In one such estimate, the EPA calculated that an American life is worth, in current dollars, about $8,000,000. A 1990 review of relevant studies (cited here ) came up with an average valuation of about half that, $4,000,000 in today's currency. Blogger Matthew Yglesias reprints a graph by W. Kip Viscusi showing that in the 2000s federal agencies' valuations of a single American life varied from about $5 million to $9 million.
One way scholars generate a dollar value is by seeing how much extra workers in particularly dangerous jobs make. We assume that the workers who take those jobs are using, perhaps unconsciously, a formula that includes how much they value their lives, something like: Extra hazard pay > (the extra risk) X (dollar value of my life). Playing with the numbers, we can get their valuations sort of. Another technique for estimating the worth of a life is to survey people how much they might pay (or expect to get paid) to reduce (or to increase) their risks of dying by a certain amount. How much would I have to pay you to get you accept a 1% greater chance of dying in the next year?
However assessed, Americans today value life more than we once did. Economists Dora Costa and Matt Kahn, using the wages technique, estimate that in 1900 an American life was worth about a half-million dollars and in 2000 it was worth over $14 million (in 2010 currency). While the specific numbers are only suggestive, the direction and size of the change are meaningful. Life has become a lot more valuable, at least in monetary terms.
Equal worth?
But not all lives are "worth" that 8 or 6 or 14 million dollars; some are in practice worth more than others, at least in dollars.
This fact drove one of the most important life-valuing exercises of recent years: the decisions by Kenneth R. Feinberg, "special master" of the Victim Compensation Fund for 9/11. His charge was to base the compensation for families of victims largely on what the deceaseds future earnings would have been. Thus, for example, a 42-year-old woman was judged to be "worth" $976,915 (see here ), far below the estimates I mentioned earlier.
Even without the 9/11 claims, we know that not all lives are valued by society equally. The endangered child of a wealthy person gets all the treatment that a top-flight health plan and extra funds can provide; the similarly endangered child of a low-income person depends on emergency-room treatment. More critically, the first will have had a lot of preventative care and the second a lot less. The result is difference in mortality (see, e.g., here ).
In her important book, Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children, sociologist Viviana Zelizer traces the history of life insurance companies and courts pricing of children. In the 19th century, the courts decided that children who had died in accidents were "worth" little, because they earned little, and so parents received only token compensation, if any. In the 20th century, courts decided that the children who had died were "worth" many dollars because of their emotional "value" to parents.
Rational calculation
So, if despite any revulsion we might have about it we operate with some implicit economic valuation of life, the question is, should we do so systematically and calculatingly (and justly), or should we leave it as we do today, as a haphazard process?
This, of course, brings us to the debate about health care: Should we have evidence-based evaluation of treatments or try to give "everyone" "anything" he or she might need knowing that we really wont do the second? Should we counsel terminal patients about less intensive and less expensive options, or should we go pedal-to-the-metal in the hospital? Should we even talk about the expense of the last months of life care? It seems so inhumane; our modern sentiments tell us that costs should not dictate life-and-death decisions. But those modern sentiments do not fit our modern experience.
Cross-posted from Claude Fischers blog,Made in America: Notes on American life from American history.


text:
Search This Blog
- Get link
- Other Apps
Congratulations, Disney. In case you didn't know, just wanted to let you know that I've had my baby. We've named her Samantha. She is 3 1/2 weeks now.ReplyDelete
Congrats!!! On the feature ^_^ReplyDelete
That's great! And that message boad looks pretty. I need to make one when we have bigger apartment (if we ever find the perfect one.. ) :)ReplyDelete
I love it. I also wanted to say that the macaroon recipe card from Martha also has a prominent place in my kitchen. :)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 3, 2011 at 3:19 AM
just scrolled through the magazine a while ago! loved your message board! adorable! xoxoReplyDelete
I just wanted to say I've been reading your blog for a while now and you never fail to inspire me. You truly are a very talented person and so generous to share your ideas the way you do. Every new project you post makes me smile and when I'm feeling a bit flat you remind me that there is so much to appreciate, explore and learn in life.ReplyDelete
Thank you!
I swear (and I don't swear often!) you always manage to come up with the COOLEST and I mean COOLEST projects with the simplest items.ReplyDelete
Now I am off to start collecting vintage clip on earrings. Good bye now. =)
Congratulations, Disney!ReplyDelete
I've nominted you for the Verstile Bloggers Award :) Details are on my blog.ReplyDelete
And Congrts on being featured! That is so exciting :)
Thank you so much, guys! I so needed that validation today. :o) You're the best! :O)ReplyDelete