Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_12

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
9
67.6k
Whatever the rest of the season has in store for Lopez is yet to be seen, but the wrestler that Enriquez called “the best I’ve had in my 10 years as a coach,” knows how he’d like to be remembered.
“I hope the younger guys remember that no one was ever going to out-work me, that I never gave up and that my teammates were family to me,” Lopez said.
Graduate students from Miami University’s “Project Dragonfly,” including some Delaware County residents, will travel to Africa, Asia, Australia and the Americas this month to engage in projects on human and ecological issues.
• Carol Arny of Radnor, a master’s student in the Earth Expeditions from Miami’s Project Dragonfly, who will travel to Costa Rica. Arny will study lowland rain forest and montane cloud forests while investigating the biotic, physical and cultural forces that affect tropical biodiversity. Arny is a high school science teacher at Buckeye Valley High School.
• Robin Dungan of Westerville, a master’s student in the Global Field Program from Project Dragonfly, who will travel to Australia. Dungan will study coral reef ecology and the conservation of marine systems along the Great Barrier Reef. Dungan is an education services manager at Center of Science and Industry.
• Sarah Morycz of Powell, a master’s student in the Global Field Program, who will travel to Belize. Morycz will study coral reefs, manatees, howler monkeys, jaguars and other wildlife while learning the methods communities are using to sustain them. Morycz is a biology teacher at Olentangy High School.
• Justus Nethero of Powell, a master’s student in the Earth Expeditions, who will travel to Paraguay. Nethero will study co-develop an Eco-Leadership program with Miami’s partner, Para La Tierra. Nethero is a state wildlife investigator for Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife.
Miami University is in Oxford, Ohio.
Barack Obama got his campaign back to winning ways on Saturday by notching up a triumph in the Wyoming caucuses and ending a run of dramatic victories by rival Hillary Clinton.
With almost all the votes counted Obama easily beat Clinton by 58% to 41%. His win appeared to be propelled by the heavy turnout of voters, especially among college students in the state's universities.
The caucuses, like previous contests in this compelling Democratic race, saw huge crowds of people packed into venues across the state. Some places had to conduct the caucuses in staggered stages to cope with the crowds. In 2004 only 675 people attended the Democrat caucuses, but on Saturday that total was easily smashed as more than 7,000 voters turned out.
Though Wyoming's caucuses are worth just 12 of the vital convention delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination, the win is a much needed boost to the Obama campaign. Clinton's victories in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island last week have revitalised her bid to be America's first woman commander-in-chief.
They allowed her to paint herself as a comeback candidate who was able to win key big states, like Ohio, which are likely to be the vital battleground with Republican nominee John McCain in the November presidential election. They have also given her once almost dead campaign a vital surge in support. A new poll in Newsweek magazine now shows Clinton virtually tied with Obama in national polls with 44% to his 45%.
Obama's victory in Wyoming is likely to help settle nerves in his campaign. The huge rural Western state might seem an unlikely place for Obama – who is seeking to become America's first black president – to perform strongly. But Obama was actually widely expected to win in a state that is more famous for its cowboys and rodeos than its role in national politics.
Obama has consistently performed well in the smaller states which hold caucuses, rather than primaries, and which reward voter enthusiasm and good organisation. He has also generally beat Clinton in contests in 'red states' like Wyoming rather than states which usually vote Democratic in presidential elections.
The win also comes after a series of bad news events hit the Obama campaign that has rocked its recent image of inevitability and cool professionalism. First, details leaked of a discussion between an Obama aide and Canadian officials over free trade. The talks appeared to contradict Obama's public comments over the NAFTA trade agreement which is unpopular in Ohio.
Then another senior Obama advisor, Samantha Power, left the campaign after she told a Scottish newspaper that Clinton was a 'monster'. That remark sparked a firestorm of protest and Obama condemned the comment. Power later apologised to Clinton.
At the same time Obama's campaign has had to deal with a stridently more negative strategy from the Clinton camp as both campaigns realise that the race is likely to continue to the end of the process in June with neither side conceding. Due to the closeness of the race and because the Democrats assign delegates in a proportional fashion neither side can win the key number of 2,025 'pledged delegates' need to win in the electoral contest.
Instead now both candidates need so-called 'superdelegates' to get over the finishing lines. Superdelegates are a mix of party officials and elected politicians and each campaign is making intense bids for their support.
Before Clinton's recent wins, many superdelegates appeared set to get behind Obama's campaign, but her comeback put those efforts on hold. Now that Obama has won in Wyoming, and is favourite to win in Tuesday's primary in Mississippi, that pressure is likely to be applied again. At the moment Obama holds a delegate lead of about 100 over Clinton.
However, neither Wyoming nor Mississippi are seen as anywhere nearly as important as Pennsylvania, which goes to the polls in April. That race, which could favour Clinton, is seen as the most important battleground left in the contest. Pennsylvania has 158 delegates and is predicted to be Clinton's best chance to narrow the delegate gap sufficiently so that her campaign can claim that Obama's lead is narrow enough to be discounted as any form of decisive victory.
We've written about him many times before but I make no apology for waxing lyrical again about Harold Burson – he is a PR legend.
This week I was lucky enough to attend a party in New York City to celebrate Harold's 90th birthday, which was attended by Burson alum from around the world and many current executives in town for a global company conference.
The affection for Harold in the room was palpable as people waited in line to congratulate him. Luminaries attending included Alcoa's Nick Ashooh, reality TV star and People's Revolution founder Kelly Cutrone, Council of PR Firms chair Kathy Cripps, the reputation doctor himself, Mike Paul, and many, many others.
Francisco Carvalho, managing director of Burson-Marsteller in Brazil, presented Harold with a Brazil soccer shirt with his name on the back that Harold proudly donned before stepping up to make a funny and moving speech.
And PRWeek presented Harold with a commemorative cover alluding to the fact he was named our PR person of the 20th century. Harold still goes into the office most days and still works with clients, so at this rate he's putting down a pretty good marker to be the PR person of the 21st century as well.
The best tribute to Harold is the culture he created at the agency he founded back in 1946, subsequently merged with Marsteller in 1953 to create Burson-Marsteller, and built into the largest PR agency in the world. Burson alum groups exist all around the world and still meet up regularly. Reference was made to the handwritten notes Harold would send individuals when they had done something well, many of which have been kept as treasured mementoes.
I particularly enjoyed catching up with former Burson veterans Bob Leaf, Al Tortorella, Joe Benway, and Dominic Di Frisco, who regaled me and the rest of the PRWeek crew with some fantastic tales of PR derring-do straight out of the era of Mad Men.
Harold is a tough act to follow and there were years after his departure from a full-time executive role when the now WPP-owned firm lost its way. But his legacy remains strong as the Burson-Marsteller of the present, led by Mark Penn, looks to build on the encouraging progress it has made in recent years and establish its own identity.
In this 2012 file photo, Britain's Prince William stands next to his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge as she leaves the King Edward VII hospital in central London.
Most people take a hospital birth for granted these days, but just a few decades ago the custom among royals — as it was among commoners — was to give birth at home.
Queen Elizabeth II was born at 17 Bruton Street in London, a private family home, and she gave birth to her sons Charles, Andrew and Edward in Buckingham Palace. Her only daughter, Princess Anne, was born at Clarence House, also a royal property.
That changed by the 1980s, when Princes William and Harry were both born at the private Lindo Wing of St. Mary's hospital in central London. William and Kate's first child — a prince — was born Monday in the very same wing.
For a long time, royals were educated in private. The queen was taught at home by her father, tutors and governesses, and never mingled with commoners at a school, college or university.
Charles was the first royal heir to have gone to school, and William and Kate, who were both educated at independent schools, will doubtless have their son do the same.
William said he would be there with Kate when she gave birth, in line with the expectations of many modern parents — and he delivered on that promise. He follows in the footsteps of his father, Charles, who declared how much he relished being in the delivery room in a letter to his godmother, Patricia Brabourne.
"I am so thankful I was beside Diana's bedside the whole time because by the end of the day I really felt as though I'd shared deeply in the process of birth," Charles wrote shortly after William's birth.
Things were quite different when Charles was born. When the queen (then Princess Elizabeth) went into labor, her husband, Prince Philip, was off playing squash in the palace — out of restlessness, not indifference, noted Charles' biographer Jonathan Dimbleby.
In the early 1900s — and probably before — custom dictated that government officials should be present when a royal was born. When the queen was born in 1926, for example, the home secretary was present among the doctors.
The current home secretary, Theresa May, said the centuries-old tradition required the official to attend "as evidence that it was really a royal birth and the baby hadn't been smuggled in." Fortunately for Kate — the practice was abolished years ago by George VI.
The custom is thought to have been linked to the so-called "warming pan plot" of 1688, when rumors swirled that the supposed child of James II was sneaked into the delivery room in a long-handled bed-warming pan. Some 40 to 60 people were said to have dropped in to witness the birth.
Now that the baby's gender is known, the biggest guessing game surrounding the royal birth is the name. Most royals have three to four first names, usually in a combination that honors previous monarchs or relatives. The queen's full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, after her mother, great-grandmother and grandmother, and William's full name is William Arthur Philip Louis.
The bookmakers had the shortest odds on Alexandra, Charlotte, Elizabeth for a girl, and George or James for a boy. It could take a while for the public to find out the future king's name. When William was born, it took a full week before his name was announced.
The royals don't require a surname. The correct title when referring to the new prince will be His Royal Highness Prince (name) of Cambridge. If required, current members of the royal household may use Mountbatten-Windsor, the surname adopted in 1960 for all of the queen's children. (That name combines Windsor, the family name adopted by King George V in 1917 to replace Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Prince Philip's family name, Mountbatten).
Prince William, the heir of Charles, the Prince of Wales, is known as Flight Lt. Wales when on military duty.
Royal babies tend to be officially christened several days to weeks after they are born, and there are a few potential places this could take place for the new baby.
The queen was christened in the private chapel at Buckingham Palace, while both William and his father Charles were christened in the palace's Music Room.
The traditional way the palace announces a royal baby's birth to the world is as quaint as it gets: A messenger with the news travels by car from the hospital to Buckingham Palace, carrying a piece of paper detailing the infant's gender, weight and time of birth. The bulletin is then posted on a wooden easel on the palace's forecourt for everyone to see.
This time, however, the Palace announced the news by press release.
In the old days the announcement was made to the wider public by a reader on radio, but today that's replaced by the Internet and social media: After the announcement was made, officials posted the news on Twitter to millions of followers worldwide.
William and Kate have not made any public announcements about hiring a nanny to help them bring up their son. Many expect the couple to be more hands-on parents than earlier generations of royals, and some have speculated that because of the couple's close ties with Kate's parents, Michael and Carole Middleton will also have a big role in helping Kate with the baby.
Nannies have always been central to bringing up royal babies. Charles was famously close to his nannies, and William and Harry also enjoyed a bond with their former nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke — who was so well known that she herself frequently appeared in the news.
Some things don't really change. A 62-gun salute from the Tower of London and a 41-gun salute from Green Park, near Buckingham Palace, were to welcome the baby into the world with a bang, just as it did when previous royals were born.
More banks are unlikely to be brought under the RBI's Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) framework as the situation pertaining to bad loans is expected to improve in the next couple of quarters, according to a finance ministry official.
The recent tight prudential norms released by the RBI on February 12 have added to the woes of the lenders, he said.
More banks are unlikely to be brought under the RBI’s Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) framework as the situation pertaining to bad loans is expected to improve in the next couple of quarters, according to a finance ministry official.
Currently, 11 banks including Bank of India, IDBI Bank, Dena Bank, and Allahabad Bank are under the PCA framework.
As the debt resolution process under bankruptcy law is gaining strength, it is bound to bring down the non-performing assets (NPAs) or bad loans of the public sector banks (PSBs) in the next few quarters, the official said.
The banks have already seen a surge in NPAs in the fourth quarter of 2017-18 and are likely to see sizeable decline in them in the coming months, the official said.
Since there is clear pipeline for NPA resolution, the official said, the ministry does not expect more banks to come under the PCA. PSBs which are on the verge of coming under the PCA will improve their financial health within a quarter or two, the official added.
As per the revised PCA guidelines released last year, if a bank enters ‘Risk Threshold 3′, it may be a candidate for amalgamation, reconstruction or even be wound up. Among the many metrics that are used to gauge how weak a lender is are capital, net NPAs, RoA and Tier 1 leverage ratio etc.
Under PCA, banks face restrictions on distributing dividends and remitting profits and the owner may be asked to infuse capital into the lender. That apart, lenders would also be stopped from expanding their branch networks. It would need to maintain higher provisions and management compensation and directors’ fees would be capped.
To resolve the stressed assets in the power sector, the finance ministry is expected to hold stakeholders’ meeting later this list month.
STAMFORD -- A renegade fundamentalist Kansas church professing the demise of the United States because of its liberal policies on homosexuality, abortion and divorce is threatening to protest the Friday funeral for fallen Stamford SEAL Brian Bill.
Fred Phelps Jr., spokesman and son of Topeka's Westboro Baptist Church leader Fred W. Phelps, said Wednesday that five or six church members are on their way to Stamford for Bill's services.
"That's the idea. We are doing as many SEAL funerals as we can," he said in a phone interview from Kansas.
U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer Bill, 31, was killed Aug. 6 when a rocket-propelled grenade shot down the helicopter he and 21 other SEALs were flying in during a combat mission in Afghanistan.
Bill was a 1997 graduate of Trinity Catholic High School and the first soldier from Stamford to be killed in combat in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last Stamford resident to die as a combatant on foreign soil was in 1983, when U.S. Marine Cpl. Devon Sundar, 23, was killed in Beirut when a terrorist's bomb ripped through a barracks, killing 229 servicemen.
The Westboro Baptist Church, which according to published reports has about 70 members -- mostly relatives of the Phelpses -- has irritated and angered many as it travels to military funerals spreading its message that God hates America and is killing its troops as revenge for what the country has become. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March that the group's demonstrations, while at the most devastating time for many families, is a form of protected free speech.
Clearly angered by the church's stance toward the military, police Chief Robert Nivakoff, out of respect to Bill's family and in an apparent effort to not support or promote Westboro Church, declined comment on the threatened protest.
Phelps said Bill should have known that he would face God's wrath when he voluntarily "fought for such a filthy nation."
"If you believe the Bible, this is a no-brainer, my friend," he said at close of the interview.
Bill's stepfather, Dr. Michael Parry, said he knew Westboro Baptist was thinking about sending protesters to the funeral.
But as far as Westboro's message was concerned, he said, "We believe in Brian, and we believe in what he believed in. We support our troops on the mission to which they have been assigned."
George Ogilvie, Greenwich resident and volunteer motorcycle rider for the Connecticut chapter of Patriot Guard, said he does not expect Westboro to show.
"I think that is more of a scare. They say they'll protest everything. I haven't heard anything form the Stamford mayor's office," Ogilvie said.
Stamford Mayor Michael Pavia could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Ogilvie, 57, is a Vietnam-era Marine who rides his motorcycle with other volunteers to greet soldiers coming home and escorting military funeral processions. The Patriot Guard was created to contest Westboro's funeral protests.
"They are very misguided. For the life of me, I cannot understand how they can call themselves a church. A church is about peace and love and turn the other cheek, but these people spew nothing but hate," said Ogilvie, who has never encountered a Westboro member at a funeral he has escorted.
If they show up at St. Cecilia's Parish at 1184 Newfield Ave. on Friday morning, Ogilvie said he and the other volunteers will be ready.
Ogilvie said many riders are coming from in and out of state to ensure the funeral goes as planned. The fire department has allowed riders to spend the night in a city firehouse if they don't feel like going home right after the service, he said.
If the "UGs" or uninvited guests show up, he and the other riders will assemble with up to 200 flags between the protesters and the church, he said.
If the protesters begin singing some of their "nasty" songs, Ogilvie said some of the riders might start their bikes and rev their engines to drown out the "noise."
During a candlelight vigil at Trinity on Saturday, the Rev. Richard Futie, pastor at Sacred Heart Church, referred to Bill as the son he never had. Futie first met Bill when he was serving as a priest at St. Cecilia's Elementary School in the 1990s and was visibly shaken by his loss.
"It is a mark of good breeding never to speak ill of the dead," Futie said. "Our constitutional rights over religion and speech can only flourish when exercised with good taste, respect and honor."
Staff Writer John Nickerson can be reached at (203) 964-2320 or [email protected].
History is infinitely complicated. Too much stuff has happened for anyone to chronicle, so historians are forced to pick and choose. And wherever there's picking and choosing, there's the delicate art of interpretation.
Sometimes the best approach to complication is to strip things down to the broadest points. It's how you get a decent sense of what happened without getting lost in the details.
When I think about the U.S. economy over the last 70 years, here's basically what happened.
World War II ends. Twelve million U.S. soldiers are demobilized and sent back to an economy that's only a few years out of the Great Depression.
This looks dangerous. Many smart economists think we'll slip back into the depression. Two recessions hit within three years of the war ending as wartime spending falls.
So, we did something. Interest rates are kept low, access to household credit is expanded, and the GI bill provides education to millions.
It works. America is the only major power whose industrial base isn't bombed out by the war, which limits competition. Post-war currency agreements and businesses that learned new operating efficiency during the war sparks an economic boom. It's driven in part by pent-up consumer demand after years of wartime retooling that halted production of things like cars and toasters. Consumer spending rises from 56% of GDP in 1950 to 65% by 1970 to 70% by 2000.
Class evens out. There are huge skews by race, but wage growth and employment within races is pretty good and evenly distributed, party due to unionization and perhaps a wartime ethos of cooperation toward a common goal. Real income for the bottom 20% of wage-earners grew by a nearly identical amount as the top 5% from 1950 to 1980. Economic classes within races narrow dramatically. The laborforce participation rate for women jumps from 32% in 1948 to 58% by 1990, adding more fuel to growth.
Things work pretty well for about three decades. There are recessions, busts, and race wars. But the 1950s-1970s create prosperity and opportunity that, within social groups, fosters a sense of fairness and togetherness. The rich clearly had more money, but lived lives not drastically different from the masses. Normal people drove Chevys; Rich people drove Cadillacs. Hard work paid off and provided a lifestyle that, measured against almost all your peers, you could be proud of.
Growth continues, but spreads unevenly. The economy booms in the 1980s and 1990s, but real wages for the bottom 10% of workers fall 5% from 1980 to 2013, while wages for the top 5% of workers rise 41%.
Technology and globalization pushes this further. A more connected world – which takes off after the collapse of the Soviet Union – brings huge rewards for business winners (thanks to more customers) while suppressing wages in the developed world (thanks to competition from global workers).
This causes a cultural consumption problem. Rising income inequality sparks up the Keeping Up With The Joneses effect as the lifestyle of a small group of legitimately rich people increases the aspirations of everyone else. More of your peers become wealthier and start living in bigger homes, driving nicer cars, and sending their kids to private schools. Everyone else feels entitled to not fall behind them, because they're used to the 1950-1980 culture of equality and togetherness.
To compensate, more households turn to debt. Household debt surged as soon as income inequality took off – that was how the masses kept up with the Joneses as their income fell behind. Household debt to disposable income was flat from 1960 to 1980, at about 60%. The ratio jumped to 80% by 1988, 90% by 1996, and 125% by 2007.
Instability rises. Insatiable appetite for debt, huge savings among the richest sliver of society, and loose Fed policy increases the prevalence of bubbles.