Prostitution and Pacific fishing

Ben Bohane

Fishing and prostitution might be the two oldest professions. But the exploitation of both is creating new vulnerabilities for Pacific islands as the whole world increasingly comes to fish in its waters. Ben Bohane reports from Kiribati.

The deck of the Taiwanese purse-seiner bustles with activity. At anchor a few kilometres off Tarawa in Kiribati, tons of skipjack tuna are lifted from a refrigerated hold up onto the sweltering topdeck for transhipment to a ship moored beside it. Whistles blow, nets of shimmering fish are raised and swung onto the mothership, which will take its cargo to canneries in Papua New Guinea and Taiwan.
But look closer and another small transhipment is also taking place between the two rolling boats. A young girl is gingerly easing herself down thick ropes from the mothership onto the purse-seiner. It is a delicate balancing act 20 metres above water and for a moment she looks like a trapeze artist, walking the tightrope. She smiles at one of the Taiwanese crew as she drops like a cat onto the deck and disappears into a nearby cabin. Here in Kiribati she is known as a "korakorea" girl; a girl who spends time with fishermen.

Not as romantic as it seems

In the Pacific, the practice of sweet young girls paddling out to foreign boats to introduce their charms to restless seamen is nothing new, it is almost a cliché of Pacific history. European sailors were fond of dropping anchor in places like Tahiti knowing they would be "warmly welcomed" after long and lonely months at sea. Such women helped cause mutiny on the Bounty, and much else to inspire romantic notions in Europe that the Pacific islands were an Eden of sorts.

Although the practice continues today, there is little romance and far more dangers involved for the girls - the spectre of AIDS and social/psychological consequences of girls as young as 12 involved gives the fishing industry a dark side that is rarely contemplated when consumers open a tin of tuna.

In reality, there are growing social consequences as a result of a rapacious fishing industry worth an estimated US$2.7 billion per year. More than half the world's tuna, about 2 million tons per year, now comes from the Pacific region.

Why the world is coming to the Pacific for fish

The Pacific ocean holds the world's last great fish supply - since many of the world's oceans have been substantially overfished in recent decades. The EU, after enforcing a moratorium on cod fishing in the Atlantic which put much of the European fleet on dry dock, has recently signed a number of bi-lateral deals with Pacific island states to fish in their waters.

Europe now sources much of its tuna from the Pacific - in Germany, for example, half the tuna consumed there comes from Kiribati alone. The EU fleet now joins China, Taiwan, Japan, Russia, America, The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and others who are ranging far into the Pacific, often unmonitored, to harvest schools of fish (mainly tuna) on an industrial scale.

Korakorea girls

As in most places, prostitution is hardly a modern phenomenon. In Kiribati, the term "korakorea" was first coined to describe local girls who went aboard Korean fishing vessels, but is now more generally used for girls going onboard fishing boats from any country as well as being slang for "cheap fish".

Many do it because of poverty at home and the chance to earn money, clothes and fish to take home. Some girls get pressured by their families to do it. Others claim they do it so they can get "drinking money for their friends" and because the foreign fishermen treat them better than their local men do.

There is no law against prostitution in Kiribati, which was highlighted recently when 80 girls were rounded up and brought before a local court before being released. Yet there is growing concern that Kiribati maybe breaching international conventions on child protection since many of the girls are only 14 and 15 years of age. UNICEF is preparing to release a damning document relating to underage prostitution in several Pacific countries, including Kiribati.


Kathy


Linda, 21, a sexworker who says she spends days and nights on visiting purse seiners in the Tarawa harbour. Kiribati may be breaching international conventions on child protection since many of the sexworkers are only 14 and 15 years of age.
One girl involved in the trade, "Kathy", claims girls as young as 12 are involved.

"I know about one 12 year old girl who was taken out to a fishing boat by her aunty and she has disappeared. Her family are very worried since she has been missing now for 4 months".

Kathy is a pretty 21 year old girl who lives with her father, an unemployed former government worker, in a crowded settlement near the Betio port on south Tarawa. She claims there are many local girls involved in the trade and they all have different motivations.

"It all depends because some they really need money to support their families with food, so they feel some pressure. Other girls need money to buy drinks for themselves and friends when they want to go out to the bars".

Kathy says that even though their have been crackdowns by local authorities the girls are not scared of getting caught by police because "their family are supporting them".

Taking advantage of history and attitudes

This is what makes prostitution in Kiribati and other Pacific islands a complex issue. For many Pacific cultures it is not a big deal; sex, custom and fishing are all intertwined, subject to tabus. Many islanders do not view such exchanges as "prostitution". Fishing and sex have long been linked to traditions that were, in itself, not necessarily a bad thing, because everything was shared within communities and remote islands needed "new blood" to prevent inbreeding and keep the tribe strong to defend from raiding enemies. Ritual exchanges of things like fish and women kept the peace among neighbours.

In Kiribati, as a recent UNICEF document points out, prostitution is not new.

"In 1826 prostitutes were referred to as Nikiranroro, meaning those who had lost their virginity or had eloped. Whalers were much criticised and blamed for having increased prostitution in the islands...and that venereal disease was said to have been more widespread after whaling contacts".

Modern times

As President of the Kiribati National Council of Women (AMAK), Mere agrees the korakorea issue is a complex one, but believes that young girls should be in school and better guided by their parents or guardians.

"It is an issue here because it is against our culture and tradition. In the olden days, at age 14 or 15, girls were kept in the home doing work that assured your future life as a woman and they were very restricted in their night time outings. But now Kiribati is in the swell of globalisation and the issue of korakorea...well, that's how things happen now."

Modernity, a cash economy and the loss of tradition has created new vulnerabilities for coastal communities of the Pacific. Legal and illegal fishing by foreign vessels have introduced a range of social problems apart from the environmental impact of depleted fish stocks. Mere believes there is a "dangerous cycle" linking alcohol abuse, violence, sexual abuse and disease that is afflicting many Pacific nations including her own.

Communities that once shared everything now find a new rich/poor divide is splitting them and AIDS is an ever present danger. According to the HIV AIDS clinic at Tarawa General Hospital, Kiribati (population 92,000) has 43 confirmed AIDS cases of which 26 have already died.

"I'd say almost all the cases of AIDS here are related to the fishing industry" claims one of the nurses testing blood samples. "It is coming from both foreign fishermen and our own sailors returning home".

More enforcement tools needed

David Yee Ting, Kiribati's Permanent Secretary for Fisheries, claims that the government is getting on top of the situation, saying, "Our new Police Commissioner has been enforcing the laws to stop girls - and those who help them - go out to the boats."

He confirms that the situation got so bad that for a period in 2003, Kiribati actually banned all Korean fishing boats from entering Kiribati ports after reports in the Korean Herald that 30-50 girls, mostly underage, were servicing the Korean fishermen.

Asked whether he thought Kiribati was also getting ripped off on its core asset, fisheries, Ting says "That's a bit harsh, but yes, we could be getting a better return. We only have one patrol boat and we don't have many trained fisheries officers who can be stationed on boats to monitor catches."

"But as Pacific states come together through regional bodies like the FFA (Forum Fisheries Authority, based in Solomon Islands) and the WCPFC (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, based in Marshall Islands), I believe we will have more collective power to get a better deal on our fish resources".

Ting is upbeat about the recent deal signed between the EU and Kiribati, believing the EU will help develop the local industry with more local employment and training. Other observers are not so sanguine:

"I don't think we should have vessels from 5,000 miles away fishing here. Why are they fishing here? Because they have stuffed their own region and now they are coming down here to do it" is the blunt assessment of Captain David Lucas, manager of Solander Pacific Fiji.

"We've got purse-seiners from the European Union fishing in Kiribati. Why should they be down here? What have they done to their own? Who's next?"

Sphere: Related Content

Alleged sex slaver asks to run Thai tours


An Australian hairdresser facing the nation's first charges of importing Thai sex slaves has begged the court to return his passport so he can take tourists to Thailand and Southeast Asia.

Keith William Dobie, 46, was arrested and charged on Aug 2 with taking three Thai women to Australia, imprisoning them, forcing them to work as prostitutes and - in the short period before his arrest - making $25,000 for himself - about 700,000 baht.

In addition to slavery and people trafficking, Dobie was charged with money laundering and lying to the immigration authorities about the three women.

The Australian media report this morning that Dobie went to the court to claim that the inconvenient charges of slavery have made it impossible for him to run his business of "pamper tours".

He described these as taking Australian women to Thailand and neighbouring countries for beauty treatments and shopping sprees.

Not only that, but the legal charges have ruined his hairdressing business - apparently customers don't want to be touched by a person charged with sex slavery - and he is $100,000 in debt.

If the court was bothered by the charges of enslaving Thai women, Dobie promised through his lawyer, he would stay away from Thailand, and take his pampered-to-be customers to Singapore and Malaysia only. He promised.

His lawyer Dane Thornburgh told the court Mr Dobie was willing to forego travel to Thailand "if that's what it takes . . . to try and run his life".

He also was prepared to report to Australian authorities within 24 hours of arriving in overseas destinations, he said, adding that the charges against his client were "dubious to say the least and extremely tenuous".

According to the Australian media reports, Commonwealth prosecutor Laura Manville said the bail variation was was "vigorously opposed" because Mr Dobie was considered an unacceptable flight risk.

Ms Manville said Australian authorities should not have to track Mr Dobie down if he failed to return to Australia.

"Once he's gone, he's gone," she said.

The case against Mr Dobie was strong and he faced up to 12 years in jail if convicted of people trafficking, Ms Manville said.

Sphere: Related Content

Police recommend charges against Israeli president in sexual harassment probe


Wrapping up a months-long sexual harassment investigation, police will recommend that charges be filed against Israeli President Moshe Katsav, media reported Saturday.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed that police investigators are to meet with state prosecutors Sunday to present their recommendations. He would not confirm or deny the reports that police favor an indictment. The final decision on whether to go to trial is up to Israel's attorney general.

Katsav has denied all wrongdoing. However, if indicated he would likely have to step aside. In Israel, the president holds a largely ceremonial role with little authority, but is considered a unifying force in a fractured society.

Israel Radio and Channel 2 TV said the case against Katsav is based on complaints by five women, who allege he made unwanted sexual advances toward them during his tenure as president and before that, as government minister. Complaints by five other women are not being pursued because the statute of limitations has run out, the reports said.

The investigation of Katsav began earlier this year, after a former employee alleged he forced her to have sex with him under the threat of dismissal. Police repeatedly questioned Katsav at his official residence and seized personal documents.

Sphere: Related Content

Thai to get 25 mil Baht for nude scene


The buttocks of Thailand popular singer "Ta Ta Young" has caught the eyes of Hollywood, she was invited to star with the famous Nicholas Cage with an offered of 25 Million Baht. The singer has gone through casting and waiting to see whether this will clash with her concert or not.

After proving her sensuality, especially with her new single album "Al Nin-Yo". That has stunned the Thai with the costume revealing her rears and her provocative dance movement. Lately the international singer "Ta Ta Young" was invited by Hollywood to play in a movie as leading actress.

The Hollywood team was impressed by her work and has agreed to accept her for the leading role with an offer of 25 Million Baht, which is considered to be the highest. As for Nicholas Cage after having seen her work, he told the team that he would very much to like to work with her.

Sources said that personally "Ta Ta" has discussed with the team and informed them that she would like to work in this movie. But when they tried to contact her again to make an agreement,it appeared that "Ta Ta" was a bit doubtful as it would involved traveling to many countries to film the movie, she was afraid that the trip will clash with her new single album concert.

Close sources to "Ta Ta" said that the team is willing to give the Thai singer an opportunity and time for decision making as to whether she would really like to play in this movie.

For the filming in Asia the actress would have to wear a swimming suit but for the scene overseas the best shot would be she has to go naked. "Ta T a didn't seem to have any problem with this, the only thing that concerned her and left her indecisive is the concert schedule." The source said.

Sphere: Related Content

Russian mob and human trafficking


Jim Kouri

From Himalayan villages to Eastern European cities, people -- especially women and girls -- are attracted by the prospect of a well-paid job as a domestic servant, waitress or factory worker. Human traffickers recruit victims through fake advertisements, mail-order bride catalogues and casual acquaintances.

Upon arrival at their destination, victims are placed in conditions controlled by traffickers while they are exploited to earn illicit revenues. Many are physically confined, their travel or identity documents are taken away and they or their families are threatened if they do not cooperate.

Women and girls forced to work as prostitutes are blackmailed by the threat that traffickers will tell their families. Trafficked children are dependent on their traffickers for food, shelter and other basic necessities. Traffickers also play on victims' fears that authorities in a strange country will prosecute or deport them if they ask for help. A major purveyor of these de facto slaves is the Russian organized crime syndicate. Brutal, cunning and ruthless, these 21st Century mobsters present a new threat to US national security.

Over the past decade, trafficking in human beings has reached epidemic proportions. No country is immune. The search for work abroad has been fueled by economic disparity, high unemployment and the disruption of traditional livelihoods. Traffickers face few risks and can earn huge profits by taking advantage of large numbers of potential immigrants. Trafficking in human beings is a crime in which victims are moved from poor environments to more affluent ones, with the profits flowing in the opposite direction, a pattern often repeated at the domestic, regional and global levels. It is believed to be growing fastest in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

In Asia, girls from villages in Nepal and Bangladesh - the majority of whom are under 18 - are sold to brothels in India for $1000. Trafficked women from Thailand and the Philippines are increasingly being joined by women from other countries in Southeast Asia. Europe (European InterPol) estimates that the industry is now worth several billion dollars a year. Trafficking in human beings is not confined to the sex industry. Children are trafficked to work in sweatshops as bonded labor and men work illegally in the "three D-jobs" - dirty, difficult and dangerous.

A recent CIA report estimated that between 45,000 to 50,000 women and children are brought to the United States every year under false pretenses and are forced to work as prostitutes, abused laborers or servants. UNICEF estimates that more than 200,000 children are enslaved by cross-border smuggling in West and Central Africa. The children are often "sold" by unsuspecting parents who believe their children are going to be looked after, learn a trade or be educated.

In the decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has become the target of a new global crime threat from criminal organizations and criminal activities that have poured forth over the borders of Russia and other former Soviet republics such as Ukraine. The nature and variety of the crimes being committed seem unlimited -- trafficking in women and children, drugs, arms trafficking, stolen automobiles, and money laundering are among the most prevalent. The spillover is particularly troubling to Europe because of its geographical proximity to Russia, and to Israel, because of its large numbers of Russian immigrants.

But no area of the world seems immune to this menace, especially not the United States. America is the land of opportunity for unloading criminal goods and laundering dirty money. For that reason--and because, unfortunately, much of the examination of Russian organized crime (the so-called "Russian Mafia") to date has been rather hyperbolic and sketchy -- many in law enforcement believe it is important to step back and take an objective look at this growing phenomenon.

Russian organized crime has come to plague many areas of the globe since the demise of the Soviet Union just more than a decade ago. The transnational character of Russian organized crime, when coupled with its high degree of sophistication and ruthlessness, has attracted the world's attention and concern to what has become known as a global Russian Mafia. Along with this concern, however, has come a fair amount of misunderstanding and stereotyping with respect to Russian organized crime.

Trafficking is almost always a form of organized crime and should be dealt with using criminal powers to investigate and prosecute offenders for trafficking and any other criminal activities in which they engage. Trafficked persons should also be seen as victims of crime. Support and protection of victims is a humanitarian objective and an important means of ensuring that victims are willing and able to assist in criminal cases. As with other forms of organized crime, trafficking has globalized.

Groups formerly active in specific routes or regions have expanded the geographical scope of their activities to explore new markets. Some have merged or formed cooperative relationships, expanding their geographical reach and range of criminal activities. Illegal migrants and trafficking victims have become another commodity in a larger realm of criminal commerce involving other commodities, such as narcotic drugs and firearms or weapons and money laundering, that generate illicit revenues or seek to reduce risks for traffickers.

With respect to organized crime, certain geographical or infrastructure characteristics, such as the presence of seaports, international airports, strategic border locations, rich natural resources, and so on, provide special criminal opportunities that can best be exploited by criminals who are organized. More so than common crime, organized crime is fed by the presence of ethnic minorities who furnish a ready supply of both victims and the offenders to victimize them. Organized crime also thrives in environments characterized by a relatively high tolerance of deviance and a romanticization of crime figures, especially where government and law enforcement are weak or corrupt (the history of the Sicilian Mafia illustrates this).

Sphere: Related Content

The Fresh Face



First-term Senator Barack Obama has the charisma and the ambition to run for President. But, as JOE KLEIN reports from the campaign trail, he's not quite ready to answer the tough questions
.

It is 9 A.M. on a fresh, sunny Saturday in Rockford, Ill., and nearly a thousand people have gathered in the gymnasium at Rock Valley College to participate in a town meeting with their Senator, Barack Obama. It is an astonishingly large crowd for a beautiful Saturday morning, but Obama--whose new book, The Audacity of Hope, is excerpted starting on page 52--has become an American political phenomenon in what seems about a nanosecond, and the folks are giddy with anticipation. "We know he's got the charisma," says Bertha McEwing, who has lived in Rockford for more than 50 years. "We want to know if he's got the brains." Just then there is a ripple through the crowd, then gasps, cheers and applause as Obama lopes into the gym with a casual, knees-y stride. "Missed ya," he says, moving to the microphone, and he continues greeting people over raucous applause. "Tired of Washington."

There's a sly hipster syncopation to his cadence, "Been stuck there for a while." But the folksiness pretty much disappears when he starts answering questions. Obama's actual speaking style is quietly conversational, low in rhetoric-saturated fat; there is no harrumph to him. About halfway through the hour-long meeting, a middle-aged man stands up and says what seems to be on everyone's mind, with appropriate passion: "Congress hasn't done a damn thing this year. I'm tired of the politicians blaming each other. We should throw them all out and start over!"

"Including me?" the Senator asks.

A chorus of n-o-o-o-s. "Not you," the man says. "You're brand new." Obama wanders into a casual disquisition about the sluggish nature of democracy. The answer is not even remotely a standard, pretaped political response. He moves through some fairly arcane turf, talking about how political gerrymandering has led to a generation of politicians who come from safe districts where they don't have to consider the other side of the debate, which has made compromise--and therefore legislative progress--more difficult. "That's why I favored Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal last year, a nonpartisan commission to draw the congressional-district maps in California. Too bad it lost." The crowd is keeping up with Obama, listening closely as he segues into a detailed discussion of the federal budget. Eventually, he realizes he has been filibustering and apologizes to the crowd for "making a speech." No one seems to care, since Obama is doing something pretty rare in latter-day American politics: he is respecting their intelligence. He's a liberal, but not a screechy partisan. Indeed, he seems obsessively eager to find common ground with conservatives. "It's such a relief after all the screaming you see on TV," says Chuck Sweeny, political editor of the Rockford Register Star. "Obama is reaching out. He's saying the other side isn't evil. You can't imagine how powerful a message that is for an audience like this."

Obama's personal appeal is made manifest when he steps down from the podium and is swarmed by well-wishers of all ages and hues, although the difference in reaction between whites and blacks is subtly striking. The African Americans tend to be fairly reserved--quiet pride, knowing nods and be-careful-now looks. The white people, by contrast, are out of control. A nurse named Greta, just off a 12-hour shift, tentatively reaches out to touch the Senator's sleeve. "Oh, my God! Oh, my God! I just touched a future President! I can't believe it!" She is literally shaking with delight--her voice is quivering--as she asks Obama for an autograph and then a hug.

Indeed, as we traveled that Saturday through downstate Illinois and then across the Mississippi into the mythic presidential-campaign state of Iowa, Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow--a sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy. Bill Gluba, a longtime Democratic activist who sells real estate on both sides of the river in the Quad Cities area, reminisced about driving Bobby Kennedy around Davenport, Iowa, on May 14, 1968. "I was just a teenaged kid," he says. "But I'll never forget the way people reacted to Kennedy. Never seen anything like it since--until this guy." The question of when Obama--who has not yet served two years in the U.S. Senate--will run for President is omnipresent. That he will eventually run, and win, is assumed by almost everyone who comes to watch him speak. In Davenport a local reporter asks the question directly: "Are you running for President in 2008?" Obama surprises me by saying he's just thinking about the 2006 election right now, which, in the semiotic dance of presidential politics, is definitely not a no. A few days later, I ask Obama the obvious follow-up question: Will he think about running for President in 2008 when the congressional election is over? "When the election is over and my book tour is done, I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband," he says carefully, and then adds, "I haven't completely decided or unraveled that puzzle yet."

Which is even closer to a yes--or, perhaps, it's just a clever strategy to gin up some publicity at the launch of his book tour. The current Obama mania is reminiscent of the Colin Powell mania of September 1995, when the general--another political rainbow--leveraged speculation that he might run for President into book sales of 2.6 million copies for his memoir, My American Journey. Powell and Obama have another thing in common: they are black people who--like Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan--seem to have an iconic power over the American imagination because they transcend racial stereotypes. "It's all about gratitude," says essayist Shelby Steele, who frequently writes about the psychology of race. "White people are just thrilled when a prominent black person comes along and doesn't rub their noses in racial guilt. White people just go crazy over people like that."

When I asked Obama about this, he began to answer before I finished the question. "There's a core decency to the American people that doesn't get enough attention," he said, sitting in his downtown Chicago office, casually dressed in jeans and a dark blue shirt. "Figures like Oprah, Tiger, Michael Jordan give people a shortcut to express their better instincts. You can be cynical about this. You can say, It's easy to love Oprah. It's harder to embrace the idea of putting more resources into opportunities for young black men--some of whom aren't so lovable. But I don't feel that way. I think it's healthy, a good instinct. I just don't want it to stop with Oprah. I'd rather say, If you feel good about me, there's a whole lot of young men out there who could be me if given the chance."

But that's not quite true. There aren't very many people--ebony, ivory or other--who have Obama's distinctive portfolio of talents, or what he calls his "exotic" family history. His parentage was the first thing he chose to tell us about himself when he delivered his knockout keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004: his father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas. He told the story in brilliant, painful detail in his first book, Dreams from My Father, which may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician. His parents met at the University of Hawaii and stayed together only briefly. His father left when Obama was 2 years old, and Barack was raised in Hawaii by his Kansas grandparents, except for a strange and adventurous four-year interlude when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and her second husband. As a teenager at Hawaii's exclusive Punahou prep school and later as a college student, Obama road tested black rage, but it was never a very good fit. There was none of the crippling psychological legacy of slavery in his family's past. He was African and American, as opposed to African American, although he certainly endured the casual cruelties of everyday life--in the new book, he speaks of white people mistaking him for a valet-parking attendant--that are visited upon nonwhites in America. "I had to reconcile a lot of different threads growing up--race, class," he told me. "For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D." Obama believes his inability to fit neatly into any group or category explains his relentless efforts to understand and reconcile opposing views. But the tendency is so pronounced that it almost seems an obsessive-compulsive tic. I counted no fewer than 50 instances of excruciatingly judicious on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-handedness in The Audacity of Hope. At one point, he considers the historic influence of ideological extremists--that is, people precisely unlike him. "It has not always been the pragmatist, the voice of reason, or the force of compromise, that has created the conditions for liberty," he writes about the antislavery movement of the 19th century. "Knowing this, I can't summarily dismiss those possessed of similar certainty today--the antiabortion activist ... the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory--no matter how deeply I disagree with their views. I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty--for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute."

Yikes. But then Obama is nothing if not candid about his uncertainties and imperfections. In Dreams from My Father, which was written before he became a politician, he admits to cocaine and marijuana use and also to attending socialist meetings. In The Audacity of Hope, I counted 28 impolitic or self-deprecating admissions. Immediately, on page 3, he admits to political "restlessness," which is another way of saying he's ambitious. He flays himself for enjoying private jets, which eliminate the cramped frustrations of commercial flying but--on the other hand!--isolate him from the problems of average folks. He admits that his 2004 Senate opponent, Alan Keyes, got under his skin. He blames himself for "tensions" in his marriage; he doubts his "capacities" as a husband and father. He admits a nonpopulist affinity for Dijon mustard; he cops to being "grumpy" in the morning. He even offers his media consultant David Axelrod's opinions about the best negative TV ads that could have been used against him in the 2004 Senate campaign. (He once--accidentally, he says--voted against a bill to "protect our children from sex offenders.")

There is a method to this anguish. Self-deprecation and empathy are powerful political tools. Obama's candor is reminiscent of John McCain, who once said of his first marriage, "People wouldn't think so highly of me if they knew more about that." Obama's empathy is reminiscent of Bill Clinton, although the Senator's compassion tends to be less damp than Clinton's: it's more about understanding your argument than feeling your pain. Both those qualities have been integral to Obama's charm from the start. His Harvard Law School classmate Michael Froman told me Obama was elected president of the Law Review, the first African American to hold that prestigious position, because of his ability to win over the conservatives in their class. "It came down to Barack and a guy named David Goldberg," Froman recalls. "Most of the class were liberals, but there was a growing conservative Federalist Society presence, and there were real fights between right and left about almost every issue. Barack won the election because the conservatives thought he would take their arguments into account."

After three years as a civil rights lawyer and law professor in Chicago, Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate and quickly established himself as different from most of the other African-American legislators. "He was passionate in his views," says state senator Dave Syverson, a Republican committee chairman who worked on welfare reform with Obama. "We had some pretty fierce arguments. We went round and round about how much to spend on day care, for example. But he was not your typical party-line politician. A lot of Democrats didn't want to have any work requirement at all for people on welfare. Barack was willing to make that deal."

The raising and dashing of expectations is at the heart of almost every great political drama. In Obama's case, the expectations are ridiculous. He transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect that he can bridge all the other divisions--and answer all the impossible questions--plaguing American public life. He encourages those expectations by promising great things--at least, in the abstract. "This country is ready for a transformative politics of the sort that John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt represented," he told me. But those were politicians who had big ideas or were willing to take big risks, and so far, Barack Obama hasn't done much of either. With the exception of a bipartisan effort with ultra-conservative Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to publish every government contract--a matter of some embarrassment to their pork-loving colleagues--his record has been predictably liberal. And the annoying truth is, The Audacity of Hope isn't very audacious.

A few weeks ago, I watched Obama give a speech about alternative energy to an audience gathered by MoveOn.org at Georgetown University. It was supposed to be a big deal, one of three speeches MoveOn had scheduled to lay out its 2008 issues agenda, a chance for the best-known group of activist Democrats to play footsie with the party's most charismatic speaker, and vice versa. But it was a disappointment, the closest I had seen Obama come to seeming a standard-issue pol, one who declares a crisis and answers with Band-Aids. In this case, he produced a few scraggly carrots and sticks to encourage Detroit to produce more fuel-efficient cars. The audience of students and activists sensed the Senator's timidity and became palpably less enthusiastic as Obama went on. Just two days before, Al Gore gave a rousing speech in New York City in which he proposed a far more dramatic alternative energy plan: a hefty tax on fossil fuels that would be used, in turn, to reduce Social Security and Medicare taxes. I asked Obama why he didn't support an energy-tax increase married to tax relief for working Americans in the MoveOn speech or in The Audacity of Hope. "I didn't think of it," he replied, but sensing the disingenuousness of his response--talk of a gas tax is everywhere these days, especially among high-minded policy sorts--he quickly added,"I think it's a really interesting idea."

I pressed him on this. Surely he had thought about it? "Remember, the premise of this book wasn't to lay out my 10-point plan," Obama danced. "My goal was to figure out the common values that can serve as a basis for discussion." Sensing my skepticism, he tried again: "This book doesn't drill that deep in terms of policy ... There are a slew of good ideas out there. Some things end up on the cutting-room floor."

Universal health insurance also found its way to the cutting-room floor. I asked about the universal plan recently passed in Massachusetts, which was a triumph of Obama-style bipartisanship. The plan requires everyone who earns three times the poverty rate to purchase health insurance and subsidizes those who earn less than that. Shouldn't health insurance be mandatory, like auto insurance, for those who can afford it? Obama wouldn't go there. "If there's a way of doing it voluntarily, that's more consonant with the American character," he said. "If you can't solve the problem without the government stepping in, that's when you make it mandatory."

After we jousted over several other issues, Obama felt the need to step back and defend himself. "Look, when I spoke out against going to war in Iraq in 2002, Bush was at 60-65% in the polls. I was putting my viability as a U.S. Senate candidate at risk. It looks now like an easy thing to do, but it wasn't then." He's right about that: more than a few of his potential rivals for the presidency in 2008 voted, as a matter of political expediency, to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. Then Obama returned to the energy issue. "When I call for increased fuel-economy standards, that doesn't sit very well with the [United Auto Workers], and they're big buddies of mine ... Look, it's just not my style to go out of my way to offend people or be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. That's offensive and counterproductive. It makes people feel defensive and more resistant to changes."

Talk about defensive: this was the first time I had ever seen Obama less than perfectly comfortable. And his discomfort exposed the elaborate intellectual balancing mechanism that he applies to every statement and gesture, to every public moment of his life. "He's working a very dangerous high-wire act," Shelby Steele told me. "He's got to keep on pleasing white folks without offending black folks, and vice versa." Indeed, Obama faces a minefield on issues like the racial gerrymandering of congressional districts and affirmative action. "You're asking him to take policy risks? Just being who he is is taking an enormous risk."

There is a certain amount of political as well as psychological wisdom to what Steele says. The most basic rule of presidential politics is that you run against your predecessor. If Obama, 45, chooses to run in 2008, his consensus seeking would stand in stark contrast not only to the hyperpartisan Bush Administration but also to the histrionic, self-important style of baby-boom-generation politicians. Or it could work against him. An old-time Chicago politician told me Obama's thoughtfulness might be a negative in a presidential campaign. "You have to convey strength," he said, "and it's hard to do that when you're giving on-the-other-hand answers."

Meanwhile, back in our interview, I offer a slightly barbed olive branch: Maybe I'm asking for too much when I expect him to be bold on the issues, I suggest. Maybe my expectations for him are too high? "No, no," he says, and returns for a third time to energy policy--to Gore's tax-swap idea. "It's a neat idea. I'm going to call Gore and have a conversation about it. It might be something I'd want to embrace."

But he's not ready to make that leap just yet. Boldness needs to be planned, not blurted--and there are all sorts of questions to ponder before he takes the next step.Would the arrogance implicit in running now, after less than one term in the Senate, undercut his carefully built reputation for judiciousness? Is the Chicago politician right about the need to be strong and simple in a run for President? Or can Obama overturn all the standard political assumptions simply by being himself? "In setting your expectations for me now, just remember I haven't announced that I'm running in 2008," he concluded. "I would expect that anyone who's running in 2008, you should have very high expectations for them."

Sphere: Related Content

Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed


President Bush didn't live up to his promises to the religious right, says a former member of his faith-based initiative team, in an exclusive book excerpt

For Republicans who fear that the Foley scandal might keep Evangelicals away from the polls in November, here comes another challenge—in hardcover format. A new memoir by David Kuo, former second-in-command of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, has the White House on the defensive with its account of an Administration that mocked Evangelicals in private while using them at election time to bolster its support. In this exclusive adaptation from the book, Kuo writes about how his White House experiences left him disillusioned about the role religion can play in politics.

I stepped into the Oval Office to find President George W. Bush prowling behind his desk looking for something. "Kuo!" he said without looking up. "Tell me about this meeting."

It was June 2003, and I was deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The office had opened in the West Wing in 2001 to support the President's campaign promise of $8 billion a year in new funding for both religious and secular charities that helped the poor. That money never materialized, however, and I was increasingly stuck with the task of explaining to religious groups why the White House was so bad at helping them do good. This meeting, with a group of prominent African-American pastors who had supported Bush's plan, promised to be no different. I began to brief the President on the pastors, recommending that he talk about the administrative reforms we had implemented, and the tax credits we were still fighting for ...

He interrupted. "Forget about all that. Money. All these guys care about is money. They want money. How much money have we given them?" I never doubted the President's own faith or desire to help those who, like him, had once been lost in a world of alcohol or, unlike him, had struggled with poverty or drugs. Because I shared his faith and his vision of compassionate conservatism, I had been a very good soldier. When members of his senior staff mocked the plan as the "f___ing faith-based initiative," I didn't say a word. When his legislative-affairs team summarily dismissed our attempts to shoehorn our funding into the budget, I smiled and continued trying to work neatly within the system. When I heard staff privately deriding evangelical Christians because they were so easily seduced by White House power, I raised an eyebrow but not a ruckus. Like everyone else in the small faith-based office, I didn't speak too loudly or thunder too much. We were the nice guys.

Today, however, I decided to choose honesty over niceness. Two months earlier, I had been diagnosed with a brain tumor that required intensive surgery and rehabilitation. This was my first meeting with the President and Karl Rove since my return. Something about undergoing brain surgery had made me reflect about whether I had really been doing a public service by pretending that our office had been living up to its commitments.

I glanced over at Karl and turned to look the President in the eye. "Sir, we've given them virtually nothing," I said, "because we have had virtually nothing new to give." The President had been looking down at some papers about the event, but his head jerked up. "Nothing? What do you mean we've given them nothing?" He glared. "Don't we have new money in programs like the Compassion Fund thing?"

I looked again at Karl. He seemed stunned at what I was saying. "No, sir," I told the President. "In the past two years we've gotten less than $80 million in new grant dollars." The number fell shockingly short of the $8 billion he had vowed to deliver in the first year alone.

The President's staff didn't just bad-mouth the faith-based office behind closed doors. Their political indifference also kept us from getting the funding we needed so badly. No episode captured that more clearly than the 2001 negotiations over the President's $1.7 trillion tax cut. In those final negotiations with the Senate and House, the White House voluntarily dropped a centerpiece of the President's compassion promise: a provision to allow 80% of Americans to get credit for their charitable contributions.

Now the President seemed shocked at the news that the Compassion Fund was a pittance. "What?! What do you mean?" he asked. Karl, still caught off guard, protested. "But what about the other money? You know, the money we've opened up to new charities."

I hated any clash with Karl. Especially now. The morning after my tumor diagnosis, Karl was among the first people to call. "I know what you are going through," he said. "I've spent more days and nights of my life than I can count in a cancer ward." He explained that his wife was a double breast-cancer survivor, encouraged me for the fight ahead, and offered any assistance I needed. Now, less than two months later, I was standing in front of the President exposing an ugly truth that Karl would rather not have discussed: after two years in office, we had actually spent less than 1% of what Bush had promised.

I was also contradicting our office's own spin. In an effort to divert attention from all the money that wasn't being given to faith-based groups, we had come up with the idea of highlighting the amount of money now "available" to faith-based organizations because of particular administrative reforms announced six months earlier. It was one of those wonderful Washington assertions that is simultaneously accurate and deceptive and just confusing enough to defy opposition. On the one hand, we had eliminated some ancient and patently absurd regulations, many of them promulgated under seemingly faith-phobic Democratic Administrations, that discriminated against faith-based groups simply because they might have a religious-sounding name. The Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, for instance, was once denied the chance to apply for a federal grant even though it was an entirely secular organization.

On the other hand, faith-based groups had actually been getting chunks of that money for decades, and the regulations we put in place really didn't tackle the biggest problem facing secular and religious nonprofits. That problem was the general bureaucratic unfriendliness of the Federal Government to small, local organizations—precisely the kind that compassionate conservatives like Bush (and I) thought could do the best job tackling ingrained poverty and hopelessness on the community level. We were supposed to give these small groups their first shot, but without any money, our office was resigned to making mostly symbolic changes.

None of that had stopped the White House from trumpeting the changes as hugely significant and leading religious conservatives to believe they were highly consequential. Christian conservatives trusted President Bush. After two years in the White House, I had come to realize that regardless of where the President's heart lay on the matter, the back-office Republican political machine was able to take Evangelicals for granted—indeed, often viewed them with undisguised contempt—and still get their votes. G.O.P. operatives trusted that Christian conservatives would see the President more as their Pastor in Chief than anything else. Bush had long used the podium as a pulpit, telling voters that above all he was an evangelical Christian who had been saved from his drinking by Jesus and rebuilt his life around his faith. That inspirational story was carried throughout the country by a network of prominent evangelical pastors who had been quietly working since 1998 to recruit thousands of other pastors to join the Bush team. After the election, however, those same pastors became accomplices in their own deception by not demanding that the President's actions in office match their electoral fervor.

This White House is certainly not the first Administration to milk religious groups for votes and then boot them unceremoniously back out to pasture. In his days as a notorious "hatchet man" for President Richard M. Nixon, before he had allowed Jesus to transform his life, Chuck Colson used to oversee outreach to the religious community. "I arranged special briefings in the Roosevelt Room for religious leaders, ushered wide-eyed denominational leaders into the Oval Office for private sessions with the President," Colson later wrote. "Of all the groups I dealt with, I found religious leaders the most naive about politics. Maybe that is because so many come from sheltered backgrounds, or perhaps it is the result of a mistaken perception of the demands of Christian charity ... Or, most worrisome of all, they may simply like to be around power."

I finished the briefing. Yes, I told the President, because of new regulations there was technically about $8 billion in existing funding that was now more accessible to faith-based groups. But, I assured him, those organizations had been getting money from those programs for years and it wasn't that big a deal.

"Eight billion in new dollars?" he asked.

"No, sir. Eight billion in existing dollars where groups will find it technically easier to apply for grants. But faith-based groups have been getting that money for years."

"Eight billion," he said. "That's what we'll tell them. Eight billion in new funds for faith-based groups. O.K., let's go."

We headed out of the Oval Office, down a flight of stairs and over to the Old Executive Office Building, where the pastors awaited us. The President walked into the room, traded a few jokes and told the group that because of the faith-based initiative, billions of dollars in new funds were now available to faith-based groups like theirs. The pastors listened respectfully. Before the President left, they prayed for him.

Karl stayed behind to share some thoughts and answer questions. "Before I get started, I want to say something. This initiative isn't political," he told them. "If I walked into the Oval Office and said it was going to be political, the President would bash my head in."

Then the questions began. "Since the President brought up money, where, exactly is that money?" asked one pastor. "We've talked to the Cabinet Secretaries, and they say there isn't any new money." They peppered him with questions for several minutes. Finally he smiled at them and said, "Tell you what, I'm going to get those guys in a room and bash some heads together and get to the bottom of this. I'll be back in touch with you." He left confidently.

At the meeting's end, several of the pastors said they wanted to pray for my healing. They placed their hands on my shoulder and called on God to hear their prayers on my behalf. I listened and loved it and said a prayer of my own: that I would have the courage to tell them what was really going on at the White House.

That was more than three years ago. Their prayers have worked on my body. I am still here and very much alive. Now I am finding the courage to speak out about God and politics and their dangerous dance. George W. Bush, the man, is a person of profound faith and deep compassion for those who suffer. But President George W. Bush is a politician and is ultimately no different from any other politician, content to use religion for electoral gain more than for good works. Millions of Evangelicals may share Bush's faith, but they would protect themselves—and their interests—better if they looked at him through the same coldly political lens with which he views them.

Adapted from the book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction by David Kuo, published by Free Press

Sphere: Related Content

How Iran's Revolution Created 'Muslim Lite'




One week they're partying hard and fast, the next week they're piously observing the fast - today's young Iranians unconsciously straddle two worlds
.

About five days before the start of Ramadan, in anticipation of a long month of abstinence, my upstairs neighbor's kid threw a house party. Car after car unloaded young men with spiky, gelled hair, and young women in tight jeans and spiky heels. The sound system, I believe, must have been imported from an Ibiza nightclub, because no household stereo could produce such volume. Of course by 11 p.m., plainclothes police officers — well, we at least like to assume that the men in street clothes who raid parties and take bribes are actual agents of the law — had arrived and broken up the terrified crowd. But that's not the interesting part. Once the month of fasting began, I spotted many of these very same young people around the neighborhood, piously reincarnated with austere hairstyles and headscarves. I recognized one of the girls at the local square, as we stood in a pre-iftar [the Ramadan evening meal] line for halim, and asked her if the was actually observant, or just happened to like the seasonal wheat and turkey stew. "Oh, I adore fasting!" she said, as though professing to love truffles or the beach.

One week's sleek party people had become the next week's pious Muslim fasters. These young people belong to a type that defines urban, middle-class Iran. They are sophisticated, adaptable and hyper-social, devoted as much to dating and pop music as they are to observing Shi'ite rituals.

They see no contradiction in any of this. Ask them to explain, and they all give the same answer — "everything has its place," which I take to mean that religion can be fun and dating acceptable, both worthy of inclusion in their lives. This kind of casual religious identity is a new phenomenon in Iran. For my parents' generation, there was no such Islam Lite. Back then, Iranians were either traditionally religious or whiskey-drinking secularites; fusion of the two lifestyles seemed virtually impossible. The same goes for Iranians of my generation, who grew up during the Iran-Iraq War, years when young people stuck close to their families and ended up resembling them.

The part-time-practicing young Muslim is one of the most intriguing and unworkable things ever created by the Islamic regime. It reveals both the success of the regime's Islamic indoctrination campaign, but also its failure to keep out global culture and to control public space. The Muslim Lite generation is what happens at the meeting point between a repressive theocratic state and Western modernity. When I observe these kids in the throes of young adulthood, their identities seem schizophrenic, irreconcilable. But as I watch how my friends' children grow up, being this way seems the most natural thing in the world.

Imagine yourself as a 20-year-old Iranian male: From the time you were old enough to play outside, the kids on your block lived for the festivity of Muslim holidays. You collected money to sell cold drinks on the Twelfth Imam's birthday; you lined up behind the great marching rows of young men chanting and flagellating themselves on Ashura, a Shi'ite mourning ritual. On these occasions, there were crowds, bright lights, and delicious things to eat; outside of these occasions, there was basically no fun permitted in public. In school, your teacher taught you to pray, you were forced to fast, and as the years passed, veiled women became the only reality you had ever known. At the same time, however, your family had a satellite TV dish, and you watched music videos and films from the West. You followed trends and learned that around the world modern young people date, play in bands, cruise cars and flirt — so, you and your friends made sure you also partook in some or all of these pleasures. You fit all these dissonant influences into your life, and found it wasn't so difficult to be many things at once. That's how kids from religious families ended up more independent and modern, and how kids from Westernized families worked religion into their lives. Everyone became Muslim Lite.

But being Muslim Lite, for all its fluidity, is ultimately messy. At its heart, there lies a tremendous confusion about values. When you're running around playing in a band and keeping up your religious hobbies on the side, this is not immediately obvious. Usually Muslim Lite claims its victims around marriage age, when young people discover their parents haven't changed at all, and that tough choices must be made. A family friend realized this when he found his parents refused to consider his girlfriend a suitable marriage candidate. Though polite and educated, to them, she was loose and tainted, like all girls who date. In the end, the parents persevered and found him a wife from a religious family, a non-dater that seemed to meet their purity standards. After the engagement party Ms. Purity's real personality emerged, brash and rebellious. What parents don't quite understand is what young people know only too well: in the era of Muslim Lite, appearances mean nothing.

Sphere: Related Content

Air America Radio files for Chapter 11


SETH SUTEL,

AP Business Writer

Air America Radio, a liberal talk and news radio network that features the comedian Al Franken, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a network official told The AP.

The network had denied rumors just a month ago that it would file for bankruptcy protection. On Friday, Air America spokeswoman Jaime Horn told The Associated Press that the filing became necessary only recently after negotiations with a creditor from the privately held company's early days broke down.

The network will stay on the air while it resolves issues with its creditors, Horn said. In addition to Franken, the network also features shows from liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes and syndicates shows from Jerry Springer and Portland, Ore.-based talk show host Thom Hartmann.

Horn declined to name the creditor with which talks had reached a logjam. The company will operate in the interim with funding from its current investor group.

Air America also said Friday it had named Scott Elberg as its new CEO. Elberg, a former general manager of the radio station WLIB in New York, has been with the network since May of last year.

The filing and executive shuffle marked the latest turbulence at the liberal talk radio network, which went on the air two years ago. This April, Danny Goldberg stepped down as CEO and was replaced by an interim chief executive from a management consulting firm.

"Nobody likes filing for bankruptcy," Elberg said in a statement. "However, this move will enable us to concentrate on informing and entertaining our audience during the coming months."

Air America has struggled financially since its inception. According to documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the company lost $9.1 million in 2004, $19.6 million in 2005 and $13.1 million so far in 2006.

Air America also disclosed in the court documents that two directors departed in the last two months, Douglas Kreeger and Tom Embrescia. Gary Krantz also departed as president in June, and executive vice president Tom Athans and chief operating officer Carl Ginsburg both left in July.

Sphere: Related Content

The Return of the Latin Mass



Pope Benedict is preparing to widen use of the old rite. Some see it as a retreat from the reforms of Vatican II
.

Long before his run-in with the Malibu sheriff's department, Mel Gibson found himself in a very different kind of fix. Back in 2003, while filming The Passion of the Christ, the devout Catholic director couldn't find a real-life priest to his liking. The problem wasn't that he was shooting in an exotic location — they were at Rome's Cinecitta' movie studio, just down the road from the Vatican. But Gibson had a special requirement that was tough to satisfy even in the eternal city: he wanted his daily Mass celebrated in Latin.

In the 1960's, the Second Vatican Council — along with other changes meant to bring the rite closer to the faithful, such as having the priest face the congregation — replaced the traditional liturgy with Mass in local languages. To celebrate the Latin, or Tridentine rite, today, a pastor needs special permission from his bishop. So Gibson had to hunt out a particular 90-year-old French priest to officiate every morning on set.

Well, Mel's luck may be turning. Pope Benedict XVI is said to be preparing to widen the use of the old Latin rite again. He expected to issue a"motu proprio,"a document of his own initiative, which would loosen the permission requirement.

The new permission, or "indult," would most immediately address a longstanding schism with the ultra-traditionalist group founded in 1969 by the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who opposed the Vatican II reforms. Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988 after he consecrated four bishops without Rome's consent. But Benedict is believed to want to bring the Lefebvrites back in the fold.

Yet his olive branch may complicate matters in the American Church. Certainly, traditionalists who had to drive a hundred miles to find a priest with permission will be thrilled. More theologically liberal Catholics, however, may see it as a Lefebvrite-tinged step back from the principles they feel inspired Vatican II. "This would make it much more difficult for people to engage in full conscious and active participation, which was the goal of the Council," says Rev. James Martin, an editor at the Jesuit magazine America. Congregations could theoretically split on the issue, and many current priests would have to learn the old Mass (and more Latin, if they wanted to understand it).

Even some Vatican conservatives are skeptical. The Lefebvrite critique extended beyond the Mass to other reforms such as efforts to build bridges with other faiths. A senior Vatican official comments that the Mass is "only one demand they have. The real problem is that they don't recognize the authority of the Pope."

There is no clear indication exactly how loose an indult would be, and whether some approval would still be required for individual priests to perform the Latin rite. So far, the Lefebvre group has not commented on the latest news. Nor has Mel Gibson.

Sphere: Related Content

Groups find colorful bird in Colombia


LAUREN DAKE,

Associated Press Writer

A colorful bird new to science has been discovered in a remote Andean cloud forest, spurring efforts to protect the area, conservation groups have announced.

The bright yellow and red-crowned Yariguies brush-finch was named for the indigenous tribe that once inhabited the mountainous area where it was discovered and which committed mass suicide instead of submitting to Spanish colonial rule.

The discovery, published in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, comes at a crucial time for conservationists. Thanks in part to the discovery, the government has decided to set aside 500 acres of the pristine cloud forest where it lives to create a national park.

Yves De Soye, of U.K.-based Birdlife International, a conservation group, said "such discoveries are very important calling attention to unprotected, vulnerable areas."

The small bird can be distinguished from its closest relative by its solid black back and the lack of white marks on its wings.

"The bird was discovered in what is the last remnants of cloud forest in that region," Camila Gomez, of the Colombia conservation group ProAves, said on Monday. "There are still lots of undiscovered flora and fauna species that live in the area."

"There are about two new birds found in the world every year," Thomas Donegan, the British half of an Anglo-Colombian research duo which discovered the bird, told The Associated Press on Monday. "It's a very rare event."

To access the bird's isolated habitat, Donegan and partner Blanca Huertas regularly hiked 12 hours into the nearly impenetrable jungle, depending on helicopters to drop off supplies at mountain peaks 10,000 feet above sea level.

"We first went to Yariguies about three years ago," Donegan said. "It's a huge patch of isolated forest that no one knew about, not even in Colombia."

The new finch, the size of a fist, is native to Colombia's eastern Andean range and considered by its discoverers to be near threatened and in need of close monitoring to prevent it winding up on a list of about 100 bird species endangered in Colombia.

One of the two birds caught by the team was released unharmed after they took pictures and DNA samples, while the other died in captivity.

Donegan said this is the first time researchers were able to confirm a new bird without having to kill it.

The last new bird discovery in Colombia was a Tapaculos species found in the south last year.

With as many as 1,865 different species, Colombia has long been considered a bird watchers' paradise, albeit a risky one because of the country's four-decade-old civil war and drug trafficking.

In 1998, rebels kidnapped four American bird watchers who were later found unharmed.

Sphere: Related Content

Nine Primary Personality Types - Discovering Yours


Don Richard

In this article, we'll take a look at the nine primary personality types outlined by Don Richard Riso in his book, Discovering Your Personality Type. If you're interested in more detailed descriptions of the personality styles, or would like an assessment of your own personality style, you may want to get a copy of this book. It's available at most libraries as well as any bookstore.

Type one: the reformer

A Reformer exhibits these characteristics:

  • Is a perfectionist
  • Favors logic, information, and details
  • Uses words such as MUST and SHOULD
  • Is neat, well-organized, punctual, and exact
  • Has strong control over emotions

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward the ideal and perfection
  • Likes details and facts
  • Has a strong sense of right and wrong
  • Loves rules and policies because they clarify right and wrong
  • Compares everything to the ideal
  • Notices what's wrong or what's missing
  • Sees everything as black and white

Hillary Clinton is an example of a Reformer. Fictional characters include Monica from FriendsThe Mary Tyler Moore Show. and Murray from

Type two: the helper

A Helper exhibits these characteristics:

  • Puts others' needs above their own
  • Is a good listener
  • Can be a slow talker
  • Places a lot of importance on people and relationships

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward acceptance, freedom, and helping
  • Likes people
  • Can be passive or quiet
  • Compares everything to the ideal
  • Observes and hones in on the problems of others
  • Prefers the big picture, not details
  • Has a slow tempo
  • Has an external frame of reference and seeks acceptance from others
  • Empathizes towards others' feelings

Barbara Bush and the late Princess Diana are examples of Helpers. Fictional examples include Mary from The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Dr. Greene from ER.

Type three: the motivator

A Motivator exhibits these characteristics:

  • Is highly motivated and success-oriented
  • Tends to be well-groomed, well-attired, and attractive
  • Is hard-working and image conscious
  • Is a good planner and self-promoter
  • Asserts oneself and is a go-getter

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward accomplishments, success, and looking good
  • Sorts according to activity (rather than people or details)
  • Is goal-oriented
  • Is future-oriented
  • Prefers visual mediums
  • Has a medium to fast tempo
  • Packages oneself and does things that get attention

Bill Clinton is an example of a Motivator; Tony Robbins is perhaps the most glaringly Type Three person on the planet! Fictional examples include Jerry McGuire and George Jefferson from The Jeffersons.

Type four: the artist

An Artist exhibits these characteristics:

  • Has a unique or outstanding style (i.e., clothing, style, manner)
  • Can be dramatic, moody, sensitive, and somewhat withdrawn
  • Thrives on intensity
  • Can be envious of other people

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward being unique or authentic and creative
  • Responds to opinions
  • Compares oneself to others
  • Has a highly developed visual sense
  • Is highly emotional
  • Can be passive
  • Focuses on the past and very little on the future

As you might expect, many real-life artists fall into this category. Madonna and Michael Jackson are two that come to mind. The best fictional examples are Ted from The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Phoebe from Friends.

Type five: the thinker

A Thinker exhibits these characteristics:

  • Has expertise in some unique or specialized field
  • Covets privacy
  • Loves knowledge and is information-oriented
  • Can be uneasy in social settings
  • Is a minimalist and never trendy
  • Has a disorganized desk

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward knowledge and solitude
  • Sorts by information
  • Is often out of touch with feelings
  • Has an internal frame of reference
  • Takes a long time to make a decision

Bill Gates is the most striking example. The best fictional example is Frasier from Frasier.

Type six: the loyalist

A Loyalist exhibits these characteristics:

  • Prefers established rules, guidelines, or philosophies
  • Focuses on worst-case scenarios
  • Is indecisive and frequently flip-flops
  • Can be contradictory in nature
  • Places a high priority on loyalty and trust

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward security and loyalty
  • Moves away from conflict
  • Sorts by information and scans for "danger signs"
  • Can be passive
  • Has an external frame of reference and prefers to align oneself with someone stable and seemingly greater

The late Richard Nixon is an example of a Type Six, or the character of Cliff from Cheers.

Type seven: the generalist

A Generalist exhibits these characteristics:

  • Is optimistic, full of life, and fun-loving
  • Tends to be outgoing, spontaneous, and aggressive
  • Is witty, charming, and charismatic
  • Is multi-talented, knowledgeable about many things, and has many interests
  • Loves attention and hates boredom

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward pleasure and choice
  • Moves away from commitment
  • Sorts by activity and searches for new or exciting experiences
  • Looks at the big picture
  • Has a medium to fast tempo
  • Is proactive and aggressive about getting their own way
  • Has an internal frame of reference and internally decides if something is worth their attention

Bill Maher, the late John F. Kennedy, and George Clooney are examples of Generalists. From the fictional world, an example is Dharma from Dharma and Greg.

Type eight: the leader

A Leader exhibits these characteristics:

  • Is strong-willed, confident, dominant, bossy, or a leader
  • Prefers straight talk and getting to the bottom line
  • Has a short fuse and is quick to anger
  • Can be intense and may love a good fight
  • Is very aggressive and persuasive about getting their own way

Dominant patterns:

  • Is in control, power-focused, and fears losing power
  • Is proactive
  • Has a strongly developed internal frame of reference
  • Sorts by people, information, and activity
  • Moves toward desires

Donald Trump and Elizabeth Taylor are typical Type Eights. Fictional examples include Bobby from The Practice and Dirty Harry.

Type nine: the peacemaker

A Peacemaker exhibits these characteristics:

  • Has a gentle attitude and a soothing quality
  • Is very agreeable
  • Can be a slow talker
  • Is optimistic and always sees the good in people or situations
  • Can be somewhat withdrawn or has trouble asserting oneself or addressing their own needs

Dominant patterns:

  • Moves toward union, peace, and harmony and away from conflict
  • Sorts by people
  • Is kinesthetic and emotional
  • Has an external frame of reference and lets others' opinions supercede their own.

Sphere: Related Content

The Suicide of Thought - excerpted from Orthodoxy

G.K. Chesterton

This excerpt from chapter three of G.K. Chesterton's classic work, Orthodoxy discusses the misuse of intellectual modesty in our culture. Are we too quick to admit we may be wrong? Read this and then come to the Coffee Shop to discuss.

THE phrases of the street are not only forcible but subtle: for a figure of speech can often get into a crack too small for a definition. Phrases like "put out" or "off colour" might have been coined by Mr. Henry James in an agony of verbal precision. And there is no more subtle truth than that of the everyday phrase about a man having "his heart in the right place." It involves the idea of normal proportion; not only does a certain function exist, but it is rightly related to other functions. Indeed, the negation of this phrase would describe with peculiar accuracy the somewhat morbid mercy and perverse tenderness of the most representative moderns. If, for instance, I had to describe with fairness the character of Mr. Bernard Shaw, I could not express myself more exactly than by saying that he has a heroically large and generous heart; but not a heart in the right place. And this is so of the typical society of our time.

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race — because he is so human. As the other extreme, we may take the acrid realist, who has deliberately killed in himself all human pleasure in happy tales or in the healing of the heart. Torquemada tortured people physically for the sake of moral truth. Zola tortured people morally for the sake of physical truth. But in Torquemada's time there was at least a system that could to some extent make righteousness and peace kiss each other. Now they do not even bow. But a much stronger case than these two of truth and pity can be found in the remarkable case of the dislocation of humility.

It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything — even pride.

But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt — the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.

At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem.

The last chapter has been concerned only with a fact of observation: that what peril of morbidity there is for man comes rather from his reason than his imagination. It was not meant to attack the authority of reason; rather it is the ultimate purpose to defend it. For it needs defence. The whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower already reels.

The sages, it is often said, can see no answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer; it is that they cannot even see the riddle. They are like children so stupid as to notice nothing paradoxical in the playful assertion that a door is not a door. The modern latitudinarians speak, for instance, about authority in religion not only as if there were no reason in it, but as if there had never been any reason for it. Apart from seeing its philosophical basis, they cannot even see its historical cause. Religious authority has often, doubtless, been oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and especially our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin.

That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

Sphere: Related Content