суббота

Chinese Politician Sentenced To Life In Prison

A court in East China sentenced former top Chinese official Bo Xilai to life in prison for corruption after one of the highest-profile political trials of recent years.

Media coverage of the court hearings transfixed audiences with details of murder, a love triangle, and lavish official life styles. The case may prove to be a political Pandora's Box that could bring down even higher-ranking officials and widen divisions over the country's future direction.

Observers describe Bo as an exception, a maverick, and a wild card whom President Xi Jinping apparently saw as a political threat .

Many observers believe Bo's outsized personality led to his combative performance last month in court.

Enlarge image i

Stuck In Poverty Amid Signs Of Recovery

While there have been signs of a recovery, Graves says their benefits have not yet reached the bottom of the economic ladder.

"The recovery for many people has looked very different. The jobs that are coming back are some of the lowest paying jobs," she says.

Many jobs created since the end of the recession are in retail and food services and often do not pay enough to support families. Middle-income jobs that were once lifelines out of poverty have become more scarce, making it even more difficult for groups with some of the highest rates of poverty, including Latinos, African-Americans and single mothers.

Graves says in today's economy, having a job doesn't necessarily mean you're not scraping by.

"Even when women are working full-time, they may still be in poverty," she explains. "Even as the economy is doing better, women are not doing better."

Waiting In Line

In a suburban industrial park in Gaithersburg, Md., just outside the nation's capital, workers push a stacked cart full of snacks and produce through the Manna Food Center, a local distribution site for food donations where Yelba Mojica meets daily with struggling families.

"People that have never needed the food are coming to [Manna Food Center] and [asking], 'What do I have to do to qualify?' " Mojica says. "You see a lot of different people. You know, you see all walks of life who have never needed it in the past and all of a sudden, they do."

Judith Prado, a bus driver and single mother of three, never imagined waiting in line at a food pantry — until nine months ago, when her hours at work were cut and she had to choose between gas for her car or food for her family.

The U.S. Has More Guns, But Russia Has More Murders

The U.S. and Russia have been taking lots of jabs at each other.

Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized President Obama's plan for a military strike in Syria, and the Russian leader then denounced American "exceptionalism" in a biting op-ed in The New York Times.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., fired back Thursday with his own op-ed in the Russian paper Pravda, entitled, "Russia Deserves Better Than Putin."

Even Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, in which a gunmen killed 12 people, has become part of the feud.

Alexei Pushkov, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Russia's parliament, used the shooting to mock the United States as it was happening.

"A new shootout at Navy headquarters in Washington — a lone gunman and seven corpses. Nobody's even surprised anymore. A clear confirmation of American exceptionalism," Puskoy tweeted.

Новая стрельба у штаба ВМС в Вашингтоне - одинокий стрелок и 7 трупов. Никто уже не удивлен. Наглядное подтверждение "амер.исключительности"

— Алексей Пушков (@Alexey_Pushkov) September 16, 2013

What's Next In The Congressional Budget Showdown?

The House has passed a stopgap spending bill that would keep the government open through Dec. 15. It passed almost entirely along party lines: In addition to funding the government, it calls for defunding of the Affordable Care Act.

The White House has said President Obama would veto the bill, were it to come to his desk in this form. And it most likely won't. Democrats, who control the Senate, won't pass a bill that defunds Obamacare.

Which raises the question, now what?

Friday's vote was designed to project unity. House Republicans went straight from voting to approve the bill to an indoor rally in a neighboring room in the Capitol.

"The American people don't want the government shut down, and they don't want Obamacare," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at the event, declaring victory with a panorama of House Republicans standing behind him and cheering.

But that joy isn't likely to last. Senate Democrats intend to strip the Obamacare language out of the bill and send it back to the House. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, says he'll take a stand and try to stop them — but the numbers, and Senate procedure, aren't on his side.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is convinced Democrats will win this one.

"I have never seen such an extreme group of people adopt such an insane policy," he says. "There's a time and a place for everything, and Americans know they're way overreaching."

In all likelihood, sometime late next week, the House will have to decide between a government shutdown and a stopgap spending bill that funds Obamacare, right along with the rest of government operations. But when asked about this prospect, House Republicans mostly deferred, saying they wouldn't want to speculate about what the Senate might do.

Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga., says House Republicans won't let the Senate jam them.

Related NPR Stories

The Two-Way

House GOP Votes To Fund Government, Kill Obamacare

Trader Joe's Ex-President To Turn Expired Food Into Cheap Meals

Here's some food for thought: One-third of the world's food goes to waste every year. In the U.S., about 40 percent of our food gets thrown out. It's happening on the farm, at the grocery store and in our own homes.

Lately, there's been a lot of talk about what to do about it — from auctioning off food that's past its prime to getting restaurants to track their waste.

Doug Rauch, the former president of Trader Joe's, is determined to repurpose the perfectly edible produce slightly past its sell-by date that ends up in the trash. (That happens in part because people misinterpret the labels, according to a report out this week from Harvard and the National Resources Defense Council.) To tackle the problem, Rauch is opening a new market early next year in Dorchester, Mass., that will prepare and repackage the food at deeply discounted prices.

The project is called the Daily Table. Here's what he shared with NPR's Scott Simon, edited for brevity.

Simon: What gave you the idea?

Rauch: It's the idea about how to bring affordable nutrition to the underserved in our cities. It basically tries to utilize this 40 percent of this food that is wasted. This is, to a large degree, either excess, overstocked, wholesome food that's thrown out by grocers, etc. ... at the end of the day because of the sell-by dates. Or [it's from] growers that have product that's nutritionally sound, perfectly good, but cosmetically blemished or not quite up for prime time. [So we] bring this food down into a retail environment where it can become affordable nutrition.

A retail environment is a store ... or a food truck or something like that?

Yeah, it's kind of a hybrid between a grocery store and a restaurant, if you would, because primarily it's going to take this food in, prep it, cook it [for] what I call speed-scratch cooking. But the idea is to offer this at prices that compete with fast food.

Since the food is past its sell date, is it safe to eat?

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, if you have a product that says "sell by Sept. 1" or "Oct. 1" and, you know, it's Oct. 2, most customers don't realize you can eat that.

Still, is it a public relations problem to get people to buy stuff that is past due?

Well, we'll see, won't we? I think that the issue here is really how you talk about it and how you educate.

For instance, food banks for years have done this. I might say, without naming the names, one of the leading, best regarded brands in the large, national, food industry — they basically recover the food within their stores, cook it up and put it out on their hot trays the next day. That's the stuff that we're going to be talking about. We're talking about taking and recovering food. Most of what we offer will be fruits and vegetables that have a use-by date on it that'll be several days out.

Well, customers nevertheless have to consume the food pretty quickly.

As you know, when it comes to bread ... we all know if you put it in the refrigerator it could last for weeks [even if it's expired]. Milk lasts for days. It all depends on the temperature of your refrigerator, frankly.

Most people don't know that, but you lose several days of shelf, whether it's in code or out of code. Or do you leave the milk out on the counter while your kids are having breakfast? There's all kinds of ways in which, if you handled it properly, you extend the life.

Is there any concern among, let's say the people who might own a Trader Joe's or some other food store today that, somehow, your places are going to be potentially underpricing them?

You'd have to ask them. But most of what we'll be selling will be fruits and vegetables, freshly prepared product, stuff that's really not brand-driven. And [we'll be doing it] in areas that, frankly, are underserved. There aren't Trader Joe's in the inner-cities in America, at least to my knowledge.

This is about trying to tackle a very large social challenge we have that is going to create a health care tsunami in cost if we don't do something about it. I don't regard Daily Table as the only solution — there are wonderful innovative ideas out there — but I certainly think it is part of and is an innovative approach to trying to find our way to a solution.

Have Obama's Troubles Weakened Him For Fall's Fiscal Fights?

President Obama has had a tough year. He failed to pass gun legislation. Plans for an immigration overhaul have stalled in the House. He barely escaped what would have been a humiliating rejection by Congress on his plan to strike Syria.

Just this week, his own Democrats forced Larry Summers, the president's first choice to head the Federal Reserve, to withdraw.

Former Clinton White House aide Bill Galston says all these issues have weakened the unity of the president's coalition.

"It's not a breach, but there has been some real tension there," he says, "and that's something that neither the president nor congressional Democrats can afford as the budget battle intensifies."

Obama is now facing showdowns with the Republicans over a potential government shutdown and a default on the nation's debt. On Friday, the House voted to fund government operations through mid-December, while also defunding the president's signature health care law — a position that's bound to fail in the Senate.

As these fiscal battles proceed, Republicans have been emboldened by the president's recent troubles, says former GOP leadership aide Ron Bonjean.

"The joke among Republicans is that maybe Vladimir Putin has a plan for President Obama to follow in order to get out of the debt ceiling fight," Bonjean says. "They feel that they may be able to outnegotiate the president or pressure him enough into a deal because his hand has been weakened on Syria."

But Democrats say if Republicans proceed under that assumption, they'll do so at their peril. If Putin did, in fact, rescue the president on Syria with a last-minute diplomatic gambit, now Democrats say the president is being helped by his chief domestic adversary, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Boehner has been unable to dissuade his Tea Party caucus from threatening to shut down the government or default on the debt unless the president's health law is defunded or delayed. The Republican chaos has helped Democrats unite behind the president, says Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"[Obama] had some missteps within the caucus," Manley says, but "now that he has those situations behind him ... he can turn his attention to the debt limit and the spending issues."

Related NPR Stories

The Two-Way

House GOP Votes To Fund Government, Kill Obamacare

пятница

BlackBerry To Slash Workforce Amid $1 Billion Loss

BlackBerry Ltd. on Friday issued an early earnings report accompanied by some bad news for its workers — a nearly $1 billion quarterly loss and a 40 percent lay off that amounts to about 4,500 employees.

The AP reports:

"The stock dropped 19 percent to $8.50 after reopening for trading. Shares had been halted pending the news."

"BlackBerry had been scheduled to release earnings next week. But the Canadian company said late Friday afternoon it expects a loss of about $950 million to $995 million for the quarter, including a massive inventory charge due to increasing market competition."

EPA Wants To Limit Greenhouse Gases From New Coal Power Plants

The EPA proposal aims to help The White House meet its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by attacking the largest single source in the United States: Power plants pump out 40 percent of the nation's greenhouse gases.

The EPA's new proposal sets a limit for future power plants of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour for large electricity generators that are powered by natural gas. And it sets a slightly higher limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour for small natural gas generators and for coal-fired generators.

Although the EPA says its rule is legally sound, electric utility companies are already arguing that it goes further than the law allows.

The only technologies that exist to make coal plants clean enough to meet this proposed standard, industry executives say, are far too expensive and haven't been proven at a commercial scale. Making coal plants clean enough, they say, would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already steep price tag of coal plants.

"Our customers have to agree to foot that bill," says Nick Akins, president and CEO of American Electric Power, one of the country's largest utilities.

Akins says his customers won't go for it.

EPA Plan Targets New Coal-Fired Plants March 27, 2012

Joy Covey, Who Was Key To Amazon.com's Success, Dies

"Joy Covey, who helped take Amazon.com Inc. public as the Internet retailer's chief financial officer, died Wednesday when her bicycle collided with a van on a downhill stretch of road in San Mateo County," the Los Angeles Times writes.

She was 50.

San Francisco's KGO-TV reports that:

"According to the California Highway Patrol, Covey was riding downhill on Skyline Boulevard when she crashed into a Mazda minivan Wednesday afternoon. The minivan, driven by a 22-year-old Fremont man, was heading uphill and made a left turn onto Elk Tree Road directly in front of Covey. Covey crashed into the right side of the van and was pronounced dead at the scene. CHP officials say the driver is cooperating with their investigation."

Iran's New Leader Calls For 'Constructive Dialogue'

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani uses the op-ed pages of The Washington Post on Friday to:

"Urge my counterparts to seize the opportunity presented by Iran's recent election. I urge them to make the most of the mandate for prudent engagement that my people have given me and to respond genuinely to my government's efforts to engage in constructive dialogue. Most of all, I urge them to look beyond the pines and be brave enough to tell me what they see — if not for their national interests, then for the sake of their legacies, and our children and future generations."

As Government Shutdown Looms, Benghazi Hearings Resume

It was a day when most in Congress were obsessed with an increasingly likely government shutdown that would be of lawmakers' own making. But not the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The GOP-controlled panel held a marathon six-hour hearing on what South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy called the most important issue of all to the folks back home: the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead just over a year ago.

Usually it's congressional Republicans who push for Benghazi hearings — some have predicted that when all the facts come out, if they ever do, the deadly episode could become the Obama administration's Waterloo. But it was in fact Democrats on the oversight panel who called for this particular hearing, four months ago. That's how long it's taken to get the two men who headed an official investigation of Benghazi — and whose report came out last December — to sit down in front of the committee to defend their findings.

Both career diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were eager to expound publicly on their Benghazi probe. But Republicans on the panel, wary of what might spill out in public, insisted the two men first sit for four days of private interrogation. They forced Pickering to do so by serving him a subpoena.

Democrats used Thursday's hearing to knock down what they characterized as canards spread by Republicans and their media allies. Mullen assured them that there had been no order to stand down given to four U.S. Special Operations soldiers who wanted to travel from Tripoli to Benghazi once the attacks began on Sept. 11, 2012. He said there was no way U.S. warplanes could have been scrambled in time to protect the two U.S. sites in Benghazi that came under attack. Pickering said there was no need to interview Hillary Clinton for the investigation, since as secretary of state she did not have the operational responsibility that investigators were charged by Congress to probe.

Republicans called the official report on Benghazi a whitewash. In what Democrats saw as a bid to discredit their party's front-runner for the 2016 presidential sweepstakes, GOP committee members repeatedly pressed the two witnesses on why Clinton was not held responsible. Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz chided Mullen, who at the time of the attack was still chairman of the Joint Chiefs, for not requesting air support from NATO allies. "I actually commanded NATO forces," Mullen shot back, "and the likelihood that NATO could respond in a situation like that was absolutely zero."

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., complained that the two investigators had access to State Department officials who had not been made available to his panel as witnesses. He announced he would issue subpoenas to summon them.

There were demands from other Republicans that eyewitnesses at the scenes of the attacks be made available to the committee for questioning. Left unsaid was that the Benghazi "special mission," as Pickering called it, has been widely reported to have been a CIA operation rather than a diplomatic post.

Not much that was new came to light at the hearing. But that was not the point. Democrats wanted their two highly respected witnesses to publicly counter the conservative drumbeat about a Benghazi cover-up. Republicans had one more chance to show constituents they're still on the case.

But there has been one big change since the standing-room-only Benghazi hearings held earlier this year. This time, except for the row behind the witnesses, most of the audience seats were empty. Not even Fox News bothered to carry the hearing live.

Benghazi may still be the most burning issue in Trey Gowdy's district. That clearly is no longer true in Washington.

четверг

Hotline Responders Answer Veterans' Desperate Calls

Responders at the Veterans Crisis Line work to help veterans through their darkest hours. The Department of Veterans Affairs runs the hotline, the only national line dedicated to helping veterans in crisis.

A report in February was the most comprehensive to date from the VA on veterans and suicide. As of that publication, the Crisis Line had made approximately 26,000 rescues of actively suicidal veterans.

Four hotline employees share their experiences with StoryCorps for its Military Voices Initiative.

"I have post-traumatic stress disorder from my years of deployment in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. And when I came to the hotline, when a vet said they were having a flashback, I knew exactly what they were talking about.

"I remember a young gentleman, he was in the middle of a flashback, and had boarded himself inside his living room. He had three young children — they were sleeping upstairs. I had heard in the background that something had clicked, and I asked him if he had a weapon. He said he did. He was really anxious and incoherent, but, you know, after a little bit of finagling around, he did agree to attend treatment.

"I remember, after that phone call, being a little jerky and nervous — going outside, smoking a couple of cigarettes. And then just coming back in and doing my job again."

Nelson Peck, 66, trainer and administrative support

"The hotline by far is the most rewarding thing I've ever done in my life. I was a combat veteran with the United States Marines in Vietnam. I had PTSD as well, and what I started to realize was my PTSD was triggered by survivor guilt. I never understood why I survived. And being with the hotline has really given me the answer. I was meant to survive to do this, so other veterans could survive."

Audio produced for Weekend Edition by Yasmina Guerda.

'Prisoners' Of A Story, Bound By That Devil Subtext

Prisoners

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Genre: Mystery, Thriller

Running Time: 153 minutes

Rated R for disturbing violent content including torture, and language throughout.

With: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis

Making Food From Flies (It's Not That Icky)

In the quirky little college town of Yellow Springs, Ohio, home to many unconventional ideas over the years, there's now a small insect factory.

It's an unassuming operation, a generic boxy building in a small industrial park. It took me a while even to find a sign with the company's name: Enviroflight. But its goal is grand: The people at Enviroflight are hoping that their insects will help our planet grow more food while conserving land and water.

They don't expect you to eat insects. (Sure, Asians and Africans do it, but Americans are finicky.) The idea is, farmed insects will become food for fish or pigs.

The Salt

Maybe It's Time To Swap Burgers For Bugs, Says U.N.

After Tragedy, Lost Live On In 'Maid's Version' Of The Story

From very early on in the story, we know that the explosion was no accident, and that in the years to come a conspiracy of silence would deny the truth. But the mystery is not the heart of the book. Rather, it is Alma's grief that makes this a truly memorable read. With no education and a drunken husband, Alma is left with three hungry boys to feed. She makes her way by turn as "a laundress, a cook, an all-purpose maid. She ... earned but little, always one dropped dish and a loud reprimand from complete and utter poverty. She lived scared and angry, a life full of permanent grievances, sharp animosities and cold memories for all who'd ever crossed us, any of us, ever. Alma DeGeer Dunahew, with her pinched, hostile nature, her dark obsessions and primal need for revenge."

This fury, and the telling of the story to young Alek, brings to life the glorious Ruby, a woman whose "sass and vinegar" and refusal to live a life dictated by circumstance is in sharp contrast to that of her sister. When, following the explosion, the bodies of the dead are laid out in a school gym, Alma finds that she has no way of knowing which casket holds Ruby. And so she stops at each one: "she treated every box as though her sister was inside in parts or whole and cried to the last." Undone by grief, she has a breakdown and is sent to a work farm, a sort of rural mental institution, abandoning the one son still living at home, our narrator's father, John Paul.

As Woodrell tells Alma's grief, he draws a sharp portrait of rural America in the years of the Great Depression. There is a clear sense of lives lived on the edge of destitution, and of the hardships to come. We witness Alma announcing to her sons that "there's gonna be supper" when she has managed to bring home stolen food: bones scrapped from the leftovers on the plates of her employer's children.

Meanwhile, the same employer (who is, coincidentally, Ruby's sometime lover) is credited with sparing the town's more affluent citizens the worst of the economic woes of the time through clever banking, while Alma and her kind are left to rely on each other — if they are lucky enough to have anyone to care for them.

Author Interviews

'Winter's Bone' Author Revisits A Tragedy In His Ozarks Hometown

Are There Too Many 'Hillionaires' In Washington?

Capitol Hill is rife with rich people — "hillionaires," if you will.

Writing in The New York Times, Nicholas Carnes, a public policy professor at Duke University, points out that millionaires show up in only 3 percent of American families. But more than 60 percent of the Senate, most members of the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court — and the president himself — are millionaires.

According to a roster of the wealthiest people in Congress, recently released by CQ Roll Call, there are at least 50 members — from both sides of the aisle — who have a net worth of $6.67 million or more. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is at the peak with an estimated worth of more than $355 million. To put that money pile in perspective, Roll Call reports, the median household income in Issa's home district is about $68,000, so "Issa is more than 5,000 times richer than his average constituent household."

Carnes believes that there should be more members of the country's working class in Congress. "If working-class Americans were a political party, that party would have made up more than half the country since the start of the 20th century," he writes. "But legislators from that party — those who last worked in blue-collar jobs before entering politics — would never have held more than 2 percent of the seats in Congress."

Carnes opines that it's time for citizens who care about financial equality in politics to support more working-class candidates.

So how can Americans make this happen? We ask Nick to pinpoint:

3 Things Voters Can Do To Put Working-Class People In Congress

1: "Think about the working-class people you know who you think would make good political leaders, and encourage them to run for office," says Nick. "Offer to support them however you can."

2: Find out where the candidates on your ballot stand on the issues, Carnes says, but also find out about their backgrounds — especially how they've earned a living. He suggests supporting qualified candidates who have firsthand experience working in manual labor and service industry jobs. "In the long run," Nick says, "they tend to be the toughest, most reliable supporters of the needs of middle- and working-class Americans."

3: And, Nick advises, contact the director of your state's or county's branch of the Republican or Democratic Party, and tell them that you want to be able to vote for a great candidate who's had real experience in manual labor or service industry jobs. "Party leaders often recruit and support potential candidates," he says. "They help get talented people into the political pipeline that leads to everything from school boards and city councils to statehouses and Congress."

The Protojournalist: A sandbox for reportorial innovation. @NPRtpj

Poll: Half Of Americans See Russia As 'Unfriendly' Or Worse

During the 2012 presidential race, Republican Mitt Romney was mocked by President Obama during a debate for calling Russia — and not al-Qaida — the "No. 1 geopolitical foe" of the United States.

But a new Gallup poll released Wednesday shows perhaps some belated support for the Romney view: More Americans see Russia as unfriendly or an enemy — as opposed to friendly or an ally — for the first time since at least 1999.

According to the survey, 50 percent of Americans consider Russia unfriendly or an enemy, while 44 percent think the country is friendly or an ally. (Specifically, 34 percent called it unfriendly, 16 percent an enemy, 31 percent friendly, and 13 percent an ally.)

The last time Gallup posed this question, in 2006, 73 percent of those polled called Russia friendly or an ally, compared with just 20 percent who saw it as unfriendly or an enemy.

Gallup's most recent poll was conducted Sunday and Monday, not long after Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed in The New York Times critical of Obama's foreign policy approach, his speech to the American people on Syria, and the idea of American exceptionalism.

Putin continues to stand by Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, and he recently granted National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden temporary asylum in Russia. But he also assisted the U.S. in reaching a deal to require Syria to surrender its chemical weapons stockpile.

The poll found that 54 percent of Americans view Putin unfavorably, and 19 percent hold a favorable view. The last time Gallup asked Americans their opinion of Putin — 10 years ago — 38 percent had a favorable impression of the Russian leader, with 28 percent unfavorable.

In the most recent poll, 72 percent of respondents said they approved of the Syria plan that Putin helped broker, which calls for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to an international body. Eighteen percent of Americans disapproved of the deal, which interrupted Obama's call for congressional approval for a military strike on Syria

Putin 'Doesn't Believe In You,' McCain Tells Russian People

In a stinging response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's put-down of "American exceptionalism," Arizona Sen. John McCain told Russians Thursday that Putin "doesn't believe in you."

"He doesn't believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies," McCain writes in an op-ed posted by Pravda. "Or, at least, he doesn't believe Russians can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you."

McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, is answering Putin's Sept. 11 op-end in The New York Times.

In that piece, as we reported, Putin "made an unusual and direct appeal to the American people ... to reject President Obama's calls for possible use of force against Syria."

The Russian leader ended his message with this statement:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is 'what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional.' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

Book News: Man Booker Prize To Accept Entries From Any Country

The daily lowdown on books, publishing, and the occasional author behaving badly.

The Man Booker Prize is going global. Trustees announced Wednesday that beginning next year, the award will be open to any novel written in English and published in the U.K. "regardless of the nationality of the author." Earlier this week, The Sunday Times broke the news that the prize would be opened to Americans. As we explained then, the prize "is currently open to writers from the 54 countries in the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland." The chairman of the Booker Prize Foundation trustees, Jonathan Taylor, said at a news conference, "We are embracing the freedom of English in all its vigor, its vitality, its versatility and its glory wherever it may be. We are abandoning the constraints of geography and national boundaries." The rules for how many books each publisher may submit also have been revised: In essence, the number of times a publisher has entered longlisted books in the past will determine how many books it many submit in the future.

Colin Burrow considers the history of swearing for the London Review of Books (naturally, expect some strong language): "Roll up, roll up all you 'mangie rascals, shiteabed scoundrels, drunken roysters, slie knaves, drowsie loiterers, slapsauce fellows, slabberdegullion druggels, lubbardly lowts...' "

Junot Diaz speaks to Salon about The Onion, Miley Cyrus and why he wasn't a rapper. He says of the satirical paper: "Seamus Heaney just died, and one of the great obituaries of him was a wonderful quote he had about being on the side of undeceiving. And I always thought that something like the Onion is the deceiver that undeceives, which is what fiction at its best attempts to do."

In The New Yorker, Maria Bustillos defends Jonathan Franzen from all the haters: "Franzen is the only American novelist of my generation (that I know of) who writes with absolute clarity, conviction, and meaning about the world I live in every day. I believe that's what fascinates people the most about his work. He may be a dork, but he's absolutely and preeminently and kind of magnificently our dork."

The New York Times chronicles an effort by booksellers in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, to revive the city's literary culture: "Most Sudanese are more concerned with bread than books, and for good reason. Years of war, drought and economic privation have left deep marks. A once prestigious education system has crumbled, and the number of bookstores in Khartoum has fallen with it."

This Board Game Aims To Teach Preschoolers How To Code

In our "Weekly Innovation" blog series, we explore an interesting idea, design or product that you may not have heard of yet. Do you have an innovation to share? Use this quick form.

These days, the effort to get more of us writing computer programs has become part of an "everybody should learn to code" ethos that folks like President Obama and Will.I.Am have gotten behind.

"We all depend on technology — to communicate, to bank, [for] information — and none of us know how to read and write code," Will.I.Am points out in an online ad for Code.org, a nonprofit aimed at making coding more mainstream. Obama said in February that he wants young people to "know how to produce stuff using computers and not just consume stuff."

There is no shortage of books and online programs teaching you how to code once you can use a computer. But how would you learn to code if you can't even read? How could 3-year-olds begin to learn the basics of computer programming?

That was the question swirling around the head of startup entrepreneur Dan Shapiro while playing with his twin kids one afternoon. [Disclosure: We didn't know it when we started reporting this story, but Dan is the brother of NPR White House Correspondent Ari Shapiro.] Dan Shapiro tried to come up with a way to play a game with his children without getting bored himself. Then he came up with his own: Robot Turtles, a tabletop board game that teaches youngsters the fundamentals of programming, without words.

All Tech Considered

Hacking Real Things Becomes Child's Play At This Camp

China's Debate: Must The Party Follow The Constitution?

Several weeks back, officials with the East China University of Political Science and Law met one of its professors, Zhang Xuezhong, at his favorite hangout, a coffeehouse in Shanghai.

Sitting in a private room, they told him he was suspended from teaching for articles he had posted on the Internet. In them, Zhang had argued that China's government needs to build a real rule of law — one to which even the party is accountable — as well as a system of checks and balances.

One way to start, he says, is to live up to the promises made in China's 1982 constitution.

Enlarge image i

Atheists Start PAC To Elect Nonreligious Candidates

Americans who count themselves among the "nones" — as in atheists, agnostics or those of no definite religious affiliation — have launched a new political action committee.

The goal? To support the election of like-minded lawmakers or, at a minimum, candidates committed to upholding the constitutional separation between church and state.

"The Freethought Equality Fund will work to elect the nones ... in addition to those who will work for our rights so we can finally have the representation in Congress we deserve," said Maggie Ardiente of the American Humanist Association, at a Washington news conference Wednesday where the new PAC was rolled out.

Besides giving the growing percentage of Americans who identify as "nones" an opportunity to elect more candidates who share their values, the new political action committee's creators hope it will help stiffen the backbones of lawmakers who they believe are too afraid to openly state their skepticism and doubts about the existence of a divine author of the universe.

"We already know of more than two dozen closeted atheists serving in Congress today," Ardiente said. "The fact that they're in the closet about their nonbelief says a lot about why this PAC is greatly needed. The time to come out is now and the Freethought Equality Fund will help make it happen."

Humanists believe cultural trends are ever more favoring them. The percentage of Americans identifying as nonreligious has grown to about 20 percent of the population.

Of course, the flip side is that the vast majority of Americans still subscribe to religion. Despite setbacks, like the ban on prayer in public school classrooms or the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in which a federal court determined that intelligent design could not be taught as science to public school students, those who like their government with a lot of religion have had many victories. Among them: getting "In God We Trust" added to U.S. currency and the wall of the House chamber, and "under God" attached to the Pledge of Allegiance.

The uphill slog to elect a more secular Congress has to start somewhere, so the new PAC's creators have chosen to begin by supporting five congressional candidates. The group includes two sitting House members: Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia and Rush Holt of New Jersey, both Democrats.

While their first endorsement list has a decidedly Democratic Party tilt, the PAC's organizers hope to support Republicans, too.

"We're actively looking for all candidates regardless of their affiliation who will protect the separation of church and state and defend civil liberties," said the ironically named Bishop McNeil, the Freethought Equality Fund PAC's coordinator. "[But] based on our 2013 scorecard that we just completed, there are currently no Republicans in the House that would fit that."

Poll: Half Of Americans See Russia As 'Unfriendly' Or Worse

During the 2012 presidential race, Republican Mitt Romney was mocked by President Obama during a debate for calling Russia — and not al-Qaida — the "No. 1 geopolitical foe" of the United States.

But a new Gallup poll released Wednesday shows perhaps some belated support for the Romney view: More Americans see Russia as unfriendly or an enemy — as opposed to friendly or an ally — for the first time since at least 1999.

According to the survey, 50 percent of Americans consider Russia unfriendly or an enemy, while 44 percent think the country is friendly or an ally. (Specifically, 34 percent called it unfriendly, 16 percent an enemy, 31 percent friendly, and 13 percent an ally.)

The last time Gallup posed this question, in 2006, 73 percent of those polled called Russia friendly or an ally, compared with just 20 percent who saw it as unfriendly or an enemy.

Gallup's most recent poll was conducted Sunday and Monday, not long after Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed in The New York Times critical of Obama's foreign policy approach, his speech to the American people on Syria, and the idea of American exceptionalism.

Putin continues to stand by Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, and he recently granted National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden temporary asylum in Russia. But he also assisted the U.S. in reaching a deal to require Syria to surrender its chemical weapons stockpile.

The poll found that 54 percent of Americans view Putin unfavorably, and 19 percent hold a favorable view. The last time Gallup asked Americans their opinion of Putin — 10 years ago — 38 percent had a favorable impression of the Russian leader, with 28 percent unfavorable.

In the most recent poll, 72 percent of respondents said they approved of the Syria plan that Putin helped broker, which calls for Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to an international body. Eighteen percent of Americans disapproved of the deal, which interrupted Obama's call for congressional approval for a military strike on Syria

среда

The Fed's Surprising Decision: Should You Cheer Or Boo?

If you are trying to buy a home, you just got good news: The Federal Reserve said Wednesday it is not going to try to drive up long-term interest rates just yet.

Stock investors are happy for you. They like cheap mortgages too because a robust housing market creates jobs. To celebrate, they bought more shares, sending the Dow Jones industrial average up 147.21 to an all-time high of 15,676.94.

Unfortunately, if you are a retiree who wants a higher return on your savings in the bank — well, sorry. The interest paid to you will be meager.

In fact, the Fed's surprising announcement on interest rates created lots of winners and losers. But before sorting them out, let's first look at what happened:

Policymakers for the central bank met this week and concluded that the U.S. economy is still weak enough to need their help. They said they recognize that the country has seen "improvement in economic activity and labor market conditions," but they added that the Fed still has to tamp down interest rates as officials "await more evidence that progress will be sustained."

Their decision stunned most economists, who believed Fed officials were ready to switch gears away from the long-standing policy of restraining interest rates. The low-rate strategy has been in place throughout the Great Recession and slow recovery.

But many experts say it's time for a change. They think the economy is strong enough to allow interest rates to start to return to historical norms.

Back in June, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself suggested such a switch would come by year's end.

But since then, interest rates on mortgages have been ratcheting up on their own — in anticipation of the coming change. Ditto for interest rates on Treasury securities.

Then on Wednesday afternoon, Bernanke and his fellow policymakers sprang their surprise. After taking a harder look at the most recent information, they decided not to change course after all.

They are worried that congressional Republicans and the White House might have another big showdown this fall, which could rattle markets. And Fed officials don't like seeing the latest higher mortgage rates, which have been scaring off some potential homebuyers.

"The tightening of financial conditions observed in recent months, if sustained, could slow the pace of improvement in the economy and the labor market," the Fed officials said in a statement.

So for the time being, the Fed will not back off its strategy of buying $85 billion a month in bonds to push down on long-term interest rates. It could still taper those purchases by year's end if the policymakers think conditions have changed, but for now, the low-rate strategy is firmly in place.

As a result, these groups cheered the Fed announcement:

Homebuyers and sellers. Thirty-year fixed mortgage rates, which jumped from about 3.5 percent in April to around 4.5 percent recently, are more likely now to halt their upward march. That may prompt more people to get into the homebuying market.

Stock owners. Shares become more valuable when investors can't get much of a return from interest payments on insured securities. So stock prices shot to record highs as of Wednesday's close.

Gold owners. The price of gold surged more than 4 percent to about $1,360. The hike came because gold gets more attractive in times of economic uncertainty and inflation. Some people believe the Fed's current policies eventually will lead to inflation.

And these groups found little to celebrate:

Gas guzzlers. The price of oil — just like gold — rose on inflation fears. By late afternoon, U.S. crude had risen more than $3 per barrel to a high of $108.49.

Conservative savers. If you like to keep your money in very safe securities, your interest income will stay depressed. For example, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note plunged to 2.71 percent after the announcement, down from 2.90 percent.

Job seekers. Not that you needed anyone to tell you this, but the Fed said the economic outlook is not great. It sees growth of 2.3 percent at best this year, down from its earlier forecast of growth as strong as 2.6 percent.

The Fed's Surprising Decision: Should You Cheer Or Boo?

If you are trying to buy a home, you just got good news: The Federal Reserve said Wednesday it is not going to try to drive up long-term interest rates just yet.

Stock investors are happy for you. They like cheap mortgages too because a robust housing market creates jobs. To celebrate, they bought more shares, sending the Dow Jones industrial average up 147.21 to an all-time high of 15,676.94.

Unfortunately, if you are a retiree who wants a higher return on your savings in the bank — well, sorry. The interest paid to you will be meager.

In fact, the Fed's surprising announcement on interest rates created lots of winners and losers. But before sorting them out, let's first look at what happened:

Policymakers for the central bank met this week and concluded that the U.S. economy is still weak enough to need their help. They said they recognize that the country has seen "improvement in economic activity and labor market conditions," but they added that the Fed still has to tamp down interest rates as officials "await more evidence that progress will be sustained."

Their decision stunned most economists, who believed Fed officials were ready to switch gears away from the long-standing policy of restraining interest rates. The low-rate strategy has been in place throughout the Great Recession and slow recovery.

But many experts say it's time for a change. They think the economy is strong enough to allow interest rates to start to return to historical norms.

Back in June, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself suggested such a switch would come by year's end.

But since then, interest rates on mortgages have been ratcheting up on their own — in anticipation of the coming change. Ditto for interest rates on Treasury securities.

Then on Wednesday afternoon, Bernanke and his fellow policymakers sprang their surprise. After taking a harder look at the most recent information, they decided not to change course after all.

They are worried that congressional Republicans and the White House might have another big showdown this fall, which could rattle markets. And Fed officials don't like seeing the latest higher mortgage rates, which have been scaring off some potential homebuyers.

"The tightening of financial conditions observed in recent months, if sustained, could slow the pace of improvement in the economy and the labor market," the Fed officials said in a statement.

So for the time being, the Fed will not back off its strategy of buying $85 billion a month in bonds to push down on long-term interest rates. It could still taper those purchases by year's end if the policymakers think conditions have changed, but for now, the low-rate strategy is firmly in place.

As a result, these groups cheered the Fed announcement:

Homebuyers and sellers. Thirty-year fixed mortgage rates, which jumped from about 3.5 percent in April to around 4.5 percent recently, are more likely now to halt their upward march. That may prompt more people to get into the homebuying market.

Stock owners. Shares become more valuable when investors can't get much of a return from interest payments on insured securities. So stock prices shot to record highs as of Wednesday's close.

Gold owners. The price of gold surged more than 4 percent to about $1,360. The hike came because gold gets more attractive in times of economic uncertainty and inflation. Some people believe the Fed's current policies eventually will lead to inflation.

And these groups found little to celebrate:

Gas guzzlers. The price of oil — just like gold — rose on inflation fears. By late afternoon, U.S. crude had risen more than $3 per barrel to a high of $108.49.

Conservative savers. If you like to keep your money in very safe securities, your interest income will stay depressed. For example, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note plunged to 2.71 percent after the announcement, down from 2.90 percent.

Job seekers. Not that you needed anyone to tell you this, but the Fed said the economic outlook is not great. It sees growth of 2.3 percent at best this year, down from its earlier forecast of growth as strong as 2.6 percent.

Your Kids And Money: Teaching The Value Of A Dollar

What's the point of an allowance?

For Ron Lieber, personal finance writer for The New York Times, it's a tool to help teach values and character traits like patience, moderation, thrift and generosity. And Lieber, who's writing a book, The Opposite of Spoiled, about kids, money and values, tells Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there are three basic ways that parents approach an allowance.

No chores necessary.

This is the method that Lieber and his wife use. They give their 7-year-old daughter $3 a week, which she divides in thirds. She puts $1 into a "spend" jar to buy anything that she wants, $1 into a "save" jar for medium- to long-term goals and $1 into a "give" jar that ultimately goes to a cause of her choosing. "She spends a lot of time thinking about that," Lieber says.

He says this approach has fostered a sense of confidence and empowerment in his daughter, who, on a recent shopping trip "was so thrilled at the idea that she had the power to make some decisions for herself and that I or my wife wasn't going to have anything to do with it."

Do you give an allowance?

Companies To Show CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio Under Proposed Rule

U.S. corporations would be required to disclose the ratio of their CEO's pay to that of average workers as part of an oversight plan being voted on Wednesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Bloomberg News reports the proposed rule change is part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who wrote the CEO pay ratio provision, said it was aimed at ensuring "that investors know whether a company's pay practices are 'fair' and whether 'executives are sharing proportionately in any sacrifices.' Other proponents of the rule, including unions, say a lopsided ratio would help investors detect whether a company may have morale problems among its workforce that can affect productivity and earnings."

Last year, CEOs earned 202.3 times more than typical workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That figure, the EPI says, is "far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s." A separate study by the AFL-CIO, citing only the largest U.S. corporations, cited a ratio of 354-to-1, which it said was the widest gap in the world.

CNN reported last year that Apple CEO Tim Cook's salary was more than 6,000 times the average worker, while Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett made just 11 times the company's average pay.

Reuters says the provision has been "vehemently opposed" by "companies and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as, the Center on Executive Compensation." They complain the rule would be too costly and difficult to implement and would not be useful for investors.

The SEC says it would require companies to include compensation data for all of its workers, including those employed overseas or by its subsidiaries."

"However, the SEC also said it would give companies more flexibility in how they calculate the median. They could, for instance, use a statistical sample."

Here's Danny! 'Doctor Sleep' Picks Up Where 'Shining' Left Off

The drunk who works odd jobs in the health care industry carries with him everywhere the psychic scars of that terrifying winter in the Rockies — compounded by daily wrongs he commits while inebriated or stoned. Any fan of The Shining will follow Dan with great interest and concentration. If you're new to this fictional world, a few paragraphs here, a page there, and you'll be up to speed on the central story.

Which, as I suggested, becomes engaging nearly from the start. Certainly the threat of overwhelming evil, only hinted at in The Shining, comes on stage quickly and nearly full bore in the person of Rose with the Hat. She's the leader of a group of long-lived extra-human vampire-like creatures, who feed on human beings gifted with the power of the shining. (They kill them, and breathe in the enervating "steam" from the dying victims).

More On Stephen King

Author Interviews

Stephen King On Growing Up, Believing In God And Getting Scared

Your Kids And Money: Teaching The Value Of A Dollar

What's the point of an allowance?

For Ron Lieber, personal finance writer for The New York Times, it's a tool to help teach values and character traits like patience, moderation, thrift and generosity. And Lieber, who's writing a book, The Opposite of Spoiled, about kids, money and values, tells Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there are three basic ways that parents approach an allowance.

No chores necessary.

This is the method that Lieber and his wife use. They give their 7-year-old daughter $3 a week, which she divides in thirds. She puts $1 into a "spend" jar to buy anything that she wants, $1 into a "save" jar for medium- to long-term goals and $1 into a "give" jar that ultimately goes to a cause of her choosing. "She spends a lot of time thinking about that," Lieber says.

He says this approach has fostered a sense of confidence and empowerment in his daughter, who, on a recent shopping trip "was so thrilled at the idea that she had the power to make some decisions for herself and that I or my wife wasn't going to have anything to do with it."

Do you give an allowance?

вторник

The Internet's 'Twerk' Effect Makes Dictionaries Less Complete

Evidently it was quite fortuitous. Just a couple of days after MTV's Video Music Awards, Oxford Dictionaries Online released its quarterly list of the new words it was adding. To the delight of the media, there was "twerk" at the top, which gave them still another occasion to link a story to Miley Cyrus' energetic high jinks.

And why not add "twerk"? It's definitely a cool word, which worked its way from New Orleans bounce music into the linguistic mainstream on the strength of its expressive phonetics, among other things. It won't linger — the names of dance styles rarely do — but we'll have a historical record of it in the section reserved for forgotten forbidden dances, along with "lambada" and "turkey trot." Now that dictionaries are online, space is unlimited; you're never going to have to ask the outdated words to give up their spots to make room for the new ones coming on.

All the dictionaries periodically release a list of their new words, most of them provocatively cute and fleeting. Chambers Dictionary announces they've got "mocktail." Merriam's counters with "man cave." Collins includes "squadoosh," an Italian-American slang word that means "zilch." And Oxford's recent list included "selfie," "fauxhawk" and the exclamations "derp" and "squee," not to mention the abbreviation SRSLY, as in "seriously." If you haven't picked up on all of these yet, I wouldn't worry. None of them is likely to outlive your hamster.

True, the dictionaries are also adding durable new items like "cloud computing," "systemic risk" and baseball's "walk off." (It mystifies me that it took 150 years to come up with a word for that.) But it's the ephemeral and faddish ones that generate the most arresting media headlines: "It's official! Oxford declares 'selfie' a real word!"

The dictionaries themselves disavow any official role in defining a "real word" — these are just items that we've been noticing a lot, they say. But they know perfectly well that the only reason the announcements get picked up is that people still believe that dictionaries are gatekeepers whose inclusion of a word confers approval.

There was a time when dictionaries were expected to restrict themselves to words that had reputable literary credentials. Back in 1961, Merriam-Webster set off a cultural firestorm for opening the columns of its new unabridged to parvenus like "litterbug," "wise up" and "yakking." Critics accused Merriam's of "subversion" and "sabotage," and The New York Times charged that the dictionary was accelerating the deterioration of the language.

More From Geoff Nunberg

Technology

Bracing For Google Glass: An In-Your-Face Technology

'Money' And 'Canelo' Punch It Out For Black And Latino Fans

Ex-jock talking heads aside, the nation's sports pages remain overwhelmingly white. That's probably why you're only vaguely aware that for many of us, tomorrow night is the one of the biggest sporting events of the year.

On Saturday night, boxing's biggest star, Floyd Mayweather Jr., will meet unbeaten Mexican sensation Saul "Canelo" Alvarez at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas for the junior middleweight championship of the world. The main event will take place well after most children have gone to bed, and only be available to households that pay $60 for the Pay Per View ($70 for HD). It will be an easy decision for many, in part because the card also features Danny Garcia of Philadelphia facing Argentine noqueador Lucas Matthysse in the second-most anticipated fight of the year.

The economics of the fight alternately amaze and distress, depending on the audience. There are many revenue streams for a show like this, but the bottom line is usually the number of Pay Per View buys: 1.5 million would be a huge success; 2 million buys would be a coup for both the fighters and the sport at large. Mayweather is guaranteed a staggering $41.5 million for the fight, plus a share of the back end, which should ensure he spends another year atop Forbes' list of the richest athletes in the world. As abrasive as Mayweather can be, he remains immensely popular with fight fans, particularly African-Americans. It is a matter of considerable debate whether more people pay to watch Mayweather's amazing skills, or simply in hopes that the next opponent will end his unbeaten run.

Hype aside, Saturday's fight is unique among American sporting events in that the majority of those watching on fight night, whether in person or via Pay Per View, will be minorities, specifically African-Americans or Hispanics. Many expect a virtual shutdown in Mexico, where only the country's beloved national soccer team rivals Canelo in popular appeal. Yet one wouldn't know it by perusing any of this nation's largest sports outlets, which have covered the fight sporadically, if at all.

While Mayweather-Alvarez will be the primary topic of discussion in many communities this week, the folks at the water cooler aren't the ones that most marketers covet, save those that make beer and power tools. But the fight is rife with storylines for those interested in issues of race and class, from the phenomenal box office appeal of Mayweather's "Money" persona, to Mexico's immense and complex adoration of Canelo, whose name is a nod to his unlikely ginger locks and freckled visage.

When Mayweather and Alvarez came to Washington this summer as part of their blockbuster press tour, the line stretched around the Howard Theatre for blocks, and the crowd inside crackled with electricity and the screams of rival fan bases. The scene was repeated across North America, as fans devoted whole days to just catching a glimpse of the fighters at a press conference. It is hard to imagine Novak Djokovic or Roger Federer drawing a similar reaction anywhere in the U.S., but tennis is still dutifully accorded prominence at least four fortnights a year. Meanwhile, most mainstream outlets only take note of boxing long enough to pronounce it dead, a stance so unimaginative it was worn out before Muhammad Ali entered the prizefighting ring.

The paucity of fight coverage is particularly striking given the sport's long, complex literary tradition. Legends such as Joyce Carol Oates, Ernest Hemingway and A.J. Liebling have all occupied press row. But boxing writers almost always inhabit a different world than those they cover, and are frequently prone to treating combatants as entertainers, disposable pieces that can be shuffled in and out with little consequence.

The widely varying standards of professionalism among boxing writers today ensures that too many are unwilling to criticize promoters or TV executives, for fear of losing their coveted spot at ringside. In mixed martial arts, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) employs the strategy of banning critical journalists to impressive effect. To a lesser extent, the writers that still cover boxing are all too eager to parrot the demands of the TV executives and promoters, and decry fighters for holding up appealing contests for trivial reasons like compensation.

I do not assume prejudice, or even bad faith, on the part of any boxing writers that believe a fighter is asking for too much money for a particular fight. But it should be noted that said fighters are typically being asked to step into a ring with another warrior who has been training since youth for the sole purpose of bashing each other to a pulp. They do so at significant risk to their long-term health, regardless of whether they win or lose.

Boxing is already inherently exploitative, but there is something unseemly about a group of (mostly white and middle-class) boxing writers and fans debating online whether a fighter (typically a minority from an underprivileged background) is placing too high a value on his future health and well-being. One look at the present condition of Ali, Ken Norton or countless other fighters, should be enough to silence anyone who thinks a fighter is asking for too much money.

Boxing purses are blood money to an even greater extent than the NFL, and the fighters are putting themselves directly in harm's way for the paying audience. Perhaps it is because of the difficult ethical questions it raises, like whether fans should take such delight in the vicious destruction of another human being, that boxing has been confined to the margins of the sports world. Not since Mike Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. has an American fighter been truly embraced by the mainstream. Many blame the sport's fade on the decline of American heavyweights, but in truth, boxing is more a victim of the segmentation of the American sports fan base, and an overall shift in our culture.

The increasing discomfort with the sport's long-term effects can be directly traced to the condition of Ali in particular. Perhaps all this is a symptom that a portion of society has evolved past ritualized violence (though the popularity of MMA would argue not). The average young man in mid-20th century America could likely expect to find himself in a fight at some point in his life, mostly due to the prominence of the draft and widespread military conflict. Today, the brightest line in our society is between those who face violence as a part of their everyday lives, and those who don't. It is documented that the composition of our military favors certain demographics; the same could be said of fighters, but even more so.

For those who condemn boxing out of hand, they probably live in a world where violence exists only on the screen, in the news, or inside a ring. They are fortunate to lead such a mundane existence, as am I; violence is not something we risk every day just by walking down the street. But reality is far different in many neighborhoods, especially those that produce fighters. To many of the young boxers I've met, violence is a fact of life. The boxing gym is one of the few places where that violence is controlled, and paradoxically, often a safe haven from what waits in the streets.

For the young men I've followed over the past few years, almost all African-American, the ring is a place to channel their anger and violent surroundings into something positive. Some learn to fight outside of the ring, but learning to box often saps them of aggression and gives them remarkable self-control. Anyone in boxing will tell you that fighters are often some of the most gentle, decent, nonconfrontational people you will ever encounter. The embrace between fighters at the end of a match is not the forced handshake of rival NFL coaches — it's a remarkable moment when two men instantly pivot from trying to destroy each other to being grateful they have both come through the battle still capable of standing.

As Boston College professor and noted fight scribe Carlo Rotella wrote in his essay for Deadspin, "Knowing something about the fights — being good with your hands, or maintaining an opinion about the welterweight division or fixed bouts or how to beat a southpaw — was a very common piece of equipment in the toolbox of American cultural competence, especially the section of it devoted to masculinity."

Today's toolbox is more likely to include a jar of expensive pomade than boxing gloves. A D.C. copywriter wrote on Quora recently that boxing is one of the creepiest things our society tolerates as a cultural norm. I can only suppose that person has never spent any time around boxing or fighters (or the fashion industry). Equating boxing as a whole with professional boxing is common and nonsensical, akin to pointing to the WWE to justify the elimination of Olympic wrestling. The vast majority of people in boxing earn little or no money from fighting. Most boxers are amateurs, who fight only for exercise and love of the sport.

Spend some time in a boxing gym, where most boxing takes place, and it will become obvious that there are no corporate sponsors or AAU teams supporting the training of fighters. Often the people that do so get almost nothing in return, devoting their time and resources out of love for the Sweet Science, and a desire to help young men and women better themselves. Boxing gyms are small, dark, dank spaces, where often the only white face present will be a visiting boxing writer or promoter, looking for their next attraction or story.

Even promising young pro fighters are paid only a few hundred dollars for their early fights; their opponents get slightly more, because of the presumed price they will pay in the ring. Fighters fight because they choose to, and only a precious few ever manage to eke out a living from it. Begrudging a fighter his pay for a big fight ignores the years of unrewarded toil and sacrifice it took for him to reach that point, and the reality that he will likely never have another opportunity to cash in. For many of these fighters, who lack education and connections to the professional world, the ring is also the one venue where they can excel, and demonstrate their worth for all to see.

Boxing is not perfect, but comparisons to human cockfighting require a dismissal of the fighters' agency, and hint at deeper issues of race and class. Boxing is not the only dangerous occupation practiced in North America; more people die every year while scuba diving. Yet no one suggests that divers are being exploited by the lucrative scuba industry. Nor do we begrudge those NFL players who hold out for bigger contracts; in those cases, we understand that professional sports are a business.

So is fighting, but it is a cruel, unfair business at best. Fighters enter the ring by choice, usually for deeply personal reasons, or lack of other options. Many professionals hang on too long, unable to relinquish the glory of the ring, or unable to find another occupation that will support them. They are allowed to do so by the negligence of the state athletic commissions, the very bodies charged with policing the sport. Only a national commission with federal authority to enforce common standards would help, but legislation to create such a body from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has drawn little support as of yet. The "alphabet" sanctioning bodies (the WBC, WBA, IBF, etc.) are simply parasites, that contribute nothing to the sport besides dreaming up new categories of "champions."

There are many legitimate arguments to be made against the continuation of professional boxing, starting with the lack of proper oversight. The longer I write about the sport, the more misgivings I have. But as noted boxing author Thomas Hauser wrote in his seminal book, The Black Lights, "the reality of life is that we live in a violent world. ... The sport will endure."

People often ask me why I write about boxing, given all the ethical questions. One need not believe in war to think it merits proper coverage. This weekend, millions of people will be transfixed by the spectacle of two men fighting for the junior middleweight championship of the world. Whatever you think of boxing, that seems like a headline to me.

Gautham Nagesh is the founder of StiffJab.com. He has been punched in the face, but not for a living. Anna John contributed reporting to this article.

Navy Yard Tragedy Elicits Muted Political Response

A gunman shoots up a military facility, kills a dozen people, and puts a fair chunk of the nation's capital on lockdown.

The political response to Monday's massacre at the Navy Yard in Washington?

Measured, bordering on muted.

From the words of the president to those on both sides of the gun control debate, caution has been the rule, with even the sharpest partisans tending to hold their tongues in the hours still suffused with tragedy.

Granted, all the details of what set Aaron Alexis on his murderous spree are still being sorted out. But there are other reasons that the mass killing has engendered seemingly less outrage, less certainty of response and a struggle for the right questions to ask about guns and America.

The answer, in two words: Sandy Hook.

The December gun massacre of 20 school children and six adult school employees at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut took the nation to a place of horror that it had never visited.

Yet little has changed since, leaving the political component of the debate in an uneasy state.

"In terms of public policy, Sandy Hook generated a lot of activity, but it hasn't yielded anything yet," says Matt Bennett, a co-founder of the centrist Third Way think tank, and a proponent of gun control measures.

National gun control legislation that would have expanded background checks and tightened restrictions on gun show purchases died in the Senate in April. The bill was supported by a majority of senators — 54 — but failed to hit the veto-proof 60-vote threshold.

And while at least eight states have tightened gun laws since Sandy Hook, more than that have eased their regulations. And two Colorado state senators who supported their state's new gun control laws were ousted last week in a recall election that attracted big money from both the pro-gun National Rifle Association, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control effort.

Sandy Hook may have set a new bar for gun-related tragedy, at least from a public policy standpoint: massacres that involve fewer numbers and adult victims simply can't generate enough shock.

"A workplace shooting, no matter how big, just doesn't seem unusual enough to generate public response," Bennett says. "My view is there inevitably will be more of these."

Tragedies like Sandy Hook and the Navy Yard will have little policy resonance, he predicts, until there's one involving a perpetrator who gets a gun through a loophole in gun show laws, or online.

"As long as they continue to get guns legally, or from family members, many people may think, 'what can be done'?" Bennett says.

The Sandy Hook shooter, who took his own life, got his guns legally from his mother, who he also murdered. Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter who was killed in a gun battle with police at the site, appears to have been in legal possession of the shotgun he brought on to the premises; officials say he "gained access" to a handgun during the incident.

"If someone wants to propose a new restriction on gun ownership after a tragedy, and cites that tragedy as a reason to pass it," said Jim Geraghty, a columnist with the conservative National Review, "it's necessary to show how that new restriction would have prevented, mitigated, or impacted that tragedy."

"Almost none of the gun laws proposed after [Sandy Hook] would have changed much of anything in that particular shooting," he said.

Geraghty says there's no need for a new, or renewed conversation about guns — that conversation has taken place, and lawmakers have rejected new restrictions on gun ownership.

Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence counters that the conversation must continue. Change comes slowly, he says, and the important conversations "should not just be driven by these high-profile tragedies."

"The conversations haven't stopped," says Nicole Hockley, whose son, Dylan, 6, was one of the children killed at Sandy Hook. ""I don't share a sense of resignation. It is going to take a long time for these changes to happen, and this strengthens our resolve."

Diana Nyad's Accomplishment Makes America's Cup Look All Wet

For sportswriters the fattest target has always been the America's Cup. It's too easy. It's like all those political writers who make fun of vice presidents and think they're being original. Sportswriters have been going har-de-har-har about the America's Cup even long before one of their wags said it was like watching paint dry. Or like watching grass grow. One or the other. Maybe both.

But while America's Cup yachts can gracefully skim above water at better than 40 mph, Frank Deford says when he looks back at the seven seas in 2013 he'll remember 64-year-old Diana Nyad "plowing, all by herself, freestyle, through 100 miles of surf from Havana to Key West."

Click on the audio link above to hear Deford's take on this issue.

Feminism And Race: Just Who Counts As A 'Woman Of Color'?

For the next part of our roundtable on the tensions and challenges in feminism along issues of race, we picked the brain of Filthy Freedom's Lindsey Yoo. Yoo had been following the sprawling #solidarityisforwhitewomen conversation, and felt that Asian-American women were often sidelined or overlooked when people talk about issues affecting women of color.

"In my sophomore year in college, after I learned of Japanese-American activist Yuri Kochiyama's role in the civil rights movement and asked a sociology professor why none of our classroom discussions included any mention of her role, she told me that 'bringing an Asian into the discussion on civil rights would just confuse people,' " she wrote. "When I pointed out to another sociology professor that the statistics we were studying that day, on the parenting styles of black and Hispanic parents versus white parents, did not take into account the unique perspective of Asians, she told me bluntly that 'the Asian perspective can be found in the stats on white people.' "

If you haven't read the previous entries in our series from Roxane Gay, Jill Filipovic and Mikki Kendall, they're really worth your time. And if there are other people writing about these ideas with compelling takes, we'd love if you could share them with us in the comments. — G.D.

Recommitting Feminism To Multiracial Solidarity

Roxane, Jill and Mikki-

After I shared an article that addressed the conspicuous lack of women of color on magazine covers, a friend exclaimed, "Let's not forget there is a lack of our Latina and Asian sisters." That comment, while coming from someone with all the best intentions in the world, prompted me to ask a series of awkward and sobering questions: When people say "women of color," am I included in that equation, or does it not apply to Asian-American women? What about Hispanic women? Do they have more of a claim to that label than Asians do? Or do they also not count? Do people really want to hear from someone who looks like me when they engage in conversations about racial justice?

Advocates for a more inclusive feminism cannot be content with calling attention to the tendency of feminist circles to focus solely on the issues that matter to privileged, white women. We must also rethink the ways we use the term "women of color." Our community needs conversations that explicitly demonstrate how the struggles of Asian, Latina and other women who fall outside the black-white binary are inextricably linked with the oppression of others. While I thoroughly appreciate the discussions that came from #solidarityisforwhitewomen, we must work even harder to ensure solidarity with all women who experience life at the intersections of race and gender.

As a Korean-American woman, I am sometimes hesitant to participate in conversations like #solidarityisforwhitewomen, because all too often, no one seems to be quite certain where I belong. In college sociology classes, when I asked to see the perspectives of Asian-Americans in our studies, some professors told me to look at the statistics on white people, or insinuated that Asian-Americans had no bearing on racial justice. I've been told since high school that Asian-Americans are not relevant, that our voices and experiences matter only when high-schoolers turn their pages to the obligatory paragraphs in their world history readers that briefly address Chinese railroad workers. The Asian-American experience, despite spanning several generations of struggle and oppression, is rendered invisible.

When I confront my friends and family — Asian-Americans are just as capable of internalizing and perpetuating anti-Asian racism as anyone else — for participating in casual, anti-Asian humor, I am told I have no right to be offended, since we are doing so much better than everyone else and should be grateful (as if our ethnicity, which comprises a multitude of racialized experiences and socioeconomic backgrounds, can be generalized into one, harmonious, high-achieving blob). Mikki Kendall states that "we use umbrella terms referencing race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but we are all aware (or should be anyway) that no community is a monolith." In my experience, however, the Asian-American community has always been portrayed as a monolith of kung-fu fighters, loose women and unscrupulous small-business owners.

I am aware that certain segments of the Asian-American community do enjoy more privileges than other people of color. But I am also keenly aware of the ways that I, like other people of color, am yoked and burdened by the existing structures of power and privilege. I am oppressed both as a woman and as a person of Asian descent. My body is constantly orientalized and hypersexualized by people who are more comfortable seeing me on television as a giggling, sexually repressed schoolgirl or whip-carrying dragon lady/tiger mom than they are with seeing me as an empowered individual with a dynamic history and voice.

This dismissive attitude toward Asian-Americans causes a dangerous rift in the ever-evolving journey toward true solidarity and the dismantling of racial and gender hierarchies. It's difficult, for instance, to feel like an ally when so many prominent feminists around me choose to praise and write about Orange Is the New Black for its portrayals of gender and race, but make almost no mention of the lazy, racist depiction of the lone Asian female character. Unlike the other characters in the series, Chang is given no substantial backstory or opportunity to redeem herself. She functions only as a vessel of cheap humor that draws from her awkward, accented English.

Similarly, it's hard to say I stand in solidarity with my feminist allies when feminists have railed against singer Chris Brown for his misogyny and violence, but have said very little about his incredibly racist song and music video, "Fine China." When Chris Brown releases a popular song that exoticizes Asian women, takes all the liberties in the world with "Asian culture," and perpetuates every racial trope that has ever existed in the Asian-American community, his actions should warrant further conversations about racism, appropriation and misogyny.

The idea of working "outside the binary" — not looking at race as a simple matter of black and white — has been hashed and rehashed within the social justice world, but we need to push for more than the occasional misguided ode to the "model minority" of "hard-working Asians." Roxane Gay is right: "We have a painful, infuriating history to reconcile — one where the concerns of heterosexual, able middle-class white women have too often been privileged at the expense of everyone else." But in our respective fights to be heard and empowered as women of color, we must be careful not to further stigmatize and marginalize other voices in our midst.

I am writing from the perspective of a college-educated, Korean-American woman who was privileged enough to be asked to join this conversation. Because I have felt excluded from discussions concerning women of color, I am certain that there are many other voices out there — Latina, Southeast Asian, Vietnamese, Native American — that also have felt left out, even under the all-welcoming label of "women of color." Joining Mikki Kendall's "endorsement of listening, of not always trying to be the leader, and instead handing the proverbial reins over to others" is the only way we will ever build a culture of true solidarity. Our efforts and agitation toward the dismantling of racial hierarchies make sense only when we include, legitimize and strengthen the voices of all women of color.

Is The U.S. Drone Program Fatally Flawed?

Armed drones have become a prominent feature of U.S. counterterrorism efforts around the globe. The unmanned aerial vehicles are regularly used to surveil and strike targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and are now being used in similar efforts in Yemen and Somalia.

Some argue that drones are highly effective tools in conflict situations. Drones can conduct long-term surveillance, and when combined with other forms of intelligence, supporters argue, can identify individual targets with a high degree of precision, thereby minimizing harm to civilians. And, because they are unmanned, they can be controlled from great distances, posing little physical risk to their American operators.

More From The Debate

The Internet's 'Twerk' Effect Makes Dictionaries Less Complete

Evidently it was quite fortuitous. Just a couple of days after MTV's Video Music Awards, Oxford Dictionaries Online released its quarterly list of the new words it was adding. To the delight of the media, there was "twerk" at the top, which gave them still another occasion to link a story to Miley Cyrus' energetic high jinks.

And why not add "twerk"? It's definitely a cool word, which worked its way from New Orleans bounce music into the linguistic mainstream on the strength of its expressive phonetics, among other things. It won't linger — the names of dance styles rarely do — but we'll have a historical record of it in the section reserved for forgotten forbidden dances, along with "lambada" and "turkey trot." Now that dictionaries are online, space is unlimited; you're never going to have to ask the outdated words to give up their spots to make room for the new ones coming on.

All the dictionaries periodically release a list of their new words, most of them provocatively cute and fleeting. Chambers Dictionary announces they've got "mocktail." Merriam's counters with "man cave." Collins includes "squadoosh," an Italian-American slang word that means "zilch." And Oxford's recent list included "selfie," "fauxhawk" and the exclamations "derp" and "squee," not to mention the abbreviation SRSLY, as in "seriously." If you haven't picked up on all of these yet, I wouldn't worry. None of them is likely to outlive your hamster.

True, the dictionaries are also adding durable new items like "cloud computing," "systemic risk" and baseball's "walk off." (It mystifies me that it took 150 years to come up with a word for that.) But it's the ephemeral and faddish ones that generate the most arresting media headlines: "It's official! Oxford declares 'selfie' a real word!"

The dictionaries themselves disavow any official role in defining a "real word" — these are just items that we've been noticing a lot, they say. But they know perfectly well that the only reason the announcements get picked up is that people still believe that dictionaries are gatekeepers whose inclusion of a word confers approval.

There was a time when dictionaries were expected to restrict themselves to words that had reputable literary credentials. Back in 1961, Merriam-Webster set off a cultural firestorm for opening the columns of its new unabridged to parvenus like "litterbug," "wise up" and "yakking." Critics accused Merriam's of "subversion" and "sabotage," and The New York Times charged that the dictionary was accelerating the deterioration of the language.

More From Geoff Nunberg

Technology

Bracing For Google Glass: An In-Your-Face Technology

Hotline Responders Answer Veterans' Desperate Calls

Responders at the Veterans Crisis Line work to help veterans through their darkest hours. The Department of Veterans Affairs runs the hotline, the only national line dedicated to helping veterans in crisis.

A report in February was the most comprehensive to date from the VA on veterans and suicide. As of that publication, the Crisis Line had made approximately 26,000 rescues of actively suicidal veterans.

Four hotline employees share their experiences with StoryCorps for its Military Voices Initiative.

"I have post-traumatic stress disorder from my years of deployment in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. And when I came to the hotline, when a vet said they were having a flashback, I knew exactly what they were talking about.

"I remember a young gentleman, he was in the middle of a flashback, and had boarded himself inside his living room. He had three young children — they were sleeping upstairs. I had heard in the background that something had clicked, and I asked him if he had a weapon. He said he did. He was really anxious and incoherent, but, you know, after a little bit of finagling around, he did agree to attend treatment.

"I remember, after that phone call, being a little jerky and nervous — going outside, smoking a couple of cigarettes. And then just coming back in and doing my job again."

Nelson Peck, 66, trainer and administrative support

"The hotline by far is the most rewarding thing I've ever done in my life. I was a combat veteran with the United States Marines in Vietnam. I had PTSD as well, and what I started to realize was my PTSD was triggered by survivor guilt. I never understood why I survived. And being with the hotline has really given me the answer. I was meant to survive to do this, so other veterans could survive."

Audio produced for Weekend Edition by Yasmina Guerda.

A Return To Trollope: Did The Book Change — Or Did I?

How could the venerable Duke's children be so heartless, particularly after he's suffered the death of his beloved Cora, who haunts the book like a ghost, as mocking, manipulative and magnificent as she was when she was alive? I was frustrated by the whining narcissism of the younger generation. They should have been paying much more attention to their father's wise advice.

Horrors, I was identifying with the Duke! When did I get so grumpy and conservative — and defensive? Had I also short-changed my own children with a focus on career and ambition, as the Duke had? Trollope's words were the same, but for me the whole novel had shifted into another key.

Like a Shakespearean comedy, the book ends with a series of weddings. As the Duke makes his peace with his children's choices, Trollope shows the reader how civilizations and families evolve, achieving in the process a new equilibrium between the generations. My younger self rejoiced at the Duke's abdication of paternal power and his shrunken sphere of influence. I still managed to celebrate the triumph of the young lovers — but I also wept.

I wonder when my next encounter with Lady Glencora and the Duke of Omnium will be. Should I wait another 20 years? What new shocks will be in store for me then? If I'm very lucky, perhaps someday I will read them all aloud to my grandchildren, seeking the insight of a new generation.

You Must Read This is produced and edited by the team at NPR Books.

'Money' And 'Canelo' Punch It Out For Black And Latino Fans

Ex-jock talking heads aside, the nation's sports pages remain overwhelmingly white. That's probably why you're only vaguely aware that for many of us, tomorrow night is the one of the biggest sporting events of the year.

On Saturday night, boxing's biggest star, Floyd Mayweather Jr., will meet unbeaten Mexican sensation Saul "Canelo" Alvarez at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas for the junior middleweight championship of the world. The main event will take place well after most children have gone to bed, and only be available to households that pay $60 for the Pay Per View ($70 for HD). It will be an easy decision for many, in part because the card also features Danny Garcia of Philadelphia facing Argentine noqueador Lucas Matthysse in the second-most anticipated fight of the year.

The economics of the fight alternately amaze and distress, depending on the audience. There are many revenue streams for a show like this, but the bottom line is usually the number of Pay Per View buys: 1.5 million would be a huge success; 2 million buys would be a coup for both the fighters and the sport at large. Mayweather is guaranteed a staggering $41.5 million for the fight, plus a share of the back end, which should ensure he spends another year atop Forbes' list of the richest athletes in the world. As abrasive as Mayweather can be, he remains immensely popular with fight fans, particularly African-Americans. It is a matter of considerable debate whether more people pay to watch Mayweather's amazing skills, or simply in hopes that the next opponent will end his unbeaten run.

Hype aside, Saturday's fight is unique among American sporting events in that the majority of those watching on fight night, whether in person or via Pay Per View, will be minorities, specifically African-Americans or Hispanics. Many expect a virtual shutdown in Mexico, where only the country's beloved national soccer team rivals Canelo in popular appeal. Yet one wouldn't know it by perusing any of this nation's largest sports outlets, which have covered the fight sporadically, if at all.

While Mayweather-Alvarez will be the primary topic of discussion in many communities this week, the folks at the water cooler aren't the ones that most marketers covet, save those that make beer and power tools. But the fight is rife with storylines for those interested in issues of race and class, from the phenomenal box office appeal of Mayweather's "Money" persona, to Mexico's immense and complex adoration of Canelo, whose name is a nod to his unlikely ginger locks and freckled visage.

When Mayweather and Alvarez came to Washington this summer as part of their blockbuster press tour, the line stretched around the Howard Theatre for blocks, and the crowd inside crackled with electricity and the screams of rival fan bases. The scene was repeated across North America, as fans devoted whole days to just catching a glimpse of the fighters at a press conference. It is hard to imagine Novak Djokovic or Roger Federer drawing a similar reaction anywhere in the U.S., but tennis is still dutifully accorded prominence at least four fortnights a year. Meanwhile, most mainstream outlets only take note of boxing long enough to pronounce it dead, a stance so unimaginative it was worn out before Muhammad Ali entered the prizefighting ring.

The paucity of fight coverage is particularly striking given the sport's long, complex literary tradition. Legends such as Joyce Carol Oates, Ernest Hemingway and A.J. Liebling have all occupied press row. But boxing writers almost always inhabit a different world than those they cover, and are frequently prone to treating combatants as entertainers, disposable pieces that can be shuffled in and out with little consequence.

The widely varying standards of professionalism among boxing writers today ensures that too many are unwilling to criticize promoters or TV executives, for fear of losing their coveted spot at ringside. In mixed martial arts, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) employs the strategy of banning critical journalists to impressive effect. To a lesser extent, the writers that still cover boxing are all too eager to parrot the demands of the TV executives and promoters, and decry fighters for holding up appealing contests for trivial reasons like compensation.

I do not assume prejudice, or even bad faith, on the part of any boxing writers that believe a fighter is asking for too much money for a particular fight. But it should be noted that said fighters are typically being asked to step into a ring with another warrior who has been training since youth for the sole purpose of bashing each other to a pulp. They do so at significant risk to their long-term health, regardless of whether they win or lose.

Boxing is already inherently exploitative, but there is something unseemly about a group of (mostly white and middle-class) boxing writers and fans debating online whether a fighter (typically a minority from an underprivileged background) is placing too high a value on his future health and well-being. One look at the present condition of Ali, Ken Norton or countless other fighters, should be enough to silence anyone who thinks a fighter is asking for too much money.

Boxing purses are blood money to an even greater extent than the NFL, and the fighters are putting themselves directly in harm's way for the paying audience. Perhaps it is because of the difficult ethical questions it raises, like whether fans should take such delight in the vicious destruction of another human being, that boxing has been confined to the margins of the sports world. Not since Mike Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. has an American fighter been truly embraced by the mainstream. Many blame the sport's fade on the decline of American heavyweights, but in truth, boxing is more a victim of the segmentation of the American sports fan base, and an overall shift in our culture.

The increasing discomfort with the sport's long-term effects can be directly traced to the condition of Ali in particular. Perhaps all this is a symptom that a portion of society has evolved past ritualized violence (though the popularity of MMA would argue not). The average young man in mid-20th century America could likely expect to find himself in a fight at some point in his life, mostly due to the prominence of the draft and widespread military conflict. Today, the brightest line in our society is between those who face violence as a part of their everyday lives, and those who don't. It is documented that the composition of our military favors certain demographics; the same could be said of fighters, but even more so.

For those who condemn boxing out of hand, they probably live in a world where violence exists only on the screen, in the news, or inside a ring. They are fortunate to lead such a mundane existence, as am I; violence is not something we risk every day just by walking down the street. But reality is far different in many neighborhoods, especially those that produce fighters. To many of the young boxers I've met, violence is a fact of life. The boxing gym is one of the few places where that violence is controlled, and paradoxically, often a safe haven from what waits in the streets.

For the young men I've followed over the past few years, almost all African-American, the ring is a place to channel their anger and violent surroundings into something positive. Some learn to fight outside of the ring, but learning to box often saps them of aggression and gives them remarkable self-control. Anyone in boxing will tell you that fighters are often some of the most gentle, decent, nonconfrontational people you will ever encounter. The embrace between fighters at the end of a match is not the forced handshake of rival NFL coaches — it's a remarkable moment when two men instantly pivot from trying to destroy each other to being grateful they have both come through the battle still capable of standing.

As Boston College professor and noted fight scribe Carlo Rotella wrote in his essay for Deadspin, "Knowing something about the fights — being good with your hands, or maintaining an opinion about the welterweight division or fixed bouts or how to beat a southpaw — was a very common piece of equipment in the toolbox of American cultural competence, especially the section of it devoted to masculinity."

Today's toolbox is more likely to include a jar of expensive pomade than boxing gloves. A D.C. copywriter wrote on Quora recently that boxing is one of the creepiest things our society tolerates as a cultural norm. I can only suppose that person has never spent any time around boxing or fighters (or the fashion industry). Equating boxing as a whole with professional boxing is common and nonsensical, akin to pointing to the WWE to justify the elimination of Olympic wrestling. The vast majority of people in boxing earn little or no money from fighting. Most boxers are amateurs, who fight only for exercise and love of the sport.

Spend some time in a boxing gym, where most boxing takes place, and it will become obvious that there are no corporate sponsors or AAU teams supporting the training of fighters. Often the people that do so get almost nothing in return, devoting their time and resources out of love for the Sweet Science, and a desire to help young men and women better themselves. Boxing gyms are small, dark, dank spaces, where often the only white face present will be a visiting boxing writer or promoter, looking for their next attraction or story.

Even promising young pro fighters are paid only a few hundred dollars for their early fights; their opponents get slightly more, because of the presumed price they will pay in the ring. Fighters fight because they choose to, and only a precious few ever manage to eke out a living from it. Begrudging a fighter his pay for a big fight ignores the years of unrewarded toil and sacrifice it took for him to reach that point, and the reality that he will likely never have another opportunity to cash in. For many of these fighters, who lack education and connections to the professional world, the ring is also the one venue where they can excel, and demonstrate their worth for all to see.

Boxing is not perfect, but comparisons to human cockfighting require a dismissal of the fighters' agency, and hint at deeper issues of race and class. Boxing is not the only dangerous occupation practiced in North America; more people die every year while scuba diving. Yet no one suggests that divers are being exploited by the lucrative scuba industry. Nor do we begrudge those NFL players who hold out for bigger contracts; in those cases, we understand that professional sports are a business.

So is fighting, but it is a cruel, unfair business at best. Fighters enter the ring by choice, usually for deeply personal reasons, or lack of other options. Many professionals hang on too long, unable to relinquish the glory of the ring, or unable to find another occupation that will support them. They are allowed to do so by the negligence of the state athletic commissions, the very bodies charged with policing the sport. Only a national commission with federal authority to enforce common standards would help, but legislation to create such a body from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has drawn little support as of yet. The "alphabet" sanctioning bodies (the WBC, WBA, IBF, etc.) are simply parasites, that contribute nothing to the sport besides dreaming up new categories of "champions."

There are many legitimate arguments to be made against the continuation of professional boxing, starting with the lack of proper oversight. The longer I write about the sport, the more misgivings I have. But as noted boxing author Thomas Hauser wrote in his seminal book, The Black Lights, "the reality of life is that we live in a violent world. ... The sport will endure."

People often ask me why I write about boxing, given all the ethical questions. One need not believe in war to think it merits proper coverage. This weekend, millions of people will be transfixed by the spectacle of two men fighting for the junior middleweight championship of the world. Whatever you think of boxing, that seems like a headline to me.

Gautham Nagesh is the founder of StiffJab.com. He has been punched in the face, but not for a living. Anna John contributed reporting to this article.

Ïîïóëÿðíûå ñîîáùåíèÿ

Blog Archive