text:
Remarks by Speaker of the House of Rep.s Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at the Brookings Institution - the Recent Congressional Delegation's Trip to China
Moderator: E.J. Dionne, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at email@example.com or call 1-202-216-2706.
Back Save transcript E-mail transcript Print transcript
SPEAKER PELOSI: (Applause.) Thank you all. Thank you very much, E.J., for your kind invitation to return to Brookings. It's an honor to be here. Thank you for your kind words of introduction.
E.J. went through my life. I'll just tell you about the past week, on our trip to China. But it's wonderful to be here with some friends and some new acquaintances to talk about this important relationship. It's an honor to be here with Strobe Talbott, the president of Brookings Institution. Brooke and Talbott were such an incredible team, and we have all benefitted from their tremendous -- the tremendous intellectual resource they are to us in every way. Thank you, Strobe, for your leadership.
And John Thornton, the chairman of the board, who from my -- I want to share some of my experience in China, and hear the benefit of his really long-term relationship with China.
And Melissa Skolfield -- used to be with my statute of the vice president of the Brookings Institution. And each and every one of you. My friend Martin Indyk, right up here in front, with his book under his chair there, I see. (Laughs, laughter.)
Perhaps the best way to go about it, is just to tell you chronologically how this all unfolded. A few weeks -- a few months ago, the representatives of the Chinese government, the chairman of their foreign affairs committee and the ambassador, came to my office to extend an invitation on behalf of the chairman of the National People's Congress, to come to China on a head-of-state visit, and that our focus would be climate change.
And this is a trip that's part of my flagship issue. As speaker, I announced when I became speaker the flagship issue would be energy independence -- energy security and the climate, addressing the global climate crisis. We formed a select committee to do just that. Our committee has visited India, the EU, its member states. They've been to Brazil. We've been to Greenland. And now, in order to get -- to see the facts on the ground and the policy in the works, we were going to go to China, at the invitation of the Chinese government.
The -- okay, fast-forward to about 10 days ago. The secretary- general of the U.N., whom I know you heard from last night, came to my office on Thursday. We were to leave on Friday. And he said -- talked about climate change.
And I said, well, two years ago, when you came to my office, you said that if we didn't act by 2012, it may be too late on the climate change issue. He said, and I said, do you still stand by that dire prediction? He said, it's worse. The scientists have told us this has accelerated. It's worse. We must act. And Copenhagen is very important. And he said, I've coined a phrase. He probably said it last night. Seal the deal in Copenhagen. So be sure.
I said, well, this is, you know, the central purpose of our trip. But we'll talk about human rights, of course, North Korea and another issue of fiscal responsibility, in the United States, that we wanted to convey to the Chinese government.
Our trip included Ed Markey, who is the chairman of the select committee; Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who is the ranking member on the committee, Republican from Wisconsin; Congressman Blumenauer of Oregon and Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington State; Jackie Speier of California. They all had very valuable contributions to make to the discussion.
The -- on our way to China, we stayed overnight in Alaska. And for a day and a half, we saw what was happening, in our own country, on the issue of climate change.
Now, why this is important is, we see it as a national security issue, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We see it as an economic issue, an economic issue, an economic issue, to create new clean-energy jobs and to be competitive in our investments, in innovation and technology, so that we can be the world leader.
We see it as a health issue, from the standpoint of the environment and reducing pollution. And we see it as a moral issue, as I believe many of you do, that this is God's creation, this planet, and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it. And we've worked with the evangelical community in that, sitting at the table with scientists, talking about how we do this, in a way that does not harm the poor.
So this has been a very comprehensive issue in every way for us. And this trip was very important, because the U.S. and China are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. And we have to come to terms in order for us to come, I believe, to a multilateral agreement in Copenhagen.
So on the way we went to Alaska, and to see in our own country what we had seen in Greenland and heard about elsewhere -- but to see in our own country what was happening there, the melting of the polar cap. When you have a white polar cap, it reflects the sun. When that starts to melt and it's dark blue, it absorbs the heat and it affects the whole thermal regulation of the globe. It had an impact of melting the permafrost and that releasing the methane gases, the acidification of the ocean affecting the wildlife, the fauna, and to have, again, village leaders come from all over Alaska and tell us their villages were melting into the sea -- just for example of some of the consequences in our own country.
We arrived in China. We knew what we were going there to do, but of course, with our message reinforced from what we had had just seen, also equipped with a bill that had passed the Congress, the congressional committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday night, which was historic, momentous legislation on how we would go forward.
This was a whole game changer in our conversations with the Chinese, because all the intelligence that -- when I say "intelligence," I mean their own visits and the rest had told them that we probably would not act upon this challenge, and now we had, and we're on the way to passing the legislation in the Congress.
So that made our conversations quite different than they would have been -- the sense of urgency about what we saw, the sense of direction that this bill provided.
Well, now China does not border the Arctic, and they didn't have the same issues that Alaska had directly, but the whole world -- the whole planet is affected directly. And the glaciers are melting in the Himalayas, affecting the great rivers of Asia, all the way down to the Mekong Delta; the encroachment of the Gobi Desert growing more, and even sandstorms felt in Beijing; the possible rising sea level and how that affects the maritime areas of China -- everyone is affected.
And again, because we are the two big emitters, it was necessary for us to come to some understanding. And that was largely the purpose of our trip -- very focused.
The Chinese have done remarkable things.
We knew that before we went. We saw that firsthand, in terms of closing down coal-burning plants that were inefficient, building high- speed rail -- remarkable, remarkable high-speed rail, which we rode on in Shanghai and between China (sic) and Tianjin, just to visit some of what was happening in Tianjin -- the investments in research and actual construction of buildings in a different way so they'd be -- use less energy on -- in their construction. And on the ongoing, what they were doing in reducing energy-intense industries that use so much more energy, more expensively, and more costly to the environment. So they have done remarkable things.
But what they wanted to be clear to us is that, as they were doing this and they were investing in the technologies and the rest -- and when you see what they're doing, it's so remarkable, and they are to be commended for it. But they made clear to us, in addition, that they were going to be developing, still, the sustainable development, with I think more of an emphasis on the development side -- interested in the sustainability for sure, but also insisting that they would continue to develop. No matter what they were doing on the reducing of the use of energy and using the technologies, they would probably still be a net-gain emitter. And that's really not what -- where we have to be going.
And they start with an argument of "you developed the way you developed; now let us develop the way we develop." And it's a good point, except we wish that we knew better and we could have avoided some of the problems that we have.
They also say, "We make all these products. You buy them; you should pay for the emission." You know, that -- another one is that on a per capita basis, "we're low emitters." Which is true. (Laughs.) Only -- and so with -- these and other reasons were part of where they were staking out the claim, which is a fine -- is an okay place to start, but not good enough.
Oh, and that we -- the developed world should set aside 1 percent of its GDP and invest it in the developing world to do all of these things. And the other part of that -- is China really a developing nation? It is. It's sort of a hybrid. It's -- has a bigger middle class than the United States. It's estimated -- has a bigger middle class than all of the United States. (Laughs.) And it is a -- but it has its areas that are developing, so it must fall into some different category than either the United States or Mali. You know, it's something different.
You know, it's something different. There must be another category.
In any event, with all of the intellectual resources they apply to it -- the investments in technology, the needs that they have -- I don't know whether it's scientifically or only anecdotally. But what I have been told is that 600,000 -- almost 600,000 people a year die of air pollution in China.
Clean water in some areas is just an oxymoron. It just doesn't exist. So from an economic standpoint, China is on the move, developing and developing the technologies for the future.
From a political standpoint, the issue of clean air and clean water is a very personal issue. And if the Chinese people see it as a corruption issue -- they don't have clean air and clean water -- then that's a political issue for the Chinese.
So I see and I'll just conclude by saying this and take questions. I see -- I've said that the legislation was a game- changer, in terms of our conversations about, what is the urgency, and how are we going to go about doing this?
And we've taken a big first step to the whole issue of climate change being a game-changer, in our relationship with China and how we deal with subjects that relate to more freedom for the Chinese people. Which as you know is a very -- well, you may not know, but has been a very big issue, for me, for many years.
And I see it in this way. The issue of air and water is very immediate to people's lives. If they don't have it, they want to know why. They want to hold the government accountable. They want transparency. They want more openness in how these decisions are made.
They want more commitment to the rule of law, as spelled out in the Chinese constitution. And they want to -- if they see this as a corruption issue, it becomes problematic for the government, because a lot of what was going on, at the time of Tiananmen, was about corruption as much as wanting more freedom.
The -- as you know, yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I wear this pin that was given to me, in China, by some of the people who would be part of some demonstrations in Hong Kong. They had 150,000 people the day before -- well, it was yesterday, I guess, but for us, the day before yesterday. So that spirit was not crushed, even though there was a crush -- well, you know what happened at Tiananmen Square.
I did speak to the president, the premier, the chairman of the National People's Congress, about human rights in China and Tibet, and told them this was -- in our discussions, as we go forward, will always be a priority for us.
The issue, again, of North Korea was an important part of our conversation, because it was going to be anyway, but with the tests taking place when we were in China on the, perhaps, nuclear weapon -- we think probably nuclear weapon -- and then the short-rain -- range missiles, this was important.
The Chinese clearly understand, as do we, that it's not in either country's interest for North Korea -- either of our countries' interest for North Korea to have a -- to have a weapon, and for the peninsula to be nuclearized. And what does that mean in terms of other countries? Iran is watching. What does Japan do? And what does it mean for proliferation?
I also, as I said, made the point that Congress is very committed to fiscal discipline as we go forward, in terms of our budget, to reduce the deficit and to invest in education, health care and energy as the three pillars that will energize our economy.
But as we did it, we had to do it in a fiscally sound way to bring down the deficit. They were asking for cuts from our appropriators that were passing PAYGO legislation so that you have to pay as you go, and other initiatives we are taking in that regard.
So that's what I did last week. (Laughter.) And I guess I said "and finally" too early, because I then had to -- a couple of other issues, finally, on the point of climate change.
But the -- we were received magnificently by the Chinese government. So you wondered, why are they -- one year ago, when I was in India visiting his holiness the Dalai Lama at -- in India, it was the time of the one-year anniversary; just a coincidence that our trip was planned long in advance, but they had a crackdown in China. So my association with the Dalai Lama in India at that time made me the most hated person in China.
And then several months later -- John is shaking his head in agreement -- (laughs) -- and several months later they come to the Capitol and say, "We want you to come with a head-of-state visit to China." I think it's a recognition of the role that Congress plays. It is a very important one. And they wanted to increase that communication. And there are so many issues that we have to deal with in a bilateral and then multilateral way that we thought it was important to accept, to increase that dialogue.
And in any event, I can't give you an appraisal -- I'm asking John Thornton to give me an appraisal -- of what we think. We think this contributed to communication in that. We were very frank about human rights. You know, you -- I can't go someplace -- they knew who they were inviting.
On the other hand, we had long discussions about other issues with business, with NGOs -- with G-NGOs, government non-governmental organizations -- (chuckles) -- with the private sector, such as it is, the state-run industries, with the AmCham, there at Tsinghua University, where John Thornton's the first American to be a professor there since 1949, since the People's Republic of China was established. Imagine, this great institution of higher learning, and John having the recognition that he has.
And the -- at every level we met with everyone, to see what was happening in the vision of the president of China and the implementation at every level across the board, down to the -- from the NGOs, and to hear what the students thought about this.
So it was a very positive trip from our standpoint. I hope that it brings us closer to some agreement on -- in preparation for Copenhagen. But I can tell you for sure that they are on the move, and doing many of the right things in terms of making them -- reducing their energy emissions. But their development, as I say, on the other hand, may make them a net emitter. How do we come to terms between our two countries, in a cooperative spirit, recognizing that we can't expect them to do what we do, but we do expect them to do something that is commensurate with their -- with their capacity?
So with that, I thank you very much for your attention. If there's anyone who just loves the opportunity to tell you what they did on their week out of town -- (laughs, laughter). Thank you for your attention to -- which I think is a very important issue. And I think we made some steps forward in communication and understanding on this issue. I really can't tell you what the Chinese will do, but I think there are steps they'll be negotiating with the executive branch, of course, as we go forward.
Once again, I want to thank the Brookings Institution for this opportunity to come by and tell you what I did during the Memorial Day district work period, and thank you for the opportunity to do so.
MR. DIONNE: Thank you. (Applause.)
So here's how we'll do it. I'm going to ask one question. Then I'm going to ask John Thornton to ask the first question, not because he's chairman of the board, but because he is one of -- the only or one of the few Chinese professors in this audience. So -- and then I'll open it up. Just -- folks, you can put up your hands and I'll call on you and we'll get as many people in as possible.
I just learned some very important. If you have enough capitas -- you can do almost anything with per-capita numbers in China. (Laughter.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: (Chuckles.)
MR. DIONNE: Very lucky that way.
I wanted to press you on the human rights issue. You have a reputation as one of the most outspoken -- you've earned a reputation as one of the most outspoken people in Congress on human rights. That goes back 20 years. A lot of the press accounts sort of talked about how publicly you had downplayed that during this visit. Does that reflect a change in view, or do you just view the trip a little differently than others might have?
SPEAKER PELOSI: No, I just disagree with the press accounts.
MR. DIONNE: Yeah, I thought you might say that.
SPEAKER PELOSI: (Laughs.)
MR. DIONNE: (Chuckles.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: No, before the speaker leaves on a trip, you really don't say what your agenda is, both your scheduled at agenda or your -- from a security standpoint, what your agenda is. And somebody asked me at a meeting, "Are you talking about human rights?" I said -- well, I just walked out, and they said, "She's not talking about human rights." But we did talk about human rights.
But I have to make this statement. When I -- 19 years -- 1991, when -- when was that? -- 18 years ago, I went to Tiananmen Square as a member of Congress, relatively new member of Congress, to -- and we unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square about human rights in China, got chased out of Tiananmen Square by the police. The -- I could reflect my own views and those of my constituents.
As speaker of the House, I had the opportunity to sit like this across from the president of China, the premier of China, the chairman of the National People's Congress of China, and express those views more directly. What I did then was appropriate for then, I think. Some may not agree that I should be unfurling the banner in Tiananmen Square. And the opportunity and access that I had was appropriate to the speaker of the House.
But there was no way that we would go to China and not talk about human rights, and -- in China and Tibet, and with the idea that our future meetings -- because we're going to have more meetings on other subjects with the National People's Congress -- would always include a discussion of human rights.
I don't know that I really saw that much of an improvement in human rights in China when we were there. The -- there's no question -- and we complimented the government -- the lifting of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is a remarkable achievement and especially in that period of time.
And we commended them for that.
We met -- our first visit, when we got there, was with, excuse me, Bishop Jin, the Catholic bishop of Shanghai. And he told us that things had improved for Catholics in Shanghai area. And we went to their church. And that's for underground Catholics; it is not for other religious faiths. It's not.
So with China, it's so big, you see, you can make almost any case, in terms of freedom of religion. Yes, it has improved here. No, it hasn't improved there. But I don't think there's any question, and John may disagree, that you cannot speak out about -- they have something called Charter 08 that 5,000 people have signed, Charter 08, which is about more openness in China, politically speaking. And the person who initiated that is of course in prison.
This past week, during the Tiananmen 20th anniversary, there was a real crackdown on how communication was going through the Internet. So I did not see real political -- again you see what you see. But I, you know, I talked to a lot of people in preparation.
And yesterday and the day before and the day before, when we got back, we had a number of Tiananmen Square observances: on the floor of the House, a bill that got all but one vote, in favor of it, to have an open investigation, independent investigation, as to what happened at Tiananmen Square, among other things that do that.
I met with the dissident community, in my office yesterday, three prisoners who just got out. These are the ones who threw paint on Mao's picture in Tiananmen Square at the time of 20 years ago. And they just got out of prison. And they were in my office yesterday.
We had a rally on the grounds of the capital with Wang Dan, one of the leaders of Tiananmen, Chai Ling, et cetera. And then we had, with Harry Wu, we have an exhibition, an exhibit of paintings in the -- pictures in the Rayburn Building.
So we have memorialized what happened then, still wondering that 20 years later, people are still being incarcerated for speaking out about anything other than the partyline.
So you know, I wish that that picture were better. I don't know that peaceful evolution -- economic reform will lead to political reform -- really did that.
And I know that just our advocacy didn't accomplish any more freedom in China. So somehow or other, we have to find a way to do that.
Because -- well, let me just read you what President Obama said in his speech. This is what he said: He said -- in Cairo -- he said, "I do not have" -- "I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: The ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere."
And I say, if we do not speak out for human rights in China and Tibet, we lose moral authority to speak out for them anywhere. And so somehow we have to -- I'm so pleased that Senator Clinton has said, in her quote, "should examine openly the darker events of the past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal." We want to go forward. We want to go forward. But we have some -- there are still some issues as we go forward. So now this is a relentless pursuit of mine.
I would just -- be pleased to answer any other questions that --
MR. DIONNE: Thank you. John?
Q Madame Speaker, first of all, thank you for coming to Brookings and thank you for your comments.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Thank you, John.
Q And also, I want to thank you for going to China and hope many of your colleagues will take up your example.
SPEAKER PELOSI: We are going to do that.
Q Now, my -- I really want to ask a question on behalf of my students at Tsinghua, because I teach a course on global leadership. The seminar is constantly focused on individual leaders around the world. They're fascinated by you. They admire you, and really for two reasons; one, because of your -- as a woman in such a senior position -- they are fascinated by that. And they're also fascinated with the question, what do you think of China? I'll put the question another way around. In that -- the 18 years you just described, from '91 until now, how has your view evolved or changed?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Thank you, John. As I may have indicated when I said "students," I did mention, I think, that I went to Tsinghua University, where John is a -- I mentioned John's role, but -- and the students were wonderful. And they -- you know, they were lovely and gracious, and we had a nice meeting such as this. But no lunch. (Laughter.) And they -- that, I guess, came later for them.
They were very interested in the fact that I was a woman and in this position of power. That was -- and how could that happen for them? We talked about that. I told them to read my book, "Know Your Power." (Chuckles.) No, but -- no, I answered more broadly. That --
MR. DIONNE: (Inaudible) -- needs Martin's book. (Laughter.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: It isn't that my view has changed so much as my role has changed.
I'm speaker of the House, and we have to deal with these issues in a different way than if you're an advocate. I mean, I never lose my advocacy, but as leader, you have to make certain other decisions.
We have -- as the world has changed in that period of time, it's about human rights, and that's fundamental to who we are, our core value. We also have issues to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- witness South -- excuse me, North Korea, for example. We have the U.N., our relationship at the U.N., which is so important if we're going to deal with proliferation, if we're going to deal with Iran, if we're going to deal with North Korea, if we're going to deal with Darfur -- which is, of course a big issue -- just to name a few, and if we're going to interest -- if we're going to deal with preserving God's beautiful creation, this planet, we have to have communication. And hopefully, that communication and signs of respect in it -- you know, not just a conversation, but increasing our confidence in each other, will lead to some solution, because (it's ?) just too big,
But it goes back to when I was a little girl, and probably -- well, you're all too young, but some of a certain age who may be viewing may remember that when we were little, we were told if we dug a hole in the sand, we would reach China; when you're at the beach, you'll reach China. And what I said to them there is, I said we're going to reach across the globe in the hand of friendship and try to work out some of our challenges. But we have to do it with candor, and we don't have to always keep -- you know, we have to go forward as we do so. But it is, as I said to you, a remarkable thing, lifting these people out of poverty.
The problem that I have is that -- people say, well, in Taiwan and Korea and different places, economic reform led to political reform and that will happen. What I see in China is that the economic reform is being used to suppress the political reform. We have a job. Okay I'm happy. So it isn't the natural, peaceful evolution, which they really never subscribe to.
So I'm hoping to understand it better, to find ways that we can communicate that, honor the sacrifice that the human rights activist leaders at Tiananmen and since and before have made, and again, see how we can work together. So -- you know, I'm blessed with a beautiful Chinese-American population in my district. And I'm sure that other people should be very envious if they came to my district and saw what that means in terms of the vitality of our area.
So we're connected, whether through the sand, across the globe, or personally through our constituents.
MR. DIONNE: Please, over here. If you could introduce yourself, too.
Q Yes, I will. Madame Speaker, my name is Alan Daks (ph) --
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hi, Alan (sp).
Q -- from San Francisco California.
SPEAKER PELOSI: There we are. So you know.
Q My question is the following: My impression of Chinese leadership is that they do very little without thinking it through very thoroughly. Did you get a sense, when you were there, of what they have in mind for our relationship with them?
SPEAKER PELOSI: The -- in my conversation with President Hu, he mentioned that he had a good meeting with President Obama at the G-20, and in fact he had -- they had spoken by telephone twice since then. And he said it with some friendship in his voice. And when I went to -- after I got home, I -- just for regular business that we do, I went to see the president about health care and energy on Tuesday. And I told him -- he said, be sure to give my regards to the president. And then the president, when I did that, he said: Well, I'll be talking to him soon. So I think they have established a good rapport, a respectful rapport.
And no question, we are competitors. We are economic competitors. And that's all right. I mean, that's what the world is about. We're economic competitors. We have our issues, in terms of market access and currency issues, whatever. But we should be able to have enough communication to work them out, because it's in each country's benefit to do so.
So I have to be optimistic. I have to be optimistic. I -- you know, I could argue this either way. But I prefer to argue it -- to talk about it from a positive standpoint, because you know, it has to happen. We have to have a climate change agreement. We have to come to terms on how we deal with North Korea's possible development and proliferation of weapons. We have to stop Iran from having -- becoming a nuclear state. You know, we have to work together on these issues.
So the more confidence-building that we can do, the better. But I cannot -- you have to ask John the question as to how. You know, I thought you were going to say go another place. I thought you were going to say why do they think -- you think they invited you?
I mean this was an incredible show of hospitality. In fact, the embassy said they never saw anybody meet all three -- you know, with all three -- the president, the premier, the National People's Congress. Not that our president wouldn't have access to anyone, but that hasn't been what has happened before.
Well, I want -- I always like to pay my respects to the culture. So I said, I cannot ever go to Beijing without going to the Forbidden City. I just love going there. Shut down completely. They said, we can't even remember when we saw nobody in the Forbidden City; not a person except for -- so they, in gestures of hospitality, they extended themselves in a very generous way.
John would have to tell us what all of that means. But it does mean that we have an opportunity that, I think, we should try to take advantage of and assume the best but ever vigilant, ever vigilant in terms of what the course of action could be, on any of those issues.
MR. DIONNE: By the way, John will have a news conference after this event, to answer all the questions the speaker has referred to him.
SPEAKER PELOSI: No. He's going to have a conversation with me. (Laughter.)
Q Madame Speaker, Richard Bush here at Brookings. Nice to see you.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hi, Richard. How are you?
Q I'm curious what your Chinese hosts told you about North Korea and what we should do about it. Our interests are not identical. So I wonder, what's the degree of cooperation that we can forge, on this dangerous issue?
Thank you.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Thank you, Richard. Wonderful to see you again.
Some of us went to China with the idea, I mean, I've always thought, over time, that the Chinese had a great deal of influence over the North Koreans. They give them a lot of money. (Off mike.)
They give them a lot of money. They're close neighbors and the rest. And you know, in the past, the Chinese and the North Koreans -- the Chinese have said, China and North Korea are as close as lips and teeth. You remember that, Richard. And so they had this close relationship.
The impression I got, from the Chinese, was that they have influence, but it's not total. And in fact, not from the Chinese but from other sources, that the North Koreans really don't like it to look as if the Chinese have even as much influence as they have.
So we made it clear that we want -- my message was to reinforce the State Department message of, can you help bring them back to the six-party talks?
This is very important, that they come back to the six-party talks. And the U.S. can treat them with respect, the North Koreans with respect, within that venue, which is what they want, is some face.
So -- and they've said, well, they had some ability to do that, but not unlimited ability to do that -- but, as I've said before, recognition that it's in no one's interest for that nuclear -- that Korean peninsula to become nuclear, and what that meant, again, for South Korea, Japan and other countries that were watching because of their own nuclear ambitions. But they -- the impression I had at every level was, they considered this a very big deal, a very big deal, that North Korea get back to the table.
They have an interest in stability of North Korea. And they pay money, yeah, but they get a more stable North Korea, because if that destabilizes, they get the refugees, all of the rest. I'm trying to be brief, but -- and in any event, it's a -- I think they -- everybody sounded -- very troubling, very important to get them to the table. The Chinese didn't want to have the full responsibility of doing that, although they knew they had a role in that.
MR. DIONNE: Thank you. Please.
Q Vicki (sp) Sant, trustee of Brookings.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hi, Vicki (sp).
Q Hi, nice to see you.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Nice to see you.
Q Madame Speaker, for years China had a policy of one child. And I'm wondering if, during your visit there, you were able to see the impact of that policy, and if you could speak a little bit to what the current policy is, if it has changed or if it's the same.
SPEAKER PELOSI: I believe that the policy is the same. The question that I was asked -- I think maybe -- I don't know if it was in Hong -- well, since my trip into mainland China, perhaps when we came back, was, "Do you think that the U.N. should -- U.S. should cut off its support for the U.N. Population Fund because of the -- because -- that it promotes abortion in China? Well, no, I don't, because I don't think it does promote abortion in China. But the -- I -- as far as anything I know is that the one-child policy is still in effect.
The only thing I can say about it is, when the earthquake hit a few -- several months ago, and the school building collapsed and the children died, and the surrounding buildings, which were, like, maybe government buildings, did not collapse, there was so much anger because with the One China policy -- one-child policy -- even if you had five children you would still be horrified by the loss of a child -- but the devastation to these families.
So the Chinese tried to buy some of the -- peace with some of the families so that they wouldn't speak out, and others just are still speaking out.
So from the standpoint of what that means when you lose a child, in a one-child family -- again, if you had 10 children, it would still be a horrible thing.
But if I may just go to another point. What I heard, when I was there, about the issue of corruption -- because this was the issue, was there corruption involved in the fact that these buildings stayed secure and this school did not, and who made those decisions and we want somebody to be accountable.
I don't think the Chinese people see the government as the corrupt place, the national -- if that's the word -- government. And then they're here and then all that's in the middle are the local governments and municipal governments and businesses that have been privatized at the expense of the workers. That is to say, they place a low price on it, one of the managers buys it, doesn't manage it well, blames it on the workers. You know, all that kind of a thing.
So from the standpoint of whether it's a school falling or the jobs being lost or foul air or dirty water or whatever it is, it's more viewed in that middle place. Again, this is just by studying it over the years, but by no means an expert, but this is the impression that I come away with.
And I think that's really important, especially when we talk about air pollution and clean water, which are very immediate to people's lives. If that's the way it is, that's the way it is. But if that's the way it is because government is corrupt or not accountable, or because regional governments are not honest, I think that that's an anger that they will have to deal with.
But I don't know -- I know of no change in the one-China -- one- child in China policy.
MR. DIONNE: Carlos. And then -- (inaudible). I'll just call on people as I see you. Then go all the way back to Tom. Carlos.
Q Madame Speaker, thank you again for joining us.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hi, Carlos.
Q If I can take you back to the theme of climate change and the intersection of climate change and politics. There are some in the United States who have argued that the only way that it's possible to get climate change legislation passed is if there is some form of a trade adjustment measure; others call it a cross-border carbon tax, arguing in particular that China will be exporting dirty products to the United States. Others have argued that that's not the case. You've just seen the Chinese arguments, not just on the per capita issues, but real aggressive measures that have been taken on infrastructure, on fuel efficiency standards and so forth.
How do you plan to handle this issue in the U.S. Congress? And what are the dangers, do you see, of moving down that track with the trade adjustment measures, in terms of in fact actually getting any kind of cooperation between the United States and China?
SPEAKER PELOSI: I'm sure you all heard the question.
The -- in our legislation in our Energy and Commerce Committee, it doesn't deal with tariffs. That goes to the Ways and Means Committee, and they are yet to act upon the bill. But if there were to be such a border tax or whatever, this would be something down the road, and hope that we wouldn't have to do.
That doesn't mean, though, that in the bill we don't mitigate for the cost of production, if you are doing it in an environmentally sound way, or if you're not doing it in an environmentally sound way. Whether it's steel, glass, cement, you name it, it is -- there are many products where just doing it an environmentally sound way will be more expensive than not. And of course, in China, you factor in the cost of labor in that.
But we're just talking now about the climate change aspects of it. It's very specific. I'd like for you to read it, but it would be for the Ways and Means Committee to act upon whatever tax there might be. And my understanding of what the conversations are, is that would be something down the road, if necessary. But again, we haven't gone to Ways and Means yet.
MR. DIONNE: Bill Antholis.
Q Speaker Pelosi, again, thank you for coming.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hi, Bill.
Q Another question to the politics of diplomacy, but on the back end of an agreement. The Kyoto process was structured as a treaty process requiring 67 votes in the Senate. We have trade agreements that are quite similar to climate change agreements, which happen in successive rounds. But they're done as congressional executive agreements, which gives your House a vote in the action and lowers the barrier in the Senate to 51 votes, or at least 60 to get cloture. And I just wondered your thoughts on this. Do you want a piece of the action on the back end of this agreement?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, we just want to save the planet -- (laughter) -- protect the American people, make it healthier and all.
You -- I wish that you -- may I take this opportunity to say this?
On our trip, the knowledge that Mr. Markey conveyed to them was dazzling on every aspect of the bill, including what could happen on border taxes and the rest. But he was speaking to mostly what his committee had already done.
Mr. Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the committee, was very, shall we say, definite in his views that while the U.S. and China might come to some agreement in friendship, the Congress of the United States still had a role to play, and he wanted to be sure they were aware of his concerns. And his concerns centered around intellectual property -- you know Jim Sensenbrenner's from Wisconsin. He's a champion on civil rights and human rights; civil rights here, human rights in the world. He's also -- he's chair of the Judiciary Committee and he's the chair of the Science Committee. So he knows the innovation issues and the intellectual property issues and the human rights issues very well.
And he was very forceful in terms of how we go forward with intellectual -- innovation and respect for property, intellectual property rights and the rest, and very forceful in saying, whatever it is -- you know, giving leverage, I think, to our U.S. negotiators by saying it's not just the executive branch that you have to please. There are people from all over the country who have different views on this subject, and he is one of them, and he's a leader in the Congress on it.
And may I just say, while I'm on the subject of Mr. Sensenbrenner, he reinforced the human rights message at every meeting. He said, "I want you to be sure that you understand that what the speaker is saying is not a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans alike have shared this concern about human rights in China and Tibet." And again, he was very forceful but he -- and he always has been.
On the -- so you know it would have to be -- the U.S.-China agreement is one thing. The Copenhagen agreement is another. And that, if it is in the form of a treaty -- you know, if it's that well developed at Copenhagen that it becomes a treaty vote in the Congress, you know it's going to have to be something that will get great support.
So that's why we think that the bill that we have written -- because it addresses regional concerns in our country -- that we have to move together.
It isn't, shall we say, "Oh, I'll just sit down and write an -- the ideal philosophical bill that I'll write." It will say, in consideration of coal and oil and natural gas and the auto -- well, I have the coal patch, the oil patch, the car patch, the every patch that we have to deal with -- the steel patch.
So all of these industries have to move -- we all have to move forward together. So to get to 67 votes we have to, every step of the way, recognize that we're all in this together. And that's our message to the Chinese as well: We're in this together. We share this planet. We have to make a decision that is very positive -- if for no reason, the air our people breathe and the water that they drink, but for many other reasons beyond that.
In addition, Mr. -- while I'm on the subject of my colleagues -- Mr. Jay Inslee from Washington state, his strong message was about, China cannot really be considered, strictly speaking, a developing country. And he had all kinds of sports analogies and the rest to go with it. And he brought humor to the conversation in a clear way to deliver that message.
And Mr. Blumenauer is Mr. Sustainability in the Congress -- of Oregon -- and he talked in a very appreciative way of -- for what the Chinese have done, but also what needs to be done as they develop more of the country, in a sustainable way.
Jackie Speier of California, she was interested in, do you think we can come to terms. You see -- and everybody addressed her issue. So we have to come to terms in a realistic way, respecting what they have done, understanding what our challenge is. But also, it has to be enforceable -- implementable and enforceable.
And when we were there, John Kerry was there -- I know Teresa was here; I'm not sure she's still here -- but he, you know, he's been such a leader on this subject. And I think we were all impressed on -- with what we saw when we were there.
MR. DIONNE: By the way, I just want to say, I -- Tom Mann's got the mic. I want to say to my friends and colleagues and the press in the back, when we set this up, the Q&A part was with the Brookings crowd. Brendan Daly told me he would set something up for you folks afterwards, so I don't want you hurting your hands back there. This particular session is -- the Q&A comes -- was for the Brookings crowd. And so I'm sure Brendan will arrange something for you.
Tom Mann.
Q Thank you.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hi, Tom. How are you?
Q Madame Speaker, the extraordinary treatment you experienced, in China, clearly reflects the fact that the Chinese understand the importance of Congress in our --
MR. DIONNE: Which just happens to matter to you a lot. (Laughter.)
Q But as you know, the institution was much maligned, under a recent unified Republican government, when it failed to act as an independent body, pulled its punches with oversight, with tough questioning.
Here's the question. How are you doing so far, in finding a balance between cooperating with and working with a president whose values and agenda you share and, at the same time, maintaining the independence of the first branch of government, with oversight, with argument and disagreement and deliberation?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Thank you, Tom. (Laughter.)
MR. DIONNE: (Inaudible.) When are you going to go after Obama?
(Laughter, cross talk.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: Didn't I just read from his beautiful statement? And wasn't it a triumphant speech?
We are a separate branch of government, Article One, Article One. Some members walk around with pins that say Article One. (Laughs.) John Yarmuth, a Democrat from Kentucky, started that movement.
It is -- we understand our independent responsibility, of where legislation begins and especially, in some cases, in the House, where our oversight responsibilities are clear. And they are responsibilities that we must honor.
We also need to get a job done for the American people. So how can we -- we always wanted to work, in a cooperative way, with President Bush. We just didn't have too many shared priorities.
That's just the way it was. But many of the things that the president wanted, we got for him, for example, TARP funding, a very bitter pill for us to swallow. But the president made the case that the country needed it, when President Bush was president, and we passed it. The Democrats passed it, not the Republicans.
So we have always been open to working with whomever the president of the United States is. And that is something the American people expect and deserve, that we make -- find common ground to move forward, to make -- take initiatives that are relevant to their lives.
And of course, in this time of economic really turmoil in their lives, we have a heightened responsibility to find solutions.
So -- we're so proud of Barack Obama as president of the United States. Let me not -- and I said to the caucus yesterday, I said -- I was trying to convince them of something, and I said, "You know, everybody says they want leaders, but do you really want to be led? The president needs us to do this." This was the IMF. (Laughs.) And our members are supportive of that. But, you know, in the scheme of things, as you're weighing the equities, that, I think, should count for something. Because whether you're dealing with China or whatever you're dealing with, if you can be unified in it, even if it's something less than your ideal proposal, that unity and that action that you would take is very valuable, and we consider it part of our responsibility.
So we are a second branch -- we are, Article I, first branch of government, we are a separate branch of government. We see our responsibility to work together in the Congress in a bipartisan way and with whoever the president of the United States is.
And I say that now taking special pride in the fact that Barack Obama is the president of the United States. He's committed to working together in a bipartisan way, and I salute him for that.
I have to, at the need of the day, get a job done, and that's what I have to do for the American people. And we're very proud of the record that we have to date and as we go forward on education, health care and energy -- and fiscal soundness. As I told President Hu, this is our mantra, fiscal responsibility. So we'll work with the president on that, as well.
But it's the dynamic of our country. You know, I sometimes -- oh, I wish this or this or that. It is the dynamic. If everybody thought alike, (we'd only have to ?) have one person show up. So we have this beautiful diversity. It invigorates our system. And it, I think, produces a more legitimate result because it does represent many more people.
So Congress will be heard, respectfully.
MR. DIONNE: And I'm told we've got time for one more question. There's one more Somebody has the mike.
I was thinking as you were talking, in the democracy we want leaders, and we don't want to be led. That's the way it works. (Laughter.)
MR. DIONNE: Sir?
Q Madame Speaker, Ken Lieberthal with the Brookings Institution.
SPEAKER PELOSI: How are you? Nice to see you.
Q Very good to see you again. Thank you for your comments. You noted that you had a lot of credibility with Chinese leaders when you explained to them the cap-and-trade legislation had cleared the Markey committee in the House. Given that we have a presidential summit between the U.S. and China coming up late this year, and Copenhagen coming up in December, did they press you on when cap-and- trade would actually clear the entire Congress and be signed by the president?
SPEAKER PELOSI: No.
Q And whether they did or not, what is your own view on that subject? Thank you.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, the -- I can only speak from the standpoint of the House, as you know. And we will pass our legislation in the House. But the difference between not passing it in the committee -- you know, again, nothing -- and then this giant step, was really drastic.
At the same time I was in China, my colleague, Steny Hoyer, who is Danish, was in Copenhagen. And he was being knighted by the queen, and he was also talking to them about the much-anticipated meeting in Copenhagen. They, of course, would like to see a big success in Copenhagen, and they would like to see a bill signed into law by the time we get there. I know we can do our part in the House of Representatives.
I think they were mostly interested that we took the giant step. And some kept -- some would say, "when it's law," and we'd say, no, we're talking about -- you know, we have two-year sessions, so we will get this to be law, whether it's this -- I think it could be this year. But I wasn't placing any requirement of that for us to go to further conversations with the Chinese, or to Copenhagen, and I think they knew that. But the -- day and night, day and night, between having it pass the House committee.
By the way, through our House committee, it represents America. It's a very diverse committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee. Every school of thought on the subject, every patch that I mentioned earlier, represented. So for them to come out with a big, strong vote the way they did was really a very big statement -- probably the biggest step. And now we'll go to the next step. But they took notice, you know.
But again, I don't like to set any artificial dates on things that I don't have to set a date on, because that empowers the other side.
I don't mean the Chinese are the other side. (Laughs.) I just mean anybody who doesn't believe in climate change. There are still people who don't believe that global warming is happening and that human behavior has any impact on it.
I think from the body language I'm find out that Mr. Dionne thinks that this has come to an end? Is that --
MR. DIONNE: Well, I don't. But I'm told by your staff that it's supposed to. Are we out of time?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Oh. (Inaudible.)
MR. DIONNE: I would love to continue it.
SPEAKER PELOSI: I think this gentleman has one more.
MR. DIONNE: One more. She's overridden her staff on this, but --
SPEAKER PELOSI: This last question is always the one (people ?) don't want.
MR. DIONNE: Actually, she's creating the illusion that she overrode her staff on this. (Laughter.)
Q Madame Speaker, thank you very much for sharing your time with us today.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Thank you.
Q Bob Abernathy from the City of the Angels.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Oh, wonderful, another Californian.
Q A few months ago, a group of us in Brookings visited China, and I had the opportunity to say to Premier Wen, "You know, Mr. Premier, in a couple of weeks from now, we are going to elect a new speaker of the House. And my question for you is, when she's elected, if you were her uncle, what advice would you give her?"
SPEAKER PELOSI: (Chuckles.)
Q And he said three things. He said, "One, I would wish her well." He said, "Two, I would hope that she would follow the Constitution of the United States." And he said, "Three, I hope that she would pick three programs that were mutually beneficial to China and to the United States to work on."
My two quick questions are: One, what do you think he meant by the constitutional remark? And two, if you were to choose three programs that fit that criterion, which ones would you choose?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, let me say -- thank you for your question.
And Premier Wen is sort of the point person in the leadership. John confirms to me that the president is the president, and then the chairman of the National People's Congress is number two, and the premier is number three.
The premier has a large responsibility for the energy initiative in China. He's totally conversant, very knowledgeable, and a leader on the subject. And in fact, I think he had apologized for not meeting certain goals. He takes that much responsibility for it. So I thank him for wishing me well, and he did when we were there as well.
Honoring the Constitution -- well, that's the oath of office we all take when we are sworn in. And the Constitution makes us the freest people in the world, and we honor it. And I would say in return to President (sic) Wen that I wish they would honor the Chinese constitution, because the Chinese constitution is a good constitution on individual rights, on intellectual property rights and the rest. So we always keep saying just honor the Chinese constitution. So the feeling's mutual. (Laughter.)
And third, I would say certainly our first responsibility is -- oh, of the three issues, our first responsibility as we take that oath to the Constitution is to protect the American people. Our national security is our first -- if our people are not safe, then what? So in issues of national security for the world, and again that relates to proliferation and fighting terrorism and the rest.
The issue of preserving our planet and all that that -- and all that that revolves, in that respect. And there are many competitors for number three.
There are many competitors for number three, because I think so many things fall under the climate change issue. But I do think that issues that relate to the alleviation of poverty and the eradication of disease worldwide, and how we can work together on that, are issues that relate to our national security.
So a place where we can work together, whether it's Darfur or wherever, national security, addressing the climate change issue and lifting up people in the world, how we can work together, to do that.
Again I was very honored to receive this invitation. We've extended the invitation back to the chairman of the National People's Congress, Chairman Wu. Chairman Li, who extended the invitation originally, I think, is going to be here next. It's either next week or the week after. But he's coming back, so we can formally extend the invitation and try to see what a date will be, when Chairman Wu will come here. But he was again very interested in continuing the dialogue on many subjects.
So I told him how excited we were about our new ambassador, that he was so great. And they seemed enthusiastic. And they said, tell us about him. And I said, oh, if I could tell you one thing, I would tell you this -- he loves China -- well, maybe two. He loves China. And he has the ear of the president of the United States. And so they seemed to like that. (Laughter.)
Would that be good, Martin, for an ambassador?
Q Yes, absolutely. (Off mike.) (Laughter.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: But it shows the importance of the relationship. We read very carefully the announcement that the president made, when he announced that ambassadorship. And they were very pleased that he stood there with the president. The president made -- that was all very meaningful to them, that it wasn't a press release but it was a personal announcement, by the president.
So let's all hope that it leads to a better understanding -- in furtherance of our national security, preserving our planet and the well-being of the people of the world -- and that again a part of that is respecting the human rights of all of those people as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, E.J.
MR. DIONNE: Thank you. Oh, it was great -- it was great that you came.
Source: http://www.fnsg.com/transcript.htm?id=20090605t2389&nquery=&query=Nancy+Pelosi&from=


text:
Cassidy Umann had three goals and an assist on her senior night at Oak Park, lifting the Eagles girls soccer team to an 8-1 victory Wednesday over Grace Brethren and the Tri-Valley League championship.
Rachel Mach added two goals and an assist for Oak Park (18-0-4, 9-0-3), with Lauren Bay scoring twice and Katherine Kim recording a goal.
Hannah Adler and Jordyn Bradbury both had two assists for the Eagles, who extended their regular-season unbeaten streak to 26.
Quartz Hill 5, Eastside 0 >> The Rebels (18-0-3, 13-0-1 Golden) wrapped up the championship and extended their regular-season unbeaten streak to 32.
Crystal Crump scored three goals, giving her 36, for Quartz Hill, which led 1-0 at halftime over the Lions (8-13, 6-8). Alexa Adams had a goal and an assist, with Stephanie Garcia also scoring for the Rebels, who posted their 18th shutout.
Verdugo Hills 3, Grant 1 >> Beth Blackwell, Amanda Ochoa and Makayla Nichols each had goals in a win for the host Dons (14-2-1, 11-0 East Valley). Teammates Valerie Vasquez and Kelsey Sanford had assists.
Chaminade 2, Flintridge Sacred Heart 1 >> Natalie Koe and Emily Koe scored in a 5-minute span in the second half to rally the Eagles (15-4-3, 5-3-1 Mission). Gabe Carmona had six saves. Sophia Saldivar scored for the Tologs (9-9-2, 2-7-1), who got nine saves from Dani Garcia.
Girls basketball
Camarillo 68, Channel Islands 24 >> Geraldynn Leaupepe had 24 points and six rebounds, with Geralynn Leaupepe adding 22 points and 11 rebounds for the Scorpions, who captured their first unbeaten Pacific View League title in program history. Cameran Bahnsen had 10 points and 10 rebounds for Camarillo (23-3, 10-0).
Eagle Rock 64, Wilson 21 >> Judith Espinoza had 30 points, with eight assists, nine steals and five rebounds for the Eagles (20-9, 11-0 Northern). Diana Flores added 10 points and 13 rebounds, with Belinda Dornidon contributing six points and five assists.
Arleta 64, Chavez 24 >> Yolando Mosely had 12 points and 16 rebounds to lead the host Mustangs (9-13, 7-5 East Valley).
Teammates Jazmin Vaiz added 12 points and 11 rebounds, and Teresita Diaz and Alejandra Alatriste each had 12 points.
Monroe 44, North Hollywood 36 >> Kiana Gray had 24 points and 14 rebounds to lead the host Vikings (15-11, 10-1 East Valley) to a win.
Allison Gallardo added 14 points for Monroe.
Birmingham 39, Cleveland 38 >> Karla Aguirre had 18 points, including the go-ahead layup with four seconds left for the Patriots (13-7, 5-4 West Valley). For Cleveland (9-12, 4-5), Myion Jackson had 15 points and Zenab Afolabi added 11.
Taft 41, Chatsworth 34 >> Melissa Haro had seven points and 14 rebounds and Nia Watson had two points and 16 rebounds for the Toreadors (3-17, 1-8 West Valley).
Buckley 50, Yeshiva 31 >> Leah Purvis had 19 points, 12 rebounds and 15 steals in a Liberty League win for the Griffins (12-10, 4-4 Liberty). Alex Ghassemieh added 12 points and 12 rebounds.
Kennedy 46, Panorama 43 >> Cassey Ong had 18 points and Francesca Monfort added 10 points in a win for the host Golden Gougars (16-9, 9-2 Valley Mission).
Diamond O'Connor had 15 points and Yami Hernandez added 10 points for Panorama (5-19, 3-8).
Boys basketball
Alemany 75, Loyola 70 (OT) >> Gary Chivichyan had 21 points, inlcuding five in in overtime, to lead the host Warriors to a Mission League win over the Cubs (24-2, 10-2).
Daron Henson added 20 points and eight rebounds and Brandon Boyd had 15 and was 3 of 4 from the line in overtime for Alemany (19-9, 8-4).
Oaks Christian 90, Bishop Diego 38 >> K.J. Smith scored 19 points, Jordan Flannery added 17 points, Aleks Abrams had 16 points and 10 rebounds, Duncan Miller contributed 11 points and Ryan Hiepler recorded 10 points, five rebounds, five assists and four steals for the Lions (21-5, 10-0 Tri-Valley).
Chaminade 69, St. Francis 59 >> Jack Williams scored 27 points and grabbed 13 rebounds to lead Chaminade (22-4, 9-3 Mission).
Chaminade used a 29-10 run to end the game after letting St. Francis go on a 24-7 run to start the second half and take a 49-40 lead.
Michael Oguine scored eight points and had 11 rebounds for the Eagles.
Verdugo Hills 58, Grant 55 >> Adrian Gutierrez had 19 points and 26 rebounds and Albert Marmol added 18 points for the host Dons (24-4, 11-0 East Valley).
Notre Dame 56, Crespi 54 (OT) >> Luca Ferrari had 17 points, with Owen Manning added 11 points for the Knights (10-16, 2-10 Misson). De'Anthony Melton scored 18 points and D.J. Ursery added 16 points for Crespi (17-10, 5-7).
El Camino Real 67, Granada Hills 47 >> Julian Richardson had 23 points and Evan Wardlow added 12 points for the visiting Conquistadores (21-6, 9-0 West Valley).
VAAS 72, Vaughn 52 >> Kyle Lord had 28 points and Sunny Singh added 21 points and 12 rebounds for the Vipers (19-3, 10-2 Valley).
Boys soccer
Chavez 4, Arleta 2 >> Carlos Sanchez and Andy Acuchi had a goal and an assist each to lead the hist Eagles (12-5-4, 7-3-1 East Valley).
Pedro Patino and Edgar Torres also had a goal apiece with Ricardo Murillo adding an assist for Chavez.
Sylmar 2, Reseda 1 >> Jorge Lopez and Henry Sandoval each scored a goal for the visiting Spartans (15-5-4, 6-3-2 Valley Mission).
Oscar Villa recorded four assists for Sylmar.
Van Nuys 2, San Fernando 0 >> David Cruz scored two goals as the host Wolves secured third place in the Valley Mission League. Jonathan Ramirez and Andy Sanchez each had an assist for Van Nuys (5-10-7, 4-4-4).
Birmingham 2, Cleveland 0 >> Christian Garcia scored two goals for the visiting Patriots (16-2-2, 9-0 West Valley), who received an assist from Eric Villatoro.
El Camino Real 1, Granada Hills 1 >> Henrique Borges scored the lone goal for the visiting Conquistadores (15-5-5, 6-2-1 West Valley).
Brandon Waters had an unassisted goal for Granada Hills (12-7-5, 4-4-1).
Alemany 0, Loyola 0 >> Andrew Mendoza had three saves in a tie for the host Warriors (9-6-4, 7-3-2).
With the tie, Alemany secures second place in the Mission League during senior night at Alemany.
Monroe 5, North Hollywood 2 >> Alexis Jauregui carried the visiting Vikings (15-4-2, 9-2 East Valley) with four goals and a successful defense of the league title. Jesse Iraheta also scored and added an assist. Carlos Solorio finished with two assists and keeper Valentin Avila had seven saves for Monroe.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
August 23 - Sir Philip Craven, the President of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), has stated he would be happy to see sprinter Oscar Pistorius compete at the London 2012 Olympics next year because he is sure the South African is 100 per cent committed to the Paralympic Games.
The double leg amputee has qualified for the 400 metres in the able-bodied World Championships in Daegu, which begin later this week, and he looks increasingly likely to compete over the distance at the Olympics in the English capital next year.
There has been concern over the issue from high profile figures, including Britain's 11-time Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey Thompson who told insideworldparasport last week that Pistorius' events should be banned from the Paralympics so that the Games does not become a B-standard event to the Olympics.
However, Sir Philip, who is also an International Olympic Committee (IOC) member, said he is happy to see Pistorius compete at the Olympic Games because he knows that the South African views the Paralympics as the pinnacle.
"I know Oscar well and I do not believe his involvement in the Olympics will detract from the Paralympics," said Sir Philip here at a press conference in the British Paralympic Association (BPA) headquarters at Charlotte Street.
"I welcome the news that he wants to compete at the Olympics but I know that Oscar is a Paralympian through and through.
"He has shown he is committed to Paralympic sports and he is a Paralympian to the core.
"He competed in the BT Paralympic World Cup and will be with us on International Paralympic Day in Trafalgar Square on September 8.
"His desire to compete in the Paralympics cannot be questioned."
Tim Hollingsworth, the new chief executive of ParalympicsGB, added that he fully respects the comments of figures such as Baroness Tanni and admitted the subject was a slight grey area but that his organisation supported Pistorius competing at the Paralympics.
"Someone of Tanni's great experience and stature, with her huge knowledge, should certainly be listened to and she clearly made a valid point that shows that this is not a black and white issue by any stretch of the imagination," Hollingsworth told insideworldparasport.
"But the view that I have and the BPA have is that Oscar as an individual is not harming the Paralympic Movement but rather supporting it.
"He has not only committed himself to the Paralympics but by in competing the way he is, he is demonstrating the world class nature of Paralympic sport.
"He is a figurehead for the Paralympic Movement and just as the Olympics has no bigger than Usain Bolt, we have our Usain Bolt in Oscar Pistorius and that is fantastic.
"I don't know Oscar nearly as well as Sir Philip or anything like that but I do know that it is the Paralympics that matters most to him."
Contact the writer of this story at [email protected]
Related stories
August 2011: Exclusive - Storey backs top Paralympic stars competing in Olympic competition
August 2011: Exclusive - Scrap Pistorius race to stop him becoming bigger than the Paralympics says Baroness Tanni
August 2011: Exclusive - Key scientist in Pistorius case insists he is running on level playing field
August 2011: Pistorius will be a major hit at World Championships says Korean Ambassador
August 2011: Exclusive - Pistorius is getting "F1 advantage" and should not compete in Olympics, says South African sports scientist


text:
Sightseeing in Bratislava
Bratislava is the capital and the largest city in Slovakia. It offers a pleasant medieval inner city with narrow, winding streets, a hilltop castle overlooking the Danube, and many historic churches and buildings.
Slovakia is used to be part of Hungary after the fall of the Great Moravian Empire until the end of the First World War, when the Treaty of Trianon created Czechoslovakia.
During World War II, the Germans controlled Slovakia. The Soviets conquered it later, thus recreating Czechoslovakia in pro-Soviet and Communist slant.


text:
I've noticed that left eye is much larger than my right, also that my left cheekbone is less prominent than my right, plus it appears that there is more fatty tissue on my left,and looking through old photos i can see the difference between my eyes has continued throughout them. Is there anything i can do that could reduce this difference?
What Could the Cause of my Uneven Eyes Be?
Doctor Answers 10
Facial and Eyelid Asymmetry
After reviewing your photograph, I would direct my efforts at correcting the downward tilt of the outer corner of your eyes it is more severe on the right. Your left eye appears larger because the upper eyelid rests at a higher point on the eyeball than the right upper eyelid. I suspect that the orbital maxillary bones are not equally developed. There also appears to be some weakness in the upper eyelid muscles.
Cephalometrographic studies could provide useful information as a guide to correct your facial asymmetry.Thorough examination by an opthamologist would help. It may reassure you to know that all people have some degree of facial asymmetry.
What Could the Cause of my Uneven Eyes Be?
There are various causes of asymmetry between the two eyes including difference in upper eyelid position (droopy eyelid, eyelid retraction), lower eyelid position, eyeball position (bulging eye, sunken eye), and bony eye socket (orbit) asymmetry. The treatment depends on the cause. See video below for some examples and more details. See an oculoplastic specialist for evaluation.
Learn more: http://tabanmd.com/oculoplastic-faqs/
It could be that one eye is more prominent than the other
It could be that one eye is more prominent than the other. It could be a boney deformity. It could be genetic, traumatic, or the result of a neurological problem. You should visit an oculofacial plastic surgeon to get an expert opinion to determine the cause and the best approach for treatment.
You might also like...
Everyone has uneven eyes
The left and the right side of the face are always going to be asymmetrical. Some faces are more asymmetrical than others. Everybody has one eye that is slightly bigger than the other. Your facial features are all within normal limits. As long as the left eye does not have any visual obstruction from ptosis, it is not advisable to have any surgery performed.
Learn more: http://www.seattlefacial.com
The cause of my uneven eyes
Causes are the real question or combination of them. The differential diagnosis is: genetics, trauma, birth deformities, tumors, endocrine diseases, just the way you are. See a boarded Plastic Surgeon and Medical Genetics doctor.
From MIAMI Dr. B
Yes it is true that most of us are asymmetric.
Having said that you do have somewhat usual feature. Rather than your left eye being too big, I think your right eye is too small. The right upper eyelid seems to hang a bit lower on the right eye. Also the right cheek is not projected as much as the left side. The most important consequences of this is that while both lateral canthal angles are low, the right side is markedly lower than the left side.
Depending on how troubling you find this issue, you may do nothing or you may feel motivated to seek surgery. If you do seek help, I advise using extreme caution in shopping for a surgeon. The surgeon who did a gril friends breast surgery or nose job is very unlikey to be suited to address these issues. You need to identify midface surgeon who understand how to surgically modify the canthal angle.
Learn more: Http://www.lidlift.com
Facial Asymmetry
Facial asymmetry is actually very common but not frequently noticed by people until they start examining themselves in the mirror. If you stare long enough, you fill find asymmetric features in everyone - some more than others. As for minimally invasive procedures to help with asymmetry, you can use facial fillers such as Radiesse, Juvederm or even Fat Transferring to help even the volume differences in the face. As for your eyes, you may need a surgical procedure to attempt a more even appearance. These are all procedures that you can consult with your plastic surgeon. Good luck.
Learn more: http://www.ShaferPlasticSurgery.com
Treatment of Facial Asymmetry
Asymmetry between two sides of the face is normal. Sculptra or other facial filling agents can be used to subtly bring the two sides closer. If this bothers you a great deal, then it is worthwhile consulting with an experienced injector, if not, it is best to leave well enough alone. If you do choose to be treated, make sure that you choose your injector most carefully.
Good luck and be well.
Dr. P
Facial asymmetry
Every single human being has facial asymmetry. Split face photos where one half of the face is reproduced as a mirror image then compared to the other half with its mirrored image proves this. Most surgical procedures has a margin of error, especially in soft tissue work. When the margin of error exceeds the change you are trying to effect you need to proceed very cautiously and perhaps accept these "imperfections" as normal.
Asymmetry of the Face, Breast and Body are the RULE not the Exception
If you are so upset about your facial asymmetry, please, do NOT look at your breasts, arms or buttocks.
Asymmetry is not the exception - it is the norm in nature. ALL of us have asymmetric features, some are more pronounced that others. As we grow older, such asymmetry make become more obvious.
As to what can be done about it? it would depend on the extent of the asymmetry, how much it really bothered you and how much risk you were willing to accept in exchange for less asymmetry. Personally, I would leave this alone and enjoy your youth without spending your money in my office or one of my colleagues' offices.
These answers are for educational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for medical advice you may receive from your physician. If you have a medical emergency, please call 911. These answers do not constitute or initiate a patient/doctor relationship.


text:
M.T.A. Chief Angrily Refuses to Act on Union Contract
By THOMAS J. LUECK; Sewell Chan contributed reporting for this article.
Published: April 27, 2006
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority yesterday rebuffed a demand that it vote on the contract proposal approved by its largest transit worker's union, provoking a heated exchange that suggested the two sides are as far apart as ever in their long and bitter standoff.
Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, whose president, Roger Toussaint, is serving a 10-day jail sentence for his role in the union's 60-hour strike in December, had insisted that the authority's directors vote on the contract yesterday at their monthly meeting. The proposal, first rejected by union members in January, by a seven-vote margin, was endorsed in a second union vote that was concluded last week.
''No party, neither the M.T.A. nor the union, has the right to unilaterally decide when they will vote on an agreement, which agreement they will vote on, and then say to the opposing part, 'You are required to accept it,' '' Peter S. Kalikow, the authority's chairman, said yesterday after a board member suggested that a vote be taken.
Mr. Kalikow, calling the December walkout a ''criminal act'' that ruined the holiday season for many New Yorkers, directed his harshest criticism at Mr. Toussaint.
''I was in the room,'' Mr. Kalikow said, describing the talks that broke down near midnight on Dec. 19, on the eve of the strike. ''I pleaded with Roger Toussaint not to leave.''
''I begged him,'' Mr. Kalikow went on in impassioned soliloquy before his board and a standing-room-only audience at the authority's headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. ''I can't remember the last time I begged somebody to do something, but I did that night.
''I said, 'Roger, don't leave,' and Roger got up and walked out and sent his union out on an illegal strike.''
Mr. Toussaint, who has been confined to the Tombs in Lower Manhattan since Monday evening, had no response to the remarks yesterday, union officials said. But Ed Watt, Local 100's secretary treasurer and a nonvoting member of the authority's board, called Mr. Kalikow's remarks ''provocative and insulting to every transit worker.''
The union has said that the authority's board is legally bound to put the contract to a vote, although it is free to reject it. Mr. Watt said yesterday that Local 100's lawyers might go to court to force the authority's hand.
''They have bargained in bad faith from the beginning,'' he said after the board's meeting. ''And they reaffirmed that today.''
Authority officials have said repeatedly that the contract terms they endorsed in January were withdrawn after the first union vote, and that the only way to resolve the matter was through binding arbitration.
The state Public Employment Relations Board, finding the two sides at an impasse, has ordered arbitration, but that process could take months. Mr. Kalikow, whose remarks yesterday revealed little inclination to return to the bargaining table, nonetheless said that nothing would prevent ''members of the T.W.U. leadership from sitting down with our labor people.''
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that he hoped the two sides would avoid arbitration and return to the table.
''I've always thought that if you face each other in a room, with a big pot of coffee, and you lock the door and don't have a bathroom available, its amazing how quickly people get over their differences,'' he said.
But Mr. Bloomberg, at a news conference, said he had little sympathy for Mr. Toussaint, who has received strong expressions of support from many in organized labor since he went to jail.. ''I don't know why you want to make a hero out of anybody who breaks the law,'' he said.
Sharp divisions over the dispute were apparent at the board meeting, where few members challenged Mr., Kalikow's position but several people offered public testimony urging a vote on the contract.
Gene Russianoff, staff lawyer of the Straphangers Campaign, the riders' advocacy group, called the authority's dismissal of Local 100's second ratification vote ''a mean slap at the thousands of your employees.''
''Right now, you have the unenviable record of having the worst labor relations in the nearly 40-year existence of the M.T.A.,'' Mr. Russianoff said. With little sign of resolution, he said, subway and bus riders ''will bear the months of uncertainty and further labor unrest that arbitration will surely bring.''
Photo: Peter S. Kalikow, right, the chairman of the transportation authority, with David S. Mack, a board member, at yesterday's meeting. (Photo by Librado Romero/The New York Times)


text:
Mountain bike equipment
Orange Five Pro
Hand-built in Britain, the Orange Five Pro (HK$16,000) is an ideal choice for trail riding. The frame's mix of monocoque construction and custom-butted 6061-T6 Reynolds tubing keeps weight down, with a new tapered headtube for extra stiffness. A single-pivot rear suspension system provides a ride that's finely balanced between sensitivity and efficiency, with the bearing system promoting responsiveness and reliability. This bike will handle anything and put a huge grin on your face. orangebikes.co.uk
Poc Trabec Helmet
The Trabec's (HK$1,800) construction is 'borrowed' from that of the human skull to give improved resistance and performance, and employs a reinforced core for additional protection, while the outer shell has been designed without seams in the most exposed areas. An aerodynamic channel system and 16 holes provide the ventilation. The Trabec is built to fit around your head rather than on top of it, as most bike helmets are. pocsports.com
Teva Links Mountain Bike Shoe
Designed by US freerider Jeff Lenosky, the Links (US$100 - online price) has the cool looks of a skate shoe, with features specifically tailored for mountain biking. These include a sole pattern that interfaces with the platform of a bike pedal for a better grip, aggressive tread designs at the toe and heel to stick to the dirt while you walk and a mixed rubber, leather and mesh upper for added durability. There's also extra padding throughout for additional comfort. This is a shoe you can wear all day on or off the bike. teva.com
Most Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5


text:
Canterbury Paintable Vinyl Bedroom Doors
Canterbury Paintable Vinyl
- FREE Delivery over £250
- Dispatch by 11th October
- Available in Made to Measure and Standard Sizes
- Made in UK
- Made with sustainable wood
- 6 year guarantee
Check out our DIY Video Guides for useful tips on how to measure and fit your new doors.
You can also get a quote over the phone, where our Customer Account Managers will be able to answer any questions you may have.
Canterbury Bedroom doors in Paintable Vinyl
The central church-like arch plus the deep hand carved appearance to the inside edge profile renders this traditional door ideal for any bedroom in which the fine points count. The Canterbury bedroom door from the Bella style range is perfect in a painted finish for a powerful and appealing look, while still preserving the elegance of the hand made. Pick some showcase accessories particularly those made from wrought iron for even more impact.
If you're at all unsure about your favourite colouring or you would like to match your wardrobe doors with your current furniture, Paintable Vinyl from our Bella range of colours is ideal. All it requires is a pot of your preferred colour, a paintbrush or roller and a little time to create a unique set of doors and drawer fronts fashioned by you for your existing bedroom. With a vinyl finish, these bedroom doors look great when painted and will give a pro result.
Free Colour SwatchesOrder Swatch
DIY Video GuidesView Videos
Product Specification
Next day delivery on Stock doors
Made to measure sizes in 7 Days
Pick your delivery date


text:
Julius Streicher, the leading anti-Semite of Nazi Germany, in a speech at Nuremberg which opened at new offensive against "critics and scandal mongers," denies that Chancellor Hitler whipped him, according to a dispatch from Otto D. Tolischus, correspondent of The New York Times, appearing in that newspaper yesterday.
"I would not let even Hitler beat me," declared Herr Streicher, who is Nazi district chief of Nuremberg and publisher of the notorious Jew-baiting weekly, Der Stuermer.
Reports that Hitler had taken away his riding whip were also false, he said. On the contrary, when he lost his whip Der Fuehrer gave him a new one.
"In this connection Herr Streicher related, however, how he had whipped a prisoner, Dr. Steinruck," the Tolischus dispatch says.
" 'I went with several party members into Steinruck's cell,' Herr Streicher related, 'and took a look at the wretch. He began to talk with a weeping voice and acted like a schoolboy.
" 'He did not act like the man one expected after his big talk. Thereupon I gave him a good beating with my whip.' "
The Times correspondent reports that the anti-Semite asserted German economy had never been better since the war and warned that, if the rich failed to contribute to the Winter relief fund, a simple method would be employed next Winter.
"We will simply issue an order," Herr Streicher is reported to have said, "and how the order will read is also a simple matter."


text:
Home » Tour Guides » Prague » Tour Guide Services in Prague
He offers extensive in-depth tours of Prague, and the the Czech Republic. He mixes history and theory of culture with myths and legends; explains contemporary Czech culture and current day politics, but also tell you how the public transport works, which taxi's won't rip you off and what's going on in town during your visit. Basically he will guarantee your visit will have a full and varied schedule.
His professional background includes theories of culture and history. He therefore tend to place the story of the Czech Republic within a larger context, relating local events and history to the cultures of Europe, explaining various styles of art and architecture within their time frames. So whilst strolling through this beautiful city in the heart of Europe we discuss subjects ranging from South-America to the Ottoman Empire and from the origins of Jewish culture up to present day Prague.
He is the kind of person who enjoys everything from opera to a good techno party. He is therefore well able to recommend the right events for you during your stay.He charge for time, the size of the group therefore depends on the client.
Prague Introduction:
The first tour for getting your bearings. In this half a day your guide will combine a bit of everything. You will see all the most important monuments, learn about our history, habits, politics, get restaurant tips, etc. If you are not too good on your feet you could decide to use some public transport. This is a 4 hours tour.
Prague in Depth:
The first tour for getting your bearings. You will see all the most important monuments, learn about our history, habits, politics, get restaurant tips. If you are not too good on your feet you could decide to use some public transport. You could decide to visit the insides of the castle, or the Jewish museum. Or you could go and visit the other Prague castle: Vysehrad. Well worth it! You will be surprised how time flies in our wonderful city. If 8 hours is too much for you can off course just cut it in two halves and do two half days. Or three.
Prague Castle with Mala Strana:
In Prague Castle you could spend a whole day! This tour will show you all the parts that can be visited: the Old Royal Palace, the Cathedral with the tombs of kings and the grave of Wenceslas, the Basilica, the Mihulka and Dalibor towers and the golden lane. We also make sure you see the guards change. Whatever time is left after the castle you stroll though Mala Strana, the palace town of Prague.
Jewish Prague with The Jewish Museum, Cemetery and Old Town:
You could say that there has always been a community of Jewish people in Prague. For sure since the 10th century. On this tour a guide who has specialized on Jewish culture tells you their story and explains their traditions. You will visit various old synagogues that house parts of the collection of the Jewish Museum and walk across the amazing ancient cemetery. For non Jewish people this is a real learning experience and for Jewish people - for them a look into the past and a chance to see an amazing collection of precious religious and every day items of central European Jews.
Off the Beaten Track 4 or 8 Hours:
The title says it all. Tour will take you away from the known sites into the world of the locals. Even though Prague is extremely touristy you will see that there is a whole world you would have never found. Some of it is very, very beautiful. Other parts are a bit grim. Using public transport your guide could show you the lanes of Winograd's, the villas of Hradcany, high rises at the end of the metro lines or the little down to earth pubs of Zizkov. This tour can lest between 4 and 8 hours.
Prague with Children:
Experience has taught us how to combine the interests of parents with those of the children. Regularly using trams we connect Prague's monuments with towers to climb, labyrinth or Ferris wheel, to more monuments, then may-be a boat ride or an underground tunnel and much more emphasis on stories, myths and legends than in tours without children. Once in a while the parents even get to rest while the guide entertains the kids!
Politics and 20th Century:
In a nutshell: Booming Bohemia at the end of the 19th century, WWI, the First Czechoslovak Republic, Munich, WW2, expulsion of 3000000 people, Communism, 1968, Dubcek, Svoboda, Jan Palach burning, the seventies, Gorbacov, Havel, the Velvet revolution, the Velvet Separation and developments since then and the now.
Old Town Passages and Hidden Alleyways and Art Nouveau in New Town:
In Old town your guide will really show you what a labyrinth it is. Hidden passages, courtyards, alleyways. Within meters you step from the tourist hubs into the middle ages. Most buildings are 6 centuries old or more! Then into New Town, where you keep using back streets and passages and enter quite a few buildings. Now the story is about the National Revival of the Czechs in the 18th century and the development of the more modern arts and styles of architecture. This is a 4 hours tour.
Palace Gardens of Mala Strana:
Only in summer we can make this precious walk. We start with the northern gardens of the Prague Castle, walk through the Castle it self and then through the southern gardens of Prague castle. Then through the many lovely terraced gardens of the palaces under the castle, taking our time to enjoy them and the fantastic views. The Ledebourg, the Palfyoffsky and then the huge Valdstejn gardens. After them follow the Vojanove, and the very hidden Vrtbovske gardens. The tour then ends with a cable car ride to a restaurant on Petrin hill, for a drink. Or food.
Just Architecture and Art:
Prague is the city for walking through the centuries of history of architecture. Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque and so on. To understand the development of architecture one must off course look at the bigger picture. On this walk your guide will explain the different styles by linking the history of architecture with the history of art and the political situation of various periods.
Prague is the city for walking through the centuries of history of architecture. Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque and so on. To understand the development of architecture one must off course look at the bigger picture. On this walk your guide will explain the different styles by linking the history of architecture with the history of art and the political situation of various periods.
Vintage Tours:
The vintage cars made in the days of the first Czechoslovak republic are beautiful old-timers. To sit in one of these great old cars is a real trip into the past and if you are a lover of old cars, it's a real must. The drivers speak basic English and will give you some explanation about the monuments you pass. You can off course also do this as part of your city-tour, with your own private guide.
The automobile brands that still speak to the imagination are Praga, Tatra and off course old Skoda. The normal cars can fit up to 5 people and one of them, an early bus, up to 12. The standard trip lasts 40 minutes and will start at a meeting point in the center of Prague, but it is off course possible to make longer trips or be picked up at your hotel, if you live in the center.
Member discount:
About This Supplier
Email it to a friend:
Click here to email this vacation to a friend


text:
Police have arrested a 20-year-old Lancaster man for the rape of a 14-year-old girl.
Stephen Leroy Killian was arraigned Friday on two felony counts each of statutory sexual assault and aggravated indecent assault and a single felony count of corruption of minors, according to state police in Lancaster.
The charges stem from a May 31 incident at Pool Forge Park in Caernarvon Township and were filed after consulting with the Lancaster County District Attorney's Special Victims Unit, police said.
Killian following his arraignment was sent to Lancaster County Prison on $75,000 cash bail.


text:
Welcome to the Hot Air Ballooning website!
Welcome to the Hot Air Ballooning website. We are here to answer all of your frequently asked questions about hot air ballooning. Most hot air balloon launches occur during the cooler hours of the day, such as at dawn, two to three hours before sunrise. At these times winds are typically light, making for an easier launch and landing. Flying at times like this can also avoid thermals, the vertical air currents that are caused by the ground heating, which make it harder to control the balloon. The downdrafts associated with strong thermals can stop the balloon from climbing, a d force it down to the ground.
In order set up a hot air balloon flight, the pilot needs to check the weather and look for a suitable take off point. They must ensure there is good visibility and sufficiently slow winds to enable take-off and landing. They then have to unpack the balloon, lay it out on the ground and connect it to the basket as well as burner. A powered gasoline fan is used to blow cold air and inflated the balloon. Once the balloon is upright, the pilot and the passengers climb up into the basket. More heat will then be directed into the envelope and the balloon will lift off. Steering the balloon is performed by climbing or descending into the wind's current. This is why it is essential to determine where the wind is blowing and at what altitudes prior to the flight. If you are interested in Hot Air Ballooning, feel free to contact us.


text:
Do you want to hear an absolutely amazing stat that will knock your socks off? I can almost guarantee that you will find this fact so coincidental and unbelievable that you'll have to double-check it yourself.
With last night's 4-0 shutout loss to the St. Louis Blues, the Toronto Maple Leafs have completed their pre-Olympic schedule. They don't play again until March, so this incredible statistic won't change until then. Hold on to your seats, here we go; since 1917, in the long history of the Toronto franchise in the NHL, the Toronto Arenas/St. Patricks/Maple Leafs have scored 18,351 goals. They have also allowed exactly the same number of goals against, 18,351. Unbelievable, but true. Get a copy of the most recent annual Official NHL Guide and Record book and add in this season's numbers. In all-time NHL history, the Leafs have scored exactly the same number of regular season goals as they have allowed.
Your first reaction may be a shrug with a "so what?" After all, one might expect that over a long period of time, these things like goals-for and goals-against tend to balance out, right? Not really. You see, the NHL was not born in 1917 with 30 teams. There are only two franchises in existence today that have been around since Day 1, Toronto and the Montreal Canadiens. So really, there is only one other team that the Leafs can compare themselves against in this particular statistical category. The Montreal Canadiens, who also played their first game in the NHL on December 19, 1917, have scored 19,446 goals and have allowed 15,928, a positive difference of 3,518. Does that make the Canadiens exceptionally good or the Leafs exceptionally bad? Actually, a little of both.
As the NHL has added expansion teams over the years, it has usually taken at least five seasons before a new team has become established to the extent that it begins to score more goals than it allows. This rule of thumb applies on average and over time. For example, the new Ottawa Senators who began play in 1992 have been a very competitive team for most of the past 10 years, yet they are still operating at an all-time deficit of minus-45 in goals for/against. Their first few years in the league were atrocious and they are still in the process of catching up, like most of the newer NHL franchises.
The teams that scored all these goals against the newer teams are the established teams, or the franchises that have been around awhile, like the Canadiens. The Habs have the biggest positive margin of difference between all-time goals for and goals against of all NHL teams. Next in the list is the Boston Bruins who entered the NHL in 1924. The Bruins have scored 18,534 goals in their NHL history and have allowed 17,014, a positive difference of 1,520 goals. It's interesting to note that even though the Bruins started play seven seasons after the Maple Leafs, they have scored more goals. Also of note is the fact that no team has allowed near as many goals in all-time NHL history as the Leafs. This won't change for many years to come, if ever.
Next are the Philadelphia Flyers who entered the NHL in 1967 and have an all-time plus-1,449 in goals for/goals against. There are a total of ten NHL teams that have a positive all-time scoring ratio, including Detroit, Buffalo, Calgary and Edmonton.
So what happened to Toronto? Actually, it wasn't a great franchise that Conn Smythe purchased in 1927 and renamed the Maple Leafs. It took until 1934 for the Toronto Maple Leafs to become a team with more all-time goals scored than goals against. Rarely did the Toronto Arenas/St. Pats score more than they let in. By 1979 though, the team had accumulated an all-time surplus of 763 goals. Unfortunately, the 1980's were a disaster. The franchise under Harold Ballard was a joke. How the Leafs even retained any of its fan base from that period is incomprehensible. The 1990's were an up and down wash, but by 2004, the Leafs were once again showing an all-time surplus of goals scored versus goals allowed. The past few seasons since the lockout have been terrible again.
And so, the Leafs of February 13, 2010 are exactly where they started at before they played their first NHL game. Same number of goals scored as number of goals given up.