The nuclear family is disintegrating

IntroductionThe nuclear family has been described as an artificial construct of the nuclear age by some people. These people give more credit to the more traditional extended family. (Uzoka, 1979) However, in the present age, all the talks about family disintegration are directed to the nuclear family. The term nuclear family was instituted in the western world for the purposes of distinguishing the various family groups that are in existence. (Gottlieb, 1993)   There is a family group which consists of children and their parents that is, father, mother and children. This is what is referred to as the nuclear family. Then there is a different family structure composed of father, mother, children and relatives. This kind of a family structure is referred to as the extended family. (Bernardes, 1999)Nuclear family structures are not so new. They have been present since time immemorial even though the structures did not have a definite name. The term Nuclear family was coined in 1947 a ccording to Merriam-Webster. Webster suggested that the term must have come up due to the ever changing nature of the industrial age. He thought that the evolution of the name was coincidental and that it did not come as a result of the nuclear age. Is the Nuclear family an artificial construct which has no benefit to an individual?   Originally, the nuclear family was referred to as the immediate family. (Uzoka, 1979)According to research carried out, the term nuclear was coined from ‘nucleus’ which has been known to serve as theoretical root word meaning a centre of a large structure. It has also been said that historically, the nuclear family did not have the dominance that it has been accorded in the nuclear age. Post WWII environment has been implicated for enhancing the dominance of the nuclear family by shifting the family structure. It is important to carry out a study of how sociological factors have played a role in the disintegration of the nuclear family. (Chester, 1986)Disintegration of the Nuclear familyA lot of people have been affected by the breakdown of the nuclear family structure. This issue has made many people upset as it has been a source of problems and destructions to majority of people in the nuclear age. The nuclear family is the smallest possible unit that is considered before any breakdown in a family structured is considered. (Uzoka, 1979).   The nuclear family is not something artificial and it should be considered as anyone’s most vital and first social group. The nuclear family is a natural structure found in any social group whether big or small. (Gottlieb, 1993)An American anthropologist G.P. Murdock was the first sociologist to attest the Nuclear family as a social structure in 1949. (Murdock, 1949). According to many sociologists, the family nucleus found in the new transitory nature of American Society in the 1940s was described as a grounding unit that could easily be picked up and transplanted. Nu clear family disintegration has not only affected the American society, this issue has had a huge blow on most countries in the world.Sociological pressures have been implicated to play a major role in the disintegration. A lot of people try to diminish the anguish that comes as a result of disintegration in the nuclear family by instigating that this structure replaced the disintegrated extended family. The only cause of concern is whether the structure which will replace the nuclear family will be better or worse than it. (Taylor, 1997). Therefore, the contemporary society should be prepared of the sociological effects that the new family unit will bring with it. (Chester, 1986)Sociological Theories on Nuclear family disintegrationThe nuclear family has deeply been analyzed since the early nineteenth century with respect to various disciplines which include: Psychiatry, Cultural, Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology. Family Sociology can be attributed to have played a huge role in carrying out studies on family change since the twentieth Century. Parsons’ theory had the most influential power on the family structure at the time. (Parsons, 1955). There are various theories that have been put forward to explain disintegration in the nuclear family and emphasize on the adaptive elements that the family structure has to undergo. Many Western sociologist interchange the term ‘family’ with ‘nuclear family’. (Gottlieb, 1993)The disintegration of the nuclear family has led to the emergence of one-parent families which include: widowed, adoptive, divorced, unmarried people and also same sex families. Because these groups sought to be recognized as a family unit, a sociologist known as Popenoe in 1988 revised the definition of a family to incorporate the groups. He played a part in influencing a debate on the definition of a family. He suggested that a family should also describe:Any group consisting of one adult and one dependent pe rson People married who are of the same sex. A couple which is not married. (Solly, 2006)The definition of a nuclear family has to include its functions as a social institution. (Taylor, 1997).   According to Murdock, the functions of this social institution include: economic, reproductive, sexual and educational. With the new science of sociology, analysis of the disintegration of the nuclear family became possible. Auguste Comte who was thought by many to be the father of sociology thought disintegration of the nuclear family came as result of French revolution. (Murdock, 1949).Auguste attributes the rejection of aristocratic and hierarchical relations between the common people and the aristocracy as the main cause of family dysfunctions. His theory of attributing social changes to nuclear family disintegration and crisis has become a major subject in family sociology. Frederic Le Play who was the founder of empirical family sociology perceived the breakdown of the nuclear famil y as a result of industrial revolution. His sociological theory describes the stem family as being stronger than the Nuclear family which was separated from stem family and suffer red both physically and financially. He concluded by saying that the nuclear family is very unstable and that its disintegration was inevitable. (Taylor, 1997).According to Popenoe, the breakdown of the nuclear family could have been caused by Promiscuity in the society which made paternity issues difficult to establish. However, other sociologists like Howard and Westermarck found no clear evidence of promiscuity in early families. Marx and Engels influenced a major family theory in the nineteenth century. Marxist theory uses the economic determinism concept to explain how social power is determined by the available economic resources which influences the different kinds of struggle present in the various classes of people. (Parsons, 1955).The patriarchal family which had the father as having the right to private property and authority overshadowed the matriarchal system. The dissolution of capitalistic system led to the liberation of women which saw to it that they also had the ability to acquire and possess wealth. The result was the formation of strong feminist theories regarding gender differences in power that has contributed to the many divorces in the society. Women now have the ability to take care of their own children without the presence of a male figure in the house. This has largely contributed to disintegration of the nuclear family.  Sociological factors are thought to have been the cause of nuclear family disintegrations in Western countries like Canada, Northern Europe and United States. (Solly, 2006)The interactionist theory developed by Ralph Linton focuses on the interactions that occur between family members. Any nuclear family can be studied as a unit of interacting personalities. In the course of carrying out research on the interaction theory, the power in family roles was also studied. This theory explains that the disintegration of the nuclear family could have resulted from bad interactions within the family. For instance, a husband could exercise too much power in the family likely to send his wife away. (Taylor, 1997).A lot of controversy has resulted due to industrialization with women fighting for change of roles within a family setting. Although this move on the part of the women seems to be right, it has been established that single-parent families are not the best. Juvenile delinquency has risen due to the disintegrations in the nuclear family. The absence of the father figure and the ability to spend less time at home, transform children into delinquents. Industrialization has also led to many people dying due to accidents on roads, and places of work. This has increased the number of widowed people hence the nuclear family disintegration. (Patrick, 1995)The Social Darwin’s evolutionary theory has been applied to the family setting. The theory talks about the adaptation of organisms into their natural environments. The family has been compared to an organism which has to adapt to its natural environment if it is to survive from breaking up. Using this theory, Henry Morgan tried to explain the evolutionary development of family through six stages. The first one being the matriarchal stage characterized by promiscuity while the last being the monogamous family.The nuclear family has not been able to adapt to the increased industrialization, civilization and urbanization. There are many challenges that the nuclear family is frequently exposed to. For instance, industrialization and civilization have influenced the roles played by parents in the nuclear family. As a result, disputes have occurred leading to the disintegration of the nuclear family. (Eby, 1995)Morgan in trying to fathom this theory decided that since evolution results in higher development of species, then environmental and social e volution could result in higher development of the family. Extended family evolved to form nuclear family and it is hoped that evolution will lead to the disintegration and evolution of the nuclear family to come up with a unit that will be able to adapt to the current environment. Civilized nations such as North America and Europe have recorded the highest nuclear family disintegrations due to the extensive industrialization present in the nations.Studies reveal that nations considered to be ‘primitive’ such as Africa, have most of their nuclear families still intact. Spencer, who is Pro- Social Darwinism, has attempted to explain the evolution of the family from simple to complex forms. However his explanations were not in line with Engels, Marx and Le Play family sociologists who described the family to be evolving from more complex forms such as the extended family to simpler forms like the nuclear family. If the theory holds, then it is expected that the nuclear fa mily will further disintegrate and evolve into a simpler form. (Betty, 1973)  Structural-functionalism concept was put across by Spencer in trying to explain family theory of change. This theory or concept was further supported by Durkheim and it was seen to form a basis of Parsons’ theory of family change.This theory attributed the changes in the family structure to be as a result of changes in the society. The family was seen as a part of a greater whole which established equilibrium when it was properly combined to other relevant units. When a change occurred in one of the units, then it was transferred to the other parts. It was then decided that changes in the society could have a greater impact on the family as compared to the biological and economic factors in the Social Darwinism and Marxist theory.Durkheim found out that the change in the family structure influenced the relationships between parents and their children. In that the relationship ceases to be based on economic or material needs but on personal motives. In the changing society, women are very liberated that they do not need financial assistance from their partners. The nuclear family is disintegrating and this is shown by the great number of reported divorces and separations in the society. (Betty, 1973)The evolutionary theory was not accepted by many cultural anthropologists as it did not incorporate variations present in many family types due to different cultural contexts in the society. Instead they came up with cultural relativism concept which they thought should be employed in the study of the family evolution. They did not think that it was right to consider other cultures to be more superior or civilized than others. Thy made it clear that each society has unique values and culture which should not be compared with another. This theory was dismissed all together by the end of the nineteenth century.However, the theory popped up again in 1930 in a different form as Ecolog ical Anthropology. This theory emphasized on the relationship that exists between the environment and traits of a particular culture. The nuclear family is rapidly disintegrating due to the changes in the environment in terms of industrialization and urbanization. (Eby, 1995)ConclusionThe nuclear family is the first social group that one has to belong to. Due to the changes and developments that are taking place in the society, the stability of this family structure has been questioned. (Bernardes, 1999)  Industrialization and urbanization have been the reasons behind the emergence of other family structures caused by the breakdown of the nuclear family. There have been many cases of familial dysfunction and disintegration reported in more industrialized nations than in ‘primitive’ nations which prove the social Darwinism theory. (Eby, 1995)   According to Marx, family structures are bound to change from being complex to simple forms. Therefore, it is expected that the nuclear family will further disintegrate to form simple family structures such as single-parent families, divorces, widowers, and single people unmarried people. (Betty, 1973)ReferencesBernardes, J. (1999): We must now define The Family. Marriage and Family Review 28(3/4):21–41.Chester, R. (1986): The Myth of the Disappearing Nuclear Family. In Family Portraits, ed. D., Short Run Press, Ltd.UKGottlieb, B. (1993): The Family in the Western World. New York: Oxford.Murdock, G. P. (1949): Social Structure. New York. Macmillan.Parsons, T. (1955): The American Family. Its Relations to Personality and the Social Structure. In Family Socialization and Interaction Process, ed. Free Press. New YorkUzoka, A. (1979): The Myth of the Nuclear Family. Historical Background and Clinical Implications. American Psychologist 34. Pp1095–1106.Peplau & Taylor, (1997): Sociocultural perspectives in social psychology. Guide to sociocultural resources in social psychology. Melbourne press. New YorkBetty Y. (1973): Extinction. Revised ed. of The Changing Family. Columbia University press. New York  Solly D. (2006): The family on the threshold of the 21st century. Trends and Implications. Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication DataEby, L. (1995): Where's Daddy: Nearly Half the Nation's Children Are Growing Up In Homes Without Fathers. Prentice press. New York.Fagan & Patrick F. (1995): The Real Root Causes of Violent Crimes. The Breakdown of Marriage, Family and Community Cultural Studies Project. The Heritage Foundation. Washington, D.C. No. 1026. The nuclear family is disintegrating The nuclear family has been described as an artificial construct of the nuclear age by some people. These people give more credit to the more traditional extended family. (Uzoka, 1979) However, in the present age, all the talks about family disintegration are directed to the nuclear family. The term nuclear family was instituted in the western world for the purposes of distinguishing the various family groups that are in existence. (Gottlieb, 1993)   There is a family group which consists of children and their parents that is, father, mother and children. This is what is referred to as the nuclear family. Then there is a different family structure composed of father, mother, children and relatives. This kind of a family structure is referred to as the extended family. (Bernardes, 1999)Nuclear family structures are not so new. They have been present since time immemorial even though the structures did not have a definite name. The term Nuclear family was coined in 1947 according to Merriam-Webster. Webster suggested that the term must have come up due to the ever changing nature of the industrial age. He thought that the evolution of the name was coincidental and that it did not come as a result of the nuclear age. Is the Nuclear family an artificial construct which has no benefit to an individual?   Originally, the nuclear family was referred to as the immediate family.(Uzoka, 1979)   According to research carried out, the term nuclear was coined from ‘nucleus’ which has been known to serve as theoretical root word meaning a centre of a large structure. It has also been said that historically, the nuclear family did not have the dominance that it has been accorded in the nuclear age. Post WWII environment has been implicated for enhancing the dominance of the nuclear family by shifting the family structure. It is important to carry out a study of how sociological factors have played a role in the disintegration of the nuclear family. (Chester , 1986)Disintegration of the Nuclear familyA lot of people have been affected by the breakdown of the nuclear family structure. This issue has made many people upset as it has been a source of problems and destructions to majority of people in the nuclear age. The nuclear family is the smallest possible unit that is considered before any breakdown in a family structured is considered. (Uzoka, 1979).   The nuclear family is not something artificial and it should be considered as anyone’s most vital and first social group. The nuclear family is a natural structure found in any social group whether big or small. (Gottlieb, 1993)  An American anthropologist G.P. Murdock was the first sociologist to attest the Nuclear family as a social structure in 1949. (Murdock, 1949). According to many sociologists, the family nucleus found in the new transitory nature of American Society in the 1940s was described as a grounding unit that could easily be picked up and transplanted. Nuclea r family disintegration has not only affected the American society, this issue has had a huge blow on most countries in the world. Sociological pressures have been implicated to play a major role in the disintegration.A lot of people try to diminish the anguish that comes as a result of disintegration in the nuclear family by instigating that this structure replaced the disintegrated extended family. The only cause of concern is whether the structure which will replace the nuclear family will be better or worse than it. (Taylor, 1997). Therefore, the contemporary society should be prepared of the sociological effects that the new family unit will bring with it. (Chester, 1986)Sociological Theories on Nuclear family disintegrationThe nuclear family has deeply been analyzed since the early nineteenth century with respect to various disciplines which include: Psychiatry, Cultural, Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology. Family Sociology can be attributed to have played a huge role in c arrying out studies on family change since the twentieth Century. Parsons’ theory had the most influential power on the family structure at the time. (Parsons, 1955). There are various theories that have been put forward to explain disintegration in the nuclear family and emphasize on the adaptive elements that the family structure has to undergo. Many Western sociologist interchange the term ‘family’ with ‘nuclear family’. (Gottlieb, 1993)  The disintegration of the nuclear family has led to the emergence of one-parent families which include: widowed, adoptive, divorced, unmarried people and also same sex families. Because these groups sought to be recognized as a family unit, a sociologist known as Popenoe in 1988 revised the definition of a family to incorporate the groups. He played a part in influencing a debate on the definition of a family. He suggested that a family should also describe:Any group consisting of one adult and one dependent pe rson People married who are of the same sex. A couple which is not married. (Solly, 2006) The definition of a nuclear family has to include its functions as a social institution. (Taylor, 1997).   According to Murdock, the functions of this social institution include: economic, reproductive, sexual and educational. With the new science of sociology, analysis of the disintegration of the nuclear family became possible. Auguste Comte who was thought by many to be the father of sociology thought disintegration of the nuclear family came as result of French revolution. (Murdock, 1949).  Auguste attributes the rejection of aristocratic and hierarchical relations between the common people and the aristocracy as the main cause of family dysfunctions. His theory of attributing social changes to nuclear family disintegration and crisis has become a major subject in family sociology. Frederic Le Play who was the founder of empirical family sociology perceived the breakdown of the nuclear family as a result of industrial revolution. His sociological theory describes the stem family as being stronger than the Nuclear family which was separated from stem family and suffer red both physically and financially. He concluded by saying that the nuclear family is very unstable and that its disintegration was inevitable. (Taylor, 1997).According to Popenoe, the breakdown of the nuclear family could have been caused by Promiscuity in the society which made paternity issues difficult to establish. However, other sociologists like Howard and Westermarck found no clear evidence of promiscuity in early families. Marx and Engels influenced a major family theory in the nineteenth century. Marxist theory uses the economic determinism concept to explain how social power is determined by the available economic resources which influences the different kinds of struggle present in the various classes of people. (Parsons, 1955).The patriarchal family which had the father as having the rig ht to private property and authority overshadowed the matriarchal system. The dissolution of capitalistic system led to the liberation of women which saw to it that they also had the ability to acquire and possess wealth. The result was the formation of strong feminist theories regarding gender differences in power that has contributed to the many divorces in the society. Women now have the ability to take care of their own children without the presence of a male figure in the house. This has largely contributed to disintegration of the nuclear family.Sociological factors are thought to have been the cause of nuclear family disintegrations in Western countries like Canada, Northern Europe and United States. (Solly, 2006)The interactionist theory developed by Ralph Linton focuses on the interactions that occur between family members. Any nuclear family can be studied as a unit of interacting personalities. In the course of carrying out research on the interaction theory, the power in family roles was also studied. This theory explains that the disintegration of the nuclear family could have resulted from bad interactions within the family. For instance, a husband could exercise too much power in the family likely to send his wife away. (Taylor, 1997).A lot of controversy has resulted due to industrialization with women fighting for change of roles within a family setting. Although this move on the part of the women seems to be right, it has been established that single-parent families are not the best. Juvenile delinquency has risen due to the disintegrations in the nuclear family. The absence of the father figure and the ability to spend less time at home, transform children into delinquents. Industrialization has also led to many people dying due to accidents on roads, and places of work. This has increased the number of widowed people hence the nuclear family disintegration. (Patrick, 1995)The Social Darwin’s evolutionary theory has been applied to th e family setting. The theory talks about the adaptation of organisms into their natural environments. The family has been compared to an organism which has to adapt to its natural environment if it is to survive from breaking up. Using this theory, Henry Morgan tried to explain the evolutionary development of family through six stages. The first one being the matriarchal stage characterized by promiscuity while the last being the monogamous family. The nuclear family has not been able to adapt to the increased industrialization, civilization and urbanization. There are many challenges that the nuclear family is frequently exposed to. For instance, industrialization and civilization have influenced the roles played by parents in the nuclear family. As a result, disputes have occurred leading to the disintegration of the nuclear family. (Eby, 1995)Morgan in trying to fathom this theory decided that since evolution results in higher development of species, then environmental and social evolution could result in higher development of the family. Extended family evolved to form nuclear family and it is hoped that evolution will lead to the disintegration and evolution of the nuclear family to come up with a unit that will be able to adapt to the current environment. Civilized nations such as North America and Europe have recorded the highest nuclear family disintegrations due to the extensive industrialization present in the nations.Studies reveal that nations considered to be ‘primitive’ such as Africa, have most of their nuclear families still intact. Spencer, who is Pro- Social Darwinism, has attempted to explain the evolution of the family from simple to complex forms. However his explanations were not in line with Engels, Marx and Le Play family sociologists who described the family to be evolving from more complex forms such as the extended family to simpler forms like the nuclear family. If the theory holds, then it is expected that the nuclear family will further disintegrate and evolve into a simpler form. (Betty, 1973)Structural-functionalism concept was put across by Spencer in trying to explain family theory of change. This theory or concept was further supported by Durkheim and it was seen to form a basis of Parsons’ theory of family change.  This theory attributed the changes in the family structure to be as a result of changes in the society. The family was seen as a part of a greater whole which established equilibrium when it was properly combined to other relevant units. When a change occurred in one of the units, then it was transferred to the other parts. It was then decided that changes in the society could have a greater impact on the family as compared to the biological and economic factors in the Social Darwinism and Marxist theory. Durkheim found out that the change in the family structure influenced the relationships between parents and their children. In that the relationship ceases to be based on economic or material needs but on personal motives. In the changing society, women are very liberated that they do not need financial assistance from their partners. The nuclear family is disintegrating and this is shown by the great number of reported divorces and separations in the society. (Betty, 1973)The evolutionary theory was not accepted by many cultural anthropologists as it did not incorporate variations present in many family types due to different cultural contexts in the society. Instead they came up with cultural relativism concept which they thought should be employed in the study of the family evolution. They did not think that it was right to consider other cultures to be more superior or civilized than others. Thy made it clear that each society has unique values and culture which should not be compared with another. This theory was dismissed all together by the end of the nineteenth century.However, the theory popped up again in 1930 in a different form as Eco logical Anthropology. This theory emphasized on the relationship that exists between the environment and traits of a particular culture. The nuclear family is rapidly disintegrating due to the changes in the environment in terms of industrialization and urbanization. (Eby, 1995)ConclusionThe nuclear family is the first social group that one has to belong to. Due to the changes and developments that are taking place in the society, the stability of this family structure has been questioned. (Bernardes, 1999)  Industrialization and urbanization have been the reasons behind the emergence of other family structures caused by the breakdown of the nuclear family. There have been many cases of familial dysfunction and disintegration reported in more industrialized nations than in ‘primitive’ nations which prove the social Darwinism theory. (Eby, 1995)   According to Marx, family structures are bound to change from being complex to simple forms. Therefore, it is expected th at the nuclear family will further disintegrate to form simple family structures such as single-parent families, divorces, widowers, and single people unmarried people. (Betty, 1973)ReferencesBernardes, J. (1999): We must now define The Family. Marriage and Family Review 28(3/4):21–41.Chester, R. (1986): The Myth of the Disappearing Nuclear Family. In Family Portraits, ed. D., Short Run Press, Ltd.UKGottlieb, B. (1993): The Family in the Western World. New York: Oxford.Murdock, G. P. (1949): Social Structure. New York. Macmillan.Parsons, T. (1955): The American Family. Its Relations to Personality and the Social Structure. In Family Socialization and Interaction Process, ed. Free Press. New YorkUzoka, A. (1979): The Myth of the Nuclear Family. Historical Background and Clinical Implications. American Psychologist 34. Pp1095–1106.Peplau & Taylor, (1997): Sociocultural perspectives in social psychology. Guide to sociocultural resources in social psychology. Melbourne pre ss. New YorkBetty Y. (1973): Extinction. Revised ed. of The Changing Family. Columbia University press. New York  Solly D. (2006): The family on the threshold of the 21st century. Trends and Implications. Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication DataEby, L. (1995): Where's Daddy: Nearly Half the Nation's Children Are Growing Up In Homes Without Fathers. Prentice press. New York.Fagan & Patrick F. (1995): The Real Root Causes of Violent Crimes. The Breakdown of Marriage, Family and Community Cultural Studies Project. The Heritage Foundation. Washington, D.C. No. 1026.

Black House Chapter Three

3 OUT TYLER'S WINDOW we go, away from Libertyville, flying southwest on a diagonal, not lingering now but really flapping those old wings, flying with a purpose. We're headed toward the heliograph flash of early-morning sun on the Father of Waters, also toward the world's largest six-pack. Between it and County Road Oo (we can call it Nail-house Row if we want; we're practically honorary citizens of French Landing now) is a radio tower, the warning beacon on top now invisible in the bright sunshine of this newborn July day. We smell grass and trees and warming earth, and as we draw closer to the tower, we also smell the yeasty, fecund aroma of beer. Next to the radio tower, in the industrial park on the east side of Peninsula Drive, is a little cinder-block building with a parking lot just big enough for half a dozen cars and the Coulee patrol van, an aging Ford Econoline painted candy-apple pink. As the day winds down and afternoon wears into evening, the cylindrical shadows of the six-pack will fall first over the sign on the balding lawn facing the drive, then the building, then the parking lot. KDCU-AM, this sign reads, YOUR TALK VOICE IN COULEE COUNTRY. Spray-painted across it, in a pink that almost matches the patrol van, is a fervent declaration: TROY LUVS MARYANN! YES! Later on, Howie Soule, the U-Crew engineer, will clean this off (probably during the Rush Limbaugh show, which is satellite fed and totally automated), but for now it stays, telling us all we need to know about small-town luv in middle America. Looks like we found something nice after all. Coming out of the station's side door as we arrive is a slender man dressed in pleated khaki Dockers, a tieless white shirt of Egyptian cotton buttoned all the way to the neck, and maroon braces (they are as slim as he is, those braces, and far too cool to be called suspenders; suspenders are vulgar things worn by such creatures as Chipper Maxton and Sonny Heartfield, down at the funeral home). This silver-haired fellow is also wearing a very sharp straw fedora, antique but beautifully kept. The maroon hatband matches his braces. Aviator-style sunglasses cover his eyes. He takes a position on the grass to the left of the door, beneath a battered speaker that is amping KDCU's current broadcast: the local news. This will be followed by the Chicago farm report, which gives him ten minutes before he has to settle in behind the mike again. We watch in growing puzzlement as he produces a pack of American Spirit cigarettes from his shirt pocket and fires one up with a gold lighter. Surely this elegant fellow in the braces, Dockers, and Bass Weejuns cannot be George Rathbun. In our minds we have already built up a picture of George, and it is one of a fellow very different from this. In our mind's eye we see a guy with a huge belly hanging over the white belt of his checked pants (all those ballpark bratwursts), a brick-red complexion (all those ballpark beers, not to mention all that bellowing at the dastardly umps), and a squat, broad neck (perfect for housing those asbestos vocal cords). The George Rathbun of our imagination and all of Coulee Country's, it almost goes without saying is a pop-eyed, broad-assed, wild-haired, leather-lunged, Rolaids-popping, Chevy-driving, Republican-voting heart attack waiting to happen, a churning urn of sports trivia, mad enthusiasms, crazy prejudices, and high cholesterol. This fellow is not that fellow. This fellow moves like a dancer. This fellow is iced tea on a hot day, cool as the king of spades. But say, that's the joke of it, isn't it? Uh-huh. The joke of the fat dee-jay with the skinny voice, only turned inside out. In a very real sense, George Rathbun does not exist at all. He is a hobby in action, a fiction in the flesh, and only one of the slim man's multiple personalities. The people at KDCU know his real name and think they're in on the joke (the punch line of course being George's trademark line, the even-a-blind-man thing), but they don't know the half of it. Nor is this a metaphorical statement. They know exactly one-third of it, because the man in the Dockers and the straw fedora is actually four people. In any case, George Rathbun has been the saving of KDCU, the last surviving AM station in a predatory FM market. For five mornings a week, week in and week out, he has been a drive-time bonanza. The U-Crew (as they call themselves) love him just about to death. Above him, the loudspeaker cackles on: † still no leads, according to Chief Dale Gilbertson, who has called Herald reporter Wendell Green ? ®an out-of-town fearmonger who is more interested in selling papers than in how we do things in French Landing.' â€Å"Meanwhile, in Arden, a house fire has taken the lives of an elderly farmer and his wife. Horst P. Lepplemier and his wife, Gertrude, both eighty-two . . .† â€Å"Horst P. Lepplemier,† says the slim man, drawing on his cigarette with what appears to be great enjoyment. â€Å"Try saying that one ten times fast, you moke.† Behind him and to his right, the door opens again, and although the smoker is still standing directly beneath the speaker, he hears the door perfectly well. The eyes behind the aviator shades have been dead his whole life, but his hearing is exquisite. The newcomer is pasty-faced and comes blinking into the morning sun like a baby mole that has just been turned out of its burrow by the blade of a passing plow. His head has been shaved except for the Mo-hawk strip up the center of his skull and the pigtail that starts just above the nape of his neck and hangs to his shoulder blades. The Mohawk has been dyed bright red; the ‘tail is electric blue. Dangling from one ear-lobe is a lightning-bolt earring that looks suspiciously like the Nazi S.S. insignia. He is wearing a torn black T-shirt with a logo that reads SNIVELLING SHITS '97: THE WE GET HARD FOR JESUS TOUR. In one hand this colorful fellow has a CD jewel box. â€Å"Hello, Morris,† says the slim man in the fedora, still without turning. Morris pulls in a little gasp, and in his surprise looks like the nice Jewish boy that he actually is. Morris Rosen is the U-Crew's summer intern from the Oshkosh branch of UW. â€Å"Man, I love that unpaid grunt labor!† station manager Tom Wiggins has been heard to say, usually while rubbing his hands together fiendishly. Never has a checkbook been guarded so righteously as the Wigger guards the KDCU check-book. He is like Smaug the Dragon reclining on his heaps of gold (not? that there are heaps of anything in the ‘DCU accounts; it bears repeating to say that, as an AM talker, the station is lucky just to be alive). Morris's look of surprise it might be fair to call it uneasy surprise dissolves into a smile. â€Å"Wow, Mr. Leyden! Good grab! What a pair of ears!† Then he frowns. Even if Mr. Leyden who's standing directly beneath the outside honker, can't forget that heard someone come out, how in God's name did he know which someone it was? â€Å"How'd you know it was me?† he asks. â€Å"Only two people around here smell like marijuana in the morning,† Henry Leyden says. â€Å"One of them follows his morning smoke with Scope; the other that's you, Morris just lets her rip.† â€Å"Wow,† Morris says respectfully. â€Å"That is totally bitchrod.† â€Å"I am totally bitchrod,† Henry agrees. He speaks softly and thoughtfully. â€Å"It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. In regard to your morning rendezvous with the undeniably tasty Thai stick, may I offer an Appalachian aphorism?† â€Å"Go, dude.† This is Morris's first real discussion with Henry Leyden, who is every bit the head Morris has been told to expect. Every bit and more. It is no longer so hard to believe that he could have another identity . . . a secret identity, like Bruce Wayne. But still . . . this is just so pimp. â€Å"What we do in our childhood forms as a habit,† Henry says in the same soft, totally un?CGeorge Rathbun voice. â€Å"That is my advice to you, Morris.† â€Å"Yeah, totally,† Morris says. He has no clue what Mr. Leyden is talking about. But he slowly, shyly, extends the CD jewel box in his hand. For a moment, when Henry makes no move to take it, Morris feels crushed, all at once seven years old again and trying to wow his always-too-busy father with a picture he has spent all afternoon drawing in his room. Then he thinks, He's blind, dickweed. He may be able to smell pot on your breath and he may have ears like a bat, but how's he supposed to know you're holding out a fucking CD? Hesitantly, a bit frightened by his own temerity, Morris takes Henry's wrist. He feels the man start a little, but then Leyden allows his hand to be guided to the slender box. â€Å"Ah, a CD,† Henry says. â€Å"And what is it, pray tell?† â€Å"You gotta play the seventh track tonight on your show,† Morris says. â€Å"Please.† For the first time, Henry looks alarmed. He takes a drag on his cigarette, then drops it (without even looking of course, ha ha) into the sand-filled plastic bucket by the door. â€Å"What show could you possibly mean?† he asks. Instead of answering directly, Morris makes a rapid little smacking noise with his lips, the sound of a small but voracious carnivore eating something tasty. And, to make things worse, he follows it with the Wisconsin Rat's trademark line, as well known to the folks in Morris's age group as George Rathbun's hoarse â€Å"Even a blind man† cry is known to their elders: â€Å"Chew it up, eat it up, wash it down, it aaallll comes out the same place!† He doesn't do it very well, but there's no question who he's doing: the one and only Wisconsin Rat, whose evening drive-time program on KWLA-FM is famous in Coulee Country (except the word we probably want is â€Å"infamous†). KWLA is the tiny college FM station in La Riviere, hardly more than a smudge on the wallpaper of Wisconsin radio, but the Rat's audience is huge. And if anyone found out that the comfortable Brew Crew?Crooting, Republican-voting, AM-broadcasting George Rathbun was also the Rat who had once narrated a gleeful on-air evacuation of his bowels onto a Backstreet Boys CD there could be trouble. Quite serious, possibly, resounding well beyond the tight-knit little radio community. â€Å"What in God's name would ever make you think that I'm the Wisconsin Rat, Morris?† Henry asks. â€Å"I barely know who you're talking about. Who put such a weird idea in your head?† â€Å"An informed source,† Morris says craftily. He won't give Howie Soule up, not even if they pull out his fingernails with red-hot tongs. Besides, Howie only found out by accident: went into the station crapper one day after Henry left and discovered that Henry's wallet had fallen out of his back pocket while he was sitting on the throne. You'd have thought a fellow whose other senses were so obviously tightwired would have sensed the absence, but probably Henry's mind had been on other things he was obviously a heavy dude who undoubtedly spent his days getting through some heavy thoughts. In any case, there was a KWLA I.D. card in Henry's wallet (which Howie had thumbed through â€Å"in the spirit of friendly curiosity,† as he put it), and on the line marked NAME, someone had stamped a little inkpad drawing of a rat. Case closed, game over, zip up your fly. â€Å"I have never in my life so much as stepped through the door of KWLA,† Henry says, and this is the absolute truth. He makes the Wisconsin Rat tapes (among others) in his studio at home, then sends them in to the station from the downtown Mail Boxes Etc., where he rents under the name of Joe Strummer. The card with the rat stamped on it was more in the nature of an invitation from the KWLA staff than anything else, one he's never taken up . . . but he kept the card. â€Å"Have you become anyone else's informed source, Morris?† â€Å"Huh?† â€Å"Have you told anyone that you think I'm the Wisconsin Rat?† â€Å"No! Course not!† Which, as we all know, is what people always say. Luckily for Henry, in this case it happens to be true. So far, at least, but the day is still young. â€Å"And you won't, will you? Because rumors have a way of taking root. Just like certain bad habits.† Henry mimes puffing, pulling in smoke. â€Å"I know how to keep my mouth shut,† Morris declares, with perhaps misplaced pride. â€Å"I hope so. Because if you bruited this about, I'd have to kill you.† Bruited, Morris thinks. Oh man, this guy is complete. â€Å"Kill me, yeah,† Morris says, laughing. â€Å"And eat you,† Henry says. He is not laughing; not even smiling. â€Å"Yeah, right.† Morris laughs again, but this time the laugh sounds strangely forced to his own ears. â€Å"Like you're Hannibal Lecture.† â€Å"No, like I'm the Fisherman,† Henry says. He slowly turns his aviator sunglasses toward Morris. The sun reflects off them, for a moment turning them into rufous eyes of fire. Morris takes a step back without even realizing that he has done so. â€Å"Albert Fish liked to start with the ass, did you know that?† â€Å"N â€Å" â€Å"Yes indeed. He claimed that a good piece of young ass was as sweet as a veal cutlet. His exact words. Written in a letter to the mother of one of his victims.† â€Å"Far out,† Morris says. His voice sounds faint to his own ears, the voice of a plump little pig denying entrance to the big bad wolf. â€Å"But I'm not exactly, like, worried that you're the Fisherman.† â€Å"No? Why not?† â€Å"Man, you're blind, for one thing!† Henry says nothing, only stares at the now vastly uneasy Morris with his fiery glass eyes. And Morris thinks: But is he blind? He gets around pretty good for a blind guy . . . and the way he tabbed me as soon as I came out here, how weird was that? â€Å"I'll keep quiet,† he says. â€Å"Honest to God.† â€Å"That's all I want,† Henry says mildly. â€Å"Now that we've got that straight, what exactly have you brought me?† He holds up the CD but not as if he's looking at it, Morris observes with vast relief. â€Å"It's, um, this Racine group. Dirtysperm? And they've got this cover of ? ®Where Did Our Love Go'? The old Supremes thing? Only they do it at like a hundred and fifty beats a minute? It's fuckin' hilarious. I mean, it destroys the whole pop thing, man, blitzes it!† â€Å"Dirtysperm,† Henry says. â€Å"Didn't they used to be Jane Wyatt's Clit?† Morris looks at Henry with awe that could easily become love. â€Å"Dirtysperm's lead guitarist, like, formed JWC, man. Then him and the bass guy had this political falling-out, something about Dean Kissinger and Henry Acheson, and Ucky Ducky he's the guitarist went off to form Dirtysperm.† † ? ®Where Did Our Love Go'?† Henry muses, then hands the CD back. And, as if he sees the way Morris's face falls: â€Å"I can't be seen with something like that use your head. Stick it in my locker.† Morris's gloom disappears and he breaks into a sunny smile. â€Å"Yeah, okay! You got it, Mr. Leyden!† â€Å"And don't let anyone see you doing it. Especially not Howie Soule. Howie's a bit of a snoop. You'd do well not to emulate him.† â€Å"No way, baby!† Still smiling, delighted at how all this has gone, Morris reaches for the door handle. â€Å"And Morris?† â€Å"Yeah?† â€Å"Since you know my secret, perhaps you'd better call me Henry.† â€Å"Henry! Yeah!† Is this the best morning of the summer for Morris Rosen? You better believe it. â€Å"And something else.† â€Å"Yeah? Henry?† Morris dares imagine a day when they will progress to Hank and Morrie. â€Å"Keep your mouth shut about the Rat.† â€Å"I already told you â€Å" â€Å"Yes, and I believe you. But temptation comes creeping, Morris; temptation comes creeping like a thief in the night, or like a killer in search of prey. If you give in to temptation, I'll know. I'll smell it on your skin like bad cologne. Do you believe me?† â€Å"Uh . . . yeah.† And he does. Later, when he has time to kick back and reflect, Morris will think what a ridiculous idea that is, but yes, at the time, he believes it. Believes him. It's like being hypnotized. â€Å"Very good. Now off you go. I want Ace Hardware, Zaglat Chevy, and Mr. Tastee Ribs all cued up for the first seg.† â€Å"Gotcha.† â€Å"Also, last night's game â€Å" â€Å"Wickman striking out the side in the eighth? That was pimp. Totally, like, un-Brewers.† â€Å"No, I think we want the Mark Loretta home run in the fifth. Loretta doesn't hit many, and the fans like him. I can't think why. Even a blind man can see he has no range, especially from deep in the hole. Go on, son. Put the CD in my locker, and if I see the Rat, I'll give it to him. I'm sure he'll give it a spin.† â€Å"The track â€Å" â€Å"Seven, seven, rhymes with heaven. I won't forget and neither will he. Go on, now.† Morris gives him a final grateful look and goes back inside. Henry Leyden, alias George Rathbun, alias the Wisconsin Rat, also alias Henry Shake (we'll get to that one, but not now; the hour draweth late), lights another cigarette and drags deep. He won't have time to finish it; the farm report is already in full flight (hog bellies up, wheat futures down, and the corn as high as an elephant's eye), but he needs a couple of drags just now to steady himself. A long, long day stretches out ahead of him, ending with the Strawberry Fest Hop at Maxton Elder Care, that house of antiquarian horrors. God save him from the clutches of William â€Å"Chipper† Maxton, he has often thought. Given a choice between ending his days at MEC and burning his face off with a blowtorch, he would reach for the blowtorch every time. Later, if he's not totally exhausted, perhaps his friend from up the road will come over and they can begin the long-promised reading of Bleak House. That would be a trea t. How long, he wonders, can Morris Rosen hold on to his momentous secret? Well, Henry supposes he will find that out. He likes the Rat too much to give him up unless he absolutely has to; that much is an undeniable fact. â€Å"Dean Kissinger,† he murmurs. â€Å"Henry Acheson. Ucky Ducky. God save us.† He takes another drag on his cigarette, then drops it into the bucket of sand. It is time to go back inside, time to replay last night's Mark Loretta home run, time to start taking more calls from the Coulee Country's dedicated sports fans. And time for us to be off. Seven o'clock has rung from the Lutheran church steeple. In French Landing, things are getting into high gear. No one lies abed long in this part of the world, and we must speed along to the end of our tour. Things are going to start happening soon, and they may happen fast. Still, we have done well, and we have only one more stop to make before arriving at our final destination. We rise on the warm summer updrafts and hover for a moment by the KDCU tower (we are close enough to hear the tik-tik-tik of the beacon and the low, rather sinister hum of electricity), looking north and taking our bearings. Eight miles upriver is the town of Great Bluff, named for the limestone outcropping that rises there. The outcropping is reputed to be haunted, because in 1888 a chief of the Fox Indian tribe (Far Eyes was his name) assembled all his warriors, shamans, squaws, and children and told them to leap to their deaths, thereby escaping some hideous fate he had glimpsed in his dreams. Far Eyes's followers, like Jim Jones's, did as they were bidden. We won't go that far upriver, however; we have enough ghosts to deal with right here in French Landing. Let us instead fly over Nailhouse Row once more (the Harleys are gone; Beezer St. Pierre has led the Thunder Five off to their day's work at the brewery), over Queen Street and Maxton Elder Care (Burny's down there, still looking out his window ugh), to Bluff Street. This is almost the countryside again. Even now, in the twenty-first century, the towns in Coulee Country give up quickly to the woods and the fields. Herman Street is a left turn from Bluff Street, in an area that is not quite town and not quite city. Here, in a sturdy brick house sitting at the end of a half-mile meadow as yet undiscovered by the developers (even here there are a few developers, unknowing agents of slippage), lives Dale Gilbertson with his wife, Sarah, and his six-year-old son, David. We can't stay long, but let us at least drift in through the kitchen window for a moment. It's open, after all, and there is room for us to perch right here on the counter, between the Silex and the toaster. Sitting at the kitchen table, reading the newspaper and shoveling Special K into his mouth without tasting it (he has forgotten both the sugar and the sliced banana in his distress at seeing yet another Wendell Green byline on the front page of the Herald), is Chief Gilbertson himself. This morning he is without doubt the unhappiest man in French Landing. We will meet his only competition for that booby prize soon, but for the moment, let us stick with Dale. The Fisherman, he thinks mournfully, his reflections on this subject very similar to those of Bobby Dulac and Tom Lund. Why didn't you name him something a little more turn-of-the-century, you troublesome scribbling fuck? Something a little bit local? Dahmerboy, maybe, that'd be good. Ah, but Dale knows why. The similarities between Albert Fish, who did his work in New York, and their boy here in French Landing are just too good too tasty to be ignored. Fish strangled his victims, as both Amy St. Pierre and Johnny Irkenham were apparently strangled; Fish dined on his victims, as both the girl and the boy were apparently dined upon; both Fish and the current fellow showed an especial liking for the . . . well, for the posterior regions of the anatomy. Dale looks at his cereal, then drops his spoon into the mush and pushes the bowl away with the side of his hand. And the letters. Can't forget the letters. Dale glances down at his briefcase, crouched at the side of his chair like a faithful dog. The file is in there, and it draws him like a rotted, achy tooth draws the tongue. Maybe he can keep his hands off it, at least while he's here at home, where he plays toss with his son and makes love to his wife, but keeping his mind off it . . . that's a whole ‘nother thing, as they also say in these parts. Albert Fish wrote a long and horribly explicit letter to the mother of Grace Budd, the victim who finally earned the old cannibal a trip to the electric chair. (â€Å"What a thrill electrocution will be!† Fish reputedly told his jailers. â€Å"The only one I haven't tried!†) The current doer has written similar letters, one addressed to Helen Irkenham, the other to Amy's father, the awful (but genuinely grief-stricken, in Dale's estimation) Armand â€Å"Beezer† St. Pierre. It would be good if Dale could believe these letters were written by some troublemaker not otherwise connected to the murders, but both contain information that has been withheld from the press, information that presumably only the killer could know. Dale at last gives in to temptation (how well Henry Leyden would understand) and hauls up his briefcase. He opens it and puts a thick file where his cereal bowl lately rested. He returns the briefcase to its place by his chair, then opens the file (it is marked ST. PIERRE/IRKENHAM rather than FISHERMAN). He leafs past heartbreaking school photos of two smiling, gap-toothed children, past state medical examiner reports too horrible to read and crime-scene photos too horrible to look at (ah, but he must look at them, again and again he must look at them the blood-slicked chains, the flies, the open eyes). There are also various transcripts, the longest being the interview with Spencer Hovdahl, who found the Irkenham boy and who was, very briefly, considered a suspect. Next come Xerox copies of three letters. One had been sent to George and Helen Irkenham (addressed to Helen alone, if it made any difference). One went to Armand â€Å"Beezer† St. Pierre (addressed just that way, too, nickname and all). The third had been sent to the mother of Grace Budd, of New York City, following the murder of her daughter in the late spring of 1928. Dale lays the three of them out, side by side. Grace sat in my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her. So Fish had written to Mrs. Budd. Amy sat in my lap and hugged me. I made up my mind to eat her. So had Beezer St. Pierre's correspondent written, and was it any wonder the man had threatened to burn the French Landing police station to the ground? Dale doesn't like the son of a bitch, but has to admit he might feel the same way in Beezer's shoes. I went upstairs and stripped all my clothes off. I knew if I did not I would get her blood on them. Fish, to Mrs. Budd. I went around back of the hen-house and stripped all my cloes off. New if I did not I would get his blood on them. Anonymous, to Helen Irkenham. And here was a question: How could a mother receive a letter like that and retain her sanity? Was that possible? Dale thought not. Helen answered questions coherently, had even offered him tea the last time he was out there, but she had a glassy, poleaxed look in her eye that suggested she was running entirely on instruments. Three letters, two new, one almost seventy-five years old. And yet all three are so similar. The St. Pierre letter and the Irkenham letter had been hand-printed by someone who was left-handed, according to the state experts. The paper was plain white Hammermill mimeo, available in every Office Depot and Staples in America. The pen used had probably been a Bic now, there was a lead. Fish to Mrs. Budd, back in '28: I did not fuck her tho I could of had I wished. She died a virgin. Anonymous to Beezer St. Pierre: I did NOT fuck her tho I could of had I wished. She died a VIRGIN. Anonymous to Helen Irkenham: This may comfort you I did NOT fuck him tho I could of had I wished. He died a VIRGIN. Dale's out of his depth here and knows it, but he hopes he isn't a complete fool. This doer, although he did not sign his letters with the old cannibal's name, clearly wanted the connection to be made. He had done everything but leave a few dead trout at the dumping sites. Sighing bitterly, Dale puts the letters back into the file, the file back into the briefcase. â€Å"Dale? Honey?† Sarah's sleepy voice, from the head of the stairs. Dale gives the guilty jump of a man who has almost been caught doing something nasty and latches his briefcase. â€Å"I'm in the kitchen,† he calls back. No need to worry about waking Davey; he sleeps like the dead until at least seven-thirty every morning. â€Å"Going in late?† â€Å"Uh-huh.† He often goes in late, then makes up for it by working until seven or eight or even nine in the evening. Wendell Green hasn't made a big deal of that . . . at least not so far, but give him time. Talk about your cannibals! â€Å"Give the flowers a drink before you go, would you? It's been so dry.† â€Å"You bet.† Watering Sarah's flowers is a chore Dale likes. He gets some of his best thinking done with the garden hose in his hand. A pause from upstairs . . . but he hasn't heard her slippers shuffling back toward the bedroom. He waits. And at last: â€Å"You okay, hon?† â€Å"Fine,† he calls back, pumping what he hopes will be the right degree of heartiness into his voice. â€Å"Because you were still tossing around when I dropped off.† â€Å"No, I'm fine.† â€Å"Do you know what Davey asked me last night while I was washing his hair?† Dale rolls his eyes. He hates these long-distance conversations. Sarah seems to love them. He gets up and pours himself another cup of coffee. â€Å"No, what?† â€Å"He asked, ? ®Is Daddy going to lose his job?' â€Å" † Dale pauses with the cup halfway to his lips. â€Å"What did you say?† â€Å"I said no. Of course.† â€Å"Then you said the right thing.† He waits, but there is no more. Having injected him with one more dram of poisonous worry David's fragile psyche, as well as what a certain party might do to the boy, should David be so unlucky as to run afoul of him Sarah shuffles back to their room and, presumably, to the shower beyond. Dale goes back to the table, sips his coffee, then puts his hand to his forehead and closes his eyes. In this moment we can see precisely how frightened and miserable he is. Dale is just forty-two and a man of abstemious habits, but in the cruel morning light coming through the window by which we entered, he looks, for the moment, anyway, a sickly sixty. He is concerned about his job, knows that if the fellow who killed Amy and Johnny keeps it up, he will almost certainly be turned out of office the following year. He is also concerned about Davey . . . although Davey isn't his chief concern, for, like Fred Marshall, he cannot actually conceive that the Fisherman could take his and Sarah's own child. No, it is the other children of French Landing he is more worried about, possibly the children of Centralia and Arden as well. His worst fear is that he is simply not good enough to catch the son of a bitch. That he will kill a third, a fourth, perhaps an eleventh and twelfth. God knows he has requested help. And gotten it . . . sort of. There are two State Police detectives assigned to the case, and the FBI guy from Madison keeps checking in (on an informal basis, though; the FBI is not officially part of the investigation). Even his outside help has a surreal quality for Dale, one that has been partially caused by an odd coincidence of their names. The FBI guy is Agent John P. Redding. The state detectives are Perry Brown and Jeffrey Black. So he has Brown, Black, and Redding on his team. The Color Posse, Sarah calls them. All three making it clear that they are strictly working support, at least for the time being. Making it clear that Dale Gilbertson is the man standing on ground zero. Christ, but I wish Jack would sign on to help me with this, Dale thinks. I'd deputize him in a second, just like in one of those corny old Western movies. Yes indeed. In a second. When Jack had first come to French Landing, almost four years ago, Dale hadn't known what to make of the man his officers immediately dubbed Hollywood. By the time the two of them had nailed Thornberg Kinderling yes, inoffensive little Thornberg Kinderling, hard to believe but absolutely true he knew exactly what to make of him. The guy was the finest natural detective Dale had ever met in his life. The only natural detective, that's what you mean. Yes, all right. The only one. And although they had shared the collar (at the L.A. newcomer's absolute insistence), it had been Jack's detective work that had turned the trick. He was almost like one of those story-book detectives . . . Hercule Poirot, Ellery Queen, one of those. Except that Jack didn't exactly deduct, nor did he go around tapping his temple and talking about his â€Å"little gray cells.† He . . . â€Å"He listens,† Dale mutters, and gets up. He heads for the back door, then returns for his briefcase. He'll put it in the back seat of his cruiser before he waters the flower beds. He doesn't want those awful pictures in his house any longer than strictly necessary. He listens. Like the way he'd listened to Janna Massengale, the bartender at the Taproom. Dale had had no idea why Jack was spending so much time with the little chippy; it had even crossed his mind that Mr. Los Angeles Linen Slacks was trying to hustle her into bed so he could go back home and tell all his friends on Rodeo Drive that he'd gotten himself a little piece of the cheese up there in Wisconsin, where the air was rare and the legs were long and strong. But that hadn't been it at all. He had been listening, and finally she had told him what he needed to hear. Yeah, shurr, people get funny ticks when they're drinking, Janna had said. There's this one guy who starts doing this after a couple of belts. She had pinched her nostrils together with the tips of her fingers . . . only with her hand turned around so the palm pointed out. Jack, still smiling easily, still sipping a club soda: Always with the palm out? Like this? And mimicked the gesture. Janna, smiling, half in love: That's it, doll you're a quick study. Jack: Sometimes, I guess. What's this fella's name, darlin'? Janna: Kinderling. Thornberg Kinderling. She giggled. Only, after a drink or two once he's started up with that pinchy thing he wants everyone to call him Thorny. Jack, still with his own smile: And does he drink Bombay gin, darlin'? One ice cube, little trace of bitters? Janna's smile starting to fade, now looking at him as if he might be some kind of wizard: How'd you know that? But how he knew it didn't matter, because that was really the whole package, done up in a neat bow. Case closed, game over, zip up your fly. Eventually, Jack had flown back to Los Angeles with Thornberg Kinderling in custody Thornberg Kinderling, just an inoffensive, bespectacled farm-insurance salesman from Centralia, wouldn't say boo to a goose, wouldn't say shit if he had a mouthful, wouldn't dare ask your mamma for a drink of water on a hot day, but he had killed two prostitutes in the City of Angels. No strangulation for Thorny; he had done his work with a Buck knife, which Dale himself had eventually traced to Lapham Sporting Goods, the nasty little trading post a door down from the Sand Bar, Centralia's grungiest drinking establishment. By then DNA testing had nailed Kinderling's ass to the barn door, but Jack had been glad to have the provenance of the murder weapon anyway. He had called Dale personally to thank him, and Dale, who'd never been west of Denver in his life, had been almost absurdly touched by the courtesy. Jack had said several times during the course of the investigation that you could never have enough evidence when the doer was a genuine bad guy, and Thorny Kinderling had turned out to be about as bad as you could want. He'd gone the insanity route, of course, and Dale who had privately hoped he might be called upon to testify was delighted when the jury rejected the plea and sentenced him to consecutive life terms. And what made all that happen? What had been the first cause? Why, a man listening. That was all. Listening to a lady bartender who was used to having her breasts stared at while her words most commonly went in one ear of the man doing the staring and out the other. And who had Hollywood Jack listened to before he had listened to Janna Massengale? Some Sunset Strip hooker, it seemed . . . or more likely a whole bunch of them. (What would you call that, anyway? Dale wonders absently as he goes out to the garage to get his trusty hose. A shimmy of streetwalkers? A strut of hookers?) None of them could have picked Thornberg Kinderling out of a lineup, because the Thornberg who visited L.A. surely hadn't looked much like the Thornberg who traveled around to the farm-supply companies in the Coulee and over in Minnesota. L.A. Thorny had worn a wig, contacts instead of specs, and a little false mustache. â€Å"The most brilliant thing was the skin darkener,† Jack had said. â€Å"Just a little, just enough to make him look like a native.† â€Å"Dramatics all four years at French Landing High School,† Dale had replied grimly. â€Å"I looked it up. The little bastard played Don Juan his junior year, do you believe it?† A lot of sly little changes (too many for a jury to swallow an insanity plea, it seemed), but Thorny had forgotten that one revelatory little signature, that trick of pinching his nostrils together with the palm of his hand turned outward. Some prostitute had remembered it, though, and when she mentioned it only in passing, Dale has no doubt, just as Janna Massengale did Jack heard it. Because he listened. Called to thank me for tracing the knife, and again to tell me how the jury came back, Dale thinks, but that second time he wanted something, too. And I knew what it was. Even before he opened his mouth I knew. Because, while he is no genius detective like his friend from the Golden State, Dale had not missed the younger man's unexpected, immediate response to the landscape of western Wisconsin. Jack had fallen in love with the Coulee Country, and Dale would have wagered a good sum that it had been love at first look. It had been impossible to mistake the expression on his face as they drove from French Landing to Cen-tralia, from Centralia to Arden, from Arden to Miller: wonder, pleasure, almost a kind of rapture. To Dale, Jack had looked like a man who has come to a place he has never been before only to discover he is back home. â€Å"Man, I can't get over this,† he'd said once to Dale. The two of them had been riding in Dale's old Caprice cruiser, the one that just wouldn't stay aligned (and sometimes the horn stuck, which could be embarrassing). â€Å"Do you realize how lucky you are to live here, Dale? It must be one of the most beautiful places in the world.† Dale, who had lived in the Coulee his entire life, had not disagreed. Toward the end of their final conversation concerning Thornberg Kinderling, Jack had reminded Dale of how he'd once asked (not quite kidding, not quite serious, either) for Dale to let him know if a nice little place ever came on the market in Dale's part of the world, something out of town. And Dale had known at once from Jack's tone the almost anxious drop in his voice that the kidding was over. â€Å"So you owe me,† Dale murmurs, shouldering the hose. â€Å"You owe me, you bastard.† Of course he has asked Jack to lend an unofficial hand with the Fisherman investigation, but Jack has refused . . . almost with a kind of fear. I'm retired, he'd said brusquely. If you don't know what that word means, Dale, we can look it up in the dictionary together. But it's ridiculous, isn't it? Of course it is. How can a man not yet thirty-five be retired? Especially one who is so infernally good at the job? â€Å"You owe me, baby,† he says again, now walking along the side of the house toward the bib faucet. The sky above is cloudless; the well-watered lawn is green; there is nary a sign of slippage, not out here on Herman Street. Yet perhaps there is, and perhaps we feel it. A kind of discordant hum, like the sound of all those lethal volts coursing through the steel struts of the KDCU tower. But we have stayed here too long. We must take wing again and proceed to our final destination of this early morning. We don't know everything yet, but we know three important things: first, that French Landing is a town in terrible distress; second, that a few people ( Judy Marshall, for one; Charles Burnside, for another) understand on some deep level that the town's ills go far beyond the depredations of a single sick pedophile-murderer; third, that we have met no one capable of consciously recognizing the force the slippage that has now come to bear on this quiet town hard by Tom and Huck's river. Each person we've met is, in his own way, as blind as Henry Leyden. This is as true of the folks we haven't so far encountered Beezer St. Pierre, Wendell Green, the Color Posse as it is of those we have. Our hearts groan for a hero. And while we may not find one (this is the twenty-first century, after all, the days not of d'Artagnan and Jack Aubrey but of George W. Bush and Dirtysperm), we can perhaps find a man who was a hero once upon a time. Let us therefore search out an old friend, one we last glimpsed a thousand and more miles east of here, on the shore of the steady Atlantic. Years have passed and they have in some ways lessened the boy who was; he has forgotten much and has spent a good part of his adult life maintaining that state of amnesia. But he is French Landing's only hope, so let us take wing and fly almost due east, back over the woods and fields and gentle hills. Mostly, we see miles of unbroken farmland: regimental cornfields, luxuriant hay fields, fat yellow swaths of alfalfa. Dusty, narrow drives lead to white farmhouses and their arrays of tall barns, granaries, cylindrical cement-block silos, and long metal equipment sheds. Men in denim jackets are moving along the well-worn paths between the houses and the barns. We can already smell the sunlight. Its odor, richly compacted of butter, yeast, earth, growth, and decay, will intensify as the sun ascends and the light grows stronger. Below us, Highway 93 intersects Highway 35 at the center of tiny Centralia. The empty parking lot behind the Sand Bar awaits the noisy arrival of the Thunder Five, who customarily spend their Saturday afternoons, evenings, and nights in the enjoyment of the Sand Bar's pool tables, hamburgers, and pitchers of that ambrosia to the creation of which they have devoted their eccentric lives, Kingsland Brewing Company's finest product and a beer that can hold up its creamy head among anything made in a specialty microbrewery or a Belgian monastery, Kingsland Ale. If Beezer St. Pierre, Mouse, and company say it is the greatest beer in the world, why should we doubt them? Not only do they know much more about beer than we do, they called upon every bit of the knowledge, skill, expertise, and seat-of-the-pants inspiration at their disposal to make Kingsland Ale a benchmark of the brewer's art. In fact, they moved to French Landing because the brewery, which they had selected after careful del iberation, was willing to work with them. To invoke Kingsland Ale is to wish for a good-sized mouthful of the stuff, but we put temptation behind us; 7:30 A.M. is far too early for drinking anything but fruit juice, coffee, and milk (except for the likes of Wanda Kinderling, and Wanda thinks of beer, even Kingsland Ale, as a dietary supplement to Aristocrat vodka); and we are in search of our old friend and the closest we can come to a hero, whom we last saw as a boy on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean. We are not about to waste time; we are on the move, right here and now. The miles fly past beneath us, and along Highway 93 the fields narrow as the hills rise up on both sides. For all our haste, we must take this in, we must see where we are.

Critically evaluate the extent to which international law recognizes a Essay

Critically evaluate the extent to which international law recognizes a right of self-defence to prevent attacks by terrorist organizations - Essay Example This paper aims to provide an articulate understanding of the author’s point of view in conclusion to this discussion, after critically evaluating the various provisions contained in the UN Charter regarding the right of a State to defend itself. â€Å"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.†1 Under this provision, there is an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense of any member of the United Nations in case there is an armed attack that occurs.2 However, there is a limitation provided, in that, it is subject to review by the Security Council.3 Under customary international law, the pre-requisites to legitimate self-defense include the following: â€Å"1) an infringement or threatened infringement of the territorial integrity or political independence of the defending state; 2) the failure or inability of the other state to prevent the infringement; 3) the absence of alternative means to secure protection; and 4) the strict limitation of the defending states use of force to prevent the danger.†4 Although Article 51 of the UN Charter considers self-defense as an inherent right under customary international law, the provision providing for an â€Å"armed attack† is much debated.5 Various interpretations have also been made as regards the word â€Å"inherent† in the exercise of self-defence. The word â€Å"inherent† was said to have given a State the right to use

Do you consider Venezuela under Hugo Chavez (1998-2012) a democratic Essay

Do you consider Venezuela under Hugo Chavez (1998-2012) a democratic country - Essay Example He directed the movement in an unproductive coup overthrow against the Democratic Action government of Carlos Andrà ©s Pà ©rez, who was the president in 1992. This led to the imprisonment of Hugo Rafael Chà ¡vez Frà ­as (Feinberg, 1). Later on, after he was released, he formed a socialist political party two years later, it was called the Fifth Republic Movement, and he was voted president of Venezuela in 1998. In 2000, he was re-elected and during this second term, he presented the system of communal groups, Bolivarian Missions, and employee-managed companies, along with a land reform program, which was municipalizing main industries. In 2006, he was re-elected again with more than 60% of the votes. After emerging victorious in his fourth tenure as president in October 2012, defeating Henrique Capriles, Hugo Rafael Chà ¡vez Frà ­as was sworn on 10 January 2013. However, the Venezuela National Assembly decided to postpone the inaugural ceremony to give him time to enable him recuperate from medical treatment in Cuba, which resulted from a cancer return that was initially identified in June 2011. On 5 March 2013, Hugo Rafael Chà ¡vez Frà ­as passed away in Caracas at 58 years. During the duration Venezuela was under Hugo Chà ¡vez, it was not a democratic country, though Chà ¡vez was not a dictator, he crushed the democracy of the Venezuelan nation. In a period when South America was swiftly moving towards the far-left demagoguery from its ancient binaries of far right, Chà ¡vez was still holding Venezuela back in the past, both politically and economically. Under the decade of Chà ¡vez, while other nations like Peru and Brazil became representations of equality and success, Venezuela appeared to go back to the bad ancient days. It is true that the polls were usually well conducted and fair under his regime. He even freely accepted defeat in one

Israeli perception on the six day war and the security dilemma Research Paper

Israeli perception on the six day war and the security dilemma - Research Paper Example The Israeli were angered by the actions of the Arab Nations and the lack of action from the United States and UNEF. Israeli decided to seek a peaceful agreement from the U.S. and UNEF but failed to reach an agreement, this made the Israeli’s to start war with the Arab countries, and in the end Israeli emerged victorious over these countries. Israeli`s Defense Forces had no reason to go to war but were forced by circumstances to fight, for the protection of its people, and securing security for its people. Key words: Israeli, Six Day War, Security, Dilemma, Perception, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Arab, U.S., Israeli Defense Force, Army, National Security, Doctrine, Forces, Quality, Quantity, Resources, Threat The Six Day War was a war between five Arab neighbors namely; Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Israeli and her neighbors, in which Israeli captured the most part of Arab territory. This war broke out on 5 June, 1967 and ended on 10 June 1967, following a three week tension, when th e Israelites learned that Egypt had deployed a large army in Sinai Peninsula. The cause of the Six Day War was as a result of increased tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors in the mid 1960`s. Israeli ruling to divert the waters of River Jordan to Negev Desert frustrated the Arabs, who wanted the river to flow to Lake Galilee. Syria had begun to divert the waters but this made Israel bomb Syria in the years 1965 and 1966. Egypt played a big role in the Six Day War; this was because of the: blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, the Fatah and PLO raid on Israel, the creation of an independent Israel, Israel decision to strike first in 1967, and expulsion of UN forces from Egypt (Rea and Wright, 1997). Historians sited that the reason for Israel attack was because of the poor economic conditions it was experiencing at the time. They explained that a war would distract people`s minds from unemployment and low development and this would bring foreign currency, to boost the economy (â₠¬Å"Causes of the War,† n.d.). The cold war tension motivated and exploited the soviets, to take advantage of the destabilized region, and provide them with military and economic assistance, in order to outsmart Jordan and Iraq, as it increased threats on Israeli By the end of the war, Israeli had captured triple the size of the area controlled. Israeli unified Jerusalem, Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank. Israeli hope was to have peaceful negotiations with the Arabs states (Bard, 2012). Israelis perspective on the events that led to the Six Day War was influenced by views of itself in the region and in the international community during that time. Israeli thought its existence was been threatened, before the war broke out, leaders were also concerned about how Israel would survive. This made Israel to pay back the continued Arab hostility and specific attacks. They thought that this would make the Arab leaders cease to attack Israel and caution them to control the ir acts against Israeli. Many unfriendly superpowers gave Arab countries aid to attack Israeli, and this angered them because of their hostility and unfriendly ways. The main reasons for Israeli attacks were the severe Arab threats, and the role of the United States in a threat that was serious. On May 23, President Nasser of Egypt announced the blockage of strait of Tiran, this changed Israeli`s perception. The question many asked was, what is the United States doing about this decision, and was is

Marketing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 5

Marketing - Essay Example The NMC, ROI and ROS need to be seen from the tactical and strategic perspectives before one thinks of adopting any of these three or a combination of all of them for the sake of the business. b) Evaluate the employment of profit-oriented marketing objectives in general from a moral-ethical perspective. From a moral-ethical perspective, the profit-oriented marketing objectives must always be aligned in such a way that the people do not suffer due to the same count. This is because the profit-oriented marketing tactics are always aimed at benefiting more and more from the organizational stance. The moral-ethical perspective is such that it is on the opposite side all the same where it focuses more on the people and the society at large rather than mincing any profits or benefits in the long run scheme of things (Wood, 2011). The moral-ethical perspective is such that it will always bank on delivering sound results, however in keeping with the debates of morality more than profit-makin g at the end of the day.

Research Design Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Research Design - Assignment Example A mixed methods approach utilizes both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis techniques. Qualitative techniques focus on understanding the salient meaning of human experiences (Cronholm and Hjalmarsson 89). In this specific research, the qualitative approach will target to understand the customers experiences concerning the consumption of taboo foods. A qualitative study will help in understanding different views, opinions, convictions, and attitudes of customers towards taboo foods. On the other hand, quantitative research will help in establishing any existing relationships between different variables identified in the research. Quantitative research helps in providing measurable evidence, which is useful in explaining the cause and effect relationships. Some research questions identified above will be best addressed using quantitative techniques. Prior to conducting both interviews and questionnaires, it is important to seek consent from both the interviewees and the respondents. This means that all the respondents and interviewees should sign an informed consent form (Sadan 258). This is a critical step in promoting ethical considerations in any research. The qualitative part of this research will seek to analyze the views of customers concerning their experience of taboo foods. Therefore, interviews prove to be the most effective data collection technique. Purposive sampling will serve as the most appropriate technique in the selection of interviewees. This means that customers who are likely to give the most productive answers will be the target of the interviews. Moreover, some hoteliers will attend the interview sessions in an effort to outline the approaches and the strategies they use in ensuring that customers can perceive taboo foods more positively. Since there is limited time and resources, a specific number of manageable interviewees will be selected. The interview sessions will involve the use of open-ended questions and

Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes - Essay Example The point is that Bacon considered the reality as perceptional, empirical thing, that’s why the only knowledge that can be reliable for humans is the perceptional one. Rational thinking only processes the empirical information. Descartes’ method or rational analysis of deduction is about thinking only. Descartes claims that any knowledge that we get must be questioned by doubt not to take wrong and mistaken information for truth. By deduction Descartes means analyzing the reality by finding the most elementary truth, which lately will lead to some bigger truth and this consistent order of research must reveal the origins of everything. But the main rule in this inquiry is to be skeptical, because only skeptical approach can discern wrong and truthful knowledge and select the appropriate one to move on in exploration. Bacon’s and Descartes’ methods are obviously totally different, because the fundamentals the thinkers use in their approaches are considered to be opposite. Descartes uses rational thinking and doubt-based analysis, while Bacon claims that the only thing researcher can rely on is empirical knowledge. Both Locke’s and Hobbes’ political theories are based on the concept of social agreement (contract). But the main essential difference between the roles of government in these theories is in their opposite views on basis of society: Hobbes claims that society is based on feud of people with each other, when Locke says that it is equality what makes people to conclude social agreement.

Book One Amazing Thing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Book One Amazing Thing - Essay Example As mentioned earlier, all those people who were trapped inside the building will be rescued. They will be able to travel to India. They will carry with them all the good things that they have learned from the tragedy, especially all the good aspects of life that they have heard from the various characters’ life stories. They will carry with them one of the most important lessons they have learned from their experience: hope will never be lost especially if there is cooperation or group spirit. They will completely learn the importance of struggle and its power to strengthen one’s character. And, it is not the commonalities that strengthen a group, but the differences. All the nine characters will successfully resolve the issues and conflicts in their lives. They will find a definite purpose for their travel to India. It will not merely be for pleasure, but for a deeper, more reflective