text:
Mohammad-Taqi Bahar

Mohammad-Taqi Bahar (also romanized as Mohammad-Taqī Bahār; 10 December 1886 in Mashhad – 22 April 1951 in Tehran), widely known as Malek osh-Sho'arā and Malek osh-Sho'arā Bahār ("poet laureate," literally: the king of poets), was a renowned Iranian poet, scholar, politician, journalist, historian and Professor of Literature. Although he was a 20th-century poet, his poems are fairly traditional and strongly nationalistic in character. Bahar was father of prominent Iranist, linguist, mythologist and Persian historian Mehrdad Bahar.

Biography
Mohammad-Taqí Bahār was born on 10 December 1886 in the Sarshoor District of Mashhad, the capital city of the Khorasan Province in the north-east of Iran to a family from Kashan with Kurdish ancestry. His father was Mohammad Kazem Sabouri, the Poet Laureate of the shrine in Mashhad who held the honorific title of Malek o-Sho'arā ("King of Poets"), while his mother was a devout woman named Hajjiyeh Sakineh Khanum. Bahār was of Georgian descent on his maternal side. His mother's forebears were Georgian notables who had been captured by the troops of Abbas Mirza during the Russo-Iranian Wars and were taken to mainland Iran, where they eventually converted to Islam. Bahār's paternal great-great-grandfather was Hajj Mohammad-Baqer Kashani, who in turn was the son of Hajj Abd ol-Qader Kharabaf of Kashan.

Bahār began his primary education when he was three, with his father, Mohammad Kāzem Sabouri, as his tutor. In addition to his private schooling, Bahār attended one of the traditional schools, Maktab Khāneh, in Mashhad. To enhance his knowledge of Persian and Arabic, he further attended the classes of Adib Nai'shābouri, a traditional poet and literary scholar who promoted the style of the poets of Khorasan in the early Islamic era, in the tradition of the so-called bāzgasht-e adabī (literary regress). It has been said that Bahār knew by heart a very good portion of the Koran at a very early age. According to Bahār himself, at seven he read Shahnameh and fully grasped the meaning of Ferdowsi's Epic poems.

Bahār composed his first poem at age eight, at which time he also chose the name Bahār, meaning Spring, as his pen name (takhallos in Persian). It is known that Bahār chose this pen name after Bahār Shirvāni, a poet and close friend of his father's, after Shirvāni's death. Shirvāni was a renowned poet during Nasser-al-Din Shah Qajar.

At 14, Bahār was fluent in Arabic, and later he achieved spoken and written fluency in French. At 18, he lost his father and started to work as a Muslim preacher and clergy. It was during this time that he composed a long ode (Qasideh in Persian) and sent it to Mozzafar-al-Din Shah who became so deeply impressed by this ode that he immediately appointed Bahār as his Poet Laureate and by Royal Decree conferred on him, at the age of 19 (1903), the title of Malek o-Sho'arā at the shrine of Imam Reza in Mashad.

At the onset of the Constitutional Revolution of Iran (1906–1911), Bahār laid down his position of Poet Laureateship and joined the revolutionary movement for establishing the parliamentary system of democracy in Iran. Bahār became an active member of the Mashhad branch of Anjoman-e Sa'ādat (Society for Prosperity) that campaigned for establishment of Parliament of Iran (Majles ). He published the semi-covert newspaper Khorāsān, in collaboration with Hossein Ardebili, Nou-bahār (New Spring), and Tāzeh-bahār (Fresh Spring), both in collaboration with his cousin Haj Sheikh Ahmad Bahar who operated a printing company and who acted as the Senior Editor first in Mashhad and later in Tehran.

Bahār published numerous articles in his newspapers in which he passionately exhorted his readers to stand up and help bring about the establishment of a functioning Parliament. He equally forcefully advocated the creation of new and reformed public institutions, a new social and political order and of new forms of expression. After the triumph of the Constitutional Revolution, Bahār was repeatedly elected as a Member of Parliament.

In 1918, when Ahmad Shah Qajar, the seventh and the last ruler of the Qajar dynasty, was in power, Bahār reinvented himself: he ceased all his clerical activities and became an entirely new man. At the same time, he together with the writer and poet Saeed Nafisi, the poet and historian Gholam-Reza Rashid Yasemi the historian Abbas Eqbāl Ashtiāni, and his talented friend Abdolhossein Teymourtash founded The Literary Association of the academy (Anjoman-e Adabi-ye Dāneshkadeh). The Magazine of the academy (Majaleh-ye Dāneshkadeh) was the monthly publication of this Association, in which, in addition to works of prose and poetry, other very informative and useful articles were published, under such diverse titles as "Literary Revolution", "How other nations view us" and "The Literary History of Iran". In fact, this magazine became Bahār's vehicle for publication of the results of his literary researches and introduction of Western Literature to Iranians. The magazine also played a key role in developing and strengthening the present-day form of Persian Literature.

Following establishment of Tehran University in 1934 (during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi), Bahār became Professor of Persian Literature at the Faculty of Literature of this university. In the course of his tenure as Professor, he dedicated most of his time to writing and editing books on Persian Literature and History. Notable amongst numerous works written and edited by Bahār are:

 * Tārikh-e Sistān (History of Sistān),
 * Tārikh-e Mokh'tasar-e Ahzāb-e Siāssi (A Concise History of the Political Parties),
 * Sabk Shenāsi (Methodology), which concerns the variety of styles and traditions of Persian prose,
 * Moj'malal ol-Tavārikh o val Qesās (Concise Histories and Tales),
 * Javāme' ol-Hekāyāt (Anthology of Stories),
 * Two volumes of verse, consisting of his own poems.

In 1945, during Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's reign, Bahār served for a short period as the Minister of Culture and Education in the Cabinet of the then Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam (also known as Qavam os-Saltaneh). Earlier in the same year he and Ahmad Qavam had created the Tiran Democratic Party (Hezb-e Demokrāt-e Tirān).

In the last years of his life, Bahār suffered from Tuberculosis. He sought medical treatment in Leysin, Switzerland, in a sanatorium, where he stayed between 1947 and 1949. It was not long after his return to Iran that his health quickly deteriorated. He died on 21 April 1951, at his home in Tehran. He is entombed in Zahir o-dowleh Cemetery in Darband, located in Shemiran, north of Tehran.

His poems
Although Bahār was a 20th-century poet, his poems are quite traditional and decidedly patriotic. Many scholars have strongly emphasized and documented that Bahār's style of writing and the beauty of his poetry, in addition to his deep passion for Iran and his persistent opposition to fanaticism, have indeed made him one of the greatest cultural icons of modern Iran. Although he worked for some period of time as a clergyman and preacher, his first and foremost passion had always been writing, especially of poetry, as well as carrying out historical researches and teaching.

Through his literary magazine, The Magazine of the academy (Majaleh-ye Dāneshkadeh), Bahār had a significant impact on the development of modern Persian poetry and literature. One may argue that, to varying degrees, almost all the early advocates of modernism in Persian Poetry and Literature found their inspirations in the new developments and changes that had taken place in Western literature. Nonetheless, such inspirations would not have easily resulted in changes without the efforts and support of such figures as Bahār, whose literary contributions were, and remain consonant with Iranian culture. In Bahār's collection of poems, one finds poems composed in almost every tradition of Persian Poetry. To name a few, he wrote Panegyric (Setāyeshi or Madiheh), Epic (Hamāsi), Patriotic (Mihaní), Heraldic and Mystic (Ramzi or Sufi'āneh), Romantic (Āasheghāneh), Ethical (Akhlāghi), Didactic (Āmuzeshi or Pandi), Colloquial (Goft-o-gu'í), and Satirical (Tanzi or Hajvi). Bahār's Official Website has made a selection of Bahār's poetry available to the general public, which the interested reader may wish to consult.

The Chained White Beast
"The Chained White Beast" is a poem by Bahar, written in 1922, in which he praises Damavand, the highest mountain in Iran, and presents it as a symbol of patriotism. The opportunity had come for the nationalists to take the floor and criticize the regime. Bahar's symbol for provoking patriotic upheavals is a reflection of the growth of the notion of nationalism which had been introduced to Iranians only few decades before. Bahar describes Damavand as a beast, and asks it to rise and wipe out injustice, and let the real Iran flourish.

title: Mohammad-Taqi Bahar


text:
Talk:I Never Promised You a Rose Garden (novel)

I'making
I'm making the Yri language a separate page because I'm going to give the entire (small) vocabulary as delineated by Greenberg. It exists nowhere else on line. And I'll link to wiki pages on constructed language and to conlang pages on line. Bluejay Young 3-16-04

In the Plot Summary section there are references first to childhood urethra surgery and second to "the brain surgery". Are these supposed to be the same event? If not, when did the neurosurgery take place? Asat (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a fantasy novel
I have rewritten the plot summary, as the previous version spent far too much time on the Kingdom of Yr and barely mentioned Deborah's experiences in the mental hospital. Most of the book is about the hospital, the people Deborah meets there, and her therapy sessions. Deborah's delusions are an important part of the story, but the plot summary made it sound like a fantasy novel about a girl who travels to a magical realm that might actually be real. That is not what the book is about at all. CKarnstein (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What year published?
So was it, 1964, or 1992, both are listed on the page, I'm guessing the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.38.183 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, talk about doctors missing the point
That line about that doc insisting that Yri was bastardized Armenian as some sort of damning proof of unsickness -- gah, talk about an asshole. It's acknowledged in the book (by Deb herself) how much of Yr is from her life & that Yr never goes beyond her personal knowledge. That doesn't make the creativity any less; it definitely doesn't make her sickness any less. All creative people base their creations on what already exists; creating something utterly, completely new & unique is very rare, if not impossible -- even Tolkien based his Elvish and Dwarven languages on existing Earth languages. So Deb/Greenberg based her Yri on known languages...so? What's that supposed to prove? That Deb's creativity is just like that of any "healthy" artist's? That sick people are somehow "faking" if their internal landscape isn't 100% original?

In other words, the doc's holding Deb's sickness up against some impossible criteria that no artist -- sick or healthy -- can meet. Or whoever put that doc's words in the Wiki are trying to do the same thing, which makes them sound like a typical whiny fanboy nitpicking shit that no one else cares about. Guess what? Artists are human. Their sickness is human. Sorry if their sickness doesn't live up to your expectations of what delusions "should" be.

No wonder Greenberg portrayed that doc as utterly clueless in the story: that's what his "criticisms" come across as. Zenfrodo (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I Knew Hannah Green
The big mystery I have about this book is "who is Joanne Greenberg"? Hannah Weiner Green was a neighbor of mine when I was a child in Magnolia MA 1958-1962. She was a beautiful former Bonwit Teller model, a sweet woman with a tortured soul. I was an adoring admirer of hers. She was close friends with another neighbor (I'll call him JG) who remained friends with her after she moved away. Around 1962 he told us she had been admitted to MacLean Hospital and as part of her therapy, she was encouraged to write a book. The title she had already chosen: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden. It went to print in 1964. I somehow obtained a copy years later and I was shocked to see the Joanne Greenberg author bio, which I thought was a total fabrication. But knowing Hannah's fears, I figured she was protecting herself. Now I see that the original book cover correctly credits Hannah, a real person, and Greenberg is on newer editions. If Hannah is still alive, she'd be in her 90s. I'd love to see her. 2001:558:6017:148:E862:F036:925B:118E (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Tom Heinsohn

Thomas William Heinsohn (August 26, 1934 – November 9, 2020) was an American professional basketball player, coach, and broadcaster. He was associated with the Boston Celtics of the National Basketball Association (NBA) for six decades as a player, coach and broadcaster. He played for the Celtics from 1956 to 1965, and also coached the team from 1969 to 1978. He spent over 30 years as the color commentator for the Celtics' local broadcasts alongside play-by-play commentator Mike Gorman. He is regarded as one of the most iconic Celtics figures in the franchise's history, known during his lifetime for his charisma and loyalty to the team and its traditions. From this, he earned the nickname "Mr. Celtic".

Heinsohn was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame for his contributions as a player. He was also inducted into the Hall of Fame for his success as a head coach. He also helped form the NBA Players Association. Heinsohn was the only person to have the distinction of being involved in an official team capacity in each of the Celtics' first 17 championships, as well as each of their first 21 NBA Finals appearances.

Early life
Thomas William Heinsohn was born on August 26, 1934, in Jersey City, New Jersey. Heinsohn moved while in elementary school to Union City, New Jersey, where he was a standout at St. Michael's High School.

College career
Heinsohn accepted a scholarship to Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts and became the school's all-time leading scorer with 1,789 points, an average of 22.1 points per game. During his senior year, Heinsohn scored a school-record 51 points in a game against Boston College, and averaged 27.4 points per game and 21.1 rebounds per game for the season.

Boston Celtics (1956–1965)
In 1956, Heinsohn was chosen as the Boston Celtics 'regional', or 'territorial', draft pick. In his first season, Heinsohn played in the NBA All-Star Game and was named the NBA Rookie of the Year over teammate Bill Russell. He finished his rookie season by winning his first championship ring, scoring 37 points and grabbing 23 rebounds in the double-overtime 7th game of the NBA Finals.

Heinsohn was part of a Celtics squad that won eight NBA titles in nine years, including seven in a row between 1959 and 1965. In NBA history, only teammates Russell and Sam Jones won more championship rings during their playing careers, and Heinsohn's streak of going to the NBA Finals each season of his nine-year career is unmatched. Heinsohn was also the first in NBA history to score 1,000 points in the NBA Finals. Heinsohn retired after nine seasons due to a foot injury.

During his playing career, Heinsohn was named to six All-Star teams. On the day his teammate and fellow Holy Cross Crusader Bob Cousy retired, Heinsohn scored his 10,000th career point. His number 15 was retired by the Celtics in 1966.

Off the court, Heinsohn played an important leadership role in the NBA Players Association. He was the association's second president, following founding president Bob Cousy, and was instrumental in the league's acceptance of a pension plan for players following a showdown at the All-Star game in 1964, in which the All-Star players, led by Heinsohn, threatened to strike.

Boston Celtics (1969–1978)
Heinsohn became the Celtics' head coach beginning in the 1969–70 season, following Bill Russell's retirement as both player and coach. Initially, the team missed Russell's impact, and the Celtics struggled in both 1969–70 and 1970–71, failing to reach the playoffs in both seasons.

The team broke through the following season, making the conference finals. Heinsohn then led the team to a league-best 68–14 record during the 1972–73 season and was named Coach of the Year, although Boston was upset in the playoffs by the eventual champion New York Knicks. To date, this is the best regular season record in Celtics history.

The next season Heinsohn and the Celtics won the championship, and they claimed another title in 1976. Between 1971–72 and 1975–76 seasons, the Celtics would win at least 50 games a season. The team would take a step back in the 1976–77 season, finishing 44–38, and was eliminated in the second round of the playoffs.

The Celtics started poorly in the 1977–78 season, and were 11–23 after a loss to the Chicago Bulls in late December. Heinsohn would leave the team shortly thereafter, replaced by his former teammate and coaching assistant Tom "Satch" Sanders. He accumulated a career coaching record of 427–263.

On February 14, 2015, it was announced that Heinsohn would be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame for a second time as a coaching inductee. He is one of five members of the class of 2015 who were directly elected and is just one of four people to be inducted as both a player and coach.

Broadcasting career
Heinsohn's broadcasting career began in 1966, calling play-by-play for WKBG's Celtics broadcasts, after being asked by Red Auerbach. He spent three seasons in this role before becoming coach in 1969. From 1990 to 1999, Heinsohn was the Celtics' road play-by-play man on WFXT, WSBK and WABU. In 1981, Heinsohn joined Mike Gorman as color commentator on PRISM New England, which held the Celtics' television broadcasts. They became one of the longest-tenured tandems in sports broadcasting history. Occasionally, Bob Cousy made appearances with the tandem of Heinsohn and Gorman. On Celtics broadcasts, Heinsohn liked to point out players who displayed extra hustle to help the team by giving them "Tommy Points." One player in each game had exceptional play and hustle highlighted for the "Tommy Award". During broadcasts he was known for his sense of humor and indignantly questioning game officials when he felt calls against the Celtics were made in error.

For a time in the 1980s, Heinsohn was in the same capacity during CBS's playoff coverage of the NBA (with Dick Stockton), calling four Finals from 1984 to 1987, three of which involved the Boston Celtics against the Los Angeles Lakers. Heinsohn also teamed with Brent Musburger, Verne Lundquist, and James Brown during his time with CBS. Heinsohn also called NCAA college basketball during the Men's Tournaments starting with the 1986–87 season, later devoting more time to calling college games for CBS than the pros, being used for regular season as well as tournament games until the 1990 NCAA men's basketball tournament. For NCAA games, Heinsohn was typically paired with Verne Lundquist. After the 1987 NBA season, Heinsohn was moved from the primary color analyst role to 2nd on the network's depth chart, being paired with Brent Musburger for the 1987–88 season, calling solely playoff games. Heinsohn in the 1988–89 season again only called playoff games, paired with Verne Lundquist. In his final season, Heinsohn called a regular-season game for CBS as well as early-round 1990 NBA playoff games with James Brown.

Personal life and later career
Heinsohn was married to Diane Regenhard. Their marriage ended in divorce. Tom and Diane Heinsohn had three children: Paul, David, and Donna. He had 5 grandchildren: Danielle, Victoria, Brooke, Adrian, and Christopher. Heinsohn's second wife was Helen Weiss, who died in 2008.

Away from the court, Heinsohn enjoyed painting and playing golf; he once headed a life insurance company. In 1988, he wrote a memoir titled "Give 'em the Hook", with writer Joe Fitzgerald.

Death
Heinsohn died at his home from kidney failure on November 9, 2020, at the age of 86.

Awards and honors

 * 10-time NBA Champion (eight as a player, two as a head coach)
 * 1957 Rookie of the Year
 * Six-time NBA All-Star
 * 1973 Coach of the Year
 * Two-time Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame inductee (as a player in 1986, and as a coach in 2015)
 * Recipient of the 1995 Jack McMahon Award by the National Basketball Coaches Association
 * Recipient of the 2009 Chuck Daly Lifetime Achievement Award by the NBA Coaches Association
 * Number 15 retired by the Boston Celtics.
 * Number 24 retired by Holy Cross

title: Tom Heinsohn


text:
Catherine Bell (actress)

Catherine Lisa Bell (born 14 August 1968) is a British-American actress and model known for her roles as Lieutenant Colonel Sarah MacKenzie in the television series JAG from 1997 to 2005, Denise Sherwood in the series Army Wives from 2007 to 2013, and Cassandra "Cassie" Nightingale in Hallmark's The Good Witch films and television series from 2008 to 2021.

Early life
Catherine Lisa Bell was born on 14 August 1968 in London to a Scottish father, Peter Bell, and an Iranian mother, Mina Ezzati. Peter was working as an architect under contract to an oil company in Iran; Mina had travelled to London to study nursing. Bell's parents divorced when Catherine was two years old. She was raised by her mother and maternal grandparents. The family eventually moved to California's San Fernando Valley where Bell was exposed to diverse influences. The family spoke Persian at home. Her grandparents were Muslim, but Catherine was also exposed to Catholicism and attended a Baptist summer camp. In her teenage years, Catherine came under the influence of her California surroundings: "I am definitely a Valley Girl. I was a tomboy. I liked to skateboard, play football, and push the envelope a little bit". Catherine enrolled at UCLA, where she considered a career in medicine or research. However, when she was offered a modelling job in Japan, where advertisers value "American beauty", she dropped out during her second year.

Career
When Bell returned to the United States, she decided to try acting. She studied at the Beverly Hills Playhouse with Milton Katselas. She also worked as a massage therapist for eight years at the Peninsula Hotel, and her clients included singer Peter Gabriel. Bell's first television acting role was one line spoken to Gabriel on the short-lived 1990 sitcom Sugar and Spice.

Among her first parts was Isabella Rossellini' body double for the 1992 film Death Becomes Her.

In 1994, Bell starred in the Dolph Lundgren film Men of War. While filming the movie in Thailand, Bell and her co-star Trevor Goddard bonded over contracting amoebic dysentery. Goddard would play Bell's off-and-on love interest Mic Brumby the following year on JAG. They remained friends until Goddard's death from a drug overdose in June 2003, an event that the bereaved Bell described as "horrible".

In 1995, she obtained a three-line role in one episode of the NBC TV series JAG, which centers on the work of the United States Department of the Navy's Judge Advocate General office. NBC canceled the show after which it was picked up by CBS, which restructured the series, incorporating a female Marine Corps lawyer character, Sarah MacKenzie. Bell auditioned for that role and won it. She continued in this role until the series ended in 2005.

Beginning in 2007, Bell starred in Lifetime's ensemble drama series Army Wives as Denise Sherwood, the wife of a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, who endures domestic violence at the hands of her teenage son during the show's first season.

Bell played the role of Cassandra "Cassie" Nightingale, the main character of Hallmark's The Good Witch (2008), and its sequels The Good Witch's Garden (2009), The Good Witch's Gift (2010), The Good Witch's Family (2011), The Good Witch's Charm (2012), The Good Witch's Destiny (2013), and The Good Witch's Wonder (2014). She was also a co-executive producer of all of the movies. She also starred in the Lifetime movie titled Last Man Standing (2011).

In 2015, it was reported that Bell would star in the movie Love Finds Its Way, which would begin filming in 2016. Production began on the film in March 2017, with Vancouver as the filming location, and 9 July 2017 as the date for the film's premiere on the Hallmark Channel.

On 2 April 2019, CBS announced that Bell would be reprising her JAG role of Sarah "Mac" MacKenzie alongside former co-star David James Elliott for a multi-episode arc in the tenth season of NCIS: Los Angeles.

In 2022, Bell starred in the Lifetime film Jailbreak Lovers as part of its "Ripped from the Headlines" feature film which tells the story of how Toby Dorr snuck inmate John Manard out of prison in a dog crate which sparked a manhunt.

Personal life
Bell is fluent in Persian and English. She is fond of motorcycling, skiing, snowboarding and kickboxing. Her hobbies include cross-stitching and making model cars, which she has done since age eight.

During the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike, Bell took flying lessons in a Cirrus SR22.

Bell met actor-production assistant Adam Beason on the set of the 1992 film Death Becomes Her. They were married on 8 May 1994. They are the parents of two children. They lived in a nearly 5700 sqft faux-Tuscan-style mini-mansion in Calabasas, California. The couple sold the house in 2010, and publicly confirmed that they had separated sometime before September 2011. They eventually divorced in 2011.

Since 2012, Bell has lived with fellow Scientologist, photographer and party planner Brooke Daniells, together with their children, in Los Angeles. In 2014, Bell paid US$2.05 million for a single-story ranch house on a 1.2 acre lot in the gated Hidden Hills community in the western suburbs of Los Angeles.

Scientology
Bell was raised Roman Catholic and attended an all-girls Catholic school (Our Lady of Corvallis High School in Los Angeles). She is a practicing Scientologist. Bell has attested to attaining the Scientology state of Clear. She has supported Scientology's Hollywood Education and Literacy Project. In December 2005, Bell helped promote the gala opening of the "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" museum of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (a Scientology supported group). In February 2006, Bell appeared in a Scientology music video called "United".

title: Catherine Bell (actress)


text:
1954 United States Capitol shooting

The 1954 United States Capitol shooting was an attack on March 1, 1954, by four Puerto Rican nationalists seeking to promote Puerto Rican independence from the United States. They fired 30 rounds from semi-automatic pistols onto the legislative floor from the Ladies' Gallery (a balcony for visitors) of the House of Representatives chamber within the United States Capitol.

The nationalists, identified as Lolita Lebrón, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Andres Figueroa Cordero, and Irvin Flores Rodríguez, unfurled a Puerto Rican flag and began shooting at Representatives in the 83rd Congress, who were debating an immigration bill. Five Representatives were wounded, one seriously, but all recovered. The assailants were arrested, tried successively in two federal courts and convicted. All received long consecutive sentences, amounting to life imprisonment. In 1978 and 1979, their sentences were commuted by President Jimmy Carter. All four returned to Puerto Rico.

Independence movement in Puerto Rico
The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party was founded on September 17, 1922, by people seeking independence. They contended that, as a matter of international law, the 1898 Treaty of Paris, ending the Spanish–American War, could not empower the Spanish to "give" what was no longer theirs, in light of the 1897 Carta de Autonomía (Spanish Charter of Autonomy), whereby the Spanish Empire released Puerto Rico from colonial rule, giving the island sovereignty. While the Nationalists and other political parties supported independence, some political parties supported autonomy for the island within a formal relationship with the United States.

During this period of unrest, the electorate increasingly voted for the People's Democratic Party (PPD), which by 1940 controlled a majority in the legislature. It supported the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950 by the US Congress, which established Puerto Rico as an Estado Libre Asociado ("Free Associated State"), with some autonomy. The people could elect their own governor, from the ruling PPD party; a bicameral legislature was established, and executive functions similar to those of American states were developed. The US retained responsibility for defense and foreign treaties.

Puerto Rican Nationalist Party response
The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party Revolts of the 1950s were a call for independence against the US government. The party demanded the recognition of the 1897 Carta de Autonomía, and Puerto Rico's international sovereignty. It also repudiated the status of Estado Libre Asociado, established in 1950 by law, as continued colonialism.

The Nationalist president, Pedro Albizu Campos, ordered armed uprisings on October 30, 1950, in several towns, including Peñuelas, Mayagüez, Naranjito, Arecibo and Ponce. The most notable uprisings occurred in Utuado, Jayuya, and San Juan. They were suppressed by Puerto Rican forces, assisted by US forces.

In Utuado, police killed the insurgents after they attacked the station. In Jayuya, insurgents declared the "Free Republic of Puerto Rico" after taking control of the police station; they held the city for three days, until the U.S. sent bomber planes, artillery, Puerto Rican National Guard and Army troops to suppress the revolt. In San Juan, the Nationalists attacked the governor's residence, intending to assassinate the governor, Luis Muñoz Marín, but were unsuccessful.

The revolts resulted in many casualties: of the 28 dead, 16 were Nationalists, 7 were police officers, 1 a National Guardsman, and 4 were uninvolved civilians. Of the 49 wounded, 23 were police officers, 6 were National guardsmen, 9 were Nationalists, and 11 were uninvolved civilians.

The actions were not limited to Puerto Rico. Two Puerto Rican Nationalists, who were living in New York City at the time, planned to assassinate the US president, Harry S. Truman. On November 1, 1950, they attacked police and Secret Service to gain access to Blair House in Washington, D.C., where Truman was staying during major renovations of the White House. One Nationalist, Griselio Torresola, was killed in the attack, as was a White House police officer, Leslie Coffelt. The other, Oscar Collazo, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison.

Acknowledging the importance of the question of Puerto Rico's status, Truman supported a plebiscite in Puerto Rico in 1952 offering a choice between continued direct rule as a colony and limited autonomy. While nearly 82% of those voting approved the new constitution and Free Associated State, or Commonwealth, independence was not an option on the ballot and most Nationalists boycotted the election.

Attack preparations
Nationalists were not satisfied with the people's vote in the plebiscite. In the early 1950s, Don Pedro Albizu Campos, president of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, had been corresponding from his prison with 34-year-old Lolita Lebrón. Some of this correspondence discussed the Nationalist Party revolts of 1950. It also discussed Puerto Rican Governor Luis Muñoz Marín, who had succeeded in having Puerto Rico declared an Estado Libre Asociado (Free Associated State) of the U.S.

In 1954, a group of Nationalists, which included Lebrón, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irvin Flores and Andrés Figueroa Cordero, decided to focus the world's attention on Puerto Rico's status, which they considered as a colony of the U.S. They planned to attack multiple locations in Washington, D.C., with force.

Albizu Campos did not order this attack, but the Nationalists continued to plan for it. Lebrón decided to lead the group and, eventually, the attack. Lebrón concluded that a single attack on the House of Representatives had a greater prospect for success than trying to attack multiple targets. They chose the date of March 1, 1954, to coincide with the opening of the Conferencia Interamericana (Interamerican Conference) in Caracas. Lebrón intended to call attention to Puerto Rico's independence cause, particularly among the Latin American countries at the conference.

Attack
On the morning of March 1, Lebrón traveled to Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan, where she rendezvoused with the rest of the group. They took the train to Washington, DC, and went the short distance from Union Station to the Capitol. Rafael Cancel Miranda suggested they postpone the attack, as it was late and the weather was rainy. Lebrón said, "I am alone" and continued towards the Capitol building's interior. The group looked at each other, and decided to follow her.

When Lebrón's group reached the visitor's gallery above the House chamber, they sat while the representatives discussed the Mexican economy and issues of immigration. After Lebrón gave the order, the group quickly recited the Lord's Prayer. She stood up and shouted, "¡Viva Puerto Rico libre!" (approximately, "Long live a free Puerto Rico!") and unfurled the flag of Puerto Rico. The group opened fire with semi-automatic pistols toward the Representatives below.

Some 30 shots were fired (mostly by Cancel, according to his account), wounding five lawmakers. Lebrón said she fired her shots at the ceiling, while Figueroa's pistol jammed. Wounded were Alvin Morell Bentley (R-Michigan), who took a bullet to the chest, Clifford Davis (D-Tennessee), hit in the leg, Ben F. Jensen (R-Iowa), shot in the back, as well as George Hyde Fallon (D-Maryland) and Kenneth A. Roberts (D-Alabama). House pages helped carry Bentley off the House floor. The representatives were treated and recovered. Upon being arrested, Lebrón yelled, "I did not come to kill anyone, I came to die for Puerto Rico!"

Aftermath and arrests

The Nationalists were immediately arrested in Washington, D.C. The next morning in Puerto Rico, the Insular Police raided the home of Pedro Albizu Campos, president of the Nationalist Party, with guns and tear gas. Under the command of the Chief of Police of Puerto Rico, Salvador T. Roig, they fired into Campos' home from the roof of a Pentecostal Church and from a boarding house which faced the home. They arrested Campos and took him to jail. He was unconscious and half-asphyxiated when taken from the house.

Police Chief Roig later said that the order to arrest Albizu Campos "did not make any sense." Albizu Campos's phones were tapped, his mail was being intercepted, and Albizu was under 24-hour surveillance by the FBI, the CIA and the Insular Police. The FBI reports on Albizu Campos and the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party ultimately exceeded over one million pages in length. They found no evidence that Albizu was directly connected with the attack on Congress.

The Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Muñoz Marín, revoked Albizu's pardon, and had the political leader returned to La Princesa prison, from which he had been released only six months before. He was accused of sedition, violation of Puerto Rico Law 53 of 1948 (otherwise known as the "Gag Law") and the attempted violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Two years later, on March 25, 1956, Albizu Campos suffered an embolism and a stroke while in prison, leaving him semi-paralyzed and mute. He was not released from U.S. federal custody for another nine years, shortly before his death, which occurred on April 21, 1965.

Trial and imprisonment
Lebrón, Cancel Miranda and the other defendants were charged in federal court in Washington with attempted murder and other crimes. The trial began on June 4, 1954, with federal Judge Alexander Holtzoff presiding over the case, under strict security measures. A jury composed of seven men and five women was assembled; their identities were kept secret. The prosecution was led by Leo A. Rover; 33 witnesses testified.

Ruth Mary Reynolds helped secure the services of noted activist attorney Conrad Lynn as a lawyer for Lebrón and the other three co-defendants. The accused were the only ones to testify in their defense. Lebrón reaffirmed that she came, not to kill, but "to die for the freedom of her homeland."

On June 16, 1954, the jury declared the four guilty, except that Lebrón was acquitted of assault with the intent to kill and instead convicted of the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon. Judge Holtzoff imposed maximum consecutive prison terms: 75 years' imprisonment for each of the men, and 50 years for Lebrón. Given the age of the accused, this effectively meant imprisonment for life, unless they were paroled earlier.

American League lawyers appealed the sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences in early 1956.

On July 13, 1954, the four defendants were taken to New York, where they appeared before federal Judge Lawrence E. Walsh of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to face related charges, with additional co-defendants, of seditious conspiracy. This charge encompassed, but was broader than, the attack on the Congress. They declared themselves not guilty on the charge of "trying to overthrow the government of the United States," but remained firm in demanding independence for Puerto Rico. Among the prosecution's witnesses was Gonzalo Lebrón Jr., who testified against his sister.

On October 26, 1954, the jury found all of the defendants guilty of conspiracy. Judge Walsh sentenced each of them to six additional years in prison. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conspiracy convictions and consecutive sentences in 1955.

The four were sent to different prisons: Figueroa Cordero to the federal penitentiary in Atlanta; Lebrón to the women's prison in Alderson, West Virginia; Cancel Miranda to Alcatraz, in San Francisco Bay; and Flores Rodriguez to Leavenworth, Kansas, where Oscar Collazo was incarcerated following his involvement in the attempted assassination of President Harry S Truman in 1950.

Release
Figueroa Cordero was released in 1978. One year later, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter commuted the sentences of the remaining perpetrators. Some analysts said this was in exchange for Fidel Castro's release of several American CIA agents being held in Cuba on espionage charges, but the US said that was not the case. The freed nationalists were received in Puerto Rico with a "heroes' welcome" by roughly 5,000 people at San Juan International Airport.

title: 1954 United States Capitol shooting


text:
National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law designed to promote the enhancement of the environment. It created new laws requiring U.S. federal government agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions and decisions, and it established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their actions. NEPA's most significant outcome was the requirement that all executive Federal agencies prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs). These reports state the potential environmental effects of proposed Federal agency actions. Further, U.S. Congress recognizes that each person has a responsibility to preserve and enhance the environment as trustees for succeeding generations. NEPA's procedural requirements do not apply to the President, Congress, or the Federal courts since they are not a "Federal agency" by definition. However, a Federal agency taking action under authority ordered by the President may be a final agency action subject to NEPA's procedural requirements.

History
NEPA grew out of the increased public appreciation and concern for the environment that developed during the 1960s, amid increased industrialization, urban and suburban growth, and pollution across the United States. During this time, environmental interest group efforts and the growing public awareness resulting from Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring led to support for the 1964 Wilderness Act and subsequent legislation (including the 1970 Clean Air Act and 1972 Clean Water Act). The public outrage in reaction to the Santa Barbara oil spill in early 1969 occurred just as the NEPA legislation was being drafted in Congress. A fire on the Cuyahoga River was publicized in a Time magazine article shortly after the unanimous vote in the Senate. Another major driver for enacting NEPA was the 1960s highway revolts, a series of protests in many American cities that occurred in response to the bulldozing of many communities and ecosystems during the construction of the Interstate Highway System. In addition, as the contribution of Indiana political scientist Lynton Caldwell shows, concern for the environmental recklessness of international development programs in the 1950s and 1960s also drove the thinking behind NEPA.

In 2015 a United States District Court provided a documented concise background of NEPA being created to protect the environment from actions involving the Federal government as follows:

Following nearly a century of rapid economic expansion, population growth, industrialization, and urbanization, it had become clear by the late 1960s that American progress had an environmental cost. A congressional investigation into the matter yielded myriad evidence indicating a gross mismanagement of the country's environment and resources, most notably at the hands of the federal government. As a result, lawmakers and the general public alike called for an urgent and sweeping policy of environmental protection.

Congress answered these calls by enacting NEPA, which has served as "our basic national charter for protection of the environment" since 1970. With NEPA, Congress mandated that federal agencies take a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of their actions and to engage all practicable measures to prevent environmental harm when engaging in agency action. Furthermore, to remedy the widespread mistrust of the federal agencies, Congress incorporated within NEPA "action-forcing" provisions which require agencies to follow specific procedures in order to accomplish any federal project.

Since its passage, NEPA has been applied to any major project, whether on a federal, state, or local level, that involves federal funding, work performed by the federal government, or permits issued by a federal agency. Court decisions have expanded the requirement for NEPA-related environmental studies to include actions where permits issued by a federal agency are required regardless of whether federal funds are spent to implement the action, to include actions that are entirely funded and managed by private-sector entities where a federal permit is required. This legal interpretation is based on the rationale that obtaining a permit from a federal agency requires one or more federal employees (or contractors in some instances) to process and approve a permit application, inherently resulting in federal funds being expended to support the proposed action, even if no federal funds are directly allocated to finance the particular action.

A U.S. District Court describes the need for even the President to have the NEPA analysis information before making a decision as follows:

"'No agency possesses discretion whether to comply with procedural requirements such as NEPA. The relevant information provided by a NEPA analysis needs to be available to the public and the people who play a role in the decision-making process. This process includes the President.' 'And Congress has not delegated to the President the decision as to the route of any pipeline.'"

Contents
The preamble to NEPA reads:

"To declare national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality."

NEPA contains three sections: the first section outlines national environmental policies and goals; the second establishes provisions for federal agencies to enforce such policies and goals; and the third establishes the CEQ in the Executive Office of the President.

The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that environmental factors are weighted equally when compared to other factors in the decision-making process undertaken by federal agencies and to establish a national environmental policy. The act also promotes the CEQ to advise the President in the preparation of an annual report on the progress of federal agencies in implementing NEPA. It also established the CEQ to advise the president on environmental policy and the state of the environment.

NEPA establishes this national environmental policy by requiring federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement to accompany reports and recommendations for Congressional funding. This impact statement is known as an EIS. NEPA is an action-forcing piece of legislation, meaning the act itself does not carry any criminal or civil sanctions, and therefore, all enforcement of NEPA must occur through the court system. In practice, a project is required to meet NEPA guidelines when a federal agency provides any portion of financing for the project. However, review of a project by a federal employee can be viewed as a federal action, and in such a case, it requires NEPA-compliant analysis performance.

NEPA covers a vast array of federal agency actions, but the act does not apply to state action where there is a complete absence of federal influence or funding. Exemptions and exclusions are also present within NEPA's guidelines, including specific federal projects detailed in legislation and EPA exemptions. Exemptions also apply when compliance with other environmental laws require an impact analysis similar to that mandated by NEPA. Such laws can include but are not limited to the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Process
The NEPA process is the evaluation of the relevant environmental effects of a federal project or action mandated by NEPA. This process begins when an agency develops a proposal addressing a need to take action. If it is determined that the proposed action is covered under NEPA, there are three levels of analysis that a federal agency must undertake to comply with the law. These three levels include the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CatEx); an environmental assessment (EA); and either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or, alternatively, the preparation and drafting of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

Executive Order No. 11514 as amended by Executive Order No. 11991 directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to issue "regulations to Federal agencies for the implementation of the procedural provisions of" NEPA and for Federal agencies to "comply with the regulations issued by the Council". Importantly the Supreme Court of the United States finds "that CEQ regulations are entitled to substantial deference." The Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulation 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4 specifies the process to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as follows: In determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement the Federal agency shall:

(a) Determine under its procedures supplementing these regulations (described in § 1507.3) whether the proposal is one which:

 * (1) Normally requires an environmental impact statement, or
 * (2) Normally does not require either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment (categorical exclusion).

(b) If the proposed action is not covered by paragraph (a) of this section, prepare an environmental assessment (§ 1508.9). The agency shall involve environmental agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable, in preparing assessments required by § 1508.9(a)(1).

(c) Based on the environmental assessment make its determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.

(d) Commence the scoping process (§ 1501.7), if the agency will prepare an environmental impact statement.

(e) Prepare a finding of no significant impact (§ 1508.13), if the agency determines on the basis of the environmental assessment not to prepare a statement.
 * (1) The agency shall make the finding of no significant impact available to the affected public as specified in § 1506.6.
 * (2) In certain limited circumstances, which the agency may cover in its procedures under § 1507.3, the agency shall make the finding of no significant impact available for public review (including State and areawide clearinghouses) for 30 days before the agency makes its final determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement and before the action may begin. The circumstances are:
 * (i) The proposed action is, or is closely similar to, one which normally requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the procedures adopted by the agency pursuant to § 1507.3, or
 * (ii) The nature of the proposed action is one without precedent.

In addition to complying with the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations in 40 C.F.R. § 1500 through § 1508, each Federal agency is required by 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(a) to adopt supplemental procedures for their agency's implementation of NEPA. For example, the Federal Highway Administration's supplemental NEPA procedures are in 23 C.F.R. §771.101 through § 771.131. According to 23 C.F.R. § 771.115(a) Class I actions such as a new controlled access freeway or a highway project of four or more lanes on a new location significantly affect the environment and therefore require an Environmental Impact Statement. According to 23 C.F.R. § 771.115(b) and § 771.117(c) Class II actions such as construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, planning, noise barriers, and landscaping normally do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect and therefore may be categorically exempt unless there are unusual circumstances as provided in 23 C.F.R. § 771.117(b). According to 23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c) all other actions are Class III actions requiring the preparation of an Environmental Assessment to determine the appropriate environmental document required.

Preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
A Categorical Exclusion (CatEx) is a list of actions an agency has determined do not individually or cumulatively significantly affect the quality of the human environment (40 C.F.R. §1508.4). If a proposed action is included in an agency's CatEx, the agency must make sure that no extraordinary circumstances might cause the proposed action to affect the environment. Extraordinary circumstances include effects on endangered species, protected cultural sites, and wetlands. If the proposed action is not included in the description provided in the CatEx, an EA must be prepared. Actions similar to the proposed one may have been found to be environmentally neutral in previous EAs and their implementation, and so an agency may amend their implementing regulations to include the action as a CatEx. In this case, the drafted agency procedures are published in the Federal Register and a public comment period is required. An agency cannot rely on a CatEx prepared by a different agency to support a decision not to prepare an EA or EIS for a planned action; however, it may draw from another agency's experience with a comparable CatEx in seeking to substantiate a CatEx of its own.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) created Categorical Exclusions to reduce paperwork (40 CFR § 1500.4(p)) and reduce delay (40 CFR § 1500.5(k)) so agencies can better concentrate on actions that do have significant effects on the human environment. In 2003 the National Environmental Policy Task Force found agencies "indicated some confusion about the level of analysis and documentation required to use an approved categorical exclusion". In 2010 CEQ issued guidance on the existing regulations for Categorical Exclusions consistent with NEPA and past CEQ guidance. This CEQ 2010 guidance acknowledges, "Since Federal agencies began using categorical exclusions in the late 1970s, the number and scope of categorically excluded activities have expanded significantly. Today, categorical exclusions are the most frequently employed method of complying with NEPA, underscoring the need for this guidance on the promulgation and use of categorical exclusions." This CEQ 2010 guidance goes on to caution, "If used inappropriately, categorical exclusions can thwart NEPA's environmental stewardship goals, by compromising the quality and transparency of agency environmental review and decisionmaking, as well as compromising the opportunity for meaningful public participation and review." Indeed, the expanded use of Categorical Exclusions undermines NEPA by reducing environmental analysis and public comment, thereby increasing NEPA litigation. The CEQ 2010 guidance emphasizes that Categorical Exclusions must capture the entire proposed action and not be used for a segment or an interdependent part of a larger proposed action. Examples of Exceptional Circumstances that prevent use of Categorical Exclusions include where there are "potential effects on protected species or habitat, or on historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places." The CEQ specifically cites the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example why agencies need to periodically review their Categorical Exclusions "in light of evolving or changing conditions that might present new or different environmental impacts or risks."

Streamlining the NEPA process with categorical exclusions have been criticized, for example allowing BP's exploration plan that resulted in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to use a categorical exclusion instead of requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.

Preparation of an Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact
EAs are concise public documents that include the need for a proposal, a list of alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons consulted in the proposal's drafting. The purpose of an EA is to determine the significance of the proposal's environmental outcomes and to look at alternatives of achieving the agency's objectives. An EA is supposed to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS, aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, and it facilitates preparing an EIS when one is necessary.

Most agency procedures do not require public involvement prior to finalizing an EA document; however, agencies advise that a public comment period is considered at the draft EA stage. EAs need to be of sufficient length to ensure that the underlying decision to prepare an EIS is legitimate, but they should not attempt to substitute an EIS.

However, the Council on Environmental Quality regulation 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) states: "NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken." Likewise, 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2 states: "Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible: ... (d) Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment." A U.S. District Court describes the essential requirement for public input on a draft EA as follows: "The Ninth Circuit has read these regulations to mean that 'the public must be given an opportunity to comment on draft EAs and EISs.' Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 487 (9th Cir.2004). Because the regulations 'must mean something,' the Circuit has held that an agency's failure to obtain any public input on a draft EA 'violates these regulations.' Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 341 F.3d 961, 970 (9th Cir.2003)."

If no substantial effects on the environment are found after investigation and the drafting of an EA, the agency must produce a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This document explains why an action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and includes the EA or a summary of the EA that supports the FONSI determination.

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
If it is determined that a proposed federal action does not fall within a designated CatEx or does not qualify for a FONSI, then the responsible agency must prepare an EIS. The purpose of an EIS is to help public officials make informed decisions based on the relevant environmental consequences and the alternatives available. The drafting of an EIS includes public party, outside party, and other federal agency input concerning its preparation. These groups subsequently comment on the draft EIS.

An EIS is required to describe the environmental impacts of the proposed action, any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment along with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action.

An agency may undertake the drafting of an EIS without the initial drafting of the EA. This may happen if the agency believes that the action will have a significant impact on the human or natural environment or if the action is considered an environmentally controversial issue.

The responsible decision-maker is required to review the final EIS before reaching a final decision regarding the course of action to be taken. The decision-maker must weigh the potential environmental impacts along with other pertinent considerations in reaching the final decision. A record of decision (ROD) is issued which records the agency's final decision.

Average time for a full review
A federal study from 2013-2018 found that a full NEPA review took an average of 4.5 years.

Mootness doctrine used to evade NEPA requirements
The Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. § 702 provides the right for a person injured by a NEPA issue to carry out a NEPA case in court as: "A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof." By 5 U.S.C. § 706 the U.S. Congress provides for courts to make equitable remedies such as an injunction to compel agency action withheld or to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. However, a court case becomes moot when no practical ("live") issues remain as stated in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486 (1969) pages 496 – 497: "Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. See E. Borchard, Declaratory 497*497 Judgments 35-37 (2d ed. 1941). Where one of the several issues presented becomes moot, the remaining live issues supply the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 86-94 (1947); 6A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 57.13 (2d ed. 1966)." In early NEPA cases (for example Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe, 458 F.2d 1323 (4th Cir. 1972) page 1331) courts considered projects were beyond the reach of the courts (moot) if that project had progressed to where the costs of altering the project would outweigh benefits. Nevertheless, by 1981 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized some projects might proceed with construction in an attempt to evade the requirements of NEPA. Therefore, the court cautioned that even completed projects could be ordered to be removed as stated in [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10587978375106674168&q=%27Columbia+Basin+Land+Protection+Assoc.+v.+Schlesinger,+643&hl=en&as_sdt=80003 ''Columbia Basin Land Protection Assoc. v. Schlesinger''], 643 F.2d 585 (9th Cir.1981) page 591 note 1: The building of the towers has not made the case hypothetical or abstract — the towers still cross the fields of the Landowners, continually obstructing their irrigation systems — and this Court has the power to decide if they may stay or if they may have to be removed. * * * If the fact that the towers are built and operating were enough to make the case nonjusticiable, as the dissent states, then the BPA (and all similar entities) could merely ignore the requirements of NEPA, build its structures before a case gets to court, and then hide behind the mootness doctrine. Such a result is not acceptable. Thus, courts have the equitable power to prevent those who use bad faith construction to evade U.S. Congress policies such as NEPA. Despite a court recognizing the use of this mootness tactic, a court still might not order removal of construction and remediation of the environment unless the NEPA complaint seeks removal and remediation in the request for relief as a "live" issue, see dissenting opinion in West v. Secretary of Dept. of Transp., 206 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2000) page 931: "He did not seek remediation; he wanted the interchange stopped. It was built. Therefore, there is no justiciable controversy pertaining to Phase I." If stopping construction is the only request for relief in a NEPA complaint then logically construction cannot be stopped after completion.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in stopping construction of a seaport on Sears Island, Maine pointed out that harm in NEPA cases is harm to the environment as stated in Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989) at page 500: "Thus, when a decision to which NEPA obligations attach is made without the informed environmental consideration that NEPA requires, the harm that NEPA intends to prevent has been suffered. * * * the harm at stake is a harm to the environment, but the harm consists of the added risk to the environment that takes place when governmental decisionmakers make up their minds without having before them an analysis (with prior public comment) of the likely effects of their decision upon the environment." This court in Sierra Club v. Marsh on page 504 also found since there is an instinct not to tear down projects, it is appropriate to issue preliminary injunctions early in NEPA cases: "The way that harm arises may well have to do with the psychology of decisionmakers, and perhaps a more deeply rooted human psychological instinct not to tear down projects once they are built. But the risk implied by a violation of NEPA is that real environmental harm will occur through inadequate foresight and deliberation. The difficulty of stopping a bureaucratic steam roller, once started, still seems to us, after reading Village of Gambell, a perfectly proper factor for a district court to take into account in assessing that risk, on a motion for a preliminary injunction." To have Article III standing to maintain a federal court case at least one individual plaintiff must have an injury caused by the defendant and that injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable decision as stated in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992) on pages 560-561: "Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact'—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);[1] and (b) 'actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' ' Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be 'fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.' Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare 561*561 Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third, it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.' Id., at 38, 43." To have a "live" issue after completion of construction of a project, at least one person would need to show they will personally suffer harm from existence of the completed project and that the harm can be remedied by removal of the project as in Columbia Basin Land Protection Assoc. v. Schlesinger. Individual injuries in NEPA cases may likely involve growth-inducing impacts such as air, noise, and water pollution, safety considerations, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts; for example see Coalition for Canyon Preservation v. Bowers, 632 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1980). Proving individual injury prevents disqualification by an objection of "generalized grievance" as stated in Juliana v. US, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016): "Standing alone, 'the fact that a harm is widely shared does not necessarily render it a generalized grievance.' Jewel, 673 F.3d at 909; see also Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) ('[I]t does not matter how many persons have been injured by the challenged action' so long as 'the party bringing suit shows that the action injures him in a concrete and personal way.' (quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized)); Akins, 524 U.S. at 24 ('[A]n injury . ... widely shared ... does not, by itself, automatically disqualify an interest for Article III purposes." In determining whether a Federal court has the authority to decide a case (jurisdiction), Federal courts only consider the parts of a complaint supporting the federal issue cited. This is referred to as the "well-pleaded" complaint rule. Parts of a complaint requesting removal of anticipated construction can be ignored by Federal courts since construction was not an actual controversy at the time the complaint was filed. Therefore, if project construction starts after a NEPA complaint is filed, the NEPA complaint will need to be amended or a new complaint filed to include the actual construction. Otherwise after construction is completed, a Federal court may find it no longer has authority (jurisdiction) to decide the case. The case would therefore be moot.

Courts balance the harm an injunction might cause to the defendant against the likelihood of environmental harms occurring and the degree of injury if the environmental harms occur. The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out the irreparable nature of environmental injuries in Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 107 S. Ct. 1396, 94 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1987) on page 545: "Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i. e., irreparable. If such injury is sufficiently likely, therefore, the balance of harms will usually favor the issuance of an injunction to protect the environment." Courts may discount the defendant's self-inflicted harm if construction was started before resolution of the environmental issues as in Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2002) on page 1116: "We must next balance the irreparable harms we have identified against the harm to defendants if the preliminary injunction is granted. Defendants allege that significant financial penalties will be incurred by UDOT if the Project is delayed. * * * However, it appears that many of these costs may be self-inflicted. As we have previously concluded, the state entities involved in this case have 'jumped the gun' on the environmental issues by entering into contractual obligations that anticipated a pro forma result. In this sense, the state defendants are largely responsible for their own harm." [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10587978375106674168&q=%27Columbia+Basin+Land+Protection+Assoc.+v.+Schlesinger,+643&hl=en&as_sdt=80003 ''Columbia Basin Land Protection Assoc. v. Schlesinger''] identified that allowing construction to moot NEPA cases frustrates the U.S. Congress intent. Therefore, In order to prevent NEPA cases from automatically becoming moot due to construction, NEPA complaints would need to request removal of bad faith constructions.

Council on Environmental Quality
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was modeled on the Council of Economic Advisers, an executive branch group created by the Employment Act of 1946 to advise the President on economic matters. Shortly after the CEQ was created by NEPA, President Richard Nixon expanded its mandate in executive order 11514. He directed the CEQ to issue guidelines for the proper preparation of an EIS and to assemble and coordinate federal programs related to environmental quality. The council was placed within the Executive Office of the President of the United States. It is composed of three members appointed by the President and subsequently confirmed by the Senate.

The CEQ has played a key part in the development of the EIS process. Its initial guidelines issued in 1971 required each federal department and agency to adopt its own guidelines consistent with those established by CEQ. These guidelines did not carry the status of formal agency regulations, but were often treated with similar deference in the court of law. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter by executive order 11991 authorized the CEQ to adopt regulations rather than simple guidelines on EIS preparation. However, the CEQ still had no authority to enforce these regulations.

The CEQ has prepared advisory documentation in the last several years explaining the general structure of NEPA and the nature of cumulative impacts, among other advisories. The CEQ also maintains a Citizen's Guide to NEPA website as part of its ongoing duties. CEQ regulations call for agencies and other federal actors to integrate NEPA requirements with other planning obligations as early as possible in the process. This is to ensure that all decisions are influenced by and reflective of environmental values. It also avoids potential delays and conflicts that could arise from imposing these requirements later in the rule-making process.Section 102(2)(C), which is NEPA's action-forcing provision, stipulates that with "every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment", all federal agencies shall include "a detailed statement by the responsible official ... on the environmental impact of the proposed action". This statement must specify all the details required for the EIS.

Consequences for Violating the National Environmental Policy Act
Agencies that violate NEPA may suffer harms to their reputations that can jeopardize future funding opportunities. Because the CEQ does not have enforcement authority for their guidelines, alleged violations must generally go through the judicial system. These lawsuits can further harm the agencies by demanding money and resources from the federal government, and delay projects for years. Several large projects have been shut down or cancelled as a result of such delays, like the planned Keystone XL Pipeline. The expansion was abandoned by TC Energy in 2021 after delays including the rejection of its review under NEPA, in the case Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State. The most common consequence imposed by courts for violations of NEPA is a mandated repeat of whichever environmental review or report was found to have been insufficient.

National Environmental Policy Act and environmental justice
The National Environmental Policy Act promotes environmental justice by requiring federal agencies to include minority and low-income populations in their NEPA-mandated environmental analyses. Executive Order #12898 requires federal agencies that are complying with NEPA to consider environmental effects on human health, and economic and social effects, specifically within minority and low-income populations, which are disproportionately impacted by environmental detriment. Proposed federal actions must address "significant and adverse environmental effects" on minority and low-income populations.

The Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group published the Promising Practice Report, which documents common methodologies used presented in NEPA to include environmental justice.

Recent developments
On August 15, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13807, "Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects." This executive order directs CEQ to use its "authority to interpret NEPA to simplify and accelerate the NEPA review process", requires agencies to "establish procedures for a regular review and update of categorical exclusions", and revokes President Obama's Executive Order 13690 addressing Flood Risk Management by including science on climate change.

In July 2020, Trump moved to significantly weaken the law. CEQ published a final rule which limits the duration of EAs to 1 year and EISs to 2 years. The rule also exempts a number of projects from review entirely and prevents the consideration of cumulative environmental impacts, including those caused by climate change.

On April 20, 2022, CEQ issued the Phase 1 Final Rule to restore regulatory provisions that were in effect prior to the modifications made during the Trump administration.

title: National Environmental Policy Act


text:
User:Softwiz

Hi, I'm Softwiz. I work on a game called Castle Infinity. You should try it at some point.

title: User:Softwiz


text:
Lerner and Loewe

Lerner and Loewe is the partnership between lyricist and librettist Alan Jay Lerner and composer Frederick Loewe. Spanning three decades and nine musicals from 1942 to 1960 and again from 1970 to 1972, the pair are known for being behind the creation of critical on stage successes such as My Fair Lady, Brigadoon, and Camelot along with the musical film Gigi.

Background and previous work
Growing up in Austria, Frederick or "Fritz" Loewe was a child prodigy concert pianist and son to a Viennese Operetta star, Edmond Loewe. After moving to New York City, he worked as a pianist in German clubs and was accompanist for silent films but never had a partnership before working with Lerner. Conversely, Alan Lerner was born in New York City and attended Harvard where his first musical theater contributions came from working on collegiate Hasty Pudding musicals. Early in his career at Harvard he collaborated with Leonard Bernstein but also did not have any official partnerships until he crossed paths with Loewe.

Meeting
In August 1942 at the Lambs Club in New York City 24 year old American, Alan Jay Lerner and 41 year old Austrian, Frederick Loewe, officially met each other. As recounted by Lerner, the two met by chance when Loewe took a wrong turn on his way to the bathroom. Loewe asked Lerner if he wrote lyrics and upon affirmation, Loewe asked if he wanted to write with him. The two began working together immediately afterward.

Early work
While the two were quick to work with each other, the initial two musicals Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe worked on were not a commercial success and would be heavily regarded today as "flops." The very first of their collaborations, Life of the Party, was worked on in 1942 at a stock company in Detroit, ran for 9 weeks and never made it to a Broadway stage. The first of their productions to make it to Broadway was What's Up?, which received generally (if mildly) favorable reviews but was not a commercial success. Lerner later wrote that the musical ran for only one week before closing, but it in fact ran from November 11, 1943, to January 4, 1944, closing after 63 performances.

The pair achieved some small success in 1945 with The Day Before Spring. This production opened at the National Theatre in late November and closed approximately one year later in April 1946. Despite the short run, a Billboard magazine critic gave the musical a favorable review from its opening at the Shubert Theatre in Boston and deemed Lerner and Loewe "potential supermen."

Brigadoon
Brigadoon was the pair's first significant hit. Loewe and Lerner reportedly auditioned their music fifty times before successfully finding investors to help mount their production. Brigadoon 's plot centers on two New York natives who are visiting the highlands of Scotland. While there, they happen upon a village that is enchanted by magic to appear only once every century. The material was said to be inspired by the stories of James M. Barrie and also a direct quote from Frederick Loewe: "faith can move mountains." The original Broadway production opened in 1947 at the Ziegfeld Theatre and won the Drama Critics Award for Best Musical of the Year. In 1949 Brigadoon opened at the West End Theatre in London. It has been revived successfully several times. A film starring Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse was also made.

Paint Your Wagon
Regarded by the duo as a "success, but not a hit", Paint Your Wagon opened in 1951 at the Shubert Theatre to mixed reviews. The story takes place in California during the Gold Rush and focuses on the relationship between a father who works as a miner and his daughter. Two years after its New York opening, the musical made its West End debut in 1953 and ran for nearly 500 performances. Years later, in 1969, Lerner asked Loewe to return to the project to specifically write new songs for the film version. Loewe, who had since retired, declined, but gave Lerner permission to collaborate with Andre Previn for the additional songs. The one rule Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe abided by for the entirety of their partnership was that if one wished to work with another lyricist or composer, he must tell the other; this also applied for any time someone requested to work with either one of them. While Lerner received permission and created new songs with Previn specifically for the film, the reception of the movie musical was predominantly negative. The most popular songs from this musical were written in its earliest stages with both Lerner and Loewe at the helm, including "I Was Born Under a Wand'rin' Star", "They Call the Wind Maria" and "I Talk To The Trees."

My Fair Lady
My Fair Lady opened on Broadway at the Mark Hellinger Theatre. While both Lerner and Loewe were interested in adapting George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion into a musical, early on in the process they struggled significantly with creating a musical that would fit the musical constructs in place at the time, i.e. a flashy chorus and large ballet sequences. After many frustrated work sessions and the input of Oscar Hammerstein, who had also tried to adapt the play with Richard Rodgers and failed, Lerner and Loewe abandoned the project.

During their break from what would be regarded by many as their most successful musical, Lerner concentrated his efforts on a musical based on the Li'l Abner comic, but was one day reminded of Pygmalion when he came across news of the passing of Gabriel Pascal, the film producer who had brought the opportunity to the duo in the first place.

After reevaluating the state of the musical theater "rules"—or, rather, the new lack of them—and determining that it was no longer necessary to have a subplot or a larger-than-life ensemble, in 1954 both Lerner and Loewe resumed the project and continued their efforts on the adaptation.

The main goal of Lerner and Loewe was not simply to do justice to the original text, but to create the right songs to emphasize character. It took many failed attempts, tossing out unneeded songs and long hours at the piano before coming across the style they both wished to utilize, the dramatization of characters' inner turmoil. It was during work on this musical that Lerner and Loewe spent the most time perfecting songs. This came not just from playing music at the piano, but of talking out moments in the musical and what they both wanted to achieve from these moments.

Lerner has said of Loewe's style that, when they were at the piano, he would often enter dreamlike states where he would continuously play until a musical moment appeared that they were both overjoyed with.

It wasn't until the tail end of the process, with previews looming, that Lerner and Loewe finally decided on a name for the musical. Loewe's vote was for "Fanfaroon," but Lerner believed that bore too close a resemblance to Brigadoon. He, along with the rest of the creative team, decided that out of all their options, they disliked My Fair Lady the least.

The year it opened My Fair Lady won 6 of the 10 Tony Awards for which it was nominated and also won the Theatre World Award for Outstanding New York City Stage Debut Performance. During the time it played it set the record for the longest running Broadway musical, and has had numerous revivals since the original production.

Gigi
Four years after My Fair Lady opened, Lerner sought to collaborate with Loewe on a film. Due to it being outside of stage work, Loewe at first passed on the opportunity, but relented after reading the script.

While in Paris preparing to shoot, Lerner, being more likely to make impulsive decisions, bought a blue Rolls-Royce and convinced Loewe to buy a grey one in an exchange that lasted less than five minutes at the car dealership. The very first film preview of Gigi was not well-received, and it was a combination of the reactions and Lerner and Loewe's own unhappiness with the film that led them to rewrite and re-shoot it, costing them $300,000.

However, these changes were well-received and Gigi won nine Academy Awards, at that time holding the record for the most Oscars won by a single film production.

Camelot
Much like Pygmalion, inspiration for Camelot came to Lerner from a book, this time, T.H White's The Once and Future King. Loewe had to be more strongly convinced of its commercial appeal, but ultimately was won over.

Camelot was an immensely difficult production for the duo, with the opening preview running four and a half hours and the director, Moss Hart, hospitalized with a heart attack in the middle of previews, forcing Lerner to take over as director and causing tension between Lerner and Loewe. While it was at first difficult to gain the traction they were looking for, the cast's appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show brought the production great success and ended up resulting in Camelot's total profits grossing over seven figures.

Loewe had previously stated to Lerner that Camelot would be his final show before his retirement and, true to his word, he parted ways with Lerner.

Working relationship and personalities
One element Lerner stated was instrumental to his partnership with Loewe was Loewe's patience. Lerner's creative process could take as little as a few hours, and as much as a few weeks, yet he never felt pressured nor shamed by his counterpart. While Loewe did not require as long periods of time to compose his music as Lerner required to write lyrics, he could often be very uncertain in his choices and Lerner was able to provide him with reassurance.

The two were also partial to working in the early morning, particularly Lerner, who believed all his best writing was done as soon as he awakened.

In terms of personality, the two could not be more opposite. Lerner, the younger of the two who was raised in New York, always had an eagerness about him and was quick speaking and moving. Loewe, the older of the two who was brought up in Austria, was more experienced and cynical. However, each understood the other and they developed a very deep friendship.

Final collaboration
Their final collaboration was on the 1974 musical film The Little Prince. The All Movie reviewer wrote: "Although Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe crafted a hummable and entertaining score, it is not among their best work; worse, its tone and style are frequently at odds with the story."

Lerner said this of Loewe: "'There will never be another Fritz... Writing will never again be as much fun. A collaboration as intense as ours inescapably had to be complex. But I loved him more than I understood or misunderstood him and I know he loved me more than he understood or misunderstood me.'"In The New York Times obituary for Loewe, it was written: "Near the creative peak of their collaboration, Mr. Lerner characterized his working relationship with Mr. Loewe as pleasant and respectful."

List of theatre works

 * Life of the Party (1942)
 * What's Up? (1943)
 * The Day Before Spring (1945)
 * Brigadoon (1947)
 * Paint Your Wagon (1951)
 * My Fair Lady (1956)
 * Camelot (1960)
 * Gigi (1973) – stage version adapted from the film

Films and film adaptations

 * Brigadoon (1954)
 * Gigi (1958)
 * My Fair Lady (1964)
 * Camelot (1967)
 * Paint Your Wagon (1969)
 * The Little Prince (1974)

title: Lerner and Loewe


text:
Ali Larijani

Ali Ardeshir Larijani (, ; born 3 June 1958) is an Iranian (Born in Kingdom of Iraq) moderate politician, philosopher and former military officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who served as the Speaker of the Parliament of Iran from 2008 to 2020. He has been a member of the Expediency Discernment Council since 2020, having previously served from 1997 to 2008. Larijani is a candidate for president of Iran in the 2024 presidential election. He previously ran in 2005, but was disqualified from running in 2021.

Larijani was the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council from 15 August 2005 to 20 October 2007, appointed to the position by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, replacing Hassan Rouhani. Acceptance of Larijani's resignation from the secretary position was announced on 20 October 2007 by Gholam-Hossein Elham, the Iranian government's spokesman, mentioning that President Ahmadinejad turned down his previous resignations.

Larijani was one of the two representatives of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei to the council, the other being Hassan Rouhani. In his post as secretary, he effectively functioned as the top negotiator on issues of national security, including Iran's nuclear program. He is also the current member of Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution.

Early life
Ali Larijani was born in Najaf, Iraq to Iranian parents. He hails from a religious gentry family based in Amol in the province of Mazandaran. His father was a leading cleric, Ayatollah Mirza Hashem Amoli. His parents moved to Najaf in 1931 due to pressure of the ruler Reza Shah, but returned to Iran in 1961.

Education
Larijani is a graduate of Qom seminary. He also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and mathematics from Aryamehr University of Technology and holds a master's degree and PhD in Western philosophy from the University of Tehran. Initially, he wanted to continue his graduate studies in computer science, but changed his subject after consultation with Morteza Motahhari. Larijani has published books on Immanuel Kant, Saul Kripke, and David Lewis. Larijani is a faculty member of the School of Literature and Humanities at the University of Tehran.

Career
Larijani is a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards. Larijani served as the deputy minister of labor and social affairs. Then it was appointed deputy minister of information and communications technology. In March 1994, he was appointed as head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, replacing Mohammad Hashemi Rafsanjani in the post. He was in office until 21 July 2004 and was succeeded by Ezzatollah Zarghami after serving ten years in the post. He became security adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in August 2004.

Larijani was a presidential candidate for the 2005 presidential elections, where he ranked sixth, winning 5.94% of the votes. He was considered the most important presidential candidate of the conservative alliance for the 2005 presidential elections. He was supported by the Islamic Society of Engineers (ISE), among other conservative groups. He had been announced as the final choice of the conservative Council for Coordination of the Forces of the Revolution, made from representatives of some influential conservative parties and organizations. However, he proved to be the least popular of the three conservative candidates, the others being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (second rank in the first round, winner in the second round) and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (fourth rank in the first round).

In 2005, Larijani was appointed the Supreme National Security Council secretary. This body helps draw up nuclear and other policies by Khamenei. He replaced Hassan Rouhani in the post. As a chief nuclear negotiator, Iranian analysts said he differed with the president over how to pursue negotiations with his European counterparts and say he backed a more pragmatic approach.

As Iran's top nuclear envoy, Larijani said on 25 April 2007 that he expected "new ideas" from senior EU official Javier Solana at talks on resolving the deadlock between Tehran's refusal to freeze its nuclear programme and United Nations Security Council demands that it do so.

In the March 2008 parliamentary election, Larijani won a seat from Qom. He said he was willing to work with Ahmadinejad; according to Larijani, he did not disagree with Ahmadinejad on ideological issues and had only "differences in style". In May 2008, Larijani became speaker of the parliament. He was reelected in the next year as chairman of the parliament. He was re-elected in 2012 elections as the Qom district's high-receiving candidate. He was also elected for another term as chairman of the parliament on 5 June 2012 and was sworn in on 11 June 2012.

Larijani implied on 21 June 2009 that authorities took the side of one candidate without clarifying which candidate. Just after the election, Larijani reportedly congratulated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi as he, having "access to firsthand and classified information and news", believed Mousavi had won the election. However, on 22 October 2012, during a QA meeting with the students of Iran University of Science and Technology, Larijani denied the allegations that he had congratulated Mousavi. He was elected as speaker in the new Majlis in May 2016.

In May 2021, Larijani declared his bid for the presidency in the 2021 Iranian presidential election. However, the vetting Guardian Council, in a decision that astounded both the conservatives and reformists, disqualified him from running. Considering Larijani's long career as an Islamic Republic insider who has been part of the top echelons of power since the 1979 revolution, his disqualification was a possibility even his staunch detractors couldn't envision. The Guardian Council did not announce the reason for barring him.

In May 2024, Larijani submitted his application for his candidacy for the president in the 2024 Iranian presidential election.

Affiliation
Larijani was considered to maintain Motalefeh membership and views while in Hashemi Rafsanjani cabinet (1992–1994). Iranian scholar Mehdi Moslem in his 2002 book named Factional Politics in Post-Khomeini Iran, suggests that Larijani had been a member of Motalefeh and part of the ‘traditional right’. Payam Mohseni, a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, classifies Larijani as a lead figure in the ‘theocratic right’ camp, whose other prominent are Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi and Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani.

Larijani was one of the leaders of the Principlists Pervasive Coalition in 2008 parliamentary elections, and a United Front of Principlists leader. During Iranian 2016 parliamentary election Larijani was the leader of the Followers of Wilayat faction, although he was backed by the reformist List of Hope and said he is running as an independent candidate.

He is also described as a center-right politician who has "slowly distanced himself from the Principlist camp" and a "conservative-turned-moderate".

Larijani is known to have close associates, including the interior minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, Behrouz Nemati, spokesman for the parliament's presiding board, and Kazem Jalali, head of the parliament's research center.

Public image
According to a poll conducted in March 2016 by Information and Public Opinion Solutions LLC (iPOS) among Iranian citizens, Larijani has 45% approval and 34% disapproval ratings and thus a +11% net popularity, while 11% of voters do not recognize the name.

Personal life
Larijani is a brother of Sadegh Larijani (President of the Judicature), Mohammad-Javad Larijani, Bagher Larijani (Faculty Member of Tehran University of Medical Sciences), and Fazel Larijani (Iran's former cultural attachée in Ottawa). Larijani is also a cousin of Ahmad Tavakkoli (Larijani's and Tavakkoli's mothers are sisters). Larijani is the son-in-law of Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari, His daughter, Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, studies at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center in the United States.

On 2 April 2020, Larijani tested positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) and placed in quarantine.

title: Ali Larijani