text:
Bronx–Whitestone Bridge

The Bronx–Whitestone Bridge (colloquially referred to as the Whitestone Bridge or simply the Whitestone) is a suspension bridge in New York City, carrying six lanes of Interstate 678 over the East River. The bridge connects Throggs Neck and Ferry Point Park in the Bronx, on the East River's northern shore, with the Whitestone neighborhood of Queens on the southern shore.

Although the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's construction was proposed as early as 1905, it was not approved until 1936. The bridge was designed by Swiss-American architect Othmar Ammann and design engineer Allston Dana and opened to traffic with four lanes on April 29, 1939. The bridge's design was similar to that of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which collapsed in 1940. As a result, extra stiffening trusses were added to the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge in the early 1940s, and it was widened to six lanes during the same project. The Bronx–Whitestone Bridge was also renovated in 1988–1991 to repair the anchorages, roadways, and drainage. The stiffening trusses were removed during a renovation in the mid-2000s, and the bridge's deck and approach viaducts were replaced soon afterward.

The Bronx–Whitestone Bridge is owned by New York City and operated by MTA Bridges and Tunnels, an affiliate agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. With a center span of 2,300 ft, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge once had the fourth-largest center span of any suspension bridge in the world. The bridge has a total length of 3,700 ft, and its towers reach 377 ft above water level.

Description
The Bronx–Whitestone Bridge has a 2300 ft main span between its two suspension towers, with the span rising 150 ft above mean high water. The side spans, between suspension towers and anchorages at each end, are 735 ft. Thus, the overall length, from anchorage to anchorage, is 3770 ft. As originally designed, the bridge approach on the Queens side descended to ground level via a 1016 ft-long plate girder viaduct, then another 194 ft on a concrete ramp. The Bronx side's approach descended 1861 ft on a plate girder viaduct, then another 266 ft on a concrete ramp. A toll booth was located on the Bronx side immediately after the end of the concrete ramp.

The span is supported by two main cables, which suspend the deck and are held up by the suspension towers. Each cable is 3965 ft long and contains 9,862 wires, amounting to around 14800 mi of cable length. Each cable contains 37 strands of 266 wires, which in turn measure 0.196 in thick. Each of the suspension towers has a height of 377 ft above mean high water. The caissons, in turn, are submerged about 165 ft beneath mean high water. At each end of the suspension span are two anchorages that hold the main cables, both of which are freestanding concrete structures measuring 180 by. The width of the bridge deck between the cables is 74 ft.

Unlike other suspension bridges, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge originally did not have a stiffening truss system. Instead, 11 ft I-beam girders gave the bridge an Art Deco streamlined appearance. After the 1940 collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, a bridge of similar design, trusses were added on the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge to minimize the span's oscillations. Further modifications to the bridge were made in 1988–1991 and in 2003–2005.

Highway connections
The Bronx–Whitestone Bridge carries Interstate 678 (I-678). In Queens, the Whitestone Expressway (I-678) extends south to an interchange with the Cross Island Parkway, located just past the end of the bridge's approach ramps. There is an exit from the bridge to the southbound Whitestone Expressway service road, and an entrance and exit from the northbound Whitestone Expressway to the northbound service road. In the Bronx, the bridge leads to the Hutchinson River Expressway (I-678). The expressway has exits and entrances in both directions to the Hutchinson River Expressway service roads, which in turn connect to Lafayette Avenue. The expressway continues north to the Bruckner Interchange, where I-678 ends and becomes the Hutchinson River Parkway; there are also connections to the Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95) and to Bruckner Expressway (I-278 and I-95).

As most trucks carrying over 80,000 lb have been prohibited from using the Throgs Neck Bridge (approximately 2 mi east) since 2005, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge is suggested as an alternative route for heavy trucks. Tractor-trailers exceeding 53 ft and traveling between central Queens and the Bronx, as well as all heavy trucks over 53 feet that are banned from the Throgs Neck Bridge, are required to use the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge.

History
The idea for a fixed crossing between Ferry Point at Clason Point, Bronx, and Whitestone Point at Whitestone, Queens, was first proposed in 1905 by real estate speculators who wanted to develop Whitestone. At the time, residents around the proposed area of the bridge protested construction in fear of losing the then-rural character of the community. Plans for the bridge were submitted to the Whitestone Improvement Association in 1909, but they were not acted upon. Queens public administrator Alfred J. Kennedy later recalled that in 1911, while he was in the New York State Assembly, he had proposed such a bridge but that his plan was "ridiculed".

In 1907, the Clason Point, College Point and Malba Ferry Company proposed a ferry route between Clason Point, Bronx, and Malba, Queens, close to the site of the planned bridge. The company was incorporated in 1909, and two years later it started constructing ferry terminals. Ferry operations between Clason Point and Malba began on July 2, 1914.

Planning
In 1929, the Regional Plan Association (RPA) proposed a bridge from the Bronx to northern Queens to allow motorists from upstate New York and New England to reach Queens and Long Island without having to first travel through the traffic congestion in western Queens. The RPA believed that it was necessary to connect the proposed Belt Parkway (now Cross Island Parkway) on the Queens side with the Hutchinson River Parkway and Bruckner Boulevard on the Bronx side. The next year, urban planner Robert Moses formally proposed a Clason Point-to-Whitestone bridge as part of the Belt Parkway around Brooklyn and Queens. At the time, it was expected that the bridge would cost $25 million to construct.

In 1932, the New York City Board of Estimate started soliciting applications from private companies to build and operate the crossing as a toll bridge. One such application was made by Charles V. Bossert, who submitted his plan to the Board of Estimate in 1933. Bossert's plan went as far as U.S. Congress, where in 1935, a bill to approve the construction of Bossert's plan was introduced in the House of Representatives. However, the idea of a private company operating a publicly used toll bridge was unpopular, so it was dropped.

At the same time, the Queens Topological Bureau, Long Island State Park Commission, and Triborough Bridge Authority (TBA; later Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, or TBTA) was conducting a study on the proposed Bronx–Whitestone Bridge. In 1935, the agencies jointly released a report on the connecting roads to be built as part of the bridge plans, and projected that the bridge would cost $20 million. The bridge would directly link the Bronx, and other points on the mainland, to the 1939 New York World's Fair and to LaGuardia Airport (then known as North Beach Airport), both in Queens. In addition, the Whitestone Bridge was to provide congestion relief to the Triborough Bridge, further to the west, which also connected Queens to the Bronx. Real estate speculators predicted that the new bridge would also encourage development in the Bronx. New residential units in the Bronx were being planned before construction on the bridge itself even started. The RPA had also recommended that the Whitestone Bridge have rail connections, or space for such connections, but Moses ultimately did not include any provisions for rail connections on the bridge.

Approval and land acquisition
In 1936, governor Herbert H. Lehman signed a bill that authorized the construction of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, which would connect Queens and the Bronx. The following January, Lehman signed a bill that allowed the TBA to issue bonds for the construction of the bridge. In February 1937, TBA chief engineer Othmar Ammann announced that the bridge was both "practical and necessary". Allston Dana was also hired as the engineer of design. The same month, approval of a suspension span between Ferry Point and Whitestone was given by Harry Hines Woodring, the United States Secretary of War. Around the same time, the TBA made plans to issue bonds to fund the construction of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge. Moses recommended the TBA and the city should each be responsible for half of the bridge's $17.5 million cost.

In April 1937, the TBA started selling $25 million in bonds to fund the bridge's construction. A $1.13 million contract for the construction of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's towers was awarded in June 1937 to the American Bridge Company, which had beaten the only other competitor, Bethlehem Steel. The same month, the city started buying property that was in the right-of-way for the Whitestone Bridge and Parkway; shortly afterward, the rights-of-way for the bridge and parkway were legally designated. All of the TBA bonds had been sold by July 1937. The next month, the city had started evicting residents in the path of the bridge's approaches, and officials notified seventeen households in Whitestone that they had ten days to find new housing. This raised controversy because of the short notice given, but Moses said such measures were necessary to complete the bridge on schedule. In addition, land in Ferry Point was taken for the construction of the bridge; this land would become Ferry Point Park upon the completion of the bridge.

Construction
A groundbreaking ceremony was held in November 1937, when the Mayor of New York City, Fiorello H. La Guardia, laid the cornerstone for the bridge's Bronx anchorage. Construction on the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, along with several other road-improvement projects, was sped up so that the regional road network would be ready in time for the 1939 World's Fair. To ensure that the bridge would be completed before the fair opened, the cofferdam for the Bronx tower had to be finished in February 1938, followed by the Queens tower in April 1938. Moses anticipated that the bridge and connecting roads would need to be complete by June 1, 1939. The project also included the construction of the Flushing River Lift Bridge, a drawbridge over the Flushing River a few miles south of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge.

The four sections of each of the two suspension towers were assembled in only 18 days. The tower on the Bronx side was finished first, and in late May 1938, work began on the Queens tower. At the time, it was expected that the spinning of the suspension cables would begin that September. By the first week of July 1938, the TBA reported that both of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's towers were completed, and that the bridge was on schedule to open on April 30, 1939, ahead of schedule. In addition, the construction of connecting roadways on the Queens and Bronx sides of the bridge was being sped up. The Bronx side of the bridge would connect to the Hutchinson River Parkway, while the Queens side would connect to the Whitestone and Cross Island Parkways.

The process of spinning the bridge's cables commenced in September 1938. The first cable, which contained 266 strands, was completed within a week. The suspender cables were completed within 41 days. That October, work started on the Cross Island Parkway approach to the bridge in Queens. The bridge's opening date was formalized in January 1939, and the last girder was installed on February 13, 1939. Afterward, the construction of the approach roads was sped up in anticipation of the 1939 World's Fair. During construction, one worker died when he fell off the bridge deck. There was another incident in August 1938 in which a 35-ton steel girder dropped from the side of the Whitestone Bridge, though no one was severely injured. The bridge ultimately cost either $17.785 million (equal to about $ million in ) or $19.6 million (equal to about $ million in ).

Opening
The Bronx–Whitestone Bridge opened on April 29, 1939, with Moses and La Guardia leading a ceremony of 4,000 people. Both the Whitestone and College Point neighborhoods had celebrations for the new project, which Moses described as a "logical and inevitable part of the Belt Parkway program". The bridge featured pedestrian walkways and four lanes of vehicular traffic, and passenger vehicles were initially charged 25 cents. The 2300 ft center span was the fourth longest in the world at the opening, behind the Golden Gate Bridge, the George Washington Bridge, and the double spans of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. The bridge's opening, two months earlier than originally scheduled, coincided with the first day of the 1939 World's Fair.

A custom model of lampposts, the "Whitestone" or Type 41 lamppost, was made for the bridge. The lamppost model was later installed on other roads, though it was longer being actively installed by the 1960s, and only a few such lamps remained. In preparation for the 1939 World's Fair, amber street lights were installed on the bridge's approach roads, as well as other key corridors around the city. These lamps were distinctly colored so motorists headed to the fair could follow them while driving. At its north end, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge was to connect with Eastern Boulevard (later known as Bruckner Boulevard) via the Hutchinson River Parkway. At its south end, the bridge was to connect with the new Whitestone Parkway, which led southwest off the bridge to Northern Boulevard. The connection between the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge and Whitestone Parkway opened in November 1940, while the Hutchinson River Parkway between Pelham Bay Park and the bridge opened in October 1941. The Whitestone and Hutchinson River parkways intersected Bruckner Boulevard at a traffic circle, where congestion worsened over subsequent decades until the Bruckner Interchange replaced the circle in the 1970s. On the Queens side, an extension of Francis Lewis Boulevard opened in November 1939, connecting northeastern Queens with the new bridge, while the Cross Island Parkway approach opened in June 1940.

La Guardia said the bridge could carry up to 4,000 cars per hour in each direction. Within the first two months of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's opening, it had carried just over a million vehicles, and the bridge was collecting an average of $4,232 a day in tolls. In 1940, the American Institute of Steel Construction recognized the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge as the "most beautiful monumental steel bridge completed during the last year". Additionally, two parks were opened following the bridge's completion. A 10 acre park under the Queens side of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, named for Declaration of Independence signatory Francis Lewis, was opened in 1940. On the Bronx side, the blueprint for Ferry Point Park had been developed in conjunction with the bridge's construction, and additional facilities were added in the early 1940s.

Truss installation
As early as June 1938, engineers observed oscillations in the Whitestone Bridge's deck. Concerns grew after the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Tacoma, Washington, collapsed during heavy winds in November 1940. It had employed an 8 ft-deep girder system, much like the 11 ft I-beam girders of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge. However, the Whitestone Bridge was shorter and wider than the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's deck was also thicker than that of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was only 8 ft thick to the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's 11 ft. Overall, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge was less prone to oscillation and critical failure, as it was not as flimsy as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. After performing a series of experiments on the bridge's design, Ammann concluded that additional measures to stiffen the Whitestone Bridge were unnecessary. A Princeton University professor separately created a model of the bridge, finding that the Whitestone Bridge's main span could still oscillate in as many as three segments.

Even so, the public was scared by the fact that the two bridges were similar in design, and this led to a belief that the Whitestone Bridge might be unstable, as Moses later related. Shortly after the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse, Moses announced that steel cable stays would be installed on the bridge's towers to reduce oscillation. To mitigate the risk of failure from high winds, eight stay cables, two on each side of both suspension towers, were proposed for installation. The stays were supposed to be completed in January 1941. Although $1 million was initially allocated for the bridge-stiffening project, construction was deferred due to material and labor shortages during World War II.

Planning for the project resumed in September 1945 at the end of the war, and a low bidder for the project was announced that October. The project's primary goal was to reinforce the bridge with trusses, thus ensuring the bridge's stability. The four lanes of roadway traffic were widened to six lanes, with the two additional lanes replacing the pedestrian walkways on each side. On both sides of the deck, 14 ft-high steel trusses were installed to weigh down and stiffen the bridge in an effort to reduce oscillation. The stiffening project was completed in 1947. The bridge was repainted in 1953, and large overhead signs were installed on the bridge the same year to direct motorists toward the Whitestone and Cross Island parkways.

Increases in traffic
By the late 1950s, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge was carrying nearly 30 million vehicles a year. Concurrently, the Whitestone Parkway and the portion of the Hutchinson River Parkway between the bridge and the Bruckner Interchange were converted to Interstate Highway standards. The Whitestone Parkway became the Whitestone Expressway, and the upgraded part of the Hutchinson River Parkway became the Hutchinson River Expressway. In addition, the Van Wyck Expressway between John F. Kennedy International Airport and Kew Gardens was extended northward to connect with the Whitestone Expressway and the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge. By 1966, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge had been designated as part of Interstate 678, along with the Whitestone Expressway. These highway upgrades were performed in preparation for the 1964 New York World's Fair, which was also held in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.

Also by the 1950s, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge was nearing its traffic capacity because it was the easternmost crossing of the East River between the Bronx and Queens. To alleviate traffic loads on the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, planning for the Throgs Neck Bridge to the east, started in 1955, and construction of that bridge began in 1957. After the Throgs Neck Bridge opened in 1961, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge recorded a corresponding 40% decline in traffic; according to a TBTA executive, traffic on the bridge ultimately decreased by more than half. Soon afterward, the 1964 World's Fair resulted in an increase in traffic on the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge. In 1968, a heavy storm with winds of up to 80 mph caused the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's deck to bounce, though the additional trusses helped to reduce vertical movements. No one was injured, and officials stated that the bridge was not in danger of collapsing during the storm.

In the long run, use of the bridge continued to grow. By the bridge's 40th anniversary in 1979, there were about 31 million vehicles using the bridge annually. The bridge had recorded a total of 858 million vehicular crossings over its lifetime. By 1985, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge carried 35 million vehicles annually, more than the 33 million recorded in 1960, before the Throgs Neck Bridge had opened as an alternate route. There had been several plans to build a Long Island Sound bridge east of the Bronx–Whitestone and Throgs Neck bridges to relieve traffic on these crossings, although such a bridge remained unbuilt in the 21st century. After concrete debris fell from the bridge's Queens approach viaduct in 1985, the TBTA repaired the approach. Upon the bridge's 50th anniversary in 1989, a New York Times writer said: "The Bronx-Whitestone Bridge amounted to soaring evidence that dreams can come true."

Major repairs
In March 1990, the TBTA announced that the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge would undergo a $20.3 million refurbishment. The anchorages, roadways, and drainage were to be repaired during off-peak hours for two years. Actual work took place between December 1989 and December 1991. As the Throgs Neck Bridge was being repaired simultaneously, this caused major traffic jams at both bridges. During the renovation, the bridge's expansion joints were replaced by the American Bridge Company, which had originally built the suspension towers. However, in 1993, the sealant around the joints was observed to be deteriorating, necessitating additional repairs.

By 2001, the TBTA's successor Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) planned to spend $286 million in bridge renovations. In 2003, the MTA restored the classic lines of the bridge by removing the stiffening trusses and installing fiberglass fairing along both sides of the road deck. The lightweight fiberglass fairing is triangular in shape, giving it an aerodynamic profile that allows crosswinds to flow through the bridge rather than hit the trusses. The removal of the trusses and other changes to the decking reduced the bridge's weight by 6,000 tons, accounting for some 25% of the mass suspended by the cables, In addition, with the truss removals, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge was able to withstand crosswinds of up to 150 mph, whereas the trusses could resist crosswinds of no more than 50 mph. The truss removal project also involved upgrading the lighting systems, including the bridge's lightbulbs and the beacons atop the suspension towers, as well as replacing the sprinkler and electrical systems.

In 2005, it was announced that the bridge's deck had to be replaced with a new steel orthotropic deck composed of prefabricated panels. One lane at a time needed to be closed and replaced, so as to minimize traffic disruptions. During the deck replacement, five lanes were kept open at all times using a movable barrier, with three Bronx-bound lanes during the morning rush hour and three Queens-bound lanes during the evening rush. Other renovations included adding mass dampers to stabilize the bridge deck; repainting the two towers and the bridge deck; and installing variable-message signs. The deck replacement was completed by 2007. However, cracks were soon observed in some of the new panels, and by 2014, cracks had been observed in 66 of 408 panels, necessitating approximately 1,000 ft of rib welds. The renovations were intended to extend the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge's lifespan indefinitely. These improvements also accommodated the bridge's high traffic volumes: by 2008, the bridge was being used by an average of 120,000 vehicles a day, amounting to 43 million crossings that year.

The Queens and Bronx approaches were replaced in a project that started in 2008. As part of the project, each of the approaches' lanes was widened to 12 ft. The replacement of the bridge's approaches involved replacing 15 supporting piers and 1785 ft of roadway on the Bronx side, as well as 1010 ft of viaduct on the Queens side, which helped support the wider lanes. The contract for the Bronx viaduct replacement was awarded in 2008, and it was completed in late 2012 at a cost of $212 million. The replacement of the Queens approach, which cost $109 million, was completed in May 2015. During the renovation of that approach, the exit from northbound I-678 to Third Avenue was closed and rehabilitated.

Tolls
, drivers pay $11.19 per car or $4.71 per motorcycle for tolls by mail/non-NYCSC E-Z Pass. E-ZPass users with transponders issued by the New York E‑ZPass Customer Service Center pay $6.94 per car or $3.02 per motorcycle. Mid-Tier NYCSC E-Z Pass users pay $9.11 per car or $3.89 per motorcycle. All E-ZPass users with transponders not issued by the New York E-ZPass CSC will be required to pay Toll-by-mail rates.

The toll plaza of the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, located on the Bronx side, originally contained 10 toll lanes but was later expanded. Four self-service toll-collection machines were installed at the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge during the 1950s, but they were removed in 1959 because motorists repeatedly dropped their coins at the machines. E-ZPass was introduced at the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge in June 1996. Initially, the bridge's toll plaza contained three E-ZPass/cash lanes in each direction to reduce confusion; this contrasted with the Throgs Neck Bridge, where confusion between the E-ZPass-only lanes and cash-only lanes had caused congestion.

Open-road cashless tolling began on September 30, 2017. The tollbooths, which were at the Bronx end of the bridge, were dismantled, and drivers are no longer able to pay cash at the bridge. Instead, cameras and E-ZPass readers are mounted on new overhead gantries manufactured by TransCore near where the booths were located. A vehicle without E-ZPass has a picture taken of its license plate and a bill for the toll is mailed to its owner. For E-ZPass users, sensors detect their transponders wirelessly.

Public transportation
The bridge carries two MTA Regional Bus Operations routes, the operated by MTA New York City Transit, and the  Limited (formerly part of the QBx1), operated by the MTA Bus Company.

After the removal of the sidewalks starting in 1943, bicyclists were able to use QBx1 buses of the Queens Surface Corporation, which could carry bicycles on the front-mounted bike racks. However, since the Metropolitan Transportation Authority absorbed the bus routes formerly operated by Queens Surface, the bike racks were eliminated. In April 1994, bike racks were installed onto QBx1 buses, but the bike-on-bus program was eliminated on February 27, 2005, the same day as the MTA's takeover of the QBx1 route. After the QBx1 was replaced by the Q50, the MTA reintroduced bike racks on Q50 buses in early 2018.

title: Bronx–Whitestone Bridge


text:
Drug Abuse Resistance Education

Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., is an American education program that tries to prevent use of controlled drugs, membership in gangs, and violent behavior. It was founded in Los Angeles in 1983 as a joint initiative of then-LAPD chief Daryl Gates and the Los Angeles Unified School District as a demand-side drug control strategy of the American War on Drugs.

The program was most prominent in the 1980s and 1990s. At the height of its popularity, D.A.R.E. was found in 75% of American school districts and was funded by the US government. The program consists of police officers who make visits to elementary school classrooms, warning children that drugs are harmful and should be refused. D.A.R.E. sought to educate children on how to resist peer pressure to take drugs. It also denounced alcohol, tobacco, graffiti, and tattoos as the results of peer pressure.

A series of scientific studies in the 1990s and 2000s cast doubt on the effectiveness of D.A.R.E., with some studies concluding the program was harmful or counterproductive. Years after its effectiveness was cast into doubt, the program remained popular among politicians and many members of the public, in part because of a common intuition that the program ought to work. Eventually, in the early 2000s, funding for the program was greatly reduced.

The program distributed t-shirts and other items branded with the D.A.R.E. logo and with anti-drug messages. These items were repurposed by drug culture as ironic statements starting in the 1990s.

Its American headquarters is in Inglewood, California. D.A.R.E. expanded to the United Kingdom in 1995. The program's mascot is Daren the Lion.

History and purpose
D.A.R.E. program materials from 1991 describe it as "a drug abuse prevention education program designed to equip elementary school children with skills for resisting peer pressure to experiment with tobacco, drugs, and alcohol." It was created as a part of the war on drugs in the United States, with the intention of reducing the demand for drugs through education that would make drug use unappealing. The program was conducted by uniformed police officers who visited classrooms.

The program was developed in 1983 on the initiative of Daryl Gates, chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, in collaboration with Harry Handler, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District. A local program at first, D.A.R.E. spread rapidly in the 1980s. In 1988, Ronald Reagan proclaimed the first National D.A.R.E. Day. At the program's height, it was in 75% of American school districts. It was funded by the federal government in the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986, which mentions D.A.R.E. by name. In 2002, D.A.R.E. had an annual budget of over $10 million.

The curriculum consisted of lectures on the harmful consequences of drug and alcohol use, how to refuse drugs, building self-esteem and support networks, and alternatives to drugs. Curriculum also condemned graffiti and tattoos because they were considered to be the result of peer pressure. These lessons were derived from SMART, an anti-drug program under development at the University of Southern California, but they were adapted to be delivered by police officers instead of educators. Officers were also encouraged to spend time with students informally, such as playing basketball or chatting with students over lunch. Officers would sometimes arrive in sports cars that police had seized from drug dealers, which was intended to demonstrate that drugs lead to losing coveted possessions.

Scientific studies cast doubt on the effectiveness of D.A.R.E. starting in the early 1990s, with many concluding that D.A.R.E. did nothing to reduce illicit drug use. One study found that D.A.R.E. students were actually more likely to use drugs. Yet the program remained popular among politicians and many members of the public for decades, in part because of a common intuitive judgment that the program should work. Funding for D.A.R.E. was greatly reduced in the 2000s because of its poor performance at reducing drug use, particularly following a General Accounting Office report in 2003 which found "no significant differences in illicit drug use" caused by D.A.R.E.

After decades of antagonism toward D.A.R.E. because of its ineffectiveness, the curriculum was changed starting in 2009. The new program is called "Keepin' it REAL" and focuses less on lectures and more on interactive activities, such as practicing refusal and saying no to pressure. It is now less explicitly focused on opposition to drugs, with the broader aim of teaching good decision-making.

Use of children as informants
Circa 2004, "[c]hildren [were] asked to submit to D.A.R.E. police officers sensitive written questionnaires that can easily refer to the kids' homes" and that "a D.A.R.E. lesson [was] called 'The Three R's: Recognize, Resist, Report'", encouraging children to "tell friends, teachers or police if they find drugs at home."

In addition, "D.A.R.E. officers are encouraged to put a 'D.A.R.E. Box' in every classroom, into which students may drop 'drug information' or questions under the pretense of anonymity. Officers are instructed that if a student 'makes a disclosure related to drug use,' the officer should report the information to further authorities, both school and police. This apparently applies whether the 'drug use' was legal or illegal, harmless or harmful. In a number of communities around the country, students have been enlisted by the D.A.R.E. officer as informants against their parents."

Circa 1995, parents compared D.A.R.E. to the late Weimar Republic, in its installation of "uniformed, sometimes armed, agents of the state in classrooms to tell children what their attitudes ought to be, and to obtain information about family home life which may be of interest to the state".

In 1997, The Future of Freedom Foundation asserted that, "In the official D.A.R.E. Implementation Guide, police officers are advised to be alert for signs of children who have relatives who use drugs. D.A.R.E. officers are first and foremost police officers and thus are duty-bound to follow up leads that might come to their attention through inadvertent or indiscreet comments by young children." As a result, children sometimes confide the names of people they suspect are illegally using drugs.

1992 – Indiana University
Researchers at Indiana University, commissioned by Indiana school officials in 1992, found that those who completed the D.A.R.E. program subsequently had significantly higher rates of hallucinogenic drug use than those not exposed to the program.

1994 – RTI International
In 1994, three RTI International scientists evaluated eight previous quantitative analyses on D.A.R.E.'s efficacy that were found to meet their requirements for rigor. The researchers found that D.A.R.E.'s long-term effect could not be determined, because the corresponding studies were "compromised by severe control group attrition or contamination". However, the study concluded that in the short-term "DARE imparts a large amount of information, but has little or no impact on students' drug use", and that much smaller, interactive programs were more effective.

After the 1994 Research Triangle Institute study, an article in the Los Angeles Times stated that the "organization spent $41,000 to try to prevent widespread distribution of the RTI report and started legal action aimed at squelching the study". The director of publication of the American Journal of Public Health told USA Today that "DARE has tried to interfere with the publication of this. They tried to intimidate us."

1995 – California Department of Education
In 1995, a report to the California Department of Education by Joel Brown, stated that none of California's drug education programs worked, including D.A.R.E.: "California's drug education programs, D.A.R.E. being the largest of them, simply don't work. More than 40 percent of the students told researchers they were 'not at all' influenced by drug educators or programs. Nearly 70 percent reported neutral to negative feelings about those delivering the anti-drug message. While only 10 percent of elementary students responded to drug education negatively or indifferently, this figure grew to 33 percent of middle school students and topped 90 percent at the high school level." In some circles, educators and administrators have admitted that D.A.R.E., in fact, potentially increased students' exposure and knowledge of unknown drugs and controlled substances, resulting in experimentation and consumption of narcotics at a much younger age. Criticism focused on failure and misuse of taxpayer dollars, with either ineffective or negative results state-wide.

1998 – National Institute of Justice
In 1998, a grant from the National Institute of Justice to the University of Maryland resulted in a report to the NIJ, which among other statements, concluded that "D.A.R.E. does not work to reduce substance use." D.A.R.E. expanded and modified the social competency development area of its curriculum in response to the report. Research by Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum in 1998 found that D.A.R.E. graduates were more likely than others to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and use illegal drugs. Psychologist Dr. William Colson asserted in 1998 that D.A.R.E. increased drug awareness so that "as they get a little older, they (students) become very curious about these drugs they've learned about from police officers." The scientific research evidence in 1998 indicated that the officers were unsuccessful in preventing the increased awareness and curiosity from being translated into illegal use. The evidence suggested that, by exposing young impressionable children to drugs, the program was, in fact, encouraging and nurturing drug use. Studies funded by the National Institute of Justice in 1998, and the California Legislative Analyst's Office in 2000 also concluded that the program was ineffective.

1999 – Lynam et al.
A ten-year study was completed by Donald R. Lynam and colleagues in 2006 involving one thousand D.A.R.E. graduates in an attempt to measure the effects of the program. After the ten-year period, no measurable effects were noted. The researchers compared levels of alcohol, cigarette, marijuana and the use of illegal substances before the D.A.R.E. program (when the students were in sixth grade) with the post-D.A.R.E. levels (when they were 20 years old). Although there were some measured effects shortly after the program on the attitudes of the students towards drug use, these effects did not seem to carry on long-term.

2001 – Office of the Surgeon General
In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher, placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Ineffective Primary Prevention Programs". The U.S. General Accounting Office concluded in 2003 that the program was sometimes counterproductive in some populations, with those who graduated from D.A.R.E. later having higher than average rates of drug use (a boomerang effect).

2007 – Perspectives on Psychological Science
In March 2007, the D.A.R.E. program was placed on a list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm in clients in the APS journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science.

2009 – Texas A&M
"The Social Construction of 'Evidence-Based' Drug Prevention Programs: A Reanalysis of Data from the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Program," Evaluation Review, Vol. 33, No.4, 394–414 (2009). Studies by Dave Gorman and Carol Weiss argue that the D.A.R.E. program has been held to a higher standard than other youth drug prevention programs. Gorman writes, "what differentiates DARE from many of the programs on evidence-based lists might not be the actual intervention but rather the manner in which data analysis is conducted, reported, and interpreted." Dennis M. Gorman and J. Charles Huber Jr.

The U.S. Department of Education prohibits any of its funding to be used to support drug prevention programs that have not been able to demonstrate their effectiveness. Accordingly, D.A.R.E. America, in 2004, instituted a major revision of its curriculum.

The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) identified alternative start-up regional programs, none of which have longevity nor have they been subjected to intense scrutiny.

Reception
The D.A.R.E. program is consistent with the "zero-tolerance orthodoxy of current U.S. drug control policy." According to researcher D. M. Gorman of the Rutgers University Center of Alcohol Studies, it supports the ideology and the "prevailing wisdom that exists among policy makers and politicians."

It also claims to meet the needs of stake holders such as school districts, parents, and law enforcement agencies. "DARE America also has been very successful in marketing its program to the news media through a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign that highlights its popularity while downplaying criticism."

Psychologists at the University of Kentucky concluded that "continued enthusiasm [for DARE] shows Americans' stubborn resistance to apply science to drug policy."

Marsha Rosenbaum, who headed the West Coast office of the Lindesmith Center, a drug policy reform organization, provided an opinion for a 1999 Village Voice article, "In D.A.R.E.'s worldview, Marlboro Light cigarettes, Bacardi rum, and a drag from a joint are all equally dangerous. For that matter, so is snorting a few lines of cocaine." D.A.R.E. "isn't really education. It's indoctrination." The article also stated, "Part of what makes DARE so popular is that participants get lots of freebies. There are fluorescent yellow pens with the DARE logo, tiny DARE dolls, bumper stickers, graduation certificates, DARE banners for school auditoriums, DARE rulers, pennants, DARE coloring books, and T-shirts for all DARE graduates."

D.A.R.E. has failed to fact check some articles on their website, promoting one news piece that was satire, titled "Edible Marijuana Candies Kill 9 in Colorado, 12 at Coachella."

Motivation of the critics
D.A.R.E. America has generally dismissed many criticisms and independent studies of its program, labeling them false, misleading, or biased. "DARE has long dismissed criticism of its approach as flawed or the work of groups that favor decriminalization of drug use," according to the New York Times in 2001. In a press release titled "Pro-drug Groups Behind Attack on Prevention Programs; DARE Seen as Target as Mayors' Conference Called to Combat Legalization Threat," D.A.R.E. asserted that pro-drug legalization individuals and groups were behind criticisms of the program, which were portrayed as based on "vested interests" and "to support various individual personal agendas at the expense of our children."

D.A.R.E. has attacked critics for allegedly being motivated by their financial self-interest in programs that compete with D.A.R.E. It has charged that "they are setting out to find ways to attack our programs and are misusing science to do it. The bottom line is that they don't want police officers to do the work because they want it for themselves." Critics have also been dismissed as being jealous of D.A.R.E.'s success.

Rebuttal of statistics
Ronald J. Brogan, New York City's D.A.R.E. fundraiser and spokesman, said in 1999 "If you take German for 17 weeks, you're not going to speak German. The critics say the effect dissipates over the years. No shit, Sherlock." The article in which he was quoted observed that "DARE officials say the solution to this problem is not less DARE but more of it, and they urge cities to teach DARE in middle and high school."

One leader explained that "I don't have any statistics for you. Our strongest numbers are the numbers that don't show up." The 1998 University of Maryland report presented to the U.S. National Institute of Justice stated, "Officials of DARE America are often quoted as saying that the strong public support for the program is a better indicator of its utility than scientific studies."

New curriculum
In 2009, D.A.R.E. adopted the "keepin' it REAL" curriculum. Rather than solely focusing on the perils of alcohol and other drugs, keepin' it REAL developed a 10-lesson curriculum that included aspects of European American, Mexican American, and African American culture integrated with culturally based narration and performance. The program was developed by Penn State researchers, who evaluated its effectiveness, though critics contend the program does not implement a long-term evaluation system.

In 2013, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ranked its "readiness for dissemination" at 1.5 out of 4. Two field randomized controlled trials showed the effectiveness of the multicultural keepin' it REAL for reducing substance use across grade levels and ethnic/racial groups, which highlights the importance of grounding substance use prevention programs in their audiences' cultural attitudes, values, norms, and beliefs. The second study "evaluated onset of drug use across and within ethnic groups and the ideal times to intervene" finding "a double dose of intervention in elementary and middle school was no more effective than middle school intervention alone."

Following the passing of Washington Initiative 502 that legalized cannabis consumption in Washington state, the D.A.R.E. program was changed in the state to remove cannabis messages from their year 5 curriculum, arguing "research has found that teaching children about drugs with which they have never heard of or have no real life understanding may stimulate their interest or curiosity about the substance."

Ironic response
T-shirts and other merchandise reading "D.A.R.E. To Keep Kids Off Drugs" became popular as an ironic item in drug culture and other countercultures starting in the 1990s. According to a report from Vice, the program's appealing logo and acronym may unintentionally suggest one should dare to experiment with drugs. Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian in a 2022 tweet referred to his sporting of the T-Shirt in 2019 with "What are you all wearing for Halloween this year?"

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

title: Drug Abuse Resistance Education


text:
Rāhula

Rahul (Pāli) or Rāhula (Sanskrit; born c. 534 BCE or 451 BCE) was the only son of Siddhārtha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha, and his wife, princess Yaśodharā. He is mentioned in numerous Buddhist texts, from the early period onward. Accounts about Rāhula indicate a mutual impact between Prince Siddhārtha's life and the lives of his family members. According to the Pāli tradition, Rāhula was born on the day of Prince Siddhārtha's renunciation, and was therefore named Rāhula, meaning a fetter on the path to enlightenment. According to the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, and numerous other later sources, however, Rāhula was only on the day of Prince Siddhartha's renunciation, and was born six years later, when Prince Siddhārtha became enlightened as the Buddha. This long gestation period was explained by bad karma from previous lives of both Yaśodharā and of Rāhula himself, although more naturalistic reasons are also given. As a result of the late birth, Yaśodharā needed to prove that Rāhula was really Prince Siddhārtha's son, which she eventually did successfully by an act of truth. Historian H.W. Schumann has argued that Prince Siddhārtha conceived Rāhula and waited for his birth, to be able to leave the palace with the king and queen's permission, but Orientalist Noël Péri considered it more likely that Rāhula was born after Prince Siddhārtha left his palace.

12 years after Rahula's birth, the Buddha returned to his hometown, where Yaśodharā had Rāhula ask the Buddha for the throne of the Śākya clan. The Buddha responded by having Rāhula ordained as the first Buddhist novice monk. He taught the young novice about truth, self-reflection, and not-self, eventually leading to Rāhula's enlightenment. Although early accounts state that Rāhula died before the Buddha did, later tradition has it that Rāhula was one of the disciples that outlived the Buddha, guarding the Buddha's Dispensation until the rising of the next Buddha. Rāhula is known in Buddhist texts for his eagerness for learning, and was honored by novice monks and nuns throughout Buddhist history. His accounts have led to a perspective in Buddhism of seeing children as hindrances to the spiritual life on the one hand, and as people with potential for enlightenment on the other hand.

Accounts
Some early texts such as those of the Pāli tradition do not mention Rāhula at all; but he is mentioned in later Pāli texts such as the Apadāna and the commentaries, as well as in the texts on monastic discipline of the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Mahāsaṇghika traditions. Earliest texts do not describe Rāhula in much detail, and he remains an ideal figure without much depth in character. Because of the lack of detail, especially after Rāhula's ordination, some scholars have argued Rāhula did not have an important role in Buddhism. Apart from the early texts, there are many post-canonical Buddhist texts that contain accounts about Rāhula. The accounts about Rāhula reveal that when Prince Siddhārtha left his palace to become a monk; his decision and subsequent spiritual quest was not just a personal matter, but also affected his family every step during the way, as they responded to and affected the prince on his path to enlightenment. Thus, the prince's life before enlightenment is about two parallel spiritual lives, that of the Buddha and that of his family.

Pāli tradition
[[File:Siddhartha leaving sleeping Yashodhara and Rahula Roundel 17 buddha ivory tusk.jpg|thumb|Just before the prince leaves the palace for the spiritual life, he takes one look at his wife Yaśodharā and his just-born child. 7 years after attaining Buddhahood the Buddha visited Kapilawastupura again on the behalf of Minister Kaludaiy Rāhula was born on same day Prince [[Gautama Buddha|Siddhārtha Gautama]] renounced the throne by leaving the palace, when the prince was 29 years old, on the full moon day of the eight lunar month of the ancient Indian calendar. That day, Prince Siddhārtha was preparing himself to leave the palace. The Pāli account claims that when he received the news of his son's birth he replied "", meaning "A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen", that is, an impediment to the search for enlightenment. Accordingly, Śuddhodana, Prince Siddhārtha's father and king of the Śākya clan, named the child Rāhula, because he did not want his son to pursue a spiritual life as a mendicant. In some versions, Prince Siddhārtha was the one naming his son this way, for being a hindrance on his spiritual path. Just before the prince left the palace for the spiritual life, he took one look at his wife Yaśodharā and his just-born child. Fearing his resolve might waver, Prince Siddhārtha resisted to hold his son and left the palace as he had planned. Rāhula therefore became Prince Siddhārtha's first and only son.
 * alt=Ivory tusk showing a woman and a child sleeping on a bed, and a man standing besides the bed.]]

Other traditions
Other texts derive rāhu differently. For example, the Pāli Apadāna, as well as another account found in the texts of monastic discipline of the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, derive rāhu from the eclipse of the moon, which traditionally was seen to be caused by the asura (demon) Rāhu. The Apadāna states that just like the moon is obstructed from view by Rāhu, Prince Siddhārtha was obstructed by Rāhula's birth. The Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition relates, however, that Rāhula was conceived on the evening of the renunciation of Prince Siddhārtha, and born six years later, on the day that his father achieved enlightenment, which was during a lunar eclipse. Further credence is given to the astrological theory of Rāhula's name by the observation that sons of previous Buddhas were given similar names, related to constellations.

Mūlasarvāstivāda and later Chinese texts such as the Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra give two types of explanation for the long gestation period. The first type involves the karma of Princess Yaśodharā and Rāhula himself. According to this interpretation, Yaśodharā had to bear the suffering of carrying a child in her womb for six years, because in a previous life as a cow herder she had refused to help her mother to carry a pail of milk and left it for her mother to carry the extra pail for six leagues. As for Rāhula, his karma was that in a previous life as a king he unintentionally had a sage wait for six days. In this life, he was a king called Sūrya and his brother, a previous life of the Buddha, was a hermit called Candra or Likhita who had taken a vow he would only live from what was given by people. One day, the brother broke his vow to take some water, and feeling guilty, asked the king to punish him. The king refused to issue a punishment for such a trivial matter, but had his brother wait for his final decision and constrained in the royal gardens. After six days, the king suddenly realized he had forgotten about the hermit and immediately set him free, including apologies and gifts. As a result, Rāhula had to wait for six years before being born. In some versions, the king did not allow a sage to enter his kingdom and accumulated the same bad karma of a long gestation period. The later Mahāyāna commentary Mahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa does not blame Yaśodharā's karma for the six years gestation period, but does mention Rāhula's same karma as a king. However, in the 13th-century Japanese devotional text Raun Kōshiki, Rāhula's late birth is seen as evidence of a miracle, rather than a result of karma.

The second type of explanation consists of the more naturalistic argument that Yaśodharā was practicing religious austerities involving fasting and sleeping on a straw bed, which caused Rāhula's growth to slow down. She was involved in these practices during the time when Siddhārtha was practicing self-mortification. Later, King Śuddhodana prevented Yaśodharā from hearing any news of her former husband, and she gradually became healthier, as the pregnancy continued normally. However, some time later, the false rumor spread that the former prince had died of his ascetism. Yaśodharā became very desperate and depressed, endangering her own pregnancy. When the news reached the palace that Siddhārtha had attained enlightenment, Yaśodharā was overjoyed and gave birth to Rāhula. Buddhist Studies scholar John S. Strong notes that this account draws a parallel between the quest for enlightenment and Yaśodharā's path to being a mother, and eventually, they both are accomplished at the same time. The late childbirth leads to doubts in the Śākya clan as to who is the father, as told in the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, in the Mahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa and in the later Chinese Zabaozang jing. Since Rāhula's birth was not regarded by Buddhists to be a virginal or miraculous birth, tradition had to explain that Prince Siddhārtha was actually the father. Yaśodharā responded by putting her child on a stone in a pond of water and making an act of truth that if Rāhula really was his child, that Rāhula and the stone may not sink, but rather float back-and-forth. After she made the declaration, the child floated according to her vow. Strong notes that this is a symbolic parallel with the attainment of enlightenment by the Buddha—described as the "further shore"—and the return to teach humankind. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa contains another account, in which Prince Siddhārtha has several wives, and a wife other than Yaśodharā is the one defending her, being witness of her purity in conduct.

Furthermore, in both the Mūlasarvāstivāda texts and the Mahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa, there is a third account that proves Yaśodharā's purity in conduct: in this version, the Buddha made everyone around him look identical to him, through a supernatural accomplishment. Rāhula proved that the Buddha was his true father when he managed to approach the real Buddha straight away. In a fourth story about proving Yaśodhara's purity, appearing in Chinese Avadāna-style texts from the 5th century CE onward, she was burnt alive, but miraculously survived. In this account, King Śuddhodana ordered that she be killed by burning her alive as punishment for her alleged impurity. Instead of being hurt by the flames, however, she performed an act of truth and the fire transformed into a pond of water. Śuddhodana welcomed her and her son back into the clan, and later became very fond of Rāhula. Some Chinese Jātakas say that he recognized his son Siddhārtha in the child, and managed to better cope with the loss of Prince Siddhārtha. Religion scholar Reiko Ohnuma sees the fire ordeal as a metaphor that parallels the Buddha's enlightenment, a similar argument that Strong makes.

Scholarly analysis
Historians Mircea Eliade and H.W. Schumann hypothesized that Prince Siddhārtha conceived Rāhula to please his parents, to obtain their permission for leaving the palace and becoming a mendicant. It was an Indian custom to renounce the world only after the birth of a child or grandchild. Schumann further speculated that the prince only conceived a son thirteen years after his marriage, because Yaśodharā initially did not want to bear a child, for fear that the prince would leave the palace and the throne as soon as the child was conceived. Orientalist Noël Péri believed, however, that a late gestation period was more historically probable than the birth on the same day, as in the Pāli tradition. He believed that if Prince Siddhārtha had left an heir to the throne, there would have been no sound reason for him to leave secretly at night. In many traditional biographies, Prince Siddhārtha is described leaving the palace without his parents' permission. Péri argued that this makes little sense if he had already provided an heir to his parents' satisfaction. He further argued that there are many sources that try to explain the long gestation period, indicating an established tradition. Nevertheless, although many traditional accounts of the Buddha's life relate that Siddhartha leaves the palace in secret, Early Buddhist Texts clearly state that his parents are aware of his choice, as they are said to weep at the time their son leaves them.

From a mythological and text critical point of view, Buddhist Studies scholar Kate Crosby argues that Prince Siddhārtha conceiving or giving birth to a son before his renunciation functions as a motif to prove that he was the best at each possible path in life: after having tried the life of a father to the fullest, he decided to leave it behind for a better alternative. In early Buddhist India, being a father and bearing a son was seen as a spiritual and religious path as well as that of renouncing one's family, and Prince Siddhārtha's bringing a son in the world before renunciation proves he was capable of both. Buddhist studies scholar John S. Strong hypothesizes that the Mūlasarvāstivāda version of the story of the prince conceiving a child on the eve of his departure was developed to prove that the Buddha was not physically disabled in some way. A disability might have raised doubts about the validity of his ordination in monastic tradition.

Ordination
The accounts continue and describe that Rāhula was raised by his mother Yaśodharā and grandfather King Śuddhodana. When Rāhula was between seven and fifteen years old, the Buddha returned to his home city of Kapilavastu at the request of Śuddhodana. The Mahāvastu text from the Lokottaravāda tradition states that the royals tried to prevent Rāhula from learning about the return of his father, but eventually he insisted to know who the "Great Ascetic" about to arrive was, and he was told. Next, the Mahāvastu and the Mūlasarvāstivāda texts relate that Yaśodharā tried to tempt the Buddha back into his life as a prince by having Rāhula offer the Buddha an aphrodisiac. Mūlasarvāstivāda texts continue and tell that her plan backfired when the Buddha had Rāhula eat it himself, and Rāhula therefore became enamored by his father and wished to follow him. In the Pāli version of the story, on the seventh day of the Buddha's return, Yaśodharā took Rāhula to see his father, the Buddha. She told Rāhula that since his father had renounced the palace life and as he was the next royal prince in line, he should ask his father for his inheritance of crown and treasure. This would be for his future sake when his grandfather would no longer rule the kingdom. After the Buddha had a meal, Rāhula followed the Buddha and asked him for his inheritance. The Buddha did not try to prevent Rāhula from following him, but in some versions of the story, some women from the court did try to, yet Rāhula persisted. He then looked at his father and says, "Pleasant is your shadow, recluse". After Rāhula reached the Park of Nigrodha, where the Buddha was staying, the Buddha considered that the heritage of the throne would one day perish, and was tied up with suffering and stress: "I will give him the wealth I obtained under the tree of enlightenment thus making him the heir of an inheritance that does not perish."

Most traditions relate that the Buddha then called Śāriputra and asked him to ordain Rāhula. Rāhula was ordained, becoming the first śrāmaṇera (novice monk), and probably the first person in the monastic order to receive ordination in a formal way. In some versions of the story, such as the 9th-century Chinese Weicengyou Yinyuan Jing, a group of young boys were ordained together with him. The king discovered that his grandson, his son Nanda and a number of other young men in the royal family had then received ordination and left the palace. Seeing his daughter grieve, he asked the Buddha that from now on, he only ordain people with the consent of their parents. Śuddhodana explained that Rāhula's ordination was a great shock to him. The Buddha assented to the proposal. This rule was later expanded in the case of women ordaining, as both parents and the husband had to give permission first to allow women to join the order of monks and nuns. In some versions of the story of Rāhula's ordination, Yaśodharā also protested, but relented in the end. The Mahāvastu states, however, that Rāhula asked to ordain himself, and was eventually granted permission by Yaśodharā and Śuddhodana.

Archaeologist Maurizio Taddei has noted that in many Gandhāran art depictions, Rāhula's life is linked to that of a previous life of the Buddha, the hermit Sumedha. The Buddha giving his spiritual heritage to his son is compared to that of Sumedha allowing the Buddha Dīpaṃkara to walk over him, which was followed by Dipaṃkara predicting that Sumedha will become a Buddha in a future life. Both the figure of Gautama Buddha giving his inheritance to his son, and the figure of Dīpaṃkara Buddha giving his inheritance of Buddhahood to Sumedha are depicted with flames emitting from their bodies; both scenes are depictions of inheritance, filial and disciple piety; both may have been considered by 5th-century Buddhists to be representations of "eager youth".

Enlightenment and death
According to the Pāli texts, once Rāhula had become novice, the Buddha taught Rāhula regularly. His instructions were very age-specific, using vivid metaphors and simple explanations. The Buddha's teachings have led to numerous discourses being named after Rāhula in the Early Buddhist Texts. Pāli texts relate how Rāhula grew up to become a novice that was diligent, dutiful, amenable and eager for learning, but there are also some early medieval Chinese and Japanese accounts which relate that Rāhula initially struggled with being a novice and only later appreciated the Buddha's teaching. Besides the Buddha, Śāriputra and Maugalyayāna also helped to teach Rāhula. Rāhula often assisted Śāriputra on his rounds for alms in the morning, and sometimes on other travels. Every morning, Rāhula woke up and threw a handful of sand in the air, making the wish that he may be counselled by good teachers as much as those grains of sand.

Still in the same year as Rāhula's ordination, the Buddha taught his son the importance of telling the truth in a discourse known as the Ambalatthika-Rāhulovāda Sutta. In this discourse, the Buddha taught and encouraged consistent self-reflection, to help let go of all evil actions that lead to harm to oneself and others, and to develop self-control and a moral life. He encouraged reflection before, during and after one's actions, and explained that lying makes the spiritual life void and empty, leading to many other evils.

When Rāhula became eighteen years old, the Buddha instructed Rāhula in a meditation technique to counter the desires that hinder him during his tours for alms. Rāhula had grown enamored with his own and his father's handsome appearance. To help Rāhula, the Buddha taught another discourse to him. He told Rāhula that all matter is not-self, and the same held for the different parts of one's mental experience. Having heard the discourse, Rāhula started to practice meditation. His teacher Śāriputra recommended him to practice breathing meditation, but was unable to give Rāhula the instructions he needed. Rāhula therefore asked the Buddha to explain the meditation method in more detail and the Buddha responded by describing several meditation techniques to him. On a similar note, the Buddha taught Rāhula at a place called Andhavana about the impermanence of all things, and instructed him how to overcome the "taints" inside the mind. As a result, Rāhula attained enlightenment. Pāli tradition has it that the sermon was also attended by a crore of heavenly beings, who once had vowed to witness the enlightenment of the son of the Buddha. Rāhula obtained the name "Rāhula the Lucky" (Rāhula-bhadda; Rāhula-bhadra), which he himself explained was because of being the son of the Buddha, and because of having attained enlightenment. Later, the Buddha declared that Rāhula was foremost among all disciples in eagerness in learning (sikkhākamānaṃ). and in the Pāli Udāna, the Buddha included him as one of eleven particularly praiseworthy disciples. Chinese sources add that he was also known for his patience, and that he was foremost in 'practicing with discretion', meaning practicing the Buddha's teaching consistently, dedication to the precepts and study, but without seeking praise or being proud because of being the son of the Buddha. Pāli texts give examples of Rāhula's strictness in monastic discipline. E.g. after there was a rule established that no novice could sleep in the same room as a fully ordained monk, Rāhula was said to have slept in an outdoor toilet. When the Buddha became aware of this, he admonished the monks for not taking proper care of the novices. After that, the Buddha adjusted the rule.

Pāli texts state that despite Rāhula being his son, the Buddha did not particularly favor him: he is said to have loved problematic disciples such as Aṅgulimāla and Devadatta as much as his own son, without any bias. Schumann writes that the Buddha's relationship with his son was "... trusting and friendly, but not cordial or intimate", in order to prevent attachment in the monastic life. Schumann concludes that the Buddha's discourses to his son were essentially not different in nature from those he gave to his other disciples.

Later in Rāhula's life his mother Yaśodharā became ordained as a nun. In one story, the nun Yaśodharā fell ill with flatulence. Rāhula helped her recover by asking his teacher Śāriputra to find sweetened mango juice for her, which was the medicine she was used to and required. Therefore, with Rāhula's help, she eventually recovered.

When he was 20 years old, Rāhula fully ordained as a monk in Sāvatthī.

Rāhula's death receives little attention in the earliest sources. Rāhula died before the Buddha and his teacher Śariputra did. According to Pāli and Chinese sources, this happened as he was travelling psychically through the second Buddhist heaven (Trāyastriṃśa). According to the early Ekottara Āgama (Sārvastivāda or Mahāsaṅghika tradition) and the later Śāriputrapṛcchā, however, Rāhula was one of the four enlightened disciples whom Gautama Buddha asked to prolong their lives to stay in the world until the next Buddha Maitreya has risen, to protect his dispensation.

Previous lives
Following the Pāli and Sanskrit language sources, Rāhula was the son of the Buddha-to-be throughout many lifetimes. He developed his habit of being amenable and easy to teach in previous lives. Pāli texts explain that in a previous life he was impressed by the son of a previous Buddha, and vowed to be like him in a future life.

Legacy
Texts in the Mahayāna tradition describe that Rāhula is the eleventh of the 16 Elders (Ṣoḍaśasthavira; Chinese tradition added two elders in the 10th century, making for 18 Elders), enlightened disciples that have been entrusted with taking care of the Buddha's dispensation until the rising of Maitreya Buddha. Tradition states therefore that Rāhula will be alive until the next Buddha, and until that time resides with 1,100 of his pupils in an island called the 'land of chestnuts and grains'. The pilgrim Xuan Zang (c. 602–664) heard a brahmin claim that he met Rāhula as an old man, who had delayed his passing into Nirvana and was therefore still alive. On a similar note, Rāhula is considered one of the Ten Principal Disciples, known for his dedication to training new monks and novices. Moreover, he is considered to be one of the 23–28 masters in the lineage of the Tiantai tradition, one of the 28 in the Chan lineage, and one of the eight enlightened disciples in the Burmese tradition.

As one of the enlightened disciples responsible for protecting the Buddha's dispensation, Rāhula has often been depicted in East Asian art. He is depicted with a large, "umbrella-shaped" head, prominent eyes and a hooked nose.

The Chinese monks Xuan Zang and Faxian (c. 320–420 CE) noted during their pilgrimages in India that a cult existed that worshiped Rāhula, especially in the Madhura area. Whereas monks would worship certain early male disciples following their particular specialization, and nuns would honor Ānanda in gratitude for helping to set up the nun's order, novices would worship Rāhula. The two Chinese pilgrims noted that Emperor Aśoka built a monument in honor of Rāhula, especially meant for novices to pay their respects. Religious studies scholar Lori Meeks points out with regard to Japan, however, that Rāhula was not the individual object of any devotional cult, but was rather honored as part of a group of enlightened disciples, such as the 16 Elders. Exception to this was the 13th–14th century, when the figure of Rāhula became an important part of a revival of devotion to early Buddhist disciples among the old Nara schools, as chanted lectures (kōshiki) rites, and images were used in dedication to Rāhula. On regular days of religious observance, male and female novices performed rites and gave lectures in honor of Rāhula. These were popular with the laypeople, as well as with priests that aimed to revive Indian Buddhism, in particular early Buddhist monastic discipline. In the kōshiki Rāhula was praised extensively, and was described as the "Eldest Child", eldest being a devotional term, since Prince Siddhārtha had no other children. Thus, the person of Rāhula became an object of devotion and inspiration for monks who wished to observe monastic discipline well.

The Lotus Sūtra, as well as later East Asian texts such as the Raun Kōshiki, relate that Gautama Buddha predicts Rāhula will become a Buddha in a future life, named "Stepping on Seven Treasure Flowers" (Saptaratnapadmavikrama). In these texts, Rāhula is seen as a Mahāyāna type of Buddha-to-be, who would save many sentient beings and lives in a Pure Land.

The exhortations the Buddha gives to Rāhula have also become part of his legacy. The Ambalatthika-Rāhulovāda Sutta became one of the seven Buddhist texts recommended for study in the inscriptions of the Emperor Aśoka. This discourse has been raised by modern ethicists as evidence for consequentalist ethics in Buddhism, though this is disputed.

Rāhula is mentioned as one of the founders of a system of Buddhist philosophy called the Vaibhāṣika, which was part of the Sarvāstivāda schools. He is also considered by some Thai schools of Buddhist borān meditation to be the patron of their tradition, which is explained by referring to Rāhula's gradual development in meditation as opposed to the instant enlightenment of other disciples.

Childhood in Buddhism
From the narratives surrounding Rāhula several conclusions have been drawn with regard to Buddhist perspectives on childhood. Several scholars have raised Rāhula's example to indicate that children in Buddhism are seen as an obstacle to spiritual enlightenment, or that Buddhism, being a monastic religion, is not interested in children. Education scholar Yoshiharu Nakagawa argues, however, that Rāhula's story points at two ideals of childhood which exist parallel in Buddhism: that of the common child, subject to the human condition, and that of the child with a potential for enlightenment, who Crosby describes as a heroic disciple. Religion scholar Vanessa Sasson notes that although Prince Siddhārtha initially abandons his son, he comes back for him and offers a spiritual heritage to him as opposed to a material one. This heritage is given from a viewpoint of trust in the potential of the child Rāhula, presuming that the Buddhist path can also be accessed by children.

The acceptance of Rāhula in the monastic order as a child set a precedent, which later developed into a widespread Buddhist tradition of educating children in monasteries. The numerous teachings given to Rāhula have left behind teaching material which could be used for teaching children of different ages, and were sophisticated for the time period with regard to their age-specific material. Theravāda tradition further built on this genre, with Pāli manuals of religious teaching for novices. Writing about the Buddha's teachings methods used for Rahula, psychologist Kishani Townshend argues "... Buddha's use of Socratic questioning, poetic devices and role modelling are still relevant to developing virtue in today's children."

title: Rāhula


text:
Ostroh

Ostroh (Острог; Ostróg) is a city in Rivne Oblast, western Ukraine. It is situated on the Horyn River. Ostroh was the administrative center of Ostroh Raion until 2020, but as a city of oblast significance did not belong to the raion. Currently the city is the centre of Ostroh urban hromada. Population:

The Ostroh Academy was established here in 1576, the first higher educational institution in modern Ukraine. Furthermore, in the 16th century, the first East Slavic books, notably the Ostrog Bible, were printed there.

History
The Hypatian Codex first mentions Ostroh in 1100, as a fortress of the Volhynian princes. Since the 14th century, it was the seat of the powerful Ostrogski princely family, who developed their town into a great centre of learning and commerce. Upon the family's demise in the 17th century, Ostroh passed to the Zasławski and then Lubomirski families.

In the second half of the 14th century, Ostroh, together with the whole of Volhynia, was administratively integrated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Following the Union of Lublin (1569), the town became part of the Kingdom of Poland. Administratively it was located in the Volhynian Voivodeship in the Lesser Poland Province. Ostroh, known in Polish as Ostróg, received Magdeburg rights in 1585. In the 17th century, the town was surrounded by fortifications, with a moat, a rampart with five bastions. In 1609–1753, it was the capital of the Ostrogski family fee tail, founded by Voivode Janusz Ostrogski, who invited Bernardine monks to Ostróg. Furthermore, the town had a Calvinist academy; among its lecturers was Andrzej Wegierski.

During the Khmelnytsky Uprising, the town was torched by the Cossacks, and its Jewish residents were brutally murdered. The Great Maharsha Synagogue, built in 1627, was damaged during this period. Ostróg slowly recovered, and in the second half of the 18th century, it became the site of a Jesuit college (see Collegium Nobilium). In the Second Partition of Poland in 1793, the town was forcibly annexed by the Russian Empire, where it remained until 1918. Railroad lines, built in the 19th century, missed Ostróg, and as a result, the town stagnated. The railway station serving the area was built in 1873, 14km away, in the village of Ożenin.

In the interwar period, Ostróg belonged to the County of Zdołbunów, Volhynian Voivodeship of the Second Polish Republic. It was an important garrison town for the Polish Army, and the Border Protection Corps (KOP). The KOP Battalion "Ostróg" was stationed there, along with the 19th Volhynian Uhlan Regiment. On July 7, 1920, during the Polish–Soviet War, it was the site of a battle between a Polish unit under Wincenty Krajowski, and the Bolsheviks of Semyon Budyonny's 1st Cavalry Army. Throughout 1919–1939 Ostróg was located in close to the Polish–Soviet border, and special passes were required to enter some districts of the town.

Following the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, Ostróg was annexed by the Soviet Union, as part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. An unknown number of the town's residents were forcibly sent to Siberia.

The Nazi German occupation resulted in the establishment of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (RKU), with headquarters in Rivne. In the autumn of 1941 several large-scale mass murders took place in Volhynia. On 1 September 1941 2,500 Jews were shot in Ostróg. Six weeks later, the ghetto was disbanded and another 3,000 people were killed in the Holocaust.

In 2022, an informal sister city arrangement was established with Beaufort, South Carolina in the United States in which the residents of Beaufort raised funds to support Ostroh during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Landmarks include Ostroh Castle on the Red Hill, with the church of the Epiphany (built in the fifteenth century) and several towers (Tatar Gate Tower and Roun "New" Tower). To the north-west from the castle stand two sixteenth-century towers. The suburb of Mezhirichi contains the Abbey of the Trinity, with a fifteenth-century cathedral and other ancient buildings.

title: Ostroh


text:
Digital Averroes Research Environment

The Digital Averroes Research Environment (DARE), funded by the DFG, is a virtual research environment concerned with the works of Averroës or Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn Aḥmad Ibn Rušd.

DARE aims to provide scholars with the digitized manuscripts and incunables of Averroes's works (around 60,000 as of April 2013), as well as edited full texts, where applicable in all three language traditions of Averroes's works: Arabic, Hebrew and Latin. A comprehensive bibliography complements the corpus.

Content
The aim of the Digital Averroes Research Environment is to collect and edit the works of Averroes by making digital editions of his works, and images of all textual witnesses, including manuscripts, incunabula, and early prints, online accessible. The main benefit of the DARE project is the so-called chunks. Each chunk represents a given section of a certain work of Averroes, which can be traced in each other manifestation. By clicking through the different digitized sections, the patched-in section follows automatically the chosen chunk.

Technical background
Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) forms the backbone of DARE's data. The structure of the texts, the manuscript descriptions, the bibliography and the chunks of the full texts are all encoded in TEI. DARE itself runs in a Drupal-content management system (CMS), and the XML server is Xeletor, a highly scalable and performance-oriented XML server, whose development was also in part funded by DARE. As with all software developed in the course of the project, Xeletor is licensed under the LGPL.

Literature

 * Poster DH2012

title: Digital Averroes Research Environment


text:
Ewing

Ewing may refer to:

People

 * Ewing (surname)
 * Ewing (given name)

Places

 * United States
 * Ewing Township, Boone County, Arkansas
 * Ewing, Illinois, a village
 * Ewing Township, Franklin County, Illinois
 * Ewing, Indiana, an unincorporated community
 * Ewing, Kentucky, a city
 * Ewing Township, Michigan
 * Ewing, Missouri, a city
 * Ewing, Nebraska, a village
 * Ewing Township, Holt County, Nebraska
 * Ewing Township, New Jersey
 * Ewing (unincorporated community), New Jersey, an unincorporated community within the township
 * Ewing/Carroll, Trenton, New Jersey, a neighborhood in the city of Trenton
 * Ewing, Ohio, an unincorporated community
 * Ewing, Angelina County, Texas. a ghost town
 * Ewing, Virginia, a census-designated place
 * Ewing Yard, a rail yard on the St Louis MetroLink

 * Elsewhere
 * Ewing Island (Antarctica)
 * Ewing Island (New Zealand)
 * Ewing Seamount, in the south Atlantic Ocean

Other uses

 * Ewing Public Schools, a school district serving Ewing Township, Mercer County, New Jersey
 * Ewing High School (disambiguation), multiple schools
 * USRC Ewing (1841), a United States Revenue Cutter Service vessel built in 1841

title: Ewing


text:
Bolero (disambiguation)

Bolero is a Cuban genre of song developed in the late 19th century.

Bolero may also refer to:

Music and dance

 * Bolero (Spanish dance), a dance that originated in Spain in the late 18th century
 * Boléro (Chopin), an 1834 piano work
 * Boléro, an orchestral work by Maurice Ravel, originally commissioned as a ballet score by danseuse Ida Rubinstein which premiered in 1928
 * Boléro, choreography by Bronislava Nijinska, designs by Alexandre Benois, Ida Rubinstein Ballet (Paris Opéra, 1928)
 * Boléro, choreographed by Maurice Béjart, Ballet of the 20th Century (La Monnaie, 1961)
 * B/olero, choreographed by Ohad Naharin, Batsheva Dance Company

Albums

 * Boleros (Tete Montoliu album), 1977
 * Bolero (Mr. Children album), 1997
 * Boleros (Juan Gabriel album), 2010
 * Bolero, an album by Stanley Jordan, 1994
 * Bolero, an album by Isao Tomita, 2008
 * Boléro (Larry Coryell album), 1981
 * Boleros, an album by José Cura
 * Bolero, an album by Raffaella Carrà, 1984
 * Bolero (Haustor album), 1985

Songs

 * "Bolero - A Peacock's Tale", an instrumental portion of the King Crimson song "Lizard" featured on the 1971 album of the same name
 * "Bolero", a 1980s pop song by German singer Fancy
 * "Bolero / Kiss the Baby Sky / Wasurenaide", a 2009 CD single by Tohoshinki
 * "Bolero", a song composed and interpreted by Italian singer Claudio Baglioni
 * "Beck's Bolero", a rock instrumental composition recorded by English guitarist Jeff Beck in 1966

Film

 * Bolero (1934 film), a film starring George Raft and Carole Lombard
 * Bolero (1942 film), a French comedy film directed by Jean Boyer
 * Bolero (1984 film), a film directed by John Derek
 * Bolero, a 1990 video-art film by Sabri Kaliç
 * Bolero, a 1992 short animation film by Ivan Maximov
 * Bolero, U.S. title of the 1981 French film Les Uns et les Autres
 * The Bolero, a 1973 short documentary film
 * Boléro (2024 film), a French biographical film directed by Anne Fontaine

Transportation

 * Mahindra Bolero, a line of SUVs produced by Indian company Mahindra & Mahindra Limited
 * SEAT Bolero, a concept car from SEAT, shown in 1998
 * MS Bolero, a Romanian ferry in service 1996–2000
 * Gin Bolero Plus, a South Korean paraglider design

Other uses

 * Bolero jacket, a short jacket with long sleeves, also known as a "shrug"
 * Bolero (horse), a dressage horse and notable sire
 * Bolero, an Image Comics publication
 * Bolero (magazine), published by Ringier in Switzerland
 * Operation Bolero, codename for the World War II American troop buildup in the United Kingdom in preparation for D-Day

title: Bolero (disambiguation)


text:
User:Jwrosenzweig/Survey

''The survey below originated with User:Secretlondon/Survey -- given that she's temporarily left the project, I'm copying it here so that I can sporadically continue the work. Note: Secretlondon's explanation below indicates she used Special:Recentchanges, which I think might bias a survey, given that some timezones would be heavily represented, given the time of day chosen. My surveys have used Special:Randompage, ignoring any non-country specific articles until a total of 32 articles is reached, for easy comparison's sake.''

Survey of Wikipedia internationalisation
Random survey done using recent changes. Page counted as a hit for a country if it was about a place, person, object or company from the particular country.

USA 11 UK 6 Canada 1 Australia 2 New Zealand 0 Albania 1 Iran 1 Japan 2 DR Congo 1 Belize 1 Russia 1 Belgium 1 Korea 2 Iraq 1 Poland 1 =32 in total Done on 22 January 2004
 * The above is User:Secretlondon.

Sorry to mess with your subpage, but the idea intrigued me. Here are the results of my own survey, operating under the rules you outline above. :-)

US 9 UK 6 Italy 5 Norway 2 Namibia 1 Mexico 1 Australia 1 Sweden 1 France 1 Iraq 1 Greece 1 Canada 1 Mongolia 1 Germany 1 =32 in total Done on April 9, 2004
 * The above is User:Jwrosenzweig.

US 10 Canada 4 UK 4 France 3 Slovenia 2 Germany 2 Norway 1 Ghana 1 Singapore 1 China 1 Palau 1 Roman Empire 1 India 1 =32 in total Done on August 1, 2004 by Jwrosenzweig

title: User:Jwrosenzweig/Survey