Gct Bahrain

It has been the booziest of times, the sorriest of times.

Now it’s nearly closing time. Mercifully, Election ‘07 is staggering out to sleep it off. So here’s a quiz to recap some of what went down in a campaign that was more about police reports than position papers (answer key at the end):

1. Fill in the blank: When King County Councilmember Jane Hague was stopped for suspected drunken driving, she sassed the officer: “Don’t you have ____ to take off the street?”

a) Democrats

b) rapists

c) Venus Velázquez

2. According to the cop, Hague claimed “it was ____’s fault she was in the back of a patrol car being treated like a criminal.”

a) Bill Clinton

b) her husband

c) a terrorist

3. Hague’s opponent, Richard Pope, recently sued Costco for selling him a 90-day disaster-relief food pack that he said contained …

a) only 5-pound cans of artichoke hearts.

b) nothing small enough to fit down the stairs to his basement.

c) fewer calories per day than the Nazis gave to inmates at Auschwitz.

4. OK, this is piling on, but here’s one more for you poor voters on the Eastside. Who has the longest rap sheet?

a) Your councilwoman, Hague.

b) Her challenger, Pope.

c) The judge who presided over Hague’s pretrial DUI hearing in Redmond, Richard Jones.

5. Which one of the following is not part of this election?

a) A measure saying the purpose of Seattle government is to “promote prosperity and meet the broad needs for a healthy, growing City.”

b) A measure saying Seattle’s mayor must give two speeches a year instead of one.

c) Yet another measure from Tim Eyman.

d) A measure fixing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which the feds ranked as “basically intolerable, requiring high priority of corrective action.”

6. What words did a key state legislator on transportation, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, use in endorsing Proposition 1, the $18 billion roads and light-rail plan?

a) “It doesn’t suck.”

b) “We’re facing some real crises in transportation whether this passes or not.”

c) “This problem is bigger than all of us, and therefore so is the tax.”

7. After privately opposing the rail-and-roads plan for a year, King County Executive Ron Sims finally went public against it. What did he say convinced him to speak out?

a) His ego, which told him he was on the sidelines.

b) His machismo, which told him light rail is for sissies.

c) His wife, who told him to man up.

8. The richest political group in state history, the one trying to defeat Referendum 67 that would regulate insurance firms, is called “Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates.” How much of its $10,752,237.40 war chest comes from actual consumers?

a) All of it, otherwise they wouldn’t have named it that

b) $725

9. When Seattle School Board candidate David Blomstrom, a former Seattle schools aide, described a group of people as “apathetic,” “stupid” and “selfish,” who was he talking about?

a) the voters

b) the current School Board

c) the kids

10. Seattle City Councilman David Della groused that the reason environmentalists endorsed opponent Tim Burgess is because Burgess “looks like them.” To what was Della referring?

a) Burgess’ beard.

b) Burgess’ fleece sweaters.

c) Burgess’ conspicuous lack of skin pigmentation.

11. What was Port of Seattle Commission President John Creighton referring to when he wrote to a colleague: “I am in charge of the meetings and will not tolerate any bulls - .”

a) that a fellow commissioner was preening shamelessly for the press.

b) that someone had suggested opening the Port’s meetings to the public.

c) that the Port glee club formed to sing Christmas carols at the airport had veered into Buddhist chanting.

Answers: 1) b. 2) b. 3) c. 4) c. 5) d. 6) b. 7) c. b. 9) a. 10) c. 11) a.

Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.

Serves 6 to 8 1 tablespoon olive oil

1 medium onion, peeled and finely chopped

1 medium red bell pepper, seeded and finely chopped

1 medium clove garlic, peeled and minced

1 (14 ½-ounce) can peeled and diced tomatoes with liquid

1/8 teaspoon powdered saffron (see Kitchen Note)

½ teaspoon dried thyme, crushed

½ teaspoon crushed fennel seeds

1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper

Grated zest of 1 orange

4 cups vegetable broth or low-sodium chicken broth

1 ½ pounds small red potatoes, scrubbed, cut into eighths

2 small zucchini, cut into 1/2-inch cubes

½ cup frozen peas

2 tablespoons minced parsley

1. In a large soup pan heat the olive oil over medium heat. Add the onion and bell pepper. Sauté 8 minutes; add garlic and sauté 2 minutes.

2. Add the tomatoes with liquid, saffron, thyme, fennel seeds, cayenne and orange zest. Simmer 15 minutes.

3. Add the broth and potatoes; simmer 20 to 25 minutes or until potatoes are tender. Stir in the zucchini and peas; simmer 5 minutes. Adjust the seasonings and serve with a sprinkling of parsley. (Croutons and a light sprinkling of Parmesan cheese are good additions to this soup.)

Times Kitchen Note: If saffron is too expensive for your budget, substitute ½ teaspoon turmeric. There will be a flavor difference, but the soup will have a pretty golden color.

Data per 1 of 8 servings:

Calories 175

Protein 4g

Fat 3g

Carbohydrates 35g

Sodium 681mg

Saturated fat 0g

Monounsaturated fat 1g

Polyunsaturated fat 0g

Cholesterol 0mg

MOSCOW - A powerful bomb ripped through a bus in central Russia Wednesday morning, killing eight people and wounding at least 53 in what one official called a terror attack.

Investigators were trying to determine whether the explosive device was carried by a passenger or had been planted somewhere on the bus in the city of Togliatti, according to Russian news agencies.

The explosion occurred near a bus stop in the city center as people were going to work. A group of college students had gotten off at the stop just seconds before the blast, and about 20 students were among the wounded, NTV reported.

Windows were blown out of the long green bus, and its roof partially detached from the force of the explosion, which shattered windows of nearby buildings.

Valery Matkovsky, a local emergency official, said that eight people died and at least 53 were injured, mainly from burns and shrapnel wounds. Russian media said that one child was among the dead.

There is a month before crucial parliamentary elections and similar violence has occurred before other votes.

“Due to (the blast’s) character, its consequences, the main version being considered is a terrorist attack,” Yuri Rozhin, director of the regional division of the Federal Security Service, said in televised comments.

In 1999, just three months before national elections, several residential buildings in Moscow and other Russian towns exploded, killing hundreds. The government blamed militants from Chechnya, where two wars have been fought against separatist rebels.

Opposition activists and Kremlin critics said the government used the blasts to justify sending federal troops back into Chechnya, launching the second war in a decade in the region.

The Volga River city of Togliatti is home to Russia’s largest carmaker, AvtoVAZ and has long had a reputation for gang violence as various groups competed for control over the lucrative factory, now state-owned. A factory spokesman could not say whether there were factory workers among the victims.

Vadim Blagodarny, a local 20-year-old photographer, said people walked around in shock in the minutes after the blast, as investigators picked through the carnage.

“If it had gone off just a minute earlier, it would have been much, much worse,” he said.

Security at the scene was tight, and some local photographers were either detained or had their equipment confiscated.

The head of the country’s main security agency recently warned of the potential for pre-election violence and said police would bolster security and surveillance nationwide before the Dec. 2 vote.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struggled Tuesday to determine if a provision of the nation’s anti-child-pornography law goes too far and violates the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

No one disputes it is a crime to have pornographic pictures of children or send them over the Internet. What remains unclear is whether it is illegal merely to talk about and offer pornographic pictures of children over the Internet.

Four years ago, Congress sought to strengthen the law against pornographers and pedophiles and made it a crime - carrying a five-year prison term - to use the computer to “advertise, promote (or) present” real or purported material with “sexually explicit” depictions of minors younger than 17.

Hearing arguments Tuesday in a case that challenges that portion of the law, the justices posed a series of hypothetical examples to the lawyers. Suppose, for example, a news team or a freelance cameraman takes videos of children being sexually abused in the brothels of a developing country, would advertising that video constitute a crime? What if a film reviewer describes a new movie - or an old one such as “Lolita” - and says it depicts a young girl having sex? What about a documentary that shows soldiers raping girls?

In defense of the law, U.S. Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement said the government intends to prosecute only those who knowingly exchange true pornography. “If the underlying movie is not child pornography, then truthful efforts to promote that movie would be captured,” he said. “If you’re taking a movie like ‘Traffic’ or ‘American Beauty’ … you have nothing to worry about.”

The example of the soldier raping girls proved more troublesome. “If the depiction were sufficiently graphic … the person would be in possession of child pornography,” Clement said. Nonetheless, he said the defendant could challenge the prosecution because he had no intent to make pornography.

The dispute arose last year when the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down the anti-pandering provision of the child-pornography law because it was too broad. It could cover, the judges said, an e-mail such as “Good pics of kids in bed,” even if it were sent by a grandfather who is referring to toddlers in pajamas.

The ruling came in the case of a child pornographer, Michael Williams, of Key Largo, Fla. Williams exchanged messages online with an undercover agent and offered nude photos of a 4-year-old he described as his daughter. While he did not have such photos, agents found other child pornography on his home computer.

He was sentenced to five years in prison for possessing the child pornography and another five years for offering the nude photos online. The appeals court upheld his conviction for possession but voided the second conviction. Williams is doing 60 months in federal prison in Texas for the possession charge.

Tuesday, most of the justices signaled they were inclined to overturn the appeals court and uphold the law. Several also wondered why a true pornographer should go free based on examples of innocent persons who might be caught up in the law.

“What’s your best realistic example?” asked Justice Samuel Alito, looking perturbed as the lawyer for Williams debated a series of hypothetical examples with the other justices.

When attorney Richard Diaz said movies such as “Titanic” or “Lolita” are described online as showing “hot teen sex,” Chief Justice John Roberts cut him short. “Your client didn’t produce ‘Lolita,’ ” he said.

HONG KONG - When Zhang Yuan released “East Palace, West Palace” in 1996, its bold exploration of the power play between a police officer and a gay man set off alarms among China’s highly sensitive censors. Authorities confiscated his passport to prevent him from promoting the film overseas, and the movie was never shown on the mainland.

A decade later, state-run media lavished praise on the director’s “Little Red Flowers” - a seemingly innocuous story about a rebellious child at a kindergarten.

So now critics are questioning whether China’s former “underground” directors have compromised their artistic independence for mainstream recognition.

Some filmmakers acknowledge they have, but they also say China’s strict censorship standards have loosened and that truly talented filmmakers can still make critical films within the system.

The directors also say finding an audience for their art-house movies in a market dominated by commercial blockbusters is a bigger problem than censorship. None of the more mainstream films by former underground directors have become major box-office draws.

“There are many movies I want to make but I can’t. Sometimes I think I’m wasting my time,” Zhang told The Associated Press recently, saying that he tries to strike a balance between expressing his ideas and pleasing censors.

“It’s a very difficult path to take,” he said.

Li Yang, who directed 2003’s “Blind Shaft” - a dark picture about greed and illegal coal mines in China - also acknowledges caving to censors.

“How can you not make compromises? It’s impossible,” said Li. “Blind Shaft,” which garnered several international awards, was never authorized for release in China, although it’s widely available on pirated DVD.

Li acknowledged making some changes to his latest film, “Blind Mountain,” about a young woman who’s sold to a farmer as a bride, so that it would pass the censors, but declined to reveal the changes. Directors are required to submit both their finished film and the entire script to censors.

One reason directors may be willing to compromise is that they yearn for a connection with their home audience, said director Li Yu, whose 2003 lesbian-themed film “Fish and Elephant” was banned.

“If foreigners can understand 50 or 60 percent of what we’re trying to say in our movies - China’s cultural background, interpersonal relationships, the difficulties that government policies create - that’s quite good. But the people who truly understand our movies are Chinese themselves,” she said.

Some directors say, however, that they’ve been able to stand their ground as China shifts away from treating movies as propaganda and censors become flexible.

Jia Zhangke, known for his stark portrayals of working-class struggles, said he rejected two requested cuts to his 2006 movie “Still Life,” set in a small town about to be demolished to make way for the Three Gorges Dam, but was still allowed to show it in China. The film, Jia’s sixth, was his first to be screened on the mainland.

Jia said his newest movie, the documentary “Useless,” which highlights China’s gap between rich and poor by juxtaposing the life of a fashion designer with small-town tailors, cleared censors without any cuts.

“If you change your fundamental principles about creativity and your understanding of society for the sake of getting your movies released, you might as well not make movies,” Jia said.

Director Lou Ye, once banned by the Chinese government, said censors are more lax than 10 years ago, with fewer changes or cuts being demanded.

And Li Yu says critical movies are feasible, but “if you portray negative things they have to be conquered by righteous themes in the end.”

Li just went through a difficult censorship process with “Lost in Beijing,” a powerful movie about a foot massage parlor owner who rapes and impregnates an employee, then pays her so that he can keep her baby. After heavy editing, the film has been cleared but still hasn’t been released.

Director Wang Xiaoshuai, who made his China debut with his ninth movie, says the bigger obstacle is marketing alternative films amid the popularity of big-budgeted commercial epics. Unlike the U.S., China doesn’t have a separate art-house circuit.

There’s also a newer community of underground filmmakers who shoot digital movies without government approval but don’t meet much interference from Chinese officials.

Documentary maker Du Haibin says he hasn’t run into problems showing his films at bookstores, bars and university campuses.

“I’m used to this way of working. What I appreciate the most about it is the creative freedom,” he said.

The thought sparks a fire that could warm any winter night.

Would a Sonics fan root for the Portland Trail Blazers? Seattle connections are everywhere.

The Blazers’ best player, Brandon Roy, starred at Garfield and Washington. Martell Webster, another young Blazer, played with Spencer Hawes at Seattle Prep. The team is owned by Microsoft co-founder and Seahawks owner Paul Allen.

The Blazers are even coached by the guy Seattleites used to call Mr. Sonic, Nate McMillan. You can’t get any more Seattle than that.

And the local team is unrecognizable. The Sonics are coming off a 31-51 season, have traded away Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis and are owned by a bunch of guys who want to move the franchise to their home state, Oklahoma, if they don’t get a new arena.

Seattle, after 41 years with the Sonics, could find itself without an NBA team.

So would fans look south for their fix, maybe even root for the Blazers?

Please. For many, the only thing Oregon is good for is Oregonians’ delightful service of pumping a Washingtonian’s gas. Oh, and there is that no-sales-tax thing, too.

“I feel that dark cloud over my enthusiasm,” said Gary Conklin, an elementary physical-education teacher in Kirkland. “I feel that this is kind of the end, it’s definitely going to happen that they are going to leave. My allegiances in the short term, if they’re not here, would probably go to the Boston Celtics because of Ray Allen and the dynamic of Kevin Garnett. But there’s no way I would ever root for the Portland Trail Blazers. It could never happen.

“And I don’t see myself rooting for the Sonics in another city. It would hurt too much to see them ever go to the playoffs and NBA Finals and know that could have been us.”

Roy, the Seattle native, understands. Oregonians are supposed to travel to Seattle to watch professional sports teams like the Seahawks, Mariners and Storm. Not the other way around.

“We’ve always had major leagues,” Roy said of his hometown. “It’s hard for people in Seattle to cheer for Portland. I’ve heard them joke around and call them the Seattle Trail Blazers. I was like, ‘Whatever.’ Seattle, we have pride, and when it comes to Oregon, it’s like, ‘Boo, Oregon.’ In this case they want to cheer for us, but they won’t call us Portland.”

Conklin, a native, often drifts back to his youth when the city was seemingly bathed in green and gold. A Gary Payton jersey was the perfect gift. Shawn Kemp dunks were mimicked on lowered schoolyard hoops. And attending a game made you the hippest kid on the block.

The Sonics - the 1979 championship team or George Karl’s defensive menaces - were idols that built a current basketball hotbed in the state. Aaron Brooks, Nate Robinson, Jamal Crawford and Luke Ridnour now shine in the NBA after attending camps led by Sonics legends like Slick Watts and McMillan.

In fact, open to page 82 of the Blazers’ 2007-08 media guide and there’s Roy strolling off the court with his arm around a young baller, in a scene that could have been Roy as a kid at McMillan’s camp.

Roy has worked with Webster and other players to alter Portland’s perception of the team once referred to as the Jail Blazers. That, and the drafting of Greg Oden, has created some excitement in Portland, even though Oden will miss the season after having knee surgery.

You’d think it wouldn’t be such a jagged pill to cheer for these good guys, Seattle favorites playing just 2 ½ hours away.

Think again.

“It’s in my bones, [Portland] is the armpit under Seattle,” said Brian Robinson, a Seattle native who, with Steven Pyeatt, founded Save Our Sonics and Storm. “Detlef Schrempf was on the Portland Trail Blazers and I booed and hissed every time, and I love Detlef, he was a Husky and a Sonic. I will never support the Portland Trail Blazers.”

Robinson said if the Sonics left, rather than cheer for the Blazers, he’d be more interested in whether Seattle was going to get another franchise.

“We would start fighting for a new team. [Former Sonics owner] Howard Schultz started this argument too early. He started it four years ago and people are worn out of the monotony of it. The dialogue of people the day after they move, seven days before [governor] Christine Gregoire is due for re-election, will be very different than year four of the same old, same old. The immediate reaction is going to be anger and demand for a new team directed at the league and city officials.”

Robinson said city and NBA officials have reached a consensus that Seattle Center is the right location for the teams, fitting primary owner Clay Bennett’s wishes for a “world-class” facility. The $500 million price tag for a new arena and a plan for how it will be built remains a question, however. And Bennett isn’t cooperating, continuing to insist that KeyArena is not a viable option. Meanwhile, suits are filed against the Sonics as he tries to get out of the remainder of the KeyArena lease.

Roy, Webster and McMillan say they hope a solution is eventually found in Seattle. The trio combine for about 100 tickets when they return to play the Sonics. They enjoy the support and warm reception from fans in Seattle, but none can imagine the city without a team.

“It is a basketball city, and the NBA needs to stay up there,” said McMillan, who played his entire career in Seattle and remained with the Sonics as a coach, eventually leading the team to the Western Conference semifinals in 2004-05. “I won’t believe it until I see it. Somehow, they’re going to work out something up there, they should, and I just can’t visualize Seattle without the Sonics. I know what those fans will do for a basketball team.”

Webster’s family and friends peppered him with questions about whether the Blazers would just relocate to Seattle if the Sonics left. He laughed at the thought and said he had his mind blown by the serious possibility of his childhood team relocating.

Webster is especially close to the sticky business side, being a close friend of Schultz’s son, Jordan, and a nephew of one of the former board members who voted against Schultz’s decision to sell to Bennett’s ownership group. As Webster and Jordan Schultz walked the streets of downtown Seattle this past summer, Webster said people shouted, “Hey, there’s Coffee Boy! You sold our team!”

Said Webster: “I grew up watching the Sonics, and seeing them leave really doesn’t make any kind of sense, but after a couple of years in the league, you know it’s all business. I don’t know what it is, but these things happen. The same thing happened with Charlotte when they were the Hornets.

“It’s crazy. They’re the Sonics. Them and the Seahawks; that was all Seattle had. I don’t know why they’re doing this … but I wish they would stay.”

Yes, it would be sad to lose all of that winter-warming rivalry.

Jayda Evans: 206-464-2067 or jevans@seattletimes.com

NEW YORK - The unfolding credit crisis has claimed its biggest corporate casualty so far: Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O’Neal.

The announcement of his departure Tuesday came after the world’s largest brokerage posted a $2.24 billion quarterly loss, its biggest since being founded 93 years ago. Merrill Lynch did not name a replacement for O’Neal, whose ouster had been expected for days.

O’Neal retires with no bonus for 2007, but with stock awards and benefits worth $161.5 million and the guarantee of an office and an executive assistant for three years.

Any replacement will face the daunting task of cleaning up investments in subprime mortgages and other risky types of debt, and rebuilding an investment house badly bruised.

There is speculation by a number of analysts that Merrill Lynch faces a $4 billion writedown during the fourth quarter. This would be on top of a $7.9 billion charge taken last quarter, a stunning amount since Merrill originally said it would write down only $4.5 billion because of credit market turmoil.

O’Neal was also criticized for reportedly approaching Wachovia Corp. about some kind of merger without the approval of his board.

“These losses, coupled with rumors that O’Neal had proposed a merger with Wachovia without the board’s approval, essentially dug O’Neal’s grave,” said Morningstar analyst Ryan Lentell. “The new CEO’s first priority must be to ensure proper risk-management procedures are in place to prevent a recurrence of the quarter’s loss.”

O’Neal, 56, accepted blame for the losses, which immediately led to calls for his ouster. The mistake would prove to be his last, ending a career that spanned more than two decades at Merrill.

He was one of the highest-ranking blacks on Wall Street - a stunning climb from his impoverished roots in Alabama as the grandson of a former slave.

O’Neal emphasized riskier bets than past Merrill CEOs, rather than the safety of just selling stocks. That strategy - which handed Merrill Lynch record results during the market’s peak - came with a heavy cost during the tumultuous third quarter.

Merrill Lynch still has sizable portfolio of complex financial instruments called collateralized debt obligations, which combine slices of different kinds of risk. It was Merrill’s bet on CDOs, and the subprime mortgages underpinning many of them, that proved to be O’Neal’s downfall.

Dealing with that portfolio will be the priority for co-presidents and chief operating officers Ahmass Fakahany and Gregory Fleming. Merrill Lynch said their duties will be split - with Fleming in charge of Merrill’s front-line businesses, such as its brokerage.

Fakahany, a close confidant of O’Neal, will lead back-office functions such as finance and human resources. Robert McCann, the president of the company’s wealth management group, was not named in the power-sharing agreement.

Both McCann and Fleming were tipped as potential CEO candidates. Among those said to be considered outside the firm are NYSE Euronext CEO John Thain and BlackRock Inc. CEO Laurence Fink. O’Neal resigned his board seat at investment manager BlackRock Inc., in which Merrill owns a 49 percent stake.

Merrill’s board is expected to tap someone that can boost morale among its 16,000 brokers. Many of them felt uncomfortable with O’Neal given Merrill’s history of having CEOs with trading experience.

Merrill Lynch shares fell $2.42, or 3.6 percent, to $65. The price of buying protection against a default on Merrill Lynch bonds also increased after the news of O’Neal’s departure, according to Phoenix Partners Group.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Exxon Mobil should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages to victims of the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.

The high court stepped into the long-running battle over the damages that Exxon Mobil owes from the supertanker accident in Prince William Sound that was the worst oil spill in U.S. history. The Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef, cracking its hull and spilling 11 million gallons of oil.

Hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals died as a result.

It is a case filled with superlatives. The award, even after it was cut in half by a federal appeals court in December, would be the largest punitive-damages judgment ever. A jury in Alaska awarded $5 billion in damages in 1994, and the company has been appealing the verdict ever since.

Exxon Mobil, based in Irving, Texas, is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company and last year posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company - $39.5 billion. That result topped the previous record, also by Exxon Mobil, of $36.13 billion set in 2005.

Arguing against Supreme Court review, lawyers for the plaintiffs, some of whom have died, said the damages award is “barely more than three weeks of Exxon’s net profits.”

The plaintiffs still living include about 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, landowners, Native Alaskans, local governments and businesses. They urged the court to reject the company’s appeal, saying, “After more than 18 years, it is time for this protracted litigation to end.”

But the justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay damages at all under the Clean Water Act and centuries-old laws governing shipping. The court frequently has sided with business interests in punitive damages and other cases of corporate liability.

John Paul Jones, a University of Richmond law professor and expert in maritime law, said the court was right to jump into the case because lower courts long have been divided on some of the issues peculiar to the laws concerning accidents on the water.

“The decision in this case could dictate the outcome of a significant number of cases,” Jones said.

Exxon said that even if the court finds some money is due, it should rule that the $2.5 billion award violates the Constitution because it is too large. The justices said they would not consider that argument when they hear the case early next year.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, did not take part in the decision to accept the appeal.

The court’s last ruling on punitive damages, in February, set aside a nearly $80 million judgment against Altria Group’s Philip Morris USA. It was awarded to the widow of an Oregon smoker.

Exxon said it already has paid $3.4 billion in cleanup costs and other penalties resulting from the oil spill.

“This case has never been about compensating people for actual damages,” company spokesman Tony Cudmore said in a statement. “Rather it is about whether further punishment is warranted. … We do not believe any punitive damages are warranted in this case.”

The company marshaled more than a dozen organizations ranging from groups of shippers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to support its bid for Supreme Court review.

The company contended it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship’s captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.

The plaintiffs said Exxon knew Hazelwood had sought treatment for drinking but had begun drinking again. “Exxon placed a relapsed alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich waters,” they said.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damages because, in part, the company tried to clean up the spill and didn’t spill oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez deliberately.

The disaster prompted Congress in 1990 to pass a law banning single-hulled tankers like the Valdez from domestic waters by 2015.

AP writers Jeannette Lee and John Porretto contributed to this report.

DES MOINES - What started as a typical training run ended up taking a big bite out of Ryan Prentice’s cross-country season, thanks to a vicious pit bull terrier.

Prentice, primed for a run toward the Class 3A state championship after placing third as a junior, was in sensational shape that August day, sprinting along his usual Normandy Park trail.

“I was feeling great,” the senior at Mount Rainier High School recalled. “I was on top of the world.”

But his world began to crumble after he veered around a man walking his pit bull.

The pit bull attacked.

“All of the sudden I felt teeth biting into my butt and I was on the ground,” Prentice said.

At just 5 feet 5 ½ and 115 pounds, Prentice couldn’t offer much resistance.

“I’m surprised he could find anything to latch on to,” he said with a smile.

The owner got his dog under control and apologized. Prentice popped up and proceeded to run two more miles. When he got home, he found a hole in the back of his shorts and four teeth marks in his skin.

“I still have the teeth marks,” he said.

Prentice saw a doctor and received a precautionary tetanus shot. It didn’t seem as though he’d miss a step this season. He won the “senior” division at the Seamount League class meet to start the season, then ran a personal best at the Fort Steilacoom Invitational, where he placed second to Puyallup’s Rob Webster, a 4A state contender.

But during his cool down, Prentice tightened up. He and his coach, Brian Jacobson, decided he should not run for two weeks. Prentice attempted to come back for the Mount Baker Invitational, but the pain intensified.

“It felt horrible,” he said.

He assumed it was a pulled muscle, but a return trip to a doctor forced him to rethink the injury. The doctor asked if he had fallen in the past couple of months and Prentice finally thought to mention the pit bull attack.

“Oh, well, that might have done it,” the doctor told him.

Prentice apparently had altered his gait while dealing with lingering pain from the bite and it threw his hips out of alignment. He received treatments and stopped running again, training instead on an elliptical bike and other indoor equipment.

“It was frustrating, because the only time it flared up was when I was running,” he said. “It felt fine when I was walking.”

Prentice made his comeback at the Seamount championships a week and a half ago and won his third consecutive league title. More importantly, there was no pain.

“It felt really good,” he said.

Prentice said he knows he might pay a price for his lack of conditioning. In the 3A division of the Westside Classic district meet last Saturday, he couldn’t keep up with Auburn Riverside junior Julian Blake-Cowan and had to settle for second place.

“I was a little tired,” Prentice said. “I just didn’t have enough oomph in me. I just need another week or so and I’ll hopefully be ready for state.”

Ready or not, the state meet is Saturday in Pasco. Prentice isn’t backing down from his preseason goal.

“I think it would be really cool to win it, but there’s some really good competition out there,” he said. “That’s my main goal.”

Prentice, who placed second in the 3,200 meters at the 3A state track and field championships last spring, knows he’ll get stronger as he continues to train. He looks forward to the big postseason meets, like the Border Clash and Foot Locker series. But Jacobson isn’t ruling out a title run at state.

“He’s a competitor,” Jacobson said. “He runs very well in big meets.”

Prentice hasn’t let the experience turn him against dogs. His family owns two, a German Shepherd and English Mastiff.

“I definitely give dogs their space when I’m running,” he said, “but I’m still a dog lover.”

Sandy Ringer: 206-718-1512 or sringer@seattletimes.com

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that pharmacists have a right to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing emergency contraception or euthanasia drugs - and told them they should also inform patients of the ethical implications of using such drugs.

Benedict told a gathering of Catholic pharmacists that conscientious objection was a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession.

Benedict said such status would “enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.”

In his address to the 25th International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists, the pope also said they have an educational role toward patients so that drugs are used in a morally and ethically correct way.

“Pharmacists must seek to raise people’s awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role,” Benedict said.

Emergency contraception pills, which can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, work by preventing ovulation or fertilization. They may also prevent an embryo from being implanted into the uterus.

The issue has also been debated extensively in the U.S., primarily after the introduction of the emergency contraceptive Plan B in 1999. Since last August, the drug has been available to women 18 and older without a prescription.

A few U.S. states have passed laws that specifically allow pharmacists or pharmacies to refuse to provide health care because of religious or moral objections, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights think tank based in New York.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich made headlines two years ago when he introduced a rule requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions. Pharmacists challenged the rule, and a legal settlement earlier this month allowed pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency birth control to step aside while someone else fills the prescription.