Defeated last month for re-election, Gov. Roy Barnes announced Tuesday that he will spend his first six months out of office as an unpaid attorney for the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, where he will represent poor people. "One day I'll probably do some legal work that I will charge a handsome fee for - at least I hope there are those that are still willing to pay," he told reporters. "But for now, I think it is important to fulfill my duty as a lawyer to help those who need it the most, to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to defend those whose life and livelihoods depend on it," he said. Previous governors have gone to prestigious law firms, joined corporate boards or returned to thriving businesses. "I don't think I've ever heard of anybody doing this before," Emory University political science professor Merle Black said. "If he's actually going to represent individuals for that organization, they're going to get great representation. You're going to get some powerful legal muscle there," Mr. Black said. Mr. Barnes said he already has his first case, but he wouldn't say what it is. Atlanta Legal Aid provides civil services to poor people in five metro Atlanta counties. Mr. Barnes said he was hoping to send a message to other lawyers. "This privilege to practice law is just that - it's a privilege. And it comes with a cost and it comes with a bill . We as lawyers have a responsibility to make sure that everyone, regardless of whether they can afford it or not, has quality representation. And if we don't do that, then we're not much of a profession," he said. Steven Gottlieb, the society's executive director, said, "I can't imagine anything that could be better than to have the governor of the state, in his first act as a private citizen, donate six months of his time to represent poor people .
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: Why did Mr. Barnes make the choice to work for the Atlanta Legal Aid Society?

The Finnish government and major creditors of bankrupt shipyard Waertsilae Marine Industries Oy agreed in principle to form a new company to complete most of the troubled shipyard's backlog of 15 ships. The new company will attempt to limit the shipyard's losses, participants said. "The situation is that the bankruptcy court will get out of the shipbuilding business. Everything will be taken over by the new company," said Christian Andersson, executive vice president of Oy Waertsilae, former parent of Waertsilae Marine. Once its ownership is finalized, the new company will open talks with state-appointed receivers to buy or lease Waertsilae Marine's shipyard facilities. Subcontractors will be offered a settlement and a swift transition to new management is expected to avert an exodus of skilled workers from Waertsilae Marine's two big shipyards, government officials said. Under an accord signed yesterday, the government and Union Bank of Finland would become major shareholders in the new company, each injecting 100 million Finnish markkaa ($23.5 million). Oy Waertsilae is to contribute 200 million markkaa, most of it as subordinated debt, and take a minority stake in the new company. Customers holding contracts for Waertsilae Marine's undelivered ships are expected to subscribe most of the remaining 170 million markkaa in share capital, government officials said. Waertsilae Marine's biggest creditor is Miami-based Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. Carnival, which has three ships on order from Waertsilae Marine, presented claims for $1.5 billion damages in the bankruptcy court this week. Waertsilae Marine's bankruptcy proceedings began Tuesday in a Helsinki court.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: What government and creditors agreed to form a new company?

Iwasaki's careful respect for the Long Beach program and its lawyers earned him the political capital he needed to complete his takeover in a matter of weeks. "The Long Beach program had strong support in the community so in a situation like that, one has to recognize that it's not like a takeover where I have all the answers and I know best," Iwasaki said. "The people in the community who are working there have the contacts and the knowledge that will allow service to continue." Things have gone less smoothly across town. There, Dudovitz, a longtime poverty lawyer and executive director of the San Fernando Valley's 36-year-old legal aid program, continues to struggle with his hostile takeover of the neighboring San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys service area one year after it was accomplished. On the bright side, Dudovitz has extended his respected program to clients in the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley, and he now operates on a much larger budget, $6.5 million last year. However, his clash with the old San Gabriel program resulted in litigation, bitter feelings and a mission that some say is not clearly focused on serving poor people. "It was a difficult situation that was probably mishandled by everyone," a longtime observer of the public interest community said of the San Fernando Valley-San Gabriel-Pomona Valley merger. "There are very few people who come out as the heroes. Personalities got involved when they shouldn't have. Things were said that caused bad feelings and couldn't be unsaid." Iwasaki's merger with the smaller, 48-year-old Long Beach program was friendly and fast, and no one - not even Long Beach board members - lost a job. When it was over, Iwasaki had $1 million more in federal dollars and two new offices. Long Beach clients regained services they had lost years ago when federal budget cuts and dwindling grants reduced the staff of 15 lawyers to five and cut immigration and consumer law programs. Iwasaki said, "[I judged the transition] better than I could have hoped for."
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: How many people were fired in order for Long Beach clients to regain services?

While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer:
What did President Clinton's visit with Pakistan include?