url
stringlengths 36
564
| archive
stringlengths 78
537
| title
stringlengths 0
1.04k
| date
stringlengths 10
14
| text
stringlengths 0
629k
| summary
stringlengths 1
35.4k
| compression
float64 0
106k
| coverage
float64 0
1
| density
float64 0
1.14k
| compression_bin
stringclasses 3
values | coverage_bin
stringclasses 3
values | density_bin
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603633.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603633.html
|
Upper-Crass Video: Maybe the Rich Aren't Different
|
2008041819
|
He: Philip Smith, 74, president of the Shubert Organization, which owns 17 Broadway houses and the National Theatre in Washington.
She: Tricia Walsh-Smith, 25 years younger, an actress and playwright best known for writing the play "Bonkers."
The video is 6 minutes and 22 seconds of utter and annihilating embarrassment, a low-production-value romp through the intimate lives of the rich and desperate. Walsh-Smith, who says that her tarot cards predict "victory," lights into Smith for "hacking my computer," and at one point refers to herself as the "biggest . . . idiot in the world" for believing that Smith's blood pressure prevented intimate relations.
Oh, and the entire video is annotated: Walsh-Smith gets the label "Good Egg." Smith gets "Mean, Bad."
As of yesterday the video had earned nearly 300,000 viewers, a mention on the "Today" show and the juicy bits quoted in the New York Post.
It's like Jerry Springer, like America's Most Horrifically Awkward Home Videos.
But somehow, not like that at all.
We are, after a decade of reality TV and two years of YouTube, quite accustomed to seeing sad sacks spill their hearts on screen. This display feels so much more uncomfortable.
Watch the guests on Jerry Springer and you think, "I can't believe she slept with his sister." Then you watch a while longer and you think, "Oh wait. I can."
You kind of expect it on a show like that.
|
At first the video looks like just another shaming-by-YouTube. A scorned wife (blond, British, bug-eyed), fearful of being evicted from her Manhattan pad by her estranged husband, decides to air her grievances online. She rants about their nonexistent sex life and her husband's family.
| 5.216667 | 0.433333 | 0.466667 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700003.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700003.html
|
Kristy Lee Unhorsed; David on High Horse
|
2008041819
|
Sell the horse, suffer the consequences: Kristy Lee Cook is headed back to the Ponderosa, leaving six wannabe American Idols still standing.
Actually, they're sitting -- cross-legged, in the middle of the stage -- in the first-ever live "American Idol" protest, led by dangerous teen anarchist David Archuleta, who is probably being reprogrammed by special Fox "counselors" at this very moment. Send donations to Free Baby Elmo, care of this newspaper.
Last night's drama unfolded after guest mentor Mariah Carey performed a song called "Bye Bye" from her new album, waving like a malevolent homecoming queen at the finalists miserably waiting to see who was going to get whacked this time.
Despite such cruelty, Mariah did thoughtfully dress in what appeared to be one of the postage stamps -- or maybe just half of one -- being hawked to raise donations for Idol Gives Back.
Speaking of giving back, inordinate attention was given for the 748th time to the "sacrifice" Kristy Lee had to make to get to "Idol": selling her favorite barrel horse. Kristy Lee revealed that the buyer now didn't want to sell it back to her. Imagine that.
Desperate to gin up suspense, host Ryan Seacrest first shuffled the finalists around like so many cards in a deck stacked with mostly fours. We were left with Syesha Mercado, Brooke White and Kristy Lee in one group, and David Cook, Jason Castro and Carly Smithson in the other.
David A., looking queasy backstage in a too-small red leather jacket (but thankfully, no weird black leather pants like the night before), was summoned forth, pronounced safe and ordered by Seacrest to go stand with whichever group he thought was safe.
He sat down instead. "I just wanna stay here," he said.
Okay, okay, so maybe it was more an act of paralyzing indecision than bring-on-the-pepper-spray civil disobedience, but unless he's the surprise guest mentor next week, this is as close to Gandhi as "Idol" is going to get.
After failing to goad the 17-year-old to his feet, an increasingly annoyed Seacrest finally disclosed that Brooke, Syesha and Kristy Lee were in the bottom three. They all made cute pouty faces, and Seacrest told David A. to join the "safe" group. Still wouldn't budge. Which left Seacrest no choice but to summon the others over to join the Little Engine Who Wouldn't. David C. happily joined David A. on the floor, as did Jason, who is so mellow he would probably join a suckling pig in a pit barbecue. Carly ruined the moment -- so like her, she does it to herself all the time! -- by being unable to figure out how to sit down while wearing a dress.
Moving back to the more malleable Group of Doom, Seacrest granted Syesha immunity. Judge Simon Cowell predicted the obvious: "Maybe, Kristy, your time's up this time, sweetheart."
Added Seacrest: "To that guy out there, can she have her horse back?"
|
Search Washington, DC area TV schedules and reviews from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for television programs. Visit http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/partners/zipcode.asp?partner_id=wpc today.
| 20.266667 | 0.333333 | 0.333333 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041101502.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041101502.html
|
Spud Mountain or Bust: A Jersey Diner Diary
|
2008041819
|
I was fine until Spud Mountain appeared on the table. The waitress seemed to struggle with the very weight of the concoction, a bubbling mass of french fries buried in cheddar cheese and chives. When I pierced the top, steam and bacon vaulted upward through the fissure. The only thing missing was lava pouring down the sides and villagers running for their lives.
It may have been the scariest, most gloriously decadent food product I've ever encountered (and, please, I don't want to know the caloric content or the grams of fat per mouthful). After hours of diner-hopping along Route 130 in central New Jersey, I knew exactly how George Leigh Mallory felt when he first eyed Everest -- and that's exactly why I dug into the monstrosity. Because it was there.
Jersey is the diner capital of the world (there are about 600 statewide), and Route 130, which creeps northward from about the Delaware Memorial Bridge to my home town of New Brunswick, is the diner capital of the diner capital. I've spent a fair share of my life carbo-loading in diners, though my parents deserve the credit for my surname, pronounced the same way.
So what distinguishes a diner from that greasy spoon down the street? "Three things," says Peter Genovese, a feature writer for the Newark Star-Ledger and author of "Jersey Diners." "There has to be some stainless steel somewhere, booths and swivel stools. Even the newest ones have those three things. . . . You just know it when you see it."
Route 130 remains a diner stronghold, notes Genovese, because it's a "blue-collar, bumpy-asphalt sort of road. It's escaped the rampant development of the rest of New Jersey, so a lot of the diners remain."
Travelers often find themselves on 130, as it offers a decent work-around if there's traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike or Interstate 295. I spent the better part of a recent Friday trolling about 30 miles of the road -- an ugly stretch of liquor stores, Wal-Marts and warehouses -- with my friend Dan, a fellow former Jerseyan who's never met an eclair he didn't like.
Breakfast. The Harvest Diner in Cinnaminson has it all: the shiny surfaces, the booths with the mini-jukeboxes, the pages-long menu ("Burgers, Burgers and More Burgers" headlines one section). And $3.99 breakfast specials displayed in a smudgy plastic frame between the salt and pepper.
Dan detours off the bargain menu and orders an egg sandwich with pork roll (think of it as Jersey's version of scrapple, a regional favorite rarely found outside the area) and home fries. I opt for the pancake special and am rewarded with three disks the size of my head that tasted just as good cold hours later.
Have to deduct points for the prepackaged syrup and the inattentive service, especially since the place is nearly empty. But wait . . . we get our own carafe of coffee to fill the typically small white mugs of my diner youth. Points reinstated.
Despite my pleas to the contrary, Dan downs everything on his plate.
Pie break! Can't diner-crawl without a dessert stop, which we decide to do shortly before noon at the Dolphin in Burlington. It's much louder than the Harvest, with booths that seem more compact; either that, or we're already getting larger. The sea theme is refreshingly understated (glass etched with nautical images, jellyfish lights, soothing aquamarine color scheme), but who cares? We're here for the baked goods.
I go for the banana cream pie, which turns out to be a perfect mound of whipped cream, mushed bananas -- and chocolate! Dan's apple pie a la mode is ice cold (tsk tsk), so he sticks to the mode and leaves the apple pie intact on his plate.
|
Find Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland travel information, including web fares, Washington DC tours, beach/ski guide, international and United States destinations. Featuring Mid-Atlantic travel, airport information, traffic/weather updates
| 17.883721 | 0.302326 | 0.302326 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/13/DI2008041302474.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/13/DI2008041302474.html
|
Real Life Politics
|
2008041619
|
Ruth Marcus: Hi everyone. Lots to talk about, as usual.
Savannah, Ga.: Interesting column today. I agree that one of the most important roles of universities is to preserve academic freedom for unpopular ideas, but the popularity of John Yoo's work is beside the point. The main issue is that his work is, as you put it, "shoddy." I thought the point of tenure was to protect academics from shifting whims and politics (both national and personal). Does it also protect them from accountability for the quality of their work?
washingtonpost.com: Why John Yoo Must Stay (Post, April 16)
Ruth Marcus: I think it does, and there is a larger discussion to be had about the pluses and minuses of tenure, because shoddiness is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder.
Philadelphia: Your column, like your Mr. Yoo's memo, is filled with faulty rationalizations to justify the unjustifiable. As has been well-documented, Yoo legally could be considered an accessory before the fact to illegal torture of detainees. But putting all that aside -- every single legal expert who has commented on Yoo's memos have said they are filled with faulty legal reasoning, if not complete disregard of constitutional/international law. So I ask you: If your kid was going to law school, would you want John Yoo teaching your kid the law?
Ruth Marcus: Yes (every single legal expert--or most, in any case), but they have been interestingly split on the question of the consequences for his teaching at Berkeley, and I would say that most of the legal academic types are opposed to canning him. I certainly can think of con law professors I'd rather have my child take a class from, but on the other hand, law schools are generally such hotbeds of uniform liberal thinking that it is good to have professors who are challenging students from the opposite end of the political spectrum.....so maybe I would want her to hear from Yoo.
Fairfax County, Va.: Ruth -- I always enjoy your online discussions at The Post. Does the term "Real Life Politics" refer to some particular aspect of politics that we should pose questions about in your discussions, or it is just a handy way to give them a different name than the daily morning politics hour on the same Web site? Also, I'm curious how you chose the title "Real Life Politics" (as opposed to what other kind of politics?).
Ruth Marcus: Interesting question. We kind of came up with the title on the spur of the moment, and certainly there's no reason that the title, which is rather arbitrary, should drive the questions. But I hope it reflects the breadth and nature of what I write about, which is a lot of politics but is also grounded in some real life issues.
Princeton, N.J.: Ms. Marcus, I am a retired mathematician who spent most of my career teaching in universities. I have supported many faculty members who favored unpopular causes -- at one time I was the grievance officer for the union, and I helped organize a large protest against the Vietnam War. But are you saying a university should not be allowed to fire someone for simple incompetence?
If I had a colleague who was teaching his students that one could trisect the angle, I would rush to have him removed -- similar to your example of evolution, although the issue is not so clear cut as mathematical proof. Although the case of Professor Yoo is still less clear, surely it would be reasonable for the university to simply conclude he is an incompetent lawyer who must not impart his incompetence to his students.
Ruth Marcus: Well, not knowing anything about trisecting angles (you can't), I think that the point of tenure is supposed to remove allegations of incompetence from the discussion. And certainly, as I said, the law is not an absolute, positive, truly knowable thing like the structure of a chemical compound. I certainly think it would be reasonable to take Yoo's level of scholarship into account if he were being hired de novo, but once tenure is granted, it's a whole lot harder.
Boston: Why is it okay for pundits and politicians to regularly attack and demean San Francisco, Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Washington, but terrible if someone says anything at all about small towns?
Ruth Marcus: Maybe because so few of us are from small towns, or at least we all live now in pretty big towns. A flip answer, but what I'm trying to say is: if you are poking fun to some extent at yourself, it's always more acceptable than when you are poking fun at others. And more conservative attacks on elite, liberal San Francisco--well, that's understandable as a political matter because the folks who do that aren't losing any votes there, whereas, say, Obama is still hunting for (sorry, wrote it before I realized the pun) votes in those places.
Los Angeles: I agree with many points in your article "Why John Yoo Should Stay." Essentially John Yoo's 2003 interrogation memo is a dishonest attempt by Bush administration higher-ups to protect themselves with legal opinions by biased lawyers, rather than Constitutional scholars. Bush shrouded Yoo's fig leaf arguments in secrecy to protect the usual suspects, but left exposed low-hanging fruit running Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.
Apparently Bushies felt they, like dreadful leaders throughout history, could do anything in the name of National Security without regard to established laws. Bush simply got these biased, hack lawyers to argue that anything he and his inner circle did, no matter how frivolous, was within his Executive Authority.
Although lawyers claim to be truth-seekers, in justifying Bush's torture program, apparently Yoo and other Bushies considered lessons the world learned from the Nuremberg Trials as quaint arguments, and that Bush thinking was -- as ridiculous as it now sounds -- infallible. Other than the tenure argument, isn't it hard to justify public funding supporting such a poor-performing lawyer who had such a negative impact on the nation's war policies and global reputation?
Ruth Marcus: The public funding argument cuts both ways, I think, because it anchors Yoo's rights in First Amendment claims that he would not have at a private university.
Seattle: While I agree on your broadest points about the academic freedom, the Yoo memo is particularly noxious for lawyers (such as myself) because it clearly and blatantly ignored controlling precedent on the subject. If you were to take aside the politicis of the situation, such that it is very unlikely anyone domestically will be tried for war crimes/crimes against humanity, the memo wouldn't hold up to judicial scrutiny; it didn't hold up to public scrutiny. Considering that Yoo has a duty as a licensed attorney to do due diligence, and that this memo showed his failure to uphold that duty, I think that Berkley has good reason to fire him.
Ruth Marcus: Don't know where that line of reasoning would stop once embarked on.
Alexandria, Va.: Hi Ruth. Just read your article from March called "Hijabs at a Harvard Gym," and as a Muslim Woman in her 30s who does not choose to wear a head scarf (at my co-ed health club or in public) I really think that a lot of people miss the point that the hijab is not a mandatory piece of clothing, it is a choice. Of course there are situations where one should wear the hijab -- in prayer, at a mosque or at a funeral -- but its not mandatory piece of clothing, and it doesn't make you any less of a Muslim if you decide not to wear it. Interesting article!
washingtonpost.com: Hijabs at a Harvard Gym (Post, March 26)
Ruth Marcus: Thanks--I'm still getting emails about it. And it actually ties into today's piece about Yoo, I think, because the broader issue is about ensuring freedom.
Los Angeles: Given that Yoo was on a leave of absence from Boalt Hall when he wrote these memos, why does an "academic freedom" argument for defending his retention there even apply?
Ruth Marcus: His OLC opinions are intertwined with his scholarship on the subject, which was, of course, known to Berkeley when he was granted tenure. So law professors go off to advise administrations, and they need to worry about how that will affect their tenured position? It seems awfully risky to me, but to repeat what I tried to say in the column, I wrote about this precisely becuase I do not think it is an easy call.
Philadelphia: Let's cut to the chase and dispense with the ambiguity: Have you taken a comprehensive survey or commissioned one of constitutional law professors that supports your apparent position that "I would say that most of the legal academic types are opposed to canning him"? Can you back up what you are alleging with fact in that regard?
Ruth Marcus: No survey. My sense is anecotal, from talking to a few law school deans, from getting a sense of the general response to Edley's memo and from touching base with some of the same people who have been most exercised about Yoo's memo but believe it would be a mistake to fire him.
Fairport, N.Y.: As a tenured professor, I agree completely with you about not firing Yoo. Once you fire one professor for political beliefs, the whole system collapses. But as a UC-Berkeley alum, I also refuse to give money to the place as long as Yoo is there. I think he gives the university a black eye. The mistake lay in tenuring him in the first place. Do you think that's reasonable -- that Yoo should not be fired but that the place should feel the pain for having him on board? Also, are you ready to write similar articles about liberals who have been denied employment because of their political beliefs, like Juan Cole, whose offer from Yale was rescinded after neocons began a smear campaign against him?
Ruth Marcus: I think it's fair to ask what Berkeley was doing hiring him. Although in Berkeley's defense, he did come with stellar credentials--Supreme Court clerkship, Senate Judiciary Committee counsel, etc., and--I mentioned this earlier--the overwhelming liberal tilt of law school faculty makes me glad to see law schools--Harvard Law School is one that has done this extremely well under Dean Elena Kagan--reaching out to diversify the political viewpoints on their faculty. And, yes, I do not share Yoo'd political or legal viewpoint in any way so I would not have any hesitation in applying the same standard to those criticized from the opposite direction.
Woburn, Mass.: Could I make an observation about bittergate? I think this is less a Barack Obama problem than a Democratic Party problem. For many middle-class voters, what whiffs them about some Democratic values is that people who are well-off make decisions about people who are worse-off, knowing full well they never will have to be involved in such a situation themselves. I, at least, get irritated by people who have money being patronizing. I don't care if you're loaded if you actually make an effort to understand people's daily trials.
Howie Kurtz today (and others) don't see how people who are wealthy (or the $100 million Clintons) can necessarily "pose as folks who are in touch with the great working class." The point isn't that rich people can't "feel" the middle class's pain; much of the time, it's whether someone is self-made, as Obama and the Clintons are, forgets where they came from so to speak, and patronizes people who haven't made it or don't think like they do.
I don't know if it is exemplified by whether you drink Coors Light or chardonnay, but those who definetely aren't in touch with the middle or lower-middle class are the ones who patronize us by saying we "cling" to things like religion or disliking people who are different than we are. "Keepin' it real," so to speak is like pornography -- tough to define, but we know it when we see it. And being patronizing definetely makes it hard to see.
washingtonpost.com: Who Is the Working Class, Anyway? And do the proles really hate the party of the working man? (Slate, April 15)
Ruth Marcus: I think it may be both a Barack Obama problem and a Democratic Party problem.
Seattle: How exactly does aiding and abetting torture not meet the criterion of "clear professional misconduct" or "criminal violations"? While I agree with you that the mere presence of the memo is not grounds for dismissal, the memo along with the recent disclosure of White House officials calling the shots during the CIA's torture sessions do warrant an investigation into whether or not this administration has committed war crimes. Should that lead to a trial and then to conviction, John Yoo should not only loose his position at Berkley, he should loose his liberty.
Ruth Marcus: Well, if there were a trial and conviction for war crimes, fine, but I'm not sure Berkeley should be conducting such trials of its faculty members.
Arlington, Va.: The Supreme Court has five Roman Catholics, all of whom voted to allow lethal injection in the Kentucy case decided today, even though the Pope and the church are opposed to capital punishment. Stragely, all five (maybe Kennedy is wishy-washy occasionally) appear to be leaning toward saying that abortion is unconstitutional, a position that is supported by the teachings of the Pope and his church. For some reason, I find this inconsistency in supporting the doctrines of the church rather strange.
washingtonpost.com: Supreme Court Upholds Use of Lethal Injection (Post, April 16)
Ruth Marcus: I would be very reluctant to suggest or believe that the justices have their legal views dictated by the tenets of their religion. I think the court majority is composed of a conservative majority that happens to be Catholic, but it is guided by its conservatism and not its religion.
Stafford, Texas: You have confused/conflated breaking the law and espousing an unpopular view. It's preposterous that you equate aiding and abetting in torture with somebody's belief that certain races are inferior, or that war is unjust. No, it is not right that his criminal actions at worst, incompetent application of law at best, be defended for a law professor.
Ruth Marcus: Well...remind me what court he was convicted in or what crime he was charged with by what legal authority?
Elmwood Park, N.J.: Jeeze louise, you might want your son or daughter being taught by all spectrums of responsible legal thought in law school, not just liberals, but are you serious that representing the conservative point of view requires that you hire the likes of John Yoo? This is an insult to legitimate conservative legal scholars, some of whom I had the good fortune to learn from in law school -- men and women who respect the Constitution and the separation of powers. I think it's an easy call -- don't rehire him, and let him pound the pavement for a new job like his buddy Gonzo.
Ruth Marcus: Well, I can imagine my daughters in his law school class giving him a devil of a time!
Grand Rapids, Mich.: I agree with you that John Yoo should not be forced out of Berkeley. I'm more interested in the reaction to him there. Is he shunned by his colleagues? Has the Berkeley Law Review journal condemned him? Furthermore, the minimal public reaction to the Yoo memo is disturbing. Where's the public outcry -- and outrage? Why is this memo not a key issue on the campaign trail? Jon Stewart made this point effectively last night when he brought Jack Goldsmith back to "The Daily Show" for an unusually long discussion about the memo. What's your reaction? Does Stewart have it right?
Ruth Marcus: Don't know what's going on with his colleagues there. I did see Stewart, who I thought did a wonderful job highlighting the subject. As to the public outcry...I think there's a lot of Bush fatigue and the memo's existence and conclusions were already known, so perhaps that explains some of it.
Washington: The California Supreme Court will issue a decision on the constitutionality of gay marriage sometime this summer. Do you think the court will overturn the ban on same sex marriage in California? What sort of impact would such a ruling have on the presidential election?
Ruth Marcus: I don't know very much about the current composition of the California Supreme Court. I suspect that a ruling overturning the state ban on same-sex marriage would not be viewed with joy by the Democratic candidate(s), who both oppose same-sex marriage and would worry that it would rile up people for the fall worried about activists courts, liberal judges, etc.
Re: "Overwhelming Tilt": You write "the overwhelming liberal tilt of law school faculty makes me glad to see law schools -- Harvard Law School is one that has done this extremely well under Dean Elena Kagan -- reaching out to diversify the political viewpoints on their faculty." Should the "overwhelming tilt" of biology department faculty in favor accepting evolution make them try to hire creationists? Should the "overwhelming tilt" of physics department faculty in favor of accepting that the universe began at the time of the Big Bang rather than 6,000 years ago make them try to hire Young Earth believers? How far do you think universities need to go in terms of accommodating conservative "thought" when it flies in the face of widely accepted opinion among nonconservatives?
Ruth Marcus: I'm sorry, but these are false analogies. Evolution is demonstrably true, which would make a creationist unqualified as a biology department hire. But there is no demonstrably right and wrong view of the constitution and the law, no matter what the chief justice says about neutral umpires calling balls and strikes. So it is important for law students to be exposed to a range of views about constitutional interpretation and the role of the courts even if it "flies in the face of widely accepted opinion among nonconservatives."
St. Simons Island, Ga.: Ms. Marcus, I enjoy your column and your visits on, among other shows, the Diane Rehm show, but I was surprised this morning when you compared (actually Professor Pearlstein compared but you approved) the biology professor who doesn't believe in evolution with the law school professor who sanctions torture. The former may be confused, but the latter is dangerous. Academic freedom is extremely important; so is freedom of expression, but it doesn't allow screaming fire in a crowded theater. Whether John Yoo should be dismissed from the faculty is a difficult question, but your analogy misses the mark entirely.
Ruth Marcus: Well, here's what I took from the analogy. A biology department can conclude with certainty that evolution is real/true/whatever the right word is. A law faculty cannot conclude with the same certainty that the constitution means that the preisdnet can/can't do X or Y. These are calls of judgment and interpretation. Yoo would say that his opinion went not to "sanctioning torture" but to advising the president (incorrectly in my view) about the scope of his powers and the applicability of various statutes to them.
Old Blue in Exile: I'm old enough to recall the Loyalty Oath controversy at Cal in the '50s, where faculty who refused to sign a loyalty oath could be fired. Some faculty had skeletons in their political closets, while others refused to sign on general principles. It was not President Robert Gordon Sproul's finest hour. I think some alumni (there aren't too many faculty left from over half a century ago) have enough institutional memory to be uncomfortable with firing Yoo for his views, even though I personally think they're beyond reprehensible.
Ruth Marcus: A good thing to recall, and something that's been brought up by some of the people commenting in the blogosphere on this.
Philadelphia: To follow-up on the survey question and your answer, isn't that tendency to base such a general opinion on limited sources the same kind of behavior that sunk Judith Miller's reporting on WMD? Don't you think that the public is owed greater background research before you opine on a so-called general opinion and then advance it to support your own?
Ruth Marcus: Wow, compared to Judy Miller. Now that's getting nasty.
The public owed greater background research? This is an on-line chat, not a news story, and I was simply expressing my sense that most law professor types are leaning in my direction.
Re: Tenure: I'm not familiar with academic nuances, but is tenure supposed to protect professors against being fired for anything? Also, as some high-profile cases like Paul Wolfowitz have shown, was Yoo granted tenure for being a great academic scholar, or for being a former head of the Office of Legal Counsel?
Ruth Marcus: He had tenure before OLC.
San Francisco:"Moral turpitude" requires dismissal of tenured faculty, as do the academic transgressions of misciting precedent in footnotes and omitting relevant studies or citations/cases from footnotes. Yoo is clearly guilty of all of these, and has additionally brought disrepute upon the institution that is his employer. A first-year Constitutional Law student would flunk for writing a paper on presidential powers without mentioning Lee or Youngstown. Dean Edley must dismiss him.
Ruth Marcus: If Yoo had plagiarized an OLC opinion, I think I would support firing him, because that goes unmistakeably to his fitness as a scholar. (Some people disagree on this hypothetical, btw.) But I think making judgments about his misciting precedent, bringing disrepute, etc., are much less clear and much more dangerous as a, well, precedent, for getting rid of faculty members whose views are noxious.
Lakewood, Colo.: Well, if the University of Colorado has the ability to fire tenured professor Ward Churchill for his views -- although they found something other than that to get him on -- then Berkeley certainly can figure out a way to get rid of John "Torture Advocate" Yoo. I think Yoo should be shamed everywhere he goes.
Ruth Marcus: My understanding of the Churchill case was that they "got" him on specifically academic things like misrepresenting his accomplishments, etc. Maybe like Al Capone on taxes. If professors, left or right, commit academic misconduct, fine, but an awfully dangerous road to go down to find ways to "get" a factuly member.
Minneapolis: Why is elitism perceived to only be a Demiocratic problem? Is it only because they hide it less well than Republicans? Certainly you can't tell me that many of the folks on the conservative side criticizing Obama (like Oxfored-educated George Will or Harvard Ph.D. Bill Kristol) aren't elitists, especially given that many of these same conservatives turned up their noses at Harriet Miers in part because her background was from (gasp!) Southern Methodist Law School.
Ruth Marcus: I think you should ask the first President Bush (message: I care; I'll have a splash of coffee) if elitism is only a Democratic problem. Elitism is a problem for politicians, generally.
Old Blue in Exile, again:"What Berkeley would do if a molecular biology professor 'had written a medical opinion while in government employ disclaiming the truth of evolution,' and continued to dispute the theory of evolution once he resumed teaching." Actually, Cal has kept Peter Duesberg, who claims AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus. Of course, his research funding has been in the dumper for quite a while now.
Ruth Marcus: Interesting. I don't know about that example but will look into it.
Ruth Marcus: Well, just about out of time, and I should have said this at the start: the column we've been (mostly) talking about was actually inspired by a question at the on-line chat two weeks ago that got me thinking about the issue and watching it ripen into a controversy. So thank you to chatters who helped with what I think we can all agree is a good topic whether or not you share my conclusions. See you in two weeks.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post opinion columnist Ruth Marcus discusses her recent columns and the latest news.
| 321.733333 | 0.733333 | 1 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501620.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501620.html
|
Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks.
|
2008041619
|
To put it mildly: I disagree. Granted, new human genetic technologies have real potential to help prevent or cure many terrible diseases, and I support research directed towards that end. But these same technologies also have the potential for real harm. If misapplied, they would exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce existing modes of discrimination. If more widely abused, they could undermine the foundations of civil and human rights. In the worst case, they could undermine our experience of being part of a single human community with a common human future.
Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop? If it's acceptable to modify one gene, why not two, or 20 or 200? At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone's specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?
Given what we know about human nature, the development and commercial marketing of human genetic modification would likely spark a techno-eugenic rat-race. Even parents opposed to manipulating their children's genes would feel compelled to participate in this race, lest their offspring be left behind.
Green proposes that eugenic technologies could be used to reduce "the class divide." But nowhere in his essay does he suggest how such a proposal might ever be made practicable in the real world.
The danger of genetic misuse is equally threatening at the international level. What happens when some rogue country announces an ambitious program to "improve the genetic stock" of its citizens? In a world still barely able to contain the forces of nationalism, ethnocentrism and militarism, the last thing we need to worry about is a high-tech eugenic arms race.
In his essay, Green doesn't distinguish clearly between different uses of genetic technology -- and the distinctions are critical. It's one thing to enable a couple to avoid passing on a devastating genetic condition, such as Tay-Sachs. But it's a different thing altogether to create children with a host of "enhanced" athletic, cosmetic and cognitive traits that could be passed to their own children, who in turn could further genetically modify their children, who in turn... you get the picture. It's this second use of gene technology (the technical term is "heritable genetic enhancement") that Green most fervently wants us to embrace.
In this position, Green is well outside the growing national and international consensus on the proper use of human genetic science and technology. To his credit, he acknowledges that 80 percent of the medical school students he surveyed said they were against such forms of human genetic engineering, and that public opinion polls show equally dramatic opposition. He could have noted, as well, that nearly 40 countries -- including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, and South Africa -- have adopted socially responsible policies regulating the new human genetic technologies. They allow genetic research (including stem cell research) for medical applications, but prohibit its use for heritable genetic modification and reproductive human cloning.
In the face of this consensus, Green blithely announces his confidence that humanity "can and will" incorporate heritable genetic enhancement into the "ongoing human adventure."
Well, it's certainly possible. Our desires for good looks, good brains, wealth and long lives, for ourselves and for our children, are strong and enduring. If the gene-tech entrepreneurs are able to convince us that we can satisfy these desires by buying into genetic modification, perhaps we'll bite. Green certainly seems eager to encourage us to do so.
But he would be wise to listen to what medical students, the great majority of Americans and the international community appear to be saying: We want all these things, yes, and genetic technology might help us attain them, but we don't want to run the huge risks to the human community and the human future that would come with altering the genetic basis of our common human nature.
Richard Hayes is executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society.
|
In an essay in Sunday's Outlook section, Dartmouth ethics professor Ronald Green asks us to consider a neo-eugenic future of "designer babies," with parents assembling their children quite literally from genes selected from a catalogue. Distancing himself from the compulsory, state-sponsored euge...
| 14.259259 | 0.518519 | 0.666667 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/tibet_wont_move_china_but_taiw.html%20
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/tibet_wont_move_china_but_taiw.html
|
Tibet Won't Move China -- But Taiwan Might
|
2008041619
|
A lot of ink has been spilled, and rightly so, on Tibet. But is it possible that the bigger story happening in Asia right now is what's going on between China and its other unruly relative - Taiwan? Is it also possible that the troubles in Tibet could be setting the scene for faster breakthroughs vis-a-vis Taiwan? I think so.
Over the weekend China's president, the purposely boring Hu Jintao, met with the purposely boring vice-president elect of Taiwan, Vincent "Smiling" Siew, in the purposely sleazy resort province of Hainan in southern China. The meeting amounted to the highest-level contact between officials from Taipei and Beijing, which claims that Taiwan is part of China, since 1949 - the year when China's Communists won a civil war and the defeated Nationalists scurried to Taiwan. More recently, the two sides have had no substantial talks in eight years.
The Post briefed the meeting in our Sunday paper. The Times filed something on its website today in a piece that argued the planned dialogue won't amount to much because the Tibet situation would constrain China's leaders on any openings with Taiwan. Just the opposite, I think.
The election last month of Siew and Ma Ying-jeou, the Nationalist candidate for president, in Taiwan means that after eight years of failed leadership by President Chen Shui-bian, who bungled the island's security and its economy, relations between Taipei and Beijing are likely to improve. Leaders from the two sides are finally talking about establishing direct flights. (It takes a day to get from Taipei to Shanghai, home to 250,000 businessmen, right now. If the flights were direct, it'd take an hour.) Pres-elect Ma has said he wants to end most restrictions on Taiwanese investment in China. (A recognition of reality considering Taiwan's businessmen have already sunk $100 billion or so in mainland factories.)
This is good news, but not just for the economy of the region. It's also good news for those who care about the preservation of the world's only majority-Chinese democracy (Taiwan) and the prospect of political change in China.
For eight years, outgoing President Chen basically advocated that Taiwan declare independence from China. He couldn't say it openly because 1) China threatened to fire missiles at Taiwan if Taiwan took such an act (...not fun) and 2) the United States, which is obligated to (kind of) defend Taiwan under the very ambiguously worded Taiwan Relations Act, has told Taiwan that if it declared independence we probably wouldn't be overly eager to run to its defense. So Chen resorted to a policy of what the Chinese liked to call "creeping independence" which basically meant seizing every opportunity to enrage Beijing. In the end, however, Chen - and Taiwan -- didn't get bupkis. Taiwan failed to improve its security. And China had a strong argument against any kind of democratization. Look at Taiwan, Beijing's mandarins would say, they have democracy and they want to split the motherland! That's a powerful argument over there.
So enter Ma, the Harvard-educated pretty boy of the National Party. He turned his strategy 180 degrees from Chen's. Needlessly antagonizing China, he's said, makes no sense. The keys to Taiwan's security and - critically - to the preservation of its full-throated democracy, he argued, are good relations with Beijing, not the constant tension Chen seemed to crave. This type of thinking upset some in Washington who frame dealing with China in a smart (and somewhat complex) way with Panda-hugging or collaboration with the godless Commies. But I think that Ma is right.
The reason is that as long as Taiwan stops purposely pissing off China, most of the Communist leadership will be happy to let the whole issue of Taiwan's sovereignty float for decades as long as everybody is making money. That will boost Taiwan's economy, grant China time to change and decrease the possibility that the US will have to go to war to defend Taiwan. This peaceful interim will also give Taiwan time to push China's political system in the right direction.
And that's a key here. The only territory in the world with the capability to teach China about democracy is Taiwan. It won't be Hong Kong, which was, is and will always be just a glitzy colony - whether to the old rulers, the Brits, or the new ones, the Chinese. It's definitely not the West. If there's anything the Tibet situation has shown it's that the gap in understanding between us and China is vast and growing bigger.
But once China's propaganda czars can no longer paint Taiwan's democracy with the tar brush of "splittism" or "treason" (which they gleefully did while Chen was president), its political system will become a lot more attractive to the Chinese.
Now, how does Tibet play into this?
China's president Hu has already pretty much ruled out any major breakthroughs with the Dalai Lama. China's state-run media have reverted to propaganda from the Cultural Revolution with a 9/11 twist, describing Tibet's spiritual leader as a "jackal" in a monk's habit and a "terrorist."
But Beijing is desperate for some type of international breakthrough to show the world in this, its Olympic, year. Why not Taiwan? Arguments that flexibility on Taiwan would be impossible because it'd be inconsistent with toughness on Tibet don't wash. When the chips are down (and they are down for China right now), expediency wins. Taiwan could be the beneficiary. And that'd be good news.
|
Pomfret's China features China expert John Pomfret as he deciphers what's behind the latest news from China.
| 55.25 | 0.6 | 1 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/my_response_to_benedict.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/my_response_to_benedict.html
|
My Response to Benedict
|
2008041619
|
Tuesday, Pope Benedict said he is "deeply ashamed" of the scandal and assured Catholics that seminaries will not tolerate pedophiles. "It is a great suffering for the Church in the United States, for the Church in general and for me personally that this could happen," Benedict told reporters. "If I read the stories of these victims, it is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing, to give love of God to these children."
In his response, the Pontiff has utterly mis-stated the nature of the clerical pedophilia scandal. The scandal is not the presence of pedophiles in the church, but the institutionalization of child-rape by the knowing protection and even promotion (by non-pedophiles) of those who are guilty of it. The most grievous offender in this respect is Cardinal Bernard Law, currently an honored figure at the Vatican. This expression of contempt for the victims makes the Pope himself a direct accomplice in the very atrocity that he affects to denounce.
Posted by Christopher Hitchens on April 16, 2008 7:53 AM
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 15.428571 | 0.285714 | 0.285714 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2008/04/too_late_but_not_too_little.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2008/04/too_late_but_not_too_little.html
|
Action on Abuse Too Late but Not Too Little
|
2008041619
|
Pope Benedict XVIâs first message to Catholic America on his historic 2008 visit came early â on the airplane, in fact. The pontiff said he was ashamed of the abuse of children by Catholic clergy. He promised to do everything possible to see that such things do not happen again. There is likely to be a heated debate between those who believe this statement satisfied papal obligations to move beyond the scandal for the good of the Church and those who think it was superficial and self-serving.
I donât anticipate any quick resolution of the matter, and still less a smoothing over of raw emotions. Before reengaging in the debate, however, a few items need to be recognized.
⢠The Bishops have abandoned the principle, âInnocent until proven guiltyâ in favor of âGuilty until proven innocentâ in order to address the offenses.
⢠Protection by a statute of limitations has been thrown out in order to clean house, punishing any offender at any time in the past.
⢠The church paid $2 billion in reparations, driving many dioceses into bankruptcy.
⢠The old practice of considering pedophilia a âsinâ has been rejected in favor a more modern interpretation as a non-remediable sickness, requiring expulsion or exclusion from the priesthood.
These measures are stricter than norms used in the US Congress or many school districts, just to cite the better known institutions in America that suffer from pedophiles. Moreover, if the statistics are to be believed, Catholic priests have a lower incidence of sexual misbehavior than the clergy of American Protestantism and Judaism.
My observations are not intended to excuse the behavior of the individual clergy and much less of bishops who hid the scandals, but just to make the point that some radical and drastic changes have been made. They may be âtoo lateâ but I donât think they can be called âtoo little.â
The issue that concerns me most is the Popeâs admission, âIt is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betray in this way their mission ... to these children.â I take him at his word that pedophiles will be excluded from the Catholic priesthood, but I am concerned that neither he nor other church officials have the savvy to discern prospective problem priests.
Those who dedicate their lives to the church and work in the rarefied atmosphere of Vatican and Chancery offices may be very sincere, but are they naïve about clergy sinfulness à la America? The saying, âThe Devil is in the detailsâ applies here. Lofty desires to do good and avoid evil need to be translated into practical norms for everyday administration.
Ironically, the laity most antagonistic to the hierarchy on this issue may be the best allies in establishing bullet-proof scrutiny for the future.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 11.75 | 0.386364 | 0.431818 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/willis_e_elliott/2008/04/benedict_xvi_the_shows_and_the.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/willis_e_elliott/2008/04/benedict_xvi_the_shows_and_the.html
|
Benedict XVI: The Shows and the Rifts
|
2008041619
|
The Question: What can Pope Benedict XVI say and do to repair the growing rifts between the Vatican, the clergy and the laity in America?
âNothingâ is my first thought: you donât send the problem to fix the problem.
The problem is not the excellent scholar Joseph Ratzinger, or this good man in the papal role. The problem is the traditional autocratic papacy itself, of which he is the current embodiment.
The Roman pope is the structural descendant of the Roman emperor, whose power was absolute. Most of the Roman Churchâs modern woes have this absolute power (in lesser forms distributed in the hierarchical pyramid of bishops under the pope) as a component.
In the Roman Republic, which was an influential model in the making of America, all free Romans (of course, not their slaves) had mouths as well as ears. In the Roman armies, the generals had mouths but not ears - and all on the pyramid beneath each had ears but not mouths. The republican form of government died when General Octavian proclaimed himself Caesar Augustus Imperator (Emperor) and ruled the Roman realms on the model of the Roman army: under him, the Republic had become the Empire. Only the Emperor had a mouth.
The sociomodel for the Roman Catholic Church was not the Roman Republic but the Roman Empire. Under the imperial papacy, only the Pope has a mouth. A sad instance is the 1968 âHumanae Vitae,â Paul VIâs rigid instruction for Roman Catholicsâ sexual behavior â flatly rejecting the unanimous opinion of the commission he had appointed to study the subject and make recommendations to him. (He had a mouth, but no ears.) Without the wisdom of balancing principle and prudence, the traditional and the existential, the encyclical condemned all artificial conception-control (miscalled "birth control"), a stance cutting the official Church off from the sexual-societal-environmental realities of life as it was being lived and continues to be lived in the West. The authority and even dignity of Rome suffered a massive blow, and the wide-world had a laugh at a male celebate - living out his life in a male world - instructing men and women what to do about sex.
Since the Second Vatican Council, pressure for power-sharing has increased; and even during the Council, some were using the British-historical analogy: it took the 1649 regicide to re-model British power from âempireâ to âcommonwealth.â
Americans love shows, and the papal shows will be media successes. But no matter what the Pope says or does during his few days in America, the rifts will continue to increase until the weight of Romeâs self-inflicted humiliations sinks the resistance to the emergence of a power-sharing structure in which all Roman Catholics have both ears and mouths.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 12.25 | 0.409091 | 0.454545 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/signs_and_wonders_adoration_an.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/signs_and_wonders_adoration_an.html
|
Signs and Wonders: Adoration and Distance
|
2008041619
|
I'm an atheist (formerly evangelical Christian) who believes in peace, joy and enlightenment from science and truth.
The straight record: There is no evidence Abraham or Moses existed, and good evidence AGAINST Moses and Joshua. Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula have been searched for evidence of Israelites camped there for the requisite years, and there are no Israelite markers or litter for 400 years in Egypt or 40 years in the desert where their garbage would have accumulated. The Joshua years were a peaceful time, when Jericho was a small unfortified village, not the great walled city it only became AFTER the Israelites took over.
The kings from David onward are probably a good list, just as we have good POTUS lists today. Fairy tales and magic like Elijah's fire were sprinkled in wherever the myth-makers saw fit.
Nineveh never had a citywide revival like the one Jonah supposedly caused.
The Book of Daniel has the wrong identities for the kings it describes and completely invents a fictitious king, Darius the Mede. It was written to describe a time 400 years earlier than its writer, who had not perfectly researched the time. Similarly Esther is the story of a great war which could never have happened in the well-documented time described. These are alternate-historical fictions like Gone With the Wind or Forrest Gump.
There is no record of a messianic preacher who was named Jesus and had the right descriptions, nor any unusual earthquakes, eclipses or bread-multiplications at the right time, yet Josephus should have written much about the former (the famous Jesus Letter of Josephus is a confirmed forgery), and Pliny the Elder should have written about the latter. Everywhere that should have Jesus-evidence, doesn't, so there is reason to say he didn't exist, or only existed as a common man.
Revelation "predicts" a great war in the OLD Roman Empire which never happened, so its author John is a false prophet.
Biology of neurons has confirmed that the "soul" comes from the brain and does not outlast it, and is not from "God."
Catholicism takes most of its hallmarks from Mithra, a pagan religion which was "syncretized" into part of early Christianity.
Lastly, if God wants people to "believe" in his existence, he ought to take a public stroll down Times Square!
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 10.431818 | 0.386364 | 0.386364 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103441.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103441.html
|
Odd Man Out
|
2008041619
|
Almost three years ago, just after I left my full-time job, I went to the dentist. I'm about as close to my dentist as anyone, maybe less so. He asked how life at the office was, and I told him I wasn't doing that anymore, that I was working from home and looking after my two children. He nodded, inscrutable behind his sanitary mask. It was a real conversation killer.
After the poking, prodding and cleaning, I got up from the chair and extended my hand. "See you in six months." He shook with an iron grip and an expression that suggested we shared a secret. "Good luck with the job search," he said.
His assumption, of course, was that being home with the children was something I had fallen into and would extricate myself from as soon as possible. I could have told him, "No, doctor, no! This was a choice, a modern choice!" but I think he would have taken a lot of convincing.
I hadn't thought about this visit until recently. My wife and I came out of this year's round of school panic (Where will he/she go? Is there a lottery? Is there sibling preference?) fairly certain that our just-4-year-old and our nearly 6-year-old would, for the next several years, be in school every weekday from 8:30 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon. Was I looking at the end of day-care duty? Would I now need that luck my dentist had offered?
In these past years, I've found my place in a world that surrounds me with people like my dentist, people who find it very, very odd that it is I, not my wife, who's picking up the kids at preschool and carrying the snacks. I've grown used to the slight hesitation on the phone of the mom who realizes that if she wants my kid to keep hers company for a play date, she's going to get me with my X and Y chromosomes coming along for the ride. Is it just me, though, or is my choice a little less odd than it used to be? I see them at the park, other men of all shapes and sizes looking after small children. They place themselves on the periphery of the moms. They don't talk about eating and sleeping habits. They check their cellphones a lot.
Ask any parent who's staying home to raise children "And what do you do?" and you're likely to tap into an internal conversation that's been going on since the day the office took him or her out for the farewell lunch. Behind the carefully phrased reply is simmering anxiety over a larger question: Are you staying at home because you wanted to or because you had to? Did you prove yourself sufficiently in the working world before you left, or did you flee to the sidelines and leave all that office stuff to your spouse?
Insecurity over the wanted-to/had-to question is responsible for dumping a lot of bad corporate jargon into the realm of child care. Too many stay-at-home parents try to pretend they're still on the job. I was once thanked for "reaching out" for a play date. One parent within earshot of me counseled another to keep the "marriage bucket" separate from the "child-care bucket." And I wish to never again hear the more pleasant tasks of parenting described as "low-hanging fruit." Let us stop pretending that being a parent is work similar to what we all did for a paycheck in our previous lives. It's not. It's entirely different. And shouldn't that be a good thing?
But when is it time to reassess? Some stay-at-home parents carry about with them a sense of the career from which they are absent. I'm not talking about the business-speak or anything like that, but rather a peculiar quality of not being entirely present in the park, on the play date, wherever. Something about them suggests the empty office chair and the cooling cup of coffee on their desk waiting for them to return. You know they'll be gone from the playground as soon as circumstances allow. I'm pretty sure I'm not one of those people, so when will I know? Will one of my children look up at me and say, "Dad, it's time to get a real job again"? And how old will she or he be then? Is this a first-grade scenario or something farther off?
When I do decide to reenter the workforce, what about that gap in the résumé mothers have worried about for decades? That talk about the boys club you hear from so many women? Of course it's true. But that boys club has made room to some degree for women returning after raising kids -- even if that room is only 70 percent the size of the boys' and is too often not on the top floor.
But for men coming back into the working fold? If you left a perfectly good job to look after your kid, all the business-speak in the world isn't going to disguise the fact that you made your priorities pretty clear when you left. Don't think that decision won't follow you. I've read of companies that seek out stay-at-home parents returning to the working world because they tend to return more focused and productive, but they always seem to be boutique tech start-ups in places far away from the world I live in.
Maybe what my dentist knew -- in addition to the benefits of flossing and the tenacity of plaque -- was how difficult it could be to extricate oneself from the stay-at-home-dad life.
Needless to say, any woman who has stayed home could shed light on this predicament. But after all the feel-good trend stories we've read about dads who stay at home, how good will the dad-goes-back-to-work stories feel a few years later? It's hard to resist Iraq war analogies. Was I overly optimistic in entering on this stay-at-home venture? How will I know when I'm no longer accomplishing anything and am bogged down without an exit strategy?
I'm not quite sure what those solitary dads in the park are thinking about, but I promise you at least a couple are worrying about the endgame.
Mark Trainer is working on a collection of short stories titled "Bad Daddies." Comments:health@washpost.com.
|
Almost three years ago, just after I left my full-time job, I went to the dentist. I'm about as close to my dentist as anyone, maybe less so. He asked how life at the office was, and I told him I wasn't doing that anymore, that I was working from home and looking after my two children. He nodded,...
| 17.739726 | 0.986301 | 71.013699 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600331.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600331.html
|
Pontiff Calls for Broad Remedies
|
2008041619
|
The diminutive white-haired man in white cassock and red shoes walked with clasped hands and spoke in a soft German accent about his dismay concerning the Church's clergy child abuse scandal and his preference for diplomacy over conflict.
Marking his 81st birthday in a whirlwind transit of the capital, the pope was welcomed by President Bush at the White House, by thousands of flag-waving spectators along his motorcade routes and by hundreds of black-clad bishops and cardinals at the majestic Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Northeast.
He said the abuse of minors by U.S. clergy was "evil" and "immoral" but had to be eradicated in a broader attack on the degradation of modern-day sexuality.
He also spoke of his overall admiration for the United States "from the dawn of the republic," he said at the White House. "America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator."
Later, he spoke intensely of the sex-abuse scandal to church leaders assembled in the Basilica's lower-level Crypt Church.
It was the second day in a row that the pope assailed the scandal that has engulfed the U.S. Catholic Church in recent years, and he told church leaders that it is their "God-given responsibility" to heal the resulting wounds and restore shattered trust.
The pope also seconded the words of Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who said in introducing the pontiff that the scandal was "sometimes very badly handled."
"It falls to you . . . to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores," Benedict told the church leaders. "Moreover, by acknowledging and confronting the problem when it occurs in an ecclesial setting, you can give a lead to others, since this scourge is found not only within your dioceses but in every sector of society. It calls for a determined, collective response."
But he said earlier that an even broader response is needed.
"Children deserve to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships," he said. "They should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today. . . . What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?"
He received a standing ovation at the end of his speech.
|
Pope Benedict XVI was greeted with pealing church bells, adoring throngs and gorgeous spring weather yesterday during a historic journey across the District that took him from the green expanse of the South Lawn of the White House to the stone steps of one of the city's most spectacular churches.
| 9.433962 | 0.471698 | 0.660377 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/16/teamsters_for_obama_truckin_bu.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/16/teamsters_for_obama_truckin_bu.html
|
Teamsters for Obama: Truckin' but not Registerin'
|
2008041619
|
By Alec MacGillis Heading into next Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama's campaign is counting on a big turnout among the nearly 300,000 Keystone State voters who have recently switched their registration to Democratic so that they can vote in the primary, which bars Republicans and independents. The campaign has been working hard to register non-Democrats drawn to Obama -- a subgroup that has helped carry him elsewhere -- and would like to think that the vast majority of new Democrats on the rolls are for him.
But traveling through the state, it's hard not to conclude, after meeting voter after voter unaware of the primary rules, that both Obama and Hillary Clinton could have done a better job in goading their supporters to register as Democrats by the March 24 deadline. And one group stands out in particular: Teamster members.
The union's president, James P. Hoffa, traveled through the state last week in a convoy of three empty freight trucks to drum up support for Obama, visiting truck depots and warehouses to tell his members why the union was backing Obama. He got a decent reception. But to what avail? At each stop, there were Teamsters who said they preferred Obama to Clinton, but weren't going to vote in the primary because they were either Republicans or independents.
You might think that one of the top benefits from a big union endorsement would be knowing that the union would do its best to make sure its members were eligible to vote in the contest at hand, particularly in a state like Pennsylvania where voters are unused to voting in a presidential primary that matters. Yet that did not seem to be the case with the Teamsters: Hoffa himself was unaware that Pennsylvania is a closed primary. He reacted with surprise when informed of that by reporters during the tour.
The union's top political liaisons said they were fully aware of the rules, and had been doing all they could to get out the word to members. But they acknowledged that there were probably Obama supporters they had missed.
One is Scott Hann, a registered Republican who heard Hoffa pitch Obama at a truck depot outside Reading, where he works as a mechanic. He will definitely vote for Obama over John McCain in the fall. "He handles himself very good in the media," said Hann, 39. "The support he's getting is phenomenal. There's no way I'm going to vote for Hillary [in November] but I'm leaning towards him because I can't take another four years of" Republican rule. But he didn't realize in time that he needed to switch his registration for the primary. "I'm not real big into politics," he said.
Standing next to him was Bob Evans, a 59-year-old truck driver and also an Obama admirer. "I'm a registered Republican and I wouldn't vote for McCain if he was running against Mickey Mouse," he said. Had he planned to vote for Obama in the primary? "If it's not too late, I'm definitely going to" switch, he said. But it was too late.
It was the same story at Hoffa's next stop, a grocery warehouse where he spoke to several hundred workers. Matthew Light, a 32-year-old independent, likes Obama the best of the three remaining candidates, saying he's "more available to people and down to earth" than Clinton and that McCain is campaigning on "more stay the course than anything for change." He knew about the primary rules -- but never got around to switching because he didn't think Pennsylvania's primary would be all that pivotal, and no one was urging him to think otherwise. "I thought about it, but I thought it wasn't going to matter too much," he said.
Posted at 5:07 PM ET on Apr 16, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
I continually am in wonder as to whether the statement that Republicans are voting for Obama to stop a Clinton candidacy are made in jest, in ignorance, or as I suspect in deceit. I am an Obama supporter. I am also a poli sci major and a all to long observer of the American voters and party politics. If anyone REALLY believes that the Republicans are not literally salivating at the opportunity to run against Hillary Clinton, you need to plugged and recharged! I think the thinking person realized early on the Clinton was the only candidate running who could probably not defeat whoever the Republican candidate would be, and it is ever more so now that McCain has emerged as the candidate. Republicans who are voting for Obama are voting for him because they support him. Republicans that are crossing over in an attempt to weaken the Democrats are going to be voting for Clinton.
Posted by: Waynep | April 17, 2008 8:22 PM
Mr. Silvera: International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Your comments were very well stated..I add one observation: NO ONE EVER, EVER, brings up Bill Clintons absolute disgraceful non action regarding THE GENOCIDE IN RAWANDA. Someone should ask Hilary about that since she was co-president...
Posted by: patindc | April 17, 2008 4:45 PM
I checked out that utube clip of Hillary and it was quite interesting.....actually rather hillarious! LMAO. I have sent the link to just about everyone that I could possibly think of. It's interesting how Hillary thinks that the American people are stupid and doesn't have common sense. She supported NAFTA...voted for CAFTA...The debate was just as hillarious as this website...No policies discussed only politics. I love the way Obama stays above the frey...he is definitely a CLASS Act and Hilary is definitely a CLASSLESS Act. It's going to be very funny to see how much her electibility rates fall since her attack on Obama(her fellow party member). No one trusts her, she's a liar..Obama had many times to kick her in the groin during that debate but he refused to do that and that's exactly what the American people really admire about his character. Hillary has no character...it's funny that she wanted to immediately go to a commerical break when Obama told the moderater that Hillary isn't vetted and amongst the bag full of garbage of a post Clinton era is explaining her husband's pardons shortly before leaving office. What a joke!
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 11:51 AM
Why are we judging Barack Obama by the words of another man?
Reverend Jeremiah Wright served his country honorably as a U.S. Marine. As such, he has earned full rights under the Constitution of these United States of America. One of those rights is freedom of speech. This freedom of speech does not require consent or agreement from those being spoken to.
America must understand the point of view of a formerly enslaved and now oppressed people. When white men wrote the words to the Constitution that "all men are created equal" they saw fit not to include people of African descent who remained in enslavement. As a people who have felt the wrath of American Democracy for more than four hundred years, forgive us as a people.
After only forty years of freedom forgive us for sometimes thinking and saying what is perceived as "crazy" things yet all the while dying in every war ever fought for any and everything that resulted from Jamestown to Plymouth Rock including the army of the Confederate States of America through today's war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Though Crispus Attuck was the first to give his life and many others of African descent fought for Independence and in the War of 1812, in the Battle of 1815, the Civil War and the Spanish - American War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf Wars I and II, we are still not fully accepted as truly loyal citizens of our country. We still live in a country that allows a symbol of insurrection and enslavement to continue to fly legally.
Did Senator McCain have to denounce his mother and her words regarding Mormons? Have we analyzed the past ten years of sermons by the pastors of Senators' McCain and Clinton? Have they ever said anything inflammatory or controversial that we should know about? Should those candidates be held accountable for what their pastors have said? Are those candidates even identified with any specific church? Should McCain have to renounce and denounce Pat Robertson or Hagee and other controversial pastors that have endorsed him? If Obama has to renounce Farrakhan and Wright, why is there no call for McCain to renounce and or denounce inflammatory preachers who support him?
What frailty does white America believe exists in the hearts and minds of the descendants of enslaved Africans; that like the rest of America, we can go to any church, pray to any God, be preached to by anyone; leave church and then ignore everything that was said by the preacher and break the promises we made to God.
For over forty years, our government knowingly and with purpose infected the descendants of the enslaved with syphilis. In light of the Tuskegee experiment as it was known, America must understand why we look at the HIV/AIDS infection rate among African Americans with a raised eyebrow. America should understand why the descendants of Africans see the greatness of America through a different prism; enslavement, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan, Dredd Scott, Plessy, lynchings, police brutality, inferior educational and employment opportunities.
The test of whether we have made racial progress toward equality will be seen through future primaries. We must not allow the most segregated time in America to destroy the legitimate campaign of this African American, Barack Obama. No other candidate/citizen will have their love and patriotism questioned in this manner and overtone. African Americans believe that this is a negative legacy from the period of enslavement. What history suffers America to question the patriotism and loyalty of any Descendant of enslaved Africans. Only a Black person would suffer the indignity of being judged by the words of another.
If we have truly achieved equality, then we will judge Barack Obama solely on his character, his ideas and what we believe that he can offer in the rebuilding of America; and we will not use the words of one man to characterize the humanity of another, and all the while we continue to die for America.
F. Christophe Silvera, Secretary - Treasurer, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local #808 22-43 Jackson Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101 Tel: 917-297-2241, email: fitzverity@aol.com
Posted by: Fitzverity C. Silvera | April 17, 2008 11:27 AM
Senator Obama's words regarding a portion of America as being "bitter" is accurate.
The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that hate groups have grown by forty eight percent (48%) between the years 2000 to 2007. This is a sign of increased bitterness in our nation. There are twenty six (26) recognized hate groups in New York State alone. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols are the tip of this bitterness that continues to grow as people lose faith in their government.
The vigilante actions by many on our borders with Mexico with guns in hand against workers trying to find work in America. These actions are being taken by citizens who have lost faith in their government's ability to secure the border. This is the anti-immigrant attitude that Senator Obama describes. The various local municipal ordinances being passed against undocumented workers are occurring mostly in small American communities not in the big cities.
The border was secure until President William Jefferson Clinton signed NAFTA and subsequently PNTR with China. These trade bills destroyed good union jobs with health benefits and pensions here in America. The North American Free Trade Agreement destroyed Mexican jobs and forced this mass migration north.
The New York Times reported that during the Carey Bush election of 2004, working class people were knowingly voting against their economic interests because of their religious beliefs. The "Hot Button" item at that time was Gay marriage.
The media has given a pass to Senator Clinton regarding her lying about her arrival in Bosnia. You do not forget being shot at and certainly not when you are being shot at with an AK-47 with your only child in tow. This is not a little white lie or the result of sleep deprivation. Her statement is a bold and clear lie. Like her husband before her, she is against trade bills until elected. Your key strategist is working to get a trade bill passed while you are opposed to said bill. Why is the journalist community giving her a pass while continuing to attack Barack Obama for what other people have said or done?
It is important to note that after the Million Man March, crime has gone down significantly. Minister Louis Farrakhan was seated at the White House with Ronald Reagan and recognized for using his influence in the Muslim world to secure the release of Lt. Robert O. Goodman on January 4, 1984. He was invited to Philadelphia by then Mayor Rendell to speak and help heal the racial divide; holding hands, singing and lavishing praise on April 15, 1997. On May 5, 2005, former President Bill Clinton praised Minister Farrakhan and the Millions More Movement describing it as a positive idea.
The media has become bottom feeders and have not helped to elevate the dialogue between the candidates. The American peoples' issues: Jobs, healthcare, social security, education and the war are more important than the mistakes made while speaking since all must admit to doing that.
F. Christophe Silvera, Secretary - Treasurer, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local #808 22-43 Jackson Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101 Tel: 917-297-2241, email: fitzverity@aol.com
Posted by: Fitzverity C. Silvera | April 17, 2008 11:23 AM
I know many Republicans who are voting for Obama because just like Democrats, they are very ashamed of what Bush has done at home and abroad and know a change is needed in Washington. There are some loyal Bushies (approx 19%) who will defend him regardless of what he does. And I think most of them know Bush is a failure, they're just too stubborn to admit they were wrong. Too many people are reading way too much into Republicans voting for Obama. Sure there will be some Rush Limbaugh worshippers who will have a devious motive, but most of them are doing it at face value.
Posted by: MikeMcNally | April 17, 2008 10:09 AM
Obama not only has his rev but also bill ayers rezko and his wife alot of baggage do you think?Now his own words about him if elected would need someone who knew alot about military stuff smart guy some voters want in the White House funny msm does not bring these statement outseem kind of biasis
Posted by: maggie | April 17, 2008 10:06 AM
gee, obama is relying on repubicans to knock out Clinton.
And later those Republicans will vote for McCain.
Obama will do anything anything at all to win the nomination.
Posted by: Bonan | April 17, 2008 9:22 AM
Posted by: scaramouche23 | April 17, 2008 8:34 AM
You know, that was the first time I ever saw that:
Posted by: scaramouche23 | April 17, 2008 8:33 AM
AIPAC must be very happy joyous that Barak will support Israel to defend its self against the weak destroyed and smashed Palestinians who are killed every day ( average 10 daily) by sending their troops every day to Gaza, like the apartheid rule in south Africa.
When even President Carter visited Israel last week, their Prime Minister and Foreign Minister did not even bothered to meet him because he wanted to resolve the Palestinian - Israeli tragic dispute since 60 years. Where Israel continued to impose total silence and cover-up of their occupation of the Palestinian Land.
Posted by: Daw Bors | April 17, 2008 7:57 AM
Mia posts that same piece all over WaPo comment boards.
Your tinfoil hat is looking especially shiny today.
Posted by: Terrorfied | April 17, 2008 12:40 AM
Read Campaign Diaries's debate analysis:
Will this debate trigger a backlash in favor of the candidate who was on the defensive, just as it did in NH, SC and OH? Or was it a replay of the previous Philadelphia debate, with reversed roles but the same narrative -- a front-runner is harassed and stumbles durably? A good case could be made for both scenarios: The questions were more one-sided than usual, yes, but Obama also looked much weaker than usual.
Posted by: Daniel | April 16, 2008 11:45 PM
Obama "won" the debates....to not "win" Obama would have had to lost, and he didn't.
...and his closing statement was good (!)
the polls will show it, Obama won
Posted by: analysis | April 16, 2008 11:22 PM
I do not trust Ms. Clinton. She is always talking in the "negatives".
Posted by: Harry Teruya | April 16, 2008 10:41 PM
WHO IS LARRY SINCLAIR? KEEP SEEING HIS NAME.
Posted by: betty | April 16, 2008 10:37 PM
Posted by: . | April 16, 2008 9:26 PM
Peace and prosperity during Clinton years? CEO pay increased to 400:1 (lowest pay to highest) between 1992-2000. Minimum wage went from 4.25 to 5.35. What it should had gone was about 17 bux according to this math. The First Black Prez also slashed corporate tax on the Big Oil to a whopping 5%!!! I personally didn't see any of this prosperity. Did you? No one I know got a piece of this prosperity pie. The real wages declined and continue to fall, although at a more alarming rate than in Clinton years.
Posted by: dzounz | April 16, 2008 9:17 PM
The 44th President of the United States
Posted by: . | April 16, 2008 7:38 PM
VivaHillary posts: "Hi Mia who just posted above. You're an anti-semite. good luck with that. do you think Mr. Obama understands and approves of your views? his supporters, people like you, make me infinitely less likely to even consider supporting him and I've never voted for a Republican in my life. "
What makes you think that this is a real Obama supporter? My guess is that it's a bogus post and a bogus affiliation, designed simply to create an anti-Obama frenzy. It wouldn't surprise me if the poster wasn't female and a McCain booster.
Whenever I see a "canned" post like this (and I've seen this one in multiple foruns over the last few days) my crap detector goes wild; but, your mileage may vary.
Posted by: jk5432 | April 16, 2008 6:53 PM
But do the Teamsters know who Larry Sinclair is?
Posted by: | April 16, 2008 6:28 PM
Hi Mia who just posted above. You're an anti-semite. good luck with that. do you think Mr. Obama understands and approves of your views? his supporters, people like you, make me infinitely less likely to even consider supporting him and I've never voted for a Republican in my life.
Obama's appeal to Republicans is one of my big problems with him. Partisanship is a good thing. I disagree with Republicans because they advocate terrible policies that favor the rich and powerful. I want someone who will fight Republicans for universal healthcare, an economy that lifts all boats and a foreign policy that is tough, smart and diplomatic. Peace and prosperity. You know, kinda' like the nineties when another Clinton was president. Obama seems to love denigrating the the Clintons and the nineties. Those were pretty good times. Don't believe happy days will be here again without Hillary in command. On to PA!
Posted by: VivaHillary | April 16, 2008 6:26 PM
Posted by: Save the country from Hillary | April 16, 2008 6:24 PM
I don't totally agree with the poster about a Jewish Lynching of Obama, but what I do observe as a black man married to a jewish woman is that the interests of Isreal are of utmost concerns to Jewish Americans, especially to those over 60. Again it is the old strategy of dividing the minorities so the majority can stay in power.
Posted by: Reggie lemon | April 16, 2008 6:19 PM
Hillary has proven Obama's "bitter" statement to be true. Bitter at losing the democratic nominations, she's now clinging to guns and religion. lol
Posted by: mev | April 16, 2008 6:11 PM
Are Jews the reincarnation of modern day KKK?
The powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee is vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or extracting favor from his administration should he become the next President. Senator Obama has offered his assurance to Jews that he is not a foe- yet this does not seem to allay their resistance to his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton's campaign saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scenes. In collaboration with the Clintons, they [the Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman, CNN news anchor, Wolfe Blitzer, Senator Joseph Lieberman and others to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. The above mentioned Jews continue to fan the flame of hateful passions against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and pushing the Reverend Wright issue so that it remains in the foreground. The strategy is to convince the voters and the Democratic Super Delegates that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and simultaneously promote Hillary as the only friend of Israel. It is also reported that Democratic Jews are being counseled to vote for John McCain- should Senator Clinton not get the nomination. Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U
Civil Rights and black organizations have dubbed the Jewish Lobby's anti Obama campaign, "mean spirited" but so far have opted to remain tentative. Elected Democrats have also taken note and are increasingly becoming frustrated with Senator Clinton's controversial tactics. They are appalled with her alliance to hawkish groups including John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague and worry that it provides damaging ammunition to the republicans that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some Democrats are even calling the conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. The question is- who is willing to bell the Cat? Thus far, a healthy concern for political reprisal has prevented any of the party leaders from offering any public criticism. The Jewish Lobby for decades has effectively manipulated the holocaust to keep politicians beholden to their agenda. Those who oppose are usually labeled anti-Israel or Bigots in order to gain their compliance. In this instance, however, they run the risk of having the tables turned against them if blacks are able to expose hypocrisy in what many view to be a Jewish lynching of Senator Obama.
Posted by: mia | April 16, 2008 6:06 PM
Posted by: Dallas Driver | April 16, 2008 5:59 PM
This is just a bit more evidence that Obama can win PA in the fall, as Governor Ed Rendell says. Clinton won't pick up too many delegates or a popular vote net in her big state and in the fall the democratic ticket will win PA. Some teamsters may have missed the details of primary rules, but they know who they want in the fall. A lot of people do it seems.
Posted by: karela | April 16, 2008 5:53 PM
The results from Pa. are going to be very deceiving, since the change of Registration by Repubs in their effort to stop Hillary and vote for Obama is something like 10 to 25% of the estimate votes he will get from various reports I've seen. I had thought early on this would be 10 or 15% of the total vote for Obama and a few weeks ago upped it to 25% or more based on reports I've seen. The Delagate count is also skewed as to where the majority of voters are, and again this is an advantage for Obama.
Posted by: lylepink | April 16, 2008 5:48 PM
i think this article covers it best... Only people that are polital junkies are paying attention to politics. The people are not even paying attention to the tit for tat at this time. So all of you that say "I will not vote for "x" if "y" is nominated are just upset. The vast majority of people won't even make a decison until late Oct or even in the actual voting booth. This will actually cancel out any votes not being cast out of protest. The Republicans know how to play the system. Are Democrats up to the challenge this time? Time will tell.
Posted by: | April 16, 2008 5:22 PM
remember when they asked kucinich if he ever disagreed with any union ,he thought for a moment, then said "yes,i disagreed with the teamsters over drilling in anwar." need i say more ?
Posted by: gary | April 16, 2008 5:13 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Could Barack Obama and the Teamsters have done a better job in goading Pennsylvanian supporters to register as Democrats by the March 24 deadline? --Alec MacGillis
| 187.111111 | 0.925926 | 5.962963 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/16/mccain_pitches_tax_cuts_at_mee.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/16/mccain_pitches_tax_cuts_at_mee.html
|
McCain Pitches Tax Cuts at Meeting with CEOs
|
2008041619
|
By Michael D. Shear SOUTH MILWAUKEE -- A day after John McCain offered an economic vision that included breaks for business and corporate America, he traveled to a mine equipment plant here for a round-table discussion with titans of industry. In two hour-long panel discussions with CEOs and other business leaders, McCain pledged tax cuts, worker training, education improvements and spending restraint as a way to grow the economy. "Investing in Americans, investing in people is at the heart of the growing and prosperous American economy," said Carly Fiorina, the former HP CEO who has become McCain's public face when talking about business. Fiorina moderated two panels with McCain and the executives in a cavernous warehouse where the Bucyrus company makes massive equipment for coal, copper and iron ore mines across the world. The panels were hand-picked by the campaigns and the participants -- who included the CEOs of General Mills, A.O. Smith, Northwestern Mutual and Wisconsin Energy -- universally praised McCain.
It gave the presidential candidate an opportunity to demonstrate his knowledge of economic issues -- something that is critical after he suffered political damage from saying that he knows little about the issue. "When you're making decisions about where to go and where to locate in this global economy, how much impact does the fact that we have the second highest corp tax rate in the world?" McCain asked. Several audience members said the tax rate was critical to the business decisions they make on behalf of their companies, a good answer for McCain, who has proposed to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. But the forum also gave McCain's critics the opportunity to once again scold him for focusing too much on the needs of corporate interests at the expense of workers and the less-well-off. Democrats issued a statement today saying his tax cut proposals would "balloon" the deficit. "The truth is, McCain's economic proposals would balloon the deficit, not shrink it," a Democratic National Committee spokesman said in a statement.
Posted at 2:16 PM ET on Apr 16, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
What a biased anti-McCain account. But since you are a Post reporter, what else could we expect
OK Mr. Curry, so what exactly did the Post get wrong?
The way I read it, they didn't even mention that McCain said suspending the Gas Tax would drop the price of fuel by 20% - The Federal Gas Tax is 18 Cents, or less than 6% of the price of a gallon of regular unleaded.
To be fair, McCain probably did the math on the tool of his day, the abacus. Either that or he confuses "cent" and "percent" like he does with "Sunni" and "Shiite".
Posted by: JM | April 17, 2008 8:59 PM
What a biased anti-McCain account. But since you are a Post reporter, what else could we expect
OK Mr. Curry, so what exactly did the Post get wrong? The way I read it, they didn't even mention that McCain said suspending the Gas Tax would drop the price of fuel by 20% - The Federal Gas Tax is 18 Cents, or less than 6% of the price of a gallon of regular unleaded.
To be fair, McCain probably did the math on the tool of his day, the abacus. Either that or he confuses "cent" and "percent" like he does with "Sunni" and "Shiite".
Posted by: JM | April 17, 2008 8:59 PM
PAUL VOLCKER has endorsed Obama. WARREN BUFFETT endorses both Clinton and Obama.
I trust their opinions a whole lot more than the opinions of these CEO guys.
Posted by: Tom J | April 17, 2008 9:40 AM
Tax cuts and spending restraint will fix the economy, eh? How do you have spending restraint with a war on? More tax cuts? This whole economic program amounts to "Let's max the Visa card." It's the typical Republican program. The problem is, in our current situation it will surely bring down the whole house of cards.
Someday, the Fed will hold an auction and nobody will come.
Posted by: fzdybel | April 17, 2008 12:42 AM
McCain sure is an economic whiz. How much did he cost us in the $850,000,000,000 Savings and Loan Swindles? Not as much as Neil and Jeb Bush,. . but a lot.
And haven't Republican skills in international relations mirror exactly their competence in the economy?
Like I tell my conservative friends, . . don't forget to gas up on your way to vote!
Posted by: gkam | April 16, 2008 11:11 PM
Do you think he has had a small stroke? This doesn't sound like a stable person. The way he flip-flops, it would be understandable (or more so) for a first term senator. Certainly not a vetran.
Posted by: redhotpapasan | April 16, 2008 11:07 PM
What a biased anti-McCain account. But since you are a Post reporter, what else could we expect
Posted by: Henry Curry | April 16, 2008 10:21 PM
Every time I see McCain's name I post the following:
John is a flip flopping hypocrite!! In June 05 he voted to limit interrogation techniques such as water boarding, and made a short speech about his vote. In February 2008 he supported Bush by voting against a bill to prohibit water boarding.
You CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
I add another item: What is it about being a POW that makes him qualified to be President? ANswer: nothing!
Posted by: swanieaz | April 16, 2008 7:56 PM
What did you expect from a republican? Tax cuts for middle America? Diplomatic work to get the price of oil down and gasoline down? Incentives to stimulate alternative fuels? Additional taxes on corporations that do not give benefits to their employees?
When is America going to understand that the republican party only has the interests of corporate executives at heart. We have had 7 years of that and look where we are. My electric bill is 4 times larger than it was just 5 years ago this month. Nat. gas has also gone up. Its not just gasoline. After bills, food and taxes I used to have about $1000 to spend each month. Now I have about $250. And I've had COLA increases every year.
Republican "leadership" is leading America to ruin. Get them out of power and put people in power who care about governmental responsibility and the need for government to lead the nation, not just protect its wealthiest and most well off.
Not one vote for a republican ... anywhere!
Posted by: Sully | April 16, 2008 7:43 PM
It looks like more of the same from the Republicans. Notice that they don't try to defend their record of trillion dollar debts, the destruction of our military, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, loss of reputation in the world community, and the fact that the entire world hates the conservatives for what they have done to the former Beacon of Freedom in the world.
Those who think McCain is a hero might want to talk to some of us Vietnam Vets who remember he wes the one who accused us vets of War Crimes, while he was getting special treatment in a Vietnamese hospital because of his father was a four-star admiral.
But the neo-cons and neo-Fascissts have the best propaganda machine, (as usual) and the backing of the entire Corporocracy in the US. It's pretty hard to fight The Power.
Posted by: gkam | April 16, 2008 5:03 PM
This is why McCain has image problems: Chatting up corporate tax breaks with CEO's while the working class falls behind. He needs to address this before the fall.
Posted by: matt | April 16, 2008 4:19 PM
Posted by: Dave | April 16, 2008 4:03 PM
Please, anyone in their right mind knows what great Loss has occured because of the BUSH TAX-CUTS!! - Debt Exploded! Good Jobs Were Destroyed/Shipped-out, Poverty increased, Infrastructure is Collapsing, Homes being Lost, Hunger Increasing, Dollar-Devalued, Real COLA at over 8%, on-and-on. - And the $Rich are $Richer! Big $Corporations / Executives are in Heaven, WAR IS IN FULL BLOOM! , Economic Terrorism Prevails, etc. - The BUSH Tax-Cuts have Destroed Our Country!! - We NEED Out of Debt Completely!! - Replace the Taxes NOW,- and then Double them on the Big $Corporations and the $Rich. - This is suppose to be a "NATION OF FOR & BY THE PEOPLE", - NOT FOR THE $$SPECIAL INTERESTS!! Wake-Up Congress and stop violating Your Oath of Office. The Sovereign Citizens RULE, - Not the Corporations and their flunky anti-American, Pro-CHINA,-take America without firing a shot - Washington Banker Elite - Bush/Cheny/Paulson/Bernanke/Greenspan Cronies,- whom have looted America! Tell the so-called Federal Reserve to go back to Europe!- Fired-Up! - jward52
Posted by: Joe-Ward | April 16, 2008 3:58 PM
Yes Ed, the family business may be booming and that is excellent for the family and the people they employ, but the problem is, there are more importers in American anymore than exporters.
The USD is in jeopardy of losing it's position as the de-facto world currency. In NYC, many shops accept Euros, Pounds and even Canadian dollars- when oil is no longer traded in USD, we lose a huge daily influx of value.
Oil rises, our dollar sinks- SOS (as far as I am concerned.)
Posted by: Dave | April 16, 2008 3:50 PM
He opposed President Bush's tax cuts a few years ago, saying they would irresponsibly swell the budget deficit. Now the Arizona senator not only supports extending those cuts indefinitely, he is backing more than $200 billion a year in new breaks.
Will you be voting with your pocket?
Posted by: Frank, Austin | April 16, 2008 3:41 PM
The family business makes specialty heavy construction equipment and is doing well. I'm certain the same is true for Bucyrus. Caterpillar has been having record sales. This is mostly the result of the fallen dollar since their competitors are mostly international. Chinese concerns will soon jump into this area as well. If they are Communist still, they have a good way of hiding it since they appear to be ruthless competitors in international business.
Posted by: Ed | April 16, 2008 3:38 PM
John McCain 08! Stealing from tomorrow to drop more bombs today! It's the American way. Are you anti-American or something?
Posted by: Bourassa | April 16, 2008 3:30 PM
Posted by: christian | April 16, 2008 3:30 PM
It's by building giant deficits that they prove their conservative credentials. Who built the biggest deficits? Reagan and Bush2, darlings of the conservatives.
If Reagan did it, how can it be wrong?
McCain, the foot-soldier of the Reagan revolution, will cement his own place in conservative legend with a $20 trillion monument to conservative principles.
As pharoahs built their pyramids, so conservative presidents build their mighty deficits.
McCain will build a deficit for the ages. Even your great-grandchildren will look in awe at the terrifying size of the McCain debt and tremble!
Posted by: Bourassa | April 16, 2008 3:27 PM
If this was the 70's or even the 80's, then a "weaker" USD would be more welcomed. Seeing our currency tank like this is not good (imho) for the egg or the chicken.
China is a communist country. For us to "depend" on them to float us (buy buying our debt) is a kin to sac religion.
Posted by: Dave | April 16, 2008 3:26 PM
Very funny, rat-The. And for once, spot on.
Posted by: Bourassa | April 16, 2008 3:23 PM
Cut taxes to the top 1%, cut social spending, and dramatically increase the federal deficit. Ha ha, oh yeah, McCain sounds like a REAL economic wizard. Maybe he's looking to top Bush's legacy of the worst president ever.
Posted by: MikeMcNally | April 16, 2008 3:08 PM
"A weak USD is only good if you actually have a net plus in exporting goods to other countries... we do not have that any more- we are an import(ing) nation."
That is a chicken and egg argument. A fallen dollar would go a long way to erase the balance of payments issues. It is bad news for cheap goods at the big boxes unless China continues to buy our debt wildly, something that is possible since political stability there relies upon continued job expansion.
Posted by: Ed | April 16, 2008 2:57 PM
A weak USD is only good if you actually have a net plus in exporting goods to other countries... we do not have that any more- we are an import(ing) nation. Thus, the most of us and thus the economy at large suffers....
I have to agree with the ending statement in this blog: "The truth is, McCain's economic proposals would balloon the deficit, not shrink it,"
Posted by: Dave | April 16, 2008 2:47 PM
International heavy equipment makers are doing exceptionally well since the dollar's fall. It makes their equipment much more competitive.
Posted by: Ed | April 16, 2008 2:38 PM
I have heard it said;
"It is better to let people think you do not know what you are doing, than to say, or do things that remove all doubt".
Posted by: RAT-The | April 16, 2008 2:27 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
SOUTH MILWAUKEE -- A day after John McCain offered an economic vision that included breaks for business and corporate America, he traveled to a mine equipment plant here for a round-table discussion with titans of industry. --Michael D. Shear
| 66.604651 | 0.976744 | 37.302326 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503586.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503586.html
|
Democrats Willing to Let Battle Continue
|
2008041619
|
The fierce battle, however, appears to have taken a toll on the image of Clinton, who was once seen as the favorite. And Obama has widened his lead since early February on several key qualities that voters are looking for in a candidate and has narrowed sizable advantages for Clinton on others.
He now has a 2-to-1 edge on who is considered more electable in a general contest -- a major reversal from the last poll -- and has dramatically reduced a large Clinton lead on which of the two is the "stronger leader."
While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992. Impressions of her husband, former president Bill Clinton, also have grown negative by a small margin.
In the new poll, 54 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton, up from 40 percent a few days after she won the New Hampshire primary in early January. Her favorability rating has dropped among both Democrats and independents over the past three months, although her overall such rating among Democrats remains high. Nearly six in 10 independents now view her unfavorably.
Obama's favorability rating also has declined over the same period but remains, on balance, more positive than negative.
The findings come as the two contenders prepare to meet tonight in Philadelphia for their first debate in more than a month and their final direct encounter before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary. The exchange will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern time and will air on ABC News.
A likely centerpiece of the debate will be a controversy over comments Obama made April 6 at a San Francisco fundraiser in which he described residents of economically hard-hit small towns as "bitter" and said they "cling" to guns or religion. The Clinton campaign quickly seized the opportunity to tag Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with the values of rural America.
Obama said that while he may have chosen his words poorly, he was correct in saying that many Americans in these communities are rightly angry about the failure of the government and politicians to do more to improve economic conditions in their areas. His campaign also released an ad yesterday that criticizes Clinton. The spot opens with a narrator saying: "There's a reason people are rejecting Hillary Clinton's attacks. Because the same old Washington politics won't lower the price of gas or help our struggling economy. Barack Obama will represent all Americans."
Overall, 51 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they would prefer to see Obama win the nomination and face Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the November general election; 41 percent would rather have Clinton atop the Democratic ticket. Post-ABC polling just before Clinton won the Ohio primary and the popular vote in the Texas primary on March 4 showed nearly the same results.
In hypothetical general-election matchups, Obama holds a slim, five-point lead over McCain, while McCain is three points ahead of Clinton, which is within poll's margin of error. But in the past six weeks, McCain has gained ground on each of his potential rivals.
The closeness of the primary contests and McCain's momentum are a worrisome sign to some Democratic Party officials who fear that an extended and negative contest could hurt their chances of winning back the White House and picking up seats in Congress.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 84.375 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600750.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600750.html
|
Huge Gap Predicted In Supply Of Food
|
2008041619
|
"Major sources of food for North Korea are all going down, and there is no very good prospect that any will go up soon," said Tony Banbury, the agency's regional director for Asia.
This year's food shortfall is projected to be 1.66 million metric tons, about double the need of last year and the highest since 2001, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.
The fast-worsening situation in the closed communist country -- where prices for staples have doubled in the past year -- is the result of what U.N. officials describe as a pernicious confluence of flood-damaged local harvests, soaring world food prices and an unexpectedly sharp drop in aid from neighboring South Korea and China.
International donors that in the past have provided food through the United Nations have not been lined up this year. In large measure, that is because the North announced in 2006 that it would not want or need large amounts of food aid.
"There is at present no plan by our donors or by North Korea to seek the much larger World Food Program operation that would be able to help fill the gap," Banbury said by telephone from his office in Bangkok.
North Korea has suffered for decades from chronic and sometimes catastrophic food shortages. In the mid-1990s, severe famine caused the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.
Since then, the growth of local markets in the North and the development of a mechanism for delivering outside aid have headed off famine, if not hunger.
But it is different this year, in part, because floods last summer destroyed a quarter of North Korea's rice crop and a third of its corn. And the cash-strapped North's capacity to buy outside food has been squeezed by sharply higher world prices, especially for rice.
As significant, said Banbury, are the changing policies of South Korea and China.
South Korea's new president, Lee Myung-bak, has conditioned his country's usually large gifts of food and fertilizer on the North's progress in dismantling its nuclear program and improving human rights.
North Korea has bristled at Lee's policy, expelling some South Korean officials from an industrial park last month and engaging in angry rhetoric.
"No food aid is moving from the South to North Korea, as far as I am aware," Banbury said.
China, the North's closest political ally and principal economic benefactor, has also reduced food aid and has raised prices on the food it sells to North Korea, Banbury said. The price hike is the result of efforts to limit food exports and control domestic prices as demand rises.
The World Food Program country director in North Korea, Jean-Pierre de Margerie, said in a statement from Pyongyang that "now it takes a third of a month's salary just to buy a few days worth of rice."
|
TOKYO, April 16 -- North Korea is facing a humanitarian crisis this year and will likely need large food donations from the international community, the U.N. World Food Program said Wednesday.
| 16.352941 | 0.705882 | 1.176471 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600761.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600761.html
|
China Sees Change In Taiwan Leadership Bringing Closer Ties
|
2008041619
|
The prediction, from the government's Taiwan Affairs Office, intensified anticipation of a broad lowering of tensions across the Taiwan Strait after President-elect Ma Ying-jeou formally takes over as leader of the self-ruled island from President Chen Shui-bian on May 20.
The Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman, Li Weiyi, said at a news conference that Ma's suggestions for early talks on direct flights and easier tourist entry permits would receive favorable consideration in Beijing. "With hard work by both sides, I am sure this will very shortly be worked out," he added.
Li pointed to pledges of cooperation made by President Hu Jintao and Taiwan's vice president-elect, Vincent Siew, when they met Saturday on the sidelines of an economic conference on China's Hainan Island. Li said the encounter, although mostly symbolic, "had an extremely positive meaning" for the future of ties between Taiwan and the mainland.
But he stopped short of predicting an immediate resumption of the overall political, military and strategic talks that Ma put forward as his ultimate goal. "Everyone can make his own judgment about that," Li said when asked whether such talks could begin immediately after Ma's inauguration.
Ma, of the Nationalist Party, has said he will set aside the question of Taiwanese independence in favor of practical steps toward improving relations with the mainland, leading to what he hopes will be an agreement on the end of hostilities. But the first step, he said in a recent interview, will be frequent direct charter flights and, later, direct scheduled flights that he hopes will carry in thousands of mainlanders for tourism and family reunions.
In sharp contrast, Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party made Taiwanese independence the cornerstone of his eight years in power. His single-minded pursuit of that goal, underlined with dramatic gestures, led Beijing to refuse to deal with him. It also irritated the Bush administration, with U.S. officials regarding Chen as reckless and untrustworthy.
The United States has pledged to help defend Taiwan, although the precise meaning of the pledge is purposefully vague. The island has been self-ruled since Chiang Kai-shek and his defeated Nationalist forces fled there in 1949. But Beijing insists it has remained part of China and one day must reunite with the mainland, by force if necessary.
More recently, Hu's government has expressed a willingness to live with the status quo while growing closer to Taiwan economically and culturally -- and perhaps even signing a peace accord -- as long as the island does not move toward formal independence. Since this stand matches Ma's platform, his election has been greeted with relief in Beijing.
The prospect of more relaxed relations has found resonance among Taiwan's 23 million people, who gave Ma a strong mandate in the presidential election March 22. Faced with a lagging economy, many Taiwanese expressed hope that more trade and tourism with the mainland could improve their standard of living.
"Generally, the atmosphere in Taiwan is full of high expectations," said Andrew Yang, secretary general of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei. "There's a very positive endorsement of this contact, but there's also a tendency to over-expect developments in the future."
In that vein, pro-independence commentators in Taiwan warned that Ma and Siew would have less flexibility to act once in office, because they would have to be more attentive to public opinion. A significant section of the society still supports independence for the island, they pointed out, and 42 percent of the vote went to the Democratic Progressive Party's candidate, Frank Hsieh, despite a lackluster campaign and corruption scandals that tainted Chen's administration.
Special correspondent Jane Rickards in Taipei contributed to this report.
|
BEIJING, April 16 -- China expressed confidence Wednesday that an imminent change of leadership in Taiwan will swiftly lead to direct airline connections, increased tourism and more cross-strait investment.
| 21.323529 | 0.588235 | 0.705882 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/09/DI2008040902472.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/09/DI2008040902472.html
|
Ask Tom - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041619
|
In a city loaded with diverse restaurants, from New American chic and upscale Italian to sandwich shops and burritos on the run, finding the best places to eat can be a real puzzle. Where's the best restaurant for a first date or an anniversary? Father's Day? What's the best burger joint? Who has the best service?
Ask Tom. Tom Sietsema, The Washington Post's food critic, is on hand Wednesdays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, listen to your suggestions and even entertain your complaints about Washington dining. Sietsema, a veteran food writer, has sampled the wares and worked as a critic in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Milwaukee, and can talk restaurants with the best of 'em. You can access his Postcards from Tom to read his recommendations for other cities, read his dining column, First Bite and the Dish or read transcripts of previous "Ask Tom" chats. Tom's Sunday magazine reviews, as well as his "Ask Tom" column, are available early on the Web.
Tom Sietsema: CALLING ALL PIZZA HOUNDS: The original Pizzeria Paradiso on P Street in Dupont Circle is expected to move -- practically around the corner (whew!), to the Blaine Mansion at 2000 Mass. Ave. NW.
Renovation is already underway, reports owner Ruth Gresser, and so is the ABC transfer. "I have a fantasy about being open by November," the pizzeria's 17th anniversary, she says.
"The move answers a lot of questions we get from customers," Gresser tells me. The forthcoming venue will have 70 seats inside -- double the current number -- as well as 30 or seats on a patio. Like the Paradiso on M St. in Georgetown, the new place will also offer a beer program.
No word yet on what will become of the original quarters; Gresser's lease there runs to 2011.
Happy Wednesday, everyone. Let's start talking food and restaurants.
El Paso, Tex.: In follow up to lighting complaints by some of your chatters last week, I, too, get irritated by restaurant lighting. Why would anybody think it's a great idea to sitck a light bulb in between your diners, 6 to 12 inches above their eyeballs? I routinely unscrew the bulbs half a turn. Light goes out. Problem solved.
Tom Sietsema: I got a fair number of complaints about improper lighting last week, but most of the e-mail concerned dim rather than bright dining rooms. Your solution is clever, but watch out: bulbs can get hot, ya know?
Arlington, Va.: A poster wrote something last week that bugged me, so I had to comment. He/she was complaining about something you said about the restaurants coming into National Harbor and said "I thought journalists were supposed to be objective!" Well, poster, news reporters are supposed to be objective, but Tom is a columnist and a critic. It is his JOB to give his opinion. That's what they pay him to do. The Post, and every other newspaper, employs a number of people to give their opinions on various subjects. Theses are set apart from news stories under headings like "Essay" and "Analysis," or have their own names like "The Color of Money," or highlight the writer's name like "Courtland Milloy." It seems that too often these days people mistake commentary for fact, and that can make things awfully messy.
Thanks Tom! Keep up the good work!
Tom Sietsema: Why, uh, thank you for coming to my rescue there!
Yes, I'm paid for my opinions. (And yes, those opinions better be based on facts or experience.)
Washington, D.C.: I am looking for a restaurant in Old Town to hold my wedding rehearsal dinner (about 20 people) in the fall. I really want a place with an intimate feel and would prefer a private space if possible. I love your chat, and always follow your dining advice to a tee (and you've never let me down!!)
Tom Sietsema: I'm thinking upstairs at Vermilion might be your best/easiest bet. (If the food were better at Bookbinder's, that would be a prime destination. Love that space!)
My mom and several of her friends are coming to town this weekend, and she has offered to take me and my girlfriend out to dinner. Can you recommend a place downtown for six or so? She's shooting for $15-$20 a plate.
Tom Sietsema: How about Sette Osteria for pizza al fresco? The handsome Thai Regent for the obvious? Mourayo for delicious Greek in what could pass for the interior of a yacht?
Vicarious living . . . : So tell . . . what was the Inn's 30th birthday celebration like? The food? The wine? The guests? Did you see Ruth?
Tom Sietsema: You'll have to ask someone who actually went, I'm afraid. I wasn't there. (Too many chefs, you know?)
washingtonpost.com: Charity Gala to Mark Inn's 30th Anniversary and Reliable Source: Sorry, You're Not on the List
Clyde's Restaurants: Hi Tom, thanks for doing these chats each week. I really look forward to them. What do you think of the Clyde's restaurant group? Are they all hits, or are only a couple worthy of your recommendation? Particularly interested in your opinion of the newer places like the Tower Oaks Lodge in Rockville. Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: The short answer: I loved the Clyde's restaurants of my youth and my memories. But as far as I can see (and taste), the company has grown into an empire best known for jaw-dropping spaces and big portions of not-so-swell cooking. But I still love slurpin' oysters and wine at the bar at Old Ebbitt!
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom! I want to share with you a perfect example of how a restaurant can take a bad experience and turn it into something good. A few months ago, I had a bad experience at Tosca. This is a restaurant I have been to on multiple occasions and I didn't think our experience wasn't up to par with what I had come to expect from the restaurant. I won't go into details, but I e-mailed Paolo Sacco, their owner and manager, and explained why I wasn't happy. He graciously invited my boyfriend and me to come back to the restaurant as his guests. We went for our anniversary and Paolo took fantastic care of us. Glasses of champagne were brought over right after we arrived, as well as special desserts for our anniversary. Needless to say, we were so pleased with the experience. I just wanted to give them credit in a public forum and share with you how a restaurant can turn a negative into a positive. Paolo, thank you again!
Tom Sietsema: I'm happy to oblige, although the generosity of the restaurant makes me wonder what transpired on your earlier visit. Was it just a meal that didn't live up to your expectations or something else? And just out of curiousity, are you a frequent diner there?
washingtonpost.com: 2007 Dining Guide: Ristorante Tosca
Food and Wine skips D.C.?: Hey Tom,
I'm was disappointed that the latest Food and Wine magazine list of "Go-To Restaurants" around the world didn't include Washington, D.C.! (But it included Phoenix?) With all that's going on here, what an oversight!
Tom Sietsema: I haven't seen that issue, but I can't imagine something in Phoenix out-inking something in the District!
L.A. trip please help -- Washington, D.C.: I have to go to Los Angeles for work next week and they've arranged for us to dine at our choice of one of four restaurants: Ago, BLT, Maestro's Steakhouse, or Craft. I'm leaning towards Craft, but really would like your opinion. Thanks Tom, don't know what I'd do without your chats! Keep up the great work.
Tom Sietsema: I've not eaten at any of your four choices. Maybe a chatter has?
Too bad one of the options isn't Citrus at Social Hollywood, Michel Richard's new restaurant, which just got a three-star rave from the Los Angeles Times. (Go, Michel!)
Dim Sum fanatic: Tom, love your chats! I frequently eat dim sum in some local restaurants. I enjoy restaurants like Oriental East in Silver Spring which is always packed with Asian families. I never see other diners leaving a tip on the table for the waiters. Does one NOT tip for dim sum? I always tip, but wondered about this practice.
Tom Sietsema: I tip for all my restaurant meals, dim sum included.
I wonder if what you're seeing has to do with the culture. I remember someone telling me it wasn't necessary (or standard practice) to tip in restaurants in China, for instance, although I saw tipping being done during my trip to Shanghai last year.
Alexandria, Va.: I wrote in a few weeks back (didn't get posted) about a terrible experience my boyfriend and I had at Guajillo in Arlington. It was the worst meal either of us had in a long time ¿- cold, bland enchiladas and refried beans (rice was hot, however) and too sweet margaritas. After wait staff cleared our plates, we sat at an empty table for almost 15 minutes while they ate their meals until we finally requested the check. We considered complaining about the cold food, but it wouldn't have changed the taste, so we just ate and got the heck out of there. I wouldn't recommend the restaurant to anyone.
In contrast, last night we tried Los Tios in Alexandria and had a great meal. Food was as close to authentic Mexican as we've found in area. Waitstaff was very friendly and margaritas were great. The live musician is a nice touch. Next time we want Mexican food in the D.C. area, Los Tios will be our choice!
Tom Sietsema: Has anyone else noticed a decline in what used to be among my favorite sources for Mexican food close to the city?
Washington, D.C.: Tom -- with beautiful weather now and hopefully for a while before summer humidity, what would you suggest as a romantic restaurant in D.C. with outside seating? Thanks for you help!
Tom Sietsema: Everyone's idea of romance is a bit different, but I think you could find what you're looking for at the Bombay Club, Hank's Oyster Bar, Marcel's, the Occidental, the garden at Poste, the Tabard Inn, 2941 in Falls Church and Zaytinya in Penn Quarter. How's that?
Alexandria, Va.: Have you heard anything about the new restaurant in the Alexandria Hotel Monaco -- Jackson 20? Is it worth checking out?
Tom Sietsema: Been there, done that.
washingtonpost.com: First Bite: Jackson 20
This week I took a family member to Harry's Tap Room in Clarendon for dinner. When we received our check, it was correct and I put down my credit card. When the waitress returned, the charges to my card were about $10 less than our itemized receipt. I noticed that the table numbers on the receipts were different, and that the waitress had accidentally charged us for someone else's (less expensive) meal. I tried to get our waitress' attention, but when I was unable to I stopped a manager who was walking by. I alerted him to the error and he came back shortly after with our corrected check for the full price of our meal.
While I know I did the right thing by being honest, could I have expected the manager to knock the difference off of our bill since it was the waitress' error?
Tom Sietsema: You did the right thing. And while it would have been nice for the manager to recognize such, he was not obligated to charge you less for being honest. A sincere "thank you" from the restaurant should have sufficed -- and he DID thank you, didn't he?
Leesburg, Va.: I enjoyed listening to your NPR broadcast last week. It was a great addition to you noise level column. I appreciated the chance to actually hear the noise levels. And I must say -- you sound very handsome!
Tom Sietsema: You're very kind to say that, but as the phrase goes, I think I have a face for radio.
washingtonpost.com: No Appetite for Noise
Business lunch in Woodley Park?: Tom, I'll be meeting a long-time business acquaintance for lunch in the Woodley Park/Zoo area next week but am stumped as to where to go -- do you or the peanuts have any suggestions? Not super-dressy, but a step up from your neighborhood taco joint. Thanks so much!!
Tom Sietsema: What about French fare in a townhouse setting, a.k.a. Petit Plats? I believe they also have a patio, weather permitting.
Washington, D.C.: The chatter's comment about the Food & Wine list made me think - are there any publications whose restaurant lists you trust? I used to work for a large city guide and have to say those lists were often written by freelancers who were obviously just taking the best known (and not always still at the top of their game) names or throwing a bone to advertisers, etc. etc. In the end I usually stick with the local food critic's advice. What do you think?
Tom Sietsema: Call me biased, but I tend to rely on newspaper reviewers more than magazine critics, in part for the reasons you give. I base this on my experience with both kinds of publications when I'm on the road -- and also on what I know about some of the folks doing the writing for magazines. There are major exceptions to that "rule," of course, but newspapers are less likely to be influenced by advertising and ulterior motives and more likely to be critical.
Live 2 Eat: Hi Tom,
No need to post this. I just wanted to let you know about a food blog that I just started. I would absolutely love to know what you think of it (and would greatly appreciate it as well).
Wed. mornings are the best!!! I eat lunch at my desk, and reading your chat while eating is the best part of my workday.
Tom Sietsema: Fun name! I look forward to checking out your blog. Welcome to the club.
It's Hot in Here, D.C.: Tom, have you ever experienced a waiter/ess who had a persperation problem? What's the protocol for a issue such as this (if one exists)? I recently ate at a restaurant during the mid-afternoon and our waiter, although very nice, was sweating heavily. This was probably due to the fact that he was taking care of three small outside tables in addition to multiple tables in the main dining room. All I could end up thinking was that his persperation dripped into our food -- very unappetizing. Would you bring this to the manager's attention?
Tom Sietsema: I would! I'd also be diplomatic about it. (Man, the stuff managers go through sometimes . . . .)
Annapolis, Md.: Tom - any suggestions for dining in Vancouver? I'm going to be there in a few weeks. I'm especially interested in Chinese or other Asian restaurants.
Tom Sietsema: There's an old Postcard column devoted to Vancouver in the Post's Travel section archives. But just by chance, I sat next to a former pastry chef from Vancouver at a restaurant recently, and she was raving about a place that all her peers go: Pelican, late-night for lobster and crab as I recall.
While I know I did the right thing by being honest, could I have expected the manager to knock the difference off of our bill since it was the waitress' error?: What? You want to be rewarded for honesty? The waitress made a mistake, and it was corrected. Give it a rest.
Tom Sietsema: I'm a big believer in karma myself. That's "reward" enough for me.
Tipping for dim sum: My Chinese-American family always tips for dim sum as we would for regular table service. But we always pay by credit card, adding the tip on the receipt. How in the world would someone sitting at a neighboring table expect to SEE the tip except when it's paid in cash?
Tom Sietsema: Duh! (Tom slaps his forehead).
Tokyo, Japan: I hope your new decibel reading does not affect your overall star rating?
Fear not. A restaurant can sound like a construction site and still earn three or more stars. I added the sound checks to give readers more help in picking restaurants.
Cleveland Park, Washington, D.C.: Dean from Dino here. Loved your listing of reader comments and questions piece. Cakage is a small occurence with us, but corkage is a larger one. Last night a group of young diners came in with, not a bottle of old Barolo but a slew of inexpensive bottles of mass produced wine. Rather than look down on them or feel insulted that they chose to bring wine you can find in a supermarket or a mass discounter, I felt honored. Maybe bringing in that wine was the difference between their coming in at all or not. Not everyone can afford the full experience at a restaurant. Maybe next time, they will come for a Wednesday wine flight or will splurge for a bottle from our list.
But if you do want to bring a bottle of old Barolo, 1982 Giacomo Conterno Barolo is drinking really nicely right now . . . .
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for chiming in, Mr. Gold. I'm getting thirsty!
NW Washington, D.C.: Dear Tom,
I'd like to understand how you would have handled a situation that occured to my party of six (at a dinner I was hosting) at Dino last week.
There were so many mis-teps including a RUSH to be seated (we all showed up 20 minutes early and would have preferred a bar perch to the upstairs table for a drink), a dirty plate on the table, an inatttentive server, etc. Though the food was DELICIOUS!
In any event, two members of our party had a full glass of wine each from their early arrival, and I ordered a bottle of white from their extensive "book." The server came back to our table with an ice bath, opened the bottle, poured a taste of wine for me to sample and proceeded to put the bottle in the bath explaining that he had taken the bottle from the rack, and it would need 10-15 minutes to cool down.
I was flummoxed, as I was tasting the wine as he was telling me this. I then asked if he might be able to offer us all glasses a chilled wine so we would not have to wait out a wineless and whiney 10-15 minutes. He looked at me like I was drunk (sadly, I was completely sober), and then I decided I could refuse the wine, which I did. I asked if he could recommend a similar price point/style of wine that was cold (I did not want to sift through the bible one more time), which he did nearly 10 minutes later.
What would you have done? Was I being ridiculous? How should the situation been handled by them/me?
Tom Sietsema: Warm wine. One of my pet peeves, too.
Is Mr. Gold still around to address this issue himself?
Rehearsal Dinner - Old Town: I had mine upstairs at Portners and it was fantastic. We had more than 20 people though -- probably closer to 50.
Tom Sietsema: But Portners is no more.
Could I have expected the manager to knock the difference off of our bill since it was the waitress' error?: Does your bank give you $10 every time you pass on robbing them?
Tom Sietsema: Now THAT'S funny ....
Rehearsal dinner in Old Town: We just had ours at Morrison House. It was LOVELY. Staff was fabulous and food was great. Plus, some guests discovered the new craft wine-making place across Alfred Street (Carafe?) and were inspired to plan a trip to Va. wineries over the weekend after the wedding with a bunch of guests and the wedding party (other than us). (No, I am not affiliated with either place, just was impressed)
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for the suggestion.
Pizzeria Paradiso: Ooooh - to link this with a previous major topic of conversation, will you be able to hear yourself think at the new Pizzeria Paradiso? I love their food, and it's a convenient location, but I've stopped going because I literally can't hear my lunching companions. I can hear the person directly across the table, but not next to me or diagonal.
Tom Sietsema: Hey, Ruth! Don't forget to add some noise absorbers while you're putting in the oven and chairs, OK?
L.A. Bound...: I had an amazing supper at Craft two weeks ago, and I always try to make it to its sister, Craftsteak, when in N.Y. Tom C. really does train his staffs well in terms of service and hospitality. Upon hearing how much I missed a dessert that I had on my last trip to L.A., the staff arranged for it to be made especially for me. The meal overall was solid, simple and non-fussy.
Tom Sietsema: I hope our friend going to L.A. sees this.
washingtonpost.com: Hi Tom chatters! We're experiencing some technical difficulties today -- I know some of you aren't able to see Tom's responses. We should have this fixed as soon as possible. Apologies for the inconvenience (and thanks for those of you who let us know!)
Alexandria, Va.: Have you heard anything about the new restaurant in the Alexandria Hotel Monaco - Jackson 20? Is it worth checking out?
Tom Sietsema: Been there, done that.
washingtonpost.com: First Bite: Jackson 20
Husband's deploying to Afghanistan!: Tom-
LOVE, just LOVE the chats!!! My husband is a retired military contractor, getting ready to deploy to a Forward Operating Base in June. Ironically, he never had that opportunity in uniform . . . but I digress. What can you recommend for GOOD Afghani food? We live in Alexandria, and have tried the place on Jeff Davis, but were less than impressed. Cost isn't a factor, a wonderful experience for him and a few friends is! Thanks much.
Tom Sietsema: Your spouse will love Bamian in Falls Church. It's big and beautiful, with lots of good stuff on the menu.
washingtonpost.com: 2006 Dining Guide: Bamian
Bethesda, Md.: Just found out about a business trip to Kansas City in a few weeks. Any chance you have a Postcard From K.C.?
Tom Sietsema: Alas, I've never been to Kansas City. Perhaps a chatter can weigh in with some suggestions?
U Street, Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom. I wanted to share the experience I had at Al Crostino last Friday night.
My boyfriend and I each ordered one of the pasta specials for the evening. I ordered the butternut squash ravioli and he ordered the seafood linguine. Both dishes were mediocre. My ravioli were rolled too thickly, and the butter sauce was too heavy (without a hint of the sage mentioned in the description.) His pasta was better, but the seafood was overcooked. We had not eaten at Al Crostino before, so we were glad to have tried it but figured we probably would not return.
When the bill came, we were surprised to see that my ravioli cost $22 and his linguine cost $28 while every other pasta dish on the menu was listed at $15. Our specials sounded quite similar to some of the other pastas on the menu, so I can't imagine why there would be such a difference in price. We're accustomed to paying more for specials, but we were surprised to see such a difference in price at Al Crostino. Do you have any idea why there would be such a disparity in prices?
Tom Sietsema: Obviously, the waiter didn't reveal the cost of the night's specials. And obviously, you didn't ask.
The lesson here: Never assume the price of a special is going to be in line with dishes on the standing menu.
I can understand why the seafood pasta might be more expensive, but I'm mystified by the higher cost of the squash ravioli.
Washington, D.C.: I have a 9 p.m. reservation at CityZen coming up and have a question about dining near "closing" time at restaurants. CityZen's website indicates that it closes at 9:30.
What has been your experience with the quality of food and service when you have one of the last reservations of the night?
CityZen's bar doesn't close until 11:30, so I'm assuming that CityZen cuts off reservations at 9:30 to give all diners the opportunity to enjoy a complete dining experience without feeling rushed.
Tom Sietsema: In the case of Cityzen, I wouldn't worry. The people making your meal are going to stay with you through the last course. 9:30 probably refers to the last seating opportunity in the dining room proper.
Penn Quarter, Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom. Kinda funny story about Gillian Clark. My ex took me to Colorado Kitchen a few years ago for breakfast, before I really got into the "foodie" thing (sorry!)and didn't know any better. I ordered bacon and eggs. We were seated next to the kitchen and when the food came out, I asked for hot sauce, which I put on everything. Needless to say, the look that came out of the kitchen is seared in my memory forever and I haven't made that mistake since. I guess the good ones deserve to be that fussy.
Thanks for the chats. They make my week!
I'm sure other chefs glare at diner's quirks, too. We just can't see 'em up close!
'Rewarding' honesty: I think it's all in the delivery ... .
So funnily enough almost exactly the same thing happened to me at Kramerbooks the other day. (They rang through the wrong amount on our credit card. We noticed that the the charge was less than the bill. They'd rung through the amount on the bill for someone who'd been at the table earlier -- it was less).
We didn't expect to be comped the extra but we were simply delighted by the waiter thanking us effusively and curteously. Good manners goes a long way to giving a karmic glow.
Help for visitors: Submitting WAY ahead of time because I'm afraid I'll forget to do so . . . .
Friends are taking their 13-year-old daughter on a trip to D.C. in a couple of weeks, and have asked me for restaurant suggestions. All three of them are total foodies and will eat any type of cuisine, but the budget is an issue. I've given them this list (so far): Ben's Chili Bowl, Palena, Jaleo, Zaytinia and Moby Dick's. They're staying near the Verizon Center, if that matters, and will be doing the usual touristy things since their daughter has never been there. Please help me add to the list for them! They're great friends and since I don't live in D.C. any more I'm feeling the pressure to come through for them. Thanks, Tom! -A Faithful Reader
Tom Sietsema: You've done some nice work! A few caveats, however: I regret to say Ben's is most interesting for its place in history and Palena's *bar* should be your friends' destination, as the more formal dining room in the rear is a lot pricier. Also, you forgot to tell them about DC's great pizza joints. They include Two Amys, Comet Ping Pong and Pizza Paradiso. And what about Ethiopian? Etete on 9th St. gets my vote there.
Hungry D.C. gal transplanted to the Eastern Shore: Tom, love ya, mean it. Wednesdays wouldn't be the same without you! Two thoughts for you: First I just want to re-iterate what a couple of reasonable chatters posted recently. Why do folks feel the need to correct you or others, when the mistake is not some glaring error directly related to the food chat or info about the restaurant? Why do they like to "catch" someone in a mis-type? I have a friend who does that all the time, and I just don't respond to those tsk-tsk e-mails. I KNOW how to spell, just don't consider myself the most accomplished typist!!!
Anywho, my real comment has to do with restaurants on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. I caught your mention of Scossa recently and I know you've reviewed Restaurant Local in the past. But are there others you would like to try? Need a dining pal over here? Do you have plans to come to the upcoming St. Michael's Food and Wine Festival? It's the last weekend in April...
Thanks in advance for taking my question and comment. And seriously, if you need a tour guide over here, I'm your gal!
Tom Sietsema: In the rush and the crush of this forum, I'm bound to make mistakes, and I prefer them to be spelling rather than factual errors. As I've told chatters numerous times before, I'm not the world's fastest typist and I also try to address as many questions as I can during the hour. Sometimes my fingers goof up. I do, however, appreciate those "reasonable" posters who correct me now and then. They keep me on my toes!
Eastern Shore, you must have me miked. I've been spending time in your neck of the woods lately and plan to report on my dining adventures in the weeks and months to come. But tell me, what do YOU like over there?
Silver Spring, Md.: Hi Tom,
Entertaining an out-of-town friend soon and plan to take her to Georgetown for an evening of shopping and eating. I can't afford the likes of Citronelle but am looking for somewhere sorta trendy with moderate prices. Sushi-Ko is a bit out of the way. Any suggestions?
Tom Sietsema: Le Pain Quotidien, the newish cafe-bakery import from Belgium, fits both "trendy" and "moderate."
Penn Quarter, Washington, D.C.: Just wanted to report on a great experience this past weekend. My husband and I hosted a celebratory dinner in the private room at Rasika on Friday, and I'd highly recommend it. The food was delicious and plentiful, served family-style for the most part, and the servers were competent, polite (that sounds like faint praise, but really, that's a very good thing), and attentive but unobtrusive. Also, it truly is a private room, with a sliding door that closes. The decor of the room still makes it a little noisy when everyone's making merry, but you don't get the clatter of the rest of the restaurant. The only catch is that you have to have juuuust the right size party. They asked us to guarantee 14 people (after all, it WAS a Friday night), which is exactly how many adults we had -- we also had two toddlers, which would have made any more adults difficult to accommodate. With no kids, though, you could fit 16. Anyway, thanks Rasika, we had a great time!
Tom Sietsema: Rasika hardly needs more press. I'm posting this to alert readers to private dining possibilities as we approach college graduations, MOther's Day and other occasions that beg for restaurants.
Third time's a charm: Tom, I know you get similar questions all the time, but hoping you can help just this one more time -- vegetarian-friendly spot for a group of six well-behaved senior prom-goers? Indian is out, and they say they like Italian, but I'm cringing at the thought of anyone slurping spaghetti in formalwear!
Tom Sietsema: Uh, quick, what part of the area are we thinking about?
Graduation Dinner: I'm planning ahead and hope you can help. I have 10-11 for dinner in downtown D.C., moderate price, not too noisy, not too dressy, three generations (including two diners in their 80s) and one vegetarian.
Since your noise ratings are new...do you think Central Michel Richard be too noisy for us? We're also considering 701 and Oval Room, but other suggestions are welcome -- Latin or Indian.
Tom Sietsema: Having recently dined at 701 under its new chef, Bobby Varua, I'm inclined to suggest that restaurant over the others. There's something for everyone on 701's menu -- and the bonus of a room of your own, facing the Navy Memorial, if you're quick to reserve it.
Arlington, Va.: I was just in Guajillo last week and the food was fine. Except it was too crowded, so maybe the food wasn't fine. Yeah. That's it, that's the ticket!;
Cleveland, Ohio: If you moved away from D.C. three years ago and were returning for a long weekend, where would you eat in Old Town Alexandria for a Sunday lunch?
Price is not an object, but the ability to wear semi-casual clothes is preferable, since we'll be walking around our old neighborhood.
Tom Sietsema: I will always have a soft spot for Majestic, I think.
washingtonpost.com: 2007 Dining Guide: Majestic
While eating at a restaurant, I noticed that our waitress had inadvertently forgot to tie her shoe. She brushed by so quickly that I had to wave down the manager to alert him of the situation. He thanked me for dousing out a potential accident from happening. I was wondering, shouldn't I have expected that he reimburse me for all of the plates that the waitress might have dropped?
In what other industry do patrons expect to be compensated for doing the right thing? If a cashier gives you too much change and you alert the manager, do you expect him to give you half?
I have a busy day ahead -- lunch! dinner! -- and I'm sure you do, too. Thanks for a lively hour, everyone. See you back here next Wednesday.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema answers your questions, listens to your suggestions and even entertains your complaints about Washington dining.
| 299.913043 | 0.913043 | 3.608696 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040802824.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040802824.html
|
PBS Frontline: 'Sick Around the World'
|
2008041619
|
"Sick Around the World" aired Tuesday, April 15 at 9 p.m. on PBS.
Reid is a former chief of The Washington Post's London, Tokyo and Rocky Mountain bureaus, and also had stints covering Congress, national politics and four presidential elections for the paper. He is the author of eight books -- three in Japanese -- most recently "The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy."
Philadelphia: Your excellent story has provoked many comments in my mind, but given our political contest, it seems appropriate to discuss what it takes to move the agenda in Washington. In Taiwan, you didn't mention that the opposition party -- the DPP back in the early '90s proposed national health insurance. It proved so popular that the KMT party also agreed, and so when the KMT won they were forced to enact what today has evolved into a true single-payer national health insurance program. Canada's NDP victory pushed for their health system in Saskatchewan back in the 1950s. So what political lesson can we learn from how countries obtain universal health care that could be relevant to the U.S.?
T.R. Reid: Hello, everybody. Thanks for watching our film. If you missed it (or fell asleep because I'm so boring), the documentary can be see at the Frontline.org web site.
In most countries that have revamped health care, the moral imperative was a driving political force. Switzerland decided it didn't want to be a society where 5% of the population was unable to see a doctor when sick. That feeling was strong enough to overcome the powerful political opposition of the drug and health insurance industries.
Taiwan was different. A poor country became rich almost overnight, and decided to build a rich country's system. But there, too, the choice -- for a single universal payment system, like Canada's -- was driven by concerns for equity.
In the U.S., I think two imperatives can lead us to change. First is the fiscal issue: Our system is too expensive for everybody. And second, is the same moral concern: Do we want to be a country where any of our neighbors has access to health care when they need it?
Minneapolis: What happens to the private insurance agencies and hospital systems when a country makes the change over to a national health care system?
T.R. Reid: In Switzerland, which switched to nonprofit in the '90's, the health insurance companies are still going strong. They can't make a profit on basic health insurance coverage, but they use the basic plans to draw in customers, to whom they can sell their supplemental (like Medi-gap) health insurance, plus life insurance, etc. The companies are all bigger today than they were when the switch was made.
Dover, Del.: I've heard that certain countries' health care systems have created "smart cards" for use as rapid health information identification when a citizen is admitted as a patient. Is there any tradeoff for the convenience of this service? How sophisticated is the information security in these programs?
T.R. Reid: I'm working on a book on health care systems in other advanced countries. I've seen the smart card in France (Le Carte Vitale), in Germany (gesundheitskarte), in Austria (E-Karte), and Taiwan.
You get two advantages from this system. First, paperwork is greatly reduced, and prices fall. Second, some medical errors can be avoided, because the doc can instantly see what other treatments and medication you've had.
San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Why don't we just expand Medicare, which has only a 2 percent overhead and with maybe a few tweaks could be the program that we need? Like HR 676?
T.R. Reid: Medicare for all strikes me as a viable approach. Perhaps the way to do it would be to maintain the private insurance companies, but let their customers (of any age) have the option of buying Medicare instead. This would force the private companies to cut their overhead costs and reduce premiums to hold onto customers.
My guess is that most people would migrate to Medicare, given the choice. But those who feel government-funded health care is un-American could stick with private insurance.
Some countries with single-payer systems allow people who prefer private coverage to buy it as an alternative. Generally, only about 3 percent to 10 percent of people do so.
New York: Brilliant reporting and analysis, thank you! My question is, do you think that the prayer you left at the temple in Japan will be answered within the next 10 years?
T.R. Reid: Thank you. You are a discerning viewer.
I left a prayer at the Meiji Jingu Shrine in Tokyo, asking for "Universal Health Care in the USA."
And you know what? I am confident we'll get there. I think Americans ready to make the change.
Anchorage, Alaska: Why do you think that politicians here can't or won't fix our health care system? Also, what did you think of Michael Moore's "Sicko"?
T.R. Reid: I think all Michael Moore films are entertaining. He's an advocate, not a reporter, so he gives us the information that advances his cause.
When Michael Moore's "Sicko" went overseas, it was simplistic and, frankly, wrong. It's not all "socialized medicine" in other countries. There are many private systems, and they are not all perfect. Every country is struggling with the rising cost of health care, and they all have problems.
Philadelphia: Why specifically is the French health system ranked No. 1 in the world? Why is it better than Germany or Switzerland, for example?
T.R. Reid: The World Health Organization hired a Harvard Prof., Christopher Murray, to create a matrix for rating all the world's health care systems (191 of them). He emphasized both "goodness" -- that is quality of care -- and "fairness" -- i.e., equality of access to care. The U.S. did fairly well on quality, but we had a rotten score on fairness, because millions of our fellow citizens are largely cut off from medical care.
France has excellent health results -- e.g., high quality -- and totally equal access at low cost for all 61 million of its people. Hence it was No. 1.
In my upcoming book, I think I'm going to end up arguing that Japan should have been rated #1. It has the best health statistics on earth, no waiting, absolutely equal access, and rock-bottom costs.
Boston: I am a first year medical student, in a class that will graduate with an average of $160,000 in debt. I agree with the thesis that health care is a right and our system is unfortunately a market. However, I wish you had addressed the giant difference in education costs. If our education isn't subsidized, we never will afford to work in considerably lower-paying systems. Please explain how you would face that issue.
T.R. Reid: In every country, we asked the doctors how much they paid to go to medical school. The most common answer was: zero. In Japan, the local community paid Dr. Kono to study medicine, so he came out ahead.
I think we definitely have the funds to subsidize medical education, so that no student pays more than $5,000 a year or so. Heck, Harvard and Yale could provide free education to all their med students just on the interest from their endowments.
If we are eventually going to limit medical costs, that's a necessary step. At least, all the other rich countries have agreed on that point.
Washington: Loved the show! Do you think the staffs of the current candidates made a point to watch it? One only can hope.
T.R. Reid: I strongly hope that the people who will be fixing our health care system are looking overseas for ideas. So far, though, the candidates only seem to mention health care in other countries when they savage it: "wasteful government-run socialized medicine." As our film showed, many countries use the private sector to provide and to pay for health care. And no country is as wasteful in this area as the U.S..
Inwood, N.Y.: What were the criteria to decide which countries would be examined? Was there any particular reason Canada was not included?
T.R. Reid: This is a common question, because Americans want to know the facts about Canadian health care.
We only had one hour. So we looked at Taiwan as an example of the Canadian approach. We liked Taiwan because we got good exotic pictures there, and because that country did what we are doing --looking around the world to get ideas for running health care.
In my forthcoming book (Penguin Press, early 2009), I spend a good deal of time on Canada.
Moral Imperative: In the film, while speaking to the Swiss president, you mentioned how in America "everyone has a right to an education, etc." yet we don't feel everyone has a right to health coverage. Yet education costs in the U.S. are skyrocketing probably at a higher rate than even health care costs. Isn't the heart of issue, really, the moral imperative question? In each country you visited, representatives pretty much echoed the same line: health care is a basic human right. Why is it so cumbersome for Americans to grasp this basic truism?
T.R. Reid: You got it. My fundamental conclusion is that any country's health care system is a reflection of its basic ethical values. In countries that have decided medical care is a human right, everybody has access to the doctor. Our country hasn't decided that, so millions of Americans don't get to see the doctor.
If we are to fix health care in the U.S., we first have to resolve the moral question: Do we feel a collective obligation to make sure than any American can get health care when she needs it?
Marshall, Mo.: How on earth will we ever have a single-payer health care system in this country as long as politicians are owned by big business, e.g. insurance and pharma?
T.R. Reid: John Edwards had an interesting idea when he was running for president: Cut off the health insurance plans covering members of congress in Jan. of 2009, and don't restore the coverage until Congress establishes universal coverage in the U.S.
But I don't think that is necessary. Members of congress respond to the people. If Congress decided in 2009 that Americans want fundamental change, Congress will provide it.
The argument of our film, and my upcoming book, is that there are excellent models we can draw from as we move toward fundamental change.
Coral Springs, Fla.: My wife and I watched your presentation last night. We are both nurses; can you say anything about how the nursing staffs of the hospitals in the countries you surveyed were able to make a living?
T.R. Reid: In every country I went to, as in the U.S., nurses are in short supply. Accordingly, nurses' pay has been going up, due to the law of supply and demand.
As countries try to limit costs of health care, they turn more of the job of treatment over to nurses. (In Britain, more than half the babies are delivered by nurse [practitioners, or midwives). This makes nurses even more necessary, and should raise their pay more.
Doctors/Lawyers: With the American Bar and the AMA such powerful lobbies, how can the U.S. possibly get both parties to agree that neither will make as much as they do now under the current system (the Tort Bar in particular)?
T.R. Reid: I think the AMA is ready for major change. Doctors basically are motivated by a desire to help people, and they can see that our cumbersome, unfair system is undermining their efforts. Some polls show that more than 60% of American docs are so fed up with the insurance industry that they favor a shift to a single-payer structure.
Malpractice cases are a plague for American doctors. It may make sense to put limits on these lawsuits. In terms of cost, though, the malpractice issue adds very little to the overall cost of care in our country. The big costs drivers are sheer inefficiency -- because our system is so fragmented -- and the huge administrative costs that the insurance industry takes out of the system before it pays any medical bills.
Kansas City, Kan.: Mr. Reid, in the U.S. there are big discrepancies in reimbursements for office visits and procedures. Does this disparity exist in other countries?
T.R. Reid: Most developed countries have a centrally negotiated fee structure, that applies across a province, a region, or a whole country. In all of Japan, there is one price for setting a broken arm; no doctor can charge more. Germany sets prices on a state-by-state basis, allowing some regional variation.
This seems to me to be fair to patients. And it makes the system vastly simpler to administer. An American hospital probably gets 25 different fees, depending on the insurance company and the plan, for setting a broken arm. It's expensive to keep track of all the rules, forms, and fees.
Washington: I enjoyed your program very much. I am a young lawyer cultivating an interest in health care law, and would love to learn more about the intersection of law and health care policy. Were there any specific legal issues you came across, and can you recommend any resources for additional learning on this subject?
T.R. Reid: The American malpractice system is a rich area for study.
Beyond that: Because health insurance companies are sometimes cruel to their customers --denying coverage, denying claims, rescinding the policy if the patient has a big bill -- there are also lawyers who specialize in going after health insurance companies. Which means the insurance firms need lawyers of their own to defend their practices.
I haven't studied this, so I can't recommend a text to you.
Medical Malpractice: You mentioned that in Germany, doctors aren't happy with their salaries. It seems that view is shared by the doctors you interviewed in other countries as well. However, you mentioned that in Germany at least, medical malpractice insurance rates are extremely low, and that medical school is free? Is that true across the board in the all countries you visited? Do doctors in these countries end up "netting" about the same as they do here when you factor in lower premiums and the absence of school loans?
T.R. Reid: My guess would be that U.S. doctors still make more than their counterparts in Germany, Japan, etc. Even after student loans and malpractice premiums, their net pay is higher.
Almost all the countries I've been to have free medical education, and minimal malpractice fees. Research my book, I have talked to dozens of doctors in 15 countries. Not one of the foreign doctors I talked to has ever been sued.
Trenton, N.J.: Mr. Reid -- your program was relentlessly critical of U.S. health care. Do you have anything good to say about your own country?
T.R. Reid: The U.S. has the best-educated doctors and nurses in the world. We have the most advanced hospitals, labs, and clinics. We have the most far-reaching research. And we are willing to spend more on health care than any other country.
With all those assets, we could have -- we should have -- the best health care system in the world. But we don't.
There is nothing unpatriotic about facing up to your country's problems and looking for ways to fix them. To me, making the effort to cure our sick health care system reflects a real love for the U.S..
Maryland: If I am not mistaken, one Japanese doctor in the film mentioned that 70 percent of the hospitals in Japan are about to go broke. Why do you still rate Japan as No. 1? Is Taiwan's a more balanced system in this regard?
T.R. Reid: I think Dr. Saito said that 50 percent of Japan's hospitals are operating in the red. This would be worrisome, except that costs are so low in Japan it will not take much more spending to make those hospitals whole again. I expect Japan will do what it takes. The Japanese are proud (and rightly so) of their health care system, and they won't let it fall apart.
Even if Japan increased spending on health care by hundreds of millions of dollars, it would still have a far cheaper and more efficient system than ours.
Houston: I was struck that in Switzerland, barely a majority originally wanted the universal health system, but now few would want a return to the private system of before. I understand that was also true with Canada. What changed the minds of those who originally opposed the change?
T.R. Reid: The key fact is: These new systems work. When Switzerland relied on U.S.-style for-profit health insurance, many people were denied coverage altogether. Many others had to fight constant battles with insurers to get their bills paid. Of course, those are the things Americans loathe about out insurance system.
In the new Swiss system described in our film, everybody has insurance, and the companies are not allowed to deny a claim. (In fact, they generally pay all claims within five days.) No wonder people are happier with this system than with what they had before.
If we were to go the Swiss route -- that is, keeping private health insurance, but with rules that require universal coverage and bar profit -- Americans, too, would be much happier about their health insurance. And if we get there, we will never go back to the cruel, costly system we have today.
Carrington, N.D.: This was an excellent, thought-provoking program and should be a must-see for all citizens of this country. It will be the citizens who force the change.
T.R. Reid: Thank you. Roughly 80 percent of Americans say they want to see "fundamental change" in our health care system. Most people think we should be able to run health care as fairly and as efficiently as the Taiwanese, the French and the Japanese do.
So I believe people will demand real change when the next president takes office. That should provide a tail wind that will get the job done -- if the new president is ready to do it.
Crestwood, N.Y.: How do they get rid of incompetent and dangerous doctors overseas?
T.R. Reid: Every health care system needs a process to police the performance of doctors and hospitals. Docs do make mistakes, and sometimes it is due to negligence. Our malpractice system is our effort to do that job.
Other countries do it differently. Britain has boards that review a doctor's records -- like tax auditors -- to see how successful she has been in treating patients. Germany sends a doctor-observer from a distant part of the country to spend time in another doctor's office and assess the quality of care. Japan has an official complaint system, where people can present a claim of bad treatment.
Minneapolis: I would have liked to see how the Arab world addresses health care. Is health care free in Dubai? Saudi Arabia? And do they cover the "guest workers" or just citizens? How about Egypt? Has Iraq step up its health care system along American or European lines?
T.R. Reid: In the world's poor countries, including those in the Mideast, the health care system is "Out of Pocket." People who can afford to pay for health care -- in money, crops, services, whatever -- can see a doctor. Those who can't afford it stay sick, or die.
The oil shiekdoms of the Mideast have established good health care systems, usually on the British or Canadian model, with government paying the bills. I decided these small, rich autocratic countries are not likely models for the U.S. to follow.
Cary, N.C.: Mr. Reid, if you could implement three specific changes to the U.S. health care system based on the information you gathered during your travels, what would they be?
T.R. Reid: If we stick with private insurance as the main source of payment in our system, we could follow the rules of other countries that use private insurance plans:
1. "Guaranteed issue." That means, the insurance companies have to accept every applicant. They have to pay every claim, without months of dispute. They are not allowed to factor in profit when setting their rate -- that is, basic health coverage is a non-profit endeavor.
2. And then, to make sure the insurance companies don't go broke following those rules, you have to require that everybody buy insurance. That gives the insurance company an adequate pool of rate-payers to keep the system in balance. People who decline to buy insurance are assigned to a company, and billed for the monthly premium.
3. Since those two rules would means everybody has health insurance coverage, you need some cost controls in the system to make sure the overall costs don't skyrocket. At present, the insurance companies negotiate costs with the docs and hospitals. I think some kind of central negotiation -- on the state, regional or national level -- might be a better mechanism. This gives enormous economic power to the source of funds, and keeps prices lower.
T.R. Reid: I'm grateful to everybody who watched our film and took part in this terrific discussion. Please let me shamelessly note that my book on this subject, "We're Number 37," will be published by Penguin Press early next year.
Our health care system is overpriced and unfair. We could and should have the world's best and fairest system. Please keep working for fundamental change, so we can get there quickly.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Frontline correspondent T.R. Reid discusses his film "Sick Around the World," which examines how five other capitalist democracies -- the U.K., Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the U.S. might learn from their successes and failures.
| 89.285714 | 0.795918 | 1.816327 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/13/DI2008041302328.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/13/DI2008041302328.html
|
Post Politics Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041619
|
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
Washington Post national political reporter Anne E. Kornblut was online Wednesday, April 16 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.
Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the daily Post Politics Podcast.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
washingtonpost.com: Anne Kornblut is having connection problems and hopes to start by 11:30 a.m. ET.
Anne E. Kornblut: so sorry for the delay! computer issues. but I'm all set now. thanks so much for your patience; we can get started.
Buffalo, N.Y.: Who writes the headlines that appear on reporters' articles, for instance those of The Trail? Do authors enjoy independence of choice, or does "management" weigh in? Or some of both? Sometimes the headlines seem unreflective of the central point or points. I'm thinking just now of the tempest about Obama's controversial words in San Francisco. After about a week of supersaturation and a lot of repetitiveness, it seems like editors or someone has to keep stirring the pot simply to keep readers sufficiently interested to lend their eyeballs, instead of looking for something somwhere else that's fresh and less boring.
Anne E. Kornblut: I will start with the easy one here. We do NOT write the headlines! It's the one piece of the paper (well, that and the delivery times) that we reporters can honestly duck blame for. There are editors whose job it is to do that, and the layout, and I will pass along your concerns.
St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Anne -- thank you for taking my question and for your insights. I know that in the grand scheme of things the Cindy McCain recipe plagiarism flap is small potatoes (no pun intended -- well maybe it is), but what does it say that the McCain campaign felt the need to present Mrs. McCain in a certain light when it's clear that fostering that image was outsourced to an intern? In terms of presidential spouses, I really thought we had moved beyond that. What do you think?
washingtonpost.com: The Fact-Checker: Cindy's Recipegate (washingtonpost.com, April 15)
Anne E. Kornblut: It's a great question, and I think you're absolutely right that this story does tell us something interesting about the way this campaign is being run (beyond what it says about Mrs. McCain's actual cooking). Spouse images do matter, and she has clearly been working on hers. What I'm wondering is why they didn't just leave it at her husband's barbecue recipe from a few weeks ago?
Dallas: With respect to Sen. Obama's comments about working class Pennsylvanians, while the timing of them were bad, they did elect Rick Santorum, whose policies were religiously based. Of course, they also kicked him out. But doesn't that lend a little bit of truth to Obama's statements?
Anne E. Kornblut: Look, I've heard from plenty of people who said, "Obama was right!" But I think it depends on one's view of the world. And with respect to Santorum, I'm not sure the complete logic of Obama's remarks (that clinging to religion is the result of economic distress) applies here. But we'll find out...
Minneapolis: Interesting piece on trustworthiness today. What do you find, when talking to superdelegates or behind-the-scenes players, that they say about such polls? Are they more or less important than, say, primary victories? Or irrelevant?
Anne E. Kornblut: It seems like the superdelegates are taking everything into account -- polls, electability, primary victories, their own constituents (with the latter being the most important most of the time). No one thing seems to be tipping the scales (yet).
Newport News, Va.: Where are you?
Anne E. Kornblut: Philadelphia! Big debate tonight.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Read your story this morning about Clinton -- kudos to you, Jon Cohen, and Jennifer Agiesta. The writing was spot-on. It filled me with such a good feeling on this bright spring morning that I went down to my local Obama campaign office and made a hefty contribution. I planted a yard sign near the crocuses. Questions: How well is Clinton doing with angry, white, middle-aged men like myself? Still has a lead with professional men like me, does she? To compound her problems, I'm a Vietnam era draftee/veteran. I didn't get the change I was seeking after returning home from that debacle. Not seeing much change now with the current one. Thanks much.
washingtonpost.com: Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton (Post, April 16)
Anne E. Kornblut: Thank you so much. It sounds like you are a change voter, and that is what has made you an Obama voter. One thing we've seen consistently in this race is that people seeking change -- either on the war, or politics in general -- are overwhelmingly on Obama's camp. So you will fit right in. I will pass on your nice words to Jon and Jenn.
Jeannette, Pa.: Recently, there have been stories how both Clintons believe Obama "can't" win the general election, and there is a sense among the Clinton camp that she is on a mission to save the party from itself. But six months ago, there would have been a lot of people who would have said Obama couldn't defeat the front-runner Hillary. The certainty that the Clintons must have about Obama's dismal chances in the fall just don't hold up to history -- or the fact that things change pretty quickly in politics. Isn't their thinking greatly flawed and egocentric? How is their arrogant argument playing with superdelegates?
Anne E. Kornblut: It's a good question. It's true that the Clintons, and a lot of the people around them, believe that he cannot win the general election -- but there is also a sense (how could there not be by now?) that he is an admirable candidate, and there are other motivations for her making that argument about Obama -- namely that it helps her. So perhaps I am already more skeptical about that argument, as it sounds like you are.
Roseland, N.J.: Way, way, back in the distant past of our politics -- six weeks ago -- it was an open secret that Democrats running for Congress in certain districts didn't want Hillary at the top of the ticket, because she'd be a drag in their states and make it harder for them to win. Is it at all possible that with the "cling" hysteria, this logic has flipped, or at least been neutralized?
Anne E. Kornblut: Really good question. I so far haven't seen a great deal of evidence of that -- for whatever reason -- but I know that national groups are concerned about how it will play in those districts, so certainly, it would make sense for candidates to have similar worries. I'll keep an eye out.
Baltimore: Hi Anne! I should be able to find this out with "The Google", but just for expediency: Is Pennsylvania an open or closed primary? I mean, can independents or even people registered to other parties vote in the Democratic primary? Thanks.
Anne E. Kornblut: Closed. Which should be good for Clinton.
Henly, Texas: Count me among those who believe Obama's "guns and religion" quote is a problematic gaffe that is costing him some, though perhaps limited, support. However, it seems that Hillary is able to handle every issue with ham-fisted dexterity. The clip I've seen of her TV ad on the subject and her clumsily transparent comments would appear to be further connecting her candidacy to negatives. At a time when polling shows her to be regarded as fundamentally dishonest by a majority of voters, why isn't she just letting the media flog the Obama comments, which they would do amply without her active participation?
Anne E. Kornblut: You sound like the frustrated Clinton supporters I know! A lot of people felt that she could let it lie, or at least risked taking it too far by mentioning it herself so often -- and, in the process, handing Obama footage of her being booed for it, which he has now turned into a new TV ad about turning the page to a new kind of politics. That said, Clinton is at the point in the race where she really can't let opportunities slide -- there are just a few races left, and she probably figured she could not take the risk of not maximizing this incident.
Princeton, N.J.: Why don't we hear more about Sen McCain economic policies? How is he going to keep the tax cuts, fund the war, and increase defense spending simply by eliminating earmarks when they account for less than 1 percent of the budget? Why don't you guys question him on this? It's vastly more important than Bittergate, which has received vastly more coverage.
Anne E. Kornblut: Oh, you will hear a lot about McCain and the economy, don't worry. But I do think we've covered it quite a lot already -- certainly in the Post, we've done stories about his economic team, and about his recent proposals, and I think (though I could be wrong because I'm on the road) at least two of them ran on the front page over the last few weeks. So...check out our archives! And look for my colleagues Mike Shear and Jonathan Weisman.
Poplar Bluff, Mo.: Anne, thanks for taking questions. Sen. Obama's remarks about "bitter" small town voters who turn to religion when times get tough is getting quite a bit of press. Obama did not show for the Faith Forum either. How can Sen. Obama expect to win the Presidency when he makes awful remarks about Americans' faith in times of crisis? Thank you.
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Faith Forum an Occasion for Obama-Clinton Sparring (washigntonpost.com, April 14)
Anne E. Kornblut: I'm not sure which faith forum you're referring to -- I could have sworn I read remarks he made at the most recent one -- but generally speaking, this is certainly an issue his campaign is cognizant of. Obama has written about his own faith, and his evolution on it, quite a bit, and obviously we all know he is a churchgoer.
Monmouth, Ore.: Is Obama becoming the greatest maker of lemonade? The Wright flap seemed big, but I have not seen or heard any more allegations that he is Muslim. The "bitter small-town" comment seemed bad until Clinton and McCain tried to call him "elite." Is it luck, incredible skill or just people discerning enough to still focus on the core issues of change and the disaster of Bush?
Anne E. Kornblut: I am so glad you brought up that effect of the Wright flap; I'd just been pondering that myself. And he (and perhaps more his wife) has managed to turn the elite comments into an opportunity to talk about putting himself through school. That said, he's still running behind in Pennsylvania. So we'll find out whether it works or not.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: That was some sound bite of Michele Obama I saw last night! Hair slightly mussed, sweater sleeves pushed up, fighting stance, etc. I really thought she was spoiling for a fight. (Another middle-class pursuit!) Also thought she had the best line when she said she was the product of a public school education. I think it may be time for Obama to do an ad with her and the kids. Your thoughts?
Anne E. Kornblut: Wasn't that a compelling clip of her? She is really something, you are right. David Axelrod, are you listening? This reader wants a Michelle ad! (Hopefully he'll read this).
Birmingham, Ala.: Do you think the Obama campaign has done a better job of balancing expectations with effort than say in Ohio/Texas? By the time those primaries rolled around many (especially pundits) were surprised when he didn't win or "knock her out" (Texas caucus comments aside), which appeared to give her a good boost of momentum. The scene now is eerily familiar (closing in on the poll gaps, with some even having him ahead now, growing expectations that he should/could win, setting up a possible momentum boost for her). Your thoughts?
Anne E. Kornblut: They're certainly not making claims of being able to win Pennsylvania (and there is plenty of evidence that Obama will not). So in that sense, yes, it's different, but if Clinton wins by a large margin here, I suspect she will get a similar boost -- whether it was expected or not.
Can independents or even people registered to other parties vote in the Democratic primary?: No, but Pennsylvania voters had till a few weeks ago to switch party registration.
Anne E. Kornblut: This is a good addendum to the earlier question, thank you.
"Colbert Report" in Philadelphia!: Anne, since you are in Philly can you get on "The Colbert Report"? I think you are great on these forums and would lve to see you interviewed. No, I won't watch when you are in the sewage of cable "news" chatter.
Anne E. Kornblut: Something tells me that the Colbert folks have bigger fish to fry, but if I see them wandering around, I will definitely raise my hand. Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Pittsburgh: Isn't is true that Obama will not have enough delegates to win the nomination even if he won every primary from now until June? Isn't it also true that if the votes of Michigan and Florida were counted, it would show that Hillary has more of the popular votes than Obama? Therefore, isn't it logical and realistic to see no clear winner until Denver and perhaps a superdelegate fight?
Anne E. Kornblut: You are right, neither Democrat will have enough delegates for the nomination by summer -- unless there's a big wave of superdelegates who swing one way or the other. As for Mich and Fla., I think it is difficult to count popular votes in a state (Michigan) where the other candidates were not on the ballot, but plenty of Clinton supporters do.
Baltimore: Months ago, Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania polls over Obama was 20 or even 30 points in some polls. Once voting started in Iowa, in general it slipped to the high teens. Since the Texas/Ohio primary day, both campaigns really have gone all out in Pennsylvania. Obama has closed the lead to high single digits. What is the magic number for Clinton to win by in order to call it a victory? 15 points, 10 points, 8 points, 5 points, 2 points? After Texas and Ohio, the pundits were saying that Hillary had to win and win big, like 20 points big. If Barack only loses by 5 points-8 points, do you think the media still will call this a victory for Clinton, or do you think the consensus view will be "it's over for Hillary" because she needed a big win and did not get it? Thanks.
Anne E. Kornblut: Oh, this is a good one. We're all asking the same question. Let me take it out of the hands of "the media" and tell you what the smart political strategists I know think: The Clinton supporters mostly believe she needs to a) win; b) win by double digits in order for it to have the desired effect of triggering a wave of momentum for her in the states ahead. The Obama folks believe he can/should narrow the gap, and will "win" if it's a single-digit loss. And of course everyone reserves the right to change their minds on Electin day. Does that make sense?
Sunnyvale, Calif.: Obama's burned his bridges to the legacy of Bill Clinton. The only other living Democratic president is Jimmy Carter, who's meeting with Hamas -- and life wasn't very good under the Carter administration. It seems like Obama wants history to begin with him, and that everyone should just trust him to deliver what he claims he can. He didn't deliver in Chicago or in the Senate, so why should anyone believe he can deliver now?
Anne E. Kornblut: Another good question... Thoughts, folks?
Chicago: What's the buzz on tonight's debate? Will it be "bitter" and Rev. Wright vs. Bosnia all evening, or will the candidates be really civil (though the questioners might not be)?
Anne E. Kornblut: I bet we will see some of all of the above. And I am told that ABC has some surprises up their sleeves, too, so it should be a compelling night.
Re: Bittergate: Is there a feeling out there that Hillary has laid it on a bit thick in her response to Obama's "bitter" remarks? I heard that people were annoyed with her nonstop viciousness on this subject. What have you heard?
Anne E. Kornblut: Certainly the Obama people feel that way, which is why they put up a new ad about it; and our polling numbers (new out ot today) suggest she has not benefited.
Washington: Obama has more popular votes than Hillary even if you counted the votes in Florida and Michigan -- never mind the flawed logic employed by the Clinton campaign in persisting in counting contests she herself said wouldn't count.
Anne E. Kornblut: Thank you, this is correct, I should have made this point. And to clarify: Only in Michigan were the others not on the ballot. In Florida, they were on the ballot, but did not campaign.
Litibu Beach, Mexico: Anne, I don't know why Obama hasn't used his history of working on the streets of Chicago as a counterargument to the elitist charge. It seems to me that all he would need to say is "I have spent a good bit of my life working shoulder-to-shoulder with the people I'm accused of feeling elite toward."
Anne E. Kornblut: Actually, he says it a lot on the campaign trail -- but you're right, I haven't heard it much on this particular incident. Maybe in the debate tonight?
It's true that the Clintons, and a lot of the people around them, believe that he cannot win the general election: And who believes she can win? Evidently not the voters in her own party, who by 62 percent to 31 percent say Obama is more electable
Anne E. Kornblut: Which is why she is in the uphill struggle she's currently in. Thank you for this.
Louisville, Ky.: Hello, Anne. Thank you for taking my question. This year we prepare for two exciting Kentucky races in May: the Kentucky Derby and the presidential primary. It's my opinion that many people in this country are unhappy and bitter about the Iraq War, gas prices, grocery prices, stock portfolios, etc. Granted, Obama's words and his San Francisco location to say them are a negatives for many, but don't you feel there is an element of primal racism in painting Obama as an "elite?" A synonym for elite is uppity. Do you think there is an intentional strategy on Hillary's part to portray Obama as an uppity black man, or at least stress the fact that he is not a blue-collar, bowling, hunting, whisky drinker? Obviously, I think her shameful pandering explains her high negative ratings by many. What are your thoughts?
Anne E. Kornblut: I haven't really thought this question through, but I'm going to go ahead and post it so others can ponder it as well. Have fun at the Kentucky derby!
Reston, Va.: Anne: I nominate Douglas Schoen for Most Ill-Timed Op-Ed of the Year. Hillary needs to go negative? She has gone negative and all that's happened is that her negatives are getting worse. Can she really afford to increase the negative attacks on Obama? It appears to be bouncing back on her.
washingtonpost.com: New Strategy for Clinton (Post, April 16)
Anne E. Kornblut: It's a really fair question...
Wheaton, Md.: Hi Anne. I was reading the Douglas Schoen opinion piece, "New Strategy for Clinton," where he states that Hillary should go negative, abandoning her positive campaign. It has been my impression that Hillary's campaign has been "going negative" for months. Between the Hillary campaign and the Obama campaign, which do you think has used more negative campaign ads?
Anne E. Kornblut: And another on this...
Woonsocket, R.I.: Do you have any idea when Hillary might abandon her relentlessly positive, upbeat campaign, and allow herself a hint of negativity? Seriously, I've just read Doug Schoen's op-ed today, and I'm trying to figure out if I've been living in another dimension. As a political reporter, do you see any basis whatsoever for the claim that the Clinton campaign hasn't been negative so far? I know about the firewall between news and editorial, but since both appear under the same "Washington Post" label, please recognize that Schoen's reality-divorced piece does cast a shadow over your own reporting! Doesn't that bother you at all?
Anne E. Kornblut: And another...!
Re: Pennsylvania vote: I might sound naive in asking this, but the people who Obama mentioned in his "bitter" speech -- would they have been likely to vote for him in the first place? I mean, Clinton appears to have had them locked up, so who would she be trying to influence when she criticized Obama for being an "elitist"? Other elitists (i.e. the nonrural voter)?
Anne E. Kornblut: Not naive at all. I think the idea is that he needed to reduce the margins of his losses among white working-class voters, and the bitter remark would not help that cause. Also, he needs to show he could win them in a general election. So you're right in general, but I think the Obama campaign would like for those voters to at least consider him.
This thing is over: Anne: I know the standard caveat is "the polls can be wrong," but are you surprised at the results of the polls released in the past 24 hours -- by The Post and the Los Angeles Times in particular? Obama within five points in Pennsylvania, winning North Carolina and Indiana, leading nationally by 10 points ... and Clinton has her worst negative numbers in 16 years and is viewed as less electable in November. If these types of numbers hold up through the week and Obama does indeed come within five or seven points in Pennsylvania, how does she justify staying in the race -- and more importantly, what keeps superdelegates from finally making a decision that ends this thing?
Anne E. Kornblut: I am ALWAYS surprised by poll numbers, which is why we go out and do polls -- to make sure we aren't making incorrect assumptions about how people feel. And yes, I think the numbers show that the conventional wisdom about her super-bounce from Ohio and Texas might have been off. On your final question, it could happen, sure...we will find out soon!
Austin, Texas: It seemed like Clinton used a two-step strategy going into Texas and Ohio: First she made a lot of attacks on Obama in the week and a half leading up to the election (3 a.m. ads, NAFTA stuff, etc.), then she backed off in the final few days and went on talk-shows to rehabilitate her image. The damage was done to Obama, but she didn't go into the voting looking as bad as she would have had she not backed off. Any chance we'll see a repeat of that approach? It seems like we've already seen the first step.
Anne E. Kornblut: Quite possible. What do others think?
Anne E. Kornblut: Thanks so much everyone for chatting today, and apologies, again, for the delayed start. Have a great debate night and talk to everyone soon!
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post White House reporter Peter Baker discusses the latest political news and The Post's coverage of politics.
| 244.25 | 0.85 | 2.85 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040802910.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040802910.html
|
Independent Lens: 'King Corn'
|
2008041619
|
"King Corn" aired Tuesday, April 15 at 10 p.m. on PBS's "Independent Lens."
San Francisco: Have you changed your eating habits since learning so much about corn?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: This seems like a good first question! The answer is very much so, yes. We don't drink soda anymore (though Curt had one when we were showing the film on Capitol Hill ... he was nervous and it seemed like a comforting idea). And we certainly can't look at a corn-fed hamburger the same way. We eat a lot of grass-fed beef now, and had our hair retested and are down to 30-something percent corn (from 52 percent and 58 percent!).
Timken, Kan.: Why didn't you show how the "canning" corn is produced? This is what is canned for human consumption, and is very sweet, very tender and a completely different product than what you showed in the film. In addition, there was no mention of the flavor and texture of grass-fed beef, and how the consistency varies across the landscape because of grass variations. Why not?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: To answer your first question, we didn't eat a whole lot of canned corn, so we didn't think it merited much discussion. We did eat a lot of burgers and drink a lot of soda, so that did. Sweet corn is a great food, and we enjoy it whenever we can get it fresh.
As for grass-fed beef, consistency varies, but that has a lot to do with the fact that our whole processing and shipping system isn't set up for grass-fed beef anymore. If you hang it right, store it right, butcher it right and serve it right, it tastes fantastic. Like beef used to taste. But it requires different treatment than corn-fed beef does, so if you just jam a grass-fed carcass into that system it won't necessarily be as good. For now, you should buy grass-fed beef from farmers who really know their stuff, and I think you'll love it. It's more flavorful, leaner, and is tender and delicious if you don't overcook it.
Harrisburg, Pa.: To what degree do energy costs matter in getting that corn produced and ultimately delivered to one's table?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: We were amazed by the amount of fossil fuel it took to grow our corn. From the anhydrous ammonia fertilizer (made by burning natural gas) to the tractors (diesel) to drying our corn so it could be stored (propane), the whole operation seemed much more extractive than we expected. When people talk about high food prices these days, they really have to look at the rising cost of petroleum as a big reason for the spike. And when you understand that, alternatives like local food production start to look far more appealing ... and competitive in the marketplace.
Alexandria, Va.: But most corn never makes it to your dinner plate, in the direct sense! Most corn is used as cheap feed on factory farms. Corn is primarily present as a human dietary component in the forms of our ever-increasing and completely lethal collective meat intake, and as a still-not-great sweetener. How much would corn production and consumption decrease if meat intake went down by just 15 percent?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: As developing nations like China start to eat more and more meat, there's a real question on the table about how much meat we can produce responsibly. In our own country, we think we'd be better off for eating a little less meat, and making sure it's of the highest quality.
Clifton, Va.: Who wants corn on the dinner plate? Its far better in a mason jar in liquid form. Nothing beats fine Virginia untaxed corn liquor!
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: We couldn't agree more.
Rockville, Md.: We never had much corn on our family farm in Texas (north of Lubbock a bit) but I always was impressed by the plant, and we had enough to eat and freeze. Why so much opposition now? When I see how much corn they grow in Maryland, it is amazing. They could feed a lot of the world. Are there ways to rotate crops and reduce insects and blight that are friendly to the environment?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: We're not against corn in any way -- but we do think some of the products corn becomes ... and the way corn is subsidized... deserves a close look now. We're in the middle of a serious obesity epidemic, and a centerpiece of our diet is processed corn.
Trinidad and Tobago: This was an excellent documentary. I was amazed by all that I saw. I appreciate all the work that went into making the film. The filmmakers made this into an intriguing, fun documentary to watch, one I definitely would (and already have) recommended others to see!
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Thanks! More questions like that one, please!
Royal Oak, Mich.: I watched your film last night. I commend both of you on opening the public's eyes to what the mainstream agriculture of our country is. What is next for both of you?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Thanks for asking. We're just releasing a film about Boston's first big Green Building condominium. The film is called "The Greening of Southie," and it'll air on the Sundance Channel on Earth Day (April 22). The Web site will be up today or tomorrow. Aaron, the director of King Corn, has started a grocery store in Brooklyn called Urban Rustic.
Arvada, Colo.: I knew a lot of this stuff, but the perspective you bring to it really tied together a lot of concerns I've had and put them all in one big picture. This was very well done, and I really appreciate how you handled the subject matter. I come from farming roots and found this perspective to be spot-on. I also am concerned: What became of the Pyatt family after they lost their farm? Thanks! People need to understand how utterly poisonous the majority of the foods we are encouraged to consume really are.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Thanks for asking about the Pyatts. Chuck had seven sons, and none of them wanted to become farmers. He told us one time that "the joy is gone out of farming." Chuck had the auction you saw at the end of the film, and moved north to the big city ... a small town about twice the size of Greene, and ten miles north. He calls often, and we go out to visit him when we can.
South Windsor, Conn.: Please speak to this issue: Are you aware that the whole "New Coke" and "Classic Coke" nonsense was strictly about removing the remaining percentage of sucrose from Coke and replacing it with 100 percent fructose? The new "Classic Coke" contains no sucrose at all.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: We looked into it, but had a hard time finding journalistically reliable verification for that. I think it's very likely that that was true, though, and now you've got to get Mexican Coke or Kosher Coke to find the sugar-based stuff.
Monroe, Mich.: I stumbled upon your story on Toledo, Ohio's station, channel 30, after dropping my taxes in the mail. I was hooked. I had a classmate in college who developed a weird corn allergy and was always fascinated about the things she could not eat. She said she had lost weight once she removed corn from her diet and felt great. It had to be very difficult to eat this way. I once actually offered her some fresh-popped popcorn. -- My questions is. Has anyone done a study of people who are allergic to corn? What is the cure? What causes it? Or is it ignored? There are more people out there suffering.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: There's a huge corn allergy community out there, and it's hard to imagine a more difficult challenge. A little Web hunting will put you in touch with them. Many folks we talked to couldn't go see King Corn in the theaters because it would put them too near the popcorn. Thanks for mentioning the taxes, by the way -- it seemed fitting to us that the film would air on the day people were paying for those government subsidies!
San Francisco: Were there any studies published about the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup when the government started subsidizing corn crops? Was the intention to help build up the food industry with longer-lasting preservatives and cheap sweeteners?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: We weren't looking for conspiracy theories, and didn't stumble into any along the way. It was probably just a reasonable mix of ingenuity and market demand that helped get high-fructose corn syrup off the ground. ... Japanese scientists developed a way of making the stuff affordably, and we had a lot of corn lying around that was unbelievably cheap.
Salem, Ill.: Ellis and Cheney -- excellent documentary and very well done! I was amazed and very saddened at all of the information you guys uncovered. You really opened my eyes and answered a lot of questions for me (including, why beef doesn't taste nearly as good as it did in the '60s). I am switching to 100 percent grass-fed, range-raised, organic, Kosher meats, and to 100 percent organic fruits and vegetables. No more processed and pretend "foods" for me. I am tired of being sick, tired and fat, and am en route to becoming healthy, energetic and lean.
America is genetically altering ourselves, our animals and our land to death -- all for the almighty dollar. The sad thing is that most people in the U.S. really don't have a clue why they are so sick -- and that our government actually is subsidizing the diseases that are killing us. You two ought to hook up with Doug Kaufmann, put your heads together and make another film -- "King Corn II." Thanks for a great film, guys!
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Thanks for your nice note. It's really heartening to hear from people who have changed their diets after seeing the film. We felt we had to after seeing it happen live. But a sequel?! That sounds tiring!
Rockville, Md.: This strikes me as being on the same level as Sen. Kennedy being against "ugly windmills" and people who say McDonald's is killing us -- just propaganda.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: There's no doubt personal choice has a big role in the obesity epidemic, but I think when we're subsidizing corn production with federal tax dollars ($51.3 billion from 1995-2005) that does merit a close look. If we changed the policies on these issues, we really could make a difference in our health. Similarly, for all the talk the presidential candidates are giving to the "health care crisis," we should remember that more than 50 percent of the health care costs related to obesity and diabetes have to be paid for by public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we want to fix the problem, we have to address the root cause.
Pittsburgh: The carbon in your hair comes from corn. That corn is rich in carbon. That carbon came from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Do you think expanding corn production ever could help stop global warming?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Doubtful. Corn's an annual, so it doesn't sequester carbon the way a perennial prairie would. It takes a lot of carbon-based fuel to grow corn, too.
Trinidad and Tobago: I think it's fascinating that Ian and Curt attempted not eating corn for an entire month. While watching the documentary, similar thoughts were going through my mind. "Should I try to stop eating corn and see exactly how difficult it is? What changes would I have to make?" Living in Trinidad now in the 21st century could be very similar to living in the U.S., foodwise, depending on the choices you make. This documentary has brought to mind many issues, and I hope as many people as possible see this documentary!
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: It's not that you need to stop eating corn (it's healthy enough) but that none of us should be eating the amount of processed food that we do. For us, getting corn out of our diet for a month was a powerful way of learning just how hooked in we were to the industrial food system. There's a corn-free eating challenge you can join at the film's Web site.
Poison: Re: Corn-fed beef; did your film discuss the health issues involved in the beef itself? Beyond the hormones and antibiotics, factory-produced corn-feed beef has more saturated fat to go along with that bland taste.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: We did. That's in the film -- the corn-based diet gets cows to put on more fat, and more saturated fat, than a grass-based diet. That's reason enough for people to convert to the grass-fed variety.
Alexandria, Va.: Hi. Saw your film at the D.C. Environmental Film Festival last year, and afterward you and a member of Congress talked about the farm bill. I was all riled up about our crazy system of subsidies and hoping we'd get a more sensible farm bill ... then the issue sort of slipped from my radar. So, could you give an update on what's been happening at the federal level in the past year or so? Thanks!
washingtonpost.com: Harvesting Cash: A Year-Long Washington Post Investigation Into Farm Subsidies
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: The Farm Bill is still in negotiations now! The House and Senate passed bills that were only marginally better than the previous legislation, and they're trying to work out their differences now and get the budget down a bit. It's an important time to write your legislators, because the things that are likely to be cut are important conservation programs and research for alternatives to the world of the corn kingdom. But the real project we have on our hands is getting a great farm bill through in the next round... five years from now. As Sen. Harkin (an Iowan and the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee) said (paraphrasing) "It's not just a farm bill, it's a food bill... and urban people want a stake in it." That's what will change this legislation, is people standing up to say they actually care.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: This seems like a blank question. But we'll add something anyway! For those of you who haven't had a chance to see the film, PBS is airing it this week, so check local listings or visit this Web site for show times. Additionally, DVDs, a trailer and more information are on our Web site.
Clifton, Va.: Corn is primary ingredient in the dog food produced by the big dog food companies. The problem is that a large percentage of dogs are allergic to corn, and the dogs don't process the corn. Herding breeds have corn allergy rates of about 50 percent. Sorry, grass-fed beef will have a discernable taste based on the type of grass the livestock or poultry was raised on.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: You're right, and we've been amazed to learn just what an art form it is to raise great grass-fed beef or pastured poultry. Farmers spend an incredible amount of time and thought getting their pasture composition just right, and really can drive disease rates down and taste up by making sure the animals are on the right mix of grasses. Needless to say, we've been humbled by farmers again.
Tyler, Texas: Curt and Ian, what other major parts of the world have followed the U.S. model to date, if any?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Well, if memory serves, China is now the second biggest corn grower in the world, and the biggest importer. Japan also is very big. Developing nations are looking to the U.S. model of industrialized food production to get cheap food to a newly-urbanized population (just last year the world's population balance tipped from rural to urban), and with that shift is coming a global spike in obesity and diabetes.
Chicago: From your documentary it appears that ethanol production really isn't a big part of where corn production goes. Is all the media attention on rising prices because of ethanol production off the mark?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Ethanol has become a huge part of the equation, but only recently. When we shot our film, it wasn't nearly as important as it is today. Biofuels are definitely pushing up the cost of corn, but so is global demand, and so is the rising cost of gas ... which itself is a big part of growing corn on 1,000-acre farms. In any case, it seems like the ethanol hype may be short-lived, as it really requires a big government subsidy (and takes a big environmental toll) to make the stuff.
Bethesda, Md.: Does the rest of the world rely on corn-feed for its beef production? Is this unique to the U.S.?
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: It's not unique to the US, but it is a system we're exporting quickly around the world. Argentina and Brazil have had big grass-fed beef operations for a long time, but they're starting to grow corn there now, and feed it to cattle in feedlots. The picture is changing very fast, especially in places like China, and very soon the world may all be eating corn-fed beef instead of the grass-fed variety. But we think that would be a short-sighted mistake.
Anchorage, Alaska: Personal choice is a biggie -- as one of the farmers said, people want cheap food. Why not quit blaming corn and blame a lack of exercise, video games, laziness, etc. ... as you know, there are a variety of reasons for the increase in obesity. Other countries are much thinner than us -- did you look into high-fructose corn syrup use in European countries? I really enjoyed the show; growing up in rural Iowa gave me an appreciation for how hard farmers work.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: There's no doubt personal responsibility could help fix the situation, but it hasn't yet. We've set up a food system that puts lower-income populations at a unique risk, by making the least-healthy foods artificially cheap. Between 1985 and 2000, for instance, the real dollar price of fruits and vegetables rose by 38 percent. Over the same period the price of soda fell by 23 percent. For people who don't have much of an economic choice to shop at health food markets and the like, our food system is brutal. So we do think policy has a role that's at least equal as personal choice. As for Europe, they don't consume much high-fructose corn syrup there, but that's quickly becoming a global product.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Hey! Here's another chance to plug the DVD, which is available at our Web site. We're also doing school and community screenings through Bullfrog Films. The PBS broadcast is replaying in most markets over the next week, so tell your friends if you're able.
Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney: Okay! Looks like that's all the time we have for today. Thanks very much for your great questions, and please write in to PBS with your comments and ideas, too.
For the person who asked about corn growing overseas, there's a full list here. The graph shows pretty dramatically how corn-based the U.S. food and agriculture system is relative to the world. We have the cheapest food of anyone, but we have our share of health problems, too.
Thanks all for taking the time to chat.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Filmmakers Curt Ellis and Ian Cheney discuss "King Corn," which follows a crop of corn from seed to your dinner plate and looks at the impact the grain has on U.S. diets and health.
| 105.868421 | 0.868421 | 2.078947 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/15/DI2008041501442.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/15/DI2008041501442.html
|
Newspaper Business - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041619
|
Read today's column: Newspaper Publishers Chasing the Wrong Story
About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.
Pearlstein was honored with the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for his columns about mounting problems in the financial markets. His award was one of six Pulitzer Prizes won by The Washington Post this year.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: How can we make newspapers relevant to students? Most of my students in University do not get their information from the printed page. Could Steve Jobs be right? Have we stopped reading? And, if we have, stopped learning as well?
Steven Pearlstein: These are separate questions, whether people are readinga nd what form they are reading. We in the journalism business should be indifferent about how they get it. As to whether they are reading anything, or "hearing" anything, I tend to doubt that students at some point won't grow up and want and need to engage the world in an intelligent way. And to do that, they will need news and commentary from professional journalists. Of that, I'm certain. How those journalists will be organized, what the business model is, is still in flux. But let's not get too pesssimistic.
Alexandria, Va.: I like newspapers. I prefer to buy every one that I can. However, I no longer buy any since the newspapers are now fake and the country is effectively run by gang stalking poison gangs. Credibility is the most valuable asset of the newspaper and it has been lost. Do you see that changing?
Steven Pearlstein: No, I don't think credibility has been lost, but it has been damanged for a number of reasons. I do see that changing because we are going from a period in which editors and reporters didn't really focus on what readers wanted and needed as much as they should have, to a period where they are being forced to. That's a good first step to healing the credibility problem.
Ocean City, N.J.: How does one explain the success of the Arkansas Gazette Democrat (or Democrat-Gazette?), which refuses to put free content on the Web and has seen a rise in circulation?
Steven Pearlstein: Unlike the chief executive of the Washington Post Co., who is very smart and knowledgeable, I don't think free content is the way of the future. For quality news -- that is, non-commodity news--readers are going to have to pay, and readers are going to be willing to pay. And that will be in addition to advertising revenue, which will represent a significant but still smaller share of all revenue.
As for Arkansas, you have to remember that it is still virtually a monopoly when it comes to local news, and they may therefore be able to do what other news organizations can't. But it is telling us something about consumer behavior and willingness to pay for news.
Cleveland Park, Washington D.C.: Congratulations on your Pulitzer Prize! I enjoy reading your column as it seems to be one of the least biased and most relevant column about economics today. I appreciate the understandable "big picture" reporting about the complex global financial world we live in today. Thank you!
Steven Pearlstein: You're welcome, neighbor.
Washington, D.C.: Is it that hard for publishers and editors to see that sports, columns, features, investigations, and local news are what will continue to sell papers? Instead, the Post thinks it is committing news when it has 10 high level reporters uncritically regurgitating what national politicians say. Send an intern to the President's next news conference.
Reno, Nev.: Do you think readership, advertising and circulation would increase if local newspapers were free? Or, is it too late? Will Advertising, and Circulation in this "free" paper increase to the extent that this would be cost effective? Thanks, John
Steven Pearlstein: There is a good niche for "free" newspapers that are quick reads and deal either in community news or commodity news. But for quality journalism that takes lots of time and talent to create, free isn't likely to be a sustainable model, in my opinion. And I note that Rupert Murdoch, who is no dummy, recently concluded the same thing about charging for the web site of the Wall Street Journal. His initial instinct was to move it to free, but he was persuaded otherwise.
On the road (home: Falls Church, Va.): Think about this. These companies (the large ones) have reinvested precious little capital into new technologies. Not just an adjunct website...but...newspapers have always published index(es) to their news and lengthy ones to their classified ads. Yet no traditional media company spent any venture capital to set up a shop in Silicon Valley and try to gain traction in "Search" i.e. Google-like products. Same can be said about personal ads. Papers used to be full of 'em. Don't they dovetail with social network sites like Facebook? The last major out of the box traditional media investment was Al Neuharth's start-up of USA Today. Guess we could also include Murdock's FOX network. What other industry has such little risk capital invested in new products? (I am a Gannett employee)
Steven Pearlstein: Well, there are papers like this one that invested pretty heavily in money-losing web sites before they began to generate some serious cash. But as a general proposition, you are right. This has been an industry that was in a "milking" phase for several decades. There were investment in color presses (that advertisers valued) and computerized pagination systems (which save money in the long run). But investment in product and experimentation with new forms or creation of new products -- surprisingly limited given the profit levels of the industry.
Baltimore, Md.: A question about the business model of newspapers: I have long been puzzled as to why major papers such as the Times and Post rushed to put all their printed content (and additional content, to boot) online before they figured out how to make it pay, online advertising rates being much lower than print rates. Papers made an enormous investment in technology that, it seems to me, has only eroded the readership of print editions without adding new revenue. What other business gives its product away free? (The Times tried charging for "premium content" and that didn't work very well.)
Steven Pearlstein: Well, its a bit more complicated than that. With a new medium like this, it may be worthwhile to build up readership quickly by offering stuff for free, and then either finding that the ad revenue justifies the arrangement, or moving to a hybrid system of ad revenue plus subscription fee. We are still inthe early stages of this, so it shouldn't be surprising that the business model is still evolving. But its not clear to me that the initial strategy was wrong, particularly for a regional paper like the Post, that could only gain a national audience through the web.
Freising, Germany: Regarding the emergence of credible and convenient online alternatives, I have the impression that many online news sources cater to a particular market segment and political or social orientation, and hence, I have the impression that a consensus of opinion regarding factual reporting is a receding phenomenon. I agree with you that a convenient and trusted source for most of their news is desirable, but I'm wondering if the urge to hear and read a favorable interpretation of the news will prevail.
Steven Pearlstein: I think people will, over the long run, come back to credible news sources where real reporting is done. That's just a hunch.
Washington, D.C.: Do you think there will be a time when there is no longer a "paper" paper? If so, how will we be able to read its replacement while standing on a subway?
Steven Pearlstein: We're certainly on the cusp of having a 8x10 inch electronic devise onto which we can download the daily paper or a book. And things like that may mean that the paper will be going out of the newspaper business. I don't think we can know that. What we do know is that we are in a transition phase when news organizations will have to offer both. It may be, as I've suggested in the past, that printed newspapers will actually get smaller while the on-line offerings will actually get "fatter." To me, that seems like the next sustainable model.
Silver Spring, Md.: Steve..I hear what you're saying, that newspapers must reinvent themselves to compete with new technology. And I think, in general, this a good thing. I think the fact that local blogs and community reporting are driving trends in the print media market is outstanding. However, the idea of regional consolidation or clustering terrifies me. This is exactly the problem with the airwaves that the Bush-controlled FCC has all but completely removed any and all regulation from. The idea that I might one day move to a city where my only choice of news outlet, radio, TV or newspaper is operated by Rupert Murdock sends chills down my spine. If this is the inevitable direction of news consolidation, is some type of regulation to ensure a truly free press not necessary? Not that I'm saying reporters on Fox News aren't free to report the facts but....yea...I'd like the Post reporters to not have that fate.
Steven Pearlstein: There's a tendency to see this in political terms, which is based on the fear that dominant news organizations in a region will snuff out dissent and alternative voices. I think that's getting increasingly difficult. Fox News has not snuffed out any voices. It obviously has appeal to large number of people who don't share your point of view. But that's not snuffing out anyone with your point of view.
The fact is that readers and advertisers can't and won't support an industry that is organized into inefficient units. So instead of having one dominant metro and a dozen suburban dailies in a region, maybe there will be two competing news organizations that serve the entire region with papers and web sites. And maybe each of these news organizations will own a radio station and a TV station. That's not undue concentration in my opinion, although I'm sure when Andrew Schwartzman and Ed Market read this they will claim it to be so. There can still be entry by other newspapers. There will be several other TV and radio stations. There will be independent lboggers and other on-line news outlets. The idea that anyone can "control" the conversation capture the political process through media ownership is a declining risk.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: You predict consolidation and say that papers with circulations less than 25,000 can't ever be any good. I disagree and think the real model will be more like the one in commercial banking--a barbell with a few mega-papers, lots of ultra-local ones and very little in between. If I want to know what's happening in my neighborhood, I can't find it in the New York Times or even the tabloids. Instead, I check a community weekly with a small circulation that does a very good job--and it's free.
Steven Pearlstein: Sorry, but I really don't think newspapers that pay most or all of their reporters $20,000 and top editors $40,000 and have small staffs that can't develop any expertise, that that's not good daily journalism. You can perhaps have community weeklies with those kind of economics, although even there I've noticed an alarming decline in quality in many places. But a daily product that aspires to have news on a wide range of issues and full offering of features -- you can't do that well with 15,000 circulation.
Atlanta, Ga.: Mr. Pearlstein, Your last line hits it right on the head: newspapers have lost faith in their readers. Newspapers, with a few exceptions, have dumbed down their product so far, I might as well read People Magazine. And while its not your focus, TV news is the same way. It doesn't seem to dawn on anyone that the reason I am reading the newspaper is to get the in depth coverage of the story. Stories in the Post, like secret CIA prisons, Walter Reed and "The Angler" are exactly what I am looking for. If newspapers continue to think that the reading public has the attention span of a gnat, they will continue to decline. I don't need the newspaper equivalent of a 10 second sound bite, I can get that on TV or by reading the garbage in my doctor's office.
Steven Pearlstein: Thank you. Well put.
Arlington, Va.: Steve, As a young adult in his 30's, I have to say that I don't pick up a newspaper ever. I do come to the Washington Post website for all my information though. I think after my parents generation, not many others read newspapers. Even though the internet came about when I was in my late teens, early college, no one then, that I knew, ever read the newspaper except for the ads. I think newspapers have a future but only online, plus honestly, we could save millions and billions of trees a year by not publishing them. Best, James
Steven Pearlstein: James, newspaper websites ARE newspapers. I hope everyone understands that we are talking about news organizations now, not newspapers. And as I said before, newspapers need to become indifferent as to which medium their customers chose to get their news from.
Kensington, Md.: Mr. Pearlstein: The New York Times occasionally has Q&A sessions between the public and its editors. One common complaint is the perception that factual, spelling, and grammatical mistakes are becoming more common. The Times editors, however, strenuously deny this is happening, and I think I agree with them. Even if the quality of the information and writing is staying the same or improving, newspapers have failed to acknowledge that their readers are becoming smarter at a faster rate than they are. The Washington Post has the more difficult position of being located in a town full of academics and experts who know much more--present company excepted--on just about every topic the paper covers. I have worked closely with financial and business journalists over the years while working for the government and international agencies. And recently I have been recruited to move into that profession. I have been hearing, however, that the demand for "sourced" information is drying up. After having talked with journalists in New York, London, and here, it is no wonder why: many of them possess only the most basic knowledge of topics they are covering, and more or less rely on sources to tell them what to write. Unfortunately, they are unable to judge the quality or import of any of the information they receive and often do not ask the right questions. I hear similar complaints when I talk to my engineer and lawyer colleagues. I don't think the problem is that the time has come and gone for newspapers, but many of us do think that the time has come and gone for journalists. A couple of experts overseen by a good editor could produce more, higher quality work than the gaggle of young journalists sent running around all over town. You would still need some people to cover events, but when it comes to any topic that requires some specialized knowledge, journalists and journalism schools cannot keep up. (Even within academia, the opinions of the intellectual rigor of university communications and journalism programs rank them somewhere between football and lacrosse.) Your solution seems to take an industrial organization approach, whereby newspapers survive via efficiency gains brought on by organizational change. The type of paper you are thinking of (e.g. USA Today) moves more in the direction of tabloid. I think a large fraction of the public would like something that moves in the other direction, that is perhaps on an even smaller scale, but more intelligent and better researched. To put it bluntly, papers have to make a choice between being big and producing dumb news and being small and producing smarter news. I myself would be willing to pay a lot for the latter. The market for the middle is disappearing.
Steven Pearlstein: We don't disagree. I'm for slightly smaller and better.
Arlington, Va.: No question, only a comment. Having been a journalist, I know how easy it is to believe that quality journalism is the solution to newspapers' problems. From the newsroom viewpoint, self-interest does distort the analysis. The larger problem with newspapers isn't the failure to invest in journalism, much as we might wish it. Nor is it the investors' desires for profits. As long as massive investment is required to run a news operation, the desire to maximize profit won't go away. And if great journalism were going to lead to business success, it wouldn't be the grand old ladies of the industry, like the Post and former Knight Ridder papers in the gravest trouble right now. No, the problem of the modern era really began when TV took the national advertising in the 1960s, then in the 1980s direct mail cut massively into the ROP advertising, and retailers began to consolidate and create their own economies of scale for reaching audiences. The Postal Service was the first big, tax-subsidized competitor, and the big box retail trend played right into that. Soon, all we had left to lean on was classifieds. Then came Craig's list and we were toast. Newsrooms make almost an obsession out of not understanding this. But then, grappling with this reality would cut into the journalist's fond belief that great journalism makes successful business plans. There is, unfortunately, very little evidence to prove that. Wishing won't make it so. The future for newspapers, unfortunately, is sound-bite websites, and a lot of niche publications as local advertising vehicles. Newspapers will survive in some form, so long as paper is affordable (and that may not be for long). Whether great journalism will survive or not is the much tougher question. The sad truth is that the public is not willing to pay for it--either with their wallets or their eyeballs--in sufficient numbers to support the business plan that was, nor any reasonable one that we might wish for in the future. It is a grim outlook, but trying to shift the blame to the greedy owners--the newsroom's favorite bete noire--only gives us longer odds for survival. That's not the answer.
Steven Pearlstein: Look, I'm a business reporter, so you notice I don't use words like greedy owners. But I do make the point that, during a period of technological transition and as you move to a very different business model, you can't expect to make much of a profit. And to try to generate a big profit at such times will only erode the quality of the product, and drive away the most valuable readers and advertisers. So I think that is a losing strategy.
As for the long run future, I believe that there will be a market for quality news and that people will get used to paying for it. But it will take time, and people may have to lose it for a while to realize how much they miss it and are willing to pay for it. That's very possible.
Meanwhile, the newspaper owners have got to realize they can't organize themselves into units of 10,0000 and 15,000. Its simply too inefficient, and the result is a poor quality product that over time will make less and less profit. The future is in larger, more efficient units that can afford to pay for quality local reporting and editing, and for quality national and international reporting purchased from organizations like the Post or the Times or National Journal or whatever.
What really disturbs me, however, is to hear, as I did this morning at the American Socienty of Newspaper Editors' conference here in Washington, editors saying they have to cut back on their national and international reporting and then complaining about how much they are paying to the Associated Press. They can't have it both ways. They need to understand that some of the savings that comes from closing Washington or overseas bureaus has to be plowed back into "buying" the news they used to "make" less efficiently in house. The problem with AP isn't that it is charging too much -- it is that it is charging too little!
Chattanooga, Tenn.: Steve, I think you nailed the issue in your last sentence. But then, I expect no less from my Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist. Thanks very much for your insights.
Reston, Va.: Do you think the "pack" mentality of many (but of course not all) journalists have contributed to the decline in readership and is reflective of the dumbing down of the news business?
Steven Pearlstein: In a word, yes. Also the disappearance of really sprightly, memorable writing.
Arlington, Va.: It isn't hard to figure out why newspapers are failing in the business sense; they aren't fulfilling their duty: to provide the news. Take the post for example. Over the past three years, just about every week, we get a sob story about illegal immigrants and how we are all mean spirited for enforcing the laws and we are all racists for wanting an orderly immigration process that ensures no violent criminals are roaming our streets. For that, the post calls it reader's racist...of course not in those words. There has never been one story about the costs for health care, incarcerations, and the depression of blue collar wages that illegal immigrants have brought to this area. Not to mention the violent crime. NOT ONE STORY HAS EVER EXPLORED THIS IN THE POST, and this is news. I could give dozens of examples like this. So once again, when newspapers want to get back to reporting news, I will re-subscribe to the post. I canceled mine a year ago.
Steven Pearlstein: I don't think that is true, that we've never covered the costs.
New York, N.Y.: Steve, Why do two prominent public companies in the newspaper business (New York Times & Washington Post) insist on having two classes of common stock that effectively diminish shareholder rights and entrench the Sulzberger & Graham families? I would argue that the press should promote shareholder rights (a form of democracy) instead of being a little insular club. I don't buy for a second the Sulzberger argument that two classes are necessary to preserve the journalistic integrity of the Times. By the most objective measure, stock prices, the Times has been a horrible investment and the Post a very mediocre investment. Just go to the company websites: if you had invested $10,000 in Times stock ten years ago, you'd have about $5,400 today. The Post does somewhat better at about $12,800.
Steven Pearlstein: We have two classes of stock to help prevent what happened to Knight Ridder, which was forced to break apart by shareholders looking to maximize short term returns. For newspapers, which have sometimes conflicting obligations to their communities and their shareholders, that's a pretty good solution. And since investors know that going in, those looking for maximum returns will know to invest in other companies, particularly at a time when the industry is in transition and profits will, of necessity, be very low.
Boston, Mass.: I sit in front of a computer all day, and I read news online all day too. I also value the reporting of MSM outlets far more than blogs, and fully believe their content is worth my money. I never paid NY Times when they "experimented" with premium/paid content. And although the Boston globe's website is absolutely hideous with respect to its editors' highlighting of least-common-denominator stories, I know that the print version is great, yet I don't pay for a subscription because I don't like the idea of recycling extra paper. This is similar to the music industry's problem of getting people to pay for content that can be obtained for free. I have always felt that the solution is the NPR-style pleading and begging for donations. But if there's any road map for these once great media empires to transform to non-profits, well, I'd be shocked, but it's the only solution I see. Alternatively, a micro-payment system could work. I'd be willing to give your column $.05 for every read! (BTW: congrats on the Pulitzer)
Steven Pearlstein: We are coming to that, micropayments. That's the way we will ease into "paying for content," in my opinion.
Arlington, Va.: Steven, did you watch The Wire on HBO at all during it's final season? It's very relevant to the topic of newspapers.
Steven Pearlstein: It surely was relevant. And I hope you agree that top editor and publisher came off looking foolish.
400 papers less than 25,000 circulation: Since I'm from a small Pennsylvania town, I was distressed by your call for more consolidation among small circulation papers. If all those papers shut down and the coverage became more national, would corruption among county commissioners ever be uncovered? Despite urban/suburban people being more sophisticated and learned, local papers here wouldn't sell if they didn't cover high school sports.
Steven Pearlstein: Who said that consolidation would lead to ignoring of local news? Not me, sir. If your paper, for example, were part of the Pittsburgh Free Press, but there were a section with news only of your community written and edited by a local bureau, then you could have the best of both worlds: good local news plus a much better package of national and international news than either your paper, or the Pittsburgh paper, can now offer, because of the efficiencies of scale.
Washington, D.C.: In how many other industries are 20% profit margins considered the norm?
Steven Pearlstein: Profit margins are actually hard to discuss because of the different characteristics of different industries. The oil industry, for example, has very high returns on equity, but a more reasonable profit margin. Pharmaceuticals have high margins and high returns. Software companies can have high margins but low returns. So you have to be careful about talking about profitability in terms of only a single metric when comparing industry to industry.
Middletown, Del.: I am in my mid-30s and feel like I am a dinosaur. My husband and I cannot imagine a day without the paper newspaper at the breakfast table. I don't want to stare at a laptop over my corn flakes. We share the paper with our inquisitive 4-year-old son; he loves to look at the photos (especially a good fire photo). We talk about Obama and Clinton with him. We point out things in the news that he might have been a part of....like coverage of a weekend festival or something that we attended, so he can see "himself" reflected in the paper. He reads Spiderman with his dad each morning. We love newspapers and we are (hopefully) instilling a love in him. I hope there is still a paper paper around when he is my age.
Steven Pearlstein: There may be a newspaper that is automatically downloaded every night onto your computer and printed out on your own printer by the time you wake up. Just one possibility.
Washington, D.C.:"But its not clear to me that the initial strategy was wrong, particularly for a regional paper like the Post, that could only gain a national audience through the web." Additionally, for smaller town papers, their websites are often the only real hub the community has on the web. I'm told that the website of my small hometown paper makes a considerable profit, though whether that's enough for its corporate owner (Gannett) remains to be seen. Gannett, incidentally, has been streamlining the websites of all its papers...I imagine by putting in place a base site that each paper can tinker with on their own. I think the result is somewhat of a disaster.
Steven Pearlstein: In practice, it may be a disaster. But that is a failure of execution, not strategy. Building the foundations and architecture of a good web site is expensive, and that is why Gannett absolutely needs to do that centrally. But in time each newspaper can adapt that architecture and framework to the needs of its readers, with local content. One thing big companies have trouble doing -- and I know this is true of Gannett -- is to know how to get all the advantages of scale and centralization while avoiding the pitfalls, such as you describe. The mucky-mucks at headquarters, perhaps to justify their inflated salaries, feel they have to dictate too much. The best companies are those that learn to resolve those tensions better.
Washington, D.C.:"News executives will often try to justify dumbing down their product, or making it more parochial, by explaining that local coverage is their unique competitive advantage and that readers who want more can always get it somewhere else these days, often for free online." Thank you, thank you for sticking up for all of us loyal newspaper readers who are not soccer moms looking for the peewee schedule. Nothing good ever comes to an industry that says "go look for what you want elsewhere."
Seattle, Wash.: Not to denigrate your colleagues, but where are the next Bob Woodwards, or, rather, what medium are they in? One reason for the falling circulations and lose of actual readership, I think is the decreasing lack of relevance a paper has over internet news services and cable news. Between papers and cable news, there seems to be little difference in the stories they cover at times, little difference in the analysis and even less relevance.
Steven Pearlstein: I agree. Content matters.
Ex-Scribe in D.C.: I used to work for chain-owned small-town papers a quarter-century ago, and I have a hard time believing that a larger chain of small papers would be better for reporters and editors than a locally owned paper. The small papers are still going to hire people for dirt pay and crud benefits, and the young reporters will stay for a year or two and then take off, and the local residents will complain that nobody at the newspaper understands or cares about the town. And the reporters at the bottom of the chain get NO support from their out-of-state masters.
Steven Pearlstein: That may have been the way it worked in many chains, but that is not the model I am suggesting. I'm suggesting consolidation so papers can pay MORE to BETTER reporters and editors who will be affordable because their HIGHER salaries are spread over a larger base of business.
Here's the analogy. Today, the steel industry in the US produces more steel than ever before. But it does so with a fraction of the number of employees, in part because of technology and in part because of consolidation. And those front-line employees make MORE than steelworkers have ever earned (they are also much more highly trained and skilled).
Because reporting and editing are, by their nature, more labor intensive, the reduction in headcount in newsrooms need not be a severe as it was in the steel industry. But I think you get the idea.
Washington, D.C.: Your column today is spot-on, particularly the last graph about newspapers having lost faith in their readers. What can they do to regain trust? And what should the more successful papers, such as USA TODAY, do to build readership?
Steven Pearlstein: I'm glad you mentioned USA Today, because it is a great success story. And let's point to two important aspects of that success. One, Al Neuharth was willing to invest heavily in losses before it finally turned a profit. And two, as a journalistic product it has steadily gotten better and better. The last couple of years there may have been some slippage on that quality improvement as positions were cut. But overall, it is a good example of what you can do by being innovative, trying new things and constantly improving your product to suit the needs and desires of your customers.
Re: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: As a former Little Rock citizen, I can remember when Arkansas had two papers, the Democrat and the Gazette. However the inaptly-named Democrat was run like a for-profit business and focused on short-term profits while the Gazette focused on good local, regional and national coverage. In the end, the Democrat swallowed the Gazette and eliminated the regional and national coverage in favor of AP wires and other papers' stories. Isn't that the not-so-hidden danger behind consolidating smaller papers, that the chorus of voices is lost? And when that happens, won't we see a repeat of the Libby trial where many 'prominent' journalists were revealed to be more press secretaries than investigators?
Steven Pearlstein: Yes, that's a danger. But to say that consolidation can be done badly is not an argument against consolidation. The economic logic of consolidation is overwhelming, in my opinion.
Small Town News: Interesting column--I especially liked your final point. What do you think about the viability of community weeklies? It seems in a lot of the places I've spent time that a weekly would be (obviously) much cheaper to produce, but could also include the really local interest stuff. Local advertisers can afford to be in there, and readers will give you a few minutes once a week for local content.
Steven Pearlstein: There's obviously a market for a weekly, advertising-driven community weekly. Who owns it is an open question. Should that be an insert in the regional daily? Or owned by a chain of similar weeklies? Or can it be independent and achieve efficiency through the use of new technology? Those are open questions.
Washington, D.C.: Steve, why should anybody care what happens to newspapers?
Steven Pearlstein: Maybe that's a good note to end on. "See" you all next week.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein discusses the future of the newspaper business.
| 486.785714 | 0.928571 | 2.785714 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/15/DI2008041502674.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/15/DI2008041502674.html
|
'Escape' from Polygamy
|
2008041619
|
Jessop will also discuss the current situation at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Tex., where authorities raided the compound on April 3 because of a phone call from an unidentified 16-year-old girl who said she had been physically and sexually abused. Police rounded up over 400 children who were placed under the protection of child welfare services. However, there have been allegations of improper treatment of the children and questions of whether Texas officials violated legal statutes.
Alexandria, Va.: Ms. Jessop, you have been an articulate and highly compelling advocate for people trapped in the FLDS and similar communities of abuse. Thank you for writing "Escape."
Why are the Utah authorities so persistently lax in terms of enforcing state laws which nominally prohibit the practices you've described? Is it that the formal FLDS leadership is secretly in sympathy with the plural outcast churches?
Carolyn Jessop: There are accusations of that, I don't know if that's the case. I think that polygamy has been a huge embarrassment for the state of Utah. I think they'd like to deal with it they saw a way to get at the problems. But see, the victims won't speak out that are involved. They defend the perpetrators. That's what's going on in Texas right now.
Washington, D.C.: I heard that a few of the mothers did not return to the compound with the rest of the women. Do you know anything about where they are and whether you think they will not return at all?
Carolyn Jessop: I know that they went to a safe house. All the women were offered that option. As far as them going back to the compound ... sadly that could be a possibility because they don't have any way of surviving in the real world. The women have no life skills.
Charlottesville, Va.: I keep reading about the mothers from the FLDS ranch, but nothing about the fathers. Where are they, and why aren't they asking about their children and standing there with the wives?
Carolyn Jessop: I have the same question and part of it is that they are the perpetrators. What they're putting out to the public now (the women) are their victims. So they're using the women to try to generate sympathy and then if the American public demands that the children be given back to their mothers, they will then get access again to the children. It's just a PR campaign.
These women are being used and that's what it's all about. By men who have committed crimes against them and their children.
Thank goodness you were so brave and got yourself and children out! How is Harrison doing?
If generations of women are born into the sect, how would they ever know there are other opportunities out there?
How do feel about a comment on last night's news that the children may be put up for adoption?
Thank you for talking with us.
Carolyn Jessop: Harrison is doing well, he's walking currently but still has a lot of neurological damage.
They don't know about the world outside. The only world they know is the one they were born into. Highly controlling from the time you get up until the time you go to bed at night, including what you're allowed exposure to. You can't watch TV. There used to be a moderate amount of it. When I was there in Colorado City, Ariz., we did not have access to TV, radio, the Internet, newspapers and movies and anything from outside our community. You lived every day in this little town and could only leave with a man and permission.
A mother absolutely has rights to her children but those rights do not supercede a child's right to safety. If the mother can be rehabilitated and with help, provide that safety, it's my hope she'll be able to stay with her children. That's a big emphasis on if she can provide the safety.
Washington, D.C.: Do you think the Texas authorities did the right thing by separating the mothers (with children older than 5) from their children?
Carolyn Jessop: Yes, I do. The women inside went public with the fact that they had cellphones. I know my ex-husband very well. He sent them in there with a protocol being that they would report back to him everything that was going on. So it's my belief that they used that access to traumatize the kids.
Arlington, Va.: One of the things that has really struck me in the coverage of the young mothers is their elaborate hairstyles. Can you tell me anything about this -- are these everyday styles for women in the community? With everything else on them so plain, why the beautiful hairstyles?
Carolyn Jessop: Everything is so restricted and so controlled if you have one area where you can put a little bit of time into yourself, you do it. It's one of their few outlets. It's so controlled, the dress, no personal expression.
Is it a religion, a cult or a cover for abuse for females?: I ask this question because it appears that the true purpose was to isolate and create a Stepford Wife, pedophile and women with no escape from abuse dream world existence for men.
I cannot imagine how these women and perhaps their children will adapt to really living in the United States without wanting to return to the world they only knew.
Carolyn Jessop: They will want to return to it. For me, when I left (April 22, 2003) it was like landing on another planet.
I was a product of six generations of polygamy. Born, raised and indoctrinated into the FLDS religion and then isolated away from any other life other than what they wanted me to have. Your personal identity is lost. If you're ever given a compliment you're not allowed to accept it or take glory into yourself. So then you are to say it's because of my "priested head," meaning your father or your husband.
To comment on the cult thing ... the FLDS meets the definition of the 10 things that make a cult dangerous and destructive, it contains all 10.
I was married to Merril Jessop who was in charge of the Texas compound for 17 hears and in 15 years of the marriage I had eight children. There are multiple things that made me decide to leave but the two things that I would to whatever it took to escape was the fear that we could go into compounds. Harrison had to daily medical care. If I lost access to medical care for him I knew he would die.
My oldest daughter was turning 14 in a matter of months and Warren Jeffs had reset the age to be married for a woman at 14. So I felt like the worst possible thing that would happen if I tried to escape wasn't going to be as bad as if I willingly stayed. I had nothing to lose.
The rest of this story is in my book "Escape."
Munich, Germany: In comparing your case with immigrants to the U.S. from polygamous cultures, I wonder if brainwashing was more prevalent within your group in order to isolate you from the rest of American society. How do you think that brainwashing could have been applied to you and your children?
Carolyn Jessop: Absolutely we were brainwashed. Over generations of this lifestyle it was not a low level brainwashing. This particular cult have found methods with mind control where they actually use a high level programming method that involves pain to program a person.
Washington, D.C.: Dear Ms. Jessop,
Thank you for taking our questions. What is your day-to-day life like now? Granted, you had an advantage over other FLDS women because you have a college education and a means of making a living, but you had to pretty much start over. How is it going?
Carolyn Jessop: Maybe that's somewhat of an advantage to me. My day to life is better than anything I could have ever imagined life to be. Yes, I did have to start over from the level of bankruptcy. My ex-husband bankrupted me so from a financial place it was pretty difficult in the beginning. But I have something now that I never knew even existed: safety, freedom and hope. And those are priceless to me.
Carolyn Jessop: Regarding daily life, when I'm not doing book promotions I get to spend time with my family, something I've never had. When I lived with Merril he required me to work and so I was isolated away from my children and he had other people responsible for the care of my children and the amount of time I was allowed to spend with them was very limited. My children were not allowed to call me mother or mom, they referred to me as Mother Carolyn. My presence in their life was considered no different than any wife. Now they call me mom.
Life skills?: You said the women are unlikely to leave because they lack life skills. What kinds of skills do you mean and how did you learn these skills when you left?
Carolyn Jessop: A lot of them I didn't have before I left. I learned them after I left. These skills are like how to balance a checking account, how to take child to a doctor's appointment, how to enroll them in school, how to maintain a household. I was clueless at how to pay the bills, how to provide that kind of care for myself and my children.
I went to college in town close to the community and I went with several of my husband's daughters. They monitored everything I did and reported to their dad. I wasn't allowed to work; I was supposed to take a very enormous class load, go to school, and be back so he knew where I was. I never developed relationships with any of the other students because I didn't dare.
Atlanta, Ga.: Could you explain the allegation of taking young men, boys, really, off the compound and dropping them off other cities with no money, skills, etc. Is there any explanation offered to the boys when this happens? What happens to the boys? Is there any explanation for this other than the old guys don't want any competition from the young guys?
Carolyn Jessop: This is true. We have an unofficial count right now of 2,000 boys that have been dumped on the streets of cities and told that the prophet has rejected them; they have no place in the kingdom of God and the family never wants to see them again. Basically they are going to hell, there's no hope for them. They don't survive very well. Once they've been sent away they know they can never come back.
Arlington, Va.: When you were growing up, how aware were you of the world outside the FLDS? What were you told? What kind of a community did you grow up in?
Carolyn Jessop: The community I grew up in was a closed society and had been for generations and because of multiple generations intermarrying, everybody ends up related to everybody. So as a child, any member of that community felt it was their right to discipline me if I strayed from church doctrine.
The outside world was a scary place because I had limited access to it. I was told that everyone were agents of the devil who led ungodly lives and would do anything to destroy the work of God and his children.
Can we help?: Is there any way the average person can help? I've been so struck by how devastating this lifestyle must be.
Carolyn Jessop: There are two foundations right now that are helping the victims: Diversity that's located in Salt Lake City and another one called Hope and Elaine Tyler is in charge of this one located in St. George, Utah.
New Haven, Conn.: I watched three of the women on the Today show this a.m. Did you see them? What did you think? I couldn't decide if they were nervous or scared or if I am simply used to a more polished TV appearance...
Carolyn Jessop: I did see three women today on TV. One of them was a step-daughter of mine. What I'm seeing is that it's scripted. They're saying what they're being told to say by the man (probably Merril Jessop told them what to say). Monica, his daughter, did most of the talking (the one in the middle with red hair and glasses). They seemed that they didn't understand to answer questions that they hadn't been scripted on.
Washington, D.C.: What gave you the courage to escape?
Carolyn Jessop: I was backed up against a wall. It was like jumping over a cliff. I didn't know where I was going to land. I was just at a point where I would rather be dead than live one more day like that. But I was determined that I, as a mother, had eight lives to protect so I was going to do everything I could possibly do to protect them.
After I left, I worked with the state of Utah to write a safe passage grant and there have been a lot of women who have since left the FLDS once a little bit of money was available to give them a chance of a life other than this but we lost the federal money this year. But the Utah Attorney General was able to get the state to fund the safe passage for '08.
But there's not enough help for a woman to survive and get on her feet even with safe passage.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Carolyn Jessop, author of 'Escape,' an autobiography of her upbringing in the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints and flight from it with her eight children, discusses her story and the current situation in Eldorado, Tex.
| 61.840909 | 0.795455 | 1.522727 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041103033.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041103033.html
|
Soccer Insider - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041619
|
Goff covers the D.C. United beat for The Washington Post and writes the Soccer Insider blog for washingtonpost.com.
Steven Goff: Greetings from Estadio RFK. D.C. United has just wrapped up its training session in preparation for tomorrow's match against Columbus. Check the Soccer Insider for important news. Okay, let's go...
Pittsburgh, PA: Any comment on the Henry to Seattle rumors?
Steven Goff: Seattle would love to acquire Henry and Henry seems interested in playing and living in America. From what I hear, the Sounders are serious about pursuing him. Whether Henry is ready to leave Europe is another matter.
Charlottesville, Va.: How many more 4-0 blowouts until we see a second DP? Errr... Use the first one?
Steven Goff: Ouch! Double ouch!
Give Gallardo time before rendering a verdict. He's actually been pretty good, but his salary and background have certainly raised expectations.
DCU does have a second DP slot, but signing another one would be another 325K hit against the salary cap and cost the investors an unknown amount out of their own pockets. I don't think they are prepared for either at the moment.
Alexandria, Va.: In your educated opinion, what year will be the final season that DC United will play its home matches at RFK Stadium (or el Estadio RFK as it were)?
When can we expect to hear if RFK will host a U.S. World Cup Qualifier this fall?
The last chunk of cement will fall in 2013. Or 2023.
Negotiations are in the late stages for a USA World Cup qualifier at RFK this fall. From what I hear, it will probably be the Sept. 10 match against T&T or Bermuda.
Annapolis, Md.: What's going on with Ben Olsen's bad ankles? I read in your blog that he is taking a week off for therapy, but this inability to heal has been going on for quite some time. When do you think we can expect him back out on the pitch? Thanks for your time and response.
Steven Goff: There is another Olsen update on the Soccer Insider.
No timetables. The healing process continues. Don't hold your breath for an imminent return.
Blacksburg, Va.: A year ago, I lost two acquaintances due to the shootings here on campus. I want to offer my sincere gratitude to DC United and The Washington Post staff in helping to raise money for the Virginia Tech Memorial Fund as a junior mechanical engineering major and avid D.C. United fan, watching the black and red wear maroon for a night will be a lasting memory. To The Post staff, keep up the great work.
Steven Goff: Thanks for the kind words.
Our thoughts are with you and Hokie Nation.
Falls Church, VA: Do you reckon the Pope is more a Bundesliga or Serie A fan?
Also, is it true he was inspired by Olsen to name himself Benedict?
Steven Goff: Well done, Falls Church!
I'd imagine the Pope has embraced Serie A (Roma?), but his roots are with the Bundesliga.
Anonymous: I support United's decision to find talent in Latin America rather than Europe. What about Africa though? Is this a talent pool we might be overlooking?
Steven Goff: The top talent from Africa heads directly to Europe, but after seeing the performance this spring by New England's two young Gambians, MLS teams are probably improving their African scouting departments as we speak.
Pittsburgh, PA: How would the elite female players like Abby Wombach fare in MLS or other men's leagues?
Abby is a wonderful player, but not in MLS.
Keep in mind that the U.S. women's national team often scrimmages against men's college teams. The one game I saw a few years back, Virginia's reserves beat them pretty badly.
Denver: Hey, is there any chance of a WC qualifier being played at the great Colorado Rapids stadium? It's a fantastic venue...
Thanks for the great news; the Denver Post leaves much to be desired....
Steven Goff: Denver makes perfect sense -- great stadium, a bit of altitude to mess with the opponent, a different city. We'll see. The USSF is close to finalizing deals for the three qualifiers this fall. RFK and Home Depot Center seem certain, perhaps Denver gets the other match.
Atlanta: I've recently received an email from D.C. United that says that securing a jersey sponsorship this season is a very high priority. Any news on this front?
Steven Goff: True, it is a very high priority. Generating revenue is always a high priority. The club has been in serious negotiations with a foreign automaker, but at last check, no deal was imminent.
Camp Nou, Spain: Do you think Tom Soehn's decision to rest Gallardo & Co and the short term embarrassment of a 4-0 loss to RSL will pay larger dividends at the end of the MLS season, especially during the MLS Cup? DC often looked tired and beat up come playoff time under Nowak.
Steven Goff: Terrible result in the short term, likely to be forgotten by July. Soehn has to manage minutes during these hectic stretches. He certainly expected more from his lineup Saturday. That said, I wonder about some of the decisions (Carvallo's debut at RSL, Mediate at left back, etc)
Rocko: Do you think when we are at full strength we are going to back to three in the back line on a permanent basis?
Thanks for doing these chats.
Steven Goff: Depends on the situation. Unlike last year, Soehn is comfortable switching to a three-man backline when necessary. We saw it against Pachuca and it worked out well. We saw it Saturday at RSL and it was a disaster. We'll probably see it again tomorrow. However, the four-man line of Burch, Martinez, Peralta and Namoff seems ideal.
Foggy Bottom, The District: After comments made by both Tom Soehn and Dom Kinnear, any chance the commish will reconsider the absurd scheduling in MLS? Both United and Dynamo have taken considerable hits early on because of CCC play (seriously, 4-0 to RSL??) and Superliga is on the horizon for the summer...
Steven Goff: Interesting that MLS cleared the schedule for teams competing this summer in SuperLiga -- an event they helped organize -- but provided no assistance for the more important Champions League. The coaches are absolutely right: You either have to reduce the number of games before and during these major tournaments or provide teams the means to improve their rosters -- deep rosters that can endure busy stretches.
Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.: Do you expect to see the best available U.S. team vs England, Spain and Argentina?
Or will Bradley ignore FIFA directives on international dates and defer to clubs, as he has done recently??
Steven Goff: Euro club seasons are done by mid-May, right? So that should not be a conflict. The balancing act with MLS will begin, but given the prominence of the opponents and World Cup qualifying approaching, you will see a very strong U.S. roster.
I found your double use of that word in today's chat to be interesting.
Perhaps Olsen's slow healing process and the failure for DC United to get a shirt sponsor are somehow strangely related to one another.
Steven Goff: Clever, ain't I?
Silver Spring: I realize that MLS often does things without alot of transparency but do you think there is any truth the the allegations that the Galaxy's early season schedule was rigged to give them easy games and to puff them up with some early wins? Obviously it hasn't worked but many seem to think that the Galaxy get special treatment from the league.
Steven Goff: What about D.C. United playing Real Salt Lake twice and Toronto three times before Memorial Day? On paper, that's a nice schedule. Of course, Saturday's result at RSL undermined that theory.
Who Does the Pope Support?: Actually, the Vatican has a national team (no lie). They're very good on crosses.
Steven Goff: Another example of why the Soccer Insider and these chats have the finest audience in cyberspace.
Falls Church, Va.: Some of the new soccer-specific stadiums being built seat fewer than 20,000. I know this is realistic for the present, but is it easy to add more seats to these? Do you know if they're being built with possible expansion in mind?
Steven Goff:20,000 is about right for most MLS markets. The smaller capacity also creates demand. Not sure if stadium expansion is possible at these stadiums, but it's not a top concern as long as average attendance remains in the mid-teens.
NYC: Who is your starting XI for the USMNT in South Africa in 2010?
Steven Goff: At this point, that's a tough one.
Howard in goal. Onyewu and Bocanegra in the back. Dempsey, Bradley, Donovan, Beasley (if he fully recovers), Altidore, Cherundolo, maybe Adu, Edu, Spector, Clark, Conrad, Pearce...
Sorry, I need more time!
Falls Church, VA: How much of a concern is it to MLS that the Dallas and Chicago stadiums are so far from downtown?
Steven Goff: I don't think it is a concern to MLS; they just want new stadiums that will generate revenue for their clubs, and with the suburbs booming, the audience is out there. From a fan's perspective, however, city stadiums are better -- atmosphere, ambiance, public transportation, etc.
Kernersville, NC: Any news on filling the other DP? Why have it if you dont use it?
Steven Goff: DCU is saving it for a rainy day -- if the roster needs an upgrade this summer, if the club wants to upgrade Emilio's contract, if they want to use it as trade bait.
Washington, DC: Can MLS afford to raise the salary cap in the neighborhood of $500,000 in the next year or two? If so, will it. As a fan this sounds like great idea but I wonder if the league needs to grow and become more robust over a few more years before inching up the pay scale vis a vis Mexican and other international teams.
Steven Goff: Mexico has one of the highest-paying leagues in the world, so it's going to be a while before MLS reaches that level. The cap needs to go up, no doubt, but the league and its investors have always preached a slow-growth approach.
FC Woodbridge: Do you see Michael Bradley heading to England once the transfer window opens?
Steven Goff: I'd imagine Bradley will head somewhere this summer -- England or Germany would be my guess.
Bethesda, Md.: Why is it that it takes United so long to figure out a jersey sponsor and a stadium deal, when other teams such as the Columbus Crew who have never won a trophy have both. It just doesn't make sense since D.C. is the preeminent club in MLS. How many more years are we going to have wait for this god forsaken stadium issue to be resolved. From a fan's perspective it is quite irritating. Thank you.
Steven Goff: Every situation is different.
If DCU wanted a new stadium right now, they could start building in suburbs. They don't. They'd prefer to be in the city and until those negotiations are exhausted, they are not going to commit to PG County.
Business negotiations take time. DCU will have a jersey sponsor soon enough. Other than the revenue to the club, I don't understand why fans are so obsessed with it. Does it really matter what corporate logo is splatted on the uniform?
Washington: Any reader who uses the phrase "USMNT" should be banned.
Steven Goff: The USMNT will play at RFK Stadium this fall. The USWNT will play at RFK next month. There, I said it!
Who, other than the USSF, uses those abbreviations?
Brasil, DC: Is Emilio angry about not getting DP money? Is that why he came to camp out of shape and isn't as sharp this year?
Steven Goff: Angry? No. He signed a contract. If he has another good year, the club will give him a new deal. As for his performance, it's early. Patience.
Kernersville, N.C.: I'm concerned with the team's speed (or lack there of). Between Gallardo, Emilio and an aging Moreno we're not the quickest bunch on the break. Only Fred is a true threat on the break, he's probably quicker with the ball than most of the rest of the team without it. Any chance we get any younger or quicker acquisitions?
Steven Goff: Kirk has some wheels but is not ready for regular time. At some point this summer, if the club feels lack of quickness is an issue, they'll pursue new players. Right now, what you see is what you get.
Arlington, Va.: I think MLS does a lot of weird things that seem to help LA and NY (and many would say DC), but this question about scheduling is pretty silly. You never really know which teams are going to be very good at any particular time. My question would be why does KC get to play all of their games at home? The MLS schedule NEVER makes any sense. It will be nice once we get to enough teams that it's a straight home and away, play everybody twice. And when there aren't a lot of stadium conflicts that will be good too. That should cut down on some of the weirdness.
Steven Goff: Very good point. Thanks!
Baltimore: Is it true that San Jose has a stadium deal done? Is Houston closer to getting a deal done? Is KC's stadium a done deal as well? If so, by 2010 only NE, DC, and Seattle will be playing in big football stadiums.
Steven Goff: San Jose is making progress to build near the airport. Kansas City will spend two years in the small baseball park before opening a new facility. RSL gets a new stadium late this season or next spring (depending on construction progress). New York has broken ground. Not sure the status of Houston's project. New England is in no hurry because the investors, the Kraft family, run the NFL stadium in Foxborough. Seattle will be at Qwest for the foreseeable future. Philly has plans. That leaves...
Steven Goff: We play 60 minutes here on the chat -- wish I could go 90 -- and the referee has blown his whistle. Adios!
Don't forget to visit the Soccer Insider regularly.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post soccer writer Steven Goff chats about D.C. United and other soccer topics.
| 197.333333 | 0.866667 | 1.666667 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041103034.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041103034.html
|
Washington Nationals
|
2008041619
|
Svrluga covers the Nationals beat for The Post and writes the Nationals Journal blog for washingtonpost.com. He's also the author of "National Pastime: Sports, Politics, and the Return of Baseball to Washington, D.C."
Barry Svrluga: Hello, folks, from sunny Shea Stadium in Flushing, Queens, New York City, New York, USA. Citi Field tantalizes us beyond the left and center field walls here. Looks like it's going to be a nice yard. Now, if they could just do something about all those auto body shops nearby.
Many topcis to discuss today. Not many of them positive, I suppose. Thanks for stopping by. Happy to answer whatever's on your mind. Let's go.
Calvert Street: In your expert opinion, what percentage chance would you put on Jesus Flores being brought up to the majors as the starting catcher this year? It seems that the chances look better and better with each AB from Estrada and Lo Duca.
Barry Svrluga: I understand two things about this situation: The fans' desire to have Flores play in the majors, and the Nationals' desire to have him develop in the minors.
Let's keep something in mind about Flores. Though he went 4 for 11 with a homer in his brief stint here this year -- making him among the most productive Nationals -- he hit .244 with a .310 OBP and .361 slugging percentage in 2007, when he had to be in the majors because he was a Rule 5 pick.
Think of the catching situation in two parts. This season, Lu Duca and Estrada hold down the fort. But they're both on one-year contracts, and you likely won't have to worry about them at this time in 2009. If Flores's season at Class AAA Columbus goes as expected, he'll take over full-time next season.
Do you know if The Pope will be doing any exorcising while at the Nationals Park? There's just one thing that I'd like this team to lose, and that's the demons that demean them ... so they can play up to their full potential.
Barry Svrluga: Anyone have the pope's e-mail? I was thinking I'd hit him on his Blackberry while he was dressing in Manny Acta's office so he could perform such an exorcism.
Burke, Va.: What do we have to do to get a real hitting coach?
Does he emphasize working with players on mechanics, or emphasizing their approach at the plate? It seems like everyone's getting worse with respect to both of those.
Do you think he has a firm graps on the job? If he were to go, would we get another Reds retread? Do you have Chris Sabo's contact info?
Barry Svrluga: Sabo, I believe, can be reached at chris@spudsmckenzie.com.
This is an interesting question, and I've dealt with it from time-to-time since Lenny Harris took over for Mitchell Page last May. Page would almost certainly still be the hitting coach if he hadn't run into his share of personal problems. He's now out of baseball.
Harris was thrust into this position. He had never served at a hitting coach at any level, and he had to learn on the fly. His approach is much more mental than physical. He wants guys to stay relaxed and keep things simple. Page was much more technical, spending hours in the cage. Last year, when Harris took over, the Nationals were actually more productive. But I don't think there's a direct correlation between the two. Harris will be under some scrutiny until -- and if -- the Nationals' hitters turn it around.
Whither Will, IE: At some point Dukes and Dmitri will be back. That has to spell the end of Willie Harris, right?
Barry Svrluga: I think the guy who's in the most danger right now is Rob Mackowiak. He is 0 for 10 and is not giving them quality at-bats off the bench. He is, unfortunately, guaranteed $1.5 million. Ouch.
Keep in mind what's said around here a lot, though: A lot can happen between now and when those guys come back.
Needham, Mass.: Will Jim Bowden continue to be patient with the current play of the Nationals?
Barry Svrluga: Jim Bowden is not, by nature, a patient man. We already saw an example of that. Wily Mo Pena was supposed to play four or five games at Class AAA Columbus on his rehabilitation assignment. But after a 10-2 loss to the Braves on Saturday, Bowden had seen enough listless play and yanked Pena up for Sunday's game against the Braves. He doesn't have his timing yet, and it almost killed the Nationals that day because WMP went 0 for 4 with three strikeouts and a grounded-into-double play, not to mention dropping a fly ball.
That said, Bowden's got this situation in his long view, too. He believes that this team could win more than it loses, and so he's disappointed. But he also knows that getting into contention is a year or so away.
Capitol Hill: I'm not panicking; I know the Nats won't be this bad all season. But it does make me wonder; how many seasons until they're actually good?
Barry Svrluga: This is part of a broader discussion, but remember, they're trying to collect pieces that will be part of a potential winner in years to come. They believe they have such parts in Zimmerman (despite a really slow start), Milledge, Flores, perhaps Dukes or Pena, Detwiler, Lannan, perhaps a Balester or a Chico, and Marrero.
So then it depends on how quickly they can fill in the other spots, particularly the middle infield. If they are truly committed to increasing payroll in the next two offseasons, then they can fill those holes quickly. If not, well, then, there'll be some questions to answer.
I was out of the country for about 10 days. When I left, the Nats were 3-0. Now they are 3-10. What the &@-%- happened?!
Barry Svrluga: Ah, thank goodness. We finally figured it out.
You left the country. Welcome back. Problem solved.
Vatican: I'm trying to understand American Baseball. When the bases were loaded with Nationals last night and Zimmerman popped up, the ump called the infield fly rule. At the instant the ump called it, was Zimmerman out? Could the runners then advance?
Barry Svrluga: Yes. The batter is out, and the runners advance at their own risk.
Washington, D.C.: Which is more troubling -- the Nats leaving 19 on in a 6-0 loss, or the Mets leaving 18 on in a 6-0 win?
Barry Svrluga: Both would be tremendously troubling. But last night, the Nationals left nine, the Mets left 10. Not sure where your numbers came from.
Navy Yard: Forgive me if I missed something, but whatever happened to the story that is Nick Johnson's hair?? Weren't we supposed to get a picture of the lightning bolt?
Barry Svrluga: My goodness I forgot. Nick indeed e-mailed me a photo of the hair, and I have it somewhere. I'll have to figure out how to paste it into Nationals Journal.
Unfortunately, it's growing back to normal now.
Washington, D.C.: Here we go again: Poor attendance and last place in the NL East. What are the bright spots for the Nats?
Barry Svrluga: Someone looking for the sunny side. Let's see.
I'd say the play of Lastings Milledge -- at least at the plate -- has been good. I think he's made some curious decisions on the basepaths and he had that horrific lazy play in the outfield against the Braves on Saturday. But the kid can hit. He's impressive. I think his baseball smarts will probably improve, too.
Cristian Guzman is hitting .333. Let me repeat: Cristian Guzman is hitting .333. No, he's not walking. But particularly from the right side, the guy is driving the ball.
We'll get another glimpse tonight at Matt Chico, but his new mechanics make him far more intriguing.
Nick Johnson's OBP is a very Johnsonian .420.
And Saul Rivera has been really really good.
That would be about it.
Wilmington, N.C.: We are still waiting on Shawn Hill. Is he ever going to have his 26th Major League game in 4 years or is it about time we John Patterson him? He isn't winning us much on the DL.
Barry Svrluga: Hill is tentatively scheduled to start on Saturday in Florida. I'm willing to give him a chance to pitch this year. He really is effective almost every time he goes out there. He just hasn't been out there enough.
I do not believe the club is close to pulling a John Patterson on him. Remember, Patterson was released only after he said he was healthy, but the results -- velocity, etc. -- weren't there. He's still pitching in the Rangers' extended spring training program, still trying to build arm strength.
I understand being a bit frustrated with Hill. But let's talk after Saturday's game and see where we are.
Sec 314: Now that Nick Johnson is back and hitting well (and making contact most of the time), has any thought been given to moving him up to the No. 3 spot in the order? Even when Zimm is not slumping, he doesn't make contact or draw walks the way NJ does.
Barry Svrluga: I was talking about this with Mark Zuckerman of The Washington Times last night, and lineup changes in general are worth bouncing off Manny Acta.
Moving Johnson up is certainly intriguing, because with Guzman and Milledge getting on base at a reasonable rate, it'd put the Nationals' most polished hitter behind them, whether to drive them in or draw walks to bring up Zimmerman.
But let me anticipate Acta's potential answer here. Johnson is the lineup's only true left-handed hitter. Hitting him fourth between two right-handed hitters -- Zimmerman and Kearns (or, perhaps, Pena if Kearns is moved down) -- offers some balance. If you move Johnson up, then you'd go Zimmerman, Kearns, Pena, Lo Duca, Belliard -- right-handed hitters all.
Washington, D.C.: Barry, can you enlighten us on Lo Duca? How well is he communicating with the pitchers, starting and relief? Is it possible to tell to what extent the Nats' pitching is influenced by him, for better or worse? How well is he calling games? How is he getting along with the team in general? Thanks.
Barry Svrluga: Game calling, to me, is so nuanced that I have a tough time analyzing it. I've always tried to rely on others -- Frank Robinson, Randy St. Claire, Bob Boone, etc. -- who might help keep me better informed. I tried to talk to the entire pitching staff about Schneider's abilities in this regard, both when he was here and after he left. They seem to believe he was good at this.
But let's break it down this way. The Nationals have a pitching plan they go over before every series and before every game with the starter. The catcher is involved in these meetings -- heavily.
The most striking thing in this area came on Saturday, when John Lannan watched lots of video with St. Claire after his poor outing. He said afterward that he got away from the pitching plan, and he was upset about that. I asked, "Hey, aren't there two people involved in calling the game -- you and the catcher." Lannan is young and certainly didn't want to chastise a 36-year-old veteran. But I'll ask more about this.
Not sure Lo Duca will be back behind the plate tonight anyway, what with his bruised hand.
Silver Spring, Md.: What happened to the minors notebook? How are our prospects doing?
Barry Svrluga: Should have been a minors notebook in today's $.35/.$50-edition. Featured Mike O'Connor, who is off to a fine start for Class AAA Columbus (16 strikeouts in 16 innings).
I'll see about making sure those things get online.
Minneapolis: Forgive me if this has been addressed already. Between MLB Extra Innings and the audio feeds, I've yet to hear anyone explain why Nick Johnson isn't wearing the high socks this year. Bad karma?
Barry Svrluga: I'll ask. That's a good point.
Section 409: Plenty of good seats still available! Come on down! Only $33 to sit in the second level by the foul pole, only $47 to sit in the red seats in left-center!
Any talk from the front office about slashing prices or offering special deals so the outfield seats aren't so barren?
Barry Svrluga: The most striking section of empty seats is probably beyond the Nationals' bullpen in right, which must be over-priced. Boswell wrote a column about pricing before the park opened, and Stan Kasten said something to the effect of, "Talk to me in a year," when the club would have a better idea of what seats moved and what didn't.
Nats Fan in K.C.: Barry - I heard Boz talking on the radio about how attendance is up the usual 35-40 percent that you would expect with a new ball park. So... is the attendance a doom-and-gloom story or a more positive one?
Barry Svrluga: I think it's a wait-and-see story myself, but one with many check-ins -- like the one we did the other day.
What we know: New ballparks themselves aren't enough to draw three million fans. The product must be good. As Mark Lerner said in my story the other day, "We need to field the right team." He believes they eventually will.
Washington, D.C.: Please, please, please tell me the Nationals front office is very unhappy with Austin Kearns to the point where they are looking to put a healthy Elijah Dukes or a Justin Maxwell or a hologram of Ryan Church out in RF. Yeah he hustles, but that's the only thing he's good at. He can't hit with runners in scoring position. He has holes in his swing.
I, along with 99 percent of the Nats fan base, am tired of hearing Bob Carpenter, Jim Bowden and every other Nationals employee state "we can't wait for the day when Kearns breaks out" or "if you're an opposing manager, you don't want Kearns up with bases loaded." His break out is not going to happen and he won't come through in the clutch.
Let's say goodbye to AK. Thanks Barry.
Barry Svrluga: This is more than a reasonable point. I remember talking to Barry Larkin -- I believe it was last spring -- about Kearns, with whome he played in Cincinnati. Larkin's point was exactly that: Let's not heap expectations on a guy that has enough major league at-bats that we know who he is.
Do I think Kearns is a .300 hitter who will hit 30-35 homers? I do not. His record doesn't show that. Do I think he's a .217 hitter who simply can't drive in runs? I do not. His record doesn't show that, either.
Kearns is in a funk right now, no question. The inability of he and Zimmerman to drive in runs is really hurting the offense.
All things remaining equal, what do you forsee being the Nats' lineup in 3 years? 5 years?
Barry Svrluga: All things remaining equal? Not sure what that means. But I'll try to answer at least the three-year part, which would mean the 2011 season.
2B -- Person Not in Organization
SS -- Person Not in Organization
CF -- Lastings Milledge (though he could move to a corner spot)
RF -- Person Not in Organization
SP -- 3 Guys Not in Organization
Closer -- Person Not in Organization
Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Since Austin Kearns only does one thing well (walking) and Cristian Guzman is leading the team in slugging, why not switch their spots? Kearns sure does a mean Wilkerson impersonation at the plate.
Barry Svrluga: Kearns as Wilkerson. I kinda like that. They're both from Kentucky.
I'll roll out that Guzman/Kearns flip-flop for Acta. Then I'll wait for the laughter to subside, and we'll move on.
Lastings Milledge looks like a solid offensive player, but his defense seems adventurous to say the least.
Based on an admittedly small sample size, would you assess his problem(s) in center as mechanical or mental? Do you feel that these problem(s) will work themselves out as he matures as a player?
Barry Svrluga: That's an excellent question. When the Nationals traded for Milledge, I called a scout who believed Milledge could play center. But I had many other people say they doubted it. In a way -- and I'm not trying to scare anybody here -- he kind of moves like Preston Wilson out there. Remember how Wilson's head bobbed up and down when he ran in the outfield? That's kind of what Milledge does. It's hard to track the ball that way.
The best center fielders/outfielders run smoothly, keeping their heads still, so they can see the ball more clearly. Think Torii Hunter or Ken Griffey Jr. I'm not sure Milledge can fundamentally change the way he runs.
With Kearns off to something of a shaky defensive start in right, too, and Pena a sub-par defender in left, the Nationals' outfield is a bit porous at the moment.
Metro Center: You left Chad off the roster of the future. That's just wrong!
Barry Svrluga: Oh, that must have been a mistake.
Wait. No it wasn't. We're talking three years from now. You know how many current Nationals were on the 2005 roster? That would be Cordero, Ayala, Rauch, Zimmerman (at the end), Nick Johnson and Guzman. That's a pretty good turnover.
French Lick, In.: On your soon to be award winning blog, you said that FLop "looked lost."
That's a bit of a loaded term and one that's open for interpretation. What did you mean by it?
If Belliard continues to slump, do you think he could get a shot at second?
Barry Svrluga: Oh, I think Lopez could definitely get some at-bats at second -- or even again in left, or to spell Guzman at short.
When I said he looked lost, I just meant the quality of his at-bats are not very good. It looks like he's trying to feel his way through. He's used to getting four at-bats a day, and if he's in a slump, he could work through it knowing he would get lots of opportunities. Now, each at-bat is magnified because he doesn't know when the next one will come.
from the $10 seats: Hello Barry; Ryan Zimmerman is now 1 for 17 with runners in scoring position and he's suppose to be the face of this team. Don't you think this face needs some plastic surgery?
Barry Svrluga: Nah, I think he'll be all right. Keep this in mind: Through April 16, 2006 -- Zimmerman's rookie season -- he was hitting .204 with one homer and six RBI. He ended up at .287 with 110 RBI that year.
We're quick to get on him because he's the face of the franchise, the most important hitter. But perhaps his approach is right: "It's a long season."
Re: Lineup suggestions to Acta: Don't you mean laughter and an "Are you serious?!" Has Acta's demeanor toward media evolved since he first came on board as manager, or has he remained pretty even-keeled and in step with his original starting demeanor?
Barry Svrluga: He's very even-keeled. He is, though, also very aware of the MASN television camera. I was talking to him about it yesterday. He's worried about how he comes across on TV sometimes. I'd like MASN to just ask its questions and then shut down the TV. Sometimes, Acta comes across as snapping when he's not.
But this much is clear: He reads almost everything that's written about the team, and is aware of how he and the club are perceived. It's important to him.
Hmmm...:"You know how many current Nationals were on the 2005 roster? That would be Cordero, Ayala, Rauch, Zimmerman (at the end), Nick Johnson and Guzman."
Wow, you just named all the good Nats.
Barry Svrluga: Funny how that works. Perhaps some of the good players will still be here in 2011.
Washington, D.C.: I'm looking at all the hyped pitching prospects in the Nats pipeline: Balester, Clippard, Detwiler, Hinckley, Lannan, O'Connor, McGeary, Mock, Smoker. What is the typical percentage of hyped prospects who pan out in the end, and which of these ones do you think are most likely to emerge as front-line (or at least legitimate) Major League starters?
Thanks! I love the chats!
Barry Svrluga: Funny you asked that while I'm here at Shea Stadium, where the current Mets rotation of Bill Pulsipher, Paul Wilson and Jason Isringhausen all came up together and developed into complete studs ...
... wait. That's not how it worked.
Here's the thing about having a deep farm system. The Nationals, in the past, were hoping that the one decent prospect they had would come through. The reality is you have to have five or eight prospects that you're excited about to get one that truly comes through as a star/above-average major leaguer.
The Nats took those three lefties -- Detwiler, Smoker and McGeary -- in last year's draft. I think people in the organization would be shocked if all three were stud members of the team's rotation in five years. One? They certainly would expect that. Two would be a bonus. But all three is all but unheard of.
I'm interested in your perspective on the start of this year relative to last years 9-25 start. Are we seeing the same thing? A team that will start slow and warm up enough to play .500 ball thereafter, ultimately ending up several games under .500 at the end of the season?
Barry Svrluga: This is a good perspective. The 9-25 start last year didn't feature a nine-game losing streak (although they did lose eight in a row). But it was simply dreadful. They were getting beat in the first inning every night, and there simply was no hope.
This start has featured a few really bad games, most notably the 10-2 loss to the Braves on Saturday. But I think, in general, there's more hope. The starting pitching is a bit better. Don't forget that Odalis Perez pitched decently last night. Chico went eight innings last time. Hill might actually pitch. Bergmann, who's stuff is as good as most in the rotation, could fix himself.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture. But man, last year's start was just abominable.
Minneapolis: How do I go about getting my copy of "National Pastime" signed when I'm in town next week? (I'm assuming you won't be on the beat any longer when the Nats come up here in June.)
Barry Svrluga: Hmmmm. Interesting query. E-mail me before you come. I could wait down on the field before the game or some such thing.
Downtown: Even if the team is a few years away from contending, what are the chances that there will be a respectable season ticket holder base left by that point?
Already, the glitz of the new stadium has worn off for me, and I intend on dropping my full season plan this year. I know others have been tossing around similar thoughts. Simply put, my unoffical polling of those in and around my section in the dugout box indicates that many people hung around for the new stadium, but the product on the field is so poor and boring to watch that it is just better to buy single game seats off stubhub rather than trying to convince ourselves to watch the same results 81 times each year.
Barry Svrluga: As I've said many times before, this is the risk of a slow-building process. I think it's one the Nationals understand, a risk they're willing to take. They believe that folks like you will return if/when they win. I keep coming back to the whole "We'll get the attendance we deserve" line from Kasten. They're experiencing that now. If they win, maybe that line will still be true.
Nationals Offense: Have you seen me? Where am I? I am waiting to hear "a click" according to Manny Acta. Then I am going to really cut loose. Can I do anything to get me started rather than waiting for this "click"?
Barry Svrluga: I just walked the concourses here at Shea looking for you. I did not see you. I will continue the search, starting in the visitors' clubhouse.
Section 304: I hate that the Nats have Paul LoDuca. I mean, despise, want to get rid off, would like to see dropped into the Anacostia, hate.
I am being told that this is irrational and he's not THAT bad.
Barry, be Solomon here? Am I right? (And if not, would you propose cutting LoDuca in half to settle it? That would solve my problem.)
Barry Svrluga: Yikes. Them's some strong words.
I don't think he's that bad. His record doesn't suggest it. He has, like many of the Nationals, gotten off to a slow start. He's well aware of that and isn't kidding himself about it. I'd be shocked if the guy didn't hit .270-.290 this year.
Washington, D.C.: How hypocritical are the Nats to fire Page -- who has had his share of personal problems -- but to build a team around roid-using cheaters, miscreat rappers, and a guy who beats up women whom he has impregnated?
Regardless, it is clear to me that these are the Nats we thought we would see last year, and these are the Nats we expected sans the RFK pitching advantage. Do we now realize that our hitters aren't good, regardless, and our pitchers aren't good in a real ballpark?
Barry Svrluga: Here's what I would say is the difference:
When the Nationals first hired Page in 2005, they had a no-tolerance policy because he had been let go by the Cardinals after the 2004 season because of alcohol problems. The Nationals worked with Page, but it didn't work out.
The Nationals have been up-front in their discussions about Dukes. The problem would come if he starts creating problems or has more off-field issues, yet the Nationals hang onto him. That's not what we've been told they'd do. But thus far, no problems.
As for Lo Duca, keep in mind the Nationals signed Lo Duca three days before the Mitchell Report was released. They certainly would have liked to know.
Your point about the ballparks: I'm still trying to get a feel for how Nationals Park will play. It's certainly not a hitters' park, though.
N. Bethesda, Md.: Why aren't you as smitten with Justin Maxwell as the rest of us here?
Barry Svrluga: I'm not sure. I think perhaps I should be. I believe he'll strike out a lot, though who knows? He definitely has power, and he's got a great attitude, too. Maybe I just have a mental block that won't allow me to believe he'll be a star.
Litany of Disappointments: Could't pick one or two to focus on so as to submit prechat, but the early discussion has helped. Also gave me a positive thought.
Gripe--when does it dawn on Kasten and the Lerners that we shouldn't be talking about Bowden being impatient, but why in the blazes is he still the GM? He should have been dismissed the day the Lerners took over from MLB.
Positive--The New Orleans Saints suffered through many, many terrible years. A papal youth rally and a visit from Mother Theresa (both at the Dome) were widely credited with contributing to the breaking of the curses and the first winning seasons and playoff appearances back in the late '80s. Maybe better times are closer than we think.
Secondary Positive thought--although they haven't done much yet, I do believe the return of both Chief and WMP will help bring the situation back to where we all want it to be. Hard to admit that I no longer number WMP as a JimBo mistake, but he showed a lot after arriving last year.
Barry Svrluga: I'll just let these stand.
langhorne: I haven't heard a Meat Hook update in a while. Another few weeks?
Barry Svrluga: Perhaps, yes. They're trying to get the pain in the back to subside, and it hasn't worked yet. No timetable for him to resume baseball activities -- i.e., taking grounders, hitting, etc.
Wilmington, N.C.: Can Alex Ovechkin throw a curveball? Maybe after he is done on the ice he can come pitch for the Nats. He'd be like a Russian Bo Jackson!
Barry Svrluga: At this point, I'd be more interested in Alex Ovechkin ... hmm, I don't know ... scoring a goal than throwing a curveball.
Dunn Loring, Va.: How do you like the Shirley Povich Media Center at Nationals Stadium? And is there a picture of Mr. Povich or a plaque? Do out-of-town reporters know why the press box was given his name? I grew up reading This Morning every morning.
Barry Svrluga: I've hired a sherpa to help me make the trip up there each night, and he's given me tips on how to breathe in thinner air, etc.
Actually, no, it's just fine. The workspace is quite nice. One of the windows shattered on Opening Night -- they slide into place, and the workers slid two into each other, and it spider-webbed. But overall, it's good. And yes, there are lots of pictures of Mr. Povich -- who I never met, unfortunately. It was a nice gesture to name it after him.
Chris Marrero: Barry, I believe it was your colleague, Sheinin, who said he wouldn't be surprised to see the Nats trade Nick Johnson this year because they've got Marrero on the way. Do they really think he'll be ready for the bigs next year? Wouldn't it be wiser to keep Johnson for at least one more year?
Barry Svrluga: No, I think Marrero won't be really ready for the majors until 2010 -- the year after Johnson's contract is up. I think the more significant part of Sheinin's point -- or perhaps it was mine, because I've made it before -- is that the Nationals would have to consider offers for Johnson if real prospects or pitching was offered in return because I don't believe they consider Nick a real part of the future, if the future is after 2009.
New York, N.Y.: What do you think about Wily Mo Pena's defense? I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I was at Shea last night (I'm a relatively new Nats fan, only my fifth time seeing them) and left the game disappointed. It just seems like a gaping liability in left field.
Barry Svrluga: Let's be clear: He's not here for his defense. It is, in fact, substandard. I don't think those plays last night are made by an average left fielder. It'd take a really good one to snare the balls that became Jose Reyes's triple or David Wright's homer. The Nationals need Pena to hit. If he does, he'll offset his defense.
Barry Svrluga: Folks, we're out of time here at Shea. Thanks for stopping by, and sorry I didn't get to all the questions. Next week's chat will come after this eight-game road trip and prior to a nice little stretch at home, in Nationals Park.
Enjoy tonight's game. Keep checking in for updates on Nationals Journal. I'll talk to you here next week.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 161.04878 | 0.609756 | 0.853659 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/identity_theft_smash_grab_ceo.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/identity_theft_smash_grab_ceo.html
|
Identity Theft Smash & Grab, CEO Style
|
2008041619
|
Tens of thousands of corporate executives were the target of a series of identity-theft scams this week, e-mail-borne schemes that appear to have netted close to 2,000 victims so far.
Early Monday morning, according to two security experts with firsthand knowledge of the attacks, nearly 20,000 executives received an e-mail purporting to be a subpoena ordering each recipient to appear in court for legal violations leveled against their company. The messages addressed each executive by name, and included their phone number and the name of their company.
Recipients who clicked the link were brought to a Web page that claimed they needed to install a Web browser add-on in order to view the subpoena. Those who agreed were shown an Adobe PDF document that referenced a lawsuit filed in a California district court.
The "add-on" in question was a component designed to steal usernames and passwords when the victim subsequently visited an online bank site or other page that requires those credentials (the malicious add-on only installed for users visiting the site with Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser). Approximately half of the recipients of the e-mail messages were executives at major financial institutions.
These types of targeted attacks are hardly uncommon, as cyber crime has grown more sophisticated and criminals more successful in stealing money from average home Internet users and businesses. But what distinguishes this week's attacks is that they have been hugely successful even though the methods employed by the cyber criminals directing them rank near the bottom of the scale in terms of sophistication and stealth.
According to Matt Richard, director of rapid response for iDefense (a unit of Verisign Inc. that works closely with financial institutions to limit losses from cyber fraud), the thieves behind this scam clearly hoped that victims would log into their bank accounts after infecting their systems with the malicious add-on. If they did, Richard said, the thieves would be able to snatch those banking credentials and quickly try to access the victim's bank account and siphon off as much money as possible.
Richard said the group responsible for this attack is based in Romania and is thought to have masterminded nearly two dozen similar attacks over the past year that netted the group millions of dollars. The same group is thought to be responsible for stealing $188,000 from a single victim in a similar attack featured as a case study in a confidential report from the Federal Deposit Security Corporation that Security Fix reported on in February.
These particular Romania-based scammers favor surprise over stealth, Richard said. The e-mail Trojan horse embedded in the fake federal case record consists of cut-and-paste type exploits that probably should be routinely detected by most anti-virus products, but for whatever reason in this case were not. Only eight of some 35 anti-virus products on the market today detected the code sent in the e-mails as malicious, and noticeably absent from the list of those who did detect it were the major anti-virus vendors -- including McAfee, Symantec and Trend Micro (Richard said Microsoft's anti-virus solution is almost alone in consistently detecting this group's malware).
"These guys figure their attack -- from infection to stealing the money -- has to happen quickly, all in one day," Richard said. "The code they're using is as simple as Windows Programming for Internet Explorer 101. They don't send the stolen money all to one place, but distribute it around and use different methods, different accounts, so [the transactions] can't be easily canceled out."
"All around, they do a good job of risk management and keeping costs low," he said. "So, you could could say these guys are more like business-degree malware guys than they are computer science malware guys, sort of your MBAs of the criminal hacking scene."
John Bambenek, an incident handler with the SANS Internet Storm Center, said in this case those who didn't click on the e-mailed link to the malicious Web site may have been saved by poor English and a lack of understanding about how most legal documents are served in the United States.
"In this case, we were saved by the fact that the attackers have a poor knowledge of the U.S. legal system and an even worse grasp of the English language. However, the targeting of CEOs specifically and the information they are trying to take should give us pause. The bad guys are continuing to attack the weakest link in the security chain -- the end-user. While we're busy talking about malware, signatures and intrusion detection, users keep doing stupid things to get themselves owned."
Beyond the ability to siphon funds from corporate executives, the crooks in these scams can recycle the data they've stolen, selling it to identity thieves who want to establish lines of credit in the victim executive's name, or to governments seeking to conduct economic espionage, Richard said.
"That's the real long term danger here, because in each attack they get between 200 and a thousand victims, and all of [the victims] have some level of access to corporate data," Richard said. "How the crooks are going to use it and what they're going to do with it is the big danger."
By Brian Krebs | April 15, 2008; 10:44 PM ET Fraud , From the Bunker , Latest Warnings , Misc. , Safety Tips , U.S. Government Previous: Online Security: A Closer Look at a Negative Example | Next: Security Updates for Firefox, Safari
What were the 8 AV products that caught this?
Posted by: DOUGman | April 16, 2008 1:33 AM
Well, looks like we're back to morse code and smoke signals after all that...the Internets sure was fun, though!
Posted by: Bert | April 16, 2008 5:10 AM
Another case of -- to paraphrase an old Dial soap ad -- "Aren't you glad you use Linux and Firefox? Don't you wish everyone did?" :)
Posted by: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller | April 16, 2008 6:35 AM
The rule is simple: nothing important in the legal sense ever happens by e-mail. That is, if your bank, the IRS, a legal entity or whatever has something important to say to you, they'll use snail mail, unless of course you have established the e-mail relationship beforehand.
Since few corporate executives are the first to review their e-mail -- that's normally handled by an assistant -- I can see how this particular approach can succeed.
But remember the rule: if you do not know the sender personally, you can disregard even the most frightening-sounding message.
Posted by: Beck Childs | April 16, 2008 8:29 AM
Are these CEOs really stupid enough to believe that subpoenas are served via email?
What is the salary for those jobs. I PROMISE I'm smarter than that!
Posted by: Woody Smith | April 16, 2008 9:00 AM
Is there some secret this guy is trying to protect? Why not have a link to a chart (OR ANYTHING) that lists all of the antivirus software that was tested. You mention 35 - what were they? You mention 8 detected the malicious code. What were they? What is the purpose of this article? Is it to mention that Microsoft alone detected the malicious code? You are suggest/implying that Microsoft's antivirus solution is the best? It is not clear. Are you reporting that there are hackers out there trying to "phish" their way into our bank accounts?
Posted by: Eric | April 16, 2008 10:12 AM
Actually folks, today filings in the federal court system are frequently performed by e-mail.
BUT SERVICE OF PROCESS IS ++++ N E V E R ++++ PERFORMED BY E-MAIL !!!
As a general rule, to obtain PERSONAL JURISDICTION over an individual, one must be personally served with legal process by either a US Marshal, a Sheriff, or a private process server [unless you sign for certified or registered mail.]
Many jurisdictions have provisions allowing for service of process by leaving the papers with someone of 'suitable age and discretion' at a family residence, i.e., an adult.
What are known as 'long arm statutes' allow for personal service of process outside of a state jurisdiction peoviding that 'significant contacts' have existed within the state serving the papers.
In rem jurisdiction allows for service to be effected against ASSETS within a particular state, even if the owner is not available for service within that state,i.e., vacation homes, etc.
WHEREVER A QUESTION OF SERVICE OF A SUBPONEA OR COURT PAPERS BECOMES AN ISSUE, SEEK IMMEDIATE LEGAL COUNSEL FROM A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THAT JURISDICTION, or from a corporate counsel office if for your company elsewhere.
Posted by: brucerealtor | April 16, 2008 10:21 AM
Yes, they are. I write web based applications for internal use where I work. The stupidity of user questions and problems using my apps increases in direct proportion to the users salary and rank in the organization.
Posted by: BP | April 16, 2008 11:22 AM
"Aren't you glad you use Linux and Firefox? Don't you wish everyone did?"
The platform or browser is trivial here. The bad guys could have designed a malicious add-on for Firefox instead of Internet Explorer.
The real problem here is social engineering. As explicitly stated in the post:
"The bad guys are continuing to attack the weakest link in the security chain -- the end-user. While we're busy talking about malware, signatures and intrusion detection, users keep doing stupid things to get themselves owned."
Posted by: TJ | April 16, 2008 1:11 PM
>>>>>The platform or browser is trivial here. The bad guys could have designed a malicious add-on for Firefox instead of Internet Explorer.<<<<<
read up some more on platform and browser security.
Posted by: mj | April 16, 2008 1:25 PM
>>>>>The platform or browser is trivial here. The bad guys could have designed a malicious add-on for Firefox instead of Internet Explorer.<<<<<
Agreed, this would work in virtually any setting (OS X, Win32, *Nix) so long as a user can be convinced to click on arbitrary links and arbitrary installers. Not looking to start a flame war but virtually all platforms offer a method for users to install usermode applications from the Internet including browser plug-ins. Those that don't are no longer much fun.
Posted by: MR | April 16, 2008 1:45 PM
How about we just isolate East Europe, Russia and China from the internet until they start cracking down on these guys?
Posted by: Nick | April 16, 2008 1:56 PM
Posted by: Chris | April 16, 2008 2:41 PM
Nick wrote: "How about we just isolate East Europe, Russia and China from the internet until they start cracking down on these guys?"
Because, unfortunately, the U.S. is just as guilty of hosting and publishing malicious sites and software, respectively. I believe that this paper has already published a news story on that subject within the past 6 - 12 months.
Continued education on malware and social engineering-class attacks is truly the way to go. Those execs who don't get clued into the fact that they are a vulnerability will either get booted OR their organizations will get so hardily blacklisted by consumers tired of their $$ and identities being abused that they'll walk to the business across the street.
Posted by: C.B. | April 16, 2008 2:44 PM
Seems like the need for a server-based solution for Anti-virus is becoming pronounced. I don't know why all ISPs cannot install these server-based products that can block viruses before it ever reaches the weakest link - the consumer... The ISPs have industrial strength spam blockers, why not virus blockers.. Maybe McAfee and Symantec is paying them off to not install those products..
Also, I'm not sure how money can be transferred out of an account. maybe they can create a vendor and pay a bill (?). As far as I know, this process takes some time at least to setup a vendor. Unless I don't know some feature available on these sites
Posted by: Hari Swaminathan | April 16, 2008 3:57 PM
Many ISP's are scanning for malware as well as using spam filters. The same is being done in many businesses on multiple levels via gateway appliances and on e-mail servers themselves, not to mention desktop AV protections on individual computers. Problem is not that major AV vendors are colluding to allow bad stuff to pass, but that they are behind the curve in keeping up with the bad guys in detecting new types of malware. Signature based detection is failing (see link below). Instead they need to evolve to behavior based detection. Overall, it's an inexact science and a constant cat/mouse game.
And as discussed in the following link, the key is a layered defense and as already mentioned here, part of that defense involves the weakest link via educating the end-user on secure computing practices. It is human nature to be too trusting and curious to the point of self detriment. It takes education, a healthy practice of cynicism, and forcing oneself out of lazy habits to counteract these traits. Similar principles are evident in physical security.
Posted by: TJ | April 16, 2008 5:30 PM
Bruce, I hate to be the annoying guy that points out the exception to the rule. But Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, Inc. (284 F.3d 1007), the 9th Cir actually did allow service of process via email. But it was a really weird set of circumstances where all the usual methods of service you described failed (something about an offshore internet gambling company).
But yeah, otherwise nobody will ever be served by email.
Posted by: ugh | April 16, 2008 7:54 PM
@Hari, If I click the link.... Are you in Romania? Remember people, always vigilant.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 8:09 AM
I was on here a few weeks ago to make the point that paying for AV software is a waste of money. Commercial AV manufacturers are scam artists just like the producers of the emails AV is supposed to protect us from.
When the big players can't handle the basics, why do should people pay for them?
Dump IE, go with safari, or just dump the whole IE platform and go mac. Either way, commercial AV has no credibility - go with the freeware and your own common sense.
Posted by: shredsmaster | April 17, 2008 9:43 AM
What fascinates me about this story is that the scam e-mail "addressed each executive by name, and included their phone number and the name of their company" -- a classic way of making an e-mail look legit. And, which I have relied on, frankly.
I *assume* that the scammers had this detailed information from having earlier hacked various users' address books. Is this more likely to be the case if people use Outlook? I can understand wanting to have a unified address book, but I wonder if Outlook (which I don't use) could be built to segregate/protect everything but the e-mail address?
Posted by: igorok | April 17, 2008 12:30 PM
"...crooks in these scams"? Come on! After all of the scams, the fraud, outsourced jobs, looted retirement accounts, after all of the ahrm to this country done by that collection of sociopaths that compose CEO's (and corporate board members, corporate offiers, and Wall Street and Chicago "traitors"), you call someone who harms them "crooks"? For most of us, they are HERO'S!!!! The average Amercian views these snakes as the crooks that got us into the current economic mess. They and their friends are responsible for locking people into everything from cell phone contracts that secretly keep renewing to theft of medical records using any of a number of holes in the bogus federal and state "privacy" laws, they fire older workers and displace them with cheap guest workers from India and China, they sell our most secret military technology to China, and on and on. Anything whatsoever done to them amounts to just desserts!
Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 17, 2008 12:33 PM
Brilliant! Like to old Robin Hood joke about why he robs from the rich - they are the one's with money! And the targets here are probably the least sophisticated online users. Maybe these guys can tap into some of that ridiculous pay these guys get!
Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2008 2:00 PM
The original [circa 1983] and true definition of "phishing" [often preceded by the word "gone"] referred to the act of going to a Phish concert, or series of Phish concerts. Long live Trey, Mike, Page and Jon!
Posted by: creativewes | April 17, 2008 2:24 PM
That fact that the execs were willing download this add-on, indicates that they thought they might be guilty of something...
Posted by: Jon | April 17, 2008 3:34 PM
Is this 'Federal Deposit Security Corporation' perhaps intended to be FDIC? Security and Insurance, as I am sure you'll agree, are different :^)
Posted by: Christo | April 17, 2008 10:28 PM
I'm with the first poster: What were the 8 AV products that caught this??
Posted by: Erikh | April 18, 2008 10:23 AM
Re: The 8 AV products.
I have been searching and looking all over the Net and can not find it. Brian, please share what you know, thanks.
Posted by: DOUGman | April 18, 2008 12:42 PM
Why doesn't anyone use ICONIX to prevent phishers and scammers like this?
Posted by: D Berry | April 28, 2008 1:22 PM
This spear-phishing attack was a classic example of Blended Threats that the users are faced with in the current hostile internet world. An attack like this could have been stopped at the internet gateway. Preventing such an attack would have required 3 different threat prevention technologies.
Preventing the email from getting to the victims was the job of the Anti-Spam software. Preventing the victims from visiting a fraudulent website would be the job of the content filter. Lastly a good anti-virus solution could have prevented the malware plug-in from being downloaded onto the victim's pc.
For a network administrator it is a formidable task to configure all 3 solutions to work in sync to prevent such threats, not to mention paying for 3 different solutions. Unified Threat Management solutions like Cyberoam (http://www.cyberoam.com) are your best bet against such threats as they provide you with the right synergy of Anti-Spam, Anti-Virus, Content-Filtering and IDP, ALL in ONE BOX.
Posted by: Gaurav | May 4, 2008 4:11 PM
there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.
Posted by: jimelyyes | May 8, 2008 10:21 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
The latest news on computer, technology and network security issues. A blog by washingtonpost.com reporter Brian Krebs. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/technology.
| 170.086957 | 0.73913 | 0.826087 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502829.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502829.html
|
Lawmakers Ask FCC to Alter Rules For Auction
|
2008041619
|
Last month, the FCC held an auction of airwaves to enable the creation of new wireless networks, including one for emergency responders nationwide. One of the goals of the auction was to attract a private bidder that would build a network to be shared with public-safety groups. That block of airwaves, however, did not attract the minimum bid.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet criticized the FCC for the auction's shortcomings, and some lawmakers said the agency should change the rules to encourage smaller wireless carriers to bid for the public-safety spectrum in a new auction.
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the subcommittee chairman, said the commission should reconsider its rules to cap the largest carriers' spectrum holdings, preventing them from bidding on more. That would encourage bidding from small carriers, particularly businesses owned by women and minorities, he said.
Critics blamed the lack of bids on the FCC's reserve price of $1.3 billion for the public-safety airwaves and on the fact that the winning bidder would have to pay penalties if it could not negotiate a financial agreement with the Public Safety Spectrum Trust, the nonprofit group selected to hold the license for the spectrum.
The idea of creating a public-private partnership to build the emergency-services network has drawn criticism.
The FCC inspector general is investigating an allegation that the trust's business adviser, Cyren Call Communications, had too much control over the building of the network. Cyren Call admitted that it asked prospective bidders for $500 million in lease payments to use the spectrum, which critics say deterred bids.
Some subcommittee members expressed concern that the trust was using Cyren Call as both an adviser and a lender. The trust received a loan from Cyren Call for operational expenses; that money came from Cyren Call's venture-capital investors.
FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin said yesterday that the agency will reconsider the requirements for the public-safety spectrum. He also said he expects the public-safety block to be put up for auction again in the fourth quarter.
Key lawmakers and FCC commissioners yesterday defended the planned public-private partnership. Such an arrangement is the only financially viable way to build a network that could cost $6 billion to $7 billion, they said.
"I support the concept of a public-private partnership for very practical reasons," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). "If done correctly, the private sector will help provide a world-class, interoperable public-safety network."
Still, some commissioners said the Public Safety Spectrum Trust needs closer supervision, particularly with regard to its relationship with its business adviser.
|
Lawmakers yesterday questioned members of the Federal Communications Commission about the failures of a recent auction of wireless spectrum.
| 26.35 | 0.75 | 1.15 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503590.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503590.html
|
Nats' Loss to Mets Has Familiar Feel
|
2008041619
|
NEW YORK, April 15 -- The headlines in Flushing on Wednesday morning will belong to David Wright, because he hit a home run and drove in five runs. He will share them with Mike Pelfrey, because he shut out the Washington Nationals over seven innings. They were the keys to the New York Mets' 6-0 victory Tuesday night, and they are the most significant reasons why the Nationals started a three-city road trip in lackluster fashion, losing for the 10th time in 11 games.
But before the game, in the tunnels under the stadium, pleasantries were exchanged. The Mets' right fielder Tuesday was Ryan Church, and at this point last year he was in left for the Nationals. The Mets' catcher was Brian Schneider, and at this point last year -- and ever since baseball returned to Washington in 2005 -- he caught for the Nationals.
Now, both are part of the caldron that is Shea Stadium, where the memory of last year's monumental fold for the home team is under every seat, around every corner. The Mets pulled back to .500 Tuesday, a start considered slow here. Thus, Schneider and Church -- always told that winning would come in the future in Washington -- are experiencing the flip side.
"The biggest thing is the expectations, the pressure on you," Church said. "This team's built to win now."
The Nationals are not, and so the pressure can seem all but nonexistent. Consider third baseman Ryan Zimmerman, the club's franchise player. In the third inning of a 2-0 game, Zimmerman came up with one out and the bases loaded. He popped Pelfrey's first pitch -- "A good pitch to hit," he said -- sky high. Nick Johnson struck out. The Nationals didn't score.
In the eighth, trailing 4-0 with a man on second and one out, Zimmerman lined a Aaron Heilman pitch just foul down the line in right, then popped up again. Johnson walked, but Austin Kearns -- 0 for 4, now hitting .217 -- grounded into a forceout. Again, no runs.
Zimmerman is now 1 for 17 with runners in scoring position. Yet he said he feels no pressure.
"I don't ever feel pressed, to tell you the truth," he said. "You want to get hits every time, and you can't. You got to learn to deal with that."
Schneider and Church are learning to deal with different standards. Neither played a particularly significant role in beating the Nationals on Tuesday. Church went 1 for 3 with a single, a sacrifice bunt and a walk. Schneider went 0 for 4, dropping his average to .293, but he showed why Mets General Manager Omar Minaya wanted him. In the first, after Lastings Milledge -- who was booed by the Shea crowd -- hit a one-out double, Schneider gunned him down trying to steal third. With no outs and a man on first in the third, Schneider picked up Odalis Pérez's bunt and made a perfect throw to second, getting the forceout.
Throw in Wright's performance -- a two-run homer in the first, an RBI double in the seventh and a two-run double in the eighth -- and the Mets were cheered for one of the few times this season, which has begun with some angst. Right-hander Pedro MartÃnez is hurt. The Mets haven't hit, so they shook up their lineup. The bullpen looks shaky. The focus is intense.
"It doesn't matter what New York team you play for," Schneider said. "You have to win now. There's some added pressure to that. There's a lot of expectations, and they're different expectations than I've ever had before. It's different to come out here and know you're supposed to win every day."
Which is what the Mets did Tuesday night, albeit against the last-place team in the division. Both Schneider and Church admitted they were relieved to get off to decent starts, lest the Shea faithful serenade them the way they did Milledge, who went 1 for 3 with two strikeouts.
|
New York's David Wright homers and drives in five runs as the Nationals start an eight-game road trip in lackluster fashion, losing to the Mets, 6-0.
| 24.117647 | 0.882353 | 2.705882 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501564.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501564.html
|
Escort Service Boss Found Guilty
|
2008041619
|
Palfrey, dubbed the "D.C. Madam" after a grand jury in Washington indicted her on prostitution-related racketeering charges 13 months ago, has said she hired socially polished, college-educated women to indulge her customers' fantasies through "quasi-sexual" game-playing only.
But the seven women and five men of the jury in U.S. District Court sided with prosecutors, who said Palfrey was not in the business of selling simulated hanky-panky -- that she knew her clients were paying $250 an hour for full-fledged sexual encounters. The panel deliberated for less than eight hours Monday afternoon and yesterday morning.
"Obviously we're disappointed in the verdict, but we respect the jury's decision," said defense attorney Preston Burton. He said he has instructed his normally talkative client -- who will remain free until her July 24 sentencing -- not to comment on the trial.
A year after Palfrey, 52, stirred a gossipy fuss in Washington by announcing that she would make public some of her records, exposing ex-clients "from the more refined walks of life here in the nation's capital," Judge James Robertson turned to her from the bench yesterday and said, "Would the defendant please rise, and would the clerk please read the verdicts?"
In a gray suit and black boots, her lips and nails stoplight-red as always and her dark hair swirled into a familiar bouffant, Palfrey stood, hands clasped at her waist, maintaining the poise she showed throughout her week-long trial. Then the clerk spoke, and she swayed a bit, lowering her chin ever so slightly and emitting a barely audible groan.
"Guilty," the clerk said four times -- guilty of racketeering, money laundering and two counts of using the mail for illegal purposes. The U.S. attorney's office said that under sentencing guidelines, Palfrey probably faces a prison term of four to six years.
Outside the courtroom, an Internal Revenue Service agent who took part in the investigation pumped a fist in triumph. But prosecutors said they would not comment on the trial until after the sentencing.
Palfrey ran her business, Pamela Martin & Associates, by telephone from her California home, and authorities said she grossed about $2 million from 1993 to 2006, splitting the money about evenly with her escorts. They said she employed at least 132 women over the years, dispatching them nightly to clients in homes and hotel rooms in the Washington area.
At issue in the trial was what the women did when they arrived. Thirteen former call girls, appearing in court under prosecution subpoena, testified in often graphic detail about their sexual encounters with the men. Although most said Palfrey discussed prostitution with them only in vague terms, they said they had no doubts that their employment depended on their willingness to have sex for money.
The women said they and Palfrey often spoke in euphemisms. After talking on the phone with Palfrey about becoming a call girl, for example, one future escort followed up with a letter: "This is in response to your acknowledgment of an opening in the Field Support Team of Pamela Martin & Associates."
"There was no fantasy," the woman testified, saying her clients lacked the imagination for game-playing. She said Palfrey told her "that most of these men were pretty vanilla. Her word, 'vanilla.' "
|
A federal jury convicted Deborah Jeane Palfrey yesterday of running a Washington-area call-girl ring in the guise of "a high-end erotic fantasy service," rejecting her argument that she was unaware for 13 years that female escorts she employed were performing sex acts with clients for money.
| 11.732143 | 0.714286 | 0.964286 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103296.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103296.html
|
The Government Is Trying to Wrap Its Mind Around Yours
|
2008041419
|
Imagine a world of streets lined with video cameras that alert authorities to any suspicious activity. A world where police officers can read the minds of potential criminals and arrest them before they commit any crimes. A world in which a suspect who lies under questioning gets caught immediately because his brain has given him away.
Though that may sound a lot like the plot of the 2002 movie "Minority Report," starring Tom Cruise and based on a Philip K. Dick novel, I'm not talking about science fiction here; it turns out we're not so far away from that world. But does it sound like a very safe place, or a very scary one?
It's a question I think we should be asking as the federal government invests millions of dollars in emerging technology aimed at detecting and decoding brain activity. And though government funding focuses on military uses for these new technologies, they can and do end up in the hands of civilian law enforcement and in commercial applications. As spending continues and neurotechnology advances, that imagined world is no longer the stuff of science fiction or futuristic movies, and we postpone at our peril confronting the ethical and legal dilemmas it poses for a society that values not just personal safety but civil liberty as well.
Consider Cernium Corp.'s "Perceptrak" video surveillance and monitoring system, recently installed by Johns Hopkins University, among others. This technology grew out of a project funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense -- to develop intelligent video analytics systems. Unlike simple video cameras monitored by security guards, Perceptrak integrates video cameras with an intelligent computer video. It uses algorithms to analyze streaming video and detect suspicious activities, such as people loitering in a secure area, a group converging or someone leaving a package unattended. Since installing Perceptrak, Johns Hopkins has reported a 25 percent reduction in crime.
But that's only the beginning. Police may soon be able to monitor suspicious brain activity from a distance as well. New neurotechnology soon may be able to detect a person who is particularly nervous, in possession of guilty knowledge or, in the more distant future, to detect a person thinking, "Only one hour until the bomb explodes." Today, the science of detecting and decoding brain activity is in its infancy. But various government agencies are funding the development of technology to detect brain activity remotely and are hoping to eventually decode what someone is thinking. Scientists, however, wildly disagree about the accuracy of brain imaging technology, what brain activity may mean and especially whether brain activity can be detected from afar.
Yet as the experts argue about the scientific limitations of remote brain detection, this chilling science fiction may already be a reality. In 2002, the Electronic Privacy Information Center reported that NASA was developing brain monitoring devices for airports and was seeking to use noninvasive sensors in passenger gates to collect the electronic signals emitted by passengers' brains. Scientists scoffed at the reports, arguing that to do what NASA was proposing required that an electroencephalogram (EEG) be physically attached to the scalp.
But that same year, scientists at the University of Sussex in England adapted the same technology they had been using to detect heart rates at distances of up to 1 meter, or a little more than three feet, to remotely detect changes in the brain. And while scientific limitations to remote EEG detection still exist, clearly the question is when, not if, these issues will be resolved.
Meanwhile, another remote brain-activity detector, which uses light beamed through the skull to measure changes in oxygen levels in the brain, may be on the way. Together with the EEG, it would enhance the power of brain scanning. Today the technology consists of a headband sensor worn by the subject, a control box to capture the data and a computer to analyze it. With the help of government funding, however, that is all becoming increasingly compact and portable, paving the way for more specific remote detection of brain activity.
But don't panic: The government can't read our minds -- yet. So far, these tools simply measure changes in the brain; they don't detect thoughts and intentions.
Scientists, though, are hard at work trying to decode how those signals relate to mental states such as perception and intention. Different EEG frequencies, for example, have been associated with emotional states such as fear, anger, joy and sorrow and different cognitive states such as a person's level of alertness. So when you're stopped for speeding and terrified because you're carrying illegal drugs in the trunk of your car, EEG technology might enable the police to detect your fear or increased alertness. This is not so far-fetched: Some scientists already are able to tell from brain images in the lab whether a test subject was envisioning a tool such as a hammer or a screwdriver or a dwelling, and to predict whether the subject intended to add or subtract numbers. Just last month, scientists announced a new study aimed at decoding visual imagery in the brain.
Although brain-based lie-detection technology has been quite controversial and has only been tested on a limited basis, early researchers have claimed high accuracy at detecting deception. But there's a problem: Most brain-based lie-detection tests assume that lying should result in more brain activity than truth-telling because lying involves more cognition. So these lie-detection methods may fail in sociopaths or in individuals who believe in the falsehood they're telling.
Whether such technology will be effective outside the laboratory remains to be seen, but the very fact that the government is banking on its future potential raises myriad questions.
|
Imagine a world of streets lined with video cameras that alert authorities to any suspicious activity. A world where police officers can read the minds of potential criminals and arrest them before they commit any crimes. A world in which a suspect who lies under questioning gets caught immediately...
| 21.115385 | 0.980769 | 50.019231 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103248.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103248.html
|
War at the Pentagon
|
2008041419
|
The most intense arguments over U.S. involvement in Iraq do not flare at this point on Capitol Hill or on the campaign trail. Those rhetorical battles pale in comparison to the high-stakes struggle being waged behind closed doors at the Pentagon.
On one side are the "fight-win guys," as some describe themselves. They are led by Gen. David Petraeus and other commanders who argue that the counterinsurgency struggle in Iraq must be pursued as the military's top priority and ultimately resolved on U.S. terms.
In this view, the Middle East is the most likely arena for future conflicts, and Iraq is the prototype of the war that U.S. forces must be trained and equipped to win.
Arrayed against them are the uniformed chiefs of the military services who foresee a "broken army" emerging from an all-out commitment to Iraq that neglects other needs and potential conflicts. It is time to rebuild Army tank battalions, Marine amphibious forces and other traditional instruments of big-nation warfare -- while muddling through in Iraq.
I unavoidably compress what is a serious and respectful struggle about resources, military strategy and political ideology. The weapons in this discreet conflict include budget requests, deployment schedules and, increasingly, speeches and public presentations that veil the true nature of the internal struggle but reveal how the military's top commanders line up.
This struggle shaped last week's careful, largely anticlimactic testimony to Congress by Petraeus. It was also behind President Bush's nationally spotlighted announcement of a reduction in Army combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan to 12 months. And it contributed to the sudden ousting last month of Adm. William Fallon as head of U.S. Central Command.
Since then, Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, has become the public point man for "full-spectrum warfare" advocates, warning in his speeches that "our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it."
The Marines are also undergoing intense soul-searching, with some officers warning that the Corps is becoming "a second land army" by deploying with heavy armor for long combat tours in Iraq. These officers would like to return to light, amphibious-centered missions more suitable for the Pacific than for the Middle East or Central Asia. "Regionalization" is becoming a buzzword in this future-force debate.
The Navy and the Air Force -- which have been only marginally involved in the counterinsurgency strategy developed by Petraeus for Iraq -- join in emphasizing the need to prepare now for future conventional warfare elsewhere.
Fallon was squeezed out as overall commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan not because of differences with Defense Secretary Robert Gates over attacking Iran or because of his advocacy of full-spectrum conventional warfare. Fallon's rigid, overbearing style and a refusal to listen to others gradually cost him Gates's confidence, according to military and civilian officials who worked with Fallon.
On his first trip to Iraq as Centcom head, Fallon insisted on lecturing Marine officers about what was going on in their area of responsibility rather than considering their views, according to contemporaneous accounts from military sources present at the briefing. U.S. officials here tell similar stories of Fallon's dismissive attitude toward CIA and other briefers.
Gates has in fact encouraged the spirited debate between the Petraeus and Fallon-Cody camps without tipping his own hand. But Gates's view will emerge as future budget requests choose between costly weapons systems for the future or urgently needed manpower and equipment for counterinsurgency missions today.
And, as Petraeus is fond of saying, the enemy gets a vote in U.S. strategy. Will al-Qaeda, the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents see it in their interest to go on the attack against Americans to try to influence the campaign and November's elections? If so, in what direction?
Would Iran welcome a newly elected President Obama with a nuclear enrichment freeze or -- more likely -- by testing him by moving identifiable Iranian militia units into Basra province on a large scale, as some Persian Gulf Arab states may fear? Or if it is President McCain, will the ayatollahs show something like the Reagan reflex? After all, they greeted the election of a conservative hard-liner in 1980 by releasing U.S. hostages.
These are immediate questions that the nation needs to consider as we move toward an epoch-shaping election. They are among the questions that convince me that Petraeus has reshaped the Iraqi battlefield sufficiently to be given a chance to continue his strategy. The "now" war has to trump the "maybe" wars, at least for the year ahead.
|
Should we fight to win or repair a broken Army?
| 80.090909 | 0.818182 | 1.181818 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/04/benedicts_bridges_need_work.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/04/benedicts_bridges_need_work.html
|
Benedict's Bridges Need Work
|
2008041419
|
The Question: Pope Benedict's recent baptism of a well-known Italian Muslim has prompted criticism in much of the Islamic world. Has Benedict done enough to build bridges to Islam?
More than 70,000 bridges across America are rated structurally deficient like the span that collapsed in Minneapolis and it is estimated that repairing them will cost $188 billion dollars and take at least a generation to complete.
But that task is beginning to look less daunting than the bridge work that is needed between Pope Benedict and Islam.
Early in his papacy, the Pope ignited a storm of protest from the Muslim world by remarks on Islam in his lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany in 2006. This speech has been discussed widely, including by the On Faith panel, and many agree that these remarks were unnecessarily inflammatoryâin a speech intended to tackle the âtough questionsâ in interfaith dialogue, the idea is not to burn bridges of dialogue but to create them. If thatâs what you want to do, you need to give less inflammatory examples.
Now, on Easter Sunday, the Pope chose to baptize Italyâs most prominent Muslim, Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born, non-practicing Muslim who is married to a Catholic. In his homily reflecting on the meaning of baptism, the Popeâs expressed his views on what it meant that he had just baptized a Muslim into the Catholic faith. âWe no longer stand alongside or in opposition to one another,â he said.
The Pope seems to think that he and Mr. Allam had previously been âin opposition to one another,â merely because they were not of the same faith. That âoppositionâ has disappeared, apparently, simply through the sacrament of baptism into the Catholic faith.
This is unexpectedly revealing. At a deep level, the Pope is saying that it is the faiths themselves that are in opposition, not individuals who may be of different faiths. My husband and I were once in the Florida Keys and while we were driving back from Key West, one of the many bridges got stuck in the âupâ position. Traffic built up for miles and miles while a new part was flown in from Miami.
The bridge between Pope Benedict and Islam, through not only this baptism on Easter Sunday, but also through the revealing homily as well, just got stuck in the âupâ position. Fortunately, there are many, many Catholics working hard to build bridges to Islam and they may just have to carry the traffic along alternate routes in this papacy.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 10.886364 | 0.454545 | 0.590909 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/signs_wonders.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/signs_wonders.html
|
Signs & Wonders: The Power of Monks
|
2008041419
|
In the theater of global public opinion, you can really do no worse than having young Buddhist monks protest your actions. You can call them satanic or terrorists or murderers or whatever you want but these Buddhists have been stealthily crafting this image of themselves as the ultimate in righteousness for thousands of years.
Chinese officials, struggling against this rising tide of discontent, hit back with statements such as one made in late March that the Dalai Lama was "a wolf in monk's clothing. A devil," he said, "with a face of a human but the heart of a beast."
This week's image is from Wednesday, when Buddhist monks interrupted a government-led tour for journalists through Western China. They waved Tibetan flags and protested that authorities were depriving them of human rights. Meanwhile, city officials in San Francisco decided it was best to sneak the Olympic torch rather than parade it, after the protests in Paris and London. And to top things off, the president of the International Olympic Committee spoke out, albeit briefly, against the Chinese government and encouraged them to improve human rights and media access.
A lot of the debate about this has centered around the question of Western countries getting involved in Chinese affairs, but what I find exciting is that the March uprising by a small group of monks in Tibet has had such a large and continuing impact. Public relations is theater and at this point, the Chinese may want to realize that with monks and the Dalai Lama, they are up against the visual equivalent of abused puppies. People who have spent their lives praying and meditating are hard to paint as evil, that's what Signs and Wonders teaches us this week! Next week, more!
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Posted by Claire Hoffman on April 10, 2008 3:59 PM
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 8.022727 | 0.477273 | 0.522727 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/australia_to_china_lets_not_be_1.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/australia_to_china_lets_not_be_1.html
|
Australia to China: Let's Not Be Friends
|
2008041419
|
Many of the comments written here reflect ignorance, prejudice and xenophobia. There is far more freedom of movement and freedom to pursue a livelihood in China than during the Mao led era. There have already been radical social, economic, and cultural changes, for good, as well as bad, in China in just thirty years.
Some people in the West expect China to make further radical changes, especially in its political system, when the United States Congress and President have been unable to enact health care coverage for all persons or substantially reduce very high budget deficits. China will continue to change, but change will be primarily from within. The alien Qing dynasty lasted from 1644 to 1911 CE. The Communist led government has lasted only since 1949 CE. Fifty-nine years is a brief era within even a single major dynasty, let alone the entire written history of China.
Calls for China to become a "true democracy" are well-intentioned, but historically naive because many people mistakenly think the United States is and was created as a democracy. These people seem to know as little about United States' as China's history. The Founding Fathers in this country explicitly distrusted democracy and "mob rule." There was little democracy in the United States national government when the Constitution was adopted. For several decades there were property qualifications for the suffrage. Congressional caucuses chose presidential nominees. State legislatures in many states determined the allocation of electoral votes, not popular majority results. State legislatures, not popular elections, decided who would represent states in the Senate.
Democratic changes, which made this country, more democratic, but not a "true democracy" took nearly two hundred years. Yet some people expect China and other nations to become "democracies" as the United States or Great Britain, overnight. This is certainly a highly condescending attitude.
When one looks at Chinese history from a long-term perspective, there has often been expansion, but along land adjacent to its territory as a nation. Compare this to the history of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the United States, Russia and certain other nations that conquered other nations, far from its territorial borders, to acquire an overseas empire. China and India are two nations that did not do this. Yet some in the West hypocritically demand China and India be peaceful rising powers.
I think both nations will, unlike most major European nations, Japan and the United States, be peaceful rising powers, because this is consistent with their history. In addition, they seek greater economic prosperity for their people, not regional political hegemony.
There is a lot of anti-China prejudice in the United States, just as there was similar anti-Japan prejudice during the 1980's, for basically the same reasons. High trade deficits and loss of American jobs led to widespread anti-Japanese opinions within the United States. Most people do not realize Japan finances the budget deficits of this country more than China.
Fortunately most recent presidents, from Nixon to Bush, partly because of the influence of certain advisers, have pursued relatively moderate policies toward China, generally avoiding confrontation and seeking greater mutual cooperation.
|
Pomfret's China features China expert John Pomfret as he deciphers what's behind the latest news from China.
| 30.8 | 0.45 | 0.55 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040901007.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040901007.html
|
The Perfect Pot: Not Too Big, Not Too Small
|
2008041419
|
Houseplants look awful in April, but it's also the moment to help them spring back.
As warmer temperatures and longer days prod them into growth, the urge to burgeon allows them to recover quickly from the trauma of repotting and pruning.
So line up your ficus, citrus, philodendrons and dieffenbachias, and examine their feet.
Look for signs that the plant is pot-bound, such as using its roots as stilts to try to escape its container. Here's another indicator: If a plant never seems to get enough water, its roots may have displaced most of the soil. And the surest sign is the appearance of roots through the drainage hole.
I have a 24-year-old schefflera that now has fine white roots radiating along the floor like a slender starfish. There will be nothing delicate about its repotting.
The schefflera has been placed in progressively bigger containers through the years. This "potting up" has brought it to the heavy 18-inch clay pot it now calls home. I see a 20-inch pot in its future and some ibuprofen in mine.
Repotting is a messy affair and best tackled outdoors. A potting bench is a real boon for the back.
Don't take a plant in an eight-inch pot, say, and put it in a 12-inch one, thinking this will delay a future repotting by a few years. Too much soil will stay wet, even in a well-drained pot, and the roots will melt away. Increasing the pot diameter by one or two inches provides enough room for two to three years of additional growth.
A truly pot-bound character may be hard to release. Submerging the pot in water for half an hour may help, as will taking a knife and breaking the contact between the roots and the inside of the pot. Sometimes you have to cut away plastic pots or smash clay ones to free the plant without destroying it.
You will want to tease out congested roots before putting a plant into a larger pot, but a root ball that is a solid mass is another matter: It should be cut back on all sides by about one-third; then it can go back into the same pot.
Don't remove all the old soil: You want the root ball to remain intact, but you must use fresh potting soil when backfilling. Don't use compost, garden soil or topsoil, which are too heavy or unsterile for houseplants. Fresh potting soil, which contains soil lighteners such as perlite, will restore the nutrients and soil texture that the new roots need. A little balanced fertilizer will help as the plants develop this spring, but don't overdo it.
Place some clay pot shards or stones at the bottom of the pot, lay a little weed-blocking fabric over them, and backfill, making sure the plant is set at the same height as before. Shake the pot to get the new soil to fill in any air pockets, and keep the soil line at least an inch below the lip of the pot, to allow for thorough watering during the year. You may have to add more soil after watering.
This is also a good time to trim plants, remove rubbing or inward-growing branches, or aggressively cut back certain plants that have become too large, such as dracaenas or rubber plants. Norfolk Island pines are tropical conifers and should not be headed back.
Most houseplants are at their most stressed now after a winter indoors and may be afflicted with spider mites, whitefly, mealybugs or scale. Heavily infested plants should be discarded. With the plants outside, however, you can spray foliage with abandon, using organic products such as horticultural oil and insecticidal soap.
What I love about working with mature houseplants is that no matter how crummy their top growth appears, they have enough roots to push out a lot of fresh, clean foliage once they are happily repotted. I am thinking particularly of a Ponderosa lemon tree I have that drops most of its leaves by the time March rolls around. By June it will look the picture.
Most houseplants do well outside in the warmer months, in an area of partial shade and protection from the wind. They should not go out permanently, however, until nighttime temperatures are at least in the 50s.
The annual repotting also offers another way of perking up winter-weary houseplants: by springing for some beautiful pots. The new catalogue of high-end potmaker Seibert & Rice recently landed on my desk. I found just the pot for my lemon tree, a handmade 21-inch terra cotta beauty with a citrus swag applique. It's called the Lemon Vase. At $1,200, it's way over my budget. But a little wistful dreaming seems fitting in this month of anticipation.
|
Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland home and garden news/headlines, including build/fix and furnishing/design, garden/patio tips. Resources and coupons for homes and gardens, DC, MD, VA contacts. Guides for organizing, cleaning, planting and caring.
| 17.166667 | 0.407407 | 0.444444 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040901101.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040901101.html
|
Here Comes The Sun
|
2008041419
|
It's warm, inviting and cheerful. What's not to love about yellow?
Designers say -- somewhat surprisingly, considering how widely it is used -- that yellow can be a tricky color on a wall. "Yellow is the hardest color to get right, without question," says New York designer Alexa Hampton. "As mellow a yellow you think you select, it's always much louder than you think it will be."
"Above all other colors, it's inclined to get more intense on the wall," says Leatrice Eiseman, executive director of the Pantone Color Institute and author of "Color: Messages and Meanings." Yellows with even the slightest green undertone, she says, can go greenish on the wall, especially if the room has lots of windows.
If you want to go yellow, Hampton advises sticking with the topmost choices on the paint decks because these are typically the palest shades. Paint a large sample, she says. If it's too bright, mix in a bit of your trim color. And consider off-white paint colors, too. Some of the creamiest shades turn out to be just yellow enough.
Love the color but aren't sure you want to commit to paint? Introduce yellow into the room with a cheery fabric or patterned pillows, a graphic area rug or a floral lampshade. Even these subtle touches are sunny.
|
Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland home and garden news/headlines, including build/fix and furnishing/design, garden/patio tips. Resources and coupons for homes and gardens, DC, MD, VA contacts. Guides for organizing, cleaning, planting and caring.
| 5 | 0.314815 | 0.314815 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/12/ST2008041202580.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/12/ST2008041202580.html
|
HUD Chief Inattentive To Crisis, Critics Say
|
2008041419
|
In late 2006, as economists warned of an imminent housing market collapse, housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson repeatedly insisted that the mounting wave of mortgage failures was a short-term "correction."
He pushed for legislation that would make it easier for federally backed lenders to make mortgage loans to risky borrowers who put less money down. He issued a rule that was criticized by law enforcement authorities because it could increase the difficulty of detecting and proving mortgage fraud.
As Jackson leaves office this week, much of the attention on his tenure has been focused on investigations into whether his agency directed housing contracts to his friends and political allies. But critics say an equally significant legacy of his four years as the nation's top housing officer was gross inattention to the looming housing crisis.
They contend that Jackson ignored warnings from within his agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose inspector general told Congress that some of the secretary's efforts were "ill-advised policy" and likely to put more families at risk of losing their homes.
During Jackson's years on the job, foreclosures for loans insured by HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) have risen and default rates have hit a record high.
All the while, Jackson enjoyed a chef and a full-time security detail that trailed him to Washington social events. His office launched a new $7 million auditorium and cafeteria at HUD's headquarters, money that some within the agency believed should have been directed toward housing for the poor. His office solicited an emergency bid to obtain oil portraits of Jackson and four other HUD secretaries at a cost to taxpayers of $100,000.
Jackson, who declined to be interviewed, will be remembered as a Cabinet secretary so committed to carrying out President Bush's goal of increasing homeownership that he encouraged policies that threatened to exacerbate the mortgage crisis, according to interviews with more than 30 current and former HUD officials and housing experts, and a review of numerous HUD documents and audits.
In speeches, he urged loosening some rules to spur more home buying and borrowing. "I'm convinced this spring we will see the market again begin to soar," Jackson said in a June 2007 speech at the National Press Club to kick off what HUD dubbed "National Homeownership Month." He also told the audience that he had no specific laws to recommend to prevent a repeat of the lending abuses that caused the mortgage crisis.
"When Congress calls up and asks us, we'll give them advice," he said. "You have 534 massive egos up there, so unless they ask you, you don't volunteer anything."
HUD spokesperson D.J. Nordquist defended Jackson's record in pushing for more flexibility in government-backed loans. "Secretary Jackson is a big believer in the U.S. housing market and won't apologize for saying so," Nordquist said in a written response to questions. She said Jackson hoped that FHA loans could provide a safe alternative for borrowers about to default on subprime loans from the private sector.
A former director of three housing authorities, Jackson came to HUD as a deputy secretary in 2001. He and Bush had been friends since their days as neighbors in Dallas. When Secretary Mel Martinez stepped down to run for the Senate in 2004, Bush promoted Jackson.
A lead smelter's son and the youngest of 12 children, Jackson, 62, has said he "never imagined" he would one day serve in the Cabinet. From his 10th-floor office, he seemed to revel in the entree his new job offered to Washington's elite, according to current and former associates.
|
In late 2006, as economists warned of an imminent housing market collapse, housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson repeatedly insisted that the mounting wave of mortgage failures was a short-term "correction."
| 19.416667 | 1 | 36 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/13/sat_night_with_clinton_a_beer.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/13/sat_night_with_clinton_a_beer.html
|
Sat. Night With Clinton: A Beer, a Slice and a Charge Against Obama
|
2008041419
|
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) toasted Hammond, Ind., Mayor Tom McDermott, left, during a stop at Bronko's restaurant in Crown Point, Ind., April 12, 2008. Ed and Patty Hall are seated at right. (Associated Press)
Updated 2:03 p.m. By Perry Bacon Jr. CROWN POINT, Ind. -- While Barack Obama spent Saturday defending a remark that made him sound like an elitist, Hillary Clinton's response was initially just words, calling him "elitist" and "out of touch."
But then in Crown Point, a town 25 miles from Gary, the New York senator downed a shot of Crown Royal whiskey, had a beer and chomped down a slice of cheese pizza, as her aides rushed to fill her request for another slice, with pepperoni. The crowd at Bronko's restaurant cheered as Clinton clinked her glass against fellow drinker's, while at the same time the restaurant's manager told a man who brought his grandchildren to the event he needed to take them out of the room.
Clinton stayed only about 30 minutes, but the audience, full of supporters, seemed thrilled with the senator's performance, shouting "Hillary! Hillary!" as she turned up her glass and finished her beer.
"Everytime I get around you, I start drinking," joked Thomas McDermott Jr., the mayor of nearby Hammond, Ind., and a Clinton supporter who also came to the event.
It was the end of a long day of campaigning in this state for Clinton, who will face pressure from Democratic officials to drop of the race if she loses May 6 primaries in both the Hoosier State and in North Carolina, which goes to the polls that day, as well. She is far behind in polls in North Carolina, but effectively tied here.
Clinton, eager to contrast herself with Obama's small-town remarks, spent the day talking about going hunting as a kid and her upbringing in a churchgoing family in suburban Chicago. Despite spending much of her life in government or corporate law, she sounded like former North Carolina senator John Edwards in her attack on Obama, accusing him of dividing the country into "one America that is enlightened and one that is not."
"The people of faith I know don't cling to religion because they are bitter, in fact they embrace their faith because it gives them so much in return," Clinton said in one campaign stop.
Her aggressive tenor obscured some complications of her attacks on her Obama. Clinton herself repeatedly said in Iowa that she felt the strong anti-immigrant sentiment there was driven in part by a slowing economy, something Obama implied in his controversial remarks and John McCain has said as well.
And in rebutting Obama's comments, some of her supporters in Pennsylvania suggested conditions were good in the state, pointing to an increase in jobs and incomes in some areas of the Keystone State. That kind of optimism stands in marked contrast to the gloomy picture Clinton often draws on the stump as she speaks of an America that has declined in the seven years since President Bush took office.
David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, noted in an interview Saturday night the contrast in Clinton's broader campaign message with her attacks on Obama's remarks. "I don't think her rhetoric has been particularly optimistic, but in order to take advantage of this story, she's kind switched her narrative around," he said.
Posted at 11:06 AM ET on Apr 13, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Add The Trail to Your Site
I am a student at PennState. We are proud to invent the HillChug (named after Hillary of course). A HillChug is when you raise your beer mug, cackle three times, take a gulp and wash it down with a shot of whiskey.
Posted by: HillChug | April 15, 2008 7:34 AM
crown point is much closer to gary than 25 miles. more like 10-15.
Posted by: jason | April 14, 2008 6:04 PM
Now, maybe you understand why I chose my Nomiker! ;~)
But, alas; The Job in Question is the Commander in Chief, Business Regulator, Trade Negotiator, and Economic Strategist. NOT, Snake Oil Salesman!
While McCain is only Half Qualified, at least he is Half Qualified as opposed to the Congressional Lawyer(s) that are only trying to put the Senate Majority Leader in the White House.
Enter Venture Capitalist and all around Nice Guy(Very non-Rat like), St. Mitt Romney!
And the road to recover begins-Pending Congressional Co-operation! ;~)
Posted by: RAT-The | April 14, 2008 12:21 PM
Crown Royal?!? That's Canadian whiskey!
Shame on you Hillary. If yer gonna get drunk to show how blue collar you are, you should do it with some good ol' American booze.
Posted by: J.Daniels | April 14, 2008 2:06 AM
To show how much she loves the gun toting and church going folks, Hillary took out her prized copies of the Karl Rowe book from her personal bookshelves in the Clinton library and replaced them with an old testament, a new testament and also a copy of the King James Bible. She also went to the local bookstore to buy a book on "How to shoot your own squirrels and ducks for dinner".
She now has the endorsement of the NRA.
Posted by: Jerry | April 13, 2008 11:33 PM
There are more stories coming from Hillary after she chugged a couple of kegs of beer. Now she claims she wanted to be a sharp shooter once, and learned how to shoot ducks. She shot a duck while her husband was the governor of Arkansas. I would have thought she shot a possum while it was playing dead.
Anyway for thanksgiving the Clintons served ducks shot by Hillary.
Dick Cheney after hearing the shooting skills of Hillary, called her on a duck hunting date.
Her stories about sniper fire in Bosnia, her duck hunting days in Arkansas, and her allegiance to NRA, all tell that Hillary is obsessed with guns.
Posted by: John | April 13, 2008 11:25 PM
Hillary is chugging beer with a bunch of elites. They are all wearing business suits instead of jeans and t-shirts that normal people wear. What is the point she is trying to make here.
Posted by: David | April 13, 2008 10:52 PM
The picture of Hillary chugging beer and whisky tells a lot about her. I don't see any other woman in the picture chugging beer with her. So much for her courting of women voters. Do we want our president getting drunk just to make a point? I don't think so. Even without drinking according to Bill when Hillary says something at 11pm there is bound to be some lies and exagerations. Now she gets drunk and wakes up with a hangover at 3am to answer the phone. We can only imagine what she will say over the phone.
Posted by: Sam | April 13, 2008 10:45 PM
We have the Clintons making well above $110 mil. During one of the debates in Nevada when asked whether she prefers pearls or diamonds, Hillary said she wants both. Now Hillary the multimillionaire, who wears pant suits specially tailored for her and who stashes money in Caymen islands so that IRS can not track their income, is calling Obama an elitist just from one comment he made. The comment Obama made stressed the reasons why people feel some bitterness, especially when their jobs are taken away. The reason a lot of jobs left PA and Indiana are due to NAFTA and Bill Clinton's export of jobs to China and India.
Posted by: Joan Wren | April 13, 2008 10:39 PM
The BitterGate is helping many voters in PA to separate the wheat from the chaf. We did a poll in PA and also spoke to some of the folks in rural areas. A mojority of the people side with Obama on this one. Even though is comment touched on the topic of guns and religion, they see him as an authentic guy who does not pose a problem for their rights or religion. On the other hand many of them feel that Clinton is just an opportunist who is out to destroy their candidate for the presidency. One woman mentioned that 'Hillary making fun at Obama's comments is like a guy with no hand making fun of a guy with a broken pinky.'
Posted by: Martin McGiven | April 13, 2008 10:23 PM
I'm an over-60 year old White woman for whom these blogs have replaced the soap opera I used to watch. As a life-long Republican I'm leaning towards voting for Obama, because in spite of his being far from perfect, he still has shown more class, integrity, positive campaigning (did you hear him "slamming" Sen. Clinton during her Bosnian lie fiasco?) and enough intelligence to know that drinking in a bar with people doesn't make you one of them. Our sons and daughters are dying in a war that never should have been started and this is what the media latches onto? America, let's start reclaiming our place in the world as a respected, beloved country as we once were.
Posted by: Grandma C. | April 13, 2008 9:47 PM
It's official now. Clinton plans to destroy Obama's viability as a candidate, thinking that she can beat John McCain -- or at least that she will be set up well for a rematch with him in 2012, after he has run this country further into the ground in four years.
Obama is being attacked for simply telling the truth about people's state of mind in small central PA/IN cities. If I were a blue-collar type living in one of those depressed cities, I would have found his 'bitter' remark as showing empathy with my kind of folks, and not elitism.
I used to say that I'd vote for the winner of the Democratic primary, but not any more. Hillary is an unacceptable sleaze, and McCain has flipflopped too many times about the Religious Right. If those two are the nominees, I guess I'll vote Libertarian.
Posted by: oldhonky | April 13, 2008 9:18 PM
If that would have been Obama having a beer Hillary would have said "look he's an acoholic how can he be president." Hillary made a $100,000 in 7 months back in the eighties over some shading investing, talk about elitist. A mayor in Lancaster PA, said he wouldn't say the people are bitter, he said the people are "angry."
Posted by: | April 13, 2008 8:42 PM
If that would have been Obama having a beer Hillary would have said "look he's an acoholic how can he be president." Hillary made a $100,000 in 7 months back in the eighties over some shading investing, talk about elitist. A mayor in Lancaster PA, said he wouldn't say the people are bitter, he said the people are "angry."
Posted by: | April 13, 2008 8:42 PM
During Bush's term the Clintons made (personal income, not including perks) over $100 million. 'nuff said?
Posted by: gg | April 13, 2008 8:28 PM
,This is typical Hillary, Barak Coverage...from the press and media even when Barak Obama suddenly finds himself speaking off he cuff and reavealing a bit more of his "Expertise" on just about everything...
you write...about Barak,"While Barack Obama spent Saturday defending a remark that made him sound like an elitist," Barak ONLY SOUNDS ELITIST....While you write of Hillary Clinton....."Her aggressive tenor obscured some complications of her attacks on her Obama"
She IS AGGRESSIVE in her TENOR while Barak Obama's remarks ONLY make him sound elitist.
Really, the press and media always present Hillary Clinton as the big bad wolf and Barak Obama as the "innocent virgin" poor boy/man Candidate who had too defend the high horse he road in on, again, and it is all Hillary Clinton's doing....
This is pathetic....coverage....why don't ya'll just marry the guy cause the press and media obviously adore him...
Posted by: rannrann | April 13, 2008 5:40 PM
OBAMA'S NO TO NO-WHERE VOTE.
Yes, Hillary voted for the war as most did since we went there and Barak Obama....decided that since there were plenty of Yes Votes to go...now was the time for the big LUXURY NO VOTE..since it was never going to be acted upon anyway but if there was a chance in heck that his vote would have actually counted for something more than an opinion vote...it darn well would have been a big fat YES for the VERY Junior Senator...who are you Obama folks kidding with that sad and sorry....NO VOTE to No Where....Barak Obama's no vote was purely OPPORTUNISTIC...since he was paving the way for a White House run....you think if that NO was going to be the one deciding factor on whether to actually stay or go he would have said NO???? Please stop this story time stuff...Barak Obama is smooth, savy, and absolutely OPPORTUNISTIC!
Posted by: rannrann | April 13, 2008 5:21 PM
LOL! Hillary is just going to have to settle for Drinking with McCain.
Barack Hussein claims it is against HIS Religion. Then, you have to excuse him, he needs to go to the Bathroom,
To "POWDER" his Nose! ;~)
Posted by: RAT-The | April 13, 2008 5:19 PM
egc52566- Believe me, there was a Coma involved!
Something along the lines of: "I Concede, I really could have explained myself better"
Concession Noted, and personally Barack Hussein, I think you were promising too much! ;~)
Bud0- Few things could scare me as much as the thought of being in the same Woods as Hillary with a Gun! Only her Target would be safe! ;~)
LOL-Now, if you see this;
Which Casing is larger? A .308, or a .243? :-/
Posted by: RAT-The | April 13, 2008 5:10 PM
Solutions for the American Corporation
Posted by: UncleRemus | April 13, 2008 5:09 PM
"Her aggressive tenor obscured some complications of her attacks on Obama. Clinton herself repeatedly said in Iowa that she felt the strong anti-immigrant sentiment there was driven in part by a slowing economy, something Obama implied in his controversial remarks and John McCain has said as well."
Tsk, tsk: O'Bama and McCain are plagiarizing Clinton.
If Hillary should return to substance from her mudslinging, it will be interesting to see whether she stays with her anti-Obama Polyannaish posture or reverts to picturing the dour conditions she decried up to a few days ago.
Posted by: FirstMouse | April 13, 2008 4:55 PM
Republicans: party in power during a recession and during a prolonged, costly, and unnescessary war?
Posted by: eljefejesus | April 13, 2008 4:34 PM
Obama defeated a strong primary candidate with better name recognition, more experience in national politics, who had political connections and had benefited from post-911 political and financial support for New York...
Wait til he gets ahold of the part-in-power during a recession...
The latest attacks is too little, too late: Obama is the better candidate.
Posted by: eljefejesus | April 13, 2008 4:30 PM
Hillary Clinton is a known liar. We can no longer believe anything that woman says. Nuff said.
Posted by: Lianne | April 13, 2008 3:59 PM
Franklin, how would you know what Obama would have voted for? Just because the pandering idiot that you support voted for it, doesn't mean Obama would have. Plenty of Democrats opposed that resolution. In fact, Obama told Charlie Rose in 2004 that he would not have voted for the resolution. It's on YouTube. Look it up.
Posted by: Jen | April 13, 2008 3:57 PM
Hillary Clinton is vile. She's an absolute disgrace to the Democratic party. Please go far away, and take your money-grubbing husband with you.
Posted by: Lori | April 13, 2008 3:55 PM
We girls can have a beer too. Come on people. You have called Hillary a b*****, a shrill, modicum, chowderhead, fat, unattractive just because she had beer along with the boys. That means I can call you obamawannas.
Posted by: hillarybill | April 13, 2008 3:51 PM
Posted by: Franklin OBAMA WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE WAR, IF GIVEN THE CHANCE.
/////////////////////// Would Have, Could Have, Should Have, Might Have. The fact is he Didn't.
Posted by: | April 13, 2008 3:35 PM
Your analogy doesn't make sense.
Telling people they are "clinging to religion because they are bitter" is a good deal different than equating a bad economy with people's attitudes about immigration.
If you don't get it....think about it awhile.
Posted by: paul taylor | April 13, 2008 3:31 PM
Oh, now we hear some big story that Hillary went hunting when she was a kid.Did she use her all aluminum magnum compound bow?What a liar. These fish stories keep getting bigger and bigger.
Posted by: Majorteddy | April 13, 2008 3:31 PM
We have one president that got elected to the White House because people felt he was someone they could have a beer with. Now we have another chowderhead that wants to be the second president you can have a beer with-- and a shot. Why don't we just go down to the bar and pick out some drunk and bypass the election process and he would be better than either Bush or Clinton(either one).At least we would break the dynasty mold.And we probably wouldn't have as big as liar.
Posted by: oldman&theC | April 13, 2008 3:28 PM
Miss O'Gyny====that would make about as much sense as Bill's explanations for Hillary lying about her trip to Bosnia. Why don't you sign your postings?
Posted by: Hillary Bush | April 13, 2008 3:23 PM
I think Rev. Wright was very clear what you should expect from Obama. He will support the black communities, which is good.. but his hate for the white people regardless how rich or poor, educated or uneducated they are, its a fact. He was raised by a white grandmother but he used her as an example of a racist white woman. This guy has no values, he will say anything (and we all know he talks a lot) to get the nomination. There is no way he will win the general election if he is the nominee.
Posted by: Ann | April 13, 2008 3:22 PM
I'm not surprise that she is more in tune with her republican counterparts, after all she grew up as a republican changed her affeliation after Bill ran for office as a democrat.
Posted by: Danel | April 13, 2008 3:14 PM
Please tell me what Obama gambled. Although he told the voters in IL during his campaign for US Senator that he would not be running for president he will still be a US Senator if he loses his bid for president. So, its a win win situation for him. He also has big time backers such as the Kennedys and the former democrat nominee, Kerry. And billionaire elite bundlers in which he met in San Franciso to talk about the masses being angry, bitter gun toting religious fanatics to whom he has to try to relate to. This was not said in public, but to a private group of elitist in a CA mansion.
Posted by: Hillarybill | April 13, 2008 3:08 PM
I can't imagine beer would taste worse, than drinking it while listening to this witch spout her personal brand of bs.
SHAME ON YOU HILLARY CLINTON
Posted by: jeffp | April 13, 2008 2:52 PM
If Hillary gets to be Democratic candidate, then John McCain will become the next President of the United States with a huge landslide. The Dems must have been totally out of their mind to nominate that woman. Obama is now the only chance.
Posted by: Bodo | April 13, 2008 2:45 PM
While pandering to the masses, Hillary had better watch the beer and the pizza or she will become a poster girl for our number one health problem and not be able to get into her pantsuits.
Posted by: plebian | April 13, 2008 2:42 PM
Go Hillary. You go girl! We girls can have a beer,too. Love it.
Posted by: | April 13, 2008 2:40 PM
Take this shot Obamamaniacs: Hillary believes in all of "US", including those of us in small towns. Obama is an elitist jerk. How can Americans even give him a glance? Go Hillary and the rest of "US" left to vote, "we can do this together". I feel the small towns and big towns too, rising to the support of the American President who represents us all. Now, that has finally become obvious to us all- Obama "we in small towns are bitter"!!! Get a life and go back to your rookie senate position & leave America to Hillary. She is being outspent by at least three to one. Remember, the money for Obama's campaign didn't all come from small donors as he tries to make us think. Instead, at least half of his 230 million plus dollars has come from rich multimillionaires and 27,000 plus maximum amount $2300.00 donors. Ergo, his elistist comments and beliefs stated in San Francisco are shining through. Now these "bitter" comments bring [W]right up again too, and correctly so, I think! Why does everything Obama wrongly says that clearly shows how he really stands gets spun around as we, the electorate, are taking it out of contest or he's sorry but...? Hillary has the only "shot" now for Democrats in November. She really identifies with and cares about what happens to the ones of "US" left who are barely surviving here in the middle and lower class. She, of course, is rich but, she can still identify with we the "working class Americans. Obama, clearly cannot. Hillary will win in November against McCain or more of the same McBushIII. Obama cannot win, particularly now. Sure looks like to me that Obama is showing himself for the far left latte drinker that he has been since the start. Remember, divide and conquer in Europe by taking advantage of the youth and minority races? Starting to rack them up and the republicans will have a field day in November i.e. monster, NAFTAgate, his real plans for his Irag withdrawal revealed, small town slam and oh yeah, [W]right!!!! Obama's latest truly revealing small small town slam calling "US" bitter, etc., finally shows him for the elitist rat that he has been from the start and has managed to hide thus far. Wake up America! He doesn't care a thing about promoting anybody but himself. We need Hillary Clinton. We can still save the nominating process and the Democratic Party, if we do the right thing in the primaries left to come. Let's not let the rest of America down. Decisive wins for Hillary in all remaining primaries will put Obama back in his rightful place- a rookie senator. We can still do this and I know the rest of "US" is counting on us. One last thing, where are the ranting raves by the MSM on this issue and why aren't they running this over and over and over again? He will lose the nomination because he is finally identified as the inferior candidate. We have to beat McCain in the fall Americans. Vote Hillary for a victory for the Democrats in November, otherwise we're doomed. PA, you can do it, bring her on to the rest of "US" and save the Presidency for the Democrats. Vote Hillary! Thank you from KY.
Posted by: moblou | April 13, 2008 2:38 PM
After watching the Sunday morning shows, I'm finding it interesting how the Clinton campaign has totally misrepresented Obama's quote.
Clinton and her surrogates are stating that Obama said working-class Americans only have faith and values because they are bitter. That is misrepresenting the quote.
Obama stated that economic bitterness and neglect by Washington forces people to "cling to guns and religion" because that's all they have to count on. The quote, as I read it, doesn't condemn the right to bear arms or belittle the place of religion in many American's lives. People "cling" to life preservers because they keep them from drowning.
Sunday press is giving Clinton & McCain a large amount of leeway so far on their stories of what Obama actually was quoted as saying.
Posted by: Greg in Canada | April 13, 2008 2:36 PM
I beg any journalist who wants a scoop to ask Annie Oakley Hillary one single technical question about the guns she now professes to love.
Say, Hillary, is a 22LR a centrefire or rimfire?
You don't know? Any kid whose taken a pop at a cottontail knows the answer to that one.
Which is the bigger cartridge, Hillary, a 12-gauge or a 20? A duck hunter like you would surely know that.
Sure you would, tough girl.
Posted by: Bud0 | April 13, 2008 2:32 PM
"OBAMA DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE WAR BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN THE US SENATE, SO LIKE YOU AND I he only had an opinion. He is a neophyte."
A neophyte opinion of a candidate running for office gambing his whole career against a strong tide the other direction, who it turns out was right on all counts, so great argument there....
"Hillary might eat pizza and drink a beer. It's clear from the posts here that Obama feasts on Spam."
Is this a dig on him being born poor in Hawaii? Otherwise I'm not sure exactly what to make of it...
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 2:32 PM
OBAMA DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE WAR BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN THE US SENATE, SO LIKE YOU AND I he only had an opinion. He is a neophyte.
Posted by: hillarybill | April 13, 2008 2:27 PM
I'm not American, but I know that three-quarters of Americans supported invading Iraq in 2003. Yet three-quarters of Americans today believe the war was a bad idea.
Likewise, a clear majority of American voters re-elected GW Bush in 2004, yet his support hovers below 30% today.
That's mathematical proof that a large proportion of American voters is making a lot of bad, indeed self-harming, decisions.
Yet nobody in America is ever allowed to criticise the voter, criticise the public. Politicians are trained to spout pablum like: "I think the American people are pretty smart", "I think the American people usually come to the right decision, etc."
It's completely taboo to mention that the American people have been largely complicit in the disasters that have befallen them. Even Obama wouldn't dare say that. Suck up to the Great American Public at all costs.
Clinton and McCain play that game well, as did GW Bush. That's why the American public never looks at itself in the mirror.
Iraq is all Bush's fault, say the people who cheered and bayed for war in 2003 (ie the Hillary supporters). Our health costs are rising, moan people who voted against a decent health plan in 2004 because they were scared a homosexual might get married somewhere.
Like I said, I'm a foreigner and don't have to suck up to anyone. So I can say: Bush is a symptom, the American people is the cause.
Reading the comments of those here trying to enforce the taboo on criticising the choices of the US voter, it's easy to see why America is in such a deep hole.
I predict that Americans will continue to vote for politicians who tell them how great they are, and America will continue its irreversible decline.
Hopefully, when you're all broke, you will at least quit starting wars all the time.
Posted by: Kevrobb | April 13, 2008 2:23 PM
Obama simply revealed how he feels about those who work for a living. He thinks they're stupid rednecks.
Oh Chris, stop with your misogyny , we're all sick of it. When you write a column on Hilary , test it by changing all the pronouns to "he", and then see if it sounds as stupid as this one
Posted by: | April 13, 2008 2:22 PM
My God, some propose to make this the president of the United States?
THE WH has become thorougly debased and detested in the last period, but a
60-year old woman who loses her mind late on Sautrday nights, and planes vixon? Raunchy cutie?
Posted by: OUR VIXON HILLARY | April 13, 2008 2:22 PM
Hillary might eat pizza and drink a beer. It's clear from the posts here that Obama feasts on Spam.
Posted by: Ed | April 13, 2008 2:16 PM
The crystal clear image right now is that Obama cares more about black liberation theology than small town America.
sorry to all you Obamaniacs.
The truth is: what is on is agenda for America ? What do you think Michele Obama wants on the agenda for America ???
Obama has presented us with two different stories : black anger and black liberation theology are both OK - understandable reactions to what has gone on over the years.
ON the other hand, small town America - they are "bitter" - they have taken the wrong response - they "cling" to religion and guns - as if for some reason they have not done enough to get themselves out of their plight.
The original rational for Obama's campaign that he is a unifier, transcending race has been trashed by Obama himself.
Any resonable person who thinks this through should wonder if Obama should even continue in the US Senate.
Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 13, 2008 2:15 PM
"Clinton, eager to contrast herself with Obama's small town remarks, spent the day talking about going hunting as a kid ..."
And yet, with all her expertise concerning guns, she can't accurately "remember" when she was supposedly on the other end of the barrel in Tuzla.
Believe me, as a gun owner and someone who grew up in a hunting household, if you've been around guns you don't "forget" the details of any circumstance regarding guns being pointed, even inadvertently, in your direction. This woman is a total sham. Pennsylvanians are wising up to that with every passing day.
Posted by: whatmeregister | April 13, 2008 2:13 PM
OH YA, scrumming booze and beer inna bar on Saturday night is going to captivate the churchies in Western Pennsylvaia.
They're going to be soooo impressed.
But one has to amit one thing...she's not elite. She and Billy and grubbed a hundred million dollars, however, that are really ugly.
But even $109m and ivy schooling wouldn't make that ugly shrill elite.
Takes a little class, does it not? A modicrum.
Posted by: classless | April 13, 2008 2:11 PM
Hillary believes in all of "US", including those of us in small towns. Obama is an elitist jerk. How can Americans even give him a glance? Go Hillary and the rest of "US" left to vote, "we can do this together". I feel the small towns and big towns too, rising to the support of the American President who represents us all. Now, that has finally become obvious to us all- Obama "we in small towns are bitter"!!! Get a life and go back to your rookie senate position & leave America to Hillary. She is being outspent by at least three to one. Remember, the money for Obama's campaign didn't all come from small donors as he tries to make us think. Instead, at least half of his 230 million plus dollars has come from rich multimillionaires and 27,000 plus maximum amount $2300.00 donors. Ergo, his elistist comments and beliefs stated in San Francisco are shining through. Now these "bitter" comments bring [W]right up again too, and correctly so, I think! Why does everything Obama wrongly says that clearly shows how he really stands gets spun around as we, the electorate, are taking it out of contest or he's sorry but...? Hillary has the only "shot" now for Democrats in November. She really identifies with and cares about what happens to the ones of "US" left who are barely surviving here in the middle and lower class. She, of course, is rich but, she can still identify with we the "working class Americans. Obama, clearly cannot. Hillary will win in November against McCain or more of the same McBushIII. Obama cannot win, particularly now. Sure looks like to me that Obama is showing himself for the far left latte drinker that he has been since the start. Remember, divide and conquer in Europe by taking advantage of the youth and minority races? Starting to rack them up and the republicans will have a field day in November i.e. monster, NAFTAgate, his real plans for his Irag withdrawal revealed, small town slam and oh yeah, [W]right!!!! Obama's latest truly revealing small small town slam calling "US" bitter, etc., finally shows him for the elitist rat that he has been from the start and has managed to hide thus far. Wake up America! He doesn't care a thing about promoting anybody but himself. We need Hillary Clinton. We can still save the nominating process and the Democratic Party, if we do the right thing in the primaries left to come. Let's not let the rest of America down. Decisive wins for Hillary in all remaining primaries will put Obama back in his rightful place- a rookie senator. We can still do this and I know the rest of "US" is counting on us. One last thing, where are the ranting raves by the MSM on this issue and why aren't they running this over and over and over again? He will lose the nomination because he is finally identified as the inferior candidate. We have to beat McCain in the fall Americans. Vote Hillary for a victory for the Democrats in November, otherwise we're doomed. PA, you can do it, bring her on to the rest of "US" and save the Presidency for the Democrats. Vote Hillary! Thank you from KY.
Posted by: Mary O'Bryan | April 13, 2008 2:10 PM
First America selects a president based on whether we'd want to have a beer with him.
Now Hillary~! 'downs' a shot of whiskey.
Wow! I can hardly contain myself.
Is this the dumbing down of the United States, or what?
Posted by: Captain John | April 13, 2008 2:10 PM
If I only had a job - then I wouldn't be a bitter, typical white person, loving my guns and Jesus. Instead my partner and I would be reading Susan Sontag and driving my Prius to my job at P.E.T.A. in the Valley. Help me Obama!!!
Posted by: pgr88 | April 13, 2008 2:10 PM
Remember her vodka-drinking contest with John McCain three years ago:
Delighted, the leader of the delegation, Senator John McCain, quickly agreed. The after-dinner drinks went so well -- memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much -- that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. "One of the guys" was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.
Posted by: AJ Fish | April 13, 2008 2:07 PM
Beer, whiskey, guns, and bowling - Clinton's going all out to align herself with (her interpretation of) the middle class. Does she have such a low opinion of us that she thinks we can't see through her act?
The intense coverage of the non-story about Obama's "bitter" remark demonstrates the dumbing down of the media.
In one of the bloodiest weeks for US troops in Iraq; after revelations about Bill Clinton's $800,000 benefit from the Colombian trade deal; after the donation to the Clinton foundation by the Chinese corporation that has worked to repress Tibet - Hillary has led the media by the nose and controlled the headlines with another exaggerated Obama smear.
She already lost the Democratic nomination; is she running for McCain's VP or for a third party bid? We can be sure she won't give up the spotlight easily.
Posted by: Obama/Pelosi 2008 | April 13, 2008 2:05 PM
I think Hillary is the one who's out of touch. Does she knows how much we're paying for food now a days? Our income is not catching up with the cost of living expenses. I am talking about just a regular low cost household expenses on two household earning families. Sure I am frustrated. I may not cling to guns, religion, etc. but I pray to God to help us get through this. Lucky for her they earned $109 millions. How about the regular folks like us? Barack is right.
Posted by: bigben1986 | April 13, 2008 2:00 PM
Good thing Hillary's gun loving reputation has got around. Probably scared off those snipers in Tuzla.
Posted by: Lone Star | April 13, 2008 1:59 PM
A shot and a beer?
She's a joke, an ambarrassment.
Let's say you're one of our "enemies" or one of our friends, abroad, for example.
You impressed by the fat lying harridan swilling it up on Sturday night in ruralI Indiana?
Posted by: Embrassed | April 13, 2008 1:54 PM
This trick will do anything to win, just like her husband.
Posted by: Mrs. C. | April 13, 2008 1:50 PM
"Barack Insane's O'Bombing was recruited and promoted by Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Daschile,-along with several other Spider-Web covered Relics in Congress."
Promoted? Yes. Recruited by? Who are you kidding??? And how can you get more status quo than be the wife of a former President? It's like saying the son of a fomrer President and CIA director and grandosn of a longserving senator is a man of the people and represents change in Washington. Gimme a break. Clinton's done, and McCain's time was eight years ago, if at all. Get used to saying it: President Barack Obama.
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 1:45 PM
So what does Pennsylvania think of all this? Apparently, they still like the "elitist." Hillary must be spinning in her political grave...
"Sen. Clinton has made much of her ''ability to lead'' on day one in the Oval Office. Past experience like hers is one thing, but leadership also depends on having a vision, plans to pursue that vision, and an ability to inspire others to follow. On those grounds, Sen. Barack Obama is well-suited to lead, and The Morning Call recommends his nomination in the Democratic primary."
- Allentown, PA MORNING CALL http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-a.6348993apr13,0,4038021,print.story
"All of the myriad issues facing the next president of the United States coalesce into a single question: Who can best lead?
For Pennsylvania Democrats, the best answer in the April 22 primary is Barack Obama."
- Scranton, PA. TIMES-TRIBUNE http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19480144&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=418218&rfi=6
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 1:42 PM
I believe Sen Obama's supporters have helped me to finally understand the success of Rush Limbaugh, et al. Convincing the rubes you are insufferable pricks is a piece of cake. No wonder they hate "liberals".
Posted by: | April 13, 2008 1:41 PM
Barack Insane's O'Bombing was recruited and promoted by Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Daschile,-along with several other Spider-Web covered Relics in Congress.
They are the most dominant aspects of the worst of what people consider "Professional Politicians" and the well entrenched, and very Problematic, "Status Quo".
I can only BEG some People in other States to PLEASE REMOVE YOUR OLD, WORTHLESS, OBSTRUCTING, SENILE, PARTISAN, CORRUPT, AND BOUGHT P'sOS REPRESENTATIVES! PLEASE! ;~)
You could have had a Romney! ;~)
Posted by: RAT-The | April 13, 2008 1:38 PM
This is the real Obama...arrogant and condescending and if you disagree with him you are racist.
Now let's watch how the Obamedia spins this one. They can't blame Hillary since it was Obama's blog of choice that broke the story.
Watch...they will just try to change the subject instead of really taking a look at this candidate and who he really is.
Posted by: joe | April 13, 2008 1:37 PM
Out of control federal debt, our military crumbling because we're stuck in Iraq, a government that endorses torture and ignores the constitution, America's standing declining under all standards across the globe, tax cut handouts for the wealthiest Americans and bailouts for corporations while the working class suffers with the downturn in the economy and the mortgage crisis...
If you're not bitter, you're not paying attention.
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 1:34 PM
[QUOTE] Posted by: RAT-The | April 13, 2008 1:21 PM: He CONCEDED! :-) [/QUOTE]
Hm.... does smiley face mean you are happy he conceded or that you a joking? I'll do what is normally done: I'll assume the worst:
Obama has only conceded that he made a mistake. Has Clinton ever admitted as much? Is she capable, because after 7 years of Bush's inability to face reality I'm not ready for another unreal President.
Posted by: egc52556 | April 13, 2008 1:30 PM
"His follow-up comments saying he was more "in touch" with rural Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois than his opponents simply confirm that arrogant, elitist attitude."
How is it elitist when it's the truth? How many people really picked up those "I'm not bitter" stickers Hillary was handing out? Not many. Again, Pennsylvania, if you're happy with the state of America today, go vote for McCain or Hillary and the status quo.
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 1:27 PM
Posted by: egc52556 | April 13, 2008 1:25 PM
"But they've done more than that. Obama hasn't."
Yeah, they gave us NAFTA, set back the cause of Helthcare reform by 20 years, and capitulated with Republicans on a number of issues that prevented us from taking back the House and Senate. And let's not forget their help in legitimizing the Iraq war. Quite a list of accomplishments even without getting into dodging sniper fire...
With Obama, we have a new opportunity to work forward on a positive agenda without the lingering baggage of the Clinton years. If you think a woman with a near 50% disapproval rating has any ability to deliver heathcare reform that will be from the beginning derided as Hillarycare II, the beginnigs of a socialist plot, and not to mention all the while requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass, I've got a bridge to sell you. Hillary would give us four years of political stagnation, more investigations into her fundraisers, Bill's presidency (and her role in it), an dabsolutely no progress on any number of issues that Americans are so desperate for change on. I don't beleive for a second that Obama can magically change the dynamic of things overnight, but he will, when Republicans begin to make those charges and those lines of attack, be better able to defelct them and make the Republicans look worse by sayign from the beginning that he was elected because people wanted to get away from the old fights of the 80s, 90s and the Bush years and turn a page, while the Republicans won't let go and face the real issues facing America. Clinton can't do that, and America will lose as a result. This is why If Clinton wins the nomination, I will be voting for McCain. I can't stand his politics, but at least with a solid Dem Congress there will be room for compromise and advancement of a positive agenda, rather than gridlock and endless fighting over stupid scandals.
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 1:24 PM
Obama's San Francisco comments were like a social mirror reflecting his very soul.
NEWS FLASH: Obama is an elitist. His follow-up comments saying he was more "in touch" with rural Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois than his opponents simply confirm that arrogant, elitist attitude. But it gets even worse. A high proportion of Obama's college and well-to-do white supporters are also elitists. Just read most of the comments posted here. If Obama's supporters want true political change, maybe they should start with themselves. They are great exmaples of witless buffoons. Whoops ... aren't they the ones they want to replace?
Posted by: Daniel | April 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Well, if MY Competition had just CONCEDED, explaining "That he could have explained himself better";
I'd be Celebrating Too! ;~)
I'm just surprised that nobody else realizes it is all over?!
Posted by: RAT-The | April 13, 2008 1:21 PM
>>kreuz_missile wrote: ""Obama, the verbally gifted ivy league face man," --Bill and Hillary were both Ivy Leaguers...
But they've done more than that. Obama hasn't.
Obama admits he failed at being a community organizer and went to law school after a couple of years of going nowhere. Then, despite his high academic achievement, he failed to make partner at his prestigious law firm out of Harvard Law and left, taking Michelle with him.
Obama has won all of his elections by his opponents being disqualified, crippled or unviable. That's partly why his camp's main strategy seems to have been to put a lot of pressure on Clinton to drop out and how to force her out. He's never even really won an election outright against a solid opponent.
The point is not that the Clintons weren't Ivy Leaguers every bit as elite intellectually as Obama (Bill was a Rhodes scholar!). The point is Obama's callow and little more than a face man, no matter where he hails from. The fact of his Ivy League background only helps illuminate how out of touch he is with mainstream America and issues.
Most everything that has been constructed about his public image and the presentation of him as a person has been editorial fiction of left-wing news outlets like the Post, political strategizing and marketing, all built on the foundation of his skill at delivering convincing rhetorical performances.
Obama is not what he appears to be.
I think that it's good that so many young people are getting involved in his campaign. They will learn, at an earlier age than most, that politicians do lie, present themselves as being that which they are not, paint their rivals in a false negative light, and make promises they have no intention or ability to deliver on.
Obama is no different than Bush, except that he's left-wing. He's an Ivy League face man with no resume and no vision that is his own, and no ability to deliver on the promises he makes.
Posted by: Annette Keller | April 13, 2008 1:14 PM
Hillary Clinton has the best policies for every facet of government. She is simply the best candidate for the job. Undecided voters should closely examine her statements on www.hillaryclinton.com. By the way, I am not part of Hillary's campaign, simply a well-informed and well-educated citizen who supports Hillary. Hillary is smart, experienced, knowledgeable, able to make nuanced decisions and resilient, all qualities that will make her a good president.
HEALTH CARE - her plan covers everyone and will require participation on the part of both citizen and government. Everyone chips in and her plan will start to re-prioritize to make health care accessible and affordable to everyone.
FOREIGN POLICY - as First Lady then a 2-term senator from a major state, Hillary has had extended first hand exposure to foreign policy. It is doing our country a disservice by choosing to ignore her accomplishments and focusing on the Bosnia sniper fire controversy, which was a clear example of the media and Obama supporters making a mountain out of a molehill. The hoopla fails to acknowledge her real accomplishments during that trip as well as her role in the Northern Ireland negotiations. Hillary's plan for Iraq is realistic and takes into account unanticipated problems that might emerge in that part of the country at the time of withdrawal. The idea that an anti-war speech in 2002 without the consequences of decision-making somehow elevates Sen. Obama to moral high ground is irrational justification. 20/20 hindsight doesn't work in the real world when confronted with tough decision-making. The most important point now, as pointed out by Hillary, is to determine the best forward-moving strategy: how to stabilize our economy by ending the war, bringing our troops home and taking care of the veterans, and exiting in an honorable fashion.
ECONOMY - Hillary has detailed plans that address all facets of our failing and unstable economy: trade, foreclosures, manufacturing stagnation. Reality cannot be described in black and white terms. I do not see any contradiction in Hillary's support of some facets of free trade and at the same time being critical of other aspects. The fact is free trade does help to lower consumer costs. US manufacturers and workers have to re-invent and re-tool to remain competitive. Trying to hold on to $35/hr union jobs for handing out tools in the automobile industry is not a formula for success in the 21st century. Hillary's proposal for green jobs (she recognized its importance long before Obama incorporated it into his proposals) is the first step in the right direction. Hillary also recognizes the fact that women earn less than men for the same job and that minority women earn even less. I believe Sen. Clinton when she says she will address that inequality when she becomes President.
EDUCATION - Hillary's long involvement in education sets her aside from her competitors. She recognizes that to make the US a leader again, the education system has to be revamped, starting at the most elementary levels. Teaching has to be reinstated as an honorable job with appropriate compensation. It is a disgrace that US high schoolers score well below their Asian counterparts in science and math. Without adequate grounding in those disciplines, it is impossible to see how the US can compete with emerging powers in Asia in the decades to come. By re-investing in research and technology, Hillary will undo the damage done by the past 8 years of the Bush administration and nurture a future generation of enthusiastic, science and technology savvy can-do leaders for the 22nd century.
It is essential we take a long hard look at what each of the 3 candidates bring to the table and let our heads not emotions make the vital decision.
Posted by: alee21 | April 13, 2008 1:12 PM
Beer and shots? What a tramp.
Posted by: Boxie | April 13, 2008 1:06 PM
>>Debmood wrote: "There is nothing more disgusting than seeing a woman drinking beer and whiskey."
Hillary Clinton has been married to the most powerful man in the world, a brilliant Yale law grad and Rhodes scholar, and unarguably a sexy guy who is a natural with women.
Hillary Clinton obvious has a lot of smarts and drive to offer as a power wife. But she couldn't have landed a brilliant and sexy playboy like Bill Clinton as a husband, and hold onto him for all their lives, if she wasn't able to be lot of fun in ways that count with guys who know how to have a good time.
She can't, and wouldn't, market herself as a woman who knows her way around a man and who knows how to have a good time. But it's kind of obvious, reading between the lines of the Clintons' lives together.
Clinton would be a lot more fun on a bowling team than the effete, limp-wristed Obama!
Posted by: Annette Keller | April 13, 2008 1:05 PM
Obama's gaffe reinforced an image of him that was already in the air: that he is an elitist.
Clinton's stupid "shot and a brew" photo op now reinforces an image of her that is already in the air: she has no personality of her own other than what she thinks voters want to see. As if anybody is going to believe Hillary Clinton is a good ol' boy.
Posted by: egc52556 | April 13, 2008 1:01 PM
Why is this woman allowed to tear down the Democratic Nominee as viciously as any Republican? She's lost the race. Yet she is allowed to run amok like a two year old having a temper tantrum. Since when is telling the TRUTH an ELITIST thing to do? You can tell by THEIR remarks that they are the ones out of touch when they call someone who speaks the TRUTH elitist.
Posted by: AC | April 13, 2008 1:00 PM
"Obama, the verbally gifted ivy league face man,"
Bill and Hillary were both Ivy Leaguers,and he's a former US President while she's a sitting Senator, and they pulled in over $100 million in the last seven years. How exactly is Obama the Ivy League face man and elitist in this scenario?
"A lot of Clinton supporters have perceived Obama as a bag of charming, rhetorically gifted hot air and very little of an established record of action with which he can be accurately defined. With the revelations about Rev. Wright, NAFTA, his "bitter" comments and the things his wife says, he seems to be quite a hypocrite, too."
Yeah, you say a lot of funny things when running around under sniper fire trying to sign landmark peace treaties and holding secret conferences to push strongly for Free Trade agreements that you secretly oppose, while continuing to employ a staffer lobbying strongly for a Free Trade agreement that is also supported by your husband but you also oppose. Oh wait, wrong candidate. Well, maybe the old lady just needs a little nap to clear her judgment, as this stuff can happen in the late afternoon if you keep waiting up for that 3am phone call that, for her, is never going to come...
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 12:59 PM
>>Debmood wrote: "There is nothing more disgusting than seeing a woman drinking beer and whiskey. This is not the first time Hillary has been seen drinking this way. It's very unattractive."
That's hilarious. I guess you've never been to college! Ha Ha.
I understand she did some drinking with McCain on a junket to Iraq once. I'm glad she can do shots and boilermakers. She's a hell of a woman.
At least one of Democratic nomination candidates isn't a limp-wristed wimp. Obama, literally and figuratively, is throwing gutter balls in his attempts to act and talk like a man.
You say how can Clinton answer the phone at 3 a.m. with a shot and a beer in her? I wonder how Obama can pick up a phone at all with his effete, diffident, limp-wristed understanding of life outside the world of condos and mansions (bought with corrupt lobbyist assistance).
Posted by: Annette Keller | April 13, 2008 12:57 PM
The 44th President of the United States
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:56 PM
I feel sorry for mark penn, as despicable as he might possibly be (I don't know him that well),
NOBODY, not any genius salesman, could ever 'sell' someone as detested and despicable as Hillary Clinton.
She is a lying race-baiting opportunist.
Thank God the Amercian people are for the most part seeing it now.
Obama simply doesn't need her 'core' supporters and certainly doesn't need that portion of her core supporters who are closet-racists.
Posted by: g. washington | April 13, 2008 12:56 PM
sheila, read what he said. He's not saying that bitterness is the only reason people believe in these things, he's saying they vote based on these things alone and ignore their economic interests as voting issues because nobody in Washington seems to really care about them economically. They vote for Dems on economic concerns and the ClintonS give them NAFTA, they vote for Bush and Republicans in congress and get conservative Christian judges. Given that track record, which way would you vote, social or economic issues? Obama was absolutely right, and hopefully will use it to crucify the $110 mil former first lady candidate right out of the water for the true elitist snob she is, whose only route to the nomination is turning the elite of the Democratic party to her side over the will of the 30+ elections Obama has won in elitist states like Utah, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, North Dakota...
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 12:54 PM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:53 PM
Obama, the verbally gifted ivy league face man, got caught confiding to a bunch of San Francisco left-wing liberal elites how small-town America is full of bitter poor whites clinging to guns, religion and racism.
His remarks complement nicely his wife Michelle's stump speeches, written up in the New Yorker a few weeks ago, in which she describes America as full of slobs, cynics and losers who are struggling to make a paycheck.
A lot of Clinton supporters have perceived Obama as a bag of charming, rhetorically gifted hot air and very little of an established record of action with which he can be accurately defined. With the revelations about Rev. Wright, NAFTA, his "bitter" comments and the things his wife says, he seems to be quite a hypocrite, too.
Obama seems to say whatever people need to hear to believe in him, and harbor true opinions and ideas that are far from what his marketing of himself implies.
Whatever "Obama" is and what his true beliefs are, I think we've been marketed a "Faux-bama". The Washington Post has had a heavy hand in marketing the fairy tale of the man that he isn't.
Posted by: Annette Keller | April 13, 2008 12:51 PM
There is nothing more disgusting than seeing a woman drinking beer and whiskey. This is not the first time Hillary has been seen drinking this way. It's very unattractive. Though with all of her millions, she can do just about anything she wants including stealing the nomination. By the way, how is she going to answer the phone at 3 AM if she's out cold from drinking liquor and beer? It's not wonder Bill had so many women. Hillary was hitting the bottle. Bitter lady and I do NOT drink!
Posted by: Debmood | April 13, 2008 12:49 PM
THE NEOCON SCRIPT FOR HILLARY
.....err, I am a woman, (honest) and I live in southern Illinois...no, I mean, I live in Indianna, no, I mean, Pennsylvania...(Jesus Christ, what am I supposed to write again?) yes, as I was saying, I am a woman, and I live in Pennsylvania (I think that's how you spell it), and yes, I'm mad as hell at Hillary...no, I mean I am mad as hell at Obama (Hillary comes later, after the nomination) because he's a racist! (a racist, how can a black man be a racist?) ...anyway, yes, that's it.., no, I mean, because he's an elitist...yes that's it...he's a racist, no, I mean, he's an elitist....yes, and I'm mad as hell !!!!! (did I get it right?) ...yes, and I'm mad as hell ! (SHOULD I PUT IT ALL IN CAPS?)
(how much does this job pay, again?)
Posted by: Hillbillary | April 13, 2008 12:49 PM
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:46 PM
am a christian and i do not belived in god because i am bitter i belive in him because i love him and i have faith in him and that he is the one whole create this world and he loves us no matter what we did and what we are doing.i am sometime bitter when things does not go my way but i do not go and buy myself a gun***;or blame others if i do not have a work. i just want to ask those who say that obama is telling the truth;are you beliving in god because you are bitter?do you cling to gun because you are bitter?do you hate other because you do not have a job? if so i feel sad for you you should have faith in god and no politics is gonna help you on that issue no matter what obama is telling us we need to stand on our own feet and have faith and belive me there are many people in this world who are going throught the same thing .we need to work hard and belive that oneday live going to be better.be proud of yourself and do not let nobody look down on you
Posted by: shelia | April 13, 2008 12:45 PM
The 44th President of the United States
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:45 PM
Forbs Obama's Magic Numbers In recent weeks, Trailwatch has repeatedly discussed Hillary Clinton's poor prospects for catching Barrack Obama in the delegate race for the Democratic nomination. It is starting to look like Obama can now win enough delegates, 2,024, to secure the nomination before the Democrats meet in late August. As of today, our affiliate Real Clear Politics tells us that Barack Obama has 1,641 total delegates and Hillary Clinton 1,505. So let's turn to the Forbes Delegate Counter and plug in poll projections for the remaining contests. The biggest prize ahead is the April 22 contest in Pennsylvania, with 188 delegates at stake. RCP's latest average of polls has Clinton ahead by nearly 8 percentage points in the Keystone State. Assuming this spread holds once the undecided voters make up their minds, Clinton would win 54% of the vote and 85 delegates to Obama's 46% and 73 delegates. A similar exercise in North Carolina, where the polls currently have Obama with a 16-percentage point lead would deliver 67 delegates to Obama and 48 to Clinton. Real Clear Politics shows only three polls for Indiana, of which Clinton has a 9 point lead in two of them. For argument's sake, we will give her a 10 point lead and 40 delegates versus 32 for Obama. Real Clear Politics does not have poll numbers for the remaining states, but Obama has a 5.8 percentage point lead over Clinton in RCP's average of national polls. Even if we were to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt and split those remaining contests 50/50, Obama comes out with 1,922 and 1,787 for Clinton. These calculations still leave Barack Obama more than 100 delegates short of the total needed for the nomination. So let's go to the superdelegates. At present, 315 superdelegates are still up for grabs. Using our Delegate Calculator, it becomes clear that Obama would need to win just 33%, or 104, of the remaining 315 superdelegates to get over the top. --Steve Kichen
Posted by: Forbs | April 13, 2008 12:44 PM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:42 PM
OBAMA WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE WAR, IF GIVEN THE CHANCE. JUST LIKE HE HAS VOTED WITH CLINTON ON EVERY SINGLE IRAQ ISSUE SINCE HE GOT TO THE SENATE.
Posted by: Franklin | April 13, 2008 12:40 PM
Hillary Clinton says her economic policies will restore the economic policies of her husband's administration. However both Hillary and her husband failed to demonstrate any economic wisdom or foresight as Alan Greenspan warned of irrational exuberance while the sub prime housing loans and dot com investment bubbles were created and pandered during her husband's administration and both supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization without any conditions such as protecting the environment or labor and property rights to levels that are comparable to western standards.
The U.S. government surplus (generated by taxes raised from the housing and investment bubbles) evaporated once the housing and investment bubbles burst.
Furthermore, China today is not only a leading contributor to environmental pollution and global warming (thank you very much Mr. Nobel Laureate, Al Gore), it's also pushing up oil and other commodity prices, taking our jobs and stealing our intellectual property.
Like the Roaring Twenties decade that preceded the Great Depression, the Irrational Nineties that preceded our current decade were both golden ages for technology, scandal-plagued politicians, corporate greed, and unrestrained personal debt and speculation.
As the global economy teeters on the brink of economic meltdown not unlike the Great Depression, America doesn't need finger pointing and fear mongering, America needs a president whose economic policies are based on confidence, unity and reason. America needs Barack Obama.
When political and military judgment mattered most to U.S. military personnel and the American people, John McCain and Hillary Clinton failed as U.S. Senators to demonstrate any commander-in-chief qualities when without competent questioning, they both accepted the faulty intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and misjudged the Bush administration's competencies to lead the war.
Barack Obama on the other hand demonstrated his superior judgment and commander-in-chief qualities when he took an unpopular position and cautioned that without clear rationale an invasion of Iraq would encourage the worst impulses of the Arab world and strengthen Al Qaeda's recruitment.
Now, John McCain advocates maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely which does little to incentivize the Iraqi government to deliver the political reforms needed to promote civil unity whereas Barack Obama's threat to withdraw U.S. troops does more to incentivize the Iraqi government to deliver the necessary reforms.
As the threat of global terrorism persists, neither John McCain or Hillary Clinton have demonstrated any understanding of the complexities of building and maintaining global alliances to confront this common enemy. America needs a president with demonstrated commander in chief qualities, leadership and judgment. America needs Barack Obama.
If experience, wisdom and judgment may be relied upon to judge a presidential candidate's abilities to solve problems, then let's look at the records of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
2007 - While Barack Obama promoted a restoration of balance between work and wealth and criticized special interests for distorting U.S. tax codes, Hillary Clinton and her husband liquidated their blind trust of the nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office.
2002 - While Barack cautioned that without clear rationale an invasion of Iraq would encourage the worst impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda, Hillary told Larry King she didn't regret her vote on the Iraq war resolution because like the Bush administration, the Clinton administration viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat to the international community.
1999 - While Barack secured bipartisan support for health-care reform and passage of low-income tax credits and child care subsidies in the Illinois legislature, Hillary supported her husband's Iraq "regime change" policy in order to divert public attention from the president's marital, legal and ethical infidelities.
1989 - While Barack Obama served as the Harvard Law Review's first black president, Hillary Clinton then wife of the Arkansas governor received payments from a law firm that was doing the state's business and received board of director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about Wal-Mart's anti-labor union practices.
1979 - While Barack Obama was actively involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary reaped profits of almost 10,000% in the futures markets and left taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.
The Clintons would have us believe that Hillary and Bill have been thoroughly vetted. If that were true, then why don't we have answers for:
FOREIGN: How will Hillary know whether Bill's advice serves U.S. interests or the interests of his Russian, Chinese, Indian, Kazakhstan, Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman or Brunei clients?
MONEY: Do the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Library, Clinton campaign and Clintons tax records show a proper accounting for the sources and uses of funds?
PARDONS: Will Hillary "reject" contributions or compensation from persons she pardons unlike her husband Bill who accepted contributions from Marc Rich, partner of Viktor Bout (the merchant of death), and her brother Hugh Rodham who accepted compensation from drug lords who were pardoned by Bill?
For too long fear, division and rancor have been used as instruments to maintain power and position in Washington.
Why are the Clintons' traditional adversaries Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity now embracing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party's nominee? Because both the Clintons and John McCain are willing sparring partners in the fear mongering arena, whereas Barack Obama's means of governing through confidence, unity and reason threatens the wealth, power and position of these fear mongers.
It's refreshingly nice to see the better angels of America's character prevailing as voters reject the racial, religious and ethnic slurs being spewed by the divisive surrogates of the Clintons, Limbaugh and Hannity.
Voters in Pennsylvania now have an opportunity to change the direction of America's policies, economy and foreign relations for the better by voting for Barack Obama and rejecting the fear mongers.
As a Republican-leaning independent, I will vote for the Democratic nominee if it is Barack Obama but I will not vote for the Party's nominee if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket. America needs Barack Obama.
Posted by: John Patrick Smith | April 13, 2008 12:40 PM
Obama supporters: name one thing he has done in the Senate! Posted by: Rick | April 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Not an Obama supporter, but here are two things ...
1. Coburn-Obama "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act" (sets up a searchable database for earmarks).
2. Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation initiative (supports elimination of conventional weapons and assistance of WMD interdiction).
BTW, Coburn and Lugar are Republican senators from OK and IN, respectively.
Posted by: mnteng | April 13, 2008 12:39 PM
For the hundred and ten million she and her foul-trousered consort have made in the past ten years she will be able to buy a lot of brewskies and Canadian Club. Hillary is a complete fake.
Obama's now famous "bitter" comment is completely correct. I live in God-forsaken rural western PA and he has it to a T. The poorest of the poor live in such counties as Forest, Pike, Pine and Potter and they went plus-80% for Bush in '04, because of God, guns and gays. These people have nothing except their children, who are fighting in Iraq. I wonder if Hillary knows anybody fighting in Iraq.
Posted by: PJTramdack | April 13, 2008 12:38 PM
Rick-- Why not educate yourself on Obama's record by visiting the congressional record online. You will be disappointed to see that Obama's many bills are far more substantive than Hillary's few.
Posted by: Christine | April 13, 2008 12:36 PM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:35 PM
Hillary's whole campaign seems to be about attack, and whine. Attack about any and everything...her mantra being: fight, fight, fight (as well as, me, me, me),
and then whine that she's losing because she's a woman, because the press doesn't treat her fairly, etc. etc.
The sad truth is that Clinton is losing precisely because she is always fighting. This country is tired of the same old politics of division and attack.
The sad truth is that Clinton is losing (really, lost) not because she is a woman (if a Black man can win, then a White woman could have more easily).
No, She lost because she is Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Stephanie | April 13, 2008 12:32 PM
I am confident that Obama will turn this into a positive. People are bitter, not just in the small towns, but in the larger cities, too. Hillary is similiar to all of the politicans. They champion for the vote, but when they get in the office, they forget about the middle and lower income families. Bill Clinton visted the Appalachian Trail Areas in the mountains after the Lewinsky's fiasco. He promised to bring jobs and get corporate sponsors, etc. That never happened either, and Hillary is riding on Bill's coat tail. I have not seen any votes in Congress, that Hillary has helped the middle class and below. Of course, Hillary could count the vote for the Iraq war, that 4000 plus young people have been killed and thousands handicapped for life. Of course, those recruits come from the middle and lower income families. We need Change in this country.
Posted by: Mim | April 13, 2008 12:30 PM
He at least cares about not offending people.
What do we want an "insistence on WMD"?
Hillary from the beginning addresses Obama as: " Man of words", "get real".
She never had decency to apologize.
Posted by: Dr Charles | April 13, 2008 12:28 PM
Pennsylvania: If you're happy with the Clinton-Bush years and optomistic, go vote for Clinton or McCain, who both promise more of the same....
If, however, you think the country is on the wrong track, vote OBAMA!!
Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 13, 2008 12:25 PM
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:16 PM
He's going to cream her on this....she opened herself up to a coup de grace....when the Obama campaign comes back at her with McCain's "out of touch" line....she won't know what hit her...I suspect it means that she's going to not just be ahead by single digits in Penn, but is going to lose. To get a taste of what's she's going to be facing:
I can already see the tv & radio ads for Obama on this theme: "out of touch?"
Posted by: Randy | April 13, 2008 12:15 PM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:11 PM
So Hillary's downing shots and trashing Obama in the midst of a small town in Indiana. Hmmmmm, what's the imagery here? Perhaps something like what Sen. Obama said in the first place?
Bottom line is, yes, Sen. Obama was a bit inarticulate but, unlike Sen. Clinton, he quickly owned up to it and clarified his sentiments. There's nothing in his background that suggests he's anything but empathetic to the conditions of every American, both those in the urban cities whose children sadly have to duck bullets everyday just to get to school, to those in rural areas who, literally, have driven overnight to get health care from volunteer doctors as reported on a recent story on "60 Minutes." Unlike Sen. Obama who has always spoken with integrity, Sen. Clinton said she ducked sniper fire and stopped short of calling it what it was...a lie! Come to think of it, consider for a moment the thinking that went in to making up such a story. Could it have been pandering to the honest, hard-working men and women from all walks of life who enjoy their guns for all sorts of reasons? Was she repeating this fabrication to cynically score points by tapping into the honest sentiments of law-abiding gun owners? If yes, which I think is the case, then I guess Sen. Obama's point is well made.
Bottom line is both candidates would do well to remember that ALL Democrats are watching this. And, in my opinion, one of the two remaining candidates seems intent on trashing the other. But, hey, if she wins well I guess she'll invite the rest of us to have a beer on her and trust her to do right by us as she continues to profit from her husband's free-wheeling trade deals.
Haven't we seen this movie before? Let's turn the page already.
An Active and Engaged Voter in Virginia
Posted by: SM Jenkins | April 13, 2008 12:10 PM
The 44th President of the United States
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:06 PM
Senator Obama is a Do-Nothing Senator. Obama supporters: name one thing he has done in the Senate! Nothing. Hillary represents experience and accomplishment. And the truth be told, so does John McCain. Obama will lose, if he is the nominee.
Posted by: Rick | April 13, 2008 11:49 AM "
Perhaps you should explain what in thirty five years of experience that Hillary claims to have, has she done. Avoiding "sniper fire" is not experience. Oh, my bad...that was a lie too.
Posted by: Barack 08 | April 13, 2008 12:05 PM
The woman has no credibility at all. Anyone who listens to the endless stream of lies and distortions and get taken by them will in essence display the same stupidity others made in the electing Bush to a 2nd term. I say elected and not re-elected because he was anointed president the first time by the supreme court. We will be getting 4 more years of the same we've already lived thru the past 7+ yrs.
Posted by: tydicea | April 13, 2008 12:05 PM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 12:05 PM
Forbs Obama's Magic Numbers In recent weeks, Trailwatch has repeatedly discussed Hillary Clinton's poor prospects for catching Barrack Obama in the delegate race for the Democratic nomination. It is starting to look like Obama can now win enough delegates, 2,024, to secure the nomination before the Democrats meet in late August. As of today, our affiliate Real Clear Politics tells us that Barack Obama has 1,641 total delegates and Hillary Clinton 1,505. So let's turn to the Forbes Delegate Counter and plug in poll projections for the remaining contests. The biggest prize ahead is the April 22 contest in Pennsylvania, with 188 delegates at stake. RCP's latest average of polls has Clinton ahead by nearly 8 percentage points in the Keystone State. Assuming this spread holds once the undecided voters make up their minds, Clinton would win 54% of the vote and 85 delegates to Obama's 46% and 73 delegates. A similar exercise in North Carolina, where the polls currently have Obama with a 16-percentage point lead would deliver 67 delegates to Obama and 48 to Clinton. Real Clear Politics shows only three polls for Indiana, of which Clinton has a 9 point lead in two of them. For argument's sake, we will give her a 10 point lead and 40 delegates versus 32 for Obama. Real Clear Politics does not have poll numbers for the remaining states, but Obama has a 5.8 percentage point lead over Clinton in RCP's average of national polls. Even if we were to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt and split those remaining contests 50/50, Obama comes out with 1,922 and 1,787 for Clinton. These calculations still leave Barack Obama more than 100 delegates short of the total needed for the nomination. So let's go to the superdelegates. At present, 315 superdelegates are still up for grabs. Using our Delegate Calculator, it becomes clear that Obama would need to win just 33%, or 104, of the remaining 315 superdelegates to get over the top. --Steve Kichen
Posted by: Forbs | April 13, 2008 12:04 PM
You watch--Obama will turn this into a positive. Having a presidential candidate recognize the bitterness that many Americans feel is a good thing. This gives him an opportunity to champion the little guy, to articulate his/her bitterness. It's too bad he didn't better explain his (true and insightful) points about guns and religion, but he's a gifted politician who will end up strengthened by this.
Posted by: Nic | April 13, 2008 12:01 PM
The Obama campaign is allowing this story to grow, before it responds BIG TIME.
...now she's going to get the knock-out punch. .
Posted by: Rocky | April 13, 2008 12:00 PM
Posted by: | April 13, 2008 11:56 AM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 13, 2008 11:55 AM
Ah yes, and now we have for her final act: Beer-swillin', gun-totin', God-fearin' Hillary. Truly, she is a caricature of a politician.
Posted by: miked98 | April 13, 2008 11:54 AM
Posted by: Dave | April 13, 2008 11:51 AM
Senator Obama is a Do-Nothing Senator. Obama supporters: name one thing he has done in the Senate! Nothing. Hillary represents experience and accomplishment. And the truth be told, so does John McCain. Obama will lose, if he is the nominee.
Posted by: Rick | April 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Posted by: Daniel | April 13, 2008 11:26 AM
Posted by: old_europe | April 13, 2008 11:24 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Hillary Clinton downs a beer, has a slice and accuses Barack Obama of dividing America into one that is enlightened and one that is not. --Perry Bacon Jr.
| 539.366667 | 0.933333 | 3.066667 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041202094.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041202094.html
|
'Bitter' Is a Hard Pill For Obama to Swallow
|
2008041419
|
"I didn't say it as well as I could have," Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd in Muncie. Later, in an interview with a North Carolina newspaper, he said, "Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."
The controversy stemmed from remarks Obama made at a private fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6 when he explained his struggles appealing to working-class voters by saying they were frustrated with the loss of jobs under both Republican and Democratic administrations over the last decade, adding: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."
For the second straight day, Clinton's campaign focused on the remarks, and advisers traveling with her were beaming at the opportunity to turn attention away from Bill Clinton's latest gaffe. The former president made a number of factual errors in trying to explain his wife's description of taking sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia in 1996, resurrecting an issue the campaign thought it had put behind it when the senator acknowledged she had misrepresented what happened.
"I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told several hundred voters at a factory here. "Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans, certainly not the Americans that I know. . . . Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it's a matter of a constitutional right, Americans who believe in God believe it's a matter of personal faith."
Pennsylvania holds the next Democratic primary on April 22, and then both Indiana and North Carolina vote on May 6. The Clinton campaign is counting on a significant victory in Pennsylvania and on defeating Obama in Indiana to be able to remain in the race and make the case to uncommitted superdelegates that she would be a stronger candidate in the general election because of her appeal to traditional Democrats who might be tempted to vote Republican if Obama were the nominee.
Some analysts compared the impact of the controversy over Obama's remarks to the setback his campaign experienced after incendiary sermons by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, were publicized last month. "With the Wright controversy still lingering (his opponents are stirring it over and over) and now Obama's unartful comments, it will paint the picture of Obama as being 'out of sync,' " Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate, said Saturday. "Unfortunately, it was the Constitution law professor speaking and not the community organizer."
But another Democratic strategist, who assessed the moment candidly on the condition of anonymity, said: "Ultimately, the case that McCain and Clinton will try to make that Obama is an elitist or out of touch has to be credible to the voter, and I don't believe it is. My sense is more people believe Obama, rather than McCain or Clinton, understand their lives and the challenges they face on a daily basis."
After the remarks were reported by the liberal blog Huffington Post on Friday, Obama initially defended them, and on Saturday he continued to say the tenor of them was correct, even if the phrasing was off. He argued that Clinton and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose campaign also criticized the remarks, were turning something "everybody knows is true" into political fodder.
"Lately, there has been a little, typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my home town in Illinois who are bitter," Obama said in Muncie. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through."
"So I said, 'Well, you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on,' " he continued. "So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about, you know, how things are changing. That's a natural response."
Inside Obama's inner circle, aides conceded they are not sure where the issue might lead, although it is likely to set the tone and raise the stakes of the Wednesday night debate between Clinton and Obama in Pennsylvania. They described Obama as frustrated with himself for word choices such as "cling" and references to hot-button issues including religion and guns, but also stunned at the uproar over what to him seemed a fundamental fact of American life.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 120.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201225.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201225.html
|
Objects on Your Plate May Be Smaller Than They Appear
|
2008041419
|
SWEDESBORO, N.J. -- In the last year, a few dozen chefs have come here to the test kitchen of Rastelli Foods, a wholesaler based near Philadelphia, in search of tips about how to trim portions -- preferably in ways that diners won't notice.
Like many in this business, Rastelli has developed an impressive bag of tricks, and one recent morning staff consultant John Roehm is sharing a few of them with the owner of Conley Ward's Steakhouse, a restaurant in Wilmington, Del. Roehm focuses on the chops, which will soon be downsized in subtle ways, but he's got an idea about the shrimp cocktail, too.
"What you do is skewer the shrimp before you boil them," Roehm says. "It straightens them out so that when you serve them, they look bigger. Now you can buy a smaller, less expensive shrimp."
Pinched by soaring food costs on the one hand and a recession-fearing public on the other, the restaurant industry is getting crafty. Chefs are tinkering with recipes, swapping out expensive ingredients for cheaper ones. Managers are using behavioral science research to rejigger menus -- putting high-profit items in the top right-hand corner, for instance, where diners tend to look first.
And many restaurants are putting the great American portion -- a monstrosity by the standards of international cuisine -- on a diet, as surreptitiously as possible. Lots of restaurants are buying smaller plates to make the reduced servings look just as large, or lighter silverware so that even if there are fewer bites per serving, each bite feels heavier than usual on the fork. A la carte portions of high-priced dishes -- steaks, for example -- are getting pared back and surrounded by low-cost starches and vegetables.
"We've advised a lot of clients to switch from an eight-ounce filet to two three-ounce filets," says Rastelli Foods owner Ray Rastelli, who sells to 6,000 restaurants in the New Jersey, New York and Delaware area. "They reduce their cost by 25 percent and they change the plate presentation, adding some strategically placed accouterments. It looks like more food and it actually costs less."
Some restaurants aren't bothering with the sleight of hand. At Lucky Devils in Hollywood, the toasted pecan shake recently went from 18 ounces to 12 ounces, though the price didn't budge. At the Plumsted Grill in Cream Ridge, N.J., the filet mignon recently went from a 10-ounce to an eight-ounce portion.
"We also bought more small plates," says Plumsted co-owner Stacy Maul. "Our chefs were using these large platters for dishes like the chicken marsala, and they felt like it didn't look right unless the whole plate was covered. You give them smaller plates, they cook less food."
Fret not, gluttons. There is little risk that portion shrinkage will cause anyone to lose weight anytime soon. That's because the point isn't to slim us down or lower our cholesterol. It's to save money in a business that many owners and consultants think is already in recession. A recent National Restaurant Association survey found that 46 percent of members reported declines in traffic in February over the previous month, not to mention "a record-low reading in restaurant operators' outlook and expectations." Smart owners, of course, have always carefully watched their costs, but when every bill comes with a "gasoline-price surcharge" and fewer people are walking through the door, it's hocus-pocus time.
The risk is that patrons will notice and get annoyed. (One Lucky Devils regular recently fumed online that the restaurant had "done something unforgivable. They have toyed with the toasted pecan shake.") A lot of restaurants prefer to charge more rather than fiddle with the food, on the theory that customers think of menu prices the same way that drivers think of a gallon of gas -- they hate to see it get more expensive, but don't blame the gas station when it does.
But eating out is optional in a way that driving isn't, and there's only so much that a typical customer is willing to pay for a plate of fried calamari. And though risky, the financial upside to smaller portions is greater for a restaurant than you might think.
Take that 10-ounce filet mignon. At $20 per pound, it costs $1.25 per ounce. Start buying eight-ounce filets from your supplier instead and you spend $2.50 less per dish. A restaurant that sells a modest 100 filets a week will save $13,000 a year on that item alone.
|
SWEDESBORO, N.J. -- In the last year, a few dozen chefs have come here to the test kitchen of Rastelli Foods, a wholesaler based near Philadelphia, in search of tips about how to trim portions -- preferably in ways that diners won't notice.
| 18.306122 | 1 | 49 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041200764.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041200764.html
|
Iraqis, U.S. Intensify Actions in Sadr City
|
2008041419
|
A curfew imposed on Sadr City more than a week ago was lifted, and residents appeared on the streets as shops reopened, despite the large presence of U.S. and Iraqi security forces.
Leaders of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia reported that U.S. and Iraqi forces had split the area into at least two sections and were placing concrete barriers at a major intersection. American and Iraqi snipers patrolled from the rooftops of nearby buildings.
The Mahdi Army leaders also said Iraqi and American security forces had massed outside a home in Sadr City where a memorial service was being held for cleric Riyadh al-Nouri, a senior Sadr aide assassinated in the holy city of Najaf on Friday.
"The siege is still on," said Abu Haider, a Mahdi Army leader in Sadr City.
Abu Haider called the cancellation of the curfew a propaganda ploy and said government forces had opened just one entrance point for traffic into Sadr City, home to an estimated 2 million people.
"You can imagine the traffic jam," he said.
Separately, the U.S. military said an American soldier was killed by a roadside bomb Saturday morning in northwest Baghdad. At least 19 American troops have been killed in Iraq since last Sunday, making it the deadliest week for U.S. troops in Iraq this year, according to a count by the Associated Press.
Hundreds of people have died in fighting between Sadr's followers and U.S. and Iraqi forces since late last month, when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched a major offensive against the militia and other groups in the southern port city of Basra.
Sadr aides have said they detected a political motive in the Basra offensive and the continuing operations against the Mahdi Army. Sadr's supporters, who are vying for power against Maliki's party and other Shiite movements, expect to do well in key provincial and local elections set for later this year.
The U.S. military said 11 fighters were killed in operations in Sadr City on Friday, as American and Iraqi forces battled snipers and fighters firing machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. A drone-fired missile killed three men planting roadside bombs, the military said.
The U.S. military said that two armored vehicles were damaged in the Sadr City fighting but that no U.S. or Iraqi troops were killed or seriously injured.
Abu Haider said that American helicopters hovered above Sadr City on Friday night and that civilians were injured in the fighting, which damaged homes and shops.
Maj. Mark Cheadle, a U.S. military spokesman, reported that the fighting was less intense Saturday and that American and Iraqi forces were setting up security stations to be manned by Iraqis.
"They can't stop that," Cheadle said, referring to the militiamen. "It's just a matter of how painful they want to make it."
Special correspondent K.I. Ibrahim and other Washington Post staff contributed to this report.
|
BAGHDAD, April 12 -- Iraqi and U.S. military forces on Saturday pushed deeper into the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad, an area largely controlled by Shiite militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
| 13.825 | 0.725 | 1.025 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/10/DI2008041002354.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/10/DI2008041002354.html
|
Science: Choosing a Mate
|
2008041419
|
Shankar Vedantam, who writes the Department of Human Behavior column, reports on the study in today's science feature. He was online today to discuss generational differences in the criteria used to choose spouses along with Stephanie Coontz, professor of history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of "Marriage, A History."
Shankar Vendantam: Welcome to our online chat about my science page article today about evolution and marriage and the evolution of marriage. I am delighted to be joined by Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage: A History.
If anyone has any questions on my weekly Department of Human Behavior column, I will be happy to address those toward the end of the chat. Recent column topics have discussed Elliot Spitzer and what people get when they pay a premium for something, a column on why whites and blacks in America have different estimations about the state of racial equality, and today's column on the benefits of intra-party democracy -- allowing rank and file voters to elect presidential nominees, rather than have bigwigs and insiders choose party candidates.
We have a number of questions in the queue already for the marriage and evolution story, so pipe up soon if you have something you want to run by Stephanie. I should say, before we begin the chat, that if you haven't read Stephanie's book on marriage, run out and get a copy immediately (or right after this chat is done.) The opening chaper of the book can be read for free on Stephanie's Web site, and I found it terrific -- insightful, authoritative and very interesting.
I'm going to start us off with some general questions.
Shankar Vedantam: Stephanie, when people think of marriage nowadays, two ideas pop in our minds. One is "love." The other is "faithfulness." Yet, in your research you have found that romantic love and marital fidelity have not always been important aspects of the institution of marriage. Can you give us a brief history of when and how love came to conquer marriage?
Stephanie Coontz: Through most of history, most societies thought that marriage was too important a political and economic institution to be entered into for such an irrational and possibly fleeting reason as love. Some cultures thought love should develop AFTER marriage, while some thought love was something you got on the side, but it was generally agreed that marrying for love was unwise and even anti-social. While fidelity was frequently required of wives, to ensure that no "foreign" kinship lines were introduced into the family, it was seldom expected of men.
A wife was supposed to ignore it if her husband had a mistress, and when a wife DID make a fuss, her brothers and father -- instead of siding with her as they would today -- often wrote to her husband apologizing for her unseemly behavior. Young people have often dreamed of marrying for love, but through most of history they were expected to let their parents decide who they should marry. It was just 250 years ago, when the Enlightenment challenged the right of the older generation and the state to dictate to the young, that free choice based on love and compatibility emerged as the social ideal for mate selection. And only in the early nineteenth century did the success of a marriage begin to be defined by how well it cared for its members, both adults and children.
But of course, once people have the right to marry for love and believe that marriage should be for the good of the man and woman and their children, not for the good of parents or the state, they are bound to demand the right not to marry at all if they cannot find love, and the right to divorce if the marriage doesn't meet their needs. Some will even claim that a "love child" is every bit as acceptable as a child born to a marriage of convenience.
So the ideal of marrying for love was a huge challenge to the traditional aims and functions of marriage, and although it took 150 years for the destabilizing impact of the love match to reach critical mass, the writing was on the wall as early as the 1790s.
Shankar Vedantam: If people did not marry for love, what has marriage been about traditionally?
Stephanie Coontz: Marriage was originally a way of forming alliances with other kin groups and societies. Indeed, the main point of marriage throughout history was to get in-laws. At first, among egalitarian band-level societies, marriage fostered social connection and reciprocity. It turned strangers into relatives, enemies into allies. The ancient Anglo-Saxon word for wives meant "peace weavers."
But as groups developed internal differences of status and wealth, people began to want to make alliances with families of higher or at least equal status, and to prevent their children from marrying lower-status individuals. So marriage became a way of limiting obligations and restricting interdependencies. The rules about who could and could not marry whom became more strict, and parents more harshly enforced their control over their children's mates. At this point, societies invented the institution of illegitimacy, which ensured that children born outside an approved match had no call upon the kin of either side of the family.
For thousands of years, then, marriage was a weapon in the competitive struggle for power. Among the upper classes, it was a way of acquiring influential in-laws, bolstering claims to political authority and succession, sealing peace treaties and military alliances, and consolidating land or capital. Getting "connected" in-laws was a preoccupation of the middle classes as well. For the lower classes, marriage was a way of expanding the family labor force, so fertility, compatible skills and a good work ethic counted more than love.
Shankar Vedantam: Why do you think marriage has become less about political and economic ties today and more about love and companionship? What are the factors that have driven this change?
Stephanie Coontz: Marriage has ceased to be the main way that society organizes people's economic rights and work commitments. It no longer determines people's citizenship rights and social status as adults, or legally assigns a particular division of labor and power in the home. Banks, bureaucracies, and markets now regulate who does what work and who gets wages, profits, or business loans, and they do this on the basis of objective criteria that are not linked to a person's status as a husband or wife. Local elites and employers have lost their ability to impose a particular lifestyle on individuals, and democratic reforms such as the abolition of restrictions on interracial marriage and removal of the legal penalties of illegitimacy have made it harder for the state to prevent some groups from marrying and to pressure other groups into marriage. The economic independence of women has reduced the pressures that used to force women to enter or stay in a marriage. And legal changes have also transformed marriage into an association of equals. As late as the 1970s, many states had "head and master" laws, giving the husband the final say over many family decisions, and they defined the duties of husband and wife in very distinct ways: The husband, but not the wife, had the duty to support the family; the wife, but not the husband, had the duty to keep house, raise the children, and provide sex. That's why there was no such thing as marital rape. Now marriage is defined as an association of two individuals who have equal responsibilities and rights and can negotiate their roles as individuals rather than adhering to gender stereotypes. All this encourages couples to have a much more individualized and intimate relationship.
Shankar Vedantam: You have found that arranged marriages and marrying for economic and political ties are not just limited to non-western cultures, but have long been a part of marriage in the West. Can you talk about how economic and political considerations played a role in marriage in the West -- and whether they still play such a role today?
Stephanie Coontz: After the collapse of the Roman Empire, marriage was a central way that the leaders of emerging kingdoms in the West jockeyed for power. Kings (and sometimes queens as well) would marry someone who could claim descent from royalty or who controlled important resources and armies, and if a better match came along, they would try to get out of the first marriage. So in the early Middle Ages, church officials, nobles, and aspiring kings fought pitched battles over who had the right to declare a marriage valid or invalid, and these battles led to some unique features of Western marriage.
But in the West as elsewhere, the upper classes used marriage to make alliances and expand their control over serfs and fighting men. In the middle classes, until the late 18th century, the dowry a man received at marriage was usually the biggest economic stake he would acquire before his parents died, so the size of the dowry took precedence over the attraction to the daughter. Peasants also sought connections with families who had neighboring land or connections with local elites, and artisans sought work mates and business partners. Society has gradually developed other ways of organizing work, property transfers, and political succession. But as long as women were economically dependent on men, they had to consider economic factors in marriage.
We tend to think of women as the more romantic sex, but it was men who first embraced the love revolution -- because they could afford to. As late as 1967, a poll of college students found that 2/3 of the women, but only 5 percent of the men, said they would consider marrying someone they didn't love in order to achieve goals such as financial security.
Today, marriage allows two people to merge resources, divide tasks, and accumulate more capital than they could as singles. So it still plays an economic role, but in a different way than 50 years ago. Today the big economic advantage of marriage is having two earners, and there is evidence that men as well as women increasingly look for mates who can share the breadwinning role. While intermarriage has increased between people of different races, ethnicities, and religions, it has decreased between people of different educational attainment and class standing. So despite the priority of love as a conscious motive, economic factors still affect whom we fall in love with.
Shankar Vedantam: In our interview, you said the evolution of marriage into an institution that is primarily about love and companionship had both positive and negative elements. Can you share with our readers what you meant?
Stephanie Coontz: When a marriage works today, it is fairer, more intimate, more satisfying, and more beneficial to its members than ever before in history. Through most of history -- and still today in many parts of the world -- marriage channeled resources from kids to parents and from women to men. That's not true in the West today. But the same things that have made marriage more intimate and satisfying have made it more optional -- and made an unsatisfying marriage seem less bearable to people. The right to divorce has been in many ways positive -- for example, economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson found that in every state that adopted no-fault divorce, the next 5 years saw a 20 percent decline in the suicide rate of wives, and an even greater decline in domestic violence.
Still, our high expectations of love and companionship can also shade into unrealistic expectations that may lead people to be impatient with the inevitable ups and downs of any relationship. Overall, I think people are better off with high expectations of marriage than the low ones that caused many women to tell interviewers in the 1960s and 1970s that "we have a good marriage -- he's hardly ever hit me." But another down side of the very positive increase in marital commitment and altruism -- especially in America, where the idealization of love is higher than in most other societies -- has been a tendency to make love and marriage our ONLY source of commitment and obligation. Over the past two decades, the percentage of people who said their spouse was a close confidante rose from less than a third to almost 40 percent. That's good. But even as more spouses reported being each other's close confidantes, the number of neighbors, co-workers, club or church members, and extended kin with whom Americans discussed important matters dropped. The number of people who had no one other than their spouse to talk with soared. Almost half of all Americans now say there is just one person or no one at all with whom they discuss important matters. And other studies show that married people today actually spend less time offering practical help to neighbors and parents than do singles. So marriage can became a sort of emotional equivalent to today's gated communities.
Washington, D.C.: I found that any attempts to codify what marriage means for a society fall far far short of what an individual marriage means. Do you find that it's useful to look at marriages by generation or isn't that an impossibility. My single friends tried to get my wife and I to accept that when we got married we somehow became part of a group of married people who excluded homosexuals, or somehow I treated my wife more as "property" after marriage than before, but I found all attempts to place our marriage into some larger cultural group just didn't fit. Nor did any of my married friends really fit any group. Some are soulmates, others got married after accidental pregnancies, others got married out of desperation, others got married and divorced within a few years, others got married and seem to live separate lives (either as workaholics, volunteeraholics or Mr-Basement-workshop), many got married and were joined at the hip, some have kids and others haven't. Some are completely sexist, some completely open. I was shocked that there seems to be almost no difference between my parents' WW2 generation friends and my friends-- Particularly because my parents dealt with the war and the cold war and didn't get married until the 1960s when they and their friends were in their late 30s.
Stephanie Coontz: There has always been huge variation in individual marriage, no matter how rigid the cultural rules. Tolstoy once said that happy marriages were all alike, but each unhappy marriage was unhappy in its own way. In my research, I actually found the opposite: The unhappy marriages had a lot more in common cross-culturally and over history than the happy ones -- partly because what counts as a happy or good marriage is so culturally varied. But I do think marriage is more of an individualized project than it used to be. In the 1950s, almost everyone married around the same age -- and if you got 2 or 3 years beyond the average age, you were unlikely to ever marry. And people generally adhered -- at least in public -- to pretty stereotyped gender roles. They also faced social censure if they didn't have kids (or felt it). Today people have a lot more choice about how to organize their marriage, and they increasingly do it on the basis of their individual needs and abilities rather than on the basis of what husbands and wives "ought" to do.
Shankar Vedantam: I happen to be listening on my iPod to "Anna Karenina" (the only way I find the time to "read" fiction anymore) and although Tolstoy's opening line in the book is great, I think the novel itself contradicts the idea that happy marriages are all alike and unhappy marriages are all different. Much of the novel seems to support the opposite conclusion, which is what Stephanie's research has found.
Leawood, Kan.: What are the divorce statistics when people marry after first cohabiting and how does this compare with pre-arranged marriages in America?
Stephanie Coontz: We don't have good statistics on the few marriages that are arranged. But there's a lot of confusion about the impact of cohabitation on marriage. On average, people who cohabit before marriage have higher divorce rates, but most researchers don't think that cohabitation "causes" divorce. In fact, a more likely explanation is that the minority of people who don't cohabit nowadays are likely to be more religious and to have strong moral objections to "living in sin." Such people are also less likely to divorce, even if the marriage is bad. The one danger in cohabitation is when people "drift" into marriage, rather than consciously making a decision. One benefit, though, is that men who cohabit before marriage tend to do more housework afterwards --- and that's a big plus for marital stability nowadays.
Shankar Vedantam: I think there are also problems with self-selection here. It is not as though we randomly divide people into cohabitaters and non-cohabitators. People who cohabit might be more likely than non-cohabitators, for example, to believe in the ideal of marrying for love -- they want to find out if their partner is really a soulmate. I would find it unsurprising if these people also had a higher rate of divorce down the road -- but the causative factor might not be cohabitation but that they have different expectations of marriage in the first place.
Washington, D.C.: I have talked with several of my friends comparing my parents' generation (baby-boomers) with ours (25-35 year olds). The consensus is that my parents' generations were more "all or nothing" while my generation is more conscious about opportunity costs and more methodical about soulmate searching. In a way, you think this method of looking for a mate is better, when you look at how many baby boomer "all or nothing marriages" have led to divorce. At the same time, you really wonder if this "methodical search" is good when it seems that a lot more people in my generation are lonely, single, and/or still looking. Why is this so? Why is it that my generation who seems more committed to the soulmate search actually isn't finding him/her?
Stephanie Coontz: I think the "all or nothing" applies more to the parents of the baby boomers, and it had mixed effects: Yes, that attitude made them more committed to stay through good time and bad, but it also led many people to enter and stay in marriages that were destructive to both the adults and the kids. The baby boomers actually have higher divorce rates than the new generation -- in fact the divorce rate has been falling since 1980. There's still a high rate of breakup -- about 45 percent of marriages end in divorce -- but it varies hugely by class and education: College-educated women and women who marry at an older age have much lower divorce rates than women with a h.s. education and women who marry early. And couples who marry at age 35 or older have the most stable marriages of all. So it seems there are some advantages as well as some risks to prolonging the search.
Shankar Vedantam: I would also add, in keeping with the nitpicky mood I seem to be in today, that it seems problematic to automatically assume divorce is a bad thing. Sure, no one gets married expecting they are going to get divorced and most people considering marriage do so in the hope their bond will last a lifetime, but surely we all know people who are better off divorced than married. I understand the intuitive appeal of judging different approaches to marriage by studying the divorce rate, but I wonder if this is too crude an approach to capture the complexity of the phenomenon?
Silver Spring, Md.: Summary of your article states that "Marrying for love--and expecting fidelity--are both relatively new developments." Not according to the New Testament. Jesus quoted Genesis of the Old Testament to reinforce monogamy. St. Paul commands husbands to love their wives, and proscribes, again and again, out-of-wedlock sex. Of course, this type of marriage was very different from the predominant marriages of the Roman Empire. Why does your article overlook the historic Christian view of marriage?
Stephanie Coontz: My book has a detailed account of the Christian approach to love. Most religious and moral leaders through the ages have recommended monogamy, but few have enforced it. The early Christian church, for example, debated how many concubines a man had to have before they denied him communion! Jesus was unique among the major religious leaders in encouraging monogamy for both men and women, and prohibiting divorce, but the early Christians were actually highly suspicious of both love and marriage because they distracted people from the task of organizing and recruiting to the movement. That said, for the 1st 16 years of its existence, the Catholic church did provide an out that many churches did not when young people defied their parents and married for love. That was the doctrine of consent, which held that if 2 people claimed to have exchanged vows in the present tense -- out by the haystack, behind the barn, without witnesses or the blessing of a priest, even through a locked door -- they were validly married. IN 1215 the church said a "licit" marriage had to take place in church, with the banns read 3 weeks in a row, and the woman had to have a dowry. But the church accepted an "illicit" marriage as valid.
Washington, D.C.: Two questions: First, do I understand correctly that in the cited study, "What my parents don't want" is drawn from what the children, not their parents, say? I ask because I think children often misread their parents about this sort of thing. So I'm wondering what you think about this way of gathering the data and how it might skew the results?
Second, and perhaps related, I'm really shocked by how high "different ethnic background" ranks on the parents' side (for each of the the three groups) and that didn't seem to be addressed in the article, so would love to hear your thoughts on that particular finding.
Since we're supposedly heading in this "post-racial" direction (or so I hear in discussions about the presidential race), I'm especially wondering how you think this finding illuminates such discussions about race and ethnicity at our historical moment.
But perhaps it just suggests that children underestimate what their parents could actually handle. I've seen parents surprise their children many times by actually being happy when their children are. There seems to be a tendency for concrete experience to overturn abstract prejudice, especially when it comes to our loved ones -- from children coming out as gay, to dating outside their ethnicity, to choosing a different profession than the parents have been pushing....
I love "Dept of Human Behavior" and I'm a big fan of Stephanie Coontz's work, happy to see you together in this article and look forward to the discussion!
Shankar Vedantam: Thanks for your kind words about my column. And I agree with your high estimation of Stephanie Coontz!
You are right in pointing out that the evolution and marriage study by Abraham P. Buunk, Justin H. Park and Shelli L. Dubbs at the University of Groningen asked young people what values their parents might look for in a potential mate, as opposed to asking the parents themselves. It is possible the parents may have provided different answers, but I find it interesting (and instructive) that across different cultures, young people predicted their parents would care most about the group characteristics or affiliations of their potential mate -- their ethnicity, religion, social class etc. It seems unlikely that all the young people would collectively reach for the same kinds of stereotypes about their parents' preferences, unless there really was something to it.
As for the fact that parents tended to prefer children to marry people from their own ethnic group, I can't say I am surprised. It is one thing to say interracial marriages are not illegal, and something else entirely to say that race and ethnicity no longer play a role in people's preferences. But I agree with you in that the concrete experience of dealing with a mate who is not someone you may have picked for your offspring can prompt parents to reach new conclusions ...
Walnut Creek, Calif.: How does one break the chain that consists of women going back many generations, who marry controlling men?
Stephanie Coontz: A large part of that chain in the past was caused not be women CHOOSING controlling men but by men having the cultural expectation and legal right to control women. Now that there is less pressure on men and women to have a male-dominant marriage, many more marriages are based on equal decision-making. But of course, some women haven't gotten rid og the cultural baggage that encourages them to confusing a controlling man with a competent and caring man.
Shankar Vedantam: Right, and I should also say that just because more people are marrying for love and more women are able to tell controlling men to take a walk that does not mean a host of other economic, social and cultural pressures don't exist to maintain the old order. Like biological evolution, social evolution is a messy business, and age old customs pop up in our lives in the same way a skeletal structure that originated hundreds of millions of years pops up in the fingers I am using to to type this answer!
Washington, D.C.: So, society has largely replaced economic jealousy with romantic jealously. Does not sound like a social, economic or psychological advance to me.
Stephanie Coontz:The more I study these kind of historical changes, the more I see them in terms of tradeoffs rather than purely better or worse. I do think that there is more possibility of building a deep and intimate marriage today than there was in the past. But there's also more temptation to confuse infatuation with love, which creates destructive kinds of jealousy.
Shankar Vedantam: I have to say that this is what I find interesting and attractive about Stephanie's book and work. It isn't about drawing simple (simplistic?) conclusions about one system being better than another; I doubt you will discover from the book whether the old system was better or the new system is better. (You will probably find evidence to support whichever conclusion you prefer!) I find it fascinating to understand how institutions such as marriage have changing -- by contrast, I think my own opinions about which approach is better reflects little more than the happenstance of my upbringing and personal circumstances ...
Rockville, Md.: Many years ago, I heard a quote stating that "The person you choose to marry, like which side you fight on in a war, is determined more by geography than anything else." Having been very happily married for over 36 years, I know that had I gone to a different college, I would not have ever met the woman I married and we would not have enjoyed these past 36 years together.
Stephanie Coontz: Geography -- and social class as well, yes. In fact, social class not outweighs local origins, and while intermarriage is becoming more common across religion and race, it is becoming less common across class. (Which is why the idea that poor and uneducated women can marry themselves out of poverty is somewhat unrealistic). But your comment also points out that even today, when we think about finding our "soul mate," it's pretty clear that there must be more than a few of those floating around! I suspect you and your wife could have been happily married to other mates had you gone to different colleges.
Shankar Vedantam: The sociologists call this idea homophily -- the fact that birds of a feather flock together. It plays a surprisingly powerful role in our lives which is why, for example, most people have friends who share their political views. If you're a Democrat, most of your friends will be Democrats, and if you are a Republican, most of your friends will be Republicans. This happens without anyone (or most people, at least) checking with potential friends about their political views before embarking on a friendship. But the neighborhoods we live in, the states and cities we choose, our occupations and avocations, our educational backgrounds and religious interests guide us toward others who share our views.
I have a small caveat to add to Stephanie's point that "even today, when we think about finding our "soul mate," it's pretty clear that there must be more than a few of those floating around! I suspect you and your wife could have been happily married to other mates had you gone to different colleges"
... the caveat is that, although this is certainly true, I want to make clear the washington post isn't telling you that you can be happy in multiple relationships with all these soulmates at the very same time!
Washington, D.C.: I was recently told that young people are no longer marrying for love,by your estimation, how true is this? What other factors are now contributing to marriage?
Stephanie Coontz: I don't think that's true. But I do think that many young people are rethinking how they define love, with friendship, common interests, and practical experience of sharing takes well becoming as important as romantic attraction.
Shankar Vedantam: Also, the research I wrote about today is really about averages, and no one would suggest that the data will tell you about the experience of every single person. On average, more people than ever before seem to be marrying for love. That does not mean that there aren't sizable numbers of people who marry for economic convenience or social necessity or allow their parents to pick a bride or groom for them.
Chicago: From my own experience, I don't think that much has changed from my parents' generation and mine in how women choose a mate. (The press and media would like us to believe otherwise.) Having gotten a degree from a prestigious university, I had difficulty getting dates. The moment I went into medicine, I found no problem, even as a medical student, finding women who wanted to date me.
The idea of a male spouse providing financial security for a woman remains important, even though many women now would like us to believe it has changed.
Stephanie Coontz: Sure, there are still lots of women who are looking for prestige and security -- but it is pretty clear from solid scientific studies that there are fewer such women than there used to be. For example, there are far more marriages than in the past between women who earn more than their husbands and who have higher degrees (and being in one myself, I have to say that from MY personal experience, it works great!)
Shankar Vedantam: And I am married to a woman who is better educated than I am (and much better looking) and it works great for me, too!
Washington, D.C.: Did anyone actually ask the parents what they thought about their child's potential mates? Because it could be that parents don't actually care so much about ethnicity, poverty and family background -- the kids just -think- they do!
Shankar Vedantam: Yes, this came up in an earlier question. It's possible kids are misreading their parents, but it seems unlikely that all the kids from different cultures would misread their parents in exactly the same way.
Munich, Germany: find it interesting that attractiveness and a sense of humor are considered to be "good genes traits", but "bad parent traits", according to the parents' perspective.
In the parents' perception of a good parent and a team player, how important do you think that the parents' perception of pecking order is in their verdicts? A good sense of humor could make someone a good team player, but it could also make their ensuing popularity jeopardize a parent's position of authority.
Shankar Vedantam: Interesting question. I am not sure there is a good way to get inside the heads of the parents here, as a couple of people have pointed out. In general, the study was trying to make the point that the young people getting married located attractiveness in individual qualities, whereas the parents located suitability in group qualities. As you implicitly point out, there are qualities that overlap ...
NYC: "... the caveat is that, although this is certainly true, I want to make clear the washington post isn't telling you that you can be happy in multiple relationships with all these soulmates at the very same time! " But surely, the Washington Post is not saying that I cannot? Within some reasonably practical limit, say, 6 or 8?)
Shankar Vedantam: Ah ... um ... er ... I cannot say more, given the high probability that the aforementioned spouse I mentioned is likely to read this chat ...
Shankar Vedantam: Stephanie, I think you had something you wanted to add on the cohabitation and divorce questions that came up recently.
Stephanie Coontz: Yes, I agreed with your points but wanted to supplement them. It's interesting, for example, that there are several European countries where people who cohabit before marriage have lower divorce rates than people who don't, so these associations are not inevitable and universal.
And on divorce, I also want to agree that it's not always bad -- or at least it is not always so bad as to outweigh the price of staying in a bad marriage. Two economists recently found that in every state that adopted no-fault divorce, the following 5 years saw a 20% decline in the suicide rate of wives and a sharp drop in domestic violence -- not to mention a reduction in the rate of wives killing their husbands! As for the effect on kids, another complicated issue. Nest week, the Council on Contemporary Families is going to release a new study by a demographer showing that the impact of divorce on kids has been greatly exaggerated by studies that fail to take into account prior differences in families that divorce and families that don't.
Bend, Ore.: In my opinion, a person's future mate has to be your best friend at the beginning. After being married for 48 years, I have realized the truth of this.
Stephanie Coontz: I think that this has always been true for GOOD marriages, but not necessary for stable marriages. Today it is more important than ever for both, because without friendship, love seldom lasts, and when love doesn't last, men and women are now more free to divorce.
Greenville, S.C.: It is my understanding that most churches still teach that the man should be the head of the household and the maker of final decisions. What % of American women (religous and non-religious) subscribe to this?
Stephanie Coontz: Actually, more and more churches are reinterpreting the scriptures and emphasizing the passages that stress mutuality rather than submission. And while I don't have the percentage of religious women (and men) who now think that husbands and wives should be equal, it seems to grow every year. Of course, change doesn't happen overnight, and one reaction to the international changes in family, marriages and gender roles has been a rise of fundamentalism.
re: some thought love was something you got on the side: Let's be clear: what MEN got on the side.
Stephanie Coontz: Yes, usually it was men who had the right to take lovers on the side, but not always. Among the upper classes in medeval Europe, women as well as men often took lovers. And some societies extended sexual rights to women. My favorite example of a society that confounds our notions of what is "normal" is the Bari of Venezuela. There, people believe that any man who sleeps with a woman during her pregnancy contributes something to the child. When the women gives birth, she names all the men she has slept with and the midwife goes to them and says, you have a child. In that culture, instead of producing jealousy and violence and screwed-up kids, these men feel bound to contribute part of their hunting and fishing catches to the child from then on, so a child whose mother has taken lovers during pregnancy is more than twice as likely to survive into adulthood as a child whose mom didn't!
Silver Spring, Md.:My nephew is a Jewish-American engaged to a Japanese woman (not Japanese-American). She has agreed to convert to Judaism. What would be the attraction to the Japanese woman versus a Jewish woman or Japanese-American woman?
Stephanie Coontz: Not being a pop psychology guru, I wouldn't want to speculate about 2 people I don't know!
Munich, Germany: OK, intelligence and physical attractiveness may have replaced good housekeeping and industriousness, but I've heard that money and power make at least men sexy. Does this mean that money and power are "good genes' traits" (only half joking here)?
Stephanie Coontz:I think money and power still make men attractive mates, which translates for many women into making them sexy. But here's something interesting. We are increasingly finding that men find power, money and intelligence sexy in women, in ways they didn't 50 years ago. Also, cross-cultural studies show that the more equality there is between men and women, the less likely women are to turn men into "success objects," and the more they are likely to value kindness, communication -- and sharing housework! -- over money and power.
Richmond, Va.: I experienced homophily phenomenon recently when I noticed how few women in the bridal announcements kept their name. I assumed SINCE I, MY SISTERS, AND MOST OF OUR FREINDS all kept our names, that was the norm now. So I was in my own little homophily world.
Seems like there was a bubble of women keeping their names and now it's gone. Young women now have returned to changing their name to their husband's. I always hoped that tradition would find a more egalitarian way to work out, but there seems to have been a backlash. (I'm on a volunteer committee that makes a big deal, every conference call about being confused about a woman who's name is different from her husband.)
Shankar Vedantam: Right. The interesting thing about homophily is how invisible it is to us ... come October, I bet you will hear many people (especially in "Blue" states) say, "how can 50 percent of the country be Republican when I don't know a single one?" while others (especially in "Red" states) say, "how can 50 percent of the country be Democrats when I don't know a single one?"
Richmond, Va.: Even the free boomers associated sex with love. I wonder how the Gen Y-ers' "friends with benefits" affects their marriage expectations. It seems like it COULD influence them to see marriage as a calculated business partnership like in the old days because they can get their sex needs met outside marriage and not confuse it with love.
Stephanie Coontz: That's an interesting question. So far, though, it hasn't led there. I think the "friends with benefit" and the "hookup" patterns are responses to a fact that too many politicians fail to take into account: that as the age of marriage continues to rise (on average, 26 for women, and 30 for women with professional degrees) and the age of sexual maturity continues to fall, young people are likely to live a decade or more in a stage of life where they are sexually mature but where marriage is not really wise (note my earlier pt about how people who marry late have lower divorce rates). So young people are still figuring out how to handle that, and I think some us old fogies, of which I count myself one in some ways, need to accept that these non-romantic sexual arrangements are not necessarily destructive and do not necessarily hurt their ability to -- later -- form lasting relationships.
Shankar Vedantam: That's all we have time today for -- boy, this hour has gone by quickly.
A big round of applause, please, for Stephanie Coontz. There were a lot of questions she was not able to get to, which means we must have Stephanie back soon.
Finally, given what Stephanie just said about men doing housework getting those pheromones raging, I have a sink of dishes to attend to!
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post staff writer Shankar Vedantam, who writes the Department of Human Behavior column, and Stephanie Coontz, professor of history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of "Marriage, A History," will be discussing generational differences in the criteria used to choose spouses.
| 134.135593 | 0.949153 | 16.40678 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/07/DI2008040701197.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/07/DI2008040701197.html
|
Small Business
|
2008041419
|
For more tips on navigating the challenges and opportunities of today's marketplaces, visit the Small Business Blog by washingtonpost.com's Sharon McLoone.
San Francisco: How do free trade agreements really help small businesses? I have seen that Mr. Preston has been pushing for the Colombia trade deal.
Steven Preston: This is a great question and a very timely one.
Small and medium sized businesses account for almost 30% of our country's exports.
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) do a number of things that help small businesses:
First, they reduce tariffs on our goods going into other countries. In many situations (as in the case of Colombia), our goods pay a high tariff going there, but theirs generally pay no tariffs coming here.
Second, FTAs make the regulations more transparent and hold the other country accountable for following them. They simplify the administrative burden in other ways too.
Third, they provide important intellectual property protections--this is especially important for our small innovators.
Harrisburg, Pa.: How are small business, in general, doing in this economy? What are the biggest challenges you see as facing small businesses?
Steven Preston: Many small businesses are having challenges, but the issues often have to do with the industries and markets they are in.
Like all of us, higher energy and related commodity costs are affecting small businesses. This is especially hard for those who have vehicle fleets, large facilities or other energy related costs. Health care continues to be a very large challenge.
In addition, some are seeing a decline in demand for their products.
We are working with lenders and other providers of technical assistance to ensure that we are providing advisory support to businesses who need to work through these issues and helping to get capital to small businesses.
The challenges we are facing today are also another reason why we need to advance health care policy that reduces the cost to small businesses and open new markets for our small exporters, so they can expand.
West Palm Beach, Fla.: Background: In considering the current economic stimulus plan, we have not observed in any of the pronouncements the number of small businesses that are helped by this (estimated or otherwise proven) and we have not seen the amount of dollars that small businesses will actually receive in tax dollar savings next year.
Question: Exactly how many small businesses do you anticipate will receive actual tax dollar benefits from this plan and what will be the total tax dollars earned by small business? What will be the range of monies received next year by amount?
Steven Preston: The benefit that small businesses receive will depend on how many take advantage of the depreciation and expensing benefits that reduce the near-term cost of investing back into the business. Virtually every small business with an investment need can benefit from these provisions.
You can find details on how to benefit from these incentives from the IRS web site. SBA will also be launching an education campaign--we expect to have details on our web site in the coming weeks.
Boston: How are you specifically helping women-owned businesses get more federal contracts?
Steven Preston: We have hundreds of outreach events around the country, many of which are in coordination with other agencies.
We have established goals for all federal agencies to achieve targets for procurement from women-owned small businesses. In addition, we have rolled out technology that makes it easier for agencies to locate the right women-owned small business to meet a procurement need.
In 2006, $11.6 billion was awarded to WOSB's, which was a record year and a record growth year. Preliminary 2007 numbers (not finalized) indicate $12.9 billion.
Bethesda, Md.: I own Be You Bi Yu Wellness Center & Spa in Bethesda, Md., www.beyouspa.com and we are celebrating our second year anniversary. We would love to get a business loan to pay back our start up costs at a better interest rate than our credit cards. How do we go about refinancing the debt?
Steven Preston: There are a number of things you can do.
If you are ready to speak with a bank, check with your local banks to see if they are SBA lenders, or call our Washington, D.C. district office to recommend bankers in your area.
If you would like help with a business plan to support your presentation to banks, you can go through one of the courses on our web site or contact one of our resource partners that can give you one-on-one support. You can find them through our web site also or call our district office for an introduction.
Steven Preston: I would like to make sure you all know that next week is National Small Business Week in Washington. You can sign up for events that will take place during the week through www.nationalsmallbusinessweek.com. We will also be webcasting all of the events live.
Many of the events with cover topics important to small businesses like health care, energy, trade, government procurement and technology. We intend to use these forums to raise the profile of issues that are important to all of you.
Friday (next week), we will have events in New York to focus on the importance of getting support to small businesses located in our inner cities.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: It is really hard for a start-up to get a loan from a bank right now - even a small loan. Do you have any suggestions?
Steven Preston: Yes. First, really get your ducks in a row and have a good business plan and presentation of your business. Call our office in Charlotte for a reference for free assistance from one of our partners to do this. There are a number of them in your area.
Also, find out from our district office which banks in your area provide SBA guaranteed loans, and don't go to just one lender. In this market, it is especially important to shop around.
Start-ups are an important part of what we do at the SBA. Last year, 35% of SBA guaranteed loans went to start-ups.
Washington, D.C.: What is being done to help small business pay for employees' health insurance?
Steven Preston: This issue is so critical to all of us. Most of our uninsured workforce works for a small business. It just costs too much.
First, you should consider a Health Savings Account plan. These plans have helped many small businesses find a more cost-effective way to offer health care.
There are a number of policies that the President has tried to advance, which would help small businesses.
Small businesses are legally prohibited from combining their purchasing power to purchase insurance across state lines. It puts them a real disadvantage to larger businesses and unions.
In addition, many small businesses do not get the same tax advantages as large businesses--we need to give them the same deductions.
Our health care forum at Small Business Week will include many thought leaders in this area and should include good tips. It will be on Tuesday morning next week. Check it out on our web site at www.nationalsmallbusinessweek.com for speakers and exact times.
Steven Preston: Many of you have asked about opportunities to sell your goods or services to the federal government. The federal government has a goal of purchasing at least 23% of its goods and services from small businesses.
Next week, two major purchasing conferences are going to be held. GSA Expo will take place in Annaheim, CA. In addition, multiple federal agencies will have a matchmaking session in the DC area. The web site for information on that event is www.fbcinc.com/osdbu.
Dallas, Tex.: If the nation's patent system is changed, will that help small businesses? Most small business owners can't afford patent lawyers to figure this all out.
Steven Preston: This one could go in either direction.
It is so important for our small innovators to have protections on their inventions. Many of our richest innovations, which help to keep our country competitive, come from the small businesses in our country.
We do however, want to make sure that compliance with those regulations is not so onerous that it makes it overly costly or cumbersome for small businesses to comply with.
SBA's Office of Advocacy looks for regulations that affect small businesses to make sure that they do not put an undue burden on them.
Steven Preston: Many people have asked us about challenges in getting credit in the current market place.
We have reached out to hundreds of lenders to understand changes in their policies and how it will affect small business credit. As part of the outreach, we are working to ensure that banks understand how to use our products to help small businesses get the credit they need. SBA can guarantee 50-85% of a loan that a private lender makes. It helps them reach businesses that are credit worthy, but may not quite meet their standards.
I encourage anyone who is looking for credit to discuss SBA products with their banks.
Silver Spring, Md.: Everyone's talking credit crunch. What's the credit picture going to be like for the rest of the year?
Steven Preston: I think this came in before my last response, but let me add to it.
Right now, many banks are working through immediate challenges they have in their portfolios. The financial institutions have taken a number of charges and are looking at their policies going forward.
We are very hopeful that as more confidence develops in the marketplace, we will see credit open up. In addition, the President's economic stimulus package will provide the economy with a booster shot in the third and fourth quarters.
We have consistently heard from many lenders that they are open for business. Once again, if you are having challenges getting credit, call an SBA office to get support.
Washington, D.C.: What advice can you offer for business owners?
Steven Preston: First, understanding the impact of the current environment on your business and make adjustments is critical. You may need to make decisions that affect your operating costs. You may need to change your marketing and sales plans.
One of the great attributes that small business owners have is that they are adaptable and flexible.
We even see small businesses adding a separate business line
Pasadena, Calif.: What solution to small businesses' health care costs does the SBA advocate?
Steven Preston: Try looking at health savings accounts. This is a cost effective solution.
Silver Spring, Md.: But aren't banks cutting back?
Steven Preston: We have seen new loans from banks come down. Many banks are telling us that they are seeing a decline in demand for credit. Other banks have told us that their credit standards were too liberal and they they have needed to tighten their standards.
I don't think any one factor is the issue.
As I mentioned earlier, if a small business needs credit, they should visit multiple banks and make sure that their business presentations are in good shape.
Washington, D.C.: How can I get in the queue to get a federal contract?
Steven Preston: We have courses online at sba.gov. There is a lot to know about this process, and you really should rely on our resources to help you.
The DOD has a network called Procurement Technical Assistance Centers that are great to help you.
There are numerous outreach events and conferences--see my earlier comments on two next week.
You can always call our local district office for support here.
Arlington, Va.: Do you think small businesses should get a standard home-office deduction?
Steven Preston: Our hour is up and we have to run. Thanks for allowing us to participate.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 57.170732 | 0.658537 | 0.853659 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041102693.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041102693.html
|
Post Politics Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041419
|
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com political blogger, was online Monday, April 14 at 11 a.m. ET.
Read Chris Cillizza's blog, The Fix
Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the daily Post Politics Podcast.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
Chris Cillizza: Good morning all. It's Chris Cillizza here, filling in for intrepid political reporter Shailagh Murray, who is busy on the trail.
What a weekend! Sen. Barack Obama's comments about small town voters and their tendency to "cling" to guns and religion caused a huge uproar in the political community.
Everything is now pointing to the debate between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on Wednesday night in Philadelphia between the two Democratic candidates. In the meantime, let's get to the questions.
(Side note: Fix soundtrack for this chat -- "Nebraska" by Springsteen. So good.)
Dryden, N.Y.: What do you think of the video of Clinton drinking shots in a bar? Was I the only person who saw it as a sort of a "wind surfing in reverse" moment -- posed, phony, etc.? Also, did the Clinton camp release information on how many shots were consumed and the number of beer chasers? If not, will you please ask at the next press conference?
washingtonpost.com: Clinton With Whiskey (YouTube)
Chris Cillizza: Good question. Obama actually is hitting Clinton on that moment, according to my colleague Perry Bacon Jr.
"Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you," Obama told a manufacturing group this morning in Pittsburgh. "They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer."
Ouch. I wonder who he could be talking about?
It seems to me that drinking a beer and doing a shot in a bar in Pennsylvania is akin to eating a pork chop on a stick at the Iowa State Fair or tucking into a big plate of pancakes at some greasy spoon diner in New Hampshire.
They are all slightly awkward rites of passage candidates must go through to convince voters they are indeed "one of them."
So, Clinton's shot-taking didn't strike me as particularly newsworthy or damaging. Am I right or wrong? Let me know.
Buffalo, N.Y.: In all the brouhaha over Obama's "bitter" comments, it seems like there is a conflation of two things: First is his statement that many people are bitter about the way things have gone in the past several decades. Second is his observation linking that to support for issues such as immigration control, gun rights and all the rest. It seems to me that at least the first part -- that a lot of people are bitter and feel they have been poorly served by their politicians -- is undeniably correct. It is, after all, the basis for the "outsider" status every serious presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter has tried to assume. Do you think many of Obama's critics inadvertently are demonstrating their own "out-of-touchness" by denying the bitter part of Obama's statement rather than focusing on the at best odd argument that such bitterness leads to embrace of religion, etc.?
Chris Cillizza: I think that's a good way of looking at it.
That folks in small towns devastated by the current economic conditions and a series of trade deals are angry and even resentful about the current state of their lives seems undeniably true -- based on scads of polling data on the subject.
(Obama has acknowledged that "bitter" was probably a poor choice of words to describe how these people are feeling but defended the sentiment behind his words.)
Tying that unhappiness to a person's belief in a higher power or the right to own a gun is a far more controversial and politically perilous statement.
While the "bitter" part of Obama's comments have drawn most of the attention in the first 72 hours of the controversy, my guess is that the statement about folks clinging to religion or guns will ultimately be the more difficult thing for him to explain.
And so, yes, I think that to the extent Obama's critics focus solely on the "bitter" comments they miss the broader point; people are angry and unhappy about the current state of the lives.
But, they do not likely see their faith or their belief in Second Amendment do well to focus far more on that portion of his statement -- from a purely political perspective.
Washington: Chris, Help me out. I am trying to think of one time that Clinton and/or campaign have hit Obama with a negative attack where it worked out in her favor? Has there been one?
Chris Cillizza: I would argue that the "3 am" ad that ran in Texas before that state's March 4 primary proved effective in trying to raise doubts in voters' minds about Obama's readiness to serve as commander in chief.
The ad only ran in Texas but drew national attention and almost certainly also influenced voters in Ohio as well.
Clinton's wins in those two primaries (Obama won the Texas caucuses) kept her campaign afloat and ensured that she would be able to carry the fight into and through Pennsylvania next Tuesday.
It wasn't exactly a "negative" ad since it never mentioned Obama by name but the insinuation was clear. And exit polling showed late-deciding voters breaking heavily for Clinton, a sign, perhaps, of the power of the ad.
Baltimore: Watching Obama and Hillary argue over who's more pro-gun conjures up images of a Western. It's high noon ... Hillary steps into a dusty street, spurs jangling. Obama stares at her and tips his 10 gallon hat back. "Draw, you rustler!" she snarls. They both pull their six-gun and fire -- and each shoots their own foot. Can anyone take them seriously on this issue? It's like Dukakis in a tank with these two. Why not be honest and admit they're anti-gun? Is it that politically radioactive?
Chris Cillizza: I am actually working on a Fix post on that very issue for later today -- so stay tuned!
But, briefly, the Democratic Party realized in the late 1990s that there was absolutely nothing to be gained from continually trying to pass more restrictive gun control measures.
Americans all across the country -- and particularly in the plains, south and southwest -- valued their right to own a gun and saw Democrats' opposition to gun ownership as a stand-in for the lack of association with the average person.
So, Democrats went away from talking about gun control at the national level and even began supporting candidates (Heath Shuler, Jason Altmire, etc.) who were pro-Second Amendment.
Obama's comments -- and Clinton's response -- drags this gun control debate back into the light of day, exactly where Democrats don't want it heading into the November general election.
Arlington, Va.: Regarding the shot: she didn't actually shoot it. It took her a few sips, and quite frankly there was nothing awkward about it, so I doubt it was her first time!
Chris Cillizza: As someone incapable -- even in my college days -- of shooting a shot, I am willing to give Clinton a pass on that one. At least she didn't order a Courvoisier like Sargent Shriver back in '72!
Herndon, Va.: Isn't it interesting when politicians accidentally say what they think? Obama really does seem to have a pretty limited worldview. All rural voters are not gun-totin' rubes who burn crosses on the weekends. But I find his stereotype of rural Pennsylvanians pretty funny -- he's combined racism, gun ownership, and anti-immigrant attitudes with religion as byproducts of economic suffering. Uhhh ... hasn't the guy learned to keep his mouth shut about religion yet?
washingtonpost.com: Obama Reinforcing Stereotypes, Clinton Asserts (Post, April 14)
Chris Cillizza: One perspective on the Obama "Bitter-gate" controversy.....are their counter-perspectives out there?
Anonymous: Chris, I enjoy you on "Hardball." What must Obama do on Wednesday night to get past the "bitter" controversy?
Chris Cillizza: Mental note: Easiest way to get your chat question answered is to lavish praise on my television appearances.
I think for Obama to effectively deal with the controversy over his comments he needs to decide what tact he is going to take in dealing with them.
Over the past 72 hours, he has fluctuated between defiant and remorseful, having apparently settled on defiant as the week begins.
Watch for Obama to try and condemn Clinton's comments on the issues as nothing more than political opportunism -- seeking to re-establish the change versus more of the same frame through which the Illinois senator hopes Democratic voters see this election.
Clinton, on the other hand, will continue to make the case that Obama's comments put him squarely in the mold of Al Gore and John Kerry -- two good men who were too easily caricatured by Republicans as out of touch.
Remember that Clinton is making her case at this point as much to superdelegates as to voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.
Superdelegates will decide this race one way or the other and both candidates are well aware of that fact. Clinton must sow doubt among these superdelegates about Obama's electability. Watch for her to try and to just that on Wednesday night.
Centreville Va: I can't wait for Hillary to go after Obama in the Pennsylvania debate. Now we'll see how tough she is! If she wants to fight for the presidency, this is her chance. She should attack Obama -- he opened the door, and she should slam it on him. It's her responsibility. The media wants to turn the page; she has to turn the spotlight on his views. She still can win!
Chris Cillizza: Well, you might just get you wish. Remember that this is the first time the two candidates have debated in 50 days, meaning that they may well be raring to go on Wednesday night.
The rhetoric between the two candidates on the stump has jumped perceptibly over the last 72 hours with Clinton insisting Obama's comments are "elitist" and Obama pushing back that Clinton "knows better."
That could well set the stage -- literally -- for a knock-down, drag-out brawl between Obama and Clinton on Wednesday.
In thinking back on the three one on one debate the duo has had (Los Angeles, Austin and Cleveland), none of those three encounters were particularly nasty or sharp-edged.
That could well change Wednesday night -- a recognition of how much is at stake in Pennsylvania and beyond.
Washington: Re: Clinton's leaping on the bitter issue ... I wonder what her overall point is? Does she think Obama is more out of touch with average Americans than she is at a cool $100 million? Does she think he is more out of touch with Americans than the Bush-supporting John McCain?
Chris Cillizza: The Clinton's significant personal wealth, according to some party strategists, make her a decidedly flawed messenger to make the case that Obama is out of touch with average voters.
In our experience, voters tend not to care all that much about a candidate's personal wealth in terms of a political campaign. Remember back to 2007 when many in the media assumed that John Edwards never would be able to sell himself as a voice of poor Americans because of his considerable personal wealth?
Edwards came up short for his bid for the Democratic nomination but it's hard to blame that on people not trusting his populist message. In fact, people seemed to respond quite well to the idea of a man from humble upbringing who had gain wealth but never forgotten about where he came from.
We shall see if Clinton's wealth hamstrings her attempts to draw a contrast with Obama on the issue. My guess is it won't.
Bethesda, Md.: Chris you were brilliant on "Countdown" -- now answer my question, please! If Obama wins North Carolina and Clinton wins Pennsylvania narrowly, won't the superdelegates look like spoilers taking away the gifts from the kiddies on Christmas if they suddenly shift support to Clinton because of the whole "bitter" thing?
Chris Cillizza: I haven't been on "Countdown" in weeks -- but I appreciate the thought :)
I think that for Clinton to eventually claim the nomination, she needs a convincing win in Pennsylvania (eight percentage points), a win in Indiana and maybe a surprise along the way -- North Carolina, maybe.
The only way for Clinton to be able to convince superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates (and likely the popular vote) is to prove that the race is essentially too close to call -- meaning that superdelegates must make a reasoned decision about which candidate is better equipped to beat Sen. John McCain in the fall.
Arlington, Va.: I don't think Obama has much room to criticize Hillary for doing shots -- after all, he spent a good deal of time driving around Pennsylvania bowling, visiting diners, etc. They all do these ridiculous stunts to appear more like real people -- and apparently we require them to do so because the American people are voting for a friend they can have a beer with instead of the person who has to do the world's most difficult job. Why don't we want "elite" people running our government? Why has that become such a dirty word? We have to be the most immature country in the world.
Chris Cillizza: Another perspective on the rites of passage.
McLean, Va.: Yes, let's please have Senator Clinton, a graduate of Wellesley who's spent most of her life living off the public as a politician's wife and whose family made $100 million in the past five years, attack Sen. Obama for being "elitist." I'm looking forward to her explaining why she's now against NAFTA after she was for it. While she's at it, she can explain why she's against the trade pact with Colombia while her campaign strategist (whom she didn't really fire, she just made it look like she did) was out there trying to get it passed. We'll try to make sure there's no sniper fire anywhere near the debate site so she can get there safely.
Thanks for taking time out of your hectic schedule to join us on the chat.
Washington: Why did McCain decline the invitation to join last night's "Compassion Forum" or "Compassion Debate" or "Compassion Bowl" (per Candy Crowley) or whatever it was called? Just nothing to be gained for him at this point?
Chris Cillizza: I am honestly not sure since I think it would have been a good way for him to talk about his faith -- a relatively unexplored portion of his biography to date.
Also, this question contains the phrase "Compassion Bowl." That is genius.
Confused: Okay ... let's get to the Senate races. What is Rob Andrews smoking? Is there any reason to believe he can beat Lautenberg? I've been amazed to see a well respected congressman in one of the safest seats in the House seemingly self-destruct in the past week.
Chris Cillizza: Okay ... a couple of Senate questions stacked up ... let's get to them before we run out of time.
For the uninitiated, Rep. Rob Andrews decided last week to challenge Sen. Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey's Democratic primary -- a highly unusual development in a state where party bosses and organizations run everything.
Andrews is a long shot as he has struggled to expand his base of support outside of southern New Jersey. Lautenberg has the backing of the north Jersey political establishment, the national party and all of Andrews' House colleagues.
What is Andrews thinking? He has been pining to make a statewide run since losing a gubernatorial primary in 1997 and likely sees a change electorate in this cycle as giving him his best shot.
And, if he loses, Andrews has already run once for the Senate -- positioning him, in theory, to be at the front of the line when the seat eventually comes open.
Arlington, Va.: Hi Chris. May I ask a Virginia Senate race question? Have Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall released their financials for the first quarter yet? How much money have they raised, and how much do they have in the bank? Seems the only candidate touting his fundraising prowess is Mark Warner.
Chris Cillizza: Neither Marshall nor Gilmore have released their fundraising figures just yet but you can bet they will be considerably less than the $2.5 million former governor Mark Warner (D) raised for his Senate campaign in the first three months of 2008.
Marshall and Gilmore are both pointing to the state party convention in May, a gathering that will choose the nominee against Warner. (A story in The Post over the weekend suggested Marshall may be more competitive at the convention than first thought. Here's the link.)
Regardless of whether Republicans nominate Marshall or Gilmore, Warner is a heavy favorite this fall. The real question in the race is whether he would accept the vice presidential nod if it was offered by either Obama or Clinton. Methinks the answer is yes.
Chris Cillizza: Folks, that's it for today.
Thanks for taking the time and make sure to check out The Fix early and often for the latest and greatest on campaign politics.
Thank you and good day.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com political blogger, discusses the latest buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
| 162.409091 | 0.954545 | 8.954545 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041101603.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041101603.html
|
Erroll Morris Discusses 'Standard Operating Procedure'
|
2008041419
|
Morris directed the Oscar-winning "The Fog of War," " Fast, Cheap and Out of Control," "The Thin Blue Line" and other noted documentaries.
Mt. Lebanon Pa.: Just by accident without knowing who you are/what you've been doing, I watched" The Fog of War" this weekend. I had been avoiding reading or seeing anything about McNamara. As a draftee during Vietnam (but not directly in the war), I've been pretty well fed up with "The Best and the Brightest" since my days in the service.
Any parallels between the Harvard plutocrat know-it-alls who manufactured that conflict (Bundy brothers, McNamara, Rusk, Harriman) and their Neocon band of brothers who gave us Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo?
Is America condemned to be led by entrail diviners and star gazers who never read let alone understood anything written by W. Shakespeare?
I'm past tired of repeating history and being disgraced by amoral automatons posing as men and women of learning.
Errol Morris: When Donald Rumsfeld left office, I got all of these calls, including one from the Post, asking me to compare Rumsfeld and McNamara. Both Sec. of Defense, took office exactly 40 years apart. McNamara in Jan. 1961, Rumsfeld in 2001. Maybe they look a bit alike, but other than that, you're talking about two very different people and two very different situations.
Let me give you an example -- in w 1961, when McNamara became secretary, we're talking about a bellicose Joint Chiefs that wanted a war with the Soviet Union. There was the possibility a strike could end everything once and for all. Kennedy and McNamara's job was to avoid nuclear war. This is at the height of Berlin and the Cuban Missle Crisis. There was the very real possibility we could be in a nuclear conflict. McNamara, I think, played a very significant role in preventing that. Yes, he helped escalate the Vietnam war, but he kept it from spilling over to World War III.
When Rumsfeld took office, it was the exact opposite. The Joint Chiefs were doves, interested in avoiding war, not creating. But the administration was very much interested in confrontation. It was the exact opposite of 40 years previously. That is a major difference between Rumsfeld and McNamara.
We lose sight of it because we think of Vietnam as an unnecessary, senseless war, and I agree. But at the time, people really, really, really believed it had to be fought. Maybe that is the same as today. In retrospect, we see these wars as unnecessary. We don't have time to look back at it. But history will ask why this war was fought in the first place.
Those who are not familiar with history are destined to repeat it without a sense of ironic futility.
Boston: Is there any reason why we aren't hearing calls for an independent prosecutor to examine how many unprincipled principals put into motion so many unconstitutional actions over the past few years?
Has there ever been anything more embarrassing than the sight of the President of the United States casually telling a reporter that he ordered what any 8th grade U.S. Civics class would understand to be reprehensible and un-American?
Errol Morris: Pretty damn embarrassing. I look at the 80-page memo that was recently released to the ACLU, 80-pages of dense legalese, you get to the end, and you're told "The president can do whatever he wants to do." He doesn't have to follow international treaties, he doesn't have to be bound by the judiciary or the legislative branches of government. He can do what he damn well pleases.
Of course, the flip side, if he can do whatever he chooses to do, that means he is accountable for everything he does, and should be held responsible. For me, one of the big questions people have to ask, is why have we failed to impeach?
Munich, Germany: Where did people like Lynndie England get their ideas to punish and humiliate the prisoners at Abu Ghraib? Was it like a free-for-all, brainstorming process where people like Ms. England came up independently with these ideas, or was there a media source, a novel or film, or was there a person of authority with some knowledge of past techniques? I can't imagine that an ordinary person would get the idea to order naked men to form a pyramid without some sort of external stimuli.
Errol Morris: I imagine you have not seen my film "Standard Operating Procedure" yet, I know it will be released in Germany soon. One of the stories in the film, how these soldiers arrived at Abu Ghraib in 2003, they walked into this cell block, and there were prisoners naked with panties on their head, tied up like pretzels, deprived of sleep -- all of this was in place when they got there. In those photographs, we're looking at policy.
It's become so endlessly politicized, the left says this, the right says that, what I've done is to try and talk to the soldiers who worked in that prison. I've interviewed the prosecution witness for the govt., who himself tells us that many of the most awful pictures are standard operating procedure.
The policy of sexual humiliation, of stripping prisoners, of putting panties on their heads, all of that comes from military and CIA sources.
Lyme, CT.: When President Johnson decided to escalate the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, there were people within the State Department who strongly advised him against doing so. Supposedly there were also people within the State Department who strongly advised President Bush not to go to war in Iraq. Have you examined these voices and why they failed to be heard?
Errol Morris: The answer of why we get into war is such an endlessly complicated one. If one wants to find evidence for anything, you can manufacture it, you can come to believe it, you can exclude the things you don't want to see and make up the things you do want to see. That's an unfortunate reality of human behavior. We can believe what we want, no matter what the evidence is to the contrary. And one of the most frightening consequences is it makes up very susceptible to war.
There's a line at the end of Fog of War, for me the saddest line in the whole movie. McNamara, a man who has based his entire life on the belief that you can think through problems, that they have rational solutions, at the very end of the movie, he says "perhaps rationality is not enough." That somehow we are doomed by ourselves to an endless cycle of war. And that's a deeply disturbing, very frightening thought.
America: Good luck with your film.
I'm sure as many people will see it as saw all of the other anti-American movies about how evil we were to overthrow a horrendous dictator who oppressed his own people, worked hand in hand with terrorists to fight freedom, and attacked our allies.
Errol Morris: This is not, this may seem like an amazing claim, or a claim that is untrue, but I don't see this movie as a political movie. It's not about the higher ups in the current administration. It's the flipside of Fog of War -- I'm looking at the people at the bottom of the chain of command, not at the top. I think it's a very powerful story about people, people who have been described as monsters but who never got to tell their side of a story.
It's also a movie about photographs, how they can reveal and conceal. And I think there's a lot of new information here people will find of interest. I think it's a good movie.
Remember, no one has talked to these people. Everyone has seen these photographs, but noone knows who took them, or why. It's a mystery, and I try to go into the mystery. So much of the war is about politics, and I like to think I've done something very different here.
West Los Angeles, CA: I'm curious why more Generals haven't stood up to Bush and resigned rather than leaking to the Press anonymously that the US Military is under strain. Do most Pentagon Generals support what Bush/Cheney did (i.e., dispatched the US Military to fight a 5+year ground war in the Arabian Desert for what proved to be dubious reasons without exit strategy), are the Generals too embarrassed about supporting Bush's invasion initially given the results or does protecting their pay & pension benefits override legitimate concerns about US security and Military readiness? Is there any doubt that Pentagon Generals wouldn't be as passive (i.e., only leaking anonymously) if a Democrat President ordered the Iraq invasion and achieved similar results as Bush? What is your take?
Errol Morris: That's a question I can't really answer. I haven't spoken to that many generals. I think it's important to remember though that this is the military. There's a chain of command, with the president as commander in chief. Your question is why haven't they simply resigned? It's a hard think to do. I wish the military was more vocal, because I truly believe the problem isn't with the military, but how the military has been used. I think that's one of the most devastating things about this war, that we sent a military that was undertrained, underequipped and understaffed. Most of the people in the military I've talked to know full well tha twas the case.
Janice Karpinski, a general demoted by Bush to colonel, was given the task of rebuilding the entire Iraqi prison system. In the fall of 2002, Sadaam let everyone out of the prison system. By 2003, there was no prison system left. Karpinski was given the task of creating something out of nothing, in the middle of chaos.
This isn't just her story, but the story of many, many people in the military. I'm surprised that people are surprised by the power of the chain of command. It's the military -- you follow the orders of your superior officers. I was curious about these common soldiers, why they did what they did. What was going on inside their heads, didn't they think about right and wrong? I suppose the simple way of putting it is "What were they thinking?" And it's really interesting how many of these soldiers knew what they were doing was wrong, had moral questions, but they would watch their commanding officers doing things, they would object, and they were told "not your lane, not your business." One thing people don't understand is that the pictures, in part, were an act of disobedience, and soldiers took the pictures because they believed it would provide evidence. I find it ironic those pictures taken to protect themselves helped land them in prison. The story is one of scapegoats -- blame the little guys and the rest of us don't have to deal with it. And to me, that's the most un-American thing. I have this populist, maybe outdated, idea about America. You don't beat up on the little guys and then watch the big guys pin medals on each other.
It's been absolutely terrific answering your questions, thank you very much.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 55.658537 | 0.560976 | 0.707317 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041102996.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041102996.html
|
The Chat House - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041419
|
washingtonpost.com: Michael will begin answering questions around 1:30.
Arlington, Va.: I totally understand that Tiger is likely to be the single greatest golfer in history by the time he is done, he is already close to it and has so much time left. I completely understand that he draws viewers and people care about him WAY more than any other golfers. I understand all of this.
But when reports about the Masters are "Tiger Woods trails by 5 after 3rd Round" I have to ask if the sports media has just gone too far. Uh, maybe, just maybe, you should be reporting on the guy in first?
I know I'm spitting in the wind here, but it just seemed pretty unfair to all the competitors to reduce it to Tiger and no one else matters.
Nice win by Immelman. Or should I say "Tiger finishes 3 back of someone at the Masters."
Michael Wilbon: I'm TOTALLY with you on this. Look, I love Tiger, too. Love him. I play golf because of Tiger...well, largely. My obsession with golf dates back to April of 1997 when he won The Masters; before that, I merely liked golf. But, yes, our reporting on these things is so over-the-top. It's not just Tiger, though, it's almost everything...
Hi everybody...(Ooops, should have said that first). Just coming from a good morning at the pediatrician's office with Matthew...We'll chat about the Capitals, the Wizards, the NBA, some baseball...
Houston: Wilbon, love to hear your input on the Eastern Conference playoff showdown's that's soon to be.
You think the Wiz have any chance of getting by the Cavs this year? And if so, the possibility of the Wiz maybe running into Boston for the Eastern conference Championship and the Wiz beating them 3 out of 4 this year?
Michael Wilbon: Yes, I think the Capitals can beat Cleveland in a first-round series...Absolutely, I think that can happen...Only if Caron Butler is healthy and playing 40 minutes, though...And it seems he'll be fine from this latest injury (knee bruise). I don't think the Wizards, despite beating Boston 3 of 4 this regular season, can beat the Celtics in a 7-game series...I DO think the Wizards would give Detroit a pretty good run in a series, but it won't set up that way with the seeding...Still, most people disagree with me and think that LeBron, now that he's been called "overrated" by DeShaun Stevenson and called out by Gilbert Arenas, will just kill the Wizards all by himself...Best first-round series in the East by 100 miles...I can't wait to see it.
Bradford, Va. : I keep telling my friends that I've been a Caps fan all year and they don't believe me. Why can't people like a successful team without being called "bandwagon."
Michael Wilbon: Because there were so few of you when the season began, especially Thanksgiving weekend when the coach was fired and the team looked DEAD! But hey, I got your back...If you say you were there from the beginning, who am I to doubt you. AND, I'll say to your buddies right now: "SHUT UP! Get off my man in Bradford!"
Dulles Airport: Yesterday you said that you were leaning heavily towards voting for Kobe Bryant for MVP. What changed your mind?
Michael Wilbon: The last week. Chris Paul had three chances to win the Western Conference and he and New Orleans couldn't do it...I know, it's splitting hairs, yes. But that's what you do when it's a three-horse race (Paul, Kobe, Kevin Garnet) and it's the tightest race ever. But yes, Kobe led his team to the No. 1 spot in the greatest conference race the league has ever seen, so I'm going to vote for Kobe, KG and C. Paul, probably in that order...BUT my ballot isn't due until Thursday morning, so I've got time for a switcheroo...but I don't think I'll need it.
Texas: ESPN The Magazine had a great article about Greg Maddux in the last edition. Do you think that he is going to surpass Roger Clemens in most people's minds as the best pitcher of his generation?
Michael Wilbon: Yes, yes, and yes. The steroid taint on Clemens, to me, will change the perception...Now, Tony is saying the power pitcher, in this case Clemens, is always better remembered. Normally, I'd agree with that, but the steroid taint changes it for me and, I think, for a lot of people.
Reston, Va.: Re: The Caps Bandwaggon.
I think folks have wanted to really like the Caps since the firesale a few years ago, but didn't want to re-embrace the team until it delivered something other than promises of what it can deliver in one or two seasons.
Now that fans see the payoff, they're turning out.
And there's plenty of bandwaggon fans, too. But I tend to think there was some holding back, and that folks misinterpreted that over the past couple of years as 'lack of interest'.
Michael Wilbon: Thank you for expressing that very rational viewpoint.
Bethel Park, Pa.: Which is more likely? Ovechkin skates around with Lord Stanley's cup or the Dalai Lama marches in the opening ceremonies in Beijing?
Got any odds for either? Thanks.
Michael Wilbon: Nice question...no odds here...but thanks.
Larusso, Mass.: Please, don't let anymore athletes do Gillette commercials. Since their commercial, Federer, T. Henry and Tiger have all been sub-par in their respective sports. Actually, scratch that. Let's see if we can convince LeBron to do a Gillette commercial.
Michael Wilbon: Tiger has been subpar since the commercial? Really. Three wins in five tournaments this year? What's par for your course?
Chapel Hill, N.C.: Okay, it's 17 years later and Matthew is trying to choose a school. He has a lot of talent, and there is possibly a future for him in pro basketball. Where do you send him, assuming all of today's coaches are still going strong?
P.S. -- Congrats on the boy. Your life has just begun.
Michael Wilbon: Thank you very, very much. Well, if he was REALLY REALLY good (and about 6-5, 200 pounds, which he could be since he weighed 11 pounds, 1 ounce at the pediatrician today, at 23 inches)...Duke or Virginia (his mother's two alma maters)...I think Stanford is the best combination of athletics and sports in America. But it depends on who was recruiting him...I'd want him to leave home (so Virginia might be out of play, too)...But I doubt he'll be great at any one things because I plan to make him familiar with a bunch of things, seasonally...I want him to know baseball thoroughly, to know basketball, to know golf, to know (but not play) football...My father made sure I participated in everything (hockey was easy to get into during long Chicago winters, and I played until 15)...But it's probably every dad's dream that his son is great in one thing that he could play in college. I can't turn into Marv Marinovich, though...That ain't good. My brother's son, Jordan, is 7 and the stuff he knows about every sport is insane...And he plays four sports already...Hope I can be so fortunate...
To you, how serious is an analyst on NBC twice calling the Caps the "Craps" during a national broadcast? Doesn't he owe everyone an on-air apology?
Michael Wilbon: Was it a slip of the tongue? What was the context? If it was a slip of the tongue, you can't want to go after him can you?
California, Md.: Will Stevenson have Soulja Boy at courtside at the Verizon Center when the Cavs and Wizards meet in the playoffs?
Michael Wilbon: Might need him to guard LeBron, right?
ELLAY, CA: The Lakers played some really good defense yesterday. Being a fan it was exciting to see but I don't trust them right now defensively. Sure they will play great against San Antonio but will allow a team like Sacramento to score at will driving the ball into the lane. One good defensive game doesn't mean you have turned the corner. Honestly, how do you see them faring in the playoffs?
Also, do you think the Celtics are glad they aren't playing the Wizards in the first round?
Michael Wilbon: I have the same questions about the Lakers' defense that you seem to have. Jon Barry has been talking about this for weeks, wondering if the Lakers can play good enough defense to avoid a 7-game first-round series or beat the Spurs or Suns in the second round. I think Denver can score like crazy on the Lakers (first-round matchup) but the Nuggets don't even ATTEMPT to play defense. Anyway, I think it's a legit issue you bring up and the reason I can't make the Lakers THE favorite in the West, even though they will finish the season with the No. 1 seed.
Bridgewater, Va.: Gil is not talking to the press but he is blogging like heck. Have you read it? The man can put words to paper like few athletes.
Michael Wilbon: He's great at it...And he's never not talking for long...I suspect he's talking, just not "on the record"...Shhhh...don't tell anybody I said that. And yes, I read Gilbert's blog...Professional courtesy.
Poor Matthew: He's probably going to want to be an artist or something, and we've already lined him up for a pro sports career.
Michael Wilbon: Yeah, believe me, I've thought quite a bit about that. His mama has no artistic instincts, trust me (sorry, Sheryl)...I was a childhood and teenage musician (seriously) so there's a little something to drawn on...I certainly wouldn't worry if he had interests that ran in that direction as opposed to sports.
KG should be MVP: Kevin Garnett took the Celtics who were a perennial lottery team, and made them the best team over the course of the season.
I know leadership and defensive abilities are out of touch with the highlight slam-dunk world we live in, but shouldn't KG be this year's MVP?
Michael Wilbon: Yes, it could be. I have no argument against Kevin Garnett. None. Tony says he'd vote for KG, and I agree with everything you said about his season...But the Lakers were 7th last year in the West and the Hornets were in the lottery...so Kobe and C. Paul have the same kinds of things going for them. It's not an easy choice. In fact, it's very, very difficult.
Washington, D.C.: Do you think the Wizards have been lucky against the Celtics, or is it another Dallas/Golden State situation, where an inferior team somehow instinctually "knows" how to beat the better one?
Michael Wilbon: Great, great question...I suspected last year, going into the series, that the Warriors were going to take Dallas deep and make it a 6 or 7-game series...I don't know that I feel that way about the Wizards chances against the Celtics...Maybe we'll find out in the second round, which I suspect they'll both meet.
Waldorf, Md.: Is Phil still trying to play his way out of his post U.S. Open funk from a couple years ago? I haven't seen him get close to a major since, although his play for 3/4 of The Masters was encouraging.
Michael Wilbon: I thought he played well enough at Augusta to free himself from that U.S. Open curse. Until that double-bogey on 12, I thought Phil had a chance to finish second or third...I think the U.S. Open might be the place (with it being played at Torrey Pines in his home of San Diego) will help him shake totally loose from that.
D.C.: Hey Mike, hope little Matthew is doing well.
Did you hear/read Shaq's latest quote about his new nickname the Big Cactus? Shaq is great with the media, almost as good as Barkley. What are the chances we can see both Shaq and Barkley together on an NBA pregame show when Shaq retires? I know you are friends with Charles, but I don't know how well you know Shaq. Do you think that the two of them would be as fun to watch together as they are alone? Thanks for your time.
Michael Wilbon: Good question. Shaq's been using "Big Cactus" since he arrived in Phoenix just before the All-Star break. And he is great for the media...I know Shaq pretty well...not as well as I know Charles, of course, but pretty well...And Shaq, right now, is probably a little annoyed that Charles doesn't think the Suns are much of a threat to win this season. But the two of them together on TV? There's no straight man...unless you're asking me to sit in the middle and be the butt of many jokes.
SU: Are you gonna be covering the Wizards when they take on and eventually destroy the Cavs in 5 games?
There's gonna be some good smack talk between Deshawn and Lebron, anything else you may be looking forward to in this matchup?
Michael Wilbon: I have some big (and enjoyable) double-duty to pull during the playoffs. My ESPN/ABC duties will take me west, for obvious reasons. And I'm dying to write columns on Wizards-Cavaliers for The Post...This, for an NBA playoff junkie, is nirvana...I can't wait.
Clarksburg, Md.: Right on for your rant about The Nats being our team and The O's should be an after thought. I root for everything Washington.
Michael Wilbon: The O's are not our team; they belong to Baltimore. Like the Ravens belong to Baltimore. The Nationals, like 'em or not, belong to D.C. This is simple. When D.C. didn't have a baseball team it was okay, I guess, to root for the Orioles, although I thought it was kinda weak. But I don't want to hear of the Orioles now. I think they're over covered in this market by us and by the local TV stations. I know this is one mega-community and there are people along the eastern edge who are interested in rooting for, reading about and watching the Orioles...But I'm glad we have our own baseball team around here now.
Most Improved Race: Kobe has been great this season, but wasn't it really the addition of Gasol (21 - 5 since his addition) that pushed the Lakers to the top? I'd give the award to Garnett as he is the reason that Celtics team has dominated. I'm more curious about who your Most Improved player in the NBA is, or is it just so obviously Hedo Turkaglu that we don't even debate it?
Michael Wilbon: Hedo for most improved, no doubt. Doc Rivers and Byron Scott for Coach of the Year, Danny Ainge for Exec. of the Year (over Mitch Kupchak, who did a great job)...But again, I'm not going to argue against KG...not going to happen.
I'm a huge golf fan, but do we really need two U.S. Opens a year? That Masters was boring -- and not just because Tiger struggled. What are your thoughts on the course changes?
Michael Wilbon: I understand the criticism, that because of the changes to Augusta National, we now don't have the fabulous shot-making on the back-9 that we used to see...the stuff that gave The Masters its own special personality. And it should be different from the U.S. Open...I said this last year, that I didn't want to see two of them...But the winner was 8-under par, which is rarely the case at the U.S. Open...It only played really difficult one day, Sunday.
Tiger Woods does not win every time out. How about some love for the guy who beat him?
Michael Wilbon: Dude...Where were you on the first question. We dealt with that a 1:30 eastern.
New Orleans: Did the Supersonics play their last game in Seattle last night?
Michael Wilbon: Sadly...yes. I hate the notion of Seattle having no professional basketball. I wish the Hornets had moved permanently to Oklahoma City, which I think will support a team fabulously. It could be the Green Bay of the NBA...It's a nice arena (and will be upgraded) and is loud and passionate...And Seattle/King County/Washington State decided to spend nearly a billion (more?) for stadiums for the Seahawks and Mariners, neither one of whom ever won ANYTHING, unlike the Sonics who won a championship in 1979 and got the NBA Finals 3 times in the team's existence...I'm damn sad to see the Sonics go...I love Seattle. It's one of the four or five coolest cities in America, for me. To not be there, I think, is a huge loss for the NBA.
Washington, D.C.: Now that he's stepped down, what was your opinion of Bryant Gumbel's play-by-play work at the NFL Network?
Michael Wilbon: I don't care about Bryant's work for the NFL Network. I'm not about to, for even a second, define his career by something that lasted one second, relatively. Bryant Gumbel was an inspiration to me as a teenager, seeing as he grew up on the South Side of Chicago and went to a rival Catholic High School (De La Salle)...I wanted to be like Bryant. I admire him, respect him...stand in awe of his total body of work, from KNBC to NBC to HBO...we can go even further back to, I think it was, "Black Sports Magazine" which he edited probably in the mid-1970s...Anyway, I know Bryant had his detractors when it came to his work on the NFL network...I'm not one of them and won't pretend to be.
Okay, gotta prepare for today's PTI and our guest, Kobe Bean Bryant...the presumptive MVP...
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Post columnist Michael Wilbon takes your questions and comments about the latest sports news.
| 249.4 | 0.733333 | 1 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/10/DI2008041001969.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/10/DI2008041001969.html
|
Talk About Travel - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041419
|
Got a travel-related question, comment, suspicion, warning, gripe, sad tale or happy ending? The Post Travel Section Flight Crew is at your service.
On the itinerary this week: market-shopping in Ecuador, why Liverpool is hot this year, diner dining Jersey-style, a melodious road trip to the Martin guitar factory, and what to do if your flight gets canceled. All other travel topics are open as well. If you have insights, ideas or information to add to the discussion, just press the call button above your seat and we'll get to you as soon as we can. Different members of the Crew will rotate through the captain's chair every week, but the one constant is you, our valued passengers.
We know you have a choice in online travel forums, and speaking for the entire Flight Crew, we want to thank you for flying with us.
You may also browse an archive of previous live travel discussions. For daily dispatches, check out Travel Log, the Travel section's new blog.
KC Summers: Greetings, fellow travelers, and welcome to the chat on this where-the-heck-is-spring afternoon. I swear, it was actually warmer in New York this past weekend. We all just got back from a fun staff field trip to Manhattan (thank you, $1 bus) and are bubbling over about our adventures -- we'll go into much more detail in our upcoming NYC issue May 4, but in the meantime, happy to chat about it today. Also, I'm here to answer any Ecuador questions you might have about Indian markets, haciendas, etc. Which leads neatly to our question of the day: What, in your opinion, are the best market towns around the globe, and what were some of your favorite finds? Best/most helpful answer wins our prize: the black knit "Shoul" (combination shawl and sweater) that Christina wrote about in last week's section. If we pick a guy, don't worry, we'll find something more gender-appropriate for you. And, we're off.
Ellicott City, Md.: This is a comment regarding the American Airlines cancellations this week from my perspective.
I arrived at DFW airport at 6 am from a long flight from Buenos Aires. After going thru customs, luggage, and security for the domestic flight to BWI, I learned my flight was cancelled and the next 2 flights also to BWI. About 2 pm I checked with a customer service rep at DFW and was placed on a flight leaving the next day at 730 am to Oklahoma City then a United flight to Dulles arriving at 400 pm.
The customer service rep was very courteous and I received a hotel voucher at the Crown Plaza in north Dallas, vouchers for Super Shuttle to and from the airport, and vouchers of $5 and $10 for lunch and dinner at the hotel.
When I went to the airport the next day early, my flight to Oklahoma City was cancelled due to the terrible storms going thru Texas. I called AA's 800 number and the rep got me on a US Air flight to Charlotte and then on to BWI, arriving at 430 pm.
At all times, the customer service reps were professional and courteous, despite the pressure they were under. On such short notice, in a crisis, I have nothing but praise for the way AA handled the situation.
Carol Sottili: My American flights were also canceled this weekend. I had signed up for flight notifications, but never did get one. Did have a missed call from the AA 800 number on my cell phone, but no message. Anyway, I looked at the Web site Friday morning, the day before I was supposed to travel, and saw that the flight had been canceled and that the airline had rebooked me on a flight leaving the following day. Well, that wasn't going to work, as my trip was just an overnighter. I had no trouble getting through via phone, and they happily refunded my money (I hope - haven't checked my credit card yet). I was glad that the flight was canceled before I schlepped to the airport, but I think the airline could have done a better job of notifying me. My guess is that there will be wide range of experiences, both good and bad.
Northampton, Pa.: Any suggestions for sleep and fly hotels for either Newark or Philly? And what is a good price to pay for this type of package?
Scott Vogel: For value, convenience and price, you can't beat the Doubletree Newark Airport or the two Hiltons. Always consider using an aggregator like Hotwire when booking these places. It's not unusual to get rooms at some of the best hotels near the airport for around $75 or less.
Weirdest place to sleep, revisited: From your discussion last week, I later remembered that in 1992 on a cross-country trip from DC to Montana with 2 male friends (I am female), plus their 2 large dogs in a big Brady Bunch 1970's station wagon, I had to sleep with one of the dogs in the very back at some rest stop in Minnesota. It was either the front seat with the steering wheel, the back seat with the bigger (and not-too-bright) dog, or the very back with Fido (his real name). It was our only night of actually sleeping in the car. I chose the back and ol' Fido refused to move over no matter how much I shoved at him, so in exhaustion I gave up and threw an arm over him. Yes, I spooned with Fido at a truck stop. Dear sweet now-departed Fido, who also happened to pass gas all that night. Ahhh, youth... makes for a good story though!
John Deiner: Nice! Nothin' like that good ol' sleeping dog smell to get your day off to a good start.
Jersey K, ID: Thanks so much for the diner story, reminding me of visits with my grandparents to the Americana and Mastoris! Another one you should add to the list, although it's off Rte. 130, is the Sage Diner in Mount Laurel. Nothing fancy, but good food, nice people, and it's right off the Turnpike.
washingtonpost.com: Spud Mountain or Bust (Post Travel Section, April 13)
John Deiner: Hey, Jersey K. My pleasure. I'm still burping up those meals. And thanks for the add to the list; a copy editor here, Tom Graham, suggested the same place. Any other Jersey diner faves out there? Anyone ever eat at the Reo in Perth Amboy?
Wash. D.C.: Your thoughts: Delta + Northwest. Is it going to happen? What will it mean for me who is a frequent flyer on these airlines?
Cindy Loose: Delta and Northwest have been talking quite awhile, and of course the sticking point is how to convince the pilots. I talked to an expert last week who said historically, if you can't get your crews on board, you're in for trouble. Then again, mergers can be helpful in the long run for both airlines. Bottom line: I wouldn't bet my own money either way; If you were to give me your money to bet I'd probably go with the merger. But either way I wouldn't worry either way about frequent flyer points. Any merger would almost certainly include a merger of frequent flyer programs---there is just too much at stake in terms of loyalty from both airlines' best customers to just drop the programs. In fact, mergers in the past have simply extended the number of destinations and options for frequent flyer point collectors.
Flight Crew Fan: Hey Flight Crew! I'm an avid reader of the travel blog, and have seen a couple of recent posts on the Bolt Bus. Have any of you guys tried it since it first started? I have tickets for May, and want to know if I should look for alternative arrangements!
washingtonpost.com: The Follow-Up: Bolt Bus, Where Are You? (Travel Log Blog, April 11)
Andrea Sachs: I am a Bolt veteran these days, having ridden it three times already -- most recently on Friday. So far, I have not had any issues with it and have enjoyed the ride (clean and as quick as a bus can go during rush hour traffic). Some travelers, however, have had issues about pick-ups in NYC. The company recently sent out an e-mail better defining the points of departure. So, just be aware of the locations, arrive at least 15 minutes early and bring along a lot of reading material and snacks. You should not need a back-up; though just in case, remember that the Chinatown and Washington Deluxe buses leave pretty frequently and from the same area as Bolt.
St Louis, Mo.: Regarding plane inspections -- is there any indication that the FAA will be inspecting other types of planes besides MD-80s in the near future? We will be doing a lot of flying in May, for various family and business events, on regional jets, Airbus 330s and Boeing 737s. Should we be worried about these plans being disrupted due to inspections a la the recent problems on American Airlines? Thanks.
Carol Sottili: I think there's a very good chance that more planes will be grounded before this is all over. The FAA is conducting safety audits through June 30, so there will be further scrutiny of safety records. The audits are not restricted to a certain type of plane. But the older the fleet, the more likely there will be problems. Many of the larger airlines have older fleets, including United, American and Northwest.
Silver Spring, Md.: Hello, thanks for the great article on Ecuador! My 18-year-old son will be there for 6 weeks this summer with a friend, staying with and traveling with the friend's extended family to Quito, Guayaquil, Baños, Galapagos, etc. I've been trying to get a balanced perspective on the personal safety issues related to crime and have visited official government sites (scary stuff from the State Dept. & OSAC), various travel sites, and individual travelers' postings. Also, the friend's family issued their own precautions (wear nothing new or flashy, no travel north of Quito, the boys cannot venture out on their own). In your article you never address safety concerns, although there's a short mention of petty crime in the sidebar. Was it ever an issue for you? Do you feel that warnings from official sites are overblown?
Beth (a mom trying not to worry too much!)
KC Summers: Hi Beth. I never once felt threatened or endangered in any way during my trip -- I think that advice not to travel north of Quito is a bit paranoid. My personal opinion is that the State Dept's warnings are a little too cautious, though I did heed their advice not to venture too close to the Colombian border. But I went north to Otavalo and felt perfectly safe. True, I hired cars and drivers to get around, so didn't have to deal with seedy bus stations, etc. But we walked around the cities day and night and never encountered any pickpockets or petty crime ourselves. (At one point at the Latacunga market, a policeman came up and told me to put my camera strap around my wrist -- he thought I was being a little too relaxed.) Hope that helps. I'm sure if your son practices the usual tourist precautions, and hangs out with his host family, he'll do just fine. The Ecuadorans are lovely people.
Rockville, Md.: My husband and I recently (within the past 2 weeks) bought air tickets for a family wedding in Chicago in August. At that time, I will be 7 1/2 months pregnant. United allows travel at that stage of pregnancy without a doctor's note.
Do you know if there is any company that will provide us travel insurance should complications arise, and we are unable to travel? We would be looking to recoup the costs of the air tickets.
Christina Talcott: Hi Rockville! I did a quick search on quotewright.com, and I found a policy that seems to cover the cost of flights due to complications (through Travelex). You'll probably have to pay upwards of $50 for that kind of policy. Try insuremytrip.com and quotewright.com and read through all the fine print of the different options offered, especially under "medical" and "exemptions," being aware that pregnancy is more often than not considered a "pre-existing condition." All that said, here's hoping all goes smoothly, and congratulations!
Arlington, Va.: Hello Flight Crew,
Quick questions, are there any deals to Hawaii (Maui)? Wanted to take my family this summer but at 950-1100 per ticket (need five) it will be unreasonable this year. Went in 2004 (different environment), was able to snag a rate of $475 a ticket... Looking between 650 and 750, feeling like the Nationals... No hits...
Carol Sottili: With ATA and Aloha out of business, there are far fewer flights from the mainland to Hawaii, so expect higher prices. Less competition means you'll pay more. Sign up at sites such as www.farecast.com, www.priceline.com, www.orbitz.com for sale notifications.
Washington, D.C.: My favorite market town was actually in Italy. My mom and I went to Bellagio to get away from Milan for a day, and everyone on the island was so friendly. Not only were there open air markets with vendors selling little trinkets and other useful items made out of wood, but along side there were stores that catered to a more high-end crowd. There was something for everyone.
KC Summers: Bellagio -- sadly, I only know it as a Vegas hotel, albeit one with a hell of a chandelier. I must add it to my list. Thanks, Wash.
Favorite Market: My vote is for the Izmailovsky Souvenir Market in Moscow. It has everything from the REALLY cheap to beautiful handcrafts and antiques. My favorite purchases have been sports team themed nesting dolls (hello '86 Mets) and band carved wood pieces. Not everything is a gem, but there is enough good quality there to be worth the walk around the huge grounds.
KC Summers: An unexpected recommendation. Thanks!
Springfield, Va.: My relatives want to bring their 2 children (6 and 4) to D.C. this Thanksgiving. They are looking for a hotel with a great location and a large indoor pool. Any suggestions?
Scott Vogel: There's no shortage of indoor pools in DC, but I'd look first into the consider the Renaissance on 9th Street near the Convention Center, which has a nice-size pool. I've also liked the rooftop indoor pool at the Four Points Sheraton on K Street. You might be able to find deals at the Holiday Inn in Rosslyn as well, which has an indoor pool, although the location isn't quite as ideal. Anyone else have a favorite hotel indoor pool?
Indianapolis, Ind.: Reading your Ecuador articles brought back some great memories! I was on a group trip, so everything was planned for us, making things very easy. We went into the Andes and to the Galapagos, and the Andes were definitely my favorite. The scenery is gorgeous and staying at a converted hacienda, with fireplaces in the rooms and communal eating, was a great experience.
KC Summers: So true. It was one of my favorite trips, hands down. The artistry at the haciendas and the sense of history was so evocative. Add in the natural beauty and the lovely crafts and we were in heaven.
Philadelphia: No question, just a comment. I absolutely loved the article and related info on Ecuador. I've never even considered going there, but am now printing out the article and placing in my 'future trips' folder. Thank you for a wonderful read!
KC Summers: You're welcome! So glad you liked it. It's a terrific destination and I'm definitely going back -- three other ecosystems to explore, after all.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Flight Crew,
Can any of the Crew members or other readers share their experience with the Hilton Honors program? I recently had a stay and they never credited my account. Now they are asking that I send them my actual hotel bill in order to receive my credit. I am about 99% sure that I no longer have that bill. But I find it ridiculous that they never credited the account in the first place. I have never had this problem with airlines or Amtrak. Are the program benefits worth the trouble? Thanks.
Cindy Loose: Yes, frequent stay programs are well worth it. Collecting enough points for a free room can be worth a lot, and you should save those points for a time when you're in an area with high priced hotels. More than that, if you reach a certain level you'll get upgraded without charge, often to a club floor, thus getting free drinks and free snacks and free breakfast. I've heard plenty of times from frequent flyers who haven't been credited the points they earned, and the airlines ask for your boarding pass. If you don't have it, they won't credit the miles. So the problems are not unique to hotel stays. (On airlines, the complaints I get often involve someone flying one airline that should have credited the miles to a frequent flyer account of a partner airline. Especially in those circumstances hold on to your boarding pass until you know the miles have been credited.) Have you tried contacting the individual Hilton where you stayed to ask if they could send you a bill? In the past I've sometimes lost the bill I needed to submit to my boss for reimbursement, and I've never had a problem getting an individual hotel in a chain to send along a receipt.
For Scott: I wrote in last week about trying to find a website to book train travel between Budapest and Lviv, Ukraine ... well, the long and short of it is that our host is making the train reservations. There is one site that can book the train to Lviv, but not back to Budapest. Our host was able to secure us a 2-person sleeping unit. So we are looking forward to our adventure.
Scott Vogel: Thanks for the update and glad you were able to work things out. It sounds like you're going to have quite an adventure indeed.
Takoma, D.C.: It's not the first place that comes to mind when you think bargain shopping, but Kyoto, Japan has amazing flea markets - I got the most beautiful antique obi (the long, long piece of fabric that wraps around the middle of a kimono like a belt). It has a pattern with cranes and is just lovely, and I paid some ludicrously low price for it ($20 or $30, I think, about 10 years ago). Now if only I could find a way to display it...
The same flea market had tons of other neat stuff - carvings, furniture, and assorted consumer junk.
KC Summers: Definitely adding Kyoto to my life list, Takoma. Thanks for the suggestion. As for displaying your find, I've seen photos in magazines of stunning kimono hung on fat curtain-like rods -- stunning.
Alexandria, Va.: Thousands of flights grounded because the airlines don't want to do maintenance. Customers being asked to pay for their food and to have a bag travel with them on their flights...
It seems as if the airlines are trying to put themselves out of business. If I behaved like this at my job, someone would say that I was trying to get fired.
The only thing that the airlines seem to be able to do is keep their fares as low as the competition, which then puts them out of business.
What am I missing here, with millions of people flying every year, why can't airlines seem to be able to carve out a little profit?
washingtonpost.com: The Monday Rant: Air Wars, Part II (Travel Log blog, April 14)
Scott Vogel: We're as mystified as you are, Alexandria. In fact, we've been reduced to recommending primal scream therapy on our blog as a last resort. Log in and kvetch!
washingtonpost.com: The Monday Rant: Air Wars, Part II (Travel Log blog, April 14)
KC Summers: By the way folks, if you haven't seen Scott's Monday Rant yet, here it is -- take a look and feel free to blow off some steam here yourself.
Packing light: I have a problem with packing light. In theory, I know how much I should bring, but I always end up with too much. Does the Flight Crew have a rule of thumb or some handy equation to help with this? (My biggest problem seems to be with shoes.) We're hoping to go to Iceland later this year and I'd like to have a successful packing trip. Thanks much!
washingtonpost.com: The Packing Issue (Post Travel Section, Nov. 5, 2006)
Christina Talcott: This may sound corny, but the old adage, "Take half as many clothes and twice as much money" is spot-on. That said, the packing issue from a few years ago should come in handy, and it includes some unusual tips. Hope it helps!
Falls Church, Va.: Is it possible, do you all think, for me to get a good deal (under $250 or $300) for a RT ticket to San Francisco (or environs) over the Labor Day weekend? Husband has a conference there (week before Labor Day), and I would LOVE to join him out there on that long weekend, but as of last week, I wasn't finding any deals.
Last year I got a great $250 RT, nonstop flight to SFO on United, but then again it was in February. Am I just dreaming that I will find an equally low fare?
Cindy Loose: Fares tend to go up significantly over holiday weekend, and I'm thinking under $300 is unlikely---the cheapest you ever see is a sale for $99 each way, and once you add the taxes you're looking at $250 or more. Have you tried seeing what's available flying into Oakland, which is basically San Francisco just another nearby airport? Also check out San Jose, which is a bit out of the way but you can get to San Francisco from there fairly easily.
Vegas fun: Hey Crew! I am hoping you can help me with a trip to Las Vegas that I have planned. I am going with a group of girls for a bachelorette party, there will be about 15 of us. Do you (or any chatters!) know of any companies out there that organize trips to the bars/clubs etc where you don't have to wait in line, or pay a cover fee or what have you? I know there are companies like this out there, I just am not quite sure where to look. Any Vegas help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
John Deiner: Sounds like a quiet little weekend in Vegas, huh? Vegas.com is a good, particularly hip source of info on all things Sin City. If you go to www.vegas.com/nightlife, there's an excellent primer on clubs and such, including a way to book go-to-the-front-of-the-line passes and bachelorette party buses. The Vegas tourism site (www.visitlasvegas.com) has some info on bachelorette parties, but I couldn't find any links to places that actually book vans -- I checked very quickly though. You could always give 'em a call. That's a good idea, by the way, to get someone to drive you around. Let us know how it turns out, will ya?
Stafford, Va.: It seems they're kicking butt and not taking any names at the State Department. I realized last week that I had lost my passport. So, a week ago Friday, I submitted an application for a new passport along with the form I had to fill out stating that I had lost my current passport and my old expired passport as proof of citizenship. I was worried that this would delay the process. However, I am happy to report that my replacement passport arrived exactly a week to the day that I submitted my application. Also, I submitted my application at the Franconia Post Office where there was no line when I was there (about 4:00 pm) and they are open until 8:00 pm during the week.
KC Summers: Thanks for the ground-level report, Stafford. We've been hearing lots of comps about the Passport Office's efficiency this spring. Still, we recommend getting your app in before the summer crunch.
Falls Church, Va.: Oh, Please pick me, pick me. Please tell me if you see any indicator as to lowering the prices for airline travel to Europe, Portugal specifically. Everything I'm seeing is $1k+. Thank you so much for answering.
Carol Sottili: Try Azores Express out of Providence or Boston (www.azores-express.com), but my guess is that it will be more than $1,000 for summer travel this year. Getting to Europe this summer is not cheap. Fares to London are the least expensive, but when you factor in the cost of getting from Heathrow to a London airport that offers discount flights, and the cost of the discount flight, that route rarely saves that much money. That said, try pricing it out that way. Go to www.flycheapo.com for lists of discount carriers and destinations.
Mosque Etiquette: I know visiting mosques in Istanbul requires proper clothing and shoe removal, but is there anything else I need to know? Will it be okay to slip on socks so I don't have to walk around barefoot (as I do at airport security when wearing sandals)?
John Deiner: From what I remember of my visit to Istanbul's mosques, it's entirely permissible to slip on socks so you don't have to walk around barefoot. Anybody know for absolute certain?
Thanks for taking my question. Before I begin the journey of law school this upcoming fall, I want to take a memorable, relaxing, adventurous vacation. Nonetheless, I will be traveling alone because no one I know wants to travel this summer (maybe because of the economy or of the craziness of airports). Do you have any suggestions on vacation packages for lone travelers to safe places? maybe even tour packages?
Scott Vogel: I have a couple of Web sites that might help you, whether you choose to pair up with other like-minded travelers, or prefer to go it alone. For the latter, consider www.travelaloneandloveit.com, whose focus is self-explanatory. There are also sites like www.travelchums.com, which will help set you up with singles in search of a pair or more.
Central Calif.: There are markets and street fairs at home and abroad that have something special. It's a universal language, 'bargain speak', that everyone understands. Whether its Santa Maria BBQ and fresh produce on a shut down street in San Luis Obispo, CA or vanilla, honey and hammocks and cheap good mariscos in Puerto Vallarta, you've gotta shop, even us guys. I understand in Europe, there are markets for books, antiques, etc. I would love to hear a few personal stories from someone about them, as I haven't been to one yet. 'Look what I got in...' sometimes stay with you for a long time.
KC Summers: A plea for inspirational European market stories, hmm? I still treasure a little brass cachepot I bought in an Amsterdam street market in 1972, with Delft porcelain handles. And a bronze candlestick holder I found a couple of years ago at London's Camden Market, worn to a lovely patina. Anyone else?
Native New Jerseyan: The River Edge Diner, (it's 4 times the size it was in the 60's) smack dab across from the Shop Rite is still there, still putting out great food, and mile high desserts. I used to work at the Heritage Diner in River Edge, (now a bank)on Kinderkamack Rd. That's where I first experienced deep fried hot dogs, but my all time favorite was Holly's Diner, right off Rt. 4 in Hackensack. We always celebrated first communions there with breakfast, a huge treat. The last time I went by there, it was razed and/or remodeled into a faux Arthurian type of place. Still haven't tried the Jersey Diner on Black Horse Pike on the way to AC/Cape May. Anyone eat there lately?
John Deiner: Oh, NNJ. The memories. Is there anything worse than a dead diner on the side of the road?! I saw a few myself on Route 130. I don't recall the Jersey Diner near AC, but I always stop at the Phily Diner (and yes, that's Phily with one L) on the road between the Turnpike and the AC Expressway. It's very uneven . . . sometimes the food and service rock, other times, not so much. So, anybody been to the Jersey Diner?
World-Markets: I think markets in the country-side of Perú are really good and affordable, and better if you get to find an expert in textile as your guide! I went there and met a guide and she explained how we can differentiate between real alpaca and vicuña materials versus regular cotton etc...Her instructions were very helpful at the time of finding a good genuine sweater at a reasonable price.
KC Summers: Yeah, a guide can really enhance the experience. Thanks for sharing.
Indoor Pool: The Hyatt Regency in Bethesda next to the metro stop has a nice indoor pool. We have stayed there over Christmas to very reasonable rates - I assume because there are no business travelers. There may be the same type of rates at Thanksgiving and the metro is sooo convenient.
Scott Vogel: A good suggestion for a hotel pool that might not be so expensive. Thanks!
Washington, D.C.: On Easter Sunday, I was returning from a weekend in Miami and was traveling on Delta. My itinerary was FLL-ATL-BWI. On the first leg I was to travel coach and the second leg was in first class. I actually paid for this ticket (not a mileage or medallion upgrade). Due to the weather in FLL my flight was delayed and so of course I missed the connection in ATL. I was rebooked for that Monday morning into DCA but in coach. My question is: should I have been booked in first class since that's what I purchased or when it's weather related does everything go out of the window? Should the fact that I purchased the first class seat be enough to override someone who had been upgraded based on their medallion status before the delays ensued? Is there any recourse after the fact (upgrade coupon for future travel, etc?) Thanks.
Cindy Loose: If you bought a business or first class, then bad weather should not have ended your contract the airline. If for any reason they simply couldn't provide the service for which you paid, they should have offered you some compensation---in other words, bad weather might create a situation in which they didn't have the kind of seat they sold, but they should have at least acknowledged that and offered you the option of flying the class you bought even if it were on a later plane--an option you might not have wanted, but that should have been up to you. I'd say it's worth writing a letter to the airline noting that you paid for a higher class seat (was it really first class? I'm guessing it was more likely business) If you happen to know what the price difference would have been at the time you bought the ticket, point that out too. I can't guarantee the fair operation of any customer service department, but you have fairness on your side and I'd go to the trouble of writing a letter.
Bethesda Mom: Please help! My son will be studying in Spain this summer, departing mid-August. He must meet his group in Madrid, and will travel with them for a week, ending up at Alicante on the Mediterranean coast where classes will be held. (Tough life, huh?). He wants to visit a family friend in Rome afterwards, possibly flying home from there.
We don't really collect frequent flyer miles, but have about 20,000 with American, plus about 54,000 points with American Express that can be traded in for miles. Is there a chance we can use these for prime summer travel? Is the British Airways "sale" a good deal? Would it be better to fly to and from London and then take euro-cheapo flights? What say the gurus?
Carol Sottili: I don't think those miles are going to work, but you need to check with American and AmEx to find out how many miles you need to qualify for either international flights, or flights within Europe. But even if you would have enough flights, prime time frequent flyer seats to Europe are booked far in advance. British Airways' sale is as good as I've seen so far, but it's still not cheap to get to Europe. Last time we went to Alicante, we flew into London Heathrow and then flew to Alicante from Gatwick on Monarch, returning to Stansted on easyJet, but we stayed with friends in London to break it up. I wouldn't recommend doing it that way without taking some time in London.
Pittsburgh: Please help me, Flight Crew (and chatters)! I've been trying to find a hotel room online in Boston (near Logan Airport) for the night I fly back from Europe in a few weeks, as my flight arrives so late that I must wait till the next day for a flight home to Pittsburgh. All I need in the way of a hotel room is a clean safe place to sleep and take a shower, but what I'm finding are exorbitant prices for more perks than I could possibly ever use, even if I wanted.
Can you post links to websites offering discount hotel stays that I could try, so I don't wind up paying close to $200 (which will work out to $20/hour)? Thanks!
Christina Talcott: Check out Scott's handy tip sheet on finding a cheap hotel, from our Way to Go section (link coming up). Hotels.com and quikbook.com can have great deals (search for the airport instead of just Boston, and find the hotels closest to Logan to save on cab fare). Priceline, Hotwire, Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity are all good for finding deals, too. Need more specifics? Maybe the chatters can offer the name of a place or two. Also, another question, just out of curiosity: Has anyone slept at Logan itself instead of getting a hotel?
Market city: London: I found London to be quite a market city. I often planned my day by scouting out a market then its neighborhood. Portobello Road was a disappointment, and I didn't even hit half the markets, but I highly recommend this strategy.
At Spitalfields I had the most amazing roti and then had tea in a surrounding shop on a bitterly cold day.
I just found this great guide to them:
KC Summers: Oh thanks much. I agree about Portobello Road. Our former colleague Anne McDonough wrote about Spitalfields food last spring and loved it -- Elizabeth, can we dig that up?
New England Wineries?: We are planning a fall vacation to New England. Are there wineries in the area that are open to visits? (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine are possibilities, depending on the part of the state.) We've enjoyed a couple winery tours during trips to other locales, and are wondering (a) if there are recommendations for the New England area and (b) if there is a resource on U.S. wineries that might be a "warehouse" of this sort of information.
Andrea Sachs: Every state seems to have wineries these days, including states better known for their brews. Since fall is high season in New England, thanks to fall foliage, most operations should be open. I would suggest wine hopping around Cape Cod/Nantucket/Martha's Vineyard or Rhode Island -- nothing like the sea air to add to your wine experience. Maine also has some interesting berry wines. For Connecticut, see www.ctwine.com for a vineyard route. A good source for American vineyards is www.vintners.com.
washingtonpost.com: Insider Lodging Tips (Post Travel Section, Feb. 3)
Christina Talcott: Here's the tip sheet on cheap sleeps.
Displaying an Obi: Not travel related per se but my Japanese mother-in-law always brings out the obi she (and her mother) wore on her wedding day and puts it on the Thanksgiving table as a table runner. I have dreaded spilling something on it for four years now but thankfully no one ever has. And it is just so beautiful -- too beautiful to be kept out of sight.
KC Summers: Oh gosh, that's brave of her. I'd cover it with glass at least.
Cleveland Park: Best market town (or best "souq" town) for me is Fez, Morocco - a UNESCO world heritage site, its ancient souq is a treasure trove of winding alleys where you can find the most beautiful things to buy, eat, and see. The crafts are wonderful - wood carving, jewelry, textiles, mosaics, and others.
KC Summers: I have GOT to get there. Sounds amazing.
Arlington, Va.: What can you all tell me about Terminal A (the old, original building) at DCA? Flying out of there on Saturday (on AirTran) and haven't been in since the new terminal was built in '97. Has it not been redone since then? Is it worn-out? Are there suitable places to eat/buy stuff? Just curious.
John Deiner: Hey, Arl. Yes, it's been fixed up and is quite nice, if a little tight. Just remember that it may take you a little extra time to get to it from the subway stop if you're walking -- it's a bit of a haul.
Capitol Hill: Hey guys, your article on Ecuador was wonderful and actually relates to my question. I came across a tour company called Friendly Planet that does trips all over the world. I haven't heard of them before and wanted to see if you guys or the chatters had any experience with them good or bad. Thanks.
Carol Sottili: Friendly Planet has a good rep. It's been in business since 1981 and has a satisfactory rating with Better Business Bureau. I haven't taken one of their trips. Anyone?
Istanbul mosques: If you're a woman, be prepared to cover your head. Maybe not at the blue mosque during tourist time, but most other places. You'll get brownie points if you have your own scarf with you.
John Deiner: I remember the long rows of scarves available outside of the mosques for women, but that's an excellent point.
Favorite Market: My favorite market is "Toy Market" in Nairobi, Kenya. If you didn't follow American sports you'd have an alternate sports history of the country, since they sell old Super Bowl and NBA championship t-shirts, hats, etc... of teams that lost. All the ones that were made in the States (for both sides of a championship) and then discarded!
KC Summers: That's hilarious. Who'da thunk it?
Bethesda, Md.: After seeing your amazing cover story on Ecuador, I'm now planning a trip there this summer! One question:
We want to stay in Quito and then explore the surrounding areas. Cotopaxi National Park sounded incredibly interesting and like a great place to explore, but is it possible to do it in day trips from Quito? What is the best way to get there? Taxi? Guided tour?
washingtonpost.com: Upscale Markets. Way, Way Up (Post Travel Section, April 13)
KC Summers: I think that's a bit too far for a day trip, because you'll want at least a couple of days to explore. You'll definitely want to do some hiking (not only on the volcano but in the surrounding grasslands -- it's just beautiful). And once you're in the area you can't miss Quilatoa, the volcano lake -- and the little village of Tigua with the wonderful naive paintings on sheepskin. To get there, we hired a driver at our hacienda (La Cienega) and he ended up also serving as our guide -- he knew a lot about the flora and fauna.
Washington, D.C.: John, I noticed there were no overnight costs listed with your diner article. Did you do it as a day trip from DC?
Not being all that familiar with the traffic involved, I'm just wondering how feasible it is to do a day trip from here to New Jersey.
John Deiner: Hey, DC. I actually did it on the way to my folks' house in New Brunswick, though there were a number of skeezy hotels (and some not so skeezy!)in the area. You could do it as a day trip, but it be a lot of driving. Best to save it for when you're heading somewhere else up north and want a dinner or lunch or breakfast break and can jump off of the Turnpike or I-295.
Portland, Ore.: I'm planning a trip down to Bolivia this summer and am dealing with major sticker shock on the airfare. Currently about $1,400 roundtrip from Portland to La Paz on AA (not much cheaper on South American airlines). Wondering if you had any advice on how to get a cheaper fare? I've tried consolidators with no luck.
Also, any advice on whether to buy a ticket now or wait to see if the fare might come down?
Scott Vogel: I strongly recommend looking for Bolivia flights from another West Coast city, particularly Los Angeles. From there, you can often get flights in the $800-900 range or less. Of course, Portland is nowhere near Los Angeles, but a carrier could get you to LA from Portland at a reasonable price, and the total price should be less than $1400. To answer your second question, I wouldn't wait much longer to book for summer (with the obvious caveat that no one knows what will happen to airfares between now and then).
Bethesda, Md.: Are there any spas you would recommend around Quito? Do you think Termas de Papallacta would be worth the two hour trip back and forth from Quito?
KC Summers: We ended up not doing any spas, so distracted by the scenery were we -- we spent all our non-market time being outdoors. But I kept hearing about La Mirage, up near Otavalo, as being the country's best spa. Anyone else out there know of any spas around Quito?
New York, N.Y.: What's the word on Spirit Airlines? My parents want to book a trip to Cancun this summer and the best times / fares are from National on Spirit and I don't know anything about them. Can you guys shed some light?
John Deiner: Hey, NY. I've flown Spirit a couple of times and have never had any problem with the airline (plus it's really handy having it at DCA). Anybody with a report they can share?
Chantilly, Va.: I have a non-stop flight booked from IAD to SLC this summer with Delta. If the merger happens, what are the chances my flight will still remain and could there possibly be any price changes?
Cindy Loose: If you're flying early this summer I doubt any merger could be accomplished by then, even if they agreed tomorrow, which they won't likely do. Flights are always subject to change, and of course the odds of a change rise at least a little when carriers merge. However, for the sake of fairness and community relations I'd say odds are extremely high the newly merged airlines would try to get you where you're going at the price you already paid; it's just that the exact flight you bought might not be available. Also, it's worth knowing that by federal law, if an airline makes a "substantial" change in it's itinerary, it must offer you a refund. Of course a replacement ticket might end up costing a lot more, so you might not want to take such an option. But I'd say at this point I wouldn't worry; so many things are so iffy and there is nothing you can do, so I'd put that energy elsewhere for the moment.
Market towns: Sydney has some good markets -- I love the Rocks market (always go back to the same vendor and buy a new piece of cool jewelry each time I'm there). You cannot beat the location and the view. And all the pubs nearby to stop in and grab a pint after. And there is also the Paddington market, which is big and cool as well.
KC Summers: Another market city to add to the life list. Thanks!
washingtonpost.com: London Hotel Options, from Budget to Deluxe (Post Travel Section, April 1, 2007)
KC Summers: Anne's story on budget London, with lots of market info. Thanks Elizabeth.
mosques: Right- at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, you don't have to cover your head as a woman, as it's largely a tourist destination. Everywhere else, prepare to abide by proper dress rules. Socks are OK. And for Hagia Sophia, no rules apply, as it hasn't been a mosque in quite some time now.
John Deiner: Excellent stuff. . . I didn't realize the Blue Mosque was largely for tourists.
washingtonpost.com: DETAILS: Budget London ( Post Travel Section, April 1, 2007)
KC Summers: Budget London logistics.
What I didn't get at a market -- D.C.: I was in Normandy, France. I read about all the wonderful places to get the local cheeses and thought it might be like winery-hopping in Napa. So, we bypassed the wonderful market in Honfleur that had fabulous fruits, vegetables, breads and cheeses. My bright idea was to drive out to the country around Honfleur and visit the farms where they made the cheese. Bad idea. All the farmers were at the market. Duh! We ended up buying cheese at the "cheese museum" and eating it in our car with the great bread and wine we had bought at the market. A mistake I won't make again, but it was a story I won't forget -- or live down.
KC Summers: Funny! Thanks for sharing.
Alexandria: So a couple of weeks ago I found what seemed to be a great deal for flights to Seattle this summer. Booked said AirTran tickets through Expedia. Then the news about the ATA bankruptcy broke and I was really upset and dreading the battle to get my money back. However, are AirTran and ATA one and the same? Seems like if AirTran is separate it could and should do a better job of establishing that fact.
Carol Sottili: These two companies are not related. AirTran has never used initials to describe itself. ATA formally changed its name from American Trans Air in 2002 to differentiate itself from AirTran.
my Japanese mother-in-law always brings out the obi she (and her mother) wore on her wedding day and puts it on the Thanksgiving table as a table runner: OMG, I'd have dropped cranberry sauce on it by now! A testament to the subtlety and precision of the Japanese...
23060: I've had some issues with HHonors -- they're all about the fine print. For example, you can't get points unless you've booked via the Hilton website, so technically I should have lost out on points on the New Orleans package deal I bought from Expedia. I whined enough about that to get a one time credit. They have a "lowest rate" guarantee, but all the onus is on the customer to do things in a very specific order and within such a limited time frame it really becomes a matter of "how much is my time worth?" I just get the impression that they're offering the program because they have to be competitive, but they really don't want to. Given the choice, I'll book at a Wyndham for the ByRequest program -- no points, but having a cold beverage and snack tray waiting, along with extra pillows and coffee . . . priceless.
Cindy Loose: Yes, you make a good point about not getting points if, in certain circumstances, you book through a third party. But I think that's true for many frequent stay programs---if you prepay you're likely getting a wholesale rate and points in such circumstances might not be included. How valuable are frequent stay points generally--I recently needed a room in Rome, and while he had to pay a lot of points, my husband came up with a fabulous room in a fab hotel in the best part of town for free--a room with a rack rate of $1,400. No way I would have been able to stay in that room with anything except points. Big warning---DO NOT BOOK A FREQUENT STAY ROOM UNLESS YOU ARE VERY SURE YOU'LL SHOW UP. Many programs will penalize you not by keeping your points anyway, but by charging you the published rack rate--meaning the highest price, as opposed to whatever price is actually being charged that night.
Danville, Pa.: Any idea when Southwest will start booking for September? My husband and I have a trip planned to Disney and it seems like they've been booking until Aug. 22 since we started planning in February.
John Deiner: Hey, Danville. I always thought you could book six months in advance on SWA, so maybe April 22 it'll open a new month?
Rockville, Md.: Happy Monday. First time posting. A friend of mine and I are trying to plan a trip to somewhere in the Caribbean toward the end of the year. Are Nov and Dec still good, and where oh where to go? We would like quiet, not crazy, on the beach and sightseeing if we want. Thanks so much !!
washingtonpost.com: Island Finder: Your Spot in the Caribbean Sun (washingtonpost.com's Travel Section)
KC Summers: Welcome, Rock. November and December are prime Caribbean time -- it's after the hurricane season and before the holiday crunch. Choosing an island is such an individual thing, but luckily, Elizabeth has dug up our "how to choose an island" piece from last year. Take a look, it should really help you focus. FYI, my own personal favorites are St. John and Virgin Gorda. Though Barbados runs a close third....
Ellicott City, Md.: What do you think of planning a family trip to Aruba in August? Too risky for the season? Aruba a good place for picky teens? Thanks very much.
Andrea Sachs: Not a bad idea at all (and if you are looking to expand your family, I am free in August). Aruba is outside the hurricane belt, part of the ABC Islands (Bonaire and Curacao represent the other letters), so you should be safe. (Just in case, read up on the airline's and hotel's hurricane policies before you book.) No matter how picky your teens are, they won't "whatever" the white sand beaches, water activities (snorkeling, parasailing, kite surfing), jumping town of Oranjestad, flea markets, etc. To help them feel less isolated, consider staying at a larger resort, such as Divi Aruba, where they will find planned activities and a more social, teen-friendly environment.
Gaithersburg, Md.: What a pain in the rump I just had dealing with AirTran. When trying to use a 32 point rewards ticket that supposedly can be used anytime on any airline, I talked to 3 reps who gave 3 stories as to its use. First one told me they had actually confirmed my flight (on Southwest) the second, after not getting an email confirmation, told me they can't do it and to call their 3rd party travel agency. Finally, the travel agency told me they can't book it within 30 days (something the other two failed to mention). I was pretty disappointed, since one of the real uses of rewards tickets is getting last minute flights. Seems my very 'valuable' free flight still has many caveats in it.
Seems that rewards points are getting really hard to use and you need to check the fine print carefully.
I called their Customer Service to file a complaint, and the girl seemed pretty apathetic.
Cindy Loose: Hi--I wasn't aware of those restrictions on AirTran or Southwest. If you're willing to have your name mentioned, email me the details at loosec@washpost.com and I'll contact them on your behalf and at least get an explanation and make sure you're being told the right info.
Arlington, Va.: American Airlines cancelled many flights last week, and it appears that other flights may be affected also. What is the airline's liability to customers who learn of the cancellation before leaving home - - to those who are stranded in a connecting city - - to those whose return flight is cancelled? I should know this, but am woefully ignorant.
Carol Sottili: The airline gave hotel vouchers to those who were stranded away from home. Did it have to? Up for debate. Its contract-of-carriage (legal requirements) say that it does not have to provide anything but a refund to those whose flights are canceled by a "force majeure" event, which includes "any government regulation, demand or requirement." But the FAA did not demand that the airline ground its planes, so that's open to interpretation. As for those whose flights were canceled before they left home? Just a refund, or an offer to put you on the next plane.
For the kids backpacking across Europe last week: I did a long trip across Europe and found that your Euro goes much further in Spain, especially Barcelona, Cordoba and Granada. Also Germany had the nicest hostels at the cheapest rates of all the countries we stayed at - one in Heidelberg that was especially nice for the price and there were many others there.
Also there is a campground in Florence at Plaza Michelangelo that looks out over the city has a beautiful view and is only like 10-12 Euros a night, has tents with cots, lots of warm water and very clean bathrooms and lots of washing machines - it was a favorite of ours.
We had a great time traveling all over. I would avoid Venice, it is hard to find any decent accommodations anywhere close. Naples was fun and you could get closer, nicer accommodations.
Cindy Loose: You're right about Naples--there are campgrounds all around that area. From what I hear as far as Western Europe goes, Portugal your dollars go even further than in Spain.
Bethlehem, Pa.: We're looking to fly to Florida in September. We'll either fly out of Newark, Philadelphia, or ABE, which is most convenient. Prices have gone up about $50 per ticket in the last week. What should we be paying for this route and should be book now or do you think fares will go back down? Thanks.
Carol Sottili: Florida is a big state, and the cities with the most competition have the lowest prices. Sign up at www.farecast.com, www.priceline.com, www.orbitz.com for fare notifications.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Several months ago when we planned our cruise to Italy, we booked a flight on Virgin Atlantic to London and then Al Italia to Rome. We booked then because we expected that rising gas prices would mean rising ticket prices which were OK at the time. Virgin just announced a sale and, naturally, our flight would be cheaper now. Any way to get the reduced cost? Thanks.
Carol Sottili: Have you tried contacting the airline? It may be willing to at least give you vouchers that you can use for a future trip. It probably won't reticket you unless you pay the penalty, which is steep for international flights.
Columbia, Md.: Really enjoyed the Ecuador article! How would you suggest combining some of that Ecuador experience with a trip to the Galapagos? I'm thinking 7-9 days for Galapagos, and 7 after on the mainland -- what would you pick for a post Galapagos segment? Thanks!
KC Summers: Lucky you, Columbia. I wasn't able to combine the two trips since I only had a little more than a week, and that just wasn't enough time (the Galapagos take at least a week to do properly). But if you can do a week in each, cool. For post-Galapagos, it kinda depends if you want a city or a naturey experience. You'll probably spend a day or two in Quito to get acclimated, so that takes care of the capital. I loved, loved, loved the colonial city of Cuenca and would highly recommend that for its cathedrals, museums, market and overall gorgeousness. But you might prefer a hacienda in the countryside, and if so, I'd choose Cusin up near Otavalo. Hope this helpful, I realize it's all over the map!
Toronto: I was in Toronto last week and had a fabulous time. What a great "international" city that is so easy to get to from DCA on Air Canada. I'm looking forward to exploring other Canadian cities. Any that should be at the top of my list?
Andrea Sachs: Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary and Halifax round out the top.
Fairfax, Va.: Re: markets -- Definitely the aforementioned Spitalfields and Camden Market in London.
In Costa Rica, try Playa Coco in Guanacaste. Gorgeous, super-cheap wooden items such as bowls, carvings, wind chimes, etc. Some stalls are pretty touristy, but others have really beautiful things. I'm guessing this is because Guanacaste isn't as popular a tourist destination as the San Jose area (although this is changing with the massive developments going in there).
KC Summers: Sounds wonderful, Fx. Thanks!
Half a day in Atlanta: Our flight is arriving at 8 am and then leaving again at 3 pm (7-hour layover in Atlanta). Will we have time to go from the airport to the city and do the CNN studios tour and the Coca-Cola company tour? Other highlights of the city? Thanks.
John Deiner: You can easily get downtown and back in the time frame you have thanks to MARTA, which goes right into the airport and can whisk you downtown. Those two things are within walking distance of one another, and there are plenty of places to grab a bite. You can also check out the Olympic park and wander around downtown a bit. The High Museum is a few subway stops away and is remarkable.
Columbia, Md.: London, hands down, is best. The Portobello Road market in Notting Hill is awesome. Covent Garden is touristy and not so great.
KC Summers: A vote for Portobello. Thanks.
Could you please re-post...: ...the link to the article(s) on selecting luggage to purchase for carry-on on flights. This weekend I had trouble linking to a back edition of the Flight Crew chat where it was posted a week or two ago. Thanks!
washingtonpost.com: This one? In the New Age of Luggage, Go Light, Bright and Add More Wheels (Post Travel Section, Nov. 5, 2006)
KC Summers: This work for you? Thanks Elizabeth.
Four Corners, Md.: When is the best time to look for flights to Puerto Rico and/or the Virgin Islands for an April 2009 trip?
Carol Sottili: Schedules/fares are published about 332 days beforehand by most carriers. I'd also sign up now at the travel booking sites for fare notifications.
Washington, DC: My favorite market was a huge flea market just outside Budapest (or just inside the city limits) that I visited in 1999. I was desperate for a statue of Lenin or Stalin to commemorate my time in Hungary. All I found, however, was a candle of Lenin and a Russian soldier's cap. I used to keep it on my bureau next to my bed, but people looked at me funny!
KC Summers: I don't know why, Wash!
Blue Mosque: I was there in Spring of 2006, and all the women in our group definitely had to cover our heads. They also provided larger coverings for a few among us who were wearing short skirts so that their legs could be covered. There were many people praying inside-- I don't think it is "mostly for tourists!"
John Deiner: There ya have it...that was my memory of the spot as well.
Anonymous: Hello Flight Crew. I made a reservation on Iberia Air and the e-ticket contained my passport number.
I then had my passport renewed and I provided the new passport number to Iberia Air for that reservation.
They sent me a new email confirmation, but the new one does NOT contain the new passport number. Should I be worried? Maybe I will bring a copy of my old passport just in case.
Andrea Sachs: I would make sure all of your information matches up. Can you call the airline or booking agent and ask for an updated e-ticket?
Friendly Planet user: I used Friendly Planet for a tour of Thailand and they were fantastic and cheap. This was our first tour and they met every expectation. Most of those on the tour had used them in the past for other places and also raved about their other trips. I would definitely recommend them.
20006: Just visited Istanbul last weekend-- everyone was wearing socks in the mosques and carrying their shoes in plastic bags. I brought a hoodie to cover up my hair instead of a scarf and no one said a word.
John Deiner: Thanks 20006....good to know about the socks. And you were just there last weekend? Sweet.
BoltBus: I wonder if we were on the same bus! I took the Bolt Bus up to NYC on Thursday (I paid $1, but my friends each paid $4), and back on Friday night (for $10!) The bus was mostly empty on the way to NYC, but completely full on the way back. We arrived in NYC about 15 minutes late, and left NYC about 20 minutes late, causing us to get back to DC about an hour late (b/c traffic and a rest stop). I loved the power outlets on the seats! I would definitely take Bolt Bus again (especially because they communicate with their passengers - I got a great e-mail a few days before I left with information about specifically where the bus would stop, something the other bus companies should heed).
Andrea Sachs: Hey, that sounds like my bus ride -- I had my own seat on the ride up. Loved the power outlets and WiFi, too, until my computer crashed. Can't blame Bolt for that.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Flight crew! My brother is getting married in Limerick over Labor Day weekend and I need to book my flights. I was planning on flying to Shannon and returning via Dublin. The lowest price is about $768. Having never been there, I'm not sure if the price is going to go lower or higher.
Also, anyone flown Virgin America? I may fly that to San Francisco over Memorial Day. Thanks!
Carol Sottili: Book it, especially if that includes taxes. Haven't flown Virgin America, but it's supposedly quite upscale. Anyone?
Market Town: New Delhi is a terrific market town, especially if you avoid the touristy Connaught Place and Janpath area (as well as the row of state-sponsored stores).
Go to Sarojini Market, where the locals shop, for great deals on stainless steel utensils and containers (like those wonderful spice containers in the large round tin with little round tins for spices, which you can now get at Williams Sonoma and such for mega-bucks), export seconds in piles on the ground (I've gotten sweaters made for J Crew, Ann Taylor, etc, for a dollar or two -- but you have to dig a little, and no dressing rooms!), and bone china (6 teacups for a few dollars, and you can get lovely sets of china dishes).
For the more posh stores frequented by wealthier Indians, go to Greater Kailash II. FabIndia has wonderful ethnic prints that are not too over the top. You can buy a rather shapeless kurta in a generic (s, m, l) size, and the shop will tailor it to fit your measurements -- assuming you're in Delhi long enough.
Even the newer malls have great deals from Western brands. Ansal Plaza, in South Extension, has a Lacoste store where you can buy Lacoste polo shirts (NOT knockoffs) for about $20 (compare to $75 or more here in the US).
KC Summers: You're making me break out in little beads of sweat, here, MT. Thanks.
Arlington, VA: Did you guys take the Friday evening (5:30ish) Bolt bus to NYC? I thought I saw a few of you boarding.
KC Summers: Nope, try 7:30 A.M. Friday as in CRACK OF DAWN. Whose idea was that, anyway?
Alexandria, Va.: Going to Montreal and Quebec City for our honeymoon the first week of July. Any ideas on what not to miss, and also, how to get back and forth between the two cities?
Christina Talcott: Congratulations! You'll be in Montreal during their giant musical block party, the International Jazz Festival of Montreal, which is going on from June 26 to July 6. Book your hotel now. Also, you might want to do what I did when I visited: My friends and I flew in and out of Montreal and picked up a rental car from the airport. We drove straight to Quebec City for a few days, spent another couple of days in the lovely Eastern Provinces (wineries, cideries, sugar shacks, mountains) and then drove to Montreal and dropped off the car at a rental office in Montreal. The Metro in Montreal's great, and a car would have been way too much of a hassle. If you'd rather take the train between the two cities, bear in mind that it's pretty expensive - around $150 per person one way, it looks like. Could be worth it if you'd rather be sans car, since Quebec City's very walkable (with public buses but no Metro) and Montreal's Metro's easy to use. Anyone have specific can't-misses?
Alexandria, Va.: I am going to Anaheim in late June, any good ideas on Disneyland or surrounding areas?
John Deiner: Hey, Al. I adore Disneyland . . . seems so old-fashioned compared with its big big big brother on the East Coast. And it's easy to do in a day. And Andrea has been to California Adventure and enjoyed it. You could also take in an Angels game if the baseball teams is home during your stay.
Baltimore, Md.: Hello Crew! We are currently looking for flights to Poland, in September. The plan was to arrive in Krakow, travel out to Wroclaw, and drive back, making stops along the way, then drop the car and spend several days in Krakow. Two weeks ago we were finding tickets around $800-$900. Now almost everything is around $1200. What should we expect to pay for a September ticket to Krakow? What about an open jaw Krakow-Wroclaw or vice-versa? The train between the two cities is about $400. I really appreciate your help!
Carol Sottili: $1,200 sounds high for September travel, especially if you're traveling at the end of the month. But airfares have been going up faster than the price of jet fuel. I can't promise that there will be another sale between now and then. But if it were me, I'd watch fares like a hawk for the next couple of weeks before booking. Have you tried British Airways' sale? That ends tomorrow, and I'm not sure if Poland is included.
Best Market!: Outdoor market in Baguio, in the Philippines. Growing up in Manila, our family used to make the trek to Baguio for vacation, and I learned how to bargain hunt and haggle at a young age there. Now, when we moved to SF when I was 10, and my mother started haggling at Macy's, I was mortified, of course. But, fast forward to a couple of years ago, when I visited the Philippines for the first time in about 20 years (YIKES), and my cousins and I abstained from the family van with driver, and took a jitney there. Quite an experience... I brought my now-7 year old daughter home a native yarn doll like I had when I was a kid. Figured she'd get a real kick out of it, and the photos of mom sitting next to a crate of chickens on the jitney. Uhh -- she asked this past weekend if she could please give that doll away instead of some mass produced Disney-creature, when we started our spring cleaning. SIGH. It now sits in my home office, proudly. Maybe when she's a bit older, I'll bring her there and embarrass the heck out of her, by haggling!
KC Summers: Sigh indeed! The trouble with kids is that, cute as they are, they really have terrible taste, don't they? I remember my daughter's obsession with Strawberry Shortcake, who not only looked bad, but reeked to high heaven. But now she (my daughter) is a lovely twenty-something with great taste, so there's hope.
27 and NEVER TRAVELED: PLEASE, I need your help. I'm 27 years old and I have never been on a vacation. I signed up for a program at work which required a passport thinking that once I got one, it would light a fire under my (you know what) and get me moving. It hasn't. And I haven't been sent anywhere overseas. So, at 27 I have a blank passport, never been on vacation and very little US travel. I TRULY want to go to Buenos Aires. I've heard great things and that it's affordable (whereas Spain might push me overboard). I have enough hotel rewards for 6 nights at the Marriott. I need your help though for cheapest airfare. Which airline? When is the cheapest to go? I have 25,000 United miles and 30,000 Delta miles. Can I use them at all? Please help me make this dream come true.
washingtonpost.com: Buenos Aires, Always in Style (Post Travel Section, July 10, 2005)
Cindy Loose: Hi--Let me first give you a push--Do It! The Marriott points are a huge bonus and can save you a lot. However, once you've decided on a place you have to check to make sure it's really six nights you have---the number of points needed for a room vary. For example, a top Marriott resort in an expensive location requires more points than an out-of-the-way, run-of-the-mill Marriott. As to your frequent flyer points--you don't have enough miles in either account to get a free ticket to Europe or South America. (If you're lucky you might get an award ticket to Europe for 50,000, otherwise it's 100,00) You so have enough frequent flyer miles to travel domestically and probably to Canada. So, if you've really never had a vacation, have you considered using your miles and points for a fab trip in the U.S.? About Buenos Aires: Often you'll find that a package that includes hotels and airfares is the same price as airfare alone, so check out that option before blowing your frequent stay points. Cheapest time: Since you don't mention having kids I'm assuming you're not tied to someone's school schedule, so go whenever kids are in school. That's not only the cheapest time but the least crowded time. I'd shoot for September, just after Labor Day, whether you're still thinking South America or decide to pile up some more miles and do something closer to home. Also, you mention Buenos Aires and Spain, indicating you're longing for a Spanish speaking country. Have you considered Mexico too? To get an idea about airfares from your home town, go to a site like www.orbitz.com or www.expedia.com or www.travelocity.com to mention the big three.
Herndon, VA: We loved the Queen Anne market in Melbourne, Australia. It's HUGE and has everyone under the sun from fruit to sports jerseys to art. We spent four hours there and didn't even make it half way through. It's definitely worth a stop when in the country.
KC Summers: Another reason to go to Australia.
Voucher on lower tickets: Hi Flight Crew,
Any chance you can answer the earlier question about a $20 voucher from US Airways costing $100 in processing fees? I see you told the person asking about dropped costs on Virgin to ask for a voucher, but I'm wondering if its normal to be slammed with these fees... Had I known that, I probably wouldn't have bought the low fare at the time and would have waited a bit...
Carol Sottili: I'm not quite sure how you received the voucher, or what type of voucher it is. I guess you need to ask about fees now before accepting vouchers?
Obi again: Well...I never said we served ourselves at the table. We serve the food in the kitchen on the Formica and only eat on the table. But I think I might buy some glass for her table for my own peace of mind. I can't be -that- daughter-in-law.
KC Summers: Ah, thanks for clarifying! We're all greatly relieved.
Spirit Air - Boo: Regarding Spirit Air, I've flown to Fort Lauderdale several times with no problem. But, once we had to leave the U.S. there were some issues. On the way back from Costa Rica, we had a 2 hour layover to get through customs in Fort Lauderdale. Spirit Air is the only international carrier at it's concourse, so I figure they should be able to estimate what a long enough layover is. Not 2 hours, apparently. It took an hour for all of the luggage to come out, and by then my friend had been stranded in Fort Lauderdale. It then took her several more hours to get them to pay for a hotel room.
If Spirit Air shared this customs line with any other airline, I'd have more sympathy. But, they had full control over much of the situation - their baggage handlers and their schedule. Yet, there were many people stranded, and little help afterwards.
John Deiner: Ack. Hiss. Boo. Okay, some discouraging words for Spirit. I flew them to Florida once, Puerto Rico another time and was pretty pleased.
Anonymous: I'm gonna be graduating this May and want one last summer to travel and have fun before I start work.
Is there any company or place that does like student or single travel to meet up with others that just want to travel around Europe?
Andrea Sachs: StudentUniverse.com has a forum where you can ask questions, and maybe also try to meet up with other travel-minded students. Also check Sta Travel (www.statravel.com), which might have some ideas on such a service.
Cheap Transatlantic Airfare: A couple of weeks ago I booked my DCA to Frankfurt ticket for $550. It was $850 the day before and it's $910 today. The key is to be persistent, check out kayak.com every day (including its graph of historical prices) and be flexible. For example, I really need to be near Munich, but flying into Frankfurt was hundreds of dollars cheaper, so well worth it!
Carol Sottili: A person after my own heart.
Ellicott City, Md.: I just returned from an 8-day, 6-flight, trip to Egypt. I packed light, with just a carry-on and tote. After agonizing over what to take in my 3-1-1 baggie, I was surprised to find that the TSA didn't seem to care. I forgot to take the baggie out at DCA for inspection, and the guy who should have been watching the screen as my bags went by was busy talking to a co-worker across the room. The Egyptians didn't screen my bags in Cairo or Aswan. On the return trip, at JFK, again the screener didn't watch the screen. What is the point of having all these rules, other than to annoy travelers? I certainly don't feel safe with the TSA watching my back.
KC Summers: It does seem like a farce most of the time, doesn't it? But since we only have one minute left, don't get us started.
Got the Spirit: Moved to Ft. Lauderdale for 2 years and commuted weekly on Spirit to DC...wasn't about to give up a CSRS Govt. job w/35 years in. They were excellent. Here's a secret: I never DIDN'T get a 1st class seat. Just show up real early and upgrades go for next to nothing. Jet Blue was fine and had a freq. flyer pgr., but you couldn't beat the convenience of DCA/metro. Moved back to DC...but not 'cause of the commute (bought a FLA car and kept it in long-term parking down there -- cheaper then the $40 cab rides). Hey, took me less time getting to work then the girls that come in from Charlestown, WV! LOL Spirit was great.
John Deiner: Wow! You never didn't get a first-class seat? Once I understood what that meant my head started swivelin'. Great job, and thanks for the tip!
Hotel points programs: I can't vouch for them all, but Marriott's program is wonderful. Plus, you can cancel even a points res
|
Post travel editors and writers field questions and comments. On the itinerary this week: market-shopping in Ecuador, why Liverpool is hot this year, New Jersey's finest diner dining, and what to do if your flight gets canceled.
| 337.478261 | 0.913043 | 9.478261 |
high
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041200150.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041200150.html
|
Mapping Transportation Costs for Home Buyers
|
2008041419
|
When you're stuck in Beltway traffic burning $3-a-gallon gasoline to creep along at walking speed, it offers time to think. Would it be easier if I left home earlier? Would I be better off riding a train? How bad will my commute be in five years? Would life be easier and cheaper if I found a job in Pittsburgh or Nashville or some other place where the roads aren't as crowded and the homes aren't so expensive?
A new Web-based tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a Chicago-based urban development think tank, can help put facts behind those daydreams. The CNT developed a Web site, at http://htaindex.cnt.org, that takes into account household expenditures for transportation, along with home prices, to estimate whether a home is truly affordable for households with moderate incomes.
Academics at the CNT argue that a home isn't really affordable if its location forces a household to devote an excessive amount of the family budget to transportation. How much is excessive? They say 18 percent of the area's median pretax income is typical; lowering that to 15 percent would be better. That's on top of the 30 percent of pretax income that they estimate as an affordable budget for a home's mortgage principal and interest plus property taxes and homeowners' insurance, which lenders call PITI.
With gasoline prices nearing $3.50 per gallon and Metro fares that recently increased by the largest amount in the transit system's history, keeping Washington-area transportation costs below those thresholds is only going to become more difficult.
The Web site is a data fest even by wonk standards. It's a map-based tool offering information on housing and transportation costs for 52 metropolitan areas, including the Washington-Baltimore area. You can zoom in on individual neighborhoods and pull up U.S. Census information on the percentage of neighborhood residents who use mass transit, their average monthly spending on transportation, the number of wage-earners and cars per household, and other data. The Web site also displays nearby subway and commuter rail lines and stations.
The interactive maps are the type of thing urban planners will pick apart with gusto, but they're also an interesting tool for people pondering a move. It wouldn't be surprising if the information is eventually woven into real estate search tools, such as the local multiple-listing service or Zillow.com.
Other housing-affordability measures ignore the need to travel, CNT President Scott Bernstein said. Travel consists of more than your daily commute. "Only 20 percent of the trips we take in America are to work," Bernstein said. All those other little trips, runs to the grocery store, Little League games and the dry cleaner's, actually make up the bulk of our travel.
It's no surprise that most neighborhoods in the District score high on combined affordability. Despite a lack of grocery stores in too many neighborhoods, many have good access to bus and subway service, retail shops and places of worship that are within walking distance or a short drive away.
What is surprising is that pockets of combined home/transit affordability are scattered across the far-out suburbs that are usually assailed for their dependence on automobiles. This reflects the way development has been happening in some of these communities, where jobs, shopping and recreation are developed near each other, creating little urban-ish centers out in the 'burbs.
For example, the map shows splotches of affordability -- where housing and transportation costs combined consume less than 48 percent of the median income -- throughout the suburbs, including areas around Gaithersburg, Bowie, Chantilly and Dale City. But you also can find pockets of un-affordability in the farthest reaches of the Washington area. Combined housing/transportation costs exceed that 48 percent threshold in the Solomons Island area of Calvert County, according to the Web site.
The site has some major drawbacks. Although it was launched nationwide only last week, the database uses 2000 Census data, which are growing stale. Housing and transportation expenses have soared since the government collected that information. Even the recent decline in home prices has barely unwound the big run-up in values that occurred after 2000.
"The trend is sort of in the wrong direction," said Peter Haas, director of CNT's geography, research and information department, who acknowledged that housing and transportation costs are now greater than those reflected on the Web site.
The site also reports $57,291 as the median income for the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan statistical area. That's on the low side for Washington, where more recent Census Bureau estimates pegged the median at $78,978. The lower figure is based on the Census Bureau definition of the Washington-Baltimore MSA as stretching from the Chesapeake Bay west into parts of West Virginia, where lower wages pull down the average.
The outdated numbers mean you can't simply pluck a dollar amount from the Web site and use it as the basis for your real-live, right-now budget. But you can still use the site to compare one neighborhood to another. Then you can develop your own price estimates to help gauge whether a home will truly be affordable once you add in the transportation expenses you will bear once living there.
Always do a trial commute during rush hour before you make an offer on a home. Time the ride and estimate your gas consumption. If you're thinking of taking Metro or commuter rail, price out the weekly expense.
As you size up neighborhoods, take the time to figure out where you will worship, buy groceries, go to the movies, enroll the kids in dance class or pick up an extra gallon of milk. Is bus or rail service available, even if only as a backup for days when your car is in the shop? Will your children be able to ride bicycles to the pool, or does a six-lane highway make that too dangerous?
It's easy to underestimate your total transportation budget when you house-hunt on a quiet Sunday afternoon. And misjudging your travel needs can seriously derail your after-purchase budget.
E-mail Elizabeth Razzi at razzie@washpost.com.
|
When you're stuck in Beltway traffic burning $3-a-gallon gasoline to creep along at walking speed, it offers time to think. Would it be easier if I left home earlier? Would I be better off riding a train? How bad will my commute be in five years?
| 21.618182 | 1 | 55 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201668.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201668.html
|
Nats Keep Skidding, Demote Bergmann
|
2008041419
|
Some pertinent numbers regarding the current state of the Washington Nationals: Yesterday, one member of the Atlanta Braves -- right fielder Jeff Francoeur -- hit two homers and drove in seven runs, which is more RBI than any National has for the season. That led the Braves to a resounding 10-2 victory at Nationals Park, where a healthy afternoon crowd of 32,532 took in the Nationals' ninth loss in a row.
Break this one down -- sloppy defensive play, downright laziness and an inability to come through with anything that resembles a clutch hit -- and there is nothing worth saving. So afterward, General Manager Jim Bowden began something of an overhaul, sending struggling right-hander Jason Bergmann -- who made a surprise, and ill-fated, relief appearance yesterday -- to Class AAA Columbus, reinstating closer Chad Cordero from the disabled list and preparing to recall slugger Wily Mo Peña after a hasty rehabilitation assignment.
This after Bowden and Manager Manny Acta watched as the seeds of a blowout were sown in a series of brain lapses, both on the mound and in the field.
"The physical mistakes are going to happen," Bowden said. "The mental mistakes or carelessness is what's not acceptable. And it's going to have to change -- or we'll make more changes."
That started yesterday. The most jarring news on an unsettling day -- one in which the Nationals found themselves down 4-0 before they came to the plate, not an appropriate way to approach Braves right-hander John Smoltz -- came with Bergmann's demotion. Given how he has pitched -- an 11.68 ERA in three appearances -- there was little disputing the move.
"I just think that everything negative's feeding in," Bergmann said. "I'm pressing. I've got good stuff, and I know I do. And I'm just leaving everything over the middle of the plate."
After a horrendous start Wednesday in which he allowed seven fifth-inning runs to the Florida Marlins, he was thrust into the bullpen yesterday because Jon Rauch -- who had filled in as the closer while Cordero was out with shoulder tendinitis -- was with his wife, who gave birth to the couple's second child Friday. Bergmann's next start, which was originally scheduled for Tuesday in New York, was going to be skipped -- a situation made possible by Monday's off day.
But after he gave up the second of Francoeur's homers yesterday, then followed it up by allowing another to catcher Brian McCann, his next start will be in the minors.
"He can't keep throwing the ball over the middle of the plate," Bowden said. "Dumb 0-2 pitches. He needs to make the adjustment. As I told him today, the last couple years I would say, 'You need to go down, straighten out and come back.' I told him I can't say that today."
Bowden believes he could not reassure Bergmann because some promising arms -- right-handers Collin Balester and Tyler Clippard, lefty Mike O'Connor among them -- play for Columbus. "Whoever pitches best is going to pitch here," Bowden said.
The Nationals' problems, though, run much deeper than just Bergmann, than just the starting pitching. Yesterday, the untidy play started in that four-run Atlanta first, when right fielder Austin Kearns got his glove on, but couldn't catch, Mark Teixeira's sinking line drive. "I should've caught it," Kearns said. It went as an RBI single, and Francoeur followed with a three-run homer off starter John Lannan.
If that was the only slipshod moment, it could be easily forgotten. There were others. Shortstop Cristian Guzmán couldn't handle Kelly Johnson's ball up the middle with one out in the fourth. That went as an infield hit and led, eventually, to Francoeur's two-out, two-run single. Matt Diaz led off the fifth with what looked like a single -- until center fielder Lastings Milledge didn't charge the ball, then lobbed it to the cutoff man, a combination of gaffes that allowed Diaz to chug into second with a gift double.
|
Some pertinent numbers regarding the current state of the Washington Nationals: Yesterday, one member of the Atlanta Braves -- right fielder Jeff Francoeur -- hit two homers and drove in seven runs, which is more RBI than any National has for the season . That led the Braves to a resounding 10-2...
| 14.051724 | 0.982759 | 56.017241 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201973.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201973.html
|
A Maker of Books Destroys 100,000
|
2008041419
|
PARIS -- For more than two decades, 250 historians and specialists labored to produce the first six volumes of the General History of Latin America, an exhaustive work financed by UNESCO, the United Nations organization created to preserve global culture and heritage.
Then, over the course of two years, UNESCO paid to destroy many of those books and nearly 100,000 others by turning them to pulp, according to an external audit.
"This is the intellectual organization of the United Nations system," Aziza Bennani, Morocco's ambassador to UNESCO, said in an interview. "How could an employee of UNESCO make a decision to destroy these books?"
Homero Aridjis, Mexico's ambassador, said at the organization's executive council meeting this week, "This is not only a blow to the culture and knowledge of entire populations and nations, it contradicts the mandate entrusted to UNESCO." He demanded an internal investigation.
UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura said it was "completely incomprehensible and inappropriate" that some of the organization's "most important and successful collections" were ordered destroyed, including histories of humanity and Africa, and surveys of ancient monuments.
It was unclear who was responsible, he said. "We have launched an inquiry, consulting publications officers of the period, now retired, in order to discover the reasons which led them to take this decision and not to consider other options," the audit report quotes him as saying.
South African Ambassador Nomasonto Maria Sibanda-Thusi told the executive board: "We believe that some decisive disciplinary action is needed. The main player may have retired, but what about those that knew but chose to remain silent?"
According to the report, the destruction occurred in 2004 and 2005, when UNESCO's overflowing book storage warehouses in Paris were relocated to Brussels. Rather than pay to move 94,500 books, auditors reported, UNESCO officials ordered them destroyed. The books were turned to pulp for recycling, the audit says.
Nino Muñoz Gomez, director of UNESCO's Bureau of Public Information and chief of the publishing division, said that at least half of the destroyed volumes were outdated and contained obsolete statistical data.
The audit notes that some publications were out of date but says others "on historical or purely literary themes (poetry anthologies, stories from all lands in translation) were not at all affected by obsolescence." It says a "solution other than destruction" should have been considered, "such as free distribution to libraries."
Several irate African and Latin American ambassadors said libraries and schools in their impoverished countries would have been eager to receive comprehensive history books.
The auditors found that at least 4,990 copies of the General History of Latin America -- one-quarter of those published -- were destroyed. Records show that pulping of the first six volumes -- which sell for 30.5 euros each, or about $48, at the UNESCO bookstore -- was ordered even as historians and authors were working on the final three volumes of the nine-book set.
|
World news headlines from the Washington Post,including international news and opinion from Africa,North/South America,Asia,Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather,news in Spanish,interactive maps,daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage.
| 12.673913 | 0.434783 | 0.565217 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201881.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201881.html
|
Superdelegate Is Playing Hard to Get
|
2008041419
|
But some, such as freshman Rep. Jason Altmire, seem to be rather enjoying themselves. Altmire has hemmed and hawed for months over whether to endorse before the April 22 primary in his home state of Pennsylvania, where he represents an evenly split district northwest of Pittsburgh. But this week, he decided: nah.
"I have been really happy with the way that this has played out for western Pennsylvania," Altmire said. Clinton, Obama and their surrogates have visited the area multiple times. At many of the events, Altmire could be seen lurking in the background, just another undecided voter checking out the Democratic merchandise.
The 4th District should be strong for Clinton, Altmire said, with its 120,000 senior citizens and blue-collar contours. Yet Obama also is drawing large and enthusiastic crowds. "The more people get to know him, the more they like him," Altmire said. "He has her beat on passion and enthusiasm, but it's still an uphill fight."
Despite Clinton's local strength, Altmire suspects that Obama may be a more helpful general-election candidate for Democrats like him who are defending swing districts. Altmire faces a rematch with Melissa Hart, the Republican incumbent he defeated in 2006. Clinton's name on the ballot could draw out conservatives who might otherwise stay home because of their lack of enthusiasm for Sen. John McCain. "I think that reignites the [Republican] base," Altmire said. With Obama, he said, "they may not be stirred up."
Some of his House colleagues groan at Altmire's hard-to-get act, convinced that he's an Obama man who is playing it safe for political reasons -- and because he likes the attention.
Altmire has been in close touch with both campaigns for many months. Obama started wooing Altmire and his friend Rep. Patrick Murphy, a fellow freshman from suburban Philadelphia, last fall. At a meeting in November -- long before anyone thought Pennsylvania would be a factor -- Michelle Obama sketched out for Altmire and Murphy how the race would unfold. Her blueprint has proved remarkably accurate, with the Keystone State playing a prominent role. "It really impressed upon me that they knew what they were doing," Altmire said.
But while Murphy decided to endorse Obama, Altmire continues to hold back. And today he says he's more reluctant than ever, thanks to the changing tone of the race.
Back home over the Easter break, Altmire said: "When I would attend a rally for Senator Obama, people would call in to say, 'If he supports Obama, I could never support him again.' The difference is, three months ago, people were saying, 'Isn't it great that we have two appealing candidates?'
"There's a noticeable difference in the comments I get from either side," he continued. "It's very worrisome, which is why I think we need to wrap this up as soon as possible." He advocates a "quick decision" by all parties, superdelegates included, after the final primaries on June 3.
Democrats Court, Count the Dough
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen is thinking big about the 2008 election.
Taking his cues from Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who led Democrats back into the majority in 2006 by drastically broadening the number of competitive races, Van Hollen projects as many as 50 Republican seats in play this fall.
To make good on that sort of commitment, Van Hollen's DCCC needs money -- and lots of it.
If the first three months of 2008 are any indication, his committee is well on its way. From Jan. 1 to March 31, the DCCC raised $20 million and, more impressively, retained a massive $44 million in the bank to spend on races. In the last month alone, the DCCC collected more than $11 million and added $6 million to its total cash on hand.
That fundraising pace puts the House Democratic campaign arm far ahead of where it was at this time last cycle -- a reflection, at least in part, of the difference between being in the minority then and in the majority now. At the end of March 2006, the DCCC had raised just short of $15 million, with $23 million on hand.
More important, the DCCC's fundraising in this election cycle continues to dwarf that of its GOP counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC has yet to release its fundraising figures for the first quarter of 2008, but through the first two months of the year, the committee had collected $8.3 million, with $5 million left in the bank.
Van Hollen, however, insisted that the financial edge his committee holds over the NRCC is somewhat misleading. "You can't just look at the money playing field as if it's just two entities," Van Hollen said. "There are a whole universe of other players out there."
Even so, the DCCC is working to exploit its financial edge, spending more than $100,000 on television, direct mail and field organizing on behalf of Louisiana state Rep. Don Cazayoux, who is running in a May 3 special election to replace U.S. Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.). The NRCC has responded in kind, dropping more than $120,000 on television ads and polling in the district.
While the NRCC may be able to fight the DCCC to a financial draw in this particular race, the financial picture looks increasingly dire for House Republicans. If Van Hollen makes good on his promise to contest 50 Republican seats, the NRCC may be forced to pick and choose where it invests, leaving a good many challengers (and perhaps even an incumbent or two) on their own.
Matt McKenna's bald pate (and the eyeglasses perched upon it) are familiar to anyone who has spent any amount of time around former president Bill Clinton during this presidential campaign. But, McKenna, who handles press for, and travels with, the former president, is stepping out of the Bubba bubble for the next few months -- dispatched by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign to manage her campaign in Montana, which will hold its primary on June 3. McKenna, a Montana native, has a wealth of campaign experience in his home state, having worked on the successful campaigns of Sen. Jon Tester and Gov. Brian Schweitzer.
NINE DAYS: Could Democrats be competitive in a House district in northern Mississippi? Both parties admit that the special election to replace Roger Wicker, who was appointed to the Senate to replace Trent Lott last year, is close, with Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers (D) running a solid race. Six candidates, none of whom will be identified by party, appear on the April 22 open primary ballot. If no one gets 50 percent, which is likely, the two top vote-getters face off again in May.
51 DAYS: No state plays politics the way New Jersey does. Party bosses and machine organization still rule in the Garden State. That's what makes Rep. Rob Andrews's primary challenge to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) all the more intriguing. Andrews is David to Lautenberg's Goliath, or Obama to his Clinton. Can Andrews beat the machine? We'll know on June 3.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 177.625 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041102859.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041102859.html
|
First Reactions Run From 'Awesome' To 'Expensive'
|
2008041419
|
The Newseum opened its doors yesterday to thousands of people who perused it, skimmed it, devoured it and panned it, treating the giant edifice to newsgathering and the First Amendment much like a hometown paper.
"I loved the history. Being my age, it was nice to look back on all the events during my lifetime, all the news," said Katherine Rice, 63, of the Tri-Cities area of Washington state, as she ate yogurt in the cafeteria. "And I loved the pictures. The Pulitzer photographs. And the cartoons -- don't forget the cartoons."
The 250,000-square-foot Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue marked its grand opening with free admission. For most of the day, the line stretched more than a block. About 10,800 people packed into the high-tech, glass-encased museum. Newseum spokeswoman Susan Bennett said that the facility reached capacity "sometime after 2 p.m." and that more than 1,000 free tickets were handed out to people who couldn't get in yesterday to come back today.
The Newseum has 14 galleries, 15 theaters and interactive studios that allow visitors to do stand-up television reports in front of a selection of quintessential Washington backdrops. In the interactive newsroom, schoolchildren mugged and flashed peace signs in front of the White House, teenagers treated their segments like hip-hop videos before the Capitol dome and a father delivered his report, deadpan, holding a sleeping toddler clinging to his neck. Each "reporter" received a photograph of the segment.
Alice-Marie Palluth, in a lemon-yellow sweater, chose the cherry blossom backdrop and nervously read from a teleprompter.
"My eyes were moving the whole time. Up and down. I just don't know if I did a very good job," worried Palluth, a State Department retiree who didn't want her age published. "But at my age, well, I had to give this television thing a try."
Other visitors tried their hand at editing, reporting and photographing stories through video simulators that praised or scolded them for their news judgment.
"Mom got us fired!" said Alex Leicht, 13, of Pine Brook, N.J., after his mother chose a not-so-compelling photograph of a dramatic water rescue for the front page of her virtual newspaper.
The burgers, served in a Wolfgang Puck cafe, the Food Section, most impressed Joe Garen's three sons, he said. Garen, who is in town from Charlotte visiting relatives, said he was awed by the breadth of the exhibits.
"Initially, I didn't think I'd want to pay $20 for this, so we came on the free day," Garen said. "But now, seeing everything in here, I think it would be worth it. It's awesome."
Not everyone was so sanguine about the admission fee.
Garen's mother-in-law, Evelyn Van Gelder, 74, of Rockville, said she worried that in this economy, most families could not afford a day in the Newseum.
Frajille Ellis, 32, of the District said she wouldn't return if she had to pay $20 admission for adults and $13 for each of her three children. She also was unhappy at prices in the restaurant, with its tiramisu gelato and Chinois salad.
"Lunch for us was $42!," Ellis said. "It was expensive."
But the rest of the museum had a different effect on her. She was swept away by the television screens and movies and crowds, six floors of glass and metal and video.
Then, she entered the room where one of the World Trade Center's broadcast towers was on display. "All this noise all around. And then in that area, it was quiet and tranquil," she said. "And it made me think."
|
The Newseum opened its doors yesterday to thousands of people who perused it, skimmed it, devoured it and panned it, treating the giant edifice to newsgathering and the First Amendment much like a hometown paper.
| 19.435897 | 1 | 39 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040801744.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040801744.html
|
Executive Pay - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041019
|
About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.
Pearlstein was honored with the Pulitzer Prize for commentary on Monday for his columns about mounting problems in the financial markets. His award was one of six Pulitzer Prizes won by The Washington Post this year.
Boston, Mass.: Steve - CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Those years at 'GBH seem SO far away...Wu (WCVB TV, Boston)
Steven Pearlstein: For those of you just tuning in, your correspondent has had a pretty good week, winning the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. It's a great honor and very humbling, considering all the real giants who have won this award in the past. Many friends and readers have written wonderful notes, and I"m only now getting a chance to answer them, so please pardon the delay.
This little one comes from my former colleague, Janet Wu. We were reporters together back at the Ten O'Clock News at WGBH TV in Boston. And here's a little story that tells you why Wu is still in television and I'm not.
One day we go out to a diner for lunch near the station. As we are walking to our booth, an old lady calls us over very excited. "Janet Wu, you are my favorite reporter. I watch you every night on the Ten O'Clock News."
So Janet, being very polite, pulls me over and says, "Well, you must know my colleague Steve Pearlstein, who is also a reporter." And the woman replies, "No, never saw him."
Inasmuch as I was on air pretty much as often as Wu, I knew at that precise moment, I knew my on screen career would be soon coming to an end.
Santa Barbara, Calif.: Steven, I am so happy for you! Well done! Keep up the good work. Best, Michael
Steven Pearlstein: And this one, from my brother in law. Thanks, Michael.
Annandale, Va.: Okay so have you gotten used to the modifier "Pulitzer Prize winning business columnist" yet? Congratulations Mr. Pearlstein! Of course I'll still need rank on you when you are too soft on the ideologues who distort the system and ruin it for the little guy.
Steven Pearlstein: Thank you. And please, yes, keep me honest.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Congrats on your Pulitzer Award. After reading your columns last year, I took a serious look at my 401k from work and made some adjustments in March that I now am really glad I did. My question for you is when these investment banks or other financial institutions say they have taken a loss, or a write down of assets, what happens to those assets? Are they just written off like they don't exist? Are they still worth something?
Steven Pearlstein: Well, when a bank writes down an assets, it is acknowleding that the market value of those assets has declined from what it was last quarter, or what it paid for them. That's what the accounting rules require-- mark to market. But it doesn't mean that the bank is necessarily going to sell them into that market. And, indeed, if it holds on to those assets long enough, the market for those assets may well improve and then it will record the increased value as a gain later on, which will add to its profit in some future quarter. Or it could get worse. In the case of mortgage-backed securities, for example, if the bank holds on to the security until it comes due, the extent of the loss will depend on how many mortgages are foreclosed upon and how much of the principal is never recovered. Nobody can know that for sure at his moment, including the market, which may be oversold because money managers are generally not in a mood to be buying mortgage backed securities at the moment. But if the market price falls far enough -- and some think it already has -- then money managers might start buying again, and in that instance the prices would begin to rise.
North Dartmouth, Mass.: Steve, Why is this allowed to continue? We see CEO's making obscene salaries,some not even raising stock prices,or worst. They even have the temerity to cut thousands of jobs while enriching themselves. Time for government intervention? Next administration, not this one.
Steven Pearlstein: No, not time for government intervention, actually. But it surely is time for people to treat CEOs who behave in this way like social and political paraiahs, which is probably the only way we are going to change corporate behavior.
Washington, D.C.: With the downturn in the mortgage industry having an affect on private equity companies, what are your thoughts on the continued viability of private companies like J.E. Roberts Co., which is a private equity company that focuses on real estate?
Steven Pearlstein: I suspect JE Roberts has taken some hits, but it has also probably taken some opportunity to buy some oversold assets at very cheap prices, and may have already begun to recoup some of its earlier losses. Remember, Joe started out by buying depressed real estate assets after the S&L crisis, so he knows how to do this stuff.
Mount Pilot, N.C.: I am shocked by your callous opinionizing about our great American leaders: our CEOs. How dare you criticize them for their salaries and bonuses. They deserve every penny of them for the great work they do in making this country great. If it weren't for them we would all be wallowing in primitivism. If skycaps want to make more money then they should become CEOs. It is just your kind of nitpicking that will bring this great country down. Without a wealthy elite, nothing would ever have been achieved in this country and nothing ever will.
Steven Pearlstein: And you forgot to mention how much they contribute to charitable causes!
Houston, Texas: There has been a lot of press coverage lately about the cost of gasoline and record profits of oil companies. One thing I have not seen a lot of is the pay structure for oil executives. By this I mean not just the top guys. I live in Sugar Land Texas, a fairly wealthy suburb of Houston. A good portion of my neighbors work for big oil companies. However, I still don't understand exactly what most of them do. They all seem to get home by 4 each day, and only work 4 days a week at that. Many retire at 50-55 and live in million dollar homes and drive expensive SUVs. I'm wondering how much of the cost of gasoline is wrapped up in a sizable population of mid-level executives with excessively generous pay and retirement packages for doing basically next to nothing. Am I off base here?
Steven Pearlstein: Well, it looks like there's a Pulitzer prize to be won by some enterprising Houston Chronicle reporter!
Truly, however, executive compensation as a percent of revenue in the oil business is probably a pretty low number. It may drive you crazy to see them get so rich so easily, but that's not driving up the price of gasoline.
Freising, Germany: I've been meaning to read, "The Walmart Effect" by Charles Fishman for a while now, in order to gain an appreciation for the pros and cons of minimum wage legislation. I once mentioned on one of your chats that I was surprised that many low earners in the U.S. didn't support minimum wage legislation, and you replied that these people don't perceive themselves as members of the downtrodden Working Class, a term which evokes the image of Communist East Europe. They may still believe in the American Dream, but aren't the low wage earners slowly losing the ability to move up the ladder of affluence in the U.S.?
Steven Pearlstein: There is a significant underclass in the United States that, over the generations, has proven unable to move up the ladder. But in general, mobility is still pretty good here and Wal-mart cashiers can grow up to be Wal-mart managers or accountants or business owners if they have the skills and the drive and the luck.
Annapolis, Md.: Why is the business press, including yourself, ignoring the most culpable party in the subprime bubble? This is rating agencies. Without their negligence, or maleficences none of this could have happened. A Sarbanes/Oxley sampling requirement of investments would appear a logical outcry. Thanks
Steven Pearlstein: Who says we're ignoring them. I'm not aware of any serious discussion of the subprime mess that doesn't give their screwup prominence. The more difficult question is what to do about that. They will be sued from here to kingdom come over the next few years, and the courts will have to decide whether their free speech rights -- the right to express their opinion -- gives them immunity from legal responsibility. And there is the question, if they are liable, of whether their bankruptcy will really do anyone much good. But I think one thing we can say, going forward, is that nobody in the future will want to rely on credit ratings as much as investors did in the past. They may be one factor to guide an investor, but the AAA rating can no longer be relied on to be as safe as a US Treasury.
We also need to change the way rating agencies are paid, so they do not have such a big financial incentive toward ratings inflation.
Reston, Va.: Great column today! Airlines and executive compensation are two of my favorite topics. Do you think there's any hope for getting some sanity into executive pay or will this just continue to be ridiculous? The bonus structures that cause corporations to maximize short term gains while neglecting long term problems really bothers me. It's also disturbing how executives tend to hop from corporation to corporation regardless of how a company performed during their tenure, e.g. Stephen Wolfe who went from United to US Airways and harmed both.
Steven Pearlstein: I've somewhat given up on most public policy solutions to the executive compensation problem. As I said before, social disapprobation is probably the strongest tool. In the press, I think we should most just ignore them. They have already lost their legitimacy in terms of public policy debates -- from a political standpoint, nobody cares what CEOs think about anything any more. And the press, for the most part, doesn't lionize them much any more. They seem to have adopted the attitude that they are unfairly tarred because of compensation and have given up trying to convince us that they are right and we are wrong. So there's something of a stalemate, which I think won't change until a new generation comes along that has different values. My own attitude is basically to ignore them.
McLean, Va.: I don't know. If I put myself in the CEO's shoes, this seems like at least two separate issues. First issue: can the market for curbside luggage service bear a $2 charge? Apparently, it can; otherwise, the airlines would have retreated on that by now, as they do with many of their attempted fare increases. Second issue: am I satisfied with the wages paid to my skycaps? Well, as CEO, my duty is to decrease costs as best as I can, but balancing that against the best service my company can provide. Right now, as CEO, I'm just as satisfied with this as I was two years ago. I am paying the skycaps the same amount, and they still have incentive to hustle and provide good service. It's still probably unjust that the skycaps are bringing home less money. But does that necessarily fall to the CEO to correct, sua sponte? Where is the union? Why don't the skycaps walk off the job? Could it be relevant that $80 in tips plus $41 in wages, while certainly less than $200 in tips plus $41 in wages, is better than most workers of similar training and putting forth similar exertion are faring? I'm not suggesting that it should be anathema for the CEO to give the skycaps a bit more. But I don't know if the CEO should get the most blame for it. There are constituencies that exist to maximize the workers' pay; the CEO is not among them.
Steven Pearlstein: Well, I'm happy to go toe to toe with you on this analysis. But there are two problems with it.
One, now that their pocket has been picked by their employer, the porters will become as surly as the rest of the airline employees and the one service that people still like will decline in quality. And, as time goes on, you can bet that airlines will raise these fees to the point that fewer people will be willing to pay them and go inside, where the lines will become even longer and customers will have to show up evern earlier and the quality of the flying experience will decline even below where it is now. And in the long run, that is not good for the industry or for current competitors, who will become vulnerable to service challenges in the future the way they were vulnerable to price challenges in the past.
Second, if the company can get away with raiding the tip jar of the porters, then why doesn't it try to do the same with high-paid executives. You will say that market is much more competitive and they don't because if they did they would wind up with inferior executives. And I'd say: how would you know, since nobody has tried that one. And how do you know that the industry is not paying the opportunity cost for not paying its porters more and getting a higher level of service?
Annapolis, Md.: Congratulations on the Pulitzer. Why hasn't your producer updated this page with six or seven uses of the adjective "Pulitzer Prize-winning"?
Steven Pearlstein: I don't know. Let's ask her.
Great Falls, Va.: Sincere congratulations on your honor. It was well deserved.
West Chester, Pa.: In your article you state that "Up to that point, the skycaps had been paid $5.15 an hour, below minimum wage, but typically took in $200 a day in tips ..." But according to the Boston Herald, the skycaps' pay was initially $2.63 an hour but went up to $5.15 an hour after the $2 fee was imposed. Who's right--you or them?
Steven Pearlstein: I was just relying on a report by USA Today, I believe. It may have been that moving to a mandatory fee system put the porters in another category for the purposes of minimum wage. Or it may be I'm mistaken.
Capitol Hill: Steve, is the problem more systemic than just greed? I think it goes much deeper into our way of thinking. Under the old industrial age Taylorist model, jobs were divided into thinkers and doers. Managers (engineers, scientists, etc.) were thinkers; front line workers were doers. Thinkers told the doers what to do and how to do it. Front line workers did what they were told. While the more rigorous application of Taylor's Scientific Management (like time-motion studies) survives in only a few places, the mentality of the division of labor remains rooted in our psyche. Overlay this deeply rooted mindset with a thin veneer of the information age rhetoric of "employees are our greatest asset" (with little understanding--or, more likely willingness to understand--the deeper meaning of that phrase). The result is what you describe. Obviously, in the information age, "thinking" is important. So managers (thinkers) are seen as important intangible assets and given high compensation in order to keep that asset; front line workers such as the porters (doers) are invisible.
Steven Pearlstein: I think you've hit the nail on the head. The only thing is that, in a service business, if your doers (particularly the doers who interact with customers) aren't becoming thinkers, then you are in trouble.
Re: Moral Outrage vs. CEOs: I don't agree that moral outrage will work. Ordinary people don't matter to this class of people and their disgust won't effect their behavior. People may be outraged, but unless stockholders decide to pay attention to who sits on the compensation committee (something not noted for being interesting or drawing attention) and unless corporate board members come from a diverse group or cross-section of ordinary people instead of a diverse group of professional board members, there won't be any reform.
Steven Pearlstein: Look, I didn't predict there would be any reform. I've sort of given up on that. I don't think there's a way to crack this nut, the way modern corporations are structured. I think the only thing we can do is to treat these guys like social pariahs. I think some may respond to that, but only some. As you point out, they live in their own rarified worlds in which they don't really interact with other people -- they belong to exclusive clubs, send their kids to exclusive schools, live in exclusive neighborhoods. They don't even take plane rides with regular people any more. And at the office, everyone kisses their rings, or other parts of their anatomy, all day. So I think the only thing to do is to ALWAYS vote no on proxy ballots to all director nominations and don't give them the public respect they think they deserve. It won't necessarily change their behavior, but it will ruin their day every once and a while, which may be all you can hope for.
Dupont Circle, D.C.: While I sympathize with the plight of American Airlines' skycaps, your proposed remedy seems surprisingly naive. With discount carriers JetBlue, AirTran and Southwest rated highest in the latest quality of service survey, how is AA supposed to address the lean times with "raising ticket prices to reflect the reality of higher fuel costs?" What are you suggesting? Doubling or tripling fares? Sorry, Mr. Pearlstein, but already fed-up travelers will choose reasonably-priced airfares over the skycaps' tip jar every time.
Steven Pearlstein: Look, all airlines are raising their total fares, including Jet Blue and Southwest. There's no alternative. Fuel costs what it costs. Some may have hedged a bit more than others, so they may have a temporary advantage. But, by and large, the prices will be going up. But for the airlines, the worst thing would be to further reduce service levels to try to avoid that. In terms of pay (work rules may be another matter), they've squeezed their employees about as much as they can.
Seattle, Wash.: First, congrats on the Pulitzer. Second, how can the public, general public or government, limit excessive compensation? Relying on shareholders doesn't work because so few of them that are disinterested would pay attention to item #6b on the next agenda, the make-up of the compensation committee, especially enough to double-check who is actually going onto that committee and their history, etc.
Steven Pearlstein: As I said, I don't think we can. And, frankly, its not the most important item on the economic agenda, and those of us who are critics should acknowledge that. On the other hand, when CEOs try to tell us how to handle the items on the economic agenda that are more important, we should simply ignore them. They have lost their credibility.
Suburbs, Md.: Congratulations on the Pulitzer! I am the farthest thing in the world from a business major, and find your columns very educational and informative without being oversimplified. You've been a must-read in this time of economic turmoil. Bravo!
Steven Pearlstein: Thank you so much.
Baltimore, Md.: Steven: No question today, just congratulations on winning your Pulitzer. And a big thanks for your early warnings about the meltdown--I moved a lot of my retirement money out of stock funds early in the year and I have bled a lot less than I did when the tech bubble burst in '01. Please keep explaining complex business and economic issues so clearly that even an old English major like me can understand them.
Steven Pearlstein: Ah, now that's real impact.
New York City, N.Y.: Steve, I noticed that today's column, unlike most of your columns, did not include any suggestions to remedy the abuses you described. I was wondering if you had any suggestions. From my standpoint, it doesn't seem like there's anything to do. The boards don't seem to care, and the CEOs will take the short lived embarrassment if it involves getting lots of money. Public outrage doesn't seem to have taken us very far.
Steven Pearlstein: No, it hasn't. I could suggest raising marginal tax rates, but what we know now is that CEOs will just get the companies to pay the taxes for them under some "gross up" provision to their contracts, so they've even immunized themselves from that. And, while you are struggling to complete your own tax forms this week, the CEOs have handed it over to their accountants, who, of course, are paid by the company. You wouldn't expect them to have to pay for it themselves, would you? And just to add insult to injury, the taxes they owe for having the company pay for their tax preparation -- the company pays those as well.
Frustrated Flier in Washington, D.C.: Great article today; thanks. I've long thought that there are too many airlines for what they provide, and there's no rational currency of competition. As a result, flights are too cheap to support anything like adequate service. Do you agree? If so, when might the market winnow down the number of airlines? Every time one goes away, it seems, a new startup takes its place and the cycle continues. Now Alitalia is in trouble...
Steven Pearlstein: Well, Alitalia is always in trouble. The Alitalia unions have simply bled that airline dry with their silly work rules. But you are right: some flights have become too cheap, and one reason the market isn't clearing at a sustanable price is because their is excess capacity.
Baltimore, Md.:"It won't necessarily change their behavior, but it will ruin their day every once and a while, which may be all you can hope for." Well, damn, that's depressingly cynical. Wish I didn't agree.
Takoma, D.C. :"So I think the only thing to do is to ALWAYS vote no on proxy ballots to all director nominations..." Help me, I'm a financial ignoramus and you're my only hope. What does this mean?
Steven Pearlstein: If you own stock, you get these mailings about this time of year, asking you to vote on various matters that will come up at the annual meeting of shareholders of the company. Unless you want to attend (don't waste your time), you send in your vote by "proxy." And one question on that proxy is to vote for election of directors. These are Soviet style elections: you almost never have a choice. So all you can do is vote for the slate recommended by the directors, or vote against. My advice is to always vote against, as a matter of principle. And what principle is that? The principle that corporate democracy is a sham and that you need to signal in any way you can your disrespect for the system, for the directors and for the pay schemes that they approve. Their view is that if you don't like the way they run the company, then sell the stock. And you can return the favor by voting against them.
Annapolis, Md.: Steve, I don't think ignoring CEOs in the media is a good strategy. They'll just happily continue making their millions in the background without scrutiny. I think you should focus on many of the abuses and hypocrisies that are happening and keep writing about them on a constant basis. Your article today is a good example. It takes a while until it sinks in but if people keep reading about what's going over time they will realize how f***ed-up the system is.
Steven Pearlstein: I don't disagree. In this one area, we shouldn't ignore them, but continue to shine light on the abuse and bring them into further public disapprobation. But if they call up and say they want to talk about how important it is for there to be a new trade treaty, we should just ignore them, since in my opinion they have no more credibility on the issue than the porters at the airport. Less, in fact.
Washington, D.C.: First, along with all the others: congratulations. I find your columns easy to read and understand from a layman's perspective and that's important. Second, wouldn't it be great if CEO and other management return came as a result of performance? Aren't CEO's, who receive a large salary and perks SUPPOSED to make their company perform well? The idea that they need additional bonuses and incentives for doing well (or, even for not doing so well, because if they're not rewarded they might leave for some other organization) is absurd.
New York, N.Y.: When I was unemployed a few years ago, I decided that I would make a difference by becoming a CEO myself and disrupting the system from within, man. But now that I'm a CEO, I find that I kinda like the money. Sorry.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: Get a job, you hippie. Take a bath why don't you.
Dayton, Ohio: Has anyone made a serious, in-depth examination of executive compensation as it relates to workforce reductions and off-shoring? From my own observations of this subject over the last 20 years, there seems to be a very clear "skimming off" of the cost-savings in the form of executive bonuses, almost as if the executives were receiving a commission for each job that was eliminated? For many tech companies that do this in off-shoring, the shareholders don't receive as much tangible benefit compared to the cash received by executives. Moreover, communities and the taxpayers often incur huge costs due to the workforce reductions. It seems that senior executives are often the only winners...What is your view?
Steven Pearlstein: I'm not sure that is mostly correct. Corporate profits as a share of GDP have been going up in a way that isn't just cyclical, and that is a reflection of the cost-cutting and outsourcing and reengineering that companies have done. Top management has taken 10 percent off the top of those savings -- a nice tip, considering how much money is involved. But the rest has gone to shareholders.
Thinkers and Doers: This is all right as far as it goes, but doesn't account for the fact that highly trained professionals who used to be considered thinkers are now treated and paid more like doers. Engineers, for instance, are usually planted in cube farms, have no say in corporate policy, have restricted benefits, and can only gnash their teeth as the big executives take home the 7 figure salaries. It takes years (decades?) before an engineer with a degree or two is safely into a 6 figure salary, and respect from HR and management might never come. Doctors are going in a similar direction, where large group practices provide them with enough income to pay insurance and student loans, but life is a financial struggle for a long time after med school. Meanwhile the medical and health insurance executives take home the profit. So we don't seem to be divided into thinkers and doers anymore, so much as thinker-doers and evil parasites who handle marketing and glad-handing take home the majority of the money.
Steven Pearlstein: Some good points there.
Union Station, D.C.: Steve, Regarding mortgage disclosures, are you aware that D.C. now requires a one-page disclosure form for all non-30 year fixed rate mortgages? The disclosure form breaks out all the costs and how expensive the loan can become, as well as explanations on terms used in the form. It seems like this sort of one-page disclosure form should serve as a model for other states and Congress.
Steven Pearlstein: No, I wasn't aware. I'll check into that.
CEOs and other workers: I agree, ignore them. In N.H., for example, we never fell all over the Tyco guys--mostly we mocked their vulgar housing extravagance--therefore we never missed them when they (so to speak) went away. What I think is unfortunate is the inability of other workers to gain pay increases. If a CEO can be motivated only by ever-bigger pay packages, why do we assume as a society that other workers will be motivated by stagnant wages? I understand the quantity issue--there is an endless supply of Wal-Mart managers--but there are areas where quality clearly matters--teaching, corrections, engineering, etc.--and yet these workers don't seem to be able to link financial reward and motivation. I understand it's partly myth (the loathsomely pious assertion expected of teachers: 'I don't teach for the money'), but why else? Does that disconnect make sense to you?
Steven Pearlstein: No it doesn't. I'm a big believer in incentive pay. But one group that generally opposes it is unions, or at least union leaders. They get overly hung up on the fact that managers might use it to show favoritism. Will that happen? Sure. But if managers themselves are subject to merit pay, it means they will do less well themselves if they reward the wrong people.
Washington, D.C.: If skycaps were successful in their lawsuit against the airlines, why haven't we seen a lawsuit by pizza delivery drivers against pizzerias? Restaurants have begun charging customers for delivery service, likely eating into tips as well.
Steven Pearlstein: The law on this varies state to state, so its hard to say. But that sounds like a similar situation.
Congrats!: And thanks for your great work--please don't ever stop educating your readers. I learn so much every time I read your columns and your excellent chats. Thanks and what's on the horizon?
Steven Pearlstein: You're welcome. That's all the time we have for today folks. "See" you next week at the usual time, I hope, 11 a.m.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein discussed bonuses for top executives.
| 509.333333 | 0.916667 | 1.583333 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802914.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802914.html
|
Iraq Report Redux
|
2008041019
|
Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker have gotten more confident about calling the surge a success, and rightly so. "It's worth it," said the general. "We have seen a significant degradation of al-Qaeda's presence and its abilities," said the ambassador. "Al-Qaeda is our mortal and strategic enemy. So to the extent that al-Qaeda's capacities have been lessened in Iraq -- and they have been significantly lessened -- I do believe that makes America safer."
What hasn't much changed is the partisan debate over Iraq, which as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) lamented, remains resistant even to established facts. Republicans tended to follow Sen. John McCain yesterday in arguing that "success is within reach" and that American goals can be achieved "perhaps sooner than many imagine." Democrats, including presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Obama, remain locked within the "this war is lost" prism the party adopted a year ago. Yesterday Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama and others chose to focus on the costs of the war -- whether Iraq was spending too little of its own money, and whether U.S. resources would be better dedicated to Afghanistan. Those are fair questions, but they are far different from Ms. Clinton's argument last September that accepting that the surge had made progress "would require a willing suspension of disbelief."
What also hasn't changed is the sobering but firm bottom line the two envoys offer -- one that neither party wants to hear. While "progress is real," as Mr. Crocker put it, it is also "fragile" and "reversible," as Gen. Petraeus said. That's why Gen. Petraeus is recommending -- correctly, in our view -- that troop withdrawals be suspended after the five surge brigades are withdrawn and that further reductions be based on conditions in Iraq.
Contrary to Mr. McCain's suggestion, success will require a prolonged commitment, and even then it will not be guaranteed. But the general and the ambassador both argued that such a commitment is justified. Even with all the travails of the past five years, "Iraqis, Americans and the world ultimately will judge us far more on the basis of what will happen than what has happened," said Mr. Crocker. And an early or unconditional withdrawal would, as he noted, invite disaster "with devastating consequences for the region and the world."
|
WHEN GEN. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker last testified before Congress in September, the military results of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, though significant, were still so preliminary that much of the debate centered on whether they were real. When the two men appeared again y...
| 8.321429 | 0.589286 | 0.767857 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/07/DI2008040702200.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/07/DI2008040702200.html
|
White House Watch
|
2008041019
|
Dan is also deputy editor of Niemanwatchdog.org.
Dan Froomkin: Hi everyone and welcome. My column today, which will be out shortly, is about yesterday's absurd tap-dance by the two chief standard-bearers for the war in Iraq -- and how the inevitable conclusion from their testimony is that President Bush has succeeded in making the U.S. withdrawal exclusively the next president's problem.
But I could use your help. I'm looking for the right word to describe an argument that is irrefutable -- and yet completely absurd. It's not a paradox, it's not a tautology, it's not an oxymoron -- what is it?
The ultimate example, in my mind, was when Bush argued that Saddam Hussein's refusal to disclose his weapons of mass destruction meant that he had them. If you accepted the logic of that charge -- and it seems like almost everybody did -- then there was no way for Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD, even though that was in fact the case.
I'm seeing echoes of this sort of illogic in the arguments by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker yesterday. If things are going badly, we have to stay -- but if things are going well, we have to stay. Our commitment is open-ended, but there aren't willing to describe any circumstance in which it would end anytime soon. The way forward is conditions-based, but they won't tell us what the conditions are.
And I guess in addition to the right word to describe this kind of argument, I guess I'm also wondering what the proper response is.
Weston, Conn.: How often do you speak directly to administration officials who actually work in the White House? If you position your column as "what's going on in the White House," I'm trying to understand if you're getting the executive branch's view directly so I can decide if I should spend time reading your column. Thanks, Dan.
Dan Froomkin: I almost never speak directly to administration officials -- but I think that's no small part of why I'm able to tell you what's actually going on. I am under no pressure to cozy up to our channel my administration sources. The other part is that I provide links to dozens of people who are speaking with them directly, as well as to original documents, etc. So what's your decision?
Hammond, Ore.: Hey Dan, here's one for you: The Bush administration always has maintained that there will be no permanent military bases built in Iraq. How is it that McSame -- oops, I mean McCain - can have his "100 year" Iraq presence, like Japan and Korea, without permanent bases? Nobody is covering this, so I punt to you. Any thoughts or comments?
Dan Froomkin: You have put your finger on another one of the great rhetorical dodges that my colleagues are letting the White House get away with. If you really mean "permanent" then we don't have any permanent military bases anywhere. So they can easily say they have no desires for any anywhere. That said, there are I believe at least four bases in Iraq already that certainly look and feel permanent. The question I guess we should ask is whether the government intends to keep those bases for the next few years... and the answer to me seems obvious. See my May 31, 2007 column.
Dan Froomkin: Today's column, No Exit, is now on the site. Go read it and come right back.
Washington: Four legs good, two legs better.
Dan Froomkin: You are suggesting that the answer to my question is "Orwellian"? That's pretty close.
Denver: Hi, Dan, from a big fan. I rarely hear anymore about the strains that the U.S. military is facing. Not so long ago there were several stories about how the war on terror would affect the military's readiness for future conflicts. Is the media simply ignoring this issue, or has the military markedly improved recruitment and training? Thanks!
Dan Froomkin: Neither. There have been lots of stories about the strains the military is facing. They probably don't get the play they deserve, but they are out there. Oh, and Bush himself won't address it. Steve Coll wrote a few days ago in the New Yorker about Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard A. Cody's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week: "In normal times, when an active four-star general implies in public that the Army is under such strain that it might flounder if an unexpected war broke out, or might require a draft to muster adequate troop levels, he could expect to provoke concern and comment from, say, the President of the United States. Some time ago, however, George W. Bush absolved himself of responsibility for his Iraq policy and its consequences by turning the war over to General David H. Petraeus, Cody's four-star peer, and the champion of the 'surge' policy, who will testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week."
Stamford, Conn.: Hi Dan -- from Monday's column, quoting Bush: "I said to the general: 'If you want to slow her down, fine; it's up to you.' " Slow her down? What's next, "get 'er done"? Good riddance won't come soon enough for this redneck buffoon. Thanks for the great work!
washingtonpost.com: No Closer to Success in Iraq (washingtonpost.com, April 7)
Dan Froomkin: Beats "Bring 'em on."
New York: Hi Dan. I think the word you're looking for -- from the philosopher Karl Popper regarding scientific proof -- is "unfalsifiable." I remember Bush answering a question from David Letterman back in 2000 about his support for the death penalty: "I'll continue to support it unless you can prove it doesn't work."
Dan Froomkin: Unfalsifiable. I like that. But it doesn't quite capture the absurdity of it.
Chaska, Minn.: Is it just me or is the White House abandoning Petraeus to Congress? Since the new fighting has occurred, you really can hear the crickets chirping at the White House. When do we ask Petraeus the unspoken question? "Gen. Petraeus, isn't the main reason we are not abandoning Iraq the need for the president to not leave because it would acknowledge the failure of his Iraq War policy?"
Dan Froomkin: Oh, the crickets will stop chirping tomorrow. Bush is set to "speak to the nation" about Iraq sometime during the day, and I'm sure his praise for Petraeus will be fulsome.
Petraeus is being a very good soldier, in lots of ways. But he's not necessarily being a great general. Robert Scheer writes in his syndicated column today that it "is an abdication of civilian control of the military, the basic principle of American constitutional governance, to assign a central role to an active duty general to make the decision to end the war. It betrays the legacy warnings of our two most famous wartime generals, George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"American history offers no greater heroes, not because of their considerable success in battle but because they gained the wisdom to sound the alarm against unbridled militarism so passionately and effectively. The farewell addresses of both those departing generals-turned-president still stand as the essential bookends for what has been written about the limits on military adventure required for democracy's survival. Washington's plea to the nation 'to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism' sets the standard for enlightened political discourse. A close second is Eisenhower's warning that, 'In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.'"
Washington: "I'm looking for the right word to describe an argument that is irrefutable -- and yet completely absurd." Dan, I think the word you're looking for is "fallacious."
Dan Froomkin: That's admirably blunt. Producer Chris suggests "Panglossian."
New York: Hi Dan. Another example of The Logic That Shall Not Be Named: History will vindicate him -- and no matter how long history does not vindicate him, he can always say, well, history isn't over yet.
Dan Froomkin: Excellent. That will certainly tide him over for his lifespan.
Madison, Wis.: Hi Dan. If the incoming administration came to you and asked for some ideas about how to improve dissemination of information to the public, what would you suggest?
Dan Froomkin: I believe in transparency. I think the lack of transparency is bad for the country and bad for the president both. To me, that's been one of the great lessons of the Bush Years. And I am in fact in the midst of writing a piece about how the next White House (whoever's it is) should totally reimagine the use of the Internet. So stay tuned.
Humble, Texas: Dan, I wish I had the word you want for an irrefutable argument, but I don't. Scientifically, the only decent theories are those that are falsifiable, so maybe there is a word lurking in that culture. The weapons of mass destruction situation you refer to reminds me of one of Rumsfeld's comments, when we were unsuccessful at locating the WMD the locations of which we already knew, according to Powell at the U.N. Rumsfeld said something like "that just shows you how good he (Saddam) was at hiding them."
Key West, Fla.: Good day, Dan. Unfalsifiableish might help with the absurdity part. Enjoy reading you on the "Watch."
Kansas: "It's not a paradox, it's not a tautology, it's not an oxymoron -- what is it?" I think you could call it a Bushism. I remember in the run-up to the war that someone in the Saddam regime was complaining that they could not "prove a negative," i.e. that they did not have weapons of mass destruction. I recall thinking to myself, someone over there remembered material from their college logic class, unlike our leaders.
Dan Froomkin: Sadly, Bushism is already taken.
Portland, Maine: I tried explaining to a conservative that Bush's "Saddam" (or whatever word we settle on) made no sense. I started by accusing this man of stealing my lawnmower. When he claimed he didn't have it, I said that was proof he had taken it. His response to me was that someone should kick me in the ... well, you get the idea. Some arguments can't be won even when they are won ... another conundrum!
Dan Froomkin: A "Saddam"! I like it. And you obviously gave up too easily.
Here it is: You could call it "Russell's teapot" (after the philosopher who wrote this): "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
So, if the administration says it's true over and over, then you'll be marginalized if you dare to doubt it. But you'll raise some ire if you use this example, as it actually came up in the context of questioning the existence of God.
Dan Froomkin: Yeah, I'm not gonna touch that one.
Baltimore: The word you're looking for is "illusory."
Dan Froomkin: Illusory is also good. But how would I use it in a sentence? "Bush's illusory argument"? Doesn't quite work. His logic is illusory, though. That works.
Arlington, Va.: Disthetical? Pseudo-coherent? Nontological? (Theories about the nature of being or the kinds of things that don't exist.
Dan Froomkin: I love these. They sound fabulous. I'm going to have to set up some sort of poll so we can pick a winner...
New York: Dan, how about "Catch-22 logic" as the term you are seeking, or maybe some variation on it that evokes the humor and confounding nature of the situation? I just love these Bush/McCain assertions about "victory" and "defeat" in Iraq, which are justified by concerns about pride and not about anything except passing the bush -- oops, buck -- by W....
Dan Froomkin: You are absolutely right that there is a strong "Catch-22" logic at work here. Thanks. Come to think of it, that's exactly what Fred Kaplan called it in Slate yesterday: "The way that Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker formulated the problem, cutting troops below the current level of 140,000 is not even a conceivable option. They laid out a Catch-22: If things in Iraq get worse, we can't cut back, lest things get worse still; if things get better, we can't cut back, lest we risk reversing all our gains."
Helena, Mont.: Dan, I think this is just more Bushisms -- remember, when there was a surplus and the economy was good, we needed a tax cut; when economy went bad, we needed a tax cut. They have solutions that are universal to any problem. So it is with Iraq -- we need to have troops there. If things are going badly, that's why we need troops there; if things are going well, it is evidence that our troops are needed.
Dan Froomkin: Thanks. Good point about the universal solutions.
The word you're looking for: Not to get all esoteric here, but in philosophy it's called the "burden of proof" logical fallacy.
Dan Froomkin: Maybe... I'm going to look through this List Of Fallacious Arguments later to help me figure it out.
Bethesda, Md.: Is it like if the dunk test for a witch? If she survives she's a witch but if she dies she isn't?
Fairfax, Va.: I think Obama may be on to something in terms of making us aware of how empty Bush's use of the word "victory" is when Obama posed a choice between a perfect outcome he described versus a "sloppy, messy" outcome. Obama specifies what victory could mean using words that we can relate to. I would like to see our White House reporters try the same type of questions, as well as some direct ones like "please tell us what those strategic national interests are that we are fighting for in Iraq"?
washingtonpost.com: Obama Questions Petraeus on Iraq (washingtonpost.com, April 8)
Dan Froomkin: I thought it was an excellent question, and cut to the heart of Bush's absolutist thinking style. What's "good enough" in Iraq? And more to the point, how have we gone five years without a vigorous debate about it?
I think the theme here is that when Bush is at his most absolute, you can't really argue with Bush on his own terms, you have to examine the underlying logical fallacy of his arguments, and ask entirely new questions.
Pangloss: Panglossian suggests no ill intent, which I for one do not think is accurate. The only thing "Pangloss" about this administration is that it is not Candid-e. Ha ha.
Washington: How about Catch 22.385204, section 705(wh), rule 71, column 9? Or just call it Cheneyist.
Chicago: Dan, given the power wielded by Vice President Cheney during this current administration (admirably chronicled in The Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning "Angler" series of articles) and Cheney's apparent belief that he knows better than anyone ("So?"), do you think it possible/probably that Cheney eventually will write a "tell-all" memoir boasting about how he ran the White House and established policy during the Bush 43 presidency? Or do you think that he will be content to stay in the shadows of history forever? Or do you think that eventually his "puppeteer" role will be exposed by the press and historians? How much open credit will Cheney want to take for this administration's successes (whatever they may be) during his lifetime? How much open and notorious blame do you think he will be willing to take for its failures?
Dan Froomkin: What a great question. Offhand, I would say it depends on how long he lives. I can't imagine him writing any such thing any time soon ... but 20 years from now, when he's eager to establish his place in history, maybe.
Which, considering the state of his ticker, probably means no.
Washington: It occurred to me that a general who was trying to win a war and remove troops afterward would have goals and targets that he is working toward that would allow him to declare success and begin removing troops. The absence of such goals and targets suggests that this is just an occupation. There is no goal or target other than staying there, and tamping down violence while we are there. Right?
Dan Froomkin: I don't think that's true of Petraeus. I suspect he has an idea of how best to get out of Iraq but it will take so long that he'd rather not say it out loud. See this Tom Ricks blog on washingtonpost.com.
As for Bush, however, the absence of such clear goals and targets does suggest that his main goal is to run out the clock. And guess what? Mission Accomplished.
Newtown, Pa.: Given that most members of congress are lawyers, why can't they use interrogation techniques -- i.e. yes or no answers only? Or are they afraid to be accountable for the question?
Dan Froomkin: One problem is that they're mostly interested in hearing themselves talk. Another problem is that very few of them were prosecutors. Or they've forgotten how to cross-examine a hostile witness, or never knew. I am married to a prosecutor. I am convinced she could have made mincemeat of either of these guys.
Re: Cheney's Memoirs: It will depend on the statute of limitations.
Re: Obama's Question: I agree that it was a good question and agree that you need to ask new questions when Bush is at his most absolute, but how can you get Bush to acknowledge and answer the questions? Also, asking questions to this White House about possible criminal acts and about perfectly innocent things will get the same response: silence.
Dan Froomkin: Good point. I have long maintained that the only opportunity to shake Bush off his talking points is in the long-form sit-down interview. But he doesn't do those often, and when he does, they're almost exclusively with people who serve up softballs.
And you're wrong about silence. They respond with lots of sound.
Hellerian Arguments?: Or Vonnegutian, depending on how apocalyptic some of their absurdities turn out to be.
Bala-Cynwyd, Pa.: Circulundrum, from circular and conundrum.
Alexandria, Va.: How's "proofiness" for your word?
Dan Froomkin: Ha! I love it. Someone should send that to Colbert.
New York: What the situation is truly reminiscent of is the scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," when King Arthur stumbles upon a small village with a "witch." Part of their evidence is that she looks like a witch because she has a long nose -- but then the villagers admit that they dressed her up like that!
Dan Froomkin: The pop culture analogies are priceless... but not flattering.
Cave Creek, Ariz.: In the "Princess Bride", Vizzini tortures logic -- but does not waterboard -- in his battle of wits with Wesley about which drink was poisoned. Perhaps we can apply this today to Bush by calling it a "Vizzinism."
Washington: When my son was in third grade, he was sharing what he'd been learning about punctuation. He invented a new one that our family frequently uses as a sort of quotation mark for dubious statements: the "prepostrophe."
Dan Froomkin: I'm laughing so hard I'm going to disturb the neighbors. Oh my.
Closed or Circular Logic?: For instance, if you support the troops you want them to win, so you want them to keep fighting until they win, regardless of how long it takes or how many of them die. If you don't accept the premise, you don't support the troops. It's circular thinking that treats any ideas not already approved as already discredited. Communism, Freudian psychology, etc., fall into this pattern. Argument by foregone conclusion.
Dan Froomkin: See my Dec. 14, 2006, column, Doing It for the Soldiers: "Bush is certainly far from alone in being moved by the sacrifices of those in uniform. And nobody wants to believe that soldiers have died in vain.
"But if they have, sending more soldiers to die after them doesn't make it better -- it only makes it worse."
Chicago: Sorry to interrupt the fun, but with the implicit approval of the clerics for Sadr to maintain his Mahdi Army, isn't Iraq now a Civil War with multiple actors? What will it take the White House and the press to acknowledge this simple fact?
Dan Froomkin: Yes, more or less. As retired Gen. William Odom put it recently about what the surge has wrought: "How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense." But this is, as you point out, not a universal view. Certainly this White House will never accept it.
Emmitsburg, Md.: Dan, I listened to a good deal of the testimony yesterday by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and was struck by Petraeus's indifference to whether our presence in Iraq had caused an increase in terrorism globally. He cavalierly brushed aside any concern about that because, he said, his mission was strictly Iraq. I cannot believe a military man like Gen. Petraeus does not understand that an increase in terrorism on the global stage most certainly affects "his mission." Yet, today, no one seems to be talking about this outrageous disconnect. I'm wondering if the general is so much in the Bush camp that he dares not say anything that suggests President Bush has caused far bigger problems with his unnecessary and inept adventure in Iraq than the problems of the war itself. I would appreciate your take.
Dan Froomkin: What you are describing is one of the reasons there are so many concerns about Petraeus's outsized role in the decision-making. He's not looking at the big picture -- but that's not his job.
As Michael Abramowitz wrote in Sunday's Post: "In the waning months of his administration, Bush has hitched his fortunes to those of his bookish four-star general, bypassing several levels of the military chain of command to give Petraeus a privileged voice in White House deliberations over Iraq, according to current and former administration officials and retired officers. In so doing, Bush's working relationship with his field commander has taken on an intensity that is rare in the history of the nation's wartime presidents.
"Bush's reliance on Petraeus has made other military officials uneasy, has rankled congressional Democrats and has created friction that helped spur the departure last month of Adm. William J. 'Fox' Fallon, who, while Petraeus's boss as chief of U.S. Central Command, found his voice eclipsed on Iraq."
Dan Froomkin: Wow. That was lively. Thanks very much for all your questions, comments, and suggestions. I'll definitely use some of these in my column tomorrow. (If you want credit by name, or have other suggestions, e-mail me at froomkin@washingtonpost.com).
See you again here in two weeks, and every afternoon at washingtonpost.com/whitehousewatch.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 120.268293 | 0.536585 | 0.682927 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/04/the_reality_is_it_is_hard_in_i.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/04/the_reality_is_it_is_hard_in_i.html
|
Petraeus Overplays His Hand
|
2008041019
|
"The reality is, it is hard in Iraq."
That statement by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker pretty much sums up what he and Gen. David Petraeus presented to Congress yesterday. Iraq is hard, but we are making headway; victory is possible, if we only persevere.
Except that in making this pitch, Petraeus and Crocker overplayed their hand. They overstated the threat posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq in an effort to justify the mission -- a mindset that has generated a deeply flawed strategy. They also overplayed the surge's success -- downplaying or discounting factors that likely did more to create today's improved security conditions. While their "Anaconda" strategy looks cool on a PowerPoint slide, it confuses the issues of control and influence, putting too much stock in America's ability to engineer success in Iraq. And, perhaps most tellingly, the two men made the case for perseverance without placing Iraq in the context of vital U.S. national interests, offering only apocalyptic predictions of what would happen if we don't stay the course.
The AQI threat. According to Petraeus and Crocker, the real threats in Iraq are al-Qaeda and other sinister forces originating in Iran and elsewhere. Blame for all of Iraq's bloodshed lies with these parties.
It makes for a neat narrative. It's also wrong.
The vast majority of Iraqi violence over the past five years has been caused a) by ethno-sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites; b) intra-sectarian fighting amongst Sunnis and Shiites; c) fighting over scarce resources (oil, fuel, water, food, control over ministries with responsibility for the same); and d) fighting by Iraq's homegrown Sunni insurgency and homegrown Shiite militias. AQI has played an important role as catalyst and spoiler -- stoking the fires of sectarian violence (as with the 2006 mosque bombing in Samarra), and keeping them going whenever peace threatened to emerge. But that is a supporting role, and it is a mistake to cast AQI in the lead role and to characterize U.S. efforts in Iraq as a counterinsurgency against AQI.
Clausewitz once wrote that the most important challenge for a commander was to visualize the battlefield -- because all plans and actions flow from his understanding of the situation. Our skewed visualization of Iraq -- and overemphasis of the AQI threat -- has pushed us to adopt an extremely risky strategy of standing up Iraqi security forces and local partisans that will, if we ever withdraw or downsize our forces, create the conditions for a massive civil war. Our singular focus on AQI has also caused us to neglect other important strategic imperatives -- such as reforming the rotten Maliki government and improving the ability of its ministries to govern the country.
Other Sources of Success. As a factual matter, there is no question that security in Iraq is improved. But Petraeus and Crocker downplayed the many reasons why this is so.
, Petraeus depicted the changes in the Baghdad population since the height of sectarian violence in 2006. It's clear that the Shiite vs. Sunni battle for Baghdad has produced a city that is more homogenous, less integrated, and less dense than before. But what about the rest of Iraq? What about the massive flows of displaced people? And what to make of the relative importance of the political deals with Sunni and Shiite political leaders that have kept their partisans out of the fight? These have all had a massive impact on the security situation -- probably more of one than that exerted by U.S. military forces. Petraeus and Crocker hinted at the importance of these factors, but gave them scant attention, possibly to stress the continued importance of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Control vs. Influence. On slide 9 of his briefing, Petraeus described the "Anaconda" strategy for crushing AQI. It's a great metaphor and a good conceptual model. But, again, it focuses too narrowly on just one threat to Iraq's stability. And, more problematically, it buys in to the idea that we can actually control events and engineer success through the application of enlightened counterinsurgency doctrine. That's wishful thinking.
At this point in the war, with the forces we have deployed, we don't control much of anything -- except those few locations where we dominate the ground by sheer presence. Mostly, we influence events, acting indirectly through Iraqi proxies and other mechanisms.
It's hard to fault Petraeus and Crocker for their relentless optimism; after all, they are commanders who must lead and inspire troops in combat and express public confidence in their mission. But here, I think they are expressing too much confidence in their strategy and its ability to achieve victory (whatever that means). Counterinsurgency is a messy business, and even the best strategies often fail to produce success.
Seeking a Strategy. So what is our strategy in Iraq? And for that matter, what is "victory?" How does a "victory" in Iraq relate to America's larger national security interests? Petraeus and Crocker effectively punted on these grand questions, as they did last September, offering only that we needed to persevere and succeed to avoid vague Somalia-like predictions of what might happen if we don't.
That's not a good enough answer for me. I don't think that Petraeus and Crocker justified our enormous investment of blood and treasure with their testimony yesterday.
But I also think that responsibility is above their paygrade. The real answers to these grand questions must come from the White House and Pentagon -- and they must be argued convincingly enough to earn the support of the American people and their elected representatives.
Yesterday's testimony highlighted our strategic drift, and how Sisyphean our efforts in Iraq have been for the past five years. We owe something more to our men and women serving in Iraq, and to the Iraqis.
By Phillip Carter | April 9, 2008; 9:46 AM ET | Category: Iraq Previous: Previewing Petraeus and Crocker | Next: Above and Beyond
Excellent blog on why we really aren't winning in Iraq and why American sacrifice in blood and treasure has not and will not be worth it.
Posted by: Dave Southern | April 9, 2008 9:22 AM
I think you miss an important point about AQI. Once we leave Iraq, AQI will have little reason (and no support) to stay in Iraq. Iraqis did not support AQ's way of life prior to the invasion, and they surely will not support AQ after we leave. AQI is simply tolerated as a means to end the US occupation, or more likely, as a surrogate force to exact revenge.
Therefore, any argument that we should stay in Iraq to fight AQI is what we could call "a self licking ice cream cone."
Posted by: bg | April 9, 2008 9:29 AM
Great critique of the testimony, and a very realistic assessment of the realities and strategy, such as it is, of the US in Iraq. Thank you.
Posted by: Bullsmith | April 9, 2008 9:52 AM
Not sure if there isn't a contradiction in your point ie Pet and Crock overstate AQI danger in order to justify mission they have trouble justifying otherwise and yet, as you state, via Clausewitz, they don't really understand the 'situation'. Seems rather to me that they overstate AQI because they indeed do understand the situation but are not sure how they would explain it to the American public. Surge didn't really do what it was meant to do but did help in creating, through a somewhat convoluted series of events and circumstances, an improved environment regardless - and so in spirit of better the devil you know isn't it best to ride those circumstance rather then jump to others [withdrawal etc] that may smash you against certain rocks lurking in the darkness? Hard to explain all this to the rather naive electorate, no?
Posted by: oblong | April 9, 2008 9:52 AM
The only thing I wish this blog entry had added was the estimate for how big AQI is. What I've seen is that it's less than 10% of the insurgency. Yet the proportion of the press it gets here in Disinfo Central (the American media) makes it look like it's 90% of the insurgency. That's exactly how John McCain can get away with asserting preposterous statements like "if we pulled out now Al Qaida would take over" and people barely bat an eyelash. In addition to being small, AQI has no support from the civilian populace. They aren't taking over, whether we're there or not.
Misinforming the American people about the situation facing them has NEVER been a winning move. Just look at Vietnam, and the runup to this falsely-presmised war. The media should start doing it's job and pointing these falsehoods out. Though I have no illusions that they will start doing that now. Misinformation has served them far too well to date in terms of pumping up readership. "Fighting terrorism" in Iraq sells better than "mired in the middle of a civil war". Zero professionalism, that's our media.
Posted by: Mark | April 9, 2008 9:56 AM
I think the clearest indication that we have been going down the wrong road comes from the "We don't know what victory looks like, but we'll know it when we see it" approach. Unless American lives are in immediate danger, no war should be fought without a realistic cost/benefit analysis. Clearly, this conflict is still missing that part.
Posted by: Richard Murphy | April 9, 2008 10:04 AM
Generally a good analysis, but it isn't really up to Petraeus and Crocker to justify the strategic value of the Iraq war effort to American interests. They are the technocrats developing and executing the tactics to implement the strategy. It is legit to question them on what success the tactics have achieved, whether they are the correct tactics, whether execution has been sound, what we can achieve with these tactics, etc. Justifying the expense of the war in lives and $, defining exactly how it impacts America's future, developing our strategy vis-a-vis Iran which seems inarguably to be strengthened by this war, defining what victory is in this strategy and when it is time to say victory is either achieved, unattainable, or too expensive to achieve -- those are the jobs of the President and Congress.
President Bush has done nothing but repeat a few content-empty jingoistic slogans again and again. As a result, he has not convinced Americans that this war is necessary or beneficial to us. The failings of the President and his administration are manifest. The questioners in Congress have also failed. They never fulfilled their duty to question the need for the war and have not contributed to a definition of what success in Iraq should be defined as or when the cost of achieving that has become too great. Like Petraeus and Crocker, Congress has been content to follow the President's course and wait for the next administration.
Posted by: allentown | April 9, 2008 10:18 AM
I just think it's a pity that Petreus and Crocker have to carry the administration's water. It must be very hard to be a soldier who is first forced into an untenable situation by an inept, responsibility-dodging executive and then is called on to take the public hits for it too.
Posted by: Seth | April 9, 2008 10:20 AM
This article bring out a question in my mind, why are we there? I think the overstatements about AQI have been addressed the article and by others. But Sadr showed that the Americans control little, and Sadr controls much. He only had to order a lifting of his ceasefire and we saw the fighting escalate, with rockets landing in the green zone. It still requires air support to drive to the airport. America controls little there and so America has little reason to remain there. If we left tomorrow, there would likely be some bloodshed as the civil war erupts. But the ethnic cleansing is pretty much complete within Badhdad and other cities. With the Americans gone AQI would be wiped out by the Iraqis who consider them foreign invaders. They have no support within Iraq. What would come after that I'm not sure, but that is no reason to continue a large military occupation. Through a controlled withdrawl the Iraqis would be forced to make decisions and take actions to stabalize their nation which they currently have no need to make. The only reason we remain there is because our commander in chief wants to maintain American control over the Iraqi land and people.
Posted by: Sully | April 9, 2008 10:23 AM
What if Petraeus is being coy for a good reason? What if they see a way forward where JAM is marginalized and Iraq's Shia are governed by some soft tyranny based around the real power which lurks behind the dullish Maliki and where the US partners with the Sunni to create a workable balance of power within that context? If they indeed do see a way towards that scenario Petraeus obviously can't talk about it because it would jeopardize the favorable dynamics in Iraq and stoke public unease in US since such a scenario would require a long term commitment by US military. But if such a scenario exists doesn't that alter one's perception of Petraeus' performance yesterday?
Posted by: orso | April 9, 2008 10:31 AM
Interesting and valuable piece. However I have to state that you have significantly understated the impact of AQI. Having spent 18 months in Iraq, working with Iraqis of all orientations, AQI is inherently the core of most of the violence. For while you are correct that most violence has been between shia and sunni, what you are downplaying is that this violence has continued because the militias that cause it have been able to garner popular support as "protectors" of their populace. They have earned these titles because the sectarian violence caused by, and perhaps most importantly threatened by, AQI has created mass fear. With the dimuation of AQI, and resultant decrease in justification for militias, the excesses of the militias have been thrown more into the light and the Iraqi people have been turning against them. Iraqi's by and large are like everyone else and just want to be secure, give them this safety and you allow them to act rationally. But this will only remain as long as AQI is kept off balance. This is the reason for the focus on it. While AQI might represent only a fraction of the real violence, its presence enables the vast majority of the attacks that occur.
I recognize you have a valid view of and understanding of many of the issues involved. But I would encourage you to give full recognition to what truths there are. Failing to do so only encourages uninformed speculation and action.
Posted by: Lee | April 9, 2008 11:03 AM
"Mostly, we influence events, acting indirectly through Iraqi proxies and other mechanisms."-->Phillip Carter
Isn't this what we accuse the Iranians of, in their dealings with the Iraqis?
Posted by: Mark Pyruz | April 9, 2008 11:17 AM
Petraeus has been given a task by the CIC. His job is to complete it to the best of his ability. Whether the job should be done or not is not for him to question. That is a job for congress and the American people. A new CIC may have a different perspective and a different task for the army and marine corp. I, for one. hope so.
Posted by: CT Foxx | April 9, 2008 11:19 AM
The bottom line remains the same:
The only real objective in Iraq is to force the people of Iraq to serve the interests of the United States ahead of their own, and the reality is that this criminal occupation isn't in the terests of either nation.
It remains what it always was: an inexcusable crime against peace.
Posted by: Charles Gittings | April 9, 2008 11:36 AM
It's sad to see a political general and an overly ambitious ambassador trying to defend GWBush's failed policies in Iraq. They are simply parroting lines dictated to them by Bush and Cheney. If they were men of integrity, they would both have refused to take their assignments and resigned. But they are not. Petraeus has already betrayed his troops by forcing them to stay longer than promised and Crocker has failed miserably to persuade the Iraqi government to adopt policies that will prevent its collapse. Another great upheaval is coming in Iraq starting this summer shortly after the surge troops leave. The entire enterprise will collapse in bloody fighting and we will still have 100,000 troops caught in the middle. It's time to end it.
Posted by: DSRobins | April 9, 2008 11:50 AM
Perhaps it might be relevant for Mr. Carter to expose somewhere in his entry that he has openly endorsed Barack Obama, and even has a page on the campaign's web site:
Or is full and open disclosure not a "change we can believe in?"
Posted by: Bob Owens | April 9, 2008 11:53 AM
I'll take a swing at Mark's question: "The only thing I wish this blog entry had added was the estimate for how big AQI is. What I've seen is that it's less than 10% of the insurgency."
I doubt anybody in the world has an accurate count on the current size of AQI but everything I've read suggests that they are currently VERY small, perhaps 1,000 people in all, probably fewer than that.
They were a lot bigger until the Sunni's got tired of being afraid of them and made a deal that even we couldn't refuse.
Big problem is that lacking a trusted police force, it doesn't take a lot of people to cause major havoc.
Larry Niven "Anarchy is the least stable of social structures. It falls apart at a touch"
Posted by: Pluto | April 9, 2008 12:37 PM
Fully agree w/ Mr. Owens that Mr. Carter needs to fully disclose his endorsement of Barack Obama.
His blog reads more like an Obama speech "...Yesterday's testimony highlighted our strategic drift, and how Sisyphean our efforts in Iraq have been for the past five years...." than an impartial analysis of the testimony.
Posted by: gustavo | April 9, 2008 12:38 PM
I'm glad you know so much about the goings on in Iraq through your telescope in D.C. than the commanding officer.
Why didn't Congress unanimously approve you to be the architect of the counter insurgency?
Posted by: right | April 9, 2008 12:39 PM
"AQI has no support from the civilian populace. They aren't taking over, whether we're there or not."
Not only that, but I would argue further that AQI is not even related--in a sense other than the name which has been co-opted--to the greater Al Queda organization that was responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
What is essentially a case of copyright infringement is the greatest propaganda victory of the current iteration of the Iraq War.
Posted by: ibc | April 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Could we please have an organizational table of AQI? If not, could we stop conflating our business interests in Iraq with the fellows in Pakistan.
Posted by: Lee | April 9, 2008 12:50 PM
When you have a splinter in you hand, you remove the splinter. So, remove George and his Dick and healing will begin.
Posted by: Jim | April 9, 2008 12:57 PM
Thanks for the posting that note about my support for Barack Obama. This is an opinion site, and I do have a point of view (which may or may not be your point of view, or the right point of view). I will always strive for intellectual honesty, accuracy and fairness, but I think it's only fair to note that my blog posts will be informed by my experiences, opinions, etc. Look forward to having you participate here, and to future discussions in the blogosphere.
Posted by: Phillip Carter | April 9, 2008 1:03 PM
whether we talk about the loss of 4,000 lives lost or 100,000; spending 500 billion dollars or 3 trillion; or the simple and wanton disregard by this governance for the will of the people. we (or the iraqis) are neither safer, freer or winners. if 9/11 is the culprite which i believe to be a criminal act and not an act of war then let's stop the insanity of fighting crime in the middle east. after all we have crime right here in our own streets. second no household, city council, corporation or country can spend money at this level of excess and lack of accountability without serious and dire consequences. we need to face the facts and not continue in wishful thinking.
Posted by: steven nelson | April 9, 2008 1:05 PM
It's a pity that even with millions of taxpayer dollars to hire staff who are expert in foreign and military policy to advise them, the members of the two Senate committees holding hearings yesterday did not manage to ask many intelligent questions of the witnesses. The facts posted above by Mr. Carter are not a secret, but are known to many in Washington. Why were they not brought up in the questions that were asked? Once again our leaders have given a poor account of themselves.
Posted by: simon | April 9, 2008 1:06 PM
Phil, you remain a national treasure with your usual insightful analysis. I hope the Post's readers click the link to your bio to understand the military background and Iraq experience you bring to the table.
I would add one more thing: to obtain the goal of 'security' the military command has focused on achieving a measurable benchmark - reduction of casualties - to quell the political and popular dissatisfaction with the war, and to protect our troops. Yet in doing so, the wallbuilding that has turned Baghdad into a rat maze may permit its residents a modicum of security to help them endure, it effectively creates a segregated form of quasi-imprisonment that in no way bolsters the very concept of a functional civil society.
It serves short term objectives at the expense of the cooperative social interaction required of any healthy society. Or more simply, it dead ends at security and any potential for a definable success requires a livability that is effectively blocked.
I also don't fault the military for this: they carry out the objectives they're assigned to do. But the designers of those objectives gain nothing for Iraqis but a temporary zone of moderate safety. Instead of a civil, democratic society, they've got a segregated compound existence in their capital city, a segregated security force, a government that only acts in alliance against the most popular leader in the country to maintain their own political strength, but remains incapable of compromise on essential points that are mandatory to 'success' such as an oil revenue sharing plan, a job development plan for millions unemployed/underemployed, a plan for rebuilding vital infrastructure and an integrated security force.
Their government seems oblivious to the American public's insistence on withdrawal so long as our financing spigot props them up and our military keeps them fairly well protected.
And with a withdrawal, I expect many of them will simply take their money and run, fleeing into exile, leaving behind their constituents to bear the brunt of their refusal to do a damn thing beyond living on the dole.
Success? No, that way has always led to madness. And the buck stops in the White House for making their own political madness endemic.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | April 9, 2008 1:08 PM
I would take issue with a few points.
1. I am not sure why you think the ethnic cleansing is nearly complete. Why Baghdad may now have homogeneous neighborhoods it is not at all a homogeneous city. I see no reason to think that the Shia and Sunni in Baghdad would simply agree that current balance is fair and so be it. The battles over the mixed neighborhoods are largely finished. The battle for Baghdad proper has not yet begun.
2. I see little reason to expect that AQI would be thrown out by the Iraqis. When the competition for resources and wealth begins the Sunni are going to need all the help they can get. I find it very unlikely that they would ostracize a fairly wealthy and well manned ally in the face of impending Shia domination.
Posted by: John-Michael | April 9, 2008 1:14 PM
"Mostly, we influence events, acting indirectly through Iraqi proxies and other mechanisms." For those of you who do not understand it, including it seems, Mr. Carter, that is how counterinsurgencies are fought. Little is actually controlled, much is influenced, for better or worse. It would also be refreshing to stop hearing, from those who can't seem stop repeating the Democratic candidate's wrongly articulated statements about how the recent events in Basra constitute an "upsurge in the violence." This was not some unforseen series of events by insurgents but a deliberate act by the legitimately constituted government of Iraq to disarm and subdue illegal militias loyal to private citizens instead of to the GoI, something they wouldn't have had to do if the British had done their job in Basra instead of sitting on their collective arses for the past two years. The fact that operations did not meet the Government's expectations shows the work still to be done in training and seasoning the fledgling Iraqi Army and Police. That it was attempted at all and was partially successful shows the work that HAS been done. We've been in Iraq for 5 years and only in the last 2 have we begun to execute well. I make no excuses for the first three, extremely poor execution from a government and a military singularly unprepared and unpredisposed for COIN opns. Now that we're finally getting it right, it's going to take awhile to be successful, something that should have been explained to the American people in the beginning much more vigorously than was done. But that is one of the fundamentals of COIN: Commit to the Long Term. A stable, representative Iraq, well disposed toward US interests in the region will be much preferrable to a puppet state of Iran. It would be nice if our liberal bretheren would get onboard or at least get out of the way and let us get there. Lastly, sorry Ryan but there is no such thing as a "crime against peace.'
Posted by: Gaius Marius | April 9, 2008 1:16 PM
Your pardon Charles. I referred to you as Ryan. Apologies.
Posted by: Gaius Marius | April 9, 2008 1:18 PM
Phil: "Except that in making this pitch, Petraeus and Crocker overplayed their hand. They overstated the threat posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq in an effort to justify the mission -- a mindset that has generated a deeply flawed strategy. They also overplayed the surge's success -- downplaying or discounting factors that likely did more to create today's improved security conditions."
If one assumes that the real target was Congress and US public opinion, they didn't do any such thing. Their job was to sustain 'The Surge' for a few more months, until Bush and Cheney leave office. That's the reason that they started the whole surge, and it's worked brilliantly.
Posted by: Barry | April 9, 2008 1:22 PM
If the thinking behind the strategy is as muddled as the thinking that went into that PowerPoint slide, the cause is hopeless.
Posted by: Peter Principle | April 9, 2008 1:23 PM
Gaius Marius -- precisely right. The essence of COIN is doing things "by, with and through" local allies and partners. However, I fear that Gen. Petraeus' strategy has an internal contradiction to the extent that it a) embraces this indirect theory of action while b) hoping we can "engineer success" through our actions.
Posted by: Phillip Carter | April 9, 2008 1:26 PM
@Bob Owens nice pickup. Another Obammunist hack weighs in against Petraeus and Crocker while not bothering to mention his political ties.
Nothing damages Obama as much as good news about progress from Iraq, therefore the WaPo brings in a stealth supporter to disparage it. No disclosure needed, they have hope and change which trumps honest discourse.
Posted by: DaMav | April 9, 2008 1:30 PM
I have to wonder why the General did not talk on the subject at hand and why the ambassador did most of the speaking of which not one straight answer was given.he was asked about how we aew doing? But never attempted to address it. instead addressing other matters avoiding the question(s) asked altogether saying well these people are doing this or that and we have to wait or something to that affect.not ever directly answering the question(s) asked.sounded off more like a politician avoiding issues than an ambassador to anyplace.Not I repeat Not even giving the General who is supposed to know what is going on a chance to get a word in edgewise.in short the whole thing stinks.
Posted by: waddayouthink | April 9, 2008 1:38 PM
THE PERSON WHO SHOULD REALLY HAVE BEEN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE VARIOUS SENATORS, IS GEORGE BUSH. THE GENERAL AND THE AMBASSADOR WERE ANSWERING THE WAY THEY WERE TOLD TO ANSWER, I'M SURE. JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. WE NEED TO GET THE HECK OUT OF IRAQ AND GET DOWN TO THE BUSINESS OF SAVING OUR OWN COUNTRY.
Posted by: Irma Franklin | April 9, 2008 1:40 PM
"A stable, representative Iraq, well disposed toward US interests in the region will be much preferrable to a puppet state of Iran"
Which countries leader is welcomed with a red carpet and kisses and on the streets in broad daylight and which countries leader flies in under cover of night and leaves before anyone knows he is there? It would be nice if our conservative bretheren would get onboard or at least get out of the way and let us get fully into Afghanistan; where the REAL al-Qaeda are.
Posted by: Nick | April 9, 2008 1:51 PM
This whole affair is digusting and has been to politicized to ever know the truth. War is not easy to understand and the average American cannot understand how to wage it, that is why we have professional soldiers. I am a veteran and heavily involved in combating the "terrorist" threat and I believe that GEN Petreaus is as good as it gets. Politicians and idiots from both parties try to make the issue simple but it is not simple.
One thing that I notice in the blog is that Al Qaeda is a small part personel wise, like Mr. Carter mentions but they fan the flames whenever peace threatens. AQI heavily finances the insurgency and by fanning the flames plays a disproportional role in the continuing violence.
War sucks but it is not simple as politicians like to act it is. They have no experience or framework to ever understand the consequences of their collective vote. Congress voted to allow the war as a whole and should be held accountable as a whole. The past is the past, deal with what is happening now. Do not ask someone to come speak before Congress to deliver facts and then tell them what you "think" is going on. GEN Petreaus could have called in and accomplished the same goals as this "hearing" accomplished.
PS. Mr. Carter why dont you write a story about how both parties do not care about the truth about the war even though they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum but they do care if they get reelected.
Posted by: Jason | April 9, 2008 2:35 PM
The real question is, does it matter if we pull out now or if we wait 10 or 20 years?
It's a safe bet that the country is going to erupt into civil war sooner or later, probably pretty much as soon as they can. Will us staying another 20 years simply delay that until then? Are we just postponing the inevitable, at amazing cost to the American taxpayer?
Posted by: Hillman | April 9, 2008 2:57 PM
It has been just a little under 230 years since the American/English revolutionary war. Moreover, we continue to skirmish to keep our Constitution pristine. The latest is the American Democratic Party, listen to them slam our President and his administration, for they want to remake the USA into a different country than our founders left us. We have been helping Iraqi people gain their freedom for five years and some want us to give up and leave it the Iraqi people. Should we not give them help until they can control their criminals also?
Posted by: Billgls | April 9, 2008 3:16 PM
"One thing that I notice in the blog is that Al Qaeda is a small part personel wise, like Mr. Carter mentions but they fan the flames whenever peace threatens. AQI heavily finances the insurgency and by fanning the flames plays a disproportional role in the continuing violence."
Jason, as someone who has been fighting the terrorists, as many regular commenters on Phil's blog have been as well, do you not agree that if we left Iraq, AQI would no longer have a reason to be there, and thus, their support base would dematerialize? If we left, and AQI left, wouldn't that be a sufficient method of meeting our goals if removing AQI was our true primary intent?
Posted by: bg | April 9, 2008 3:26 PM
Iraq March 2003 to April 2008 YEARS
4025 Killed --------------------------------------- Battle of the Bulge Dec 16 to Jan 25 5 WEEKS
81,000 American casualties, including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed. --------------------------------------- Gettysburg July 1 to 3 DAYS
Nearly 8,000 had been killed outright. --------------------------------------- Blood and Treasure is sacred in all conflict.
Posted by: Jeff C | April 9, 2008 3:30 PM
Phil, This was an excellent analysis, although I totally disagree with your conclusions. We are all bound by our pre-conceived views and opinions. I do not believe that Clausewitz was any more brilliant than Gen David Petraeus. I served with him for 10 months during 2007 and am totally confident that he understands the Battlefield of Iraq. Shia Militants are still considered to be redeemable, whereas AQI must be marginalized and eliminated, as they are beyond redemption. Therefore, AQI must be the first priority. Look at the Strategy being employed as related to Geography. We went in focusing on Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala with a clear understanding that it would drive a wedge between the Sunni and Shia elements (north and south, respectively). Now we have Sunni AQI alienated from the Sunni population in the central and northern Provinces and no place to go / hide down south. The same holds true for the Shia Militias who can't operate outside southern Iraq and the Baghdad Slums of Sadr City. With 26 million Iraqi and 170,000 Coalition Forces it has obviously been necessary to "influence" much of the current results through Tribal Leadership and Iraqi Security Forces. I believe we all felt that was what we were expected to do.
Posted by: Dennis McCool | April 9, 2008 3:50 PM
For all this to make sense we have to go back to the real the Commander-in-chief, and look the reason why we went to war. It was a two for, (one) for the neo-conservative think tanks that wanted to go to Iraq for ideological reasons and (two) for a President that came into office partly spooked for being "selected by Supreme Court and his father's (Former Pres. Bush) inabilty to to win a second term after winning the Gulf War. The second part of this has been completed because Pres. Bush Chenney and Rove have fulfilled their goal of legitimizing their presidency by taking advantage of the American people at their most vulnerable time after 911 to start a useless war that will gaurantee them re-election, if only they can start it and make sure that it does not end quick ( because if his Dad had prolonged the Gulf war he probably would have been relected, because they took advantage of the known fact that people are reluctant of changing leaders during a war or they sense that their nation is in war. That's why we are having all these late surges and patches we are having now. If have have gone in their with overwhelming force, all these would have been over, but the war would not serve any purpose for Rove, Bush, Chenney and the republican agenda, because it would have ended too quick and would not have counted for thier relection, just like the Gulf ended too quick and did help his Dad's relection. The first part, for the neo-cons is still ongoing and the President who used the war to fulfill his and his party's political goals is only thier fulfilling, his end of the bargain of making sure that we stay their untill the ideological part for the neo-cons are fulfilled. The General and his staff are just doing what they commanded to do.
Posted by: Henry O | April 9, 2008 4:04 PM
From our good friend Gaius Marius: "That it was attempted at all and was partially successful shows the work that HAS been done."
Of course! Failure is a sign of how successful we are! Or are about to be! Or might be one day if those GD back-stabbin' libruls would allow us to be!
And further: "A stable, representative Iraq, well disposed toward US interests in the region" Let's see... 1. Protect the state of Israel 2. Kill lots of brown people 3. Drink their milkshake
Did I leave any US interests in the region out? I'm not sure how any of the 3 listed above really coincide with the interests of the Iraqi people. Oh, that's right! Their interests don't matter. Everyone with any brains knows brown people are incapable of doing anything but killing each other off.
Posted by: Corner Stone | April 9, 2008 4:08 PM
PHILIP CARTER, WHO IN THE EFF ARE YOU? AND WHAT IN THE EFF DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON WITH IRAN AND ITS DESIGNS IN IRAQ, HUH? HAVE YOU BEEN IN IRAQ? YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND THERE THAT THEY ARE EXAGGERATING?
YOU DON'T KNOW CRAP, MISTER, BECAUSE IF YOU HAD BEEN IN THE USG, READING INTELL. BRIEFS FOR 20 YEARS, YOU'D NEVER EVER EVER MAKE SUCH SILLY, SUPERFICIAL, OBAMA-LIKE KNOW-NOTHING STATEMENTS!
YOU SIR, ARE DEAD EFF'ING WRONG ABOUT IRAN!
Posted by: Arrabbiato | April 9, 2008 4:19 PM
OMG! I just looked up your bio! YOU'RE A GOVT. CONTRACTS ATTY. IN NYC? WHAT IN GOD'S NAME QUALIFIES YOU TO SPEAK ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE ISSUES, HUH?
Hey Philip, have you ever held a security clearance as a private sector attorney working on govt. contracts? Have you ever read classified intell. briefs on Iran, worked as a govt. lawyer on terrorist cases, ANYTHING TO QUALIFY YOU AS COMPETENT TO WRITE ON THE MATTERS AT HAND?
No? Then get the eff out of here, your comments are no more knowledgeable than cocktail chatter-they can be dismissed out of hand!
Posted by: Arrabbiato | April 9, 2008 4:26 PM
For the record, CPT Carter served in the Diyalla province. He got classified briefs and interacted with locals everyday. Does that make him more credible to you now? It shouldn't, but there you go if that is what you need to listen to his perspective.
As someone who does read the classified stuff myself, we both know that "classified" is not synonymous with "truth." And anyone who assumes you can simply dismiss comments from someone simply based on a "you haven't been there" bias, probably should be dismissed themselves. I've been there 3 tours, so by your logic, my argument likely has more weight than yours, yes?
If I remember correctly, some war veterans read some classified reports and decided to recommend that we look for WMD in Iraq. How'd that work out? Maybe they should have at least listened to some really smart "haven't been there" people with no security clearances.
Posted by: bg | April 9, 2008 5:00 PM
Crocker and Petraeus along with arr the republicans asking questions (and giving rah rah speeches)were falling all over themselves trying to see who could say "al-Qeida" the most times!
All in all it was a pathetic performance of misleading statements!
Betray-US is earning that 4th star he sold out for! What a shame!
Posted by: Robert Egan | April 9, 2008 5:19 PM
Yonkers, New York 09 April 2008
Philip Carter's critique of the presentations made by Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker deserves very serious attention by the top echelons of the Pentagon, the US military, the Congress, the White House, and the American people.
Mr. Carter obviously has no reason not to call a spade a spade, unlike Petraeus and Crocker who are under subconscious pressure to make an assessment of the situation in Iraq which would sound like a Rachmaninoff piece to Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush.
Mr. Bush, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Service Chiefs, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, let's face it, have no exit strategy--except to "stay the course," to "have a little more patience," to "persevere," etcetera, etcetera, till the US achieves victory.
But it should be plain to all by now that given the complexity of the situation in Iraq, this is an an unwinnable war. Mr. Carter's essay makes that point all too obvious for all to see.
But Mr. Bush & Co. have only nine more months to go. There is hope that the next administration, hopefully not a Republican one, will really get serious about extricating America from a war which was unjust, illegal and waged on false pretenses in the first place--but do so responsibly in a well-phased and systematic manner.
Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | April 9, 2008 5:23 PM
Seth said "It must be very hard to be a soldier who is first forced into an untenable situation by an inept, responsibility-dodging executive..." let me respectfully point out - as a veteran of Westmoreland's Vietnam - that at this point Petraeus has traded with the devil to get where he is... he will now pay any price in casualties and pain to others in return for his station and perks ... he has been cheaply purchased and he will always be correctly seen as a fellow traveler of Bush et al...
Posted by: smallcage | April 9, 2008 5:36 PM
If we leave Iraq before the Iraqi state has something resembling a monopoly on violence would you expect some sort of civil conflict to break out? If you answer yes to that, would you not expect AQI to lend support to their Sunni brethren? Again if that answer is yes I find it fairly easy to imagine AQ receiving sanctuary is western Iraq in return for their services.
If you would answer no to either question please let me know why. If I had reason to hope that there would either not be civil war or that civil war was inevitable regardless of our actions I would be all for leaving this disaster toute suite.
et al... As it stands now, I find the avoidance of civil war a compelling reason to stay so long as it appears even somewhat likely that this nascent Iraqi government could gel into a legitimate and sovereign state.
I think we not only have a moral obligation to avoid that conflict if possible, but the prospect of a semi-failed state in western Iraq seems fairly likely should we leave prematurely. That would be a thorn in our sides and would pose a constant threat to regional stability which would likely involve our troops in Iraq again in the not-so-distant future.
The prospect of a regional conflict while less likely seems plausible enough of a result of a sudden power vacuum in Iraq. We will undeniably have a competition between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds for Iraq's resources. The Sunni have their friends, the Shia have theirs and everybody hates the Kurds. The Arab states certainly do not want open conflict with Iran and vice verse but hey, no one wanted WWI either (except for maybe a few German generals). By creating a power vacuum in Iraq we will have planted about the only conceivable powder keg that could make such an eventuality come to pass. Again, not terribly likely, but there is no way to predict with confidence that it would not happen and hard to argue that the seeds for such a conflict would not exist. I think that simply writing that scenario off as a bunch of doom and gloom talk, as many have done, is a bit feckless.
Posted by: John-Michael | April 9, 2008 5:52 PM
What qualifies Phil Carter to comment on national security, given that he is a govt contracts attorney?
Not surprisingly, another Bushie fails to do their homework by bothering to read his biography posted ON THIS WEBSITE. So leave it to me: he is a veteran, commanded an MP platoon prior to 9/11, graduated from UCLA School of Law where he took several courses in national security and taught one on terrorism, started his national security blog "Intel Dump" while in law school, a blog highly respected in the military, and also served over a year in Iraq by volunteering to leave his highly-paid big firm position for a year with a 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) team that worked with the Iraqi police and court system. He has also authored several articles on national security that have been published in the New York Times, Slate, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Monthly. He also has written op-eds for the New York Times. He also has been written about by the Wall Street Journal, including a page one article about him while he was under fire in Iraq. He has also appeared on news shows such as the PBS Newshour, all talking about national security and usually about the war in Iraq.
So he is a military police soldier who joined the Army years before 9/11, an Operation Iraqi Freedom combat veteran, a commissioned officer, a distinguished attorney, a respected scholar, an esteemed journalist, and is well thought of by the military, including just about every soldier or officer, including me (a former infantry officer), that has had the pleasure of making his acquaintance.
Other than that, I suppose he has absolutely no right to be commenting about anything at all.
Posted by: jd | April 9, 2008 6:23 PM
Excellent analysis, Phil. Personally, I can't see why we're staying in Iraq. We're losing thousands of American lives...not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi lives...and wasting trillions of dollars, apparently just to "prevent" something from happening, when no one can know for sure that it will indeed happen. In fact, we're almost certainly just postponing the inevitable: sectarian fighting between religious sects that have been killing each other since the 7th Century. Hard to see any point in our troops dying, or our trillions being wasted, for that.
Why do we believe or trust those making dire predictions when they're the same ones who promised (it's a "slam dunk") that Saddam had WMD; assured us that the Iraqi people would welcome us as saviors; sent the most inept political hacks to "administer" the country; etc etc etc?
We "won" the war already: brought down Saddam Husayn and "eliminated" his WMD...well, we would have, if it had been there. Those were the original aims of the invasion, I believe. Let's get our troops out now.
Just my opinion...but, as an American, I'm fully entitled to have one. An essential part of what being an American is all about, Arrabbiato!
Posted by: Rigged | April 9, 2008 6:33 PM
RE: the cost of success At least with the old "Intel Dump" crowd, inbred, foul mouthed, etc. as it was/is, you did not have to deal with the kind of Drool Cuppers you now seem to host here. Arrabiato? is that some kind of coffee? Is it served in a silver drool cup?
As ZZ Top said, You're Bad, You're Nationwide! It does not seem to be cost free, however.
Posted by: Fasteddiez | April 9, 2008 6:36 PM
"If we leave Iraq before the Iraqi state has something resembling a monopoly on violence would you expect some sort of civil conflict to break out? If you answer yes to that, would you not expect AQI to lend support to their Sunni brethren?"
Yes, I do expect a significant chance of continuing sectarian conflict in Iraq long after we leave. However, I am not convinced that AQI will continue to do well in Iraq after such an event.
AQI, and its many predecessors (AMZN, TWJ, AAS, AI) arose and took root because of a need. That need was the Americans (although we could quibble that AI was there before we were). AMZ was stupid in declaring war on all Shia apostates and accepting the Takfiri label. Sorry, that is a tangent.
I do agree that if we leave, and if there is continued sectarian violence beyond today's level, AQI will surely attempt to label the Shia led government as Apostates and will want to remove them. AQI will surely support Sunni Militias to fight against Shia militias, again, assuming there is more open fighting. But we are making a lot of assumptions.
So perhaps I should qualify my argument. I believe that if we stay, AQI will always exist in Iraq in some form (albeit a well suppressed one, but keep this in mind, it isn't the 170,000 troops keeping down AQI, it is more likely a much smaller contingent of Special Ops).
Therefore, if destroying AQI is a precondition for exiting, we will never leave. If we leave, I believe that AQI will eventually no longer have anything meaningful to offer the Iraqis except a very unpopular concept of government and more violence. And thus I believe there is a much better chance of AQI leaving Iraq if we leave, than if we stay.
As far as a regional war, or even a prolonged civil war for that matter, I wouldn't be too worried about that. I think Iran will take care of everything just fine. Does that worry me. Sure, but it is their backyard and there isn't much we can do about it without significantly escalating the war. Is it our obligation to clean up the mess we've made? That hinges on the argument, can we clean it up, or are we just making a bigger mess and prolonging the conflict? Perhaps the moral obligation is to leave and let them govern themselves as they see fit, as much as that may displease us.
Posted by: bg | April 9, 2008 6:39 PM
"Petraeus has been given a task by the CIC. His job is to complete it to the best of his ability. Whether the job should be done or not is not for him to question. "
Petreaus campaigned for the job, as he campaigned for Bush by writing that little op-ed in 2004 claiming that preparing Iraqi forces to take over was coming along well.
So I don't really expect him to give an unbiased assessment of how the job is going or whether it is even possible -which is part of his responsibility to the Congress and the American people. Both Crocker and Petreaus serve at the pleasure of the Prresident; sometimes people in such positions mistake this for serving the president rather than the people.
Last year Petreaus said his task was to speed up the clock in Iraq and slow it down in Washington. He has been more successful in Washington than Iraq.
A month ago, hoping Sadr would renew his cease-fire, MNF-I spokespersons were saying nice things about al Sadr. Then Cheney paid a visit and we're now partnering with Dawa and ISCI to defang JAM. It's a risky strategy - it could lead to pacification in the South and Baghdad, or to open civil war. We'll see.
But, contra Marius, the old Roman warrior, al Hakkim and Malaki are closer to Iran than al Sadr.
Posted by: LowHangingMissles | April 9, 2008 6:58 PM
"Petraeus has been given a task by the CIC. His job is to complete it to the best of his ability. Whether the job should be done or not is not for him to question."
No doubt true, the job of the Army is to follow orders, and the president is the highest-ranking general and has the right to issue lawful orders.
But the general does not work for the president. No soldier does. They all work for us. They do not take an oath to the president, they take an oath to the Constitution. That Constitution is what the general should be serving.
Thus testifying before Congress in a way designed only to benefit the President, rather than testifying openly and honestly and forthrightly about the facts on the ground, without fear or favor of any politician, is a failure of the general to perform his duty.
He owes the Congress nothing but complete and total and candid honesty. Instead they could not get him to commit himself, he engaged in word games and half-truths, and he danced around straightforward questions.
A simple question to our leading general is something like "what do we need to ensure we win this thing?" He won't answer it simply. He could say "I don't know" but then he appears incompetent (our Army knows what it will take to stabilize Iraq - a lot more time and money and effort, we are not even at the halfway point yet - but that is kept out of the news). Plus, it would be a lie. He instead tells us little and pushes the administration line of "what is the least we can get by with without total failure." That is a betrayal of his oath of office, one I took as well and for which there is no excuse to violate.
In short, he put his career ahead of his troops, and more dangerously, he put the president ahead of Congress in his loyalties. A soldier should have no loyalty to either Congress or the Courts or the President, but instead to the Constitution. Petraeus decided he works for the president. For that reason he is unfit for command and should be relieved for failing to fulfill his sacred oath.
It isn't about his assigned job, it is about how he is doing it - lying to Congress, or at least not giving them his full and complete and professional military opinion backed up by unimpeachable data. So if he did not technically commit perjury, that does not excuse his failure to do his duty in an honorable way. He has brought disgrace upon himself, the Army, and our nation by his careerism and by his willingness to say what he is told to say to Congress. Congress does not want the administration's testimony, it wants the general's testimony. He didn't provide that, he instead was a parrot for the administration. For that he should be ashamed.
He could have resigned. He could have told the straight truth. He could have done a lot of things, but what he did was say what he was ordered to say (or worse, persuaded to say). No president has the legal authority to order a general to say anything to Congress. When Congress asks questions soldiers should answer honestly and completely, just as they should if the president asks questions of them.
Petreaus did not. He put his loyalty to the president ahead of his loyalty to the Constitution, a Constitution that gives Congress authority over the military, including when to wage war, funding it, regulating it, and everything else.
He is just like Oliver North, a disgrace to his uniform for putting a direct order from a president ahead of the commands of the People as written in the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 7:50 PM
@Arrabiato: You've made a fool of yourself, as jd at 6:23 p.m. notes. Phil Carter, among other things, has served in Iraq and been pricy to classified briefings. I recognize that pro-war Bushies have trouble engaging debate on the merits, but if you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks instead you might want to have some idea what you're talking about.
Posted by: cdt | April 9, 2008 7:52 PM
forgot to sign that last comment. It was by me, JD from the old Intel Dump (as most who have read that blog no doubt already recognized).
Posted by: JD | April 9, 2008 7:53 PM
damn. I was referring to the comment at 7:53 pm about Gen. P, not the comment by cdt. I wrote the comment about Gen P.
Posted by: jd | April 9, 2008 7:54 PM
This whole affair is digusting and has been to politicized to ever know the truth. War is not easy to understand and the average American cannot understand how to wage it, that is why we have professional soldiers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. The truth has been becoming self evident given time and the average American can figure it out. I will argue that we are not fighting a war in Iraq and even professional soldiers are clueless as to how to define victory or predict/plan an American centric outcome. Religion (sects), tribalism, and millions of different stories on the ground in Iraq will determine an outcome. We are but a resented player and never will be part of the final solution. We do know that AQI will not be the final power in Iraq and we know that Saddam & sons is toast. We have showed them how to play democracy and now we have earn the right to leave. Don't turn out the lights on the way out.
Posted by: rich Rosenthal | April 9, 2008 7:55 PM
"""At least with the old "Intel Dump" crowd, inbred, foul mouthed, etc. as it was/is, you did not have to deal with the kind of Drool Cuppers you now seem to host here."""
Posted by: Soliton | April 9, 2008 8:30 PM
Poor Petreaus and Crocker, maybe Georgie should have had them appear in cheerleader outfits, would have made their presentation more honest.
Posted by: Tbone | April 9, 2008 8:33 PM
First off let me say it is refreshing to have an exchange that does not devolve into incendiary invective shortly after word one.
I don't think we have any need to destroy AQI to extricate ourselves from Iraq. We seem to have already seen much of their popular support/tolerance evaporate and we have been able to marginalize their organization to a fairly satisfying degree. If we can keep a lid on them, I do no see why AQI could not be dealt with by the Iraqis.
I think our primary disagreements hinge on how desperate a situation we envision were the US to leave Iraq in a state similar to what we have today.
Right now the Shia are in a much more favorable position than the Sunni whether we are talking about population, organization, or geography. If we were to leave and the Sunnis were relocated to the areas of Iraq where they are the predominant sect they would not inherit a significant portion of Iraq's primary resource. How hard and how desperately would they be willing to fight to get their piece? Certainly the Shia will have Iran for support. Will the Sunnis be able to count on the Arabs? If so will the Arabs go far enough to give the Sunnis a real fighting chance? If so what would Iran's response be? When does the escalation stop?
I would also ask, will the Sunni ever exist peaceably with their much more prosperous Shia neighbors who's wealth will undoubtedly be regarded as the result of the slaughter of Sunni brothers and sisters?
That is obviously a bunch of question marks, but so is any projection into the future. I am just not reassured by either history or human nature that the Sunnis will except there lot when they should. The Arab states do not want Iranian hegemony, and I do not imagine that there people will take the Shia slaughter of their fellow Sunnis well.
The complexity and dire consequences inherent in any such situation are the best reasons I can think of to immediately discount any ideology like neoconservatism. Their militant Wilsonianism seemed dangerously idealistic to me as an undergrad. Little did I think I would see their policy put to work a few short years later.
Nonetheless, what is done is done. We have this mess, and we have to try and make the best of a bunch of profoundly crappy decisions. I just see the more negative results of us leaving as being less attractive then us staying. I also see the negative scenarios of us leaving as being far more likely outcomes than a limited civil conflict.
And do not apologize for your tangent. It is an interesting departure. I do not put much stock in the Takfir label being a significant deterrent to Muslim on Muslim violence. What I see as being more likely is that the label will be used to incite violence. Shia radicals will quickly wra- up (murder) Shia moderates should we leave prematurely. They will need to clear the way to mass ethnic cleansing and their own rise to power. The Sunni will be tarred with the Takfir label as a justification for what is about to happen to them. You can point to any of the violence in Iraq as proof of the other side's departure from Islam. The Shia will then be Takfir for their atrocities.
I understand that label cannot be thrown around lightly. The desperate nature of the situation in Iraq would lend itself to a loosening of normal theological standards though.
Back to the original discussion; I do not see much of a role for AQ in post occupation Iraq unless the Sunnis are in a truly desperate situation. I do tough see the Sunnis being in a truly desperate situation as a fairly likely outcome if we leave Iraq before it has become a true state.
By the way, I am not at all confident that Iraq will reach that point any time soon. I really hate this situation.
Posted by: John-Michael | April 9, 2008 9:15 PM
As one of the old Intel Dump crowd who's not really decided whether or not I want to get heavily involved in this new effort (Fast Eddie sums it up nicely), I did want to weigh in along with the others about Phil Carter and his credentials. Although I sometimes find him a little stodgy and corporate, Carter is the real deal. And he's got all of the credentials in the world to be opining on these topics (listen up, WaPo), even though it's my considered opinion--as a combat veteran--that vet status isn't at all necessary.
OTOH, we know nothing about the person known as Arrabiato. But it does occur to me that Arrabiato probably doesn't have any problem with Limbaugh and Hannity or any of the other war lovers out there who've never served and whose only qualifications seem to be a loud voice, utter ignorance of the issues they address and willing corporate sponsors.
Arrabiato, I hope you've learned something here, both about Phil Carter and about human nature. If not, do everyone a favor and stay under your rock.
Posted by: Publius | April 9, 2008 9:58 PM
Just Out on the W.w.w.:
Leading article: The clear choice facing America The appearance before two Senate committees of David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, had been the hottest ticket in Washington. He was to be quizzed on the state of this despoiled country and its prospects, five years after President Bush had hailed the felling of Saddam Hussein's statue as inaugurating a new, and infinitely better, age.
General Petraeus, as always, looked the part of the stern, ascetic military man. This time, though, his message was downbeat. He might be the author of the much-vaunted "surge", which reversed months of staged reductions in US troops, and this strategy might indeed have brought a fall in both military and civilian casualties. But he evinced little of the triumphalism that might have been expected for someone who, almost single-handed, had saved Mr Bush's political skin.
The Iraq that emerged from his account was an occupied land on the perilous brink between peace and war. A cynic might argue that General Petraeus's prime interest was to secure more funds for his operations, and that portraying everything as hunky-dory would not serve that end. But he seemed genuinely more concerned with the risks inherent in the current situation, where the incidence of violence is creeping up again - even Baghdad's "Green zone" is no longer impervious, and the long transition to the next President has begun.
Any election year introduces an element of uncertainty in Washington that only exacerbates any uncertainties abroad. This year's fiercely-fought contest compounds the sense of impermanence many times over. Victory for either Democrat in November could propel US Iraq policy in a sharply different direction. General Petraeus can be forgiven for not wanting to lead his troops out of Iraq, essentially in defeat, but - as Hillary Clinton pointed out in her contribution - what might be the responsible course to a general, looks like the height of irresponsibility if you regard current US Iraq policy as bankrupt and an unsustainable burden on US policy generally.
Posted by: Michael of up West.Orig.Manhattan.Now Jerusalem. | April 10, 2008 3:30 AM
Picture Post: The fall of Saddam - and 'the green blob'
By Kim Sengupta @independent.co.uk Thursday, 10 April 2008
When the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down in Firdous Square, Baghdad, five years ago this week, I was standing next to Col Brian P McCoy of the American marines, who had led the US force into that section of the city.
It was the iconic moment in the Iraq war, a symbol, as the Americans wanted to portray it, of "liberation". But the script began to fall towards farce even as the attempts began. The 30ft edifice simply would not come down, despite desperate efforts. At the end they brought in a Hercules, a vehicle used to salvage broken 75-ton tanks, which smashed down the steps to the plinth along the way. At last the statue fell, and the Americans had their symbol of victory.
Then there was the "jubilant crowd", as portrayed on Western television, taking part in the ritualised downfall of a tyrant. But that, we subsequently discovered, was not quite the true picture.
The crowd had been bussed in from Saddam City, later to be renamed Sadr City, a vast Shia slum on the edge of Baghdad. It formed a rent-a-mob which, in subsequent days, went on to loot and burn the Iraqi capital while American troops simply stood by - another attempt to portray the invasion as a precursor to a popular uprising.
Col McCoy winced when he saw an American flag being put on the face of Saddam and ordered that it should be replaced by an Iraqi flag, much to the chagrin of some of his comrades. We were told at the time that it was a Stars and Stripes that had flown at the Twin Towers on September 11, and had somehow been rescued for just this very day. "That's bulls..t," said the Colonel. "Look at it, it's brand new." He also said that he and his troops should leave Iraq to the Iraqis "as soon as possible, otherwise there would be trouble". How right he was.
Four months ago, I revisited Firdous Square, which is just behind the Palestine Hotel, where foreign journalists were corralled by the Iraqi authorities back in 2003. There, in its unkempt surroundings, with tumbleweed blowing, was the replacement for Saddam's statue, erected less than two months after its predecessor was torn down. It purportedly shows a couple with a child holding up an Islamic crescent moon framed by a Sumerian Sun. Its official name is Najeen, or "Survivor", but Baghdadis call it "the green blob". After universal derision, the career of its sculptor, Basim Hamid, has nosedived too.
Posted by: Michael of up West.Orig.Manhattan.Now Jerusalem. | April 10, 2008 3:53 AM
Looks good. Will give it the once over from a Clausewitz perspective.
Two points that come out rather clearly to me:
First, AQI is necessary from a domestic propaganda perspective since it can be used as an example of "success". That it will not effect the overall outcome (that is the actual political purpose) in Iraq is besides the point. Notice how the supposed "special force units" is replacing this particular theme. . .
Second, it all comes down to domestic politics as Clausewitz's general theory allows. . . more to come.
Posted by: seydlitz89 | April 10, 2008 6:31 AM
>>John-Michael | April 9, 2008 5:52 PM
You argue the position dispassionately and well. Not to be crass, but how much should we spend on this open-ended and--according to McCain--multi-generational effort? I'm talking about money, specifically. Why is this kind of argument never accompanied by any attempt to muster the political will to pay for this massively complex and difficult endeavor? I don't mean to call you out for hypocrisy; I don't know what your stance is on the issue of paying for the war, and it wasn't immediately germane to the point you were trying to make. But to me it's part of the air of unreality and unseriousness about the whole enterprise, from the lies about WMD onward.
If this really is the defining struggle of our time, and the consequences for pulling out as disastrous as its proponents claim, shouldn't they have shown some interest somewhere along the line in persuading the public to put its money where their mouths are? There have in fact been some legislative efforts in this direction, which were promptly quashed by, essentially, the pro-war party. Whereas from the beginning the argument always always from the primary architects of this quagmire was that it would be cheap. (Fond as the war proponents are of WWII analogies, imagine FDR or Churchill concluding one of those great speeches rallying the nation for the struggle ahead by pointing out that it would also be cheap. Pay for itself even!)
How can it possibly be true that the indefinite occupation of Iraq is both vital to our national survival and not worth paying for on the books?
Posted by: DrBB | April 10, 2008 6:32 AM
World A'Hoy Phillip Carter Intel Dumpers from E@World free Engaged side;here at High East academia Jerusalem Thursday April 10th 08.
Say guys;Don't fail to see;
Dowd: Toil and trouble By Maureen Dowd Published: April 9, 2008
Ending: You know you're in trouble when Barbara Boxer is the voice of reason.
Why is it," she asked, "after all we have given - 4,024 American lives, gone; more than half-a-billion dollars spent; all this for the Iraqi people, but it's the Iranian president who is greeted with kisses and flowers?"
She warmed to: "He got a red-carpet treatment, and we are losing our sons and daughters every single day for the Iraqis to be free. It is irritating is my point."
Crocker dryly assured the senator from California that he believed that Dick Cheney had also gotten kissed on his visit to Iraq.
Just delighted from today's IHT,as faculty reception lent me about 80 minutes ago;having pledged to get it back to them,in a half an hour;so E-tappeth Michael @7:51 PM ET +7.
Posted by: Michael of up West.Orig.Manhattan.Now Jerusalem. | April 10, 2008 11:53 AM
Interested always in connections with Clausewitzian theory, and Phil here makes the comment, "the most important challenge for a commander was to visualize the battlefield - because all plans and actions flow from his understanding of the situation".
This is from Chapter 3 of Book 1 where Clausewitz describes the traits of a military genius. There are various abilities mentioned, but two seem to describe what Phil is mentioning here. The first is Coup d´oeil, or in German Takt des Urteils, which is the ability to make rapid and accurate command decisions based on correct evaluations of time and space, or simply "the quick recognition of truth". This is more associated with tactics Clausewitz tells us, but also has it's place in strategy. The study of strategic theory and military history, in fact all military education for combat arms officers, can help develop this sense in some whereas others come to it naturally. This ability is not gained by using a method, or ticking off boxes on a list, but has to do with the intellectual qualities/abilities of the officer in question.
The other ability is a sense of the terrain and country in which the commander is operating and which will influence his operations. The former ability Clausewitz links more with the intellect, the latter with the imagination.
Interesting link with Clausewitz, but how well does it describe what we see going on here?
Petraeus being a very political general I would quote rather from Chapter 8 of Book 6:
"The counterweights that weaken the elemental force of war, and particularly the attack, are primarily located in the political relations and intentions of the government, which are concealed from the rest of the world, the people at home, the army, and in some cases even from the commander. For instance no one can and will admit that his decision to stop or to give up was motivated by the fear that his strength would run out, or that he might make new enemies or that his own allies might become too strong. That sort of thing is long kept secret, possibly forever. Meanwhile a plausible account must be circulated. The general is, therefore, urged, either for his own sake or the sake of his government, to spread a web of lies. This constantly recurring shadowboxing with the dialectics of war has, as theory, hardened into systems which are, of course, equally misleading."
Posted by: seydlitz89 | April 10, 2008 1:02 PM
Phil, best of luck with the new site. Although it is not the old Intel Dump, I am delighted that you and your views are getting increased exposure.
JD and Publius, many thanks for addressing Arrabbiato's post. I considered doing so but I am afraid that none of my efforts were up to the site's posting standards.
Posted by: BillD | April 10, 2008 1:56 PM
Questions about what we are willing to pay for success in Iraq (if that is even possible) need to be asked and discussed. Given the exclusively politically charged, substanceless, talking points debate between the legislature and the executive over the past five years, I have little hope that this and other serious issues that the people often like to discuss will get any sort of reasonable public airing. That is a shame.
I think we can continue to afford the conflict by continued deficit spending for many years to come. Do I think that approach is either desirable or responsible? I absolutely do not.
I think succeeding in Iraq is very much in our national interest. Aside from avoiding the negative and more near term consequences of a premature withdrawal, I see a larger issue at play as well. The long term governance for the region is very much up for grabs. We have a lot of disenfranchised and impoverished people being governed with little representation. Currently the model in the region is the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Having a similar but much larger revolution sweep the region sometime in the next fifty years is a worrisome possibility. If Iraq were to become a stable and relatively wealthy state loosely based on Western liberal principles, it would serve as an invaluable bulwark against a more destructive change in the region.
That is one admirable thing about the neoconservative school of thought. To their credit they realized that the support of despots was not a viable long term strategy in the region. Fostering democracy now could stave off a disaster a few decades from now. The hubris involved in how they decided to foster democracy is where they and I very sharply departed. Their notions of the relative ease of actively engineering such change were seen as ridiculous by realists and neorealists. There were plenty of very smart people in the administration foretelling the disaster that the invasion would precipitate. Unfortunately those voices were either marginalized or beaten into submission and we went with the false comforts of moral and intellectual conceit.
As far as funding the war goes I think we should raise taxes to pay for it. We should have some more apparent skin in the effort. We are not asking people to grow victory gardens, collect scrap, or buy,,, hey there is an idea lets sell war bonds. That way supporters can more actively support and no one has to take the politically odious step of raising taxes. I am young enough that I have no need for much fixed income in my investments, but I would shift a significant amount (to me at least) of savings to war bonds. It would still be deficit spending, but at least the money would be staying in the country.
Seriously though I think a much more convincing case needs to be made to the public, and the responsible action for Congress to take is to raise taxes. The problem with the first task is that virtually no one involved with the current administration has significant credibility left. How about Powell for VP? It is going to be a task left to the next administration and probably necessarily so. I think the funding issue will be delayed as well, and maybe they will sell war bonds (but we'll probably call them freedom notes).
At any rate I think the $3,000,000,000,000 number that has be thrown around is probably a reasonable and not overly conservative estimate. If our per year cost is still where it is today five or six years from now that will be a bad sign. Five years from now we should begin to see a noticeable downward trend in costs. If not Iraq's progress, if there is any, will have been so glacial as to call the whole project into a fairly damning position. I do not think we are near that point yet. Ten years from now we need to be at a fairly stable and sustainable place.
Posted by: John-Michael | April 10, 2008 2:23 PM
"I would also ask, will the Sunni ever exist peaceably with their much more prosperous Shia neighbors who's wealth will undoubtedly be regarded as the result of the slaughter of Sunni brothers and sisters?"
I believe yes. The Sunni and Shi'a lived together peacefully for a very long time before we showed up. I've visited Iraq on several occasions, every where from Baghdad to Mosul to Sulymaniyah, and every where I went I found a diversity of ethnic groups living together as they have always done.
You have extremists on both ends who make the most noise, and get the most attention. We served as catalysts when we began segregating Iraqis (favoring Shi'a likely on accident, but perceived as purposeful), and then AMZ and his Takfiri types attacked Shia, who then ganged up to attack Sunni in response, and then later in a more proactive measure (as I witnessed Shi'a militias displacing Sunni in East Baghdad for profit in the name of "security").
I believe that Iraqis are more nationalistic than most give them credit for. However, on the other side of the coin, there is another very important result of the US invasion on Iraqi society, one which gets very little attention. Tribes are no longer very important. Under the Saddam Regime, and throughout history, tribal affairs was critical. Today, I don't think we see tribe being as important, as sectarian militias, criminal groups and political parties are taking the place of tribal importance.
Posted by: bg | April 10, 2008 5:59 PM
I Completely agree that Iraqis of all sects can coexist perfectly peacefully. That has pretty much been the case in the past. That along with Iraq's former vibrant middle class are two of the primary reasons I can still hold onto a reasonable amount of hope.
As we have seen that coexistence is reversible under stress though. Right now the extremists are primarily just making a lot of noise. That is because they know they have a very good chance of dieing in a protracted struggle with us. By us I mean not only US forces but the IA and the various other paramilitary elements that we have supported. Late 06 and early 07 was a different story. We had fewer troops, the IA was still less capable, and we had not yet co-opted the myriad of other factions who we now count as oh so tentative allies. We saw the country starting to slip into civil war.
Were we to withdraw anytime soon the IA would have insufficient capabilities in terms of not only man power but in armament, logistics, organization, and espirit de cour as well. Our tentative allies would make other arrangements more to their future benefit, and any semblance of national order will quickly disintegrate. History the world and time over has shown what happens when order vaporizes. Former cross sectarian bonds will more than likely mean nothing as people attach themselves to their best hope for a secure future.
I would also point out that in truly chaotic situations it is usually the extremists that come out on top. They generally first eliminate the moderates on their own side and then focus on their exterior opponents. I would put very little stock in the possibility of moderates holding any sway after we begin to pull out.
This is not necessarily directed at you bg, but this discussion brings up another subject. The notion that we can immediately begin a gradual pull out as Obama has outlined and perform any substantive mission other than force protection is probably pure fantasy. We immediately lose almost all our allies and many of our current "allies" will likely become enemies anew. No one is going to stake their future with the retreating party. The future that we hoped for will be forever gone, and the competition for control of an alternate future will begin in earnest.
I do not seriously expect Barack to hold to that plan. I think the gravity of reality will preclude any such decision once someone is actually sitting in the big chair.
Posted by: John-Michael | April 10, 2008 7:53 PM
"I do not seriously expect Barack to hold to that plan. I think the gravity of reality will preclude any such decision once someone is actually sitting in the big chair."
Concur on all points above. Re: Obama, I believe is a very intelligent man, as well as a gifted politician. I believe that if he is elected, he will pull a substantial amount of troops, at least 100,000, but will leave a substantial Special Ops and internal defense training force for the foreseeable future. I am just dying to hear what his justification will be.
"We saw the country starting to slip into civil war"
This did not happen in Late 06, early 07 as you suggested. I warned my chain of command of the pending civil (sectarian) war back in 2004, and again in 2005, and I watched it with my own eyes come to fruition in East Baghdad in early 2006. This scenario was not a surprise to anyone except those who only hear what they want to hear.
Posted by: bg | April 11, 2008 7:50 AM
It's hard to imagine any justification for us still being in Iraq 10, or even 5-6, years from now. There hasn't been a single development to give the slightest indication that we'll ever leave behind a "stable, peaceful, democratic" Iraq when we end our occupation...no matter how long we might stay. How is that possibly supposed to happen...just through wishful thinking and hoping? Even Petraeus and Crocker didn't have the slightest idea. The "surge" has indeed reduced the level of violence...to 2005 levels, as I understand it, though the violence has of course increased again lately. The Iraqis have shown little or no inclination to achieve national "reconciliation"...the various parties are much more interested in protecting their own turf and influence and fighting over wealth. Our occupation has just been a neon-lighted recruiting poster for insurgents, and it always will be. It's also interesting that Iran seems to get more respect in Iraq than we do...their president was greeted openly and warmly, while our president and other senior officials sneak in to visit. Why Iraq could even remotely be considered worth thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and trillions of our dollars completely escapes me -- and I spent 40 years in the US intelligence community. We've already "won" in Iraq...we removed Saddam Husayn and "eliminated" his WMD -- well, we would have if.... Those were the original goals, so we've "won" on those issues. Hopefully, the next president will listen to the views of the American people (supposedly, we have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"...though Cheney clearly doesn't believe it) and do everything possible to remove our troops from Iraq rapidly, and end the folly and the complete waste of lives (American and Iraqi) and significant resources.
Posted by: Rigged | April 11, 2008 12:35 PM
For by my reckoning, we have now "re-liberated" Fallujah twice. We have "re-liberated" Mosul three times and "re-liberated" Ramadi four times. The scorecard goes on. My files show that Sadr City may have been "re-liberated" five times, while Baghdad is "re-liberated" on an almost daily basis. General David Petraeus, in his pitiful appearance before the US Senate armed services committee, was bound to admit his disappointment at the military failure of the equally pitiful Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Basra. He had not followed Petraeus' advice; which was presumably to "re-liberate" the city (for the fourth time, by my calculation but with a bit more planning).
Indeed, Petraeus told senators that after his beloved "surge" goes home, the US will need a period of "consolidation and evaluation" - which is suspiciously close to saying that the US military will be, as the old adage goes, "redeployed to prepared positions". Ye gods! Where will this tomfoolery end?
Mid-segment from; (10th most popular now @indy.com.)
Robert Fisk: Semantics can't mask Bush's chicanery
This goes beyond hollow laughter. Since when did armies go around 're-liberating'
Starting:After his latest shenanigans, I've come to the conclusion that George Bush is the first US president to march backwards. First we had weapons of mass destruction. Then, when they proved to be a myth, Bush told us we had stopped Saddam's "programmes" for weapons of mass destruction (which happened to be another lie).
Now he's gone a stage further. After announcing victory in Iraq in 2003 and "mission accomplished" and telling us how this enormous achievement would lead the 21st century into a "shining age of human liberty", George Bush told us this week that "thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success".
Now let's take a look at this piece of chicanery and subject it to a little linguistic analysis. Five years ago, it was victory - ie success - but this has now been transmogrified into a mere "prospect" of success. And not a "prospect", mark you, that has even been glimpsed. No, we have "renewed" and "revived" this prospect. "Revived", as in "brought back from the dead". Am I the only one to be sickened by this obscene semantics? How on earth can you "renew" a "prospect", let alone a prospect that continues to be bathed in Iraqi blood, a subject Bush wisely chose to avoid?
Note, too, the constant use of words that begin with "re -". Renew. Revive. And - incredibly - Bush also told us that "we actually re-liberated certain communities". This, folks, goes beyond hollow laughter. Since when did armies go around "re-liberating" anything? And what does that credibility-sapping "actually" mean? I suspect it was an attempt by the White House speech writer to suggest - by sleight of hand, of course - that Bush was really - really - telling the truth this time. But by putting "actually" in front of "re-liberate" - as opposed to just "liberate" - the whole grammatical construction falls apart. Rather like Iraq. (Contiues as I pasted to start,above.)
I'm Michael of the upper west side.
Burst tapping away from a 'jour gems' US newspapers forum posting I was compiling;
With this,Right On, Journalistic Intelligence,specifically appropriate,also here.
PRIORITY 1 LIFE on yahoo.com compose Far West Jerusalem
Sunday April 13,2008;Now @2:53 PM ET +7.
Posted by: Michael of uo West.Orig.Manhattan.Now Jerusalem. | April 13, 2008 7:06 AM
Re the administration and their leadership in Iraq - one needs to analyze closely what it means to "win" in a conflict such as that in Iraq. If it means decimating the population, does that not indeed qualify for the ultimate Pyrrhic victory in favor of democracy? And does that then constitute true democracy? Do we have any idea what we are doing, or what the "end game" is?
Posted by: davemaz | April 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Posted by: jimelyyes | May 2, 2008 7:35 PM
Posted by: jimelyyes | May 8, 2008 8:34 AM
Posted by: jimelyyes | May 10, 2008 1:44 AM
Posted by: jimelyyes | May 11, 2008 1:41 AM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 8,951.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/readers_response_whats_in_a_na.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/readers_response_whats_in_a_na.html
|
Mormonism and Polygamy
|
2008041019
|
...not to interrupt Edgar demonstrating the problem, here, but:
"Hi, PaganPlace. I meant only the first paragraph (after the quote) of my last comment to be addressed to you. The rest I meant for everybody here. I enjoy your comments. They are fair-minded and refreshingly free of vitriol. What beliefs are considered pagan these days? Does Shinto count? How about traditional Native American or Polynesian belief systems?"
Well, certainly in the 'small P' sense of 'pagan,' that's how they might be described, but they generally won't thank you for it. :)
In a broad sense, we do have a lot in common with these types of traditions, especially in relation to people of 'book' religions: there are some key differences in belief and structure and worldview that we share: notably not believing in *belief itself* in the same way, not thinking much of creeds and authorities, particularly ones which contradict human experience or separate spirit from the living world.
Pagan with a capital P generally refers to revivals (and to some extent survivals) of pre-Christian European traditions... our ancient Gods generally viewed through more modern practices and in a lot of ways, assuredly a more modern theology about it all. This is somewhat of necessity, as some folks went pretty well out of their way to *destroy* the ancient practices, but you can't destroy the Gods or our connection to Them, so we rebuild, maybe a bit more free than some of cultural inertia that can lead to problems with modernization and getting along in such a world as we have now.
But it's part of why we don't go around proselytizing for our Gods, many of us know from personal experience They can do Their own recruiting, thanks very much; the human spirit doesn't need to be told by a book to, say, reincarnate and learn, nor can it be stopped from such. Maybe we've learned from experience what really endures.
It also is rooted in a belief we should nurture our essential goodness, rather than try and 'fight' or 'control' some 'essential badness,' ..and as a result, "It's the will of the Goddess" or "The God made me do it" isn't in our spiritual 'language.'
Saves a lot of trouble with 'authorities' and 'cults of personality,' that way.
We're responsible for our intentions and actions, and for an awareness of their effects, not a legalistic process of trying to excuse or compel them.
Which is kind of why what the likes of Edgar say about what spurred this discussion just don't wash.
For our part, we see our worldviews as compatible with most worldwide indigenous faiths, considering them as likely to be other sincere views of the same world... Book religions, of course, tend to go out of their way to contradict everyone else, to the result of much grief and alienation, is how we tend to view it.
And, generally, this applies to even book religions, probably apart from the fact we don't believe books have some magic power to really define the world. Kind of like the early Christians were considered *atheists* for disbelieving in all Gods... with one exception. :)
These are things made by, generally, *men,* and we're responsible for them and what we do with them, you see.
We believe that a diversity of views of the world is a *good* thing, not something to try and destroy, ...but if someone does something unjust or harmful and says, 'God Wills It,' we just say, 'That's what *you* say.'
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 16.75 | 0.363636 | 0.409091 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/04/pop_quiz_who_would_you_renounc.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/04/pop_quiz_who_would_you_renounc.html
|
Pop Quiz: Who Would You Renounce?
|
2008041019
|
See if you can tell who said what in this list of quotes: Answers at the bottom.
1. After 9/11, in a debate at Wheaton College with conservative Gary Bauer, Bauer said, âI know this is hard for you to believe, but the enemy is not John Ashcroft, the enemy is Osama Bin Ladin:
Our first mystery guest said: âIâm not sure about that. When you start taking away the rights of the American citizens, when you undercut the Bill of Rights in order to pursue security, I think you become more dangerous than Bin Laden. I think that if this country goes down, it will not be because of the enemies that are outside this country. I think that if this country goes down, itâs because those within the country undercut our basic rights, undercut the principles that gave birth to this institution.â
2. Condemning the Vietnam war, our second mystery guest said: âI knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today â my own government.â
and also, about Vietnam: âGod didnât call America to engage in a senseless, unjust warâ¦And we are criminals in that war. Weâve committed more war crimes almost than any other nation in the world, and Iâm going to continue to say it. And we wonât stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place. â¦And if you donât stop your reckless course, Iâll rise up and break the backbone of your power.â
3. âI cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe that Sept. 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.â
And again on Islam: Islam is âan anti-Christ religionâ predicated on âdeceptionâ. Mohammad, he believes, âreceived revelations from demons and not from the true God.ââ¦âAllah was a demon spirit.â
4. The Catholic church is âthe great whoreâ, the âanti Christâ and a âfalse cult systemâ.
And: âMost readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolph Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.â
5. Responding to Richard Nixon (on tape) that the Jews had âa stranglehold on the countryâ mystery guest 6 responded âif you get elected a second time then we might be able to do something.â He also engaged in anti-semitic jokes, discussed which reporters were Jewish and how reporting had deteriorated since more Jews had become journalists.
6. Mystery guest 7 referred to Jews as âHymieâs and New York as âHymietown.â
And while he was married, he gave spiritual counseling to a president and his family on marriage and family values when his own mistress was pregnant with his child.
7. After 9/11, he said, âI really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For The American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and sayâ you help this happen.â
He also said: âI do believe, as a theologian, based upon many scriptures and particularly Proverbs 14:23, which says âliving by Godâs principles promotes a nation to greatness, violating those principles brings a nation to shame.â This person talks about how the ACLU and other organizations âwhich have attempted to secularize America, have removed our nation from its relationship with Christ on which it was foundedâ¦I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812,â.
8. âThe feminists agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.â
He also said: âWhen I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. âWhat do you mean?â the media challenged me. âYouâre not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?â My simple answer is, âYes they are.â
9. âThe government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing âGod Bless America.â No, no no. God damn America, thatâs in the Bible for killing people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.â
After Sept 11, mystery guest 10 also said, âWe bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. Americaâs chickens have come home to roost.â
10. âThe Lord of Host, The God of Israel says: Even yet, if you quit your evil ways I will let you stay in your own land. But donât be fooled by those who lie to you and say to you that since the temple of the Lord is here, God will never let Jerusalem be destroyed. You may remain under these conditions only: If you stop your wicked thoughts and deeds, and are fair to others, and stop exploiting orphans and widows and foreigners. And stop your murdering. And stop worshiping idols as you do now to your hurt. Then, and only then, will I let you stay in this land that I gave to your fathers to keep forever.â
Should these remarks be repudiated by those who are counseled and spiritually advised by the people who made them? Should the people who made these remarks be repudiated as well? Let us know what you think.
1. Rev. Tony Campolo, Bill Clintonâs long time spiritual adviser. 2. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 3. Televangelist Rod Parsley, a man John McCain described as a âspiritual guide." 4. Rev. John Hagee, of whom John McCain said he was âProud and honored to have his support.â 5. Rev. Billy Graham, spiritual advisers to many presidents including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (Graham apologized when the story broke). 6. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clintonâs spiritual adviser during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 7. Rev. Jerry Falwell, who supported John McCain until his death and who McCain , when asked, refused to repudiate. 8. Pat Robertson, former presidential candidate whose support was sought by Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and received by Giuliani. 9. Rev.Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obamaâs pastor 10. Jeremiah, the biblical Hebrew prophet of the 6th Century BCE who predicted Jerusalemâs destruction by the Babylonians. His lamentations were unpopular, hence the word âjeremiadâ, meaning tale of woe.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 33.409091 | 0.522727 | 0.568182 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/04/pope_benedictand_the_catholic.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/04/pope_benedictand_the_catholic.html
|
Pope Benedict Wants You!
|
2008041019
|
The Question: Pope Benedict's recent baptism of a well-known Italian Muslim has prompted criticism in much of the Islamic world. Has Benedict done enough to build bridges to Islam?
One thing that devout believers in ecumenical dialogue simply don't get about the Roman Catholic Church is that its leaders, including Pope Benedict XVI, truly believe that theirs is the one, true faith. Although the church has given up conversion by the sword and waterboarding (a form of interrogation used on heretics during the Inquisition), the Vatican's raison d'etre remains the conversion of everyone--including Muslims. We don't hear much about this today, because the belief that your religion is truer and better than anyone else's doesn't sit well in democratic societies.
Let me interrupt my argument at this point to acknowledge the objections of those who chastise me for mentioning the Inquisition too frequently when I talk about Catholicism. Call me crazy, but whenever I hear the word "conversion," the Inquisition and its "special methods" just leap to mind.
The imperious Benedict has taken less trouble than his predecessor, John Paul II, to conceal his dedication to a theology that regards other religions (not to mention secularism) as inferior. The pope's personal baptism, at a widely publicized Easter vigil service, of an Egyptian-born Muslim, Magdi Allam--now an editor of one of Italy's most prominent newspapers, Corriere della Sera,--is a case in point. Allam, in a column discussing his conversion, wrote in his newspaper that the "root of all evil is innate in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictual." (The word "conflictual" was probably issued by some Department of Translation Into Bad English.)
Allam, who once attended a Catholic school in Egypt, is persona non grata not only to most Muslims but to a great many secular Italians, who tend to view his conversion as an exemplary "out of the frying pan, into the fire" move. The Vatican took care to state that Allam was expressing his personal opinion, not the opinion of the Catholic Church. But a Vatican spokesmen also expressed displeasure at any suggestion that Allam's conversion was an example of the danger of placing Muslim students in Christian schools.
Does anyone seriously think that the Vatican finances mission schools around the world because it does not hope to gain converts? In this regard, it should be noted, the Catholic Church does not differ from other proselytizing Christian churches that offer a wide variety of social services along with a strong dose of religious indoctrination. Alas, some of these American churches are now subsidized by American taxpayer money for faith-based programs.
The Catholic emphasis on conversion has remained remarkably consistent throughout history. Pope John Paul II's canonization of the Carmelite nun Edith Stein, a German Catholic convert from Judaism who died in Auschwitz, is a prime example. Stein was sent to Auschwitz for one reason: she was born a Jew, and for the Nazis, no religious conversion wiped out the "racial" stain of Jewishness. Yet the church considers her a Catholic martyr--a position as offensive to many Jews, and as impervious to the fact of who was targeted for extermination during the Holocaust--as some of Benedict's statements about Islam have been to many Muslims. Stein was murdered by the Nazis because of her Jewish "blood," not her Catholic faith.
Of course, Benedict can get away with offending Muslims more easily at the moment than he can with offending Jews. Much of post-Christian, secular Europe is terrified of the Muslim immigrants in its midst and would probably love to see a population of Muslim converts to Catholicism.
I have little doubt, though, that Benedict will make nice with American Muslim leaders during his visit to the United States next week. Since his real purpose in visiting the U.S. is to stem the bleeding of American-born Catholics who have left the church during the past two decades, he won't be picking any fights with members of other faiths. In fact, Benedict's biggest admirers in America are right-wing Protestant evangelicals, and they certainly won't object to his desire to convert non-Christian "heretics."
Is the pope Catholic? You bet. And that means he wants to turn many more of the world's pesky inhabitants who believe in a "wrong" religion, or, worse yet, in no religion at all, into Catholics.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 19.590909 | 0.590909 | 0.681818 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/an_iraqis_anniversary_of_sadda.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/an_iraqis_anniversary_of_sadda.html
|
PostGlobal: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008041019
|
When I first saw images of Saddam's statue being torn down five years ago today, I was struck by two conflicting emotions. I was happy, of course. But deep inside, I felt sadness that Iraqis had not been able to take down the statue of tyranny, that we couldn't do it ourselves because we didn't have then a united, trusted leadership who could gather all Iraqis and move them toward change.
Today, five years later we still don't have this leadership.
Iraqi political parties are seeing everything from their very selfish, narrow, individual interests. Sometimes, it is the interest of one family, or even one person. They are corrupted and politicians are doing very good business. They will not let free media breathe. They are occupying everything. Inevitably, people's trust in political parties is disappearing.
These anniversary thoughts have come as I finally realize a great dream and visit America. It has opened my eyes to how the war in my country is perceived. Over the last six weeks I met many people from different perspectives and backgrounds and many of them were anti the U.S. presence in Iraq. I totally understand this view and I feel sorry for all the blood and money spent there for the military operations. But the U.S. had no plan for the after-Saddam era. This created a mess and that obligates the U.S. to stay on but with a new strategy starting with: no more military solution.
If the next American president would read my words, I would tell him or her:
Reduce your military forces gradually from Iraq and especially reduce patrolling on the streets in hot spots. Let the Iraqi army take the responsibility and face its own challenges. Train them well and keep an eye on the financial corruption in both sides.
Enhance the U.S. political and diplomatic presence in Iraq. It is the only guarantee for my country not to enter the tunnel of civil war. This means pay more attention politically to violations against human rights done by the main Iraqi political parties and Iraqi government. This can be achieved by being more open to all Iraqi political and civil society groups, not only the familiar faces. The familiar faces are losing their credibility because of corruption and the US government is accused of supporting corrupted people.
Have a sincere will towards supporting democracies in Iraq and the region. Focus on that more than seeking after your own financial and strategic interests. People still have faith in your support to help them for more political freedoms and defending human rights, do not lose this trust.
The next president should also work at educating Americans about the society they are trying to help change. Have a plan to make both sides understand each other. Perhaps use your influence to encourage Hollywood to skip over the stereotype picture of Muslims. Even the non-committed person will be provoked if he sees something bad about his culture. We are fragile societies in the Muslim Middle East and this kind of critique drives people crazy. People like Bin Laden use these issues and emotions to lead people towards disasters.
Five years after the overthrow of Saddam, in spite of the violence and bloodshed, a democratic future is still possible for my country. So much in Iraq has changed and much of it has not been for the good. But one thing that hasn't changed is that it would be better for Iraqis to build their country themselves. But we still need your help because building democracy is not easy. We need your help because people have to overcome their fear of day-to-day life. Violence has touched everyone
My father in law, a newspaper editor in Mosul, was murdered shortly after the overthrow of Saddam. On the first anniversary of the dictator's statue coming down an American journalist asked my wife was it worth getting rid of Saddam, even if you lost your father? After a while of silent thinking she answered: "Yes, I think it was worth it."
Five years after the democratization process began in Iraq, I stlll say it was worth it -- but Saddam's fall will only have meaning when Iraqis come together, take responsibility, embrace democratic principles, return freedom to Iraqi citizens and build a humane state.
|
Need to Know - PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/
| 42.894737 | 0.473684 | 0.473684 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/kidnapped_my_friend_and_my_cou.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/kidnapped_my_friend_and_my_cou.html
|
PostGlobal: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008041019
|
Vote: Abolish Middle-East "THEOCRACY & MONARCHY" Yea!:
PS: This Non Islamic Nation [U.S.A.] was first to Discover "PETRO" in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. & also later in SAUDi Arabia. Note, Arabs & Islamics have the Least 'Intellectual Property & Patents & Copy Rights of All Non-Islamics!
And Yet they Brainwash their kids to think that we [No-Islamics] really 'Stole their Ideas, like Atomic Bomb, Math, Telescopes, Astronomy etc.. And
As some People Say, that That OIL in SAUDi & Russia & America & South America etc.. Belongs to the Citizenry & Denizenry of this Holy Cosmic Space-Ship , Sweet Sweet, Momma Poppa EARTH.
FOSSiL Petro âCartelsâ are illegal under Eclati-On HUMANIY Laws! The âOiLâ belongs to this Entire planet, not to any Corporation nor Government! Itâs O.U.R. inheretence, just like the Moon & Mars belongs to ANY EVERY & ALL The H-U-M-A-T-E-S kind, not unjustly HUMANS unkinds!
It is a International Commodity & Belongs âTO The PEOPLEâ [Global Majority] of Momma Poppa Earth, and not to any particular Nation, who use It For You or Against You, like a Weapon Of Mass Destruction!
Hence: Modern Morality is Superior to Biblical Morality!
If Ye want to Prevent World War 4, then This is the answer! Internationalize All Oil in OUR Holy Ground (not Grail), not belonging to any individuals & Nation! Ye will save countless [finite] Lives! Hay, ye might even save your own posterity.
Remember, WW1 & WW2 was about [Major CAUSE] Diesel Engines & PETRO. Hence Tanks, Subs, Battle Ships etc.. And Each of These Wars took the "STOP THE PETRO SPIGOT strategy"!
VOTE: iNTERNATiONALiZE ALL Oil Reserves Now! And also build a Global "PETRO-DOLLAR" Banking NETWORK and another agency called the Global "URANIUM-DOLLAR" Banking & Control Network!! Not in U.S. Dollar or Euro or Rubil etc..!
No Petro No WAR! NO PETRO NO WAR! NO PETRO NO WAR!
Good Bye OPEC (mostly Islamic) & International Petroleum CARTEL(s) , aka Religio International Mafioso's as MONOPOLY's!
Islamic Provoked the "CRUSADES" & now see how things changed? Ye Ancestors kicked them out of Europe, but they Got Malaysia & Indonesia instead!
Remember; Their [un] Holy Quran/Koran tells them to "SPY on Them..., Use Them, Even Marry Them [for a while] , and wait for the Signal for all-out Conquest via 'JiHAD! Hence Taking Over Nations by Infiltration & xtra-Population Growth wherever they Live!
Please see the KORAN @ 2:98, 2:161, 3:28, 4:95, 9:1-2, 16:106 et seq. AND
Please see the Word: "AL TAQIYA" H" [Islamic International ZiONiSM].
ALL MOSQUES (in America they are ALL Saudi Arabia Financed & are used as Embassy's for Spying Purposes, International Espionage & Industrial/Commercial spying too) have 'Minarettes' that blast 5 Times Daily (over LOUD Speakers, like Brain-Washing, aka "PSYCHiC DRiViNG") that the Whole Town, Village & City & Suburbs can Hear. Forcing their religion on Us via Modern Day Loud speakers!
This is the Way they (Saudi WAHABi's, Immams, Ayatollas etc..) CONTROL The Minds of the "G-D-FEARERS!"
Note: It is offensive to force, anyone outside of Islam, to listen to that Pre-Apocalyptic old Time Religio(n) Song! This Is The KEY!
Happy Every Day! And Happy G-D Hunting!
|
Need to Know - PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/
| 38.315789 | 0.421053 | 0.421053 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/the_two_wars_in_iraq.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/the_two_wars_in_iraq.html
|
PostGlobal: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008041019
|
Actually, this article misses the real point. THE point, actually. The only point that matters in the world of global politics. What you're seeing and reading are only a half of the real story of what is going on.
Polls certainly indicate that the Iraqis want us to leave. Some because they believe we fuel sectarian violence in the region, which is likely true. Some probably also support American withdrawal because they'd like to increase the sectarian violence. In the end, the primary point being that sectarian violence, if it is going to happen, will happen whether the United States is around or not. Iraqi civilians on the ground want us gone for all sorts of reasons. And they have an ally Lisa didn't specifically point out.
The American public wants a withdrawal. The American story isn't really that we have a responsibility to stop the sectarian violence. In fact, talking to my fellow American on the street, it's much more accurate to say that most American citizens are fed up with the Iraqi government's slow progress (though how long would you suggest the formation of a constitutional government should take?) and feel somewhat used. The conventional war was simple enough. American armed forces took something on the order of two weeks to annihilate Saddam's army and capitulate the government. Then Bush decided to try to make Iraq in America's image, which turned out to be not such a bright idea. So it seems that civilians on both sides are tired of American occupation in Iraq and want America to withdraw.
America did invade Iraq, did fight exceedingly well, and the soldiers there are doing the best they can. The Iraqi citizens are also coping and doing the best they can. Why not let Iraq to its fate and allow everything to fall into place?
This is where the big problem comes in. Elements within the government would like the Americans to remain. Why? Because the government is weak with its people at the moment. It constantly bungles its assignment and is consigned to petty squabbling. So when strong, well-organized militias under charismatic leaders rise up, you have two options: diplomacy (which hardly seems to be working) and warfare. The Iraqi forces are as sectarian as their citizens (which is probably much less than the media reports, but still significant) and are not as well trained or equipped. The American army, on the other hand, is most probably the most well-equipped, well-trained fighting force on the planet. Which would you rather send? Whether the citizens like it or not, for the government to keep power, they will kiss up to the Americans.
And then the American government... Where do we begin? I suppose most of it has already been said by louder voices than mine. The American government, particularly the executive, is where Lisa's story above comes from. Believe it or not, most Americans seem to believe that our only mission should be to fight Al'Qaeda. That means drawing our forces down from where they are at by vast margins and letting the sectarians sort out their differences all by themselves. But the American government will certainly have none of that. President Bush has, under no uncertain terms, declared his intention to remake Iraq into something he has no power to make it. In fact, his very actions are most likely retarding the reconciliation process by giving the government power over an armada well beyond its ability to raise on its own.
Now back to that basic point about global politics that seems to irk people. Why do governments and their people have different stories? In fact, if you look at any problem in the world between nations, you see that they are largely caused by governments acting in self-interest rather than national interest. What is happening in Iraq is almost a dead-on mimicry of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, only the prior is a much more globally inclusive issue. The issue being, what is best for the people of a nation and what is best for the people in the government, then between the two which becomes policy? And the answer is almost invariably the latter becoming policy.
Like Israeli conservatives calling for a Jewish state and Muslim seperatists calling for a seperate state (or one Muslim state) you sometimes forget that the best possible outcome for all people would most likely be to reconcile them both into one, secular government and make money from all the religious and political clout both sides have. But that finer point is obscured by men in government, their own power at stake, who insist that people cannot live together in one country in harmony.
Apply this segue to the Iraqi government using the American army. Only the American and Iraqi governments gain anything from the American military presence acting as a policing force. Both citizenries want the American army relocated to dealing with other people. Most people would rather talk to Iran (and I have definite opinions on why we should be talking to Iran even more than the Saudis at this point, making our diplomacy work for us again) here in America and the Iraqis are obviously working with their neighbor on foreign relations. It is in the interest of both nations, America and Iraq, to at least draw down the American army and relocate them to more important battlefields (such as Afghanistan, or maybe even one of those "genocide" countries we keep ignoring).
But it does not serve our governments. Hence our elongated involvement.
So there are actually four stories, not two. That of the Iraqi people, the American people, the Iraqi government, and the American government. The government positions are the ones always reported in the media because, God forbid, there might actually be a pair of governments here not acting on behalf of the majority of their populations. In fact, both governments are to blame for ignoring the wills of their collective peoples. The American army is late coming home and has worn out its welcome in Iraq.
Lisa pointed out two different stories and named them after the Iraqi citizens and the American citizens. Those two stories are, respectively, the Iraqi citizens and the United States government. Polls in both nations show that common people do not think it is worth keeping our military installed for one reason or another. The problem, especially for our media, is to reconcile these different stories and demonstrate that the Iraqis and Americans really have the same idea, we simply elected people who would rather prefer to keep power.
And that is rule 1 of global politics: Never ever understand a government as the direct representative of its people. The government has far too much interest in itself to even bow to the will of the people.
|
Need to Know - PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/
| 68.368421 | 0.421053 | 0.421053 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803501.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803501.html
|
Frustrated Senators See No Exit Signs
|
2008041019
|
Asked repeatedly yesterday what "conditions" he is looking for to begin substantial U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq after this summer's scheduled drawdown, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said he will know them when he sees them. For frustrated lawmakers, it was not enough.
"A year ago, the president said we couldn't withdraw because there was too much violence," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "Now he says we can't afford to withdraw because violence is down." Asked Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.): "Where do we go from here?"
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said: "I think people want a sense of what the end is going to look like."
But the bottom line was that there was no bottom line. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker echoed what they said seven months ago in their last update to Congress -- often using similar words. Iraq's armed forces continue to improve, overall levels of violence are lower than they were last year, and political reconciliation is happening, albeit still more slowly than they would like.
"Iraq is hard, and reconciliation is hard," Crocker said in September. Yesterday, he added: "Almost everything about Iraq is hard."
In eight hours of testimony, the two men danced around the question of what constitutes success in Iraq. "As I've explained, again, from a military perspective," Petraeus said wearily as the day drew to a close, ". . . what we want to do is to look at conditions and determine where it is without taking undue risks. This is all about risk."
"We'll look at the circumstances and assess," Crocker said, as he and Petraeus spoke of "battlefield geometry" and "political-military calculus."
What worked in September -- an overall sense of progress that gave the Bush administration additional time to pursue its "surge" policy of sending nearly 30,000 more troops to Iraq -- sparked little enthusiasm this time among lawmakers who had hoped for a brighter light at the end of the tunnel. Much of their frustration appeared to stem from a realization that there was little they could do to affect policy in the administration's final nine months.
Petraeus said he has recommended to President Bush that the planned withdrawal of the five "surge" combat brigades by the end of July be followed by a 45-day hiatus for "consolidation and evaluation." Then, Petraeus said, he would begin "a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground" and determine whether to recommend "further reductions as conditions permit."
The scheduled withdrawals, Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said dismissively, are "just the next page in a war plan with no exit strategy."
Several Republicans were effusive in their praise for Petraeus, Crocker and the administration's policy. "We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat," said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Instead, the presumed GOP presidential nominee said that "success is within reach."
McCain hedged his bets with other tough questions, but he left it to others to throw their support behind administration policy. "According to some, we should fire you," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told the witnesses. "It sounds like . . . really nothing good has happened in the last year and this is a hopeless endeavor. Well, I beg to differ."
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 88.875 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040902805.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040902805.html
|
Democrats to Seek Delay on Trade Pact
|
2008041019
|
Pelosi said the House will vote on a rule change today to freeze the clock on when it must consider the pact, despite a law that requires the House to consider the Colombia Free Trade Agreement within 60 legislative days after its delivery to Capitol Hill. Bush sent the pact to Congress Tuesday.Aides to Bush and Cabinet officials accused Pelosi of effectively killing the trade pact, harming diplomatic relations with an important ally and threatening the next administration's bargaining power in trade talks.
"What country, after this action, will look to the trade representative . . . and think that they'll be able to count on their word?" White House spokeswoman Dana Perino asked. "It's very, very troubling."
But Pelosi said the pact would be defeated if she brought it up for a vote, and signaled that Democrats want to focus on U.S. economic woes.
"We're first and foremost here to look out for the concerns of America's working families. I take this action with deep respect to the people of Colombia and will be sure that any message they receive is one of respect for their country," Pelosi said.
The United States and Colombia completed a trade agreement in 2006, then renegotiated its terms last year under demands from Democrats to toughen labor and environmental standards. Pelosi was involved in the 2007 discussions but voiced some concern about labor protections.
The deal would open Colombia to many U.S products currently subject to stiff tariffs. Under annual agreements, most Colombian goods can be exported duty-free to the United States, but the new pact would make the arrangement permanent.
Trade between the two countries totaled a modest $18 billion in 2007. It included coffee, fruit and clothing from Colombia and automobiles and farm machinery from the United States.
Bush views free trade as one of the signature issues of his presidency. He said this week that loosening market barriers with Colombia is vital to the U.S. economy and would bolster the rule of Colombian President Ãlvaro Uribe, a U.S. ally.
Bush said Uribe has made strides in quelling violence and in battling the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a Marxist guerrilla force that the U.S. government has designated a terrorist group.
After Pelosi's announcement, the administration organized a series of fierce rebuttals to the Democrats' tactic. Perino suggested that Democratic leaders want to avoid a vote because they are at risk of losing. She said many Democrats "don't want to have their fingerprints on killing it. . . . The fact that they don't even want to have a vote should tell you something."
Perino's deputy, Tony Fratto, said that "tomorrow's vote is effectively a vote to kill this agreement -- and with it, the jobs that would have been created for American workers."
|
Rebuffing a furious Bush administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that she will try to delay a trade agreement with Colombia and asked President Bush to first address Democratic demands for more domestic economic stimulus measures.
| 12.022222 | 0.644444 | 0.822222 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/09/clinton_steps_away_from_husban.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/09/clinton_steps_away_from_husban.html
|
Clinton Steps Away from Husband's Position on Trade
|
2008041019
|
By Anne E. Kornblut PITTSBURGH, Pa. -- In the wake of reports that both her husband and former chief strategist support expanded trade relations with Colombia, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said again on Wednesday that she opposes the pending free trade agreement -- and that there is no conflict within her campaign on the subject.
Many couples disagree on issues, she said. And, Clinton said, "this is a great debate."
"There are two sides to this debate; it is not 100 to zero," she said. "I believe the weight of the evidence clearly, in my view, supports my decision not to support the Colombia Free Trade Agreement." But she said that "very credible people who care deeply about this country" have a legitimate claim to the other viewpoint.
Clinton has come under fire recently for a meeting that Mark J. Penn held with the Colombian ambassador to the United States, whom he represented in his outside public relations firm. The Colombian government is pressing for the new trade deal, which President Bush has sent to Congress for a vote. Both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama intend to vote against the deal. Both are vying for support in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, all states with upcoming primary contests -- and places where the largest previous trade agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is blamed for job losses.
Obama used NAFTA to his advantage in the Wisconsin primary, arguing in part that former president Clinton had implemented the arrangement; Clinton snatched the issue away from him in Ohio, when news broke that his economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had privately assured Canadian officials that Obama would not be as tough on trade as he promised on the campaign trail.
Now, the trade matter is back in Obama's terrain, and he is pushing hard to use it against Clinton in Pennsylvania, in particular.
Posted at 1:41 PM ET on Apr 9, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
It's the American Dream earning lots of money even if you're fooling around with you're voters. And are you a leader than. No you're a legal thief of the American taxpayers It's time for the leaders off the Democratic Party to wrap this up . I'll bet if this is done the Clintons will switch party soon. Because McCain's policy will be better to protect the millions they earned , thanks to the American taxpayers.
Posted by: Harry | April 11, 2008 1:18 PM
All the HRC backers , or you're so stupid or you're have a problem with Obama's race. And i think is the last opion. Having a president that's a bit to dark is to much for you. It's so deep in you guys that you even walk over to McCain.I am white but this actually smells more like racism than common sense.One thing the black people have more than us whites. They do have more common sense.
A once Hilary fan , but now i feel ashamed about it. SO GO OBAMA and don't be ashamed to give her K.O blow, although its a woman.
Posted by: Harry | April 11, 2008 1:08 PM
Right....and I think she should take the 2 MILLION dollars her husband made from COLUMBIA and donate it to charity..oh one THEY don't own like the one they have donated to for the last 7 years where they have KEPT over half of it! She may not support it guys? But it darn sure SUPPORTS HER.
Posted by: Deanna | April 10, 2008 5:04 PM
Quote: "What was Hillary's position on NAFTA when Bill was pushing it during his Presidency? Did she back Bill then on NAFTA?"
Well, she says now that she was against it, but records show that she was attending pro-NAFTA meetings designed to approve the treaty in congress.
Posted by: | April 10, 2008 2:34 PM
Quote: STAT OF THE DAY:
Voters in Pennsylvania rarely elect black and female candidates. The state currently has only one black and one woman in its 21-member congressional delegation and has never had a black or female governor."
Well, they have an interesting decision to make now. What do they do now?? None of the above??
Posted by: wly34 | April 10, 2008 2:32 PM
What was Hillary's position on NAFTA when Bill was pushing it during his Presidency? Did she back Bill then on NAFTA?
Posted by: satchnthesaint | April 10, 2008 8:17 AM
I really wish that the Oprah News Network, AKA CBS, never ran the Bosnia story in an obvious, stealth-swifboat attack against Hillary. What that did was say to people, "forget about Reverend Wright and just vote for Obama, it doesn't matter that he has racist ties and that he sympathizes with Anti-American sentiment, its okay. Its also okay that he would like to sit down with the fascist dictators of Iran and North Korea, just vote for him. Show us that you aren't racist and then you can feel good about yourself?"
Posted by: Chris | April 10, 2008 12:19 AM
Can I just say that the "svreader" exchange earlier was hilarious? Couldn't happen to a nicer poster.
Seriously, "double stuffed oreo"? Why don't you just use the n-word?
As for the Hillary Clinton/Al Gore analogy, it's fair in that she has all his lack of charm on television, but not fair in the sense that he had (and has) a real record of vision and competence that positively dwarfs hers. The fact that she isn't particularly telegenic doesn't mean she's secretly smart; it's just another indication of the fact that she's only where she is in this race because of her last name.
Posted by: davestickler | April 9, 2008 11:44 PM
I believe Hillary Cllinton is not being honest about Columbia. her husband supports it. Her chief strategist supports it. Her spokesperson lobbied for it. Her chief political advisor lobbied to get it passed. Are we to believe that Hillary truly opposes it? I just can't summon up enough naivete' to swallow that.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 10:48 PM
the fact is that the rabbits ran away one more time!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 10:02 PM
I don't care if they understand what this means!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 10:00 PM
Well, once again the result is: NOLO CONTENDERE!
translated for Obamites to NO CONTEST!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 9:58 PM
While I seldom support President Bush's policies, at least he has discernible, strong principles and does not flip flop on certain issues, based upon changing polls, as Senator Clinton often does. He deserves some respect for this, even when most Americans disagree with him.
John McCain has more integrity than her, which is one of the main reasons why many independents like him. The ways in which the Clinton campaign has been mismanaged, as others have observed, does not offer promise of sound leadership. Were the presidential election the Olympics, Barack would deserve the gold medal, Ralph Nader the silver and John McCain the bronze.
Posted by: Koreen | April 9, 2008 9:38 PM
I will say something nice about Obama: he is a smart young politician!
Let him grow up and mature before transforming a potential good wine into vinegar!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 9:34 PM
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 9:29 PM
You've got to be kidding! Are you really impressed with this curricula?
'...The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks' LOL. Either he is naive or he is a complete idiot!
'... meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq' sure broadens his international experience, which is none!
'... a meeting with Palestinian students' will make him an expert on Palestinian matters.
'In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke', the only thing he does.
If this is enough experience to become a World Leader, we have lowered our standards to unexpected limits!
Don't insult us and apologize, if you are big enough!
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 9:28 PM
Quote: "Keep on dreaming that the Wanabee Healer will pour free money for everybody and remove evil from politics!
At the end, they will not be simple 'words' they will be 'flat lies'"
Please furnish the proof of these statements also. They are neither "words or flat lies" because Obama hasn't said them.
Spew on, but I will be doing the SOB on your posts. That's "Scroll On By".
Try saying something positive and constructive once in awhile.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 9:26 PM
When you get a chance, why don't you look at the editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal.
You'll find that my concerns are echoed by many other people.
The question is whether people will wake up in time to avoid nominating a sure loser, because that what Obama is.
My gut feeling is that Obama's handlers are betting that people will vote for the Democrat no matter what.
We thought that in 2004 and were wrong then and we'll be wrong again.
Party loyalty is less important to most Americans than the leaders of the Democratic Party think.
Hillary will win by a landslide if we nominate her because McCain will be running against both her and Bill Clinton, not to mention whoever she chooses as VP.
If Obama's the candidate, McCain will win by a landslide.
Obama supporters put far too much emphasis on youth and not nearly enough on experience.
Like Obama, they think they know much more than they do.
The majority of Americans will choose the candidate that they feel will do the best job as President.
That is more important to most people than which party the candidate comes from.
Obama can't stand up to scrutiny.
His performance in both Chicago and in the Senate was quite poor.
Once the novelty wears off, people will decide they'd rather go with a choice they can feel safe with.
People will not want to trust the most powerfull job in the world to someone with as little experience as Barry Obama.
That will be even more true when they find out exactly how little experience he has, and how poor a job he's actually done in the past.
Hopefully Hillary will win in Penn and go on to become our candidate.
If she does, Democrats will win by a landslide.
The situation with her is the opposite to that with Obama.
She's much better than the press has painted her and the more people see of the real Hillary the more they'll want her as President!
Posted by: svreader | April 9, 2008 9:22 PM
Quote: "caronte, here's one for you. Read it and then apologize, if you are big enough""
I didn't think that you were.
Spew on, caronte. Like svreader, you can't stand the facts.
Posted by: wly34 | April 9, 2008 9:21 PM
I absolutely admire your enthusiasm for Hillary, at least it's not McCain (with respect to McCain-just not some of his ideals). I conclude, and Obama has mentioned this repeatedly because I've witnessed it, that he is not perfect perfect. He has repeatedly stated that he is not a perfect man, and that his wife reminds him of that as well. He acknowledges that everything on the list to change will not change with one candidate, but it will require work and time. He is truthful. However, he has the right list, and he is in the right direction in my opinion. It is some of the opposers of him, not all, whom give him all of these "prophet" and "Messiah" labels. That is disrespectful. I also conclude that Hillary isn't perfect either.
I also conclude that Obama is as qualified for presidency as Hillary is. He is qualified, competent, educated, wise, and optimistic. I like how he faces everyone even when the odds are against him; but everyone is important. Everyone shall get to experience him. He gives people that option.
Svreader: My question to you is, can you at the least look at both candidates. You only post what you see imperfect with Obama, but you ignore all of the former posts of imperfections of your preferred candidate. I expect to have a human president (hopefully Obama but if not, definitely Hillary).
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 9, 2008 9:21 PM
Well Obamites, enjoy it while you can!
Keep on dreaming that the Wanabee Healer will pour free money for everybody and remove evil from politics!
At the end, they will not be simple 'words' they will be 'flat lies'
Would you let this moron take your children to church? Think about it before answering, after all, they are your children!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 9:16 PM
caronte, here's one for you. Read it and then apologize, if you are big enough:
Quote: "As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[79] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel."[80] He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[81] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor."
Posted by: wly34 | April 9, 2008 9:11 PM
I've done a lot of research into what Obama has actually done over the years, and spoken with people who have worked with both candidates, and have come to the conclusion that the real Obama isn't anything like his carefully crafted public image, and would be a really bad President.
Axelrod is doing a fantastic job selling a false image of Obama to the American public.
More likely than not, these months have been a total waste of my time.
Its hard to get people to open up their minds to the possibility that they've been sold a bill of goods, but just as was the case with Bush and with the Iraq war, that's what's happened here.
Axelrod doesn't need any help selling Obama.
I don't work for any campaign or political organization and am not paid by anyone for doing this.
I do it because I am truly angered that someone as bad a Barry Obama has been packaged up as a saint and that the public has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
The saddest thing of all is that the truth about Obama may not reach enough people in time to save the Democratic party from making the mistake of nominating him.
If we do that, we lose.
I often wonder what life would have been like if Gore had been allowed to take office.
Hillary is very much like Gore, and Ohama like Bush.
Hillary really knows her stuff.
Obama is a manufactured creation, very much like Bush was.
I don't want to see us make the same mistake we made in 2000 again.
The problem is that most people aren't interested in making the best possible decision.
They just want their "team" to win.
This is far too important a decision to make on that basis.
I hope people wake up in time.
If not, we'll wind up with McCain.
Republicans will do a very good job showing America what kind of guy Barry Obama really is.
At that point, it will be too late for Democrats to change to a different candidate.
It will be our one fault for not doing our homework beforehand.
That's the way life works.
That's also why Democrats lose Presidential elections so frequently.
We really can't afford to lose this one.
Hillary Clinton would be a great President, just like Al Gore would have been.
I hope we get that chance.
Posted by: svreader | April 9, 2008 9:07 PM
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 9:02 PM
The Oxymoron Candidate only visits airport VIP lounges and ballrooms!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 9:01 PM
Quote: "I bet Republicans will jump in to vote for Clinton in Pennsylvania as well, because she will beat the Obscure Candidate by a double digit margin!"
caronte, better be careful. The last time I heard a statement like that was on another political blog. He said, "if Bush wins again, I will shoot myself" Guess he did, because Bush did and the poster was never heard from again. And I'm no fan of Bush.
Posted by: wly34 | April 9, 2008 8:58 PM
probably you don't but your Prophet does!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 8:55 PM
I bet Republicans will jump in to vote for Clinton in Pennsylvania as well, because she will beat the Obscure Candidate by a double digit margin!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 8:53 PM
caronte. Another mis-speak from the Clinton side? Your slip is showing. There are also links to the trips of Obama. Look them up if you know how. Unlike Hillary, I don't lie.
Posted by: wly34 | April 9, 2008 8:52 PM
You people need to stop propping up John McCain. Acting like he's going to wipe the floor with Obama. The American people are sick and tired of the old fear politics. constant wars are going to bankrupt this country. Americans are not going to let that happen. John McCain is going to loose this election. He doesn't stand a chance. To all you racists out there who don't want to see a black man in the White House get over it. Young people are going to propel Obama right into the Presidency. You old, white racists need to get a grip and quit dreaming. You are done. Hello President Obama. Man, I laugh at you silly bigots.
Posted by: E. L. | April 9, 2008 8:50 PM
'...He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa' ... wow!
Obama's international experience is simple: two trips to Cancun and a trip to Kenya to attend a Halloween party!
There are pictures to prove it!
Posted by: Caronte | April 9, 2008 8:46 PM
Actually, since about the time of Wisconsin, and certainly in Texas and Ohio, Republicans were jumping in to vote for Clinton in hopes of extending the process and because Obama was looking so strong. Yes, some Republicans have crossed over to vote for Obama, too, but this tends to be more because they like his message, whereas the many recent Republican votes for Clinton are merely sabotage...and a recognition that Clinton might actually be the most conservative candidate still left in the presidential race.
Posted by: blert | April 9, 2008 8:43 PM
If I may come out of the "serious" form today, I have to say that some of these recent posts are hillarious. Specifically speaking in regards to svreader, sharing the name tag and such. I couldn't help laughing while trying to simply read posts with a serious face, and take various opinions into consideration. That is of course, opinions worth reading (well thought, not just a bunch of insults).
Svreader (not at all meant as an insult to you on my behalf, but some of your posts truly are disrespectful and completely single sided). Other than that, you'll have my respect none less.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 9, 2008 8:41 PM
Hillary Clinton lies and takes money in both hands from any source that gets her to the White House.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 8:38 PM
I think James left out the entire explanation and history of the idea of black liberation theology. Please do not get me mistaken, I have my own personal ideals. However, I do seek more information beyond the surface which the media only shows. I'm not that ignorant, not that gullable. I am able to attempt to be fair in judgment, and judge with REASON, and will look for supporting evidence. There is no doubt that Wright sees this country with an imperfect lens, but (and I'm not defending him because I disagree with some things myself) I don't think he is as bad as he has been portrayed. I would definitely question Wright. As for the entire church, there's more to it than people whom have no understanding or experience with it (including myself) would naturally understand. However, having taken SOCIOLOGY (and I can tell Obama has taken it too based on some points tied with his experiences and views-I understood what he was saying), I got more of an understanding of how people form their communities of support in the midst of an imperfect place.
James, please enroll yourself into Sociology if you haven't already. Also, post the entire site. I have a credible source ready, written by a person whom is non-racist or "black." I think the author has also had sociology. Read it beginning to end. This is not at all an insult. This is a post of encouragement. We should always seek understanding and knowledge, and we can actually learn from other people. What we learn about others, can help in learning more about our own selves. I encourage you to take Sociology.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 9, 2008 8:36 PM
svreader, that is the same thing that you were saying the other day. Who would want to use your ID with the strange posts that you make.
Posted by: wly34 | April 9, 2008 8:35 PM
Quote" "Obama isn't going to save anyone from anything. He is completely unqualified to be president. He claims to be different but he isn't."
Actually, Tobias, Obama has more experience than Hillary Clinton. She served as first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. and was elected to the senate in 2000.
He served as a trial lawyer, served in the Illinois state senate from 1997 to 2004. He was elected as US Senator from Illinois with 70% of the vote and he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he cosponsored bipartisan legislation for controlling conventional weapons and for promoting greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.
So much for Hillary's "35 years of experience" which would put her in the year she graduated from law school.
Posted by: wly34 | April 9, 2008 8:28 PM
svreader, you are on a tear tonight. Tell the truth: why is Hillary Clinton trying to have it both ways on the CFTA with her husband and top pollster collecting money for their advocacy and in public Hillary says she is against the agreement? Can you answer that one question?
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 7:53 PM
jacksmith concludes, "And I could go on, and on..." You have certainly proven THAT point, anyway. Take a break!
Posted by: tom | April 9, 2008 7:46 PM
"He claims to be different but he isn't. He is a liar and a hypocrite...." No different, Tobias? You saying he's just like Hillary?
Posted by: tom | April 9, 2008 7:42 PM
The 7:16pm was not created by me, but by a Hillary supporter who forged my signature. He also used racist slurs under other IDs today, including referring to the honorable Sen. Obama as a "double-stuffed oreo."
Washington Post rules state that such posts will be removed.
I respectfully request that you do so.
Posted by: svreader | April 9, 2008 7:21 PM
You should just stop making conclusions. You're not very good at it.
Posted by: UncleRemus | April 9, 2008 7:17 PM
The 7:06pm was not created by me, but by an Obama supporter who forged my signature.
Washington Post rules state that such posts will be removed.
I respectfully request that you do so.
Posted by: svreader | April 9, 2008 7:16 PM
Obama supporters can't dispute the facts that other people post, so they attack the people that post those facts.
They love to forge other people's signatures, in direct violation of Washington Post rules.
They show us what kind of people are attracted to the Obama campaign, and the Stalinist mindset they would bring to our country.
There are many good reasons to vote against Barack Obama.
The kind of supporters he attracts, and the lengths they gleefully stoop to to try to win at any cost are one of the strongest reasons never to vote for Barry Obama for anything.
Posted by: svreader | April 9, 2008 7:12 PM
I, "svreader," hereby recant every filthy and dishonest slur I've uttered about Sen. Barack Obama over these past few months. I realize now how wrong I've been to slander this fine and upstanding man, and I now heartily endorse him to be the Democratic nominee. I further urge Sen. Hillary Clinton (who I no longer have an irrational and unrequited crush on) to leave the race before she does even more damage to the Democratic Party and its inevitable nominee, Sen. Obama. Hillary, I finally understand that my secret desires were unnatural and unhealthy, and in the interests of our great country I renounce both them and you. Please, please go now.
Note: Since the real svreader is too cowardly to use his regular ID anymore (he's used at least six new made-up names today), I guess he won't mind if I take his old one and try and rehabilitate it. Maybe it's not too late to have "him" do some good for a change. :-) -- wmr
Posted by: svreader | April 9, 2008 7:06 PM
A VERY GOOD ARTICLE FROM FACTCHECK.ORG ABOUT THE RACIST THEOLOGY OF OBAMA''S CHURCH: The "theology" that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it. The brand of theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and the others at his church is called "black liberation theology." Wright admits this and it is stated on the church's website. Black theology is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed. This is why, for example, that Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white. This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within this brand of "theology." Rev. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are just a couple of James Cone's quotes: (1) "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." (2) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism." (3) "All white men are responsible for white oppression." (4) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." (5) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it." (6) "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." *** These statements, and this "theology," are fundamentally racist and divisive. The fact that Obama has chosen to belong to this racist church for 20 years speaks volumes about his character and judgment, and flies in the face of his pronouncements about his ability and intent to "unite" this country.
Posted by: james | April 9, 2008 6:59 PM
Yep, another conflict of interest - she is attracted to them like a moth to a flame. She's a total shyster.
Posted by: all conflicts, all the time | April 9, 2008 6:54 PM
svreader, you just called Obama a "double stuffed Oreo".
Posted by: davestickler | April 9, 2008 6:37 PM
Hillary has known about Bill being on the Colombian payroll to the tune of $800,000. She has known about both spokesmen Penn and Wolfson being on the Colombian payroll for nearly a year.
She tries to "distance herself" now??? Only after the secret double-dealings became public??? Gimme a break.
Posted by: Earl from Illinois | April 9, 2008 6:25 PM
Bill Clinton and George W Bush are right about one issue, that free trade is good for both the United States, as well as other countries. Hillary and Barack are both on the wrong side in opposing free trade. One of Bill Clinton's most positive legacies as president was his success in promoting freer trade in the world.
Given Hillary's history of flip-flops though, is she really for or against free trade agreements? She is the least trustworthy of the three presidential contenders. John McCain at least is usually true to his principles, even when wrong on issues such as health care, Iraq and taxes.
This leaves Barack, who although he is far from perfect, still maintains the best balance of integrity, vision and reasonably progressive positions on most issues.
Posted by: Koreen | April 9, 2008 6:24 PM
Once again -- Larry Sinclair failed his polygraph test.
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 9, 2008 6:16 PM
How can anyone support Barry Obama when he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?
Obama knew, but did nothing.
Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --
Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.
How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?
From the Chicago Sun Times:
For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.
It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.
Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.
But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....
The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.
"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''
Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....
Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.
Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:
* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.
* Six buildings are currently boarded up.
* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.
* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.
Posted by: Try Reading Some Reality Instead | April 9, 2008 6:14 PM
Regarding CLINTON BODY COUNT are you aware that most people don't read more than 2-3 lines of whatever drivel you post in an effort to make a point??
Posted by: ogdeeds ------------------ I suggest you google "The Clinton Chronicles" free video. Get yourself a soft drink/beer and some popcorn and enjoy!
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:34 PM
American Postal Workers Union announces its executive board voted to jump on the Land of Lincolner bandwagon Wednesday. Union president William Burrus: "We are most impressed by Sen. Obama's commitment to eradicating the undue influence of special interests in the political process..."
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:28 PM
The dawn of Eve? Heck - both Eve and Adam listened to the serpent and got a whole of trouble for their foolishness.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:27 PM
Referencing the list of Clinton Associations who met their untimely deaths. Please google, "The Clinton Chronicles" free audio. You'll be amazed!! And can perhaps explain why the Clintons are the way they are. I challenge every Clintonista to view this audio.
Posted by: NinaK | April 9, 2008 5:25 PM
The steamy piles in the latrine
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:25 PM
svreader is using other aliases to spew his pro-clinton poison.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:23 PM
Men betray. Men kill. Men commit genocide. We need women to rule the world, to bring peace, to bring serenity. Rise Hillary Rise! This the dawn of a new age... the Dawn of Eve. Hillary '08
Posted by: Sisters for Hillary | April 9, 2008 5:23 PM
Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.
But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).
I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.
Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.
"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:21 PM
The steamy piles in the latrine.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:21 PM
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. Naughty Girl. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...
Posted by: jacksmith | April 9, 2008 5:20 PM
"Sisters" like Hillary hire men to doing the dirty of of enslaving, raping and murdering to keep their hands (but not their souls) clean of wrong-doing.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:17 PM
Its clear that Obama supporters don't read.
They don't want reality to ruin their "high"
The more posts I see from Obama supporters.
The better I like the idea of bringing back the draft.
Posted by: Obama supporters don't' read | April 9, 2008 5:14 PM
I am voting for Obama so I don't get drafted to defend Columbian narco-terrorists in the name of trade agreement that send jobs away from the United States.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:13 PM
stephen k.....you might try going back to school to learn how to spell and construct a coherent sentence. THEN, try making your point.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:13 PM
Men murder, men enslave, men rape. It's time for a woman. Rise Hillary! Hillary '08
Posted by: Sisters for Hillary | April 9, 2008 5:13 PM
Regarding CLINTON BODY COUNT are you aware that most people don't read more than 2-3 lines of whatever drivel you post in an effort to make a point??
Posted by: ogdeeds | April 9, 2008 5:11 PM
hillary LIES and says whatever is expedient in the moment.
Last night I actually heard her say on NPR that delgates we appoint via our votes can apply their vote to the losing candidate thwarting our will as voters, and that the "problem" with that is we don't "understand the process"!?!
..We, the voters, don't understand the democratic process??? Perhaps we aren't able to recite arcane party rules. However, we know that when we vote for a candidate the delgate DAMN WELL BETTER cast their vote in accordance with their pledge to the leading vote winner, and our decision as the electorate.
Hillary wants the pledged delegates we awarded with the right to represent our votes in the primary to STEAL our vote, and VIOLATE our trust - and give them over to her campaign.
SHE SAID IT ON NPR!
Only a scumbag DC lawyer would think we would passively go along with her argument that party rules make it OK for a pledged delegate to thwart the will of the electorate, and choose the opposing candidate.
John Yoo - the "torture memo" DC lawyer thinks and acts like that!
PROOF hillary is unfit for the oval office!
Posted by: JBE | April 9, 2008 5:08 PM
Thanks for destroying the Democratic Party.
You've ruined our best chance in years.
We'd like to especially thank you for throwing Senator Clinton, President Clinton, and even Chelsea "under the bus"
You've shown real loyalty to the Democratic Party by doing that.
You've done a great job blocking the votes of Florida and Michigan.
Thanks for that great effort too.
If Obama gets the nomination, you'll have finished the job, and McCain will be the next President.
Like Barry Obama, you're sure you already know everything.
So why should we bother to keep paying to send you to school?
I hope he drafts each and every one of you and ships you right out to the front lines in Iraq.
Posted by: ThanksForDestroyingOurPartyKids | April 9, 2008 5:08 PM
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:03 PM
Euphemistically, the "Sisters for Hillary" and other extreme elements want Hillary because she is a "sister". Never mind Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth with no principles.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 5:02 PM
Bush ran a great campaign?
How good a President has he been?
Obama's a world class con-man.
He'd be a lousy President.
If he gets the nomination, say hello to President McCain.
And say goodbye to mainstream Democrats.
Posted by: BushRanAGreatCampaign | April 9, 2008 5:01 PM
There they go again..... to make her look tough,Bill lets her wag his tail. Reminds me of the cheating husband who gets caught and if the wife doesn''t leave him, he is forever in the dog house. Obviously if she disagrees with him now....surely she disagreed with him when he passed NAFTA. That is total bull. I have seen at least 3 videos where she is supporting NAFTA. Now she is losing because Obama is outspending her. He has the money. Regular people have given to his campaign. Look at Hillary..... she has to get money from Elton John. By the way foreign nationals are forbidden to give money to a campaign either directly or indirectly..... So Hillary is breaking the law... Does she care ? probably not.
Posted by: Ron | April 9, 2008 4:57 PM
Why in the world would anyone defend the Clintons in all their lies, secrets, mismanagement, scandal and funny money? Pathetic.
Posted by: Matt | April 9, 2008 4:57 PM
Senator Clinton can't even manage her own campaign or household (see Bill stray like a dog in heat); forget about her managing the seat of power in the free world!
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 4:55 PM
Men are vile pigs! Hillary '08!
Posted by: Sisters for Hillary | April 9, 2008 4:54 PM
It's sad, this is the best she can offer at the 11th hour. She's super smart, but she can't lead or manage. It's just that simple.
Posted by: Warren | April 9, 2008 4:52 PM
Why Do Blacks Support A Man Who Used Them? sounds like none other that professional shrill svreader, the proported Ph.D./CEO/Silicon Valley mogul. Line of discussion seems like the tired and vapid line of thought with no logical train of thought and weak analysis.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is caught between two grifters (one she married and other she hired) in the whole Columbia trade agreement for profit (Bill at $800K and Penn for $300K). Fine display of good judgment Senator Clinton has shown. Just like the Bosnia story, the Northern Ireland peace accords, the deceased and uninsured pregnant woman in Ohio and her other claims to "experience", Hillary's story on the Columbia free trade agreement has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.
Posted by: madmax | April 9, 2008 4:48 PM
>>>Barry Obama's stock and trade is empty words.
True. And with the media continuing to conceal damaging info about their media created rock$tar - better to go with a KNOWN, warts and all, rather than an UNKNOWN.
Obama and Wright are wrong for America!
Posted by: Frank, NC | April 9, 2008 4:47 PM
Posted by: Margaret, PA | April 9, 2008 4:42 PM
WaPo - only media to report Obama LYING about his father's connection to the Kennedy family in order to obtain the Kennedy endorsement!!
Obama was rewarded for LYING!
Our media's silence emulates communist Chinese media.
Obama is a hypocrite! He voted for the Peru and Oman free trade agreements.
David Sirota on Obama's Oman vote - http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=722
>>>>....Obama. What can I say? He told me in my interview with him that he was serious about demanding stronger labor, environmental and human rights protections in trade deals. But in his speech that attempted to justify his vote, he simply said that "I have been informed by the State Department that Oman has been a valuable partner for the United States." Put another way, he's telling us because the Bush political hacks at the State Department ignored that agency's own damning reports about Oman's record and told him to vote for the pact, he did. Sad.
Posted by: Margaret | April 9, 2008 4:39 PM
Why do Blacks support Barry Obama when he's made his money and his career out of screwing them?
Why don't they care that he let people of all colors freeze in slums in his district that Rezko got $100M to repair or replace?
Why should they support a man who doesn't care one bit about them?
Barry Obama is nothing but a high-class hustler.
His actions are really ugly.
Look at what he does, not what he says.
Barry Obama's stock and trade is empty words.
Barry's the biggest hustler in Chicago history.
Don't let him hustle you.
Posted by: Why Do Blacks Support A Man Who Used Them? | April 9, 2008 4:36 PM
Sen. Clintion's supporters blamed Sen. Obama for words that were spoken by Rev. Wright, saying he should have distance himself from Rev. Wright. Does the same rules apply to Sen. Clinton to distance herself from Bill because he supports the CFTA? Should she be blame for what her husband doing? YES!
Posted by: Lee, Georgia | April 9, 2008 4:21 PM
April 22nd... will have the same clot and/or "emphases" as JULY 4th... It will be Independence DAY...
Very Ironic that it will happen during the PA Elections...
Posted by: puddlescited | April 9, 2008 4:21 PM
You might want to edit your article for accuracy. All parties concerned stated that Goolsbee's NAFTA discussion with Canadian representatives was entirely consistent with Obama's public statements on trade. The part about posturing was not his words, and reflected excessive interpretation on the part of an analyst. In fact, the only direct quotes from Goolsbee's discussion are essentially identical to Obama's public statements. The Canadian government even formally apologized for their unintentional part in the resulting misrepresentation.
Posted by: Justin ----------------- Justin, the Canadian leaders also said it was a Clinton campaign team member who CALLED their office and told them not to worry about NAFTA, and that Hillary was ONLY opposing NAFTA for political reasons. Guess the Clintons have forgotten about THEIR story about Senator Obama and NAFTA was completely and categorically debunked---Hillary and her campaign are still talking about it. Yet another big lie from Hillary and her camp. Absolutely shameless!
Posted by: NinaK | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM
Hillary's Nasty Pastorate Posted March 19, 2008 | 01:11 PM (EST)
Read More: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Barbara Ehrenreich, Christian Conservatives, Fellowship, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Religion, Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright Barack Obama, Prayer Breakfast, Religion And Politics, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, The Family, Breaking Politics News
There's a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.
You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in MAY 2008
Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" -- their term -- and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family's home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs, and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners -- alone. The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of rightwing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:
During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.
At the heart of the Family's American branch is a collection of powerful rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family's young women's group. And, at the Family's frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.
Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.
What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including new age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal Rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.
Sharlet generously attributes Clinton's involvement to the underappreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define the Family's theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worship Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as the Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power -- cultivating it, building it, and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."
Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Now it's up to Clinton to explain -- or, better yet, renounce -- her longstanding connection with the fascist-leaning Family.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
Posted by: lv | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM
this tax could help pay off our deat and help iraq in this time of crisess. So i chalange hillary to talk about the issues and not her problums i am very independent and want to see rreal issue raised like corprate bulling things along the real problums her in america what do you have to say to that?
Posted by: stephen k | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM
I hear hillary dosn't have a clear stand on her veiws and so she fires people and how this herts her campain.Now why dosn't she talk abot things like taxing iraqi oil 50% for iraq and 50% of the tax to our det on a no permenet tax basess?
Posted by: stephen k | April 9, 2008 4:08 PM
Barry Obama's not black, he's a double stuffed Oreo.
He made his career screwing people of color by working for a syrian slumlord named Rezko.
Once Black America wakes up they'll dispise him.
He's the worst "uncle tom" in history.
He's a traitor to all people who believe that no one should take advantage of their own people.
A person weho does that is the lowest kind of rat there is.
Barry Obama is a traitor to every Black person in America.
He's a traitor to his entire race.
He let them freeze in unheated slums.
He didn't care one bit.
He never has, he never will.
He only cares about fame and glory for himself.
He's a hustler and a fraud.
No self-respecting person of color should want anything to do with Barry Obama.
Once they know the truth, nobody will.
Posted by: Obama is a con man | April 9, 2008 4:08 PM
Here is the latest body count that we have. All of these people have been connected with the Clintons in some form or another. We have not included any deaths that could not be verified or connected to the Clinton scandals. All deaths are listed chronologically by date. This list is current and accurate to the best of our knowledge as of January 13, 1999 August 1, 2000.
Susan Coleman: Rumors were circulating in Arkansas of an affair with Bill Clinton. She was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head at 7 1/2 months pregnant. Death was an apparent suicide.
Larry Guerrin: Was killed in February 1987 while investigating the INSLAW case.
Kevin Ives & Don Henry: Initial cause of death was reported to be the result of falling asleep on a railroad track in Arkansas on August 23, 1987. This ruling was reported by the State medical examiner Fahmy Malak. Later it was determined that Kevin died from a crushed skull prior to being placed on the tracks. Don had been stabbed in the back. Rumors indicate that they might have stumbled upon a Mena drug operation.
Keith Coney: Keith had information on the Ives/Henry deaths. Died in a motorcycle accident in July 1988 with unconfirmed reports of a high speed car chase.
Keith McKaskle: McKaskle has information on the Ives/Henry deaths. He was stabbed to death in November 1988.
Gregory Collins: Greg had information on the Ives/Henry deaths. He died from a gunshot wound to the face in January 1989.
Jeff Rhodes: He had information on the deaths of Ives, Henry & McKaskle. His burned body was found in a trash dump in April 1989. He died of a gunshot wound to the head and there was some body mutilation, leading to the probably speculation that he was tortured prior to being killed.
James Milam: Milam had information on the Ives & Henry deaths. He was decapitated. The state Medical examiner, Fahmy Malak, initially ruled death due to natural causes.
Richard Winters: Winters was a suspect in the deaths of Ives & Henry. He was killed in a "robbery" in July 1989 which was subsequently proven to be a setup.
Jordan Kettleson: Kettleson had information on the Ives & Henry deaths. He was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup in June 1990.
Alan Standorf: An employee of the National Security Agency in electronic intelligence. Standorf was a source of information for Danny Casalaro who was investigating INSLAW, BCCI, etc. Standorf's body was found in the backseat of a car at Washington National Airport on Jan 31, 1991.
Dennis Eisman: An attorney with information on INSLAW. Eisman was found shot to death on April 5, 1991.
Danny Casalaro: Danny was a free-lance reporter and writer who was investigating the "October Surprise", INSLAW and BCCI. Danny was found dead in a bathtub in a Sheraton Hotel room in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Danny was staying at the hotel while keeping appointments in the DC area pertinent to his investigation. He was found with his wrists slashed. At least one, and possibly both of his wrists were cut 10 times. All of his research materials were missing and have never been recovered.
Victor Raiser: The National Finance Co-Chair for "Clinton for President." He died in a airplane crash on July 30, 1992.
R. Montgomery Raiser: Also involved in the Clinton presidential campaign. He died in the same plane crash as Victor.
Paul Tully: Tulley was on the Democratic National Committee. He was found dead of unknown causes in his hotel room on September 24, 1992. No autopsy was ever allowed.
Ian Spiro: Spiro had supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings on the INSLAW case. His wife and 3 children were found murdered on November 1, 1992 in their home. They all died of gunshot wounds to the head. Ian's body was found several days later in a parked car in the Borego Desert. Cause of death? The ingestion of cyanide. FBI report indicated that Ian had murdered his family and then committed suicide.
Paula Gober: A Clinton speech writer. She died in a car accident on December 9, 1992 with no known witnesses.
Jim Wilhite: Wilhite was an associate of Mack McClarty's former firm. Wilhite died in a skiing accident on December 21, 1992. He also had extensive ties to Clinton with whom he visited by telephone just hours before his death.
Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Todd McKeahan & Conway LeBleu: Died Feburary 28, 1993 by gunfire at Waco. All four were examined by a pathologist and died from identical wounds to the left temple. All four had been body guards for Bill Clinton, three while campaigning for President and when he was Governor of Arkansas.They also were the ONLY 4 BATF agents killed at Waco.
Sgt. Brian Haney, Sgt. Tim Sabel, Maj. William Barkley, Capt. Scott Reynolds: Died: May 19, 1993 - All four men died when their helicopter crashed in the woods near Quantico, Va. - Reporters were barred from the site, and the head of the fire department responding to the crash described it by saying, "Security was tight," with "lots of Marines with guns." A videotape made by a firefighter was seized by the Marines. All four men had escorted Clinton on his flight to the carrier Roosevelt shortly before their deaths.
John Crawford: An attorney with information on INSLAW. He died from a heart attack in Tacoma in April of 1993.
John Wilson: Found dead from an apparent hanging suicide on May 18, 1993. He was a former Washington DC council member and claimed to have info on Whitewater.
Paul Wilcher: A lawyer who was investigating drug running out of Mena, Arkansas and who also sought to expose the "October Surprise", BCCI and INSLAW. He was found in his Washington DC apartment dead of unknown causes on June 22, 1993.
Vincent Foster: A White House deputy counsel and long-time personal friend of Bill and Hillary's. Found on July 20, 1993, dead of a gunshot wound to the mouth -- a death ruled suicide. Many different theories on this case! Readers are encouraged to read our report in Strange Deaths.
Jon Parnell Walker: An investigator for the RTC who was looking into the linkage between the Whitewater and Madison S&L bankruptcy. Walker "fell" from the top of the Lincoln Towers Building.
Stanley Heard & Steven Dickson: They were members of the Clinton health care advisory committee. They died in a plane crash on September 10, 1993.
Jerry Luther Parks: Parks was the Chief of Security for Clinton's national campaign headquarters in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car on September 26, 1993 near the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10 west of Little Rock. Parks was shot through the rear window of his car. The assailant then pulled around to the driver's side of Park's car and shot him three more times with a 9mm pistol. His family reported that shortly before his death, they were being followed by unknown persons, and their home had been broken into (despite a top quality alarm system). Parks had been compiling a dossier on Clinton's illicit activities. The dossier was stolen.
Ed Willey: A Clinton fundraiser. He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on November 30, 1993. His death came the same day his wife, Kathleen, was sexually assaulted in the White House by Bill Clinton.
Gandy Baugh: Baugh was Lasater's attorney and committed suicide on January 8, 1994. Baugh's partner committed suicide exactly one month later on February 8, 1994.
Herschell Friday: A member of the presidential campaign finance committee. He died in an airplane explosion on March 1, 1994.
Ronald Rogers: Rogers died on March 3, 1994 just prior to releasing sensitive information to a London newspaper. Cause of death? Undetermined.
Kathy Furguson: A 38 year old hospital worker whose ex-husband is a co- defendant in the Paula Jones sexual harassment law suit. She had information supporting Paula Jone's allegations. She died of an apparent suicide on May 11, 1994 from a gunshot wound to the head.
Bill Shelton: Shelton was an Arkansas police officer and was found dead as an apparent suicide on kathy Ferguson's grave (Kathy was his girl friend), on June 12, 1994. This "suicide" was the result of a gunshot wound to the back of the head.
Stanley Huggins: Huggins, 46, was a principal in a Memphis law firm which headed a 1987 investigation into the loan practices of Madison Guaranty S&L. Stanley died in Delaware in July 1994 -- reported cause of death was viral pneumonia.
Paul Olson: A Federal witness in investigations to drug money corruption in Chicago politics, Paul had just finished 2 days of FBI interviews when his plane ride home crashed, killing Paul and 130 others on Sept 8 1994. The Sept. 15, 1994 Tempe Tribune newspaper reported that the FBI suspected that a bomb had brought down the airplane.
Calvin Walraven: 24 year on Walraven was a key witness against Jocelyn Elder's son's drug case. Walraven was found dead in his apartment with a gunshot wound to the head. Tim Hover, a Little Rock police spokesman says no foul play is suspected.
Alan G. Whicher: Oversaw Clinton's Secret Service detail. In October 1994 Whicher was transferred to the Secret Service field office in the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Whatever warning was given to the BATF agents in that building did not reach Alan Whicher, who died in the bomb blast of April 19th 1995.
Duane Garrett: Died July 26, 1995-A lawyer and a talk show host for KGO-AM in San Fransisco, Duane was the campaign finance chairman for Diane Fienstien's run for the senate, and was a friend and fundraiser for Al Gore. Garrett was under investigation for defrauding investors in Garrett's failed sports memorabilia venture. There was talk of a deal to evade prosecution. On July 26th, Garrett canceled an afternoon meeting with his lawyer because he had to meet some people at the San Fransisco airport. Three hours later he was found floating in the bay under the Golden Gate Bridge.
Ron Brown:. The Commerce Secretary died on April 3, 1996, in an Air Force jet carrying Brown and 34 others, including 14 business executives on a trade mission to Croatia, crashed into a mountainside. The Air Force, in a 22-volume report issued in June of 1996, confirmed its initial judgment that the crash resulted from pilot errors and faulty navigation equipment At the time of Brown's death, Independent Counsel Daniel Pearson was seeking to determine whether Brown had engaged in several sham financial transactions with longtime business partner Nolanda Hill shortly before he became secretary of commerce.
Charles Meissner: died: UNK - Following Ron Brown's death, John Huang was placed on a Commerce Department contract that allowed him to retain his security clearance by Charles Meissner. Shortly thereafter, Meissner died in the crash of a small plane. He was an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Economic Policy.
William Colby: Retired CIA director was found dead on May 6,1996 after his wife reported him missing on April 27,1996. Apparently, Colby decided to go on a impromptu canoeing excursion and never returned. Colby who had just started writing for Strategic Investment newsletter, worried many in the intelligent community. Colby's past history of divulging CIA secrets in the past were well known. Strategic Investor had covered the Vince Foster suicide and had hired handwriting experts to review Foster's suicide note.
Admiral Jeremy Boorda: Died on May 16,1996 after he went home for lunch and decided to shoot himself in the chest (by one report, twice) rather than be interviewed by Newsweek magazine that afternoon. Explanations for Boorda's suicide focused on a claim that he was embarrassed over two "Valor" pins he was not authorized to wear.
Lance Herndon: Herndon a 41 year old computer specialist and a prominent entrepreneur who received a presidential appointment in 1995 died August 10, 1996 under suspicious circumstances. He appeared to have died from a blow to the head. Police said no weapons were found at his mansion, adding that Mr. Herndon had not been shot or stabbed and there was no evidence of forced entry or theft.
Neil Moody: Died -August 25, 1996 Following Vincent Foster's murder, Lisa Foster married James Moody, a judge in Arkansas, on Jan 1, 1996. Near the time Susan McDougal first went to jail for contempt, Judge Moor's son, Neil died in a car crash. There were other reports that Neil Moody had discovered something very unsettling among his stepmother's private papers and was threatening to go public with it just prior to the beginning of the Democratic National Convention. He was alleged to have been talking to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post about a blockbuster story. Witnesses said they saw Neil Moody sitting in his car arguing with another person just prior to His car suddenly speeding off out of control and hitting a brick wall.
Barbara Wise: Wise a 14-year Commerce Department employee found dead and partially naked in her office following a long weekend. She worked in the same section as John Huang. Officially, she is said to have died of natural causes.
Doug Adams: Died January 7, 1997- A lawyer in Arkansas who got involved trying to help the people who were being swindled out of their life savings. Adams was found in his vehicle with a gunshot wound to his head in a Springfield Mo. hospital parking lot.
Mary C. Mahoney: 25, murdered at the Georgetown Starbuck's coffee bar over the 4th of July '97 weekend. She was a former White House intern who worked with John Huang. Apparently she knew Monica Lewinsky and her sexual encounters with Bill Clinton. Although not verified, it has been said that Lewinsky told Linda Tripp that she did not want to end up like Mahoney.
Ronald Miller: Suddenly took ill on October 3rd,1997 and steadily worsened until his death 9 days later. (This pattern fits Ricin poisoning.) Owing to the strangeness of the illness, doctors at the Integris Baptist Medical Center referred the matter to the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner's Office. The Oklahoma State Medical Examiner's Office promptly ran tests on samples of Ron Miller's blood, but has refused to release the results or even to confirm that the tests were ever completed.
Had been investigated by authorities over the sale of his company, Gage Corp. to Dynamic Energy Resources, Inc. was the man who tape recorded Gene and Nora Lum and turned those tapes (and other records) over to congressional oversight investigators. The Lums were sentenced to prison for campaign finance violations, using "straw donors" to conceal the size of their contributions to various candidates. Indeed, Dynamic Energy Resources, Inc. had hired Ron Brown's son Michael solely for the purpose of funneling $60,000 through him to the Commerce Secretary, according to Nolanda Hill's testimony.
Sandy Hume: On Sunday, February 22nd, 1998, Sandy Hume, the 28 year old son of journalist Britt Hume, was reportedly found dead in his Arlington, Virginia home. Aside from the statement that this was an "apparent" suicide, there remains in place a total media blackout on this story, possibly out of concern that the actual facts will not withstand public scrutiny. Worked for Hill magazine, about Congress for Congress.
Jim McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally, sent to prison for eighteen felony convictions. A key whitewater witness, dies of a heart attack on March, 8 1998. As of this writing allegations that he was given an injection of the diuretic lasix has not been denied or confirmed. Died on March 8, 1998
Johnny Lawhon: 29, died March 29, 1998- The Arkansas transmission specialist who discovered a pile of Whitewater documents in the trunk of an abandoned car on his property and turned them over to Starr, was killed in a car wreck two weeks after the McDougal death.. Details of the "accident" have been sketchy -- even from the local Little Rock newspaper.
Charles Wilbourne Miller: 63, was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head on November 17, 1998 in a shallow pit about 300 yards from his ranch house near Little Rock. Police found a .410 gauge shotgun near Miller's body and a Ruger .357-caliber revolver submerged in water. Investigators concluded the Ruger was the weapon used by Miller to kill himself. Yet, two rounds in the handgun's cylinder had been spent.
He had long served as executive vice president and member of the board of directors for a company called Alltel and was deeply involved in his own software engineering company until the day he died. Alltel is the successor to Jackson Stephens' Systematics, the company that provided the software for the White House's "Big Brother" data base system and that was behind the administration's plan to develop the secret computer "Clipper" chip to bug every phone, fax and email transmission in America.
Carlos Ghigliotti: 42, was found dead in his home just outside of Washington D.C. on April 28, 2000. There was no sign of a break-in or struggle at the firm of Infrared Technology where the badly decomposed body of Ghigliotti was found. Ghigliotti had not been seen for several weeks.
Ghigliotti, a thermal imaging analyst hired by the House Government Reform Committee to review tape of the siege, said he determined the FBI fired shots on April 19, 1993. The FBI has explained the light bursts on infrared footage as reflections of sun rays on shards of glass or other debris that littered the scene.
"I conclude this based on the groundview videotapes taken from several different angles simultaneously and based on the overhead thermal tape," Ghigliotti told The Washington Post last October. "The gunfire from the ground is there, without a doubt."
Ghigliotti said the tapes also confirm the Davidians fired repeatedly at FBI agents during the assault, which ended when flames raced through the compound. About 80 Branch Davidians perished that day, some from the fire, others from gunshot wounds.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the congressional committee chaired by Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., said that police found the business card of a committee investigator in Ghigliotti's office. Corallo said Ghigliotti's work for the committee ended some time ago.
Tony Moser: 41, was killed as he crossed a street in Pine Bluff, Ark on on June 10, 2000. Killed 10 days after being named a columnist for the Democrat-Gazette newspaper and two days after penning a stinging indictment of political corruption in Little Rock.
Police have concluded that no charges will be filed against the unnamed driver of a 1995 Chevrolet pickup, which hit Moser as he was walking alone in the middle of unlit Rhinehart Road about 10:10 p.m
Police say they have ruled out foul play and will file no charges against the driver because he was not intoxicated and there was no sign of excessive speed.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Mail this article to a friend(s) in two clicks!
Updated August 1, 2000 Ether Zone Online . Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone.
We invite your comments on this article in our forum!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
Posted by: lv | April 9, 2008 4:06 PM
Hillary can't bring "change" because she already had eight years in the White House and brought no change whatever. In those days her husband pushed NAFTA, and she also held five meeting to support NAFTA, but now she is against it. She voted for Bush'd Iraq war, and now she is against it. Is that change? Or is it just the opportunism of a cold-blooded politician who will say anything to get your vote?
Posted by: bodo | April 9, 2008 4:03 PM
change what change in Hillary same old thing we know what we get with her , Bill and more interns , between what they stole when they left white house they are trailor trash
Posted by: LV | April 9, 2008 4:02 PM
Obama isn't going to save anyone from anything. He is completely unqualified to be president. He claims to be different but he isn't. He is a liar and a hypocrite and has NO chance of winning in the general election if he somehow does manage to hold on to the election. Senator Clinton is the only one of the three who can bring this country back to where we should be. Vote Clinton.
Posted by: Tobias ----------------- Typical Clintonistas' drivel. America cannot expect any better from her either. She can't even run a good campaign: Keeps changing her message, her personality, and her persona; consistently lies to the public; cannot lead or manage her campaign staff; cannot manages her campaign funds wisely or functionally. Bill suffered from diarrhea of the mouth and an uncontrolled temper; says she's against NAFTA, yet Bill is VERY PRO NAFTA and her head strategist is making deals with the Colombia Ambassador to push NAFTA. She has based her run for the President on fraudulant claims to experience and outright lies at every turn. MOST Americans are finally realizing what a fraud Hillary has been and continues to be. It's gotten to the point where the majority of us cannot and do not believe her drivel.
Guess you and most of Hillary's supporters live in the same world of "make believe" in which Hillary lives.
Posted by: NinaK | April 9, 2008 4:02 PM
Hope he puts her out of her misery in PA.
Posted by: lvin Pennsylvania | April 9, 2008 3:59 PM
Hillary resume LIAR,CROOK,HORMONEL, BI POLAR.SNEEKY,just a horable person
Posted by: Lorna | April 9, 2008 3:57 PM
Both Hillary and BJ Clinton suggested if you vote for Hillary, you are getting 2 for 1. It looks like you will be getting one minus one which is a Big Fat ZerO.
Posted by: Jellybean | April 9, 2008 3:51 PM
LARRY SINCLAIR IS A NUT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SEE THE VIDIO THAT THE MAN HAS SCREWSMISSING
Posted by: lc | April 9, 2008 3:49 PM
People constantly emphasize change as a theme for Obama. What change he is going to bring, I have no idea. Obama people blindly support this guy and I have no idea other than it is fashionable to be black these days. Every body has an opinion and it goes for many of the posts here. We should not deny that husband and wife would have dispute over certain policies and Clintons are no different. Money he has gotten representing Colombia contingent is Bill's business. Obama people only know how to criticize but when it comes to their candidate, they don't ask what position he is taking. For example, Obama states that he agrees with both side with respect to Bush attending the opening ceremony of the Olympic games. Obama people don't ask their candidate to have some backbone. They just know he is going to bring this change that nobody knows.
Posted by: Jim Richmond | April 9, 2008 3:48 PM
Hey Hillary..... No Conflict of interest, that's a good one...."Wink, Wink".
Posted by: puddlescited | April 9, 2008 3:47 PM
Unsurprisingly, Sen. Clinton is trying to have it both ways: oppose the Colombia FTA while benefiting from the advice from Mark Penn and the dollars from Bill Clinton's involvement with the Colombian lobby. Soon (two weeks from now) voters will have a chance to comment on the hypocrisy that is now revealed as central to the characters of both Clintons.
We do not need nor want Hillary Clinton as president; her incompetence coupled with her fundamental dishonesty disqualifies her for the job.
Posted by: dee | April 9, 2008 3:42 PM
How naive do Ms. Clinton think the American Voters are... She stepped away from him...means what?
When the check is cashed... she will denounce the spending?
Ps... How is Penn doing today?
Posted by: puddlescited | April 9, 2008 3:40 PM
A free trade deal should not be entered into for national security or any other non-economic reason. Its merits should be judged solely on the question of whether it is good for the US economy or not. In the case of Columbia,as it is for other developing countries, the free trade agreement will amount to this: they will export cheap goods to us, we will export jobs and technology to them.
Posted by: obeserver | April 9, 2008 3:38 PM
A prelude to the melodramatized Hill/Bill spats that a return engagement at the White House would stage...if this dysfunctional duo were given a return ticket?
Posted by: FirstMouse | April 9, 2008 3:37 PM
Toby: "Obama isn't going to save anyone from anything. He is completely unqualified to be president. He claims to be different but he isn't. He is a liar and a hypocrite and has NO chance of winning in the general election if he somehow does manage to hold on to the election. Senator Clinton is the only one of the three who can bring this country back to where we should be. Vote Clinton."
Clinton Campaign Staffer: Ok, you just keep repeating that to yourself Toby 1000 more times until you actually believe it at which point we will train you on how to cut and paste "you might be an idiot" prop I mean communications and then assign you to a message board. Great Job!
Posted by: UncleRemus | April 9, 2008 3:36 PM
I am with the top responder, this is why they wanted her to win in February -- Penn, Wolfson and Bill-o and you really think Hillary is against it???
What the prolonged primary has proved is that Hillary cannot run a campaign much less a country -- I hope Penn is a blow-out and Obama can get into preparing for the general election. What we are seeing is another Bush incompetence in Dems clothes. No way -- people want change.
Posted by: paulet | April 9, 2008 3:33 PM
This is classic politics. Colombia's exports to USA already have been under a duty free status for the last years. The TLC will made them permanent and not dependable to a law. The signature of a TLC with Colombia won't change much to the actual conditions for Colombia exports, but it will lower the duties to USA exports to Colombia. If it will be analyze only from an economic view the TLC benefits the USA. But this is politics, Obama talks about union rights, in Colombia there are unions, big ones, the crimes against them had lower to historic figures in the last years, and by the way will Obama stop the trade with China??? where there's even child slavery??. Clinton talks abouy jobs, so? the Colombia workhand is not the most cheap in the world, why will a big industry go to Colombia if they can go to India or China, what will clinton do about this?. It's sad how politics play with people ideas, the take advantages of people ignorance in some areas, the use exageration to touch people hearts, it doesn´t matter that it trashes the most closest ally in south america, not from now but many years. Guess which was the only country in south america that send troops to the Korea war?. This is a way to loose an ally.
Posted by: Jose Guti | April 9, 2008 3:32 PM
So, she runs on how good the economic record of the Clinton years was--but she disagrees with Bill on trade. Hmmmmm? Maybe....just, maybe those good economic years didn't have anything to do with Hillary. There goes another claim to experience
Posted by: Sueb2 | April 9, 2008 3:17 PM
Many of her supporters and former Clinton administration aides like Leon Panetta also support this Colombian deal. In fact her campaign guy, Wolfson, company (which he is still getting money from) is working for the Columbians too, according to the NY Times. So how do we believe that she isn't flip-flopping on this? We know she lobbied for NAFTA 5 times for its passage from her released schedules, though she claims that privately she didn't believe in what she was saying about it. How can we trust her? I don't.
Posted by: goldie2 | April 9, 2008 3:17 PM
Columbia is a city in Maryland.
We are talking about COLOMBIA
Posted by: Colombia | April 9, 2008 3:16 PM
You might want to edit your article for accuracy. All parties concerned stated that Goolsbee's NAFTA discussion with Canadian representatives was entirely consistent with Obama's public statements on trade. The part about posturing was not his words, and reflected excessive interpretation on the part of an analyst. In fact, the only direct quotes from Goolsbee's discussion are essentially identical to Obama's public statements. The Canadian government even formally apologized for their unintentional part in the resulting misrepresentation.
Posted by: Justin | April 9, 2008 3:16 PM
Hillary must not be as big a supporter of coke dealers as Bill. How many drug dealers did Slick Willy pardon in his final hours as president? One of them was a family member. These people are SO corrupt. Free trade with Columbia. Don't make me laugh.
Posted by: LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder | April 9, 2008 3:13 PM
I'd like to see how much money coming from Colombia was donated to the Clinton foundation and/or the Clinton library.
Posted by: andrico | April 9, 2008 3:12 PM
Fire your husband Hillary. He's been more problematic than helpful. Fire him, fire Penn, fire all the campaign advisors who are men. Men are vile, disgusting pigs. Hillary '08
Posted by: Sisters for Hillary | April 9, 2008 3:12 PM
Hillary must not be as big a support of the coke dealers as Bill. How many drug dealers did Slick Willy pardon in his final hours as president? One of them was a family member. These people are SO corrupt.
Posted by: LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder | April 9, 2008 3:11 PM
Obama isn't going to save anyone from anything. He is completely unqualified to be president. He claims to be different but he isn't. He is a liar and a hypocrite and has NO chance of winning in the general election if he somehow does manage to hold on to the election. Senator Clinton is the only one of the three who can bring this country back to where we should be. Vote Clinton.
Posted by: Tobias | April 9, 2008 3:11 PM
Well, shame on you Hillary Clinton! You cannot pick and choose which parts of your husband's resume to plagarize!!
Posted by: 86'er | April 9, 2008 3:00 PM
I don't think the Clintons or Mark Penn hold the people in America in very high regard as I relates to our ability to see the truth. We would be idiots to buy into their convoluted meanderings. Further attempts to manipulate can be seen in their current story, today, that they also disagree on Bush attending the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics. What drivel!
Posted by: Cheryl | April 9, 2008 2:43 PM
comment by: Posted by: Andy | April 9, 2008 2:22 PM
Right. Go on and write lines for Rush Limbaugh!(or was this sarcasm?)
It doesn't matter which topic, Hillary Clinton's campaign doesn't have the upper hand on any of the issues. Trade: See above. Iraq war: Her vote will always stick to her. Her claim at experience earned her 4 Pinocchios. She can't even bowle better than Obama, hasn't she been telling a tall tale about bowling in Camp David too? Honesty: Forget it.
Give your thoughts on why the Clinton campaign imploded here:
Posted by: old_europe | April 9, 2008 2:37 PM
It is entirely consistent for Sen. Clinton to oppose the Columbia Free Trade Act, political expediency is the order of the day in the Clinton camp and to win PA she better fight free trade. For those who have followed this torrid tale since Iowa they have seen the message from the Clinton Campaign change from venue to venue as they have sought out the hot buttons for the local electorate. They play well to the crowd that believes that government's role is to transfer wealth from the undeserving rich to the deserving special interest. She loves to promise that government will be personal: personal in that it will make sure that more government means more for you. Obama seems fresh to me because, for whatever his politics, his policies seem driven by convictions, his message stays consistent because he isn't just trying to "win the election" but rather to change the country and he sincerely believes that he knows how to do it. I believe if you want to see a Dem in the white house in 2009, you should vote for Obama. Hillary has shown over and over again that she loses 2-3% points a week in a protracted battle. Even is McCain spots her 5%, it will erode in less than a month.
Posted by: cwsinNH | April 9, 2008 2:33 PM
In his story Larry Sinclair claimed that he had performed a homosexual act with Obama while using illegal drugs in 1999. He has also filed a lawsuit against the DNC and the Obama camp...
Posted by: Andy | April 9, 2008 2:22 PM
I heard Obama is also responsible for the Holocaust, the Kennedy assassination, and the fake moon landing.
Congratulations andy! You just won the Most Vile Stupid Troll of the Day Award.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 2:29 PM
Team Clinton - so confusing!
Now let me see if I understand this correctly. Mark Penn 'resigns' from the Clinton campaign as Chief Strategist but "Mark and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc, will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign" according to Maggie Williams, Team Clinton Campaign Manager. In other words nothing changes!
Then there is the matter of Columbia. Ex-President Clinton seemingly supports the Free Trade Agreement (he would, of course having accepted $800,000 from Gold Service International, a Bogota-based business development group, for assorted appearances including Columbia) but Mrs Clinton now opposes it.
Are we seriously to believe anything the Clintons say at all now? All integrity and credibility has long since evaporated. Their entire campaign appears shallow, deceitful and merely any statement, any time to suit moment.
Posted by: Geoffrey | April 9, 2008 2:29 PM
Oh, that's what it takes for her to cut loose from him. As soon as her ambitions are cut short he better beware?
Posted by: old_europe | April 9, 2008 2:28 PM
No conflicts-of-interest, says Hillary. Huh, then why did she demote Penn if there was no conflict of interest? What is the difference between Penn's position and Bill's position, other than Bill got $500K more?
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 2:26 PM
|
PITTSBURGH, Pa. -- In the wake of reports that both her husband and former chief strategist support expanded trade relations with Colombia, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said again on Wednesday that she opposes the pending free trade agreement -- and that there is no conflict within her campaign on the subject. --Anne E. Kornblut
| 335.087719 | 0.982456 | 51.22807 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803544.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803544.html
|
Kitchen Diplomacy
|
2008041019
|
Waiting for the North Korean ambassador to show up for dinner, Bobby Egan, who is the world's only barbecue chef/self-appointed unofficial American ambassador to rogue nations, launches into an impassioned monologue on why he, Bobby Egan, is a better diplomat than America's real diplomats.
"You couldn't put Condoleezza Rice or Madeleine Albright on a level with me in dealing with the Koreans," he says. "They've never even been in a fistfight. I've been in fistfights -- including with the Koreans. These are tough guys. Condoleezza Rice is a piano p layer. She's not a rugged, all-American boy."
Egan keeps peeking out the window of Cubby's, his barbecue joint, looking for North Korea's ambassador, Pak Gil Yon. Pak isn't here yet so Egan hops up on a chair to point out some souvenirs of his bizarre career as a diplomat without portfolio.
He points out a photo of himself sitting in a limo with Nizar Hamdoun, who was Saddam Hussein's ambassador to the United Nations. They were on their way to a Giants game.
"Hamdoun was a great, great guy," Egan says. "His daughter took karate lessons with my daughter."
He points to a picture of himself on a boat with a group of Korean men holding big, dead fish. "This is the first time I took the North Koreans fishing," Egan says. "The FBI didn't want me to take them. I said, 'This is the United States of America -- I need your permission to go fishing ?' We caught a ton of fish, and when we came back to the dock, the FBI was taking pictures so I said, 'Let's show 'em what we caught!' "
What do Egan's customers make of these pictures of the owner entertaining diplomats from two-thirds of the "axis of evil"?
"They don't care," he says. "Most Americans understand that as much as the Koreans are full of [bleep], so is our own government."
Intense, garrulous and profane, Egan, 50, looks and sounds like an extra in "The Sopranos." Now, he steps off the chair and bounds into the kitchen. Cubby's is closed today, but a few cooks are whipping up a private barbecue banquet for Pak and his entourage. Egan issues a few orders to his crew, then glances out a window and spots the Koreans in the parking lot.
"They're here," he says. "Get in the back!"
North Koreans don't like reporters, Egan explains, as he hustles his interviewer into a tiny office behind the kitchen. He fiddles with a TV that sits on the desk, behind a crucifix. A picture appears -- a silent, closed-circuit TV image of the Koreans entering Cubby's dining room. Egan leaves the office, closing the door.
|
Bobby Egan runs a barbecue restaurant in Hackensack, N.J. He's also a self-appointed, unofficial ambassador to North Korea.
| 24.208333 | 0.791667 | 1.291667 |
medium
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040900902.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040900902.html
|
7 Dead After Pro-Musharraf Lawyers Clash With Opponents in Pakistan
|
2008041019
|
A building near Karachi's courts was set ablaze, and five charred bodies were found inside, said police officer Syed Sulaiman. Two people died of gunshot wounds, including a paramedic whose ambulance came under fire while crew members were trying to help the injured.
The trouble began when a group of lawyers staged a rally in downtown Karachi to protest an assault the previous day on a former cabinet member aligned with President Pervez Musharraf. The protesters said they came under attack by lawyers aligned with the new coalition government, which has vowed to curb Musharraf's powers.
It was not immediately clear how the trouble spread or who was responsible for the arson and shooting, which occurred mainly in a stronghold of the pro-Musharraf Muttahida Quami Movement party.
The violence Wednesday is likely to test the stability of Pakistan's new government, which took office after routing Musharraf's allies in February parliamentary elections. The government is considering how to reduce the U.S.-allied president's authority and cement Pakistan's return to democracy after eight years of military rule.
It was also the second time that violence tarnished a lawyers' movement that led months of protests against Musharraf, galvanizing his opponents and contributing to the defeat of his allies in the elections.
On Tuesday, protesters -- including black-suited lawyers -- besieged former cabinet minister Sher Afgan Niazi, beating him as he emerged from his office. Police hurried Niazi into an ambulance, which was stoned and had its ignition key stolen, forcing security forces to push it from the scene.
Lawyers allied with the Muttahida Quami Movement were protesting the assault on Niazi when the violence erupted in Karachi. "Our lawyers were staging a peaceful demonstration when the so-called lawyers of the Karachi Bar Association attacked our lawyers," party leader Hyder Rizvi said.
At least eight people were injured in the initial brawl, police officer Tahir Naveed said. A 7-year-old child was being treated for a bullet wound to the head, according to Farhan Jokhio, a doctor at a city hospital.
Dozens of cars and buses were torched. Paramilitary forces in body armor and security officers with automatic weapons patrolled the streets. Vendors shuttered shops, and there was little traffic.
|
KARACHI, Pakistan, April 9 -- Clashes between government opponents and supporters set off rioting in Pakistan's largest city Wednesday, leaving seven people dead in the worst outburst of political violence since a new government took office March 25.
| 9.860465 | 0.604651 | 0.837209 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803275.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803275.html
|
Taking On the President's Family
|
2008041019
|
He could easily be mistaken for a party-going university student. The compound where his home is located includes a pool and a disco, and beer flows freely for friends who visit.
But the festive atmosphere belies Azuaje's seriousness, as well as the fact that he has become a political menace. The 31-year-old congressman, who is running for governor in this cattle-producing state, is taking on Venezuela's most famous family: that of President Hugo Chávez.
Azuaje has alleged that four of the president's brothers and their father, Hugo de los Reyes Chávez, who is currently governor, have made a personal fiefdom of this state, which, like the capital, is called Barinas. The congressman is among a host of critics who say members of the Chávez family have been buying large farms and hiding their stakes in them, possibly because the properties were purchased with public funds.
"The president's brothers act like they're the owners of Barinas," said Azuaje, whose remarks have been particularly stinging because he is a member of the president's ruling party. "They act like this is a hacienda that belongs to them."
Such accusations have shined a light on what opposition groups and some government officials call a plague of graft tarnishing Chávez's self-styled revolution. Though the president has frequently railed against corruption in governments that preceded his, accusations of malfeasance are increasingly dogging those close to him.
Last week, the National Assembly approved an investigation into the farms and how they were acquired.
One of the main targets of the accusations is the president's brother Argenis, who is secretary of state in Barinas. Argenis has vigorously defended himself and his brothers against the allegations. He said they did not even own many of the farms that were singled out, let alone acquire them illegally.
"This mister has said he has lots of proof, but he has not presented it," Argenis Chávez said in an interview, referring to Azuaje. "We say investigate, investigate."
Transparency International, a group that classifies and combats corruption worldwide, lists Venezuela as among the world's most corrupt and least transparent countries. And inside Chávez's movement, officials say, there is an increasingly heated debate over the reach of corruption and what to do about it.
The best-known personage to speak out against corruption is Luis Tascón, who is notorious among opposition groups for having published the names of Venezuelans who voted against the president in a 2004 referendum. Tascón was recently ousted from the president's party after leveling corruption charges at the state oil company and against several officials in Chávez's inner circle.
"We've done the political revolution, but not an administrative revolution," said Tascón, sitting in his small apartment in Caracas, the nation's capital. "It's the same state as always, a state that is corrupt and without controls."
|
World news headlines from the Washington Post,including international news and opinion from Africa,North/South America,Asia,Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather,news in Spanish,interactive maps,daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage.
| 12.282609 | 0.413043 | 0.456522 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/03/DI2008040302142.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/03/DI2008040302142.html
|
Home Front: Spring Cleaning, Curb Appeal, and Bathroom Vanities
|
2008041019
|
Every week, the Washington Post Home staff talks about various ways to improve your home. Find out about new home trends, upcoming antique shows and a variety of how-to help.
Staff writers Annie Groer and Jura Koncius take on all things home related.
You may also browse an archive of previous Home Front discussions.
Annie Groer: Good morning all....I'm solo today as Jura and the whole staff are at what we think will be a cool, but small, Design House in Georgetown to benefit Children's Hospital. This is the inaugural year. Click on www.DCDesignHouse.com for details. It's at 3014 P St NW. And read those parking signs carefully when you come.
washingtonpost.com: Time to Clean (Post Home section, April 10)
Annie Groer: Here it is...Read it and dust!
Alexandria, Va.: Another great "home-made" cleaner is rubbing alcohol and water. Great with everything. Appreciate all you both do... thanks a bunch!
Annie Groer: Thanks a bunch. I didn't have enough space to write about lemon juice and hydrogen peroxide as good cleaners either.
Will post today's mega-piece I wrote on cleaning...
Annie Groer: here it is...
Bugs in the Dishwasher: A few weeks ago, someone wrote in about having bugs in their dishwasher. We had the same problem so I asked my uncle, who's an exterminator, how to get rid of them.
Apparently, there is a small space between my dishwasher and my counter. It's warm and moist - a perfect home for bugs. (Ewwww!) We bought Combat Gel and squeezed it in the space between the dishwasher and the counter and we haven't had a bug since. It works!
Annie Groer: Go Uncle Plumber. And you're right. Yuck.
Vienna, Va.: I loved today's House Calls. Their deck is nothing like ours, but the designer's suggestions nonetheless gave me some good ideas.
washingtonpost.com: Today's House Calls (Post Home Section, April 10)
Annie Groer: We on the Home Staff all loved today's House Calls. And since the sun is shining, we all want to go hang out in such a place.
Arlington, Va.: Any alternative exterior colors to a very dark red brick house? The previous owner had cream trim/siding and brown shutters. I'm looking for something a little more colorful. I've driven around and all I ever seem to see on that same dark brick is black shutters or that same current colors. Currently the windows are white and will probably need to stay that way.
Annie Groer: How about a rich, dark green? Benjamin Moore's Historic Colors include Lafayette Green and the slightly sprucey-r (this cannot be a word but you know what I mean)shade called Silver Pine. Or consider some of Ben's historic blues, such as Buckland Blue or Philipsburg Blue, both of which a have a shot of gray.
Speed Cleaning: I had to speed clean one night this week when my husband called at 6:00 to let me know our realtor was coming by around 8:00 to have us sign some paperwork. After all the complaining I did about the lack of cleanliness in many of the homes we looked at with him, I did not want him to see our place looking horrible. Since we're moving soon, we've been neglecting the cleaning lately to focus on packing and downsizing "stuff," so our place had gotten pretty bad. Balls of cat hair, a thick layer of dust everywhere, cat hair on the sofa, junk laying around, dirty kitchen and bathroom. In two hours, we had to clean the house, as well as make and eat dinner. When he got home, my husband did the bathroom and put a lot of clutter away. A few items ended up in the bathtub, with the shower curtain drawn. I vacuumed, dusted, then cooked dinner. I am amazed at how much we got done in such a short time - but it's tiring after already putting in a full day of work. The only thing I didn't do was wipe up my kitchen floor, since I just recently threw out my mop and haven't replaced it yet. What a great idea to wrap a wet towel around a Swiffer. I'll remember that one next time - I probably could have gotten up a few spots quickly that way.
Annie Groer: Good for you. After all my research, the quote I loved most was "order produces order" from Cheryl Mendelson. My guess is you'll keep it that way for a while. My financial advisors, with whom I was going to meet somewhere midway between his office and my condo, tells me he'd rather come to my place Saturday afternoon. So I feel like the dinner-party person, except I don't have to cook. So I'll re-read the piece and get cracking.
Frederick, Md.: Hello Home Divas! Mine is not a paint question: you recently had an article on alternative yarns. As a wool-allergic wannabe knitter, I wonder if you can tell me if these soy and bamboo yarns will 'felt"? I see all the felted bags and hats everywhere but cannot go near them without itching, and I would like to make felted pillows for my home office. Thank you both.
washingtonpost.com: Eco-Yarns from the Kitchen (Post Home Section, April 3)
Annie Groer: Send me you info at home@washpost.com and I'll pass it on to the writer, who actually makes felted purses. She, better than I, can answer that question.
Gettysburg: Hello! I log on every week for your chats. I am looking for a deeper-than-robin's-egg blue paint. I would prefer Behr, BM, or something from Lowe's. Thank you!
Annie Groer: Try Behr's Sea Rover or Martha Stewart colors at Lowe's...Summer Day or Open Sky.
Children and spring cleaning memories: My mother would have us clean all the windows, Venetian blinds, remove and hang up the summer curtains, clean all of the fine crystal and china in the china cabinet, turn beds, clean rugs, defrost the freezers, dry clean slipcovers, clean out kitchen cabinets, pack up the winter clothes, etc. All five of us would do the industrial cleaning all homes need. We were "Merry Maids" before it became a business.
Another childhood neighbor would take off a week to spring clean. She said she could get more done with her family out of the house at school and work.
I am tired just thinking about it!!
Annie Groer: Whew. So am I. These are things, however, that we don't forget. It's the rolling up of the rugs and taking them outdoors to beat the dust (sometimes coal dust) out of them that makes me want a nap.
Curb appeal designer?: Your house call today reminded me of something I have wondered for awhile. You know the HGTV show Curb Appeal? They always bring in a "designer" to design the exterior of the home (separate from the landscape designer). What kind of designer is this? And where does one go about finding one? Hey, would you all consider a "curb appeal" style house call?
Annie Groer: I know that several seasons ago, one of the owners of Apartment Zero, the hip contemporary furnishings store in DC's Penn Quarter did a few exteriors. I'd probably start with a landscape firm, a nursery or an outdoor furniture store. If you're in the Washington area and want some help, send us pictures of your house front. Maybe Kat Hom can find someone to help you.
Washington, D.C.: I'm a complete novice at painting and am looking to paint my studio a blue/gray color (fairly unspecific description, I know!). Any great color recommendations or other general tips for someone who's never painted before in her life?! Thanks so much -- love your chat!
Annie Groer: Preparation is key and neatness really counts. Move stuff out of the room and cover the floors with a drop cloth. If there's no place to put it all, at least group everything in the center of the room and cover with old sheets or more plastic drop cloths. Do the ceiling first so any drips on the walls can be painted over. Clean fingerprints and scuff marks off walls, light plates, etc. And if you really want to paint like a pro, remove switch plates and outlet covers so they don't get painted over.
If you think the current paint is oil based, then cover it with a coat of Kilz so that today's latex will adhere. Use painter's tape between the ceiling and the walls so you can cut a straight line.
And see if you can get a friend or two who has/have done this before to help. When it's over, break out the beer and take them out for dinner.
Blue gray? Try Dutch Boy's Big Sky Blue or Bluegrass Melody.
Potomac, Md.: hello. We are in the process of fixing up our 1970's contemporary house for sale next spring. We are thinking of focusing on the kitchen with new granite countertops, as well as refinishing our hardwood floors. What are the features that you think home buyers are looking for today? Where do you think we should put our energies and finances into?
Annie Groer: Kitchen and bathrooms usually provide the biggest returns on investments. And yes, refinish the floors. Paint the walls light neutral colors, and declutter, declutter, declutter. If you'll be selling next spring, plant some flowering bushes and mulch liberally for a nice, neat look.
Curb appeal designer: HGTV has done some Curb Appeals in the DC area. I know for fact that some of them involved Merrifield Garden Centers (saw the name on shirts and trucks). Definitely garden centers would be a good place to start.
Annie Groer: Thanks. You all are so eagle-eyed.
Hope you can help me!
I want to paint my living room/dining room/front hall. It's a large space, gets good light from large windows, same hardwood floors throughout (medium tone, slightly reddish).
The only room I have anything in at the moment is the living room. My style is Art Deco. Sofa is black & grey; chair is black. Tables are black/brass with glass tops. Art work is mostly mirrors & cut glass, with some black & rose accents.
Any suggestions of what color to paint the walls?
Annie Groer: Even before I got to the part about rose accents, I was going to suggest mauve (a very deco hue). If Sherwin Williams' Mauve Finery is too dark use that for an accent wall or two, and go lighter with Wallflower in the large rooms. For the entrance, which tends to get very little light, try the even paler Mauve Tinge.
Alexandria, Va: All knowing ones! Please help --My mother says the hall paint needs to contrast with the bedroom paint. I've never heard of this. My hall is C2 bees knees--a pale yellow. I love green and I want a bright pale green for my bedroom. My mom thinks the ones I like looks too much like the bees knees. What are the rules for color flow. You cannot see into the bedroom from the living room. The bedroom has southern exposure and I want a light cottage feel to the room. I love green, dislike blue and light tans. If it matters it is my condo. thanks
Annie Groer: The last sentence says it all. It's your condo. Gently tell Mom you like Bee's Knees and the very similar green and that the only "rules" are those that work for you. Then give her hug and tell her you love her.
bedroom taupe: Hi there - I apologize for asking a question you've answered before, but I can't find it searching the archives. I'm looking for a nice warm tan/taupe-y color for a good sized bedroom -- not too dark, but enough of a contrast to the white ceiling and trim to notice. Duron would be great.
Annie Groer: The risk you run asking us a question again is that I will give a totally different answer. That's the kind of chat this is. So, the color du jour is....drumroll, please....is Duron Latte or Nomadic Desert. I'm also a big fan of Perfect Greige, which is a tad on the gray side.
Felting: Sorry, you can only felt wool, and only the kind that's NOT "superwash."
Annie Groer: Thanks. You all are so smart.
RICHMOND: I was thinking the same thing for the dark brick house: hunter green shutter and a few tones lighter for the trim, a dusty sage/olive? There's a house on my block with this color scheme and it looks classic yet distinctive.
Mine is turquoise door and dark brown trim, a little more daring. People were afraid the turquoise wouldn't match the brick, but I like it.
Annie Groer: Thanks. Love the brown and turquoise. Check out the April 20 Sunday mag. I've written a piece about funky-out there exterior that's pretty festive, if I say so myself.
Arlington, Va. I love the cleaning article and it is perfect timing. I have a move out inspection tomorrow morning and I'll be doing a rush clean tonight! Thank you!
Annie Groer: Excellent. We love to help.
Lexington, Va., U.S.: I have an unusually long hall and am looking for a mirrored folding screen to place at the end of the hall. Do you have any suggestions as to where I might find a small screen? It needs to be about the width of a door.
A second questions pertains to my small great room with very poor lighting (4 ceiling lights). Do you think track lighting might work for the 2 kitchen area ceiling lights?
Annie Groer: Our brilliant and very creative chat producer, Elizabeth Terry, suggests you get one of those screens from Linens 'n' Things with built-in photo frames and swap out the glass for mirror. You can get the best deals on custom glass cutting at a hardware store or auto-glass place, but any glass place can do it.
House Calls: Loved the deck! Great job incorporating her existing patio set. Can they do my balcony next?
Annie Groer: And my roof terrace. Boy, this is the first House Calls in ages that is a clear home run.
Curb Appeal: I'd recommend a certified or registered (depends on the state, Va. or MD) Landscape Architect. They have the horticultural knowledge of a landscaper, plus the structural knowledge for decks, simple building exterior features, porches, porticos, hardscapes, etc. Get 2 professionals for the price of one.
Annie Groer: Thanks. When the going gets tough and job is complex, we agree...
tan-y taupe: I'm currently in love with my living room, which I painted in Behr's Arabian Sands.
Annie Groer: Thanks. We love at-home romance.
Who knew?: Bees have knees?!
washingtonpost.com: Yes, and cats wear pajamas!
Annie Groer: And your divas have divine junk jewelry, which should come as no surprise.
Deck Furniture: My new townhouse has a small rectangular patio in back. It's currently devoid of furniture, and there's not room for much. I'm debating between a table and four chairs with umbrella, or the "outdoor living room" type of furniture - coffee table, sofa, 2 chairs. Since I've never had a deck or even a balcony before, I don't know what I'm going to get better use of. If you could only have one, what would you do?
Annie Groer: Start with table, chairs and umbrella and see how much time you actually spend out there. Also check with neighbors, too. It would be a shame to spend all that money on something you won't really use. I have found for a small space that a bar-height outdoor table and tall chairs with relatively high backs make everyone feel less hemmed in and draw the eye upward. And get a very large umbrella so you can be out there at all hours.
Fairfax, Va.: Does anyone have any information about the quality of Pottery Barn bathroom vanities? Any suggestions as to other sources for vanities?
Annie Groer: Okay, gang...chime in. I've always loved the one-of-a-kind look achieved by converting a small chest, sideboard or cabinet into a vanity and giving it an interesting paint job. It can save you money and give you a totally original look.
Richmond, Va.: Our wood-siding house is painted a kind of a tan-grey-olivey color with white trim. Not a very pretty color, but I'm trying to deal with it. The shutters and doors are painted this strange dark greenish black. I'd rather not mess with painting the shutters just yet so would it be tacky to paint just the front and side doors? I was thinking a really fun, bright color like people sometimes do in Richmond. Maybe a coral or rust red? While the house is pretty neutral, I'm not sure what really goes with the shutters. Thank you!!!
Annie Groer: Love the contrast idea...Go for a really rich red rather than coral -- Benjamin Moore has a gorgeous historic exterior color called Heritage Red. For russet try Country Redwood.
Washington, D.C.: I have a question that involves cleaning. My roommate has a dog and usually keeps the door to her room closed during the day, so the dog smell is noticeable when she has the door open. Is there anything that I can do when I clean her room to lessen the smell?
Annie Groer: Open all the windows. If there is a rug, have her clean it regularly. Many of the cleaning experts I talked with love Febreze room sprays. Not I. There is also an industrial spray that is said to get rid of odors (it's been around since the 60s when removing the aroma of certain burning herbs was essential -- Ozium I believe).
But since I am the pet-less one and Jura isn't here, I am happy for suggestions from all of you.
Another wool-allergic knitter...: I'm glad to see there is another knitter allergic to wool. Whenever I worked with wool yarn I'd get little blisters around my fingernails. It took me forever to discover the culprit. When I stopped using wool and went strictly to synthetics the problem cleared up. I hate 'yarn snobs' who turn their noses up at synthetics. I stopped frequenting a shop when the owner said "I'm no fan of acrylic but it has its place." Well, la de dah!
Annie Groer: Exactly. La De Dah, indeed. And good for you for taking your business elsewhere.
Yellow paint -- really tough!: I concur on the article re yellow paint being tough. I painted a room "peaceful calm" which looked great in my sister's dimly lit dining room w/dark wood furniture. But looked sickly/disgusting in my living room with cherry furniture and a big bright window. I ended up with "homey cream" -- which still looks almost too yellow when the sun comes in!
Annie Groer: That's why it's essential to test paint on large pieces of posterboard in all kinds of light. My living room, Benjamin Moore LemonShine is the color looks orange in the fandeck but is a glorious (ok, screaming) mango on the walls. I love it.
bathroom vanity has a sink, right?: There's a beautiful one at Lowe's where the sink part is suspended in a wrought iron base.
Annie Groer: Thanks for the tip. When you convert a piece of furniture, you will have to cut into the top to make room for the sink. Did I not make that clear? Probably not. Hey, it's already Thursday. And I'm anxious to get over to the G'town designer house.
Kitchen and bathrooms usually provide the biggest returns on investments.: This is so true. When I was looking to purchase, the kitchen and bathrooms were the first things I wanted to see. If those were not okay, I didn't want to see the rest of the house. I either wanted to see them updated, or at least in good shape and neutral enough that I could live with them until I could make them my own.
Annie Groer: Thanks. You are so right.
Alexandria, Va.: This is an exterior question, rather than interior. We have a red-brick and white siding exterior split-level, very boring. Do you know of any other types of siding or colors that would make it look it look not-quite-so 70s? Thanks!
Annie Groer: Sage green, a rich gray or buttery yellow,
What colors would you suggest for painting the floor and walls of an old sunporch? The porch has older slatted windows, and a wood (though painted) floor. I am thinking of doing the walls a pale yellow, and maybe using an eggplant color for the floor. Any thoughts?
Annie Groer: Love the eggplant floor. And the walls. You may find you'll need a rug to brighten up some of the floor, but you can have great fun with this. Then pick up some of that dark purple in your accent upholstery, pillows, curtains, whatever.
Anonymous: I live in a small apartment but you would be surprised how messy it can get! I agree that cleaning can be extremely tiring after a full day of work so if I know people are coming to visit I tackle a certain room each night after work. Also it helps to gather clutter into piles that go by room, that way you are not running back and forth (or up and down the stairs) putting things away.
Another tip - I use lint rollers on the lampshades - it actually gets up the dust and brightens up your room.
Annie Groer: Excellent. If I give you the address of my small apartment, will you pay a visit? Just kidding.
Annie Groer: Boy, you can tell the spring decorating urge is really upon us. I've left a ton of unanswered questions (Jura, come back, all is forgiven...)
I just want to say before I sign off that after last week's question from the poster who was considering a Craigslist club chair but wanted to know about the cost of reupholstering it in Belgian Linen, Jan Jessup of Calico Corners dropped us a note to tell us about a $650 neo-classical sofa she bought on eBay. It had three seat cushions and was covered in a rather ugly striped fabric.
Long story short...linen, at $35 a yard $525. Labor, including making one large seat cushion with a Dacron wrap, $1,275. Grand total -- $2,450, which does not cover sales tax or picking up the sofa. She says buying one new in that style would be $3,000. Hers looks great. But it wasn't cheap.
Until next week, all.....ta ta.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Post Home staff editors Annie Groer and Jura Koncius are here to answer your decorating-related questions.
| 247.736842 | 0.947368 | 2.526316 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040801609.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040801609.html
|
Color of Money Live
|
2008041019
|
Need advice about how to handle your personal finances? Whether the struggle is saving for retirement, organizing your bank files, or talking about money responsibility with your spouse or loved one, Post personal finance columnist Michelle Singletary offers her advice and answers your tough questions. She will be joined by IRS expert Jim Dupree.
Read Michelle's latest columns, check out her Color of Money Book Club selection archive or sign up for her weekly e-mail newsletter.
I know this isn't a fun topic -- taxes...but got to do it.
Chicago, Ill.: I'm aggressively paying down my $48,000 in student loans. Payment required every month is $385. I send about $550. I'm wondering mathwise, if it's better to pay $550 on a $385 bill (with a note saying the extra is for principal, of course), or ask Sallie Mae to raise my monthly due to a number closer to $550, which would shorten the term of the loan. Thanks! LAUREN
Michelle Singletary: I know this is a non-tax question but I'll take some during the chat.
I would definitely send a note and perhaps even a second check indicating that the amount enclosed should be applied to the principal on the debt.
Not sure if you can ask them for a higher payment and furthermore I wouldn't do that anyway. Could be some months you don't have the extra money.
Vienna, Va.: Michelle, My fiancee and I are preparing to merge our finances as our wedding gets close, and we would like to get some advice from a professional on our financial plans, medium term goals, and long term retirement plans. What advice do you have for finding a financial adviser who isn't just going to sell us on his or her pet investments? We are both young (27 and 29), and make decent salaries, but we are concerned that we might be missing something in our plans so far. Thank you very much!
Michelle Singletary: Congrats on your pending marriage.
Don't merge until you say "I do."
In the meantime, check out this Web site: http://www.napfa.org/
It's the association for fee-only planners.
Fredericksburg, Va.: Michelle, I love your advice and could really use it. I have saved 8k in an emergency fund, which is a tad less than 4 months of living expenses, and have about 1k in a life happens fund. I recently had some major medical issues come up and put 3k on my credit card because I was afraid with the current economy to take the money from my emergency fund. I will be getting about $500 from the tax stimulus bill and plan to apply all of that to the debt and I have reworked my budget so that I can put away about $600 a month on the debt. I have two questions for you. One: is it wise to continue paying the $600 per month and take care of the debt in 5 months or should I have taken the money from my emergency fund. The second question is that I still need to have about 3k more in services done, these are dental problems that can't wait until next year and my plan is maxed out for the year. My dentist has agreed to reduce the service cost if I pay in cash. I'm just worried about everything happening with the economy if I use the 3k from my emergency fund. I need a big GET OVER YOURSELF from Michelle, pay for the expenses up front next time with cash, then take that $600 per month and build the 3k back. Thank you!
Actually I wouldn't really say that.
I would say Good for you for saving that much. And I understand the worry.
But you saved that money for an emergency. Bad teeth is an emergency (I know, have had my share of teeth problems. No fun).
So get that cash, pay of that bill. You will still have enough to finish the treatment and STILL have savings.
You are so ahead of like 80 percent of the American public.
And yes, going forward just build up that emergency fund again. But this time. Build up the Life Happens Fund too.
This way, if you have to draw from the life happens fund you won't feel so bad. Keep future funds in the emergency fund for job loss or economy-type stuff.
But really either way, you have the money. That's the important thing.
Hudsonville, Mich.: Quick tax question for you--I received a form 1099 in January that showed a capital gain from an insurance company dividend (it said it was taxable income), so I reported it on my taxes, which I filed online. In March....after I had already received my refund...I received a CORRECTED form from my "quiet insurance company," saying the previous form was an error and should NOT have been considered taxable. Now what do I do? Do I file a correction? Do I let it lie? It was around $400, so should I just forget it? What should I do next year???
Jim Dupree: Don't forget it. It's YOUR money... (smile) You can simply file an IRS Form 1040-X, "Ammended US Federal Income Tax Return." You have three years to do so.
Charlottesville, Va.: Hi Michelle. I'm a college student who works full-time. I save between $2k-$3k for each semester (January, May, and August). I save the money in my typical checking account, which I use for everything. For this amount of money, is this best or should I be holding it in an ING savings account or something else? Note: I don't owe any student loans, and I'm about to start my 4th year! Also, I'd like to attend a pretty expensive grad school (if I get in). What's your opinion on grad school loans? Is there a point (amount) when it's not worth it?
Michelle Singletary: You could put the money in a higher yield savings account --same as regular we-ain't-paying-you-nothin-for-your-money account.
As for grad school. Try, try, try, try not to borrow. Why not look for a job where they will pay all or a portion of your grad school education.
Is grad school worth it?
For many it is. I went. Got mine from Johns Hopkins. But my employer paid. I didn't and won't have racked up thousands of dollars in debt to do it.
Oxnard, Calif: Why do I have to file a tax return to receive a stimulus payment? I am disabled and had no income except from Social Security (disability payments)??
Jim Dupree: It's the law. It's also a way for the IRS to identify you as a qualified recipient, and not a dependent on someone else's return. You only have fill out a few lines on the IRS Form 1040-A, mail it in (or file it online at irs.gov for free), and if you qualify, you'll receive your stimulus payment.
Bay Area, Calif.: Michelle, How can I convince my husband we need to completely pool our finances? Our current system is that we split "household" expenses evenly, pay our pre-marriage debt separately, and keep what is left over for ourselves. However, I earn about $20,000 more than he does, and am able to do all this while still contributing to a retirement fund. He cannot. I wanted to pool our money from the start, give each of us an allowance for discretionary spending, and save the rest. He balks because he doesn't like the idea of me paying his debt--even though, as I have pointed out, if I were to stay home with our future children, he'd be paying my student loans. What more can I say to him? It pains me to see him stress about money when the funds are there to ease his stress. That, and I would love to see him start planning for retirement!
Michelle Singletary: Shameless plug but get my book "Your Money and Your Man."
And read to him the last chapter that was written with the help of my husband.
Try telling him (while you are waiting to get the book) that you are a team. That's why you got married. All money and debt belongs to both of you (perhaps not legally but I believe practically).
Tell him he's no less a man or a husband by pooling your funds and acting like a couple and not roommates. Roommates keep things separate. Married people work together.
Bowie, Md.: Michelle, I have the sense that the economic mess is bad for my country and bad for my neighbors but not especially bad for me and my family. Yes, I have to pay more for food and gas and energy and--well, everything. But the credit crunch doesn't bother me because I live within my means and have a bulletproof credit rating. The mortgage crunch doesn't bother me because I put down a lot of money and got a great fixed 15-year rate and can easily make the payments. The bear market doesn't bother me because my investments are diversified and aimed at long-term growth (and I'm 25 years from retirement). I'm in your amen corner and I know that everyone else in that corner follows these habits too. I just want to know whether I'm right or kidding myself.
Michelle Singletary: You are not kidding yourself!
Seattle: With the tax "rebate" checks coming soon, are you going to do any columns about them? As they are essentially just borrowing from the future, putting this country further into debt, which is owned by foreign countries and affects our security, perhaps the suggestion that the most patriotic action would be to use the rebates to pay off debt? My husband and I will be using our rebates to pay down our mortgage (the only debt we have). It won't make a huge difference, but every little bit helps in getting us away from owing anything.
washingtonpost.com: Michelle wrote the following columns about tax returns: Tax Refunds Can Be Worth Their Wait in Gold and Use Your Foolish Refund Wisely
Michelle Singletary: Way ahead of you.
And before you pay down your mortgage make sure you have an nice emergency fund and "Life Happens Fund."
That's my idea for a separate account to take care of the things in life that happen, car repair, bad teeth (read earlier question).
If you are also contributing to a retirement fund and have money set aside regular or in total for any college expenses, than you are good to go. Pay down that mortgage.
Washington, D.C.: Love your chats! My cousin is graduating from college this month and I want to give her a financial planning book that will encourage her to contribute to her 401K, use credit wisely, save for a house, etc. I don't want it to be "preachy." My family does not have a history of being financially savvy. Thank you.
Michelle Singletary: Love this book called "Spend Well, Live Rich." The author is so funny, good writer, makes money easy to understand.
Another suggestion "Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People" by Jane Bryant Quinn
Columbia, S.C.: Will I get the stimulus even though I own them this year?
Jim Dupree: You might... If you paid the amount due when you filed your return, then you will receive your entire stimulus payment. Any outstanding tax balance you have will offset your stimulus payment amount, and could cause you not to receive anything.
Washington, D.C.: Hello. Thanks for all the great advice you give. Question: My boyfriend and I are very different regarding money. I have already done my taxes and tend to be more proactive about money. He always waits till the last minute. How can I encourage him to stop being such a procrastinator without sounding like his mom? Thanks
Michelle Singletary: Well, still haven't done my taxes and I'm good with monty.
Give him some space. And then ask does his last-minute attitude actually cost him more money? If not don't sweat him so much.
On the other hand, if his waiting means he's not contribution to a retirement fund, hasn't gotten around to starting an emergency fund, etc. you are right to be concerned.
So then you need to continue watching how he handles his money. Maybe just slip him personal finance articles you read. Beginning the conversation with something like,"Honey I saw this. What do you think?"
Talk and don't be his mama. He's already got one.
Chicago: Hi Michelle- My daughter is a college student, and I pay most of her expenses and have claimed her as a dependent. However, in 2007, she worked the entire year, making enough to actually file a return. First, even if I claim her as a dependent, can she also file a return in order to be eligible for the rebate? Second, because she attends school in Indiana, if she files, what form should she use, since she is still a permanent resident of Illinois? Thanks very much !!!
Jim Dupree: If your daughter worked, and earned enough to file a return, she should - and if she's earned more than $3,000, she'll qualify for the stimulus payment.
If she's over 17, she would not qualify on your return.
Arlington, Va.: Follow up on the first question, about student loan payoffs: I'm in a similar situation, but my loan bill is only for interest, because when I started repayment it's all I could afford (it's Citibank's "graduated payment plan.") I'm making a little bit more now and have been making extra payments applied to principal -- should I call and ask to be put back on the regular plan, which will result in a higher required payment? It might be a little more than I'm paying now, even with the extra.
Thanks, and sorry this isn't a tax question.
Michelle Singletary: Don't be sorry.
I would say yes get off the graduated payment plan if you really can stick to a higher payment.
If not, give yourself a little more time but once you know you can change the payment plan.
Because it imposes discipline that you may not have on your own.
Washington, D.C.: My SSN is incorrect on my W-2 and now the IRS won't accept it via electronic filing. I've received a corrected W-2. What do I do?
Jim Dupree: You should be able to go back into your electronic return, correct it, and resubmit it...
life happens vs. emergency fund: If both of these funds are supposed to be kept in a high-yield savings account, why can't they just be merged into one fund? Do I really need separate ING accounts in case something goes wrong?
Maybe I'm just missing something about them...
Michelle Singletary: It's all mental.
Keeping them separate for me, helps me and keeps me from dipping into the emergency fund for stuff that really is about regular life expenses.
But if you are very disciplined and you can keep it together, go for it.
All money and debt belongs to both of you (perhaps not legally but I believe practically): as a financial reporter, you should be honest about what is LEGALLY obligated and leave your religious beliefs at home.
Michelle Singletary: First I'm a COLUMNIST.
That means my views/opinions -- all of them -- matter. It's what they pay me for. And what I win awards for.
If you don't like what I advise, you're grown. Do what you want.
Gaithersburg:, Md. Mr. Dupree, I realized more than $3,000 in net capital losses this year. Do I need to do anything this year to carry over the rest next year?
Jim Dupree: Yes - just keep your records from this year, and include your losses on next year's tax return...
New York City: Loved the story about Olivia. What other things have the kids objected to you doing? Are there any penny-pinching things that they've taught you?
I am going on a money diet for the rest of the year. What do you think are the five worst habits that people have that changing them would help them to save money?
Michelle Singletary: To understand the reference to my daughter, Olivia, you have to read my eletter today.
Here's a non-penny pinching thing I learned from my kids?
Sometimes I have to let them spend and or make their own money mistakes.
For example, during spring break we went to Orlando and Disney. At the end of one day my kids wanted to buy some stuffed animals, mostly with their own money. I initially vetoed it. Too much of a markup at the park I said.
But my husband, who is so very wise, said I was being too hard. And I was. Yes, they may have been overpriced but sometimes I have to let go of my penny pinching ways.
They bought the animals and LOVE them now, taking them everywhere.
-- spending on a monthly basis more than they make
-- not saving money from every dollar they get
-- overspending on eating out
-- using debt too much
-- not being grateful for what they have which cause overspending on stuff they don't need with money they don't have
I'm finishing up my PhD debt-free and have a few thoughts for the previous poster asking about grad school loans. There are fields that will pay YOU to attend grad school; in chemistry, a stipend of $25,000-35,000 is standard at any school, and many of the sciences work the same way. (May sound small to professionals, but living on a tight budget for a few years beats loans any day!) See if your field offers this. Look into fellowships; your college professors should be a good resource here.
Also, ask about the possibility of getting a job as a TA for your department or a resident assistant in the university dorms. These jobs take some time away from research, but again, better than loans!
Michelle Singletary: Thanks for the tips.
McLean, Va.: Hi Michelle, love your columns, keep doing what you're doing. My wife and I are looking to buy our first home this summer. I've done a lot of research about mortgages and I feel strongly that a 15 year fixed rate mortgage is the way to go. The amount of each payment that goes toward principal each month is so much more than that on a traditional 30 year plan. I know the monthly payment is more on a 15 year rate, but not as much as I would've thought given the benefit of paying down the principal. What is your opinion of a 15 year mortgage and why don't people use it more? Am I missing something here?
Michelle Singletary: Many people don't get it because they can't afford the extra every month.
If you can, go for it. Good for you.
Bethesda, Md.: Michelle, a wise mortgage broker taught me this many years ago and it's stood me in good stead all these many years. If you are paying down a mortgage or other fixed payment loan, and want to pay off an additional amount of principal, write 2 checks! On one, write: "regular mortgage payment." On the other, "additional principal." Or "extra escrow" if that's the case. Or whatever. That way there can be no doubt as to how that money was intended to be used. Several friends have been caught up in hairy disputes over how much of a larger-than-required monthly check went where. While it's a bit of a nuisance to write the 2d or even 3d check, it's worth it to eliminate these kinds of problems.
Stimulus check questions...: I can understand asking questions about it if you owe money this year or if you want to avoid receiving a paper check, but why are folks so concerned RIGHT NOW about how much they will receive?? Sounds to me like they are making plans to spend money they don't have yet. I figure I'll get however much I'm supposed to get when I'm supposed to get it and since it's going into savings if it's $600 or $1,200 what's so pressing about that that I would need to know RIGHT NOW which it is??
Michelle Singletary: Well, people do need it right now.
You're the best! Just wanted to say thanks for often being the "voice of reason" when I find myself coveting some fancy thing or wishing we had extra $$ instead of saving/paying down debt. Thanks for all your tough love!
Michelle Singletary: You are so welcome!
Williamsburg, Va.: For the question about the ING account (life happens vs. emergency fund), I -believe- that ING will let you set up "sub-accounts" within a single main account. Your reader might be able to cut down on paperwork and other headaches by having them both as sub-accounts within a larger interest-bearing account. I could be wrong on that, but I know it was a feature ING was touting for a while, and if true, it'd offer the best of both worlds.
Thanks, Michelle! I love your column!
Michelle Singletary: Worth checking out.
Amen!:"Talk and don't be his mama. He's already got one."
You couldn't be more right. When I met my husband, we made similar salaries, but I had a condo, a paid off car, ALL student loans paid off, an IRA, an emergency fund, and other investments; he had an apartment with a matched set of furniture from the store, a car payment, every toy known to man, ate out every night, and $3K in credit card debt. But by the time we married, he had paid off everything and was saving more. Why? Because we talked long and hard about our values. No nagging -- just about how I grew up poor and am NEVER going back, whereas he grew up with enough money and never really had to budget or think about it, because the money was always there for whatever he wanted.
If his values mesh with yours, you will not need to nag him. And if they don't, no amount of nagging will "fix" him.
Michelle Singletary: Love, love your posting.
You are so right on the money!
Alexandria, Va.: In case there are any IRS types out there, I'd like to put in a plug for making electronic filing available for all taxpayers for free -- not just those below a certain income level. Apparently each person who electronic files saves the government money -- but no way am I paying $18 to file when I can do it for the cost of a stamp.
Michelle Singletary: I TOTALLY agree.
Let's start a "free for all" campaign for next year!
RE: Religious Beliefs: I just have to chime in and say I don't believe your advice has anything to do with religious preaching. There is no law about how one must save money, share it, or spend it. In absence of this, we have advice to rely on. Your advice is based upon a lifetime of experience- a totality of everything that has shaped you into the person you are. Disregarding any part of this equation would be a disservice to your readers and a dishonest approach to what you know. Keep up the good work, Michelle.
Oh, right that might offend someone.
Bravo. You totally get me.
Anonymous: My college age daughter never filed her 05 tax return (about $3,500 in income). How should she handle this?
Jim Dupree: Dear Annonymous, she should file a return. There's a chance we're holding on to a refund for her.
Texas: Besides filing your income tax return, what additional criteria must be met in order to receive a rebate check?
Michelle Singletary: Go to http://www.irs.gov/
On the home page is a pretty good section on the rebate checks. Here's some of what you should know:
What is it? It's an economic stimulus payment that more than 130 million households will receive starting in May. It's not taxable, and it won't reduce your 2007 or 2008 refund or increase the amount you owe when you file your 2008 return.
The stimulus payment -- both the basic component and the additional funds for qualifying children -- begins to phase out for individuals with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) over $75,000 and married couples who file a joint return with AGI over $150,000. The combined payment is reduced by 5 percent of the income above the AGI thresholds.
Are you eligible? The vast majority of people who file a 2007 income tax return qualify, and many who don't regularly file a tax return may qualify as well. You're eligible if you have a valid Social Security Number (SSN), can't be claimed as a dependent on a tax return and have either an income tax liability or "qualifying income" of at least $3,000. Qualifying income includes any combination of earned income and certain benefits from Social Security, Veterans Affairs or Railroad Retirement. Additional information is below, and a full legal description is available in Revenue Procedure 2008-21.
Both people listed on a "married filing jointly" return must have valid SSNs to qualify for the payment - if only one has a valid SSN, neither can receive the payment.
Loan-Free Grad School: Another option for getting a graduate degree without going into debt is to get a job at the university you want to attend. Many offer tuition remission as a part of the standard benefits package. I'm getting my PhD that way, and even if it's a little slower, I'm so glad I won't be going into debt.
Michelle Singletary: Love it when you guys pitch in with great tips.
That's what this forum is all about --helping others save and spend well.
Austin, Tex.: I know you do personal finance and not economics, but you must have some opinions about these things. So here's a question: The economy overall, from the point of view of a consumer, seems pretty bad. Gas prices and food prices way high. Dollar weak. Interest rates very low, so my "emergency fund" is earning almost nothing.
Do you get the feeling that this is going to go on for a long time, or do you think things are going to get better before too long?
Does all this uncertainty affect the advice you give to people about their personal finances?
I think we are in for a bad ride for a bit longer. Many, many people were so overloaded with debt that this downturn just really took them out.
And no by advice doesn't change. If many people listened to me for the YEARS I've been doing what I do, many struggling now wouldn't be.
See my earlier answer about the five top money mistakes.
Bowie: My mother hasn't filed in a couple of years, since she doesn't have to pay. Her income consists of social security, another pension, and a small amount of savings account interest.
What form does she need to use?
Does she have to file Maryland also (for any reason)?
Jim Dupree: Your mother only needs to fill out a few lines on IRS for 1040A. She can get the form online at irs.gov, your local post office, or local IRS office. She can even file for her stimulus payment online at irs.gov for free.
She won't have to file a state tax return for Maryland to get the stimulus payment.
Hudsonville to Chicago: Hey Jim,
In your response to Chicago, you told the person who had a college student that her daughter should file her own tax return. I agree with that, but can't Chicago still claim her college student daughter as a dependent? We do this for both of our college kids, since we assist with their education and have 529 funds that we use, etc. and they also file separately, just filling out the part that says YES we are being claimed on our parents' income taxes.
So....what about these college students -- even though they file separately...will they get their own checks when we claim them as dependents? Mine are ages 20 and 21.
Jim Dupree: You're right, Chicago may be able to claim her daughter as a dependent. You are not eligible for a stimulus payment if you can be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return.
Washington, D.C.: To hire a tax preparer or not? I am capable of using TurboTax, and hiring a preparer would not be financially prohibitive, but I don't personally see the value.
Michelle Singletary: I did a column in which one survey found a tax professional on average about about $150 to $200.
Worth it if you need the help. I pay someone to do my taxes.
Probably could myself and husband did for years. Just like having a good professional do it.
Stamford, Conn. : We have a 20-year-old college student whom we claim as a dependent on our taxes. She will file her own taxes this year to get a very small refund. Is she eligible for the economic stimulus refund?
We are hit with the AMT and maybe it doesn't matter if we have her as a dependent.
If we claim her...is she eligible for the rebate?
Jim Dupree: If your daughter earned over $3,000 and files her own return, she might qualify for a stimulus payment. If she is claimed on anyone's return, she will not be eligible...
Fairfax, Va.: I have about 3.5K in an emergency fund in a savings account, which is roughly 1.5 months of living expenses. My credit cards have a combined limit of 26K (I pay off the bill every month). Am I ok in NOT building up my savings account, knowing that I have such a high and (thankfully) under-utilized credit pool from which to draw in case an emergency hits?
Michelle Singletary: You should NOT rely on credit as a financial safety net.
Would you really want to add to your burden should an emergency come up by using debt?
In an emergency you might run through your saving and then be forced to use credit but don't make that your Plan A. Or Plan A 1/2
Save as much as you can.
Michelle Singletary: Got to run folks.
Thank you so much for joining me today.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Personal finance columnist Michelle Singletary hosted a free-for-all discussion about money matters. Joining her was IRS expert Jim Dupree.
| 248.84 | 0.88 | 2.8 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040802193.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040802193.html
|
Washington Sketch
|
2008041019
|
Dana Milbank: Hello, dear reader. I am coming to you live from the cafeteria of the U.S. courthouse at the foot of Capitol Hill. We're on lunch break in the trial of the D.C. Madam, and it's such a tawdry affair that I think the judge should order in portable showers for the jurors and spectators. While I was watching the prosecutors expose the identities of (and quite possibly ruin the lives of) more women who worked long ago as prostitutes, President Bush was busy planting an improvised explosive device underneath the next president: His plan to limit deployments cleverly takes effect when he's back in Crawford next year, clearing brush and playing golf.
Ocala, Fla.: Okay, you were careful to draw a distinction between the general and the madam, but I notice that you didn't draw any distinction between the GOP lawmakers and the escorts. Are they indistinguishable?
washingtonpost.com: From the GOP, the General Gets Unfriendly Fire (Post, April 9)
Dana Milbank: The main distinction is the members of Congress are paid more for their, er, services. Turns out the escorts only got to keep $130 after their 90 minute "appointments." Figuring in travel time, I'm guessing that's about $40 an hour -- and there's no sign that they were getting medical and dental benefits, much less a 401(k) plan.
Tuckahoe, N.Y.: Wow, even Move On only accused Petraeus of betraying his duty to the country by whoring for the administration; leave it to Milbank to compare Young MacArthur with an actual madam. Not a point you'll be making on MSNBC, I'm sure. But seriously, if seriousness is permissible, all they did this week was to positively confirm that the whole intent for Bush has been to run out the clock and hand off the mess to his successor.
But how exactly does this make sense, even from their own point of view, since the house of cards collapsing in 2009 or 2010 doesn't make his, ahem, "legacy" look any better? Wouldn't some patched-up settlement and the commencement of withdrawals last year have enabled him to change the subject, declare "victory" and also free up enough troops to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran, which is what they want most anyway? Even from their self-interest, I just don't get what the point of the surge is. What is the best-case scenario as these guys see it? Permanent occupation? The (inapplicable) South Korea model?
Dana Milbank: Let's be clear: I have the highest regard for the general, and I compared him to the D.C. Madam in the best possible light. (Actually, he just happened to come to town to testify the same week her trial began nearby.) I do not suspect he's involved in any extracurricular pursuits, although he did let slip in the hearing yesterday that he watched "The Sopranos."
To your question, it does seem to me that what Bush did today puts his successor in a bad spot, whether it's Obama/Clinton or McCain. If McCain wants to keep up the pressure in Iraq, he has to be the bad guy and extend deployments again. At the same time, it steals thunder from the Democrats by making Bush appear to be supporting a troop reduction when he actually is doing no such thing during his presidency.
Capitol Hill: Shall I presume that the reputations of no johns have been ruined and that lots of offices here soon will be more relaxed? Not, of course, that anyone here is nervous about anything...
Dana Milbank: Looks that way. Prosecutors are wrecking lives of plenty of private citizens but apparently the Vitters et al will be spared further trouble. The prosecution's witness list included Harlan Ullman, the creator of the "shock and awe" doctrine. But instead of shock and awe, so far we've only had shock and ewwwww. They keep asking the call girls about their menstrual cycles.
Cleveland: Have you read the New York Times Sunday Magazine piece on Chris Matthews? He comes off as a misogynistic, narcissistic jerk. My favorite part: "Sometimes during commercial breaks, Matthews will boast to Olbermann of having restrained himself during the prior segment. 'And I reward him with a grape,' Olbermann says." Is the story a hit job or is that really who he is?
washingtonpost.com: The Aria of Chris Matthews (New York Times, April 13)
Dana Milbank: That question is bound to get me into trouble. Let me just say that I am an admirer of both Matthews and the article's author, my former Post colleague Mark Leibovich. At the risk of drawing more attention to Brand X, make sure you've seen the cover story of last Sunday's magazine excerpting the book written by the brilliant and beautiful Helene Cooper, with whom I worked long ago at the Wall Street Journal.
washingtonpost.com: In Search of a Lost Africa (New York Times, April 6)
Freedom of speech: This is First Amendment Day -- which guarantees journalists the freedom to do their jobs (no matter how difficult the Bush administration makes it). How do you celebrate this auspicious holiday -- both personally and at The Washington Post?
I'm celebrating my First Amendment rights by listening to prosecutors asking sobbing witnesses about oral sex.
New York: Dana, I know this is a tough one, but which of our elected representatives gets your vote as most sanctimonious? In my view Joe Lieberman wins going away, but as a seasoned observer of the human comedy up there, is there someone sanctimoniouser?
Dana Milbank: Tricky, tricky. I say toss Russ Feingold and Mitch McConnell in a room and let the sanctimoniousist man win.
Minneapolis: What's the over/under on the number of times McCain screws up his Shias and his Sunnis before folks aren't willing to explain it away as merely being tired?
Dana Milbank: McCain, who flubbed the Shia-Sunni thing again with Petraeus on Tuesday, needs a mnemonic device. I recommend that he associate the Shia with the Chia Pet, and the Sunni with Sununu. We must also think of one to help Obama get the Iraq/Iran thing straight.
White House Correspondent's Dinner: Will you be in attendance? Who will you be wearing? Sharing a table with other notables such as...? Please convey my deepest admiration to Colin Ferguson, our new U.S. citizen.
Dana Milbank: The big dinner is just two weeks away, but I regret to announce that I have another commitment that night. I'm doing my laundry.
San Francisco: Did you think it was funny or amusing to interthread today's story on Iraq with the D.C. Madam? And, do you really think that kind of journalism is useful or appropriate for an organization that just won six Pulitzers?
Dana Milbank: Please note, San Francisco, that I am not one of the Pulitzer Prize winners. In fact, I am one of only two people at The Washington Post who has not won a Pulitzer. The other one works in the cafeteria.
Boston: "We must also think of one to help Obama get the Iraq/Iran thing straight." Oooh, good evenhandedness. But methinks you still have one candidate to insult before everyone is equally unhappy.
Dana Milbank: Okay, let me give it a try.
I think Clinton outperformed her rivals during the Petraeus hearings. She had Ryan Crocker squirming quite a bit. But I'm not sure whether this means she'd make an excellent president or whether it suggests that she should remain in the Senate.
Odenton, Md.: Dana, I need your help. I am a regular reader of The Washington Post online edition. I admit, it is my only news source. Frequently I get into debates with my husband about politics. He tells me that I cannot possibly no what I am talking about because I only read one paper and all news sources are biased. He doesn't read any paper that I am aware of and bases his ideas from having been in the Air Force from 1997-2003. He keeps telling me that Sept. 11 caused the Iraq war and repeats other mindless, disproved Bushisms. I think you guys do a great job of being unbiased, but I am a Democrat and I oppose the war. So what can I tell him when he tells me I just repeat everything I hear from my "liberal" news source? I have tried retorting Cheney style with "So?" but it hasn't worked. What would you say to him?
Dana Milbank: Perhaps you could tell him to "bring it on."
Actually, in this very chat I'm being accused of phony even-handedness. Here, I'll show you:
Springfield, Va.: "I say toss Russ Feingold and Mitch McConnell in the room and let the sanctimoniousist man win." Aw, c'mon -- don't be so scrupulously nonpartisan.
Dana Milbank: See? Show that to your husband.
New York: Dana, I appreciate your bipartisan sanctimony opinion ... as a follow-up, there must be one senator or congressperson who comes across as a dedicated seeker after truth, not just a preening how-great-am-I bloviator ... anyone?
Dana Milbank: Glad to be a purveyor of bipartisan sanctimony.
I'm hard pressed to come up with a top pick in the Senate, other than the likes of John Chafee (dead), David Boren (retired) and Chuck Hagel (retiring). But there is one person who stands above all others in her pursuit of justice, her willingness to speak truth to power, and her unfailing notion of what is right. I refer, of course, to the D.C. Madam, Jeanne Palfrey. And this reminds me that our lunch break is over and I must get back to the trial so I don't miss one bit of dirty laundry -- even if it's something small like a thong.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 48.926829 | 0.560976 | 0.707317 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/03/DI2008040302544.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/03/DI2008040302544.html
|
Got Plans? - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041019
|
Every Thursday at 1 p.m. ET, washingtonpost.com's City Guide experts share their best bets for local flavor, great dates and family fun. Got plans? Great. Need plans? Just ask. We have the skinny on the bars and clubs, concerts, kitchens, theaters and special events that keep life interesting. We're going out gurus, and we're at your service.
Of course, we're happy to answer questions about local entertainment, but we need to hear from you, too. Introduce us to the coolest DJ or the fastest bartender you've encountered. Sound off on the week's best concert or the city's best burger. Tell us about the best place to amuse little kids or a big art fan. Together we can plan fun ways to spend weekdays, weekends, dates and holidays. The pleasure is ours, and yours.
Each week a different guru will act as host or hostess, but the entire staff is at your service. If you're looking for more ideas, see the City Guide or read transcripts of past Got Plans? discussions.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
washingtonpost.com: First, a clarification. Last week in this space I (Julia) talked a lot of trash about how I was going to be all about a bloody-mary-brunch after the Cherry Blossom 10-miler and dismissed Anne's claims that I would be exhausted. She was right. I picked up Tonic french toast to go and slept for the rest of the day. Anyway, let's get to chatting. David, Jen, Rhome, Fritz, Anne, Janet and I are all ready to go.
Alexandria, Va.: Submitting early, hoping for guidance...
What are the thoughts on Gold Cup? I've never been, and I can't gauge whether or not it will be fun. A friend offered my boyfriend and I free tickets, and we know people going, so I guess it could be fun, but... is it fun? A bunch of people seem very, very jazzed, and I guess I'm just not sure why. Thoughts?
Fritz: As someone who's been to Gold Cup several times -- and is going again this year -- I think it can be a lot of fun, but it really, really depends on who you're going with. I believe the best way to go -- especially in your 20s and 30s -- is with one of the groups that's organizing bus transportation and tents with unlimited food and drink. You stand around and enjoy the day in the country, check out the guys in blazers and the girls in summer dresses and fancy hats, wander around, have a few drinks, socialize and occasionally see a horse or two go by. You can go outside of the organized groups, of course, but they always seem to have the best spaces along the rail, and it's nice to not have to drive back to D.C. at the end of the day -- especially after a mint julep or two.
Cleveland Park: With all the requests last week by women looking for salons to get tweezed, threaded, and waxed, it made me wonder where there is a place for men. Men like my boyfriend know that a uni-brow just won't cut it, but my well groomed self just can't handle the messy Peter Gallagher look any more. How do I not only suggest it to him, but direct him where to go? Is there any where aside from the Men's Grooming Lounge? Will a place like Thread take care of men's brows too? At times I want to take a tweezer to it myself, but am way to afraid having no experience in tweezing for a man's brow. Please help!
Janet: How you suggest it to him is something you'll have to figure out. As for a place to go, how about Serenity Spa in Tenleytown? I've seen some men clients there, and I know they do couples massages, if that's any interest. Also, the Aveda in Georgetown would be a place to try. Not intimidating at all.
14th & Yawn: Date Alert! Looking for your best choice(s) for a bar to catch a game with my guy but still feel like we're on a date -- not just two barflies and not cheesey. Location- Dupont-ish up to Bethesda.
Fritz: I think Town Hall works well for this kind of night -- good food, friendly bartenders and, if you're not going on a Saturday night, an atmosphere that's busy but not overwhelming. Cleveland Park Bar & Grill is another good choice, especially if the rooftop patio is open. (You'll find a few flatscreens up there.) Also in Cleveland Park, Aroma has been pretty good about taking requests for sports on its HD TVs. Ask nicely, settle back and enjoy a cocktail, plus carry-out food from Nam Viet, Vace or Spices while you watch.
Alexandria, Va.: The guy asking the question about ukulele. I'm not sure if he's looking for a band or a group that hangs out and learn to play such a venerable instrument. The Hawaii State Society has a ukulele group that practices and is very informal. They perform to support Hawaii related functions around the DC Metro area like the Annual HSS Cherry Blossom Princess Coronation because its the Hawaiian thing to do.
They have music playing abilities from the very beginner (e.g., buying their 1st uke the days before they show up to their first practice) to professional quality musicians; and we all go there just to be Hawaiian and have fun. The best part? Everyone learns something about playing the Uke.
David: If the person who was asking about ukulele stuff last week is still around, here you go.
My Mom is coming to D.C. this weekend and I am looking for a good brunch place on Sunday. Hope you can help me out. Thanks!
Julia: Cashions Sunday brunch is always a hit. Colorado Kitchen's isn't as fancy, but is just as good for typical brunch fare (and delicious doughnuts). For something a little different, try the Latino dim sum brunch at Cafe Atlantico.
Gaithersburg, Md.: Hi GoG's! Submitting early and hope you can assist me. My brother is having his wedding ceremony at the Ronald Reagan Building on Saturday.
I am in charge as his best man to come up with an after-wedding party (Wedding reception should end by 10). Most of us are staying at the JW Marriott across the street.
The after-wedding party goers consists of about 20 folks, most in their 30's, dressed in formal attire. The group consists of Dewey Beach veterans (love the Starboard), and another group likes the lounge bar scene, like 18th Street Lounge and Gazuza.
Are there any good bars that you can recommend that will fit both types of groups and within walking distance in the Metro Center/Ronald Reagan area to kick back and unwind?
Fritz: I can't think of a single bar downtown that would cater to both folks who want to get rowdy and rock out to cover bands and a group that wants to monopolize couches and sip martinis. "Ne'er the twain shall meet" or something like that. (And, honestly, there's really not much in the way of bars next to the Reagan building; the closest bar I recommend is a British-style pub called Elephant and Castle a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue.) Let's throw this one open to the chatters....
I'm looking for a good/semi-authentic Indian place in downtown/dupont area to take my girlfriend to tomorrow. It doesn't need to be overly fancy, but no hole in the wall either.
I called Rasika, and it didn't seem like there was any chance in hell of getting in there on a Friday.
What would you recommend for good date night Indian food?
Julia: After Rasika, my next thought for date-night Indian is Indique in Cleveland Park.
Silver Spring, Md.: Hi. I'm looking for restaurant party rooms in the Silver Spring/Rockville/Bethesda area...Any suggestions? I don't want to spend too much money, and it will be about 30 people will be in attendance.
Jen: I can't speak too exactly how much various places cost, but I can toss out some options that would be worth exploring. (And chatters, please add to my list.) In Silver Spring, I would look at Ceviche and Cubano's. I am not certain they have private seating, but worth asking. In Rockville, Mykonos Grill definitely does. In Bethesda, Rock Bottom does, a good option if you just want to shoot pool and eat appetizers. And if you can venture a wee bit beyond Bethesda, Indique Heights can handle private parties as well.
Silver Spring, Md.: Hi Gurus - My husband is cutting out of work early on Friday and meeting me with our two preschooler boys downtown (near the mall/L'Enfant Plaza). We'd like to do something fun for 1-2 hours, then have dinner somewhere kid friendly. We will have a car, but can also Metro. Is there anything going on downtown between 3:30-5:30 on Friday that our boys would enjoy? Any thoughts on somewhere nearby for dinner? Thanks!!
Anne: Near L'Enfant, you could easily stop into Air and Space or the American Indian museum, and the latter isn't a bad idea for dinner, either. The big thing going on downtown Friday (which everyone here knows I can't stop talking about) is that the Newseum will open. For free -- for one day only. The Newseum is so not for little kids (teens will dig it), but I bet they'd like the ride in the great glass elevator, Roald Dahl-style. Plus, the views from the terrace are amazing. And if you and your hubby even get to peek at a few of the exhibits, you've just saved yourself $40. I haven't tried any of the offerings at the Newseum's Wolfgang Puck-approved cafeteria, but that would be an easy and definitely kid-friendly place to have a bite. Other ideas for dinner: Ella's, Austin Grill and a stop at Gifford's for dessert.
I just got an incredible urge to go roller skating (maybe it's the upcoming Tigercity show?). Do you know of any places that you can rent out? Preferably where you could have someone DJ and could buy/bring beer?
Jen: Oh, man. I have dreamed of doing the same thing myself. Trouble is, most roller rinks are family-oriented establishments and alcohol is not allowed on the premises. This also is likely a liability issue, since drinking and skating don't mix, unless you're one of those people who gets more coordinated the more you imbibe. Really, we just have to open a roller disco called Xanadu and this problem will be solved.
It's Niiiice Out, D.C.: Knock on my faux wood desk, it's supposed to be 70 degrees with no rain tonight. Fritz, love your suggestions about Beck's and PS 7's patios. Any other D.C. beer centric recommendations about where I can grab a good pint without a roof over my head?
Fritz: If I can stretch the boundaries a bit, there's Rustico, where I enjoyed several nice beers last Saturday, including the unfiltered Eggenberg pilsner and Ola Dubh, a cask English beer that's the finest elixir to pass my lips in ages. It's a variation on Harviestoun Brewery's Old Engine Oil, a dark brew that's close to a porter, but Ola Dubh has been aged in a barrel that used to hold 30-year-old Highland Park scotch. To call it luxurious would be an understatement. Okay, back to D.C. Marvin's been upping its beer selection, and I imagine it would be nice to kick back on that patio tonight with a Saison Dupont. Elephant and Castle has a nice patio, too, and lord knows I love my Fullers ales.
Oh No - AdMo, D.C.: Fritz, what's the deal with Current? First, I hear January. Then, I here mid April due to construction issues. I walked by it today and it's still all drywall?
Are they aware of the irony inherent in their namesake? Should I pencil the Grand Opening in for December?
Fritz: I've got it penciled in for May, actually. It's just been delay after delay, but the owners are promising it will be worth the wait. We'll see, but I have a feeling it will be very popular, especially with Play closing this summer.
My favorite bar is Aroma in Cleveland Park, but I'm a non-smoker. Not as many people since they got a smoking waiver (also probably because Lili and Krishna no longer work there). What are similar bars in terms of age and race diversity? Marvin? St. Ex? Science Club?
Rhome: The diversity part is the hard part. But all three of those will give you somewhat of a proxy for what you got at Aroma. In order of crowd intensity (do you want to chill or dance?) I'd rank them highest to lowest: St. Ex, Marvin, Science Club. You could also try Napoleon and The Space.
Thank you: to Fritz for the Penn Quarter Sports Bar suggestion! Boyfriend and I went there to watch the Final Four and it was great (of course, being lazy we first went to the Green Turtle, but while they claim to be a "sports bar" - they turned all but two TVs to the Caps game, while we wanted to see both the hockey and Final Four games - if you are the "what is playing in the Verizon Center will be played on all the TVs Bar", please don't advertise like your 50 TVs will actually have some variety)
Fritz: Well, now we have somewhere to send the Caps fans who want to watch us beat up on the Flyers... Glad to hear Penn Quarter worked out for you.
Washington, D.C.: Are there any Yankees/NY Sports bars in DC besides 51st STate? That bar is terrible and I would prefer something off the Red Line. Is DC really so riddled with the cancer that are Boston Red Sox fans that no Yankee friendly bars exist? Please help me Fritz, I want to enjoy the game on Friday night without hearing the ugliest accents ever talk about Baaaaaston.
Fritz: I've seen Yankees caps at the Cleveland Park Bar and Grill in the past, but you're right -- even three years ago, there were more bars boasting about being part of the Red Sox Nation than any other team. (I also have a feeling that the anti-Yankees sentiment comes from D.C. being so Orioles-friendly for decades; as someone who grew up in Maryland, we never hated the Sahx as much as the team from New York.)
Arlington, Va.: Hey Gurus! Love the chat and hoping you can help me out. I lost a bet with my boyfriend regarding March Madness. The agreement was that the loser takes the winner on a date on a budget of $100. He's really into beer, sports, and all things manly. I really wanted to do something more unusual than tix to a Nats game. Any suggestions for a date idea? Thanks for your help!
David: Lost a bet on March Madness? You'll have to let me know what that's like. BECAUSE I WON MY POOLS. Sorry, I've been gloating all week, so thank you for giving me another chance to do so. And, of course, thank you to Mario "Super Nintendo" Chalmers for his Monday night heroics. Perhaps I will hang a picture of him over the new flat-screen HD TV I buy. Wait, did you have a question or something? Well, you can always go double or nothing over a competitive game of mini-golf. The course in Kingstowne in Alexandria is pretty intense, as far as mini-golf courses go, and the weather's right for it. And it might break the $100 budget a bit, but Smithsonian Resident Associates is hosting an event at RFD in a couple weekends with a bunch of top brewers who will come in and talk about beer and offer up samples of some of their best brews.
Farragut West: Hey guys - what happened to Karma (19th &I)? I walked by there on my way to work this morning and saw that it is now Skye Lounge. Any word on what this new place is like?
Rhome: I stopped by recently and got the same surprise. The transition was still in the works but it seems like now that it's done, things have gone the opposite direction from a low-key hang out spot. Lots of money flowing into that area of town, seems like this is another development along those lines. Any eyewitness reports from the field?
Washington, DC: I know you don't like criticism of the City Guide. But . . . is it intended to be comprehensive? I have noticed restaurants and theaters that are not included. If it is intended to be comprehensive, how do we alert you to a missing entry?
Jen: Slow down there, who said we don't like criticism? We certainly welcome it, especially if it's of the constructive variety. (Example: "You suck, and that's because ..."). You should always feel free to make suggestions, complain if you can't find something, etc., either here in this chat or by e-mailing events@washingtonpost.com. Our operators (okay, the operators are actually us) are standing by. To answer your more specific question, the City Guide is meant to be a comprehensive guide to the best things to do in the D.C. area. So most notable restaurants, theaters, etc. should be listed. We don't list, for example, every Taco Bell on Route 355 because we figure most people already are well-versed in thinking outside the bun. Instead we devote our time to sharing info about the most worthwhile places and events, both the high-profile and the hidden gems.
Entertaining the underaged: I'm sure it's been asked before, but I have a quick question to help out a dear friend. Her 17 year old brother is in town for the weekend and we're desperately trying to think of ways for a couple of fun-loving early 20 somethings to entertain him tonight. Is there such thing as a 17+ club? Or are we doomed to sit on the couch all night?
Fritz: Places a 17-year-old can get in are pretty much limited to a few live music venues, like the Black Cat, 9:30 Club and the Rock and Roll Hotel, though the latter is only all-ages during live shows; the upstairs bar is 21-and-over all the time. Of course, you can always take him to one of the livelier restaurants with bars, since they don't turn you down for dinner -- maybe some foosball at Bistrot du Coin, or time hanging out at Comet Ping-Pong?
Arlington, Va.: I need a hat! I'm going to the Loudoun Point-to-Point this weekend and am without a vital part of my outfit. Went to the Proper Topper, I can't even afford to look at those hats, let alone buy them. Gurus, where can I get a big, lovely hat for the horse race that won't cost a fortune? I'm thinking maybe $30...
Also, whats the set-up? Blankets, chairs, picnics? Alcohol allowed?
Julia: This is a toughie. Hat stores aren't as common around these parts as they once were. Bruce Variety -- my go-to for all things costumey -- says they have at least 15 different varieties of straw hats. I don't think you'll find the perfect horse race headpiece here, but if you get a straw hat, you can always dress it up with a bit of ribbon from one of the many spools at the shop. Blankets, chairs and picnics are the norm at the Point-to-Point. Alcohol has been a fixture of the Point-to-Point scene for so long that when I called the organizer to confirm that it was allowed this year, she laughed . . . and said yes.
Re: Craving India: What about Bombay Palace...their Kulfi is the BEST!!
Washington, D.C.: Hello, What would you recommend for a quiet day in the city alone. I don't want to spend much money, I don't want to be in an area where there'll be a lot of tourist's and I'm not a big drinker. I have Sunday's free but it's difficult to find something to do on my own since my other half works. Could be as simple as finding the right shade and reading my book but I'd still like to be around people. Thanks
Anne: No tourists, huh? Because I would have said you could attempt some meditation at the free yoga classes by the Monument, but you'd have to be prepared for crowds. You could just take yourself to a discounted Sunday class as part of Yoga Week. Crystal City is having a block party where you could park yourself for some people watching. W Domku is one of my favorite places in D.C. -- just perfect for a late brunch and lingering over a drink. Or head to Eastern Market for bluebucks at the counter or a crepe to go, browse the market and then hang out in Lincoln or Garfield Park with your book.
Fun Times at Eatbar: Thanks to the Post for highlighting the Jon Cusack film tribute at Eatbar last Sunday. There's nothing better than a beer, a burger and "Better Off Dead".
I hear next Sunday is dedicated to Bill Murray.
Jen: Cusack rules. My only quibble with that event was the absence of "The Sure Thing," which should have replaced "One Crazy Summer." But still, a very cool way to spend an afternoon. Yeah, looks like Eatbar has made the all-day approach a permanent thing, hence the Murray fest this Sunday. (What, no "Meatballs"? Travesty!) Following week is all Swayze all the time.
Washington, DC: Okay, who wrote that "Cut Copy aren't making their way to DC any time soon" in Nightlife Agenda?
---> Thu May 15- CUT COPY, BLACK KIDS, MOBIUS BAND $15 Black Cat Mainstage 8:00
Fritz: Yeah, that was me. The Black Cat show wasn't listed on the last press release I got from their record label, so of course it completely slipped my mind, even though I'd gotten something about the Black Kids, who are opening the show and who I'm very interested in seeing. (I can't believe they can live up to the hype live, even if the demo version of "I'm Not Going To Teach Your Boyfriend How To Dance With You" is a very impressive slice of ramshackle indie-pop.)
Logan Circle: What's the scoop on the bar/restaurant replacing Dakota Cowgirl? I heard rumors of a bar with 50 beers on tap? Any idea when it will open?
Fritz: Rustico says that the two-level bar and grill, which didn't have a name last time I asked, will open "sometime between July 4 and Labor Day." So that's October, then...
Mcpherson square: Hey Gurus, I'm going to Bethesda on Friday for the Art Walk. Where should we get dinner after? It'll be around 9pm; two couples in our twenties. I think the tour ends at the intersection of Bethesda and Woodmont Aves. We've been to that steak frites place which was good, rock bottom brewery, and rock creek restaurant. Somewhere reasonably priced with American or other uncomplicated food. Good wine or cocktails is plus! Thank you!
Jen: There are many, many options near that intersection. You can never go wrong with Jaleo, just expect to wait a bit for a table. Levante's, Delhi Dhaba and Cafe Deluxe are also a few short steps away and not too expensive.
Arlington, Va.: This might be a question better suited for Tom S, but what is the etiquette on oysters that are not well-shucked. A few times I have been to Hank's and I always want to love their oysters but every time I find they haven't been shucked well and I end up eating shell. Can I say something? Just suck it up (no pun intended).
Also, my parents are coming in a few weeks and we're looking for a nice casual-ish dinner place to take them as a thank you. I would like to go to Hank's (assuming they clean up their oyster act) but do you think Rustico is worth a try? They like micro-brews and wine both equally.
Julia: I hate getting bits of shell when slurping down an oyster! I wouldn't throw a fit -- it's a common casualty -- but I'd say something. If this has happened to you repeatedly, management really should know. I prefer Hank's over Rustico, but with all your shell troubles, Rustico is probably a good choice. Tallula is another favorite of mine -- though that is slightly pricier.
HATS!: Try TJ Maxx and Marshall's. I get my Derby hats there every year (I may just be at a party, but I still need to be properly dressed).
Julia: I so should have thought of this! Thanks!
And the answer is...: Help, GoGs!
Some friends and I are looking for a new Trivia/Pub Quiz night- we've been a couple of times to Fado, and while we like it, it's just too crowded and if we can't get there early, well, forget about a seat. Any tips on another trivia night in the city? We're mid 20s-early 30s, open to anything, but are hoping to find a place that's not quite as crazy. Any night but Tuesday works! THANK YOU!
Fritz: My list of favorite trivia nights is here, and I'd say my favorites are Smart Ass at Nellie's, Bedrock Billiards and Wonderland's. There's so much BlackBerry cheating going on at Fado that I worry for the integrity of the quiz some nights. (Sorry, I take my trivia seriously.)
McLean, VA: Jen, you suck and that's because you called it "355." Unless you're a car dealership, it's "Rockville Pike." And while we're on the topic, it's not "North Bethesda," it's "Rockville Pike."
Jen: Actually, I called it 355 -- as opposed to Rockville Pike -- because, if memory serves, there is only one Taco Bell on the Rockville Pike portion of the road. If you keep going up the Hungerford Drive way and on into Gaithersburg, I believe you will find more. Don't accuse me of not knowing my MoCo! (Wait, should I be proud of that?)
Alexandria, Va. again: re: Gold Cup. Thanks for the guidance, Fritz. I trust you if you say it's a good time. I had wondered if the tent deal was the way to go, and it seems that it is. The tix we were offered are with my friend's tent, so I guess everything is set and we'll see you there. Keep an eye out- I'll be the one in the sundress, and he'll be the guy in khakis...
Fritz: The thing about Gold Cup is to have an open mind and enjoy the day and the folks you're with. If your idea of heaven is hanging out at the Black Cat's Red Room all day, then you might not like Gold Cup. But I think it's fun to get dressed up and drink gin in a field all day.
to Hat Seeker: I saw some hats at Banana Republic and J Crew that would be acceptable for a horse race and I don't think they were too expensive. Plus, you can wear it to the beach this summer!
Fritz: A friend of mine scored her Gold Cup hat at J. Crew last year. Just dress it up with a ribbon or some such so that it doesn't look like, you know, you bought it from J. Crew.
Alexandria, Va.: I like the Caps, but I'm a Flyers fan first.
Ovie ain't gonna look too pretty after Philly phinishes with him.
Fritz: Then he'll fit right in with the Philly fans!
Washington, DC: Hey Gurus! I was walking down U Street the other day and saw a bar called Pure Lounge....is this new? Is it a dance club or just a lounge?
Rhome: Kinda new. I guess. Crept in like a thief and wiped Bar Nun off the block. I stay on U Street like I own property there and the switch-up literally came out of nowhere. Bar Nun was a lounge and dance club, depending on day of the week and time. The two levels was good for handling both purposes at once. Looks like Pure has shed the last vestiges of Bar Nun's bohemian elements, although I haven't heard of The Movement being evicted yet.
Foggy Bottom, D.C.: Well now that DC United was so fabulous in the season opener I am looking for a place to watch the games that I don't have tickets for. For me the ideal place would actually be fairly quiet. Can you suggest a mellow spot to watch the games?
Fritz: Kitty O'Shea's and the Four Courts in Arlington usually have the soccer on, and both do a good pint of Guinness. They're more laidback than, say, Summers or Lucky Bar.
Arlington, Va.: Any suggestions for where to watch the Masters final round on Sunday?
Fritz: Caddies in Bethesda. Where else will you find a pin flag from Augusta's 18th green hanging on the ceiling?
Washington, D.C.: Hi GoGs, I'm getting married and trying to come up with a solid idea for the rehearsal dinner. We're thinking around 25 people and would like to have a nice meal, since the wedding itself will likely be a more casual, noon-time, buffet-style event. Any suggestions besides Old Ebbitt? Thanks!
Julia: Olives, Zola, DC Coast, 2941 and the Tabard Inn come to mind. In his chat, Tom Sietsema just reccommended Tosca and Equinox as other options. For more choices, here's a super long list of area restaurants with private rooms. With only 25 guests, you shouldn't have too much trouble at many restaurants in town. I'd call some of your favorites and see if they can accommodate you.
Washington, D.C.: RR Wedding goers could cab and hit Lounge 201 for martinis and then the basement of Irish Times for their sweaty dancing time. IT is young, but if you're all in mass it doesn't really matter about the rest of the crowd right? There's not a lot to work with here you're right ...
Fritz: Nice thought, but Lounge 201 isn't open on Saturdays. Tuesday-Friday only.
Lost, USA: I had the page the chats were on bookmarked, but now it just has the prior weeks' chats listed. I search Going out Gurus on washingtonpost.com and I get to the same page. I have to flip around until I find the box with what's live online before I can find you. Is there a direct link I can bookmark and put in my calendar? Thanks!
Anne: You mean all you can find is this page? Yeah, I don't know why today's chat isn't on there right now either -- it's my oops. But you can always find the newest chat on the City Guide main page, promise. Sounds like you are good at finding stuff, Lost.
Washington, D.C.: Hey kids! I'm looking for a great place to eat in the U street area with some friends from out of town before hitting some watering holes in the area (we are planning on a little St. Ex and/or Local Sixteen action). Type of food doesn't matter to us, but would prefer the meal not to break the bank.
Julia: The fried-green-tomato BLTs at St. Ex are amazing, so you could eat there, but for cheap options on U Street, I'd try Polly's, Busboys and Coppi's.
More Hats: You can also get some great ones at vintage/thrift stores. I got a great one at Polly Sue's in Takoma. I'm sure the other places out there have good ones too. You could also try Meeps.
Julia: Another good idea. You may not find a wide selection at a vintage shop, but probably one or two that fit the bill. I'm all about vintage, but pre-worn hats and shoes are where I personally draw the line.
Cusack Film Festival: Dear GOGs,
Jen: All I can say to that is: Do you mind if I go out with Beth?
We are going to catch the 2 p.m. show of Hairspray at the Warner theater on Sat 4/19 and are trying to fit in a brunch beforehand. Can you recommend some nice brunch places?
Julia: The dim sum brunch I mentioned above could suit you. There's also always nearby Chef Geoff's and Old Ebbitt Grill.
Rehearsal dinner for 25: You might want to check out both the Morrison-Clark and the Henley Park Hotel's Coeur de Lion. Depending on the day, they could probably accommodate for the meal, and both have tasty, and tasteful, restaurants for the occasion!
Julia: Thanks for the tip! I've never been to either, but have been reading great things about desserts at Morrison-Clark.
Re: Good indian food date: My boyfriend took me to Polo India Club in Dupont a few weeks ago. The food was great and the ambience was perfect. I definitely think it was a great choice.
Julia: One out of two Indian food suggestions.
Washington, D.C.: To Craving Indian: Try Heritage India at the bottom of Dupont Circle. The food is fantastic and the atmosphere is great for a date.
Silver Spring, Md.: I really need a spa day, without the spa price. I'd like a facial, massage, and pedicure. How much should I expect to pay? Do you have suggestions for some moderately prices spas near me? Thanks so much!
Janet: You may be in luck -- at least your timing is good. From April 14-20, it's Spa Week in the greater metropolitan area. Check it out.
HATS!: HATS!: Try TJ Maxx and Marshall's. I get my Derby hats there every year (I may just be at a party, but I still need to be properly dressed).
Thank you!! That is perfect, I'm going after work!
Julia: Derby party girl, your readers thank you!
Brooklyn, New York: I know this is a D.C. chat, but do you have any suggestions for fun bars with good beer selections in Brooklyn?
Fritz: I don't usually answer questions about that city four hours north of here, but since I was just up there visiting friends in Williamsburg, let's say: Spuyten Duyvil: 359 Metropolitan. Insane beer selection loaded with esoteric imports I'd never tasted -- all of which were remarkably great. Lenora's Way (formerly Wells Ales and Lagers): 303 Bedford. Great little craft beer bar with good micros on draft, a very tiny bar area and a large patio out back. Barcade: 388 Union. Vintage 80s video games and microbrews. Yes, they have Tapper. Radegast Beer Hall: 113 N. 3rd. A gigantic beer garden just off Metropolitan Avenue with German and Czech brews. I haven't been here, but my boy Mat swears by it, and it's on my list for next time.
My grandmother, aunt and 8 year old cousin are coming to visit D.C. for the first time ever this weekend. Any suggestions on what to do on Saturday during the day?
Thanks so much- I love you guys!!
David: There are actually lots of family/kid-friendly events this Saturday. Birthday celebration at the zoo, Family Day at the Air and Space Museum, Library of Congress mini-festival and, of course, Cherry Blossom Parade and Street Festival.
Set up spot: Trying to casually set up two friends on Saturday night without being awkward. A whole bunch of us will be going out, but there are two I think are good for each other. Can you think of a fun spot that won't be too crowded, but will still be fun for a small group in the U St/Adams Morgan/Dupont area? I'm thinking Stetson's style perhaps...
Fritz: The Saloon. No standing at the bar, so you'll have to get them sitting next to each other at a table. No TV to distract them. Sounds perfect, yes?
Lounge 201: Closed on Saturdaays. You don't say. I need to get out more.
Fritz: So do I, my friend. So do I.
Arlington, Va.: Hey guys and gals, hope you can help. My brother is coming down from Philly on Friday, and will be here around 10pm. He was hoping we (he, my husband, and I) could go out for a drink at a bar and chat. We're in the Pentagon City area and would rather not go into DC, but we could go to Old Town. Here's the thing -- we're really laid back and, honestly, I've only been to bars twice in my life. (The bro goes more though.) So, we're looking someplace low-key and relaxed, maybe to get a snack too? Any ideas?
Fritz: Mackey's Public House in Crystal City is a sure bet for this sort of thing -- not as busy at Bailey's or Crystal City Sports Pub, it's a relaxed Irish bar with plenty of regulars and good pints and fish and chips. Also: Darts!
RE: Cusack!: "All I can say to that is: Do you mind if I go out with Beth?"
No problem. I'll be busy all weekend skiing the K-12.
Jen: You people love your "Better Off Dead." And who can blame you? Booger is in that movie.
Perplexed in Alexandria: Readers write in all the time asking about bachelorette party ideas, and now I really need some of those bridesmaids to help me out! Is it common practice to NOT allow bridesmaids to bring dates to weddings? My sister has been told by the bride's mother that she can't bring her boyfriend, which makes it even harder for my sister to afford all the crazy costs. Advice from the gurus or their loyal readers? Please?
Julia: I saved this question until the end, since it's sort of in Hax territory and I didn't want to get us off on such a tangent, BUT: I got to interview Carly from theknot.com a few months ago and she tells me it is customary to let the bridal party bring their SOs or just dates in general. That said, what's customary isn't what works for the bride's mother in this case. If she's paying, it's her rules. If your sister really needs the exception, either the bride or groom should talk to the mother of the bride. If you plead a reasonable case, I'm sure she'll come around.
Washington, D.C. : Hi GoGs, When would one have to show up at Tattoo to avoid any hideous lines on a Friday or Saturday?
Fritz: 10:30? 11? The lines after midnight can be ridiculous, I agree.
Bethesda, Md.: Not so much entertainment, but do you know of the best place to get a traditional shave in this town? Most barbers I've found haven't picked up a razor since they got their license. Thanks for your help. Janet: It's not exactly in your hood, but The Barber Shop in Ballston gets high marks for the classic shave experience.
Hats!: Slipping this in, I hope: Filene's actually has a great selection. Both D.C. venues.
Julia: Hm, I guess I haven't checked out their hats in a while. I have a Filene's handbag addiction.
Dupont Circle: Fritz just recommended The Saloon on U Street. and I'm gonna have to chime in. I went Friday night and I get the whole "rules" vibe but it was a bit much. First, we had to switch tables (going from the best table in the place to maybe the worst) and were scolding twice for volume. If you are a subdued crowd, I'm sure you would have no problem but my 2 friends and I get a little rowdy after a beer or two, apparently! I won't be going back.
Fritz: I know the Saloon can be a bit over the top, and Commy (the owner) can rub the wrong way in a "NO BEER FOR YOU!" kind of way, but I have to ask -- why did you have to switch tables?
Washington, D.C.: Besides drinking out of a brown bag on my front stoop, what are some free activities going on this weekend? After having submitted my taxes today I am BROKE! I want to have some fun and feel better about my relationship with Uncle Sam...help me out GOGs
Fritz: I know the feeling, D.C. Our blog is a pretty good resource for this: There's the Free and Easy column, which comes out every Monday and lists free events and exhibits for the coming week, and Julia also wrote this handy post on fun Saturday activities. The Japanese street festival, which follows the Cherry Blossom Parade, is a pretty cool event, with martial arts demonstrations, geisha performances, sumo wrestling, live music and sake tasting -- and the weather should be great (fingers crossed).
Chinatown Salon: Help me! I need to find a place in Chinatown (or otherwise close to Judiciary Square metro) where I can get a less than 60 minute haircut tomorrow at lunch. I know Bang is right here but I have heard horrible things about it and if I'm 15 minutes late I get charged for the super expensive haircut anyway??
Julia: You could try the Aveda Institute near the movie theater. That's a good place for a cheap haircut, but since the practitioners are learning, you have to be willing to roll with the punches a little bit. A few words about Bang. I was never a one-stylist kind-of girl before I met Patrick from Bang. He's done great things with my hair over the last few years and I just generally enjoy spending a half-hour with him every two months. Bang seems to be a love-it or hate-it place, but I just wanted to step into the love-it camp for a minute and give Bang some props. Also, speaking as someone who is chronically late, I don't think it's too much to ask that you'll have to pay for a $38 haircut, if you miss the first half of it. It sucks, but since the haircuts are slotted in 30-minute increments, it would really mess up their schedule.
Aroma's Smoking Waiver: Not as many people because of the smoking? Somehow I doubt that, smoking laws are hurting bars all over the world. I'd say it's probably the staff losses and the fact that crowds have shifted east in the city (U St. and Penn Quarter) over the past few years.
Fritz: I think it would be hard for ANY bar to cope with losing their best bartenders -- both of whom had intensely loyal followings -- and the DJs. Funny, though, that I have heard from more people that they're going there because of the smoking than people who are avoiding it.
Woman in a rocky marriage: I have 2 questions if you'll be so kind. 1. My troubled marriage needs some rekindling time. Last week we had a great time pretending to be young and in love again around U street for dinner (Bar Pilar) and drinks (Local 16 patio). Any recommendations on what to do this Sunday evening? Atmospheres conducive to pretending to be young urban chic lovers again are a plus. 2. A friend with a soon-to-be budding marriage is in need of a classic bridal shower tea plus a funkier afterparty. Tea would be for about 35 people and hopefully with reservations and not as expensive as the Ritz. is that even possible? After party would be out of the ordinary for more like 10 fun-loving 20-something ladies -- think hookah, drag queens, drinks, late night craziness. Recommendations much appreciated.
Anne: Hey, sorry to hear it's been a stormy time lately. Sounds like you've been hitting those romantic neighborhoods where there's plenty to keep exploring. The intimate Al Crostino is a gem for date night, or continue the rooftop theme with Tabaq. You could head to Marvin or a wine bar afterward. For tea, the Park Hyatt Tea Cellar offers flights of tea and nibble in the afternoons -- I'm not sure how its pricing compares to the Ritz, though. For the girls night out, the drag queens are on Tuesdays, so I'm not sure that works. Popular bachelorette spots these days include the rocker bar Tattoo and Play -- that's the one with the stripper pole.
Brooklyn, NY: Re: Beer bars in Brooklyn...in the other part of town, aka, not Williamsburg, try Brazen Head on Atlantic Avenue for quality beers, or Floyd for their $12 crapacopia of cheap cans in a bucket.
Fritz: Ah, Brazen Head. Good call. I should also add Mark bar in Greenpoint, where a good friend of mine used to bartend. Sixpoint beer, free snacks, skee-ball.
Dupont Circle: I'm The Saloon girl...we had to switch because a party was waiting for it? Not sure but we waited at the front door for about 10 minutes for a table and then were seated. After my boyfriend got up and went to the bathroom, the waiter asked me to move because another party showed up? Same amount of people as my party. I have a feeling we wouldn't have been asked to move had my 6'6" boyfriend not gotten up...I like the scene, I just don't like being threatened (and annoyed).
Fritz: Wow. That's ... odd. And yet, I believe you, simply because the Saloon can be just plain weird sometimes.
Petworth: "I also have a feeling that the anti-Yankees sentiment comes from D.C. being so Orioles-friendly for decades; as someone who grew up in Maryland, we never hated the Sahx as much as the team from New York"
And Fritz, don't forget that for old-time hard line DC baseball fans, the Yankees are simply evil. "Damn Yankees" is a TRUE story. Really!
Fritz: Before my time, but true.
Sleepy in D.C.: Almighty Gurus - for the past hour I've searched the Web and the archives to no avail; I am looking for the name of a fairly new and hip shared house/bed and breakfast that was portrayed in a Post article not too long ago. I think it was in the Kalorama neighborhood, and they had a "no shoes beyond the foyer" type of policy. I'm looking for accommodation for a friend of mine who will be interning for a couple of months in the D.C. Do you or the 'nuts have any idea? Please?
Julia: It has taken me an hour of trying to remember this group house/hostel, but I think I found it! Is this the article you were talking about?
Bridesmaid: Bad form for the bride (or the mother?) not to invite significant other (especially if long term) but worse form for the guest to ask for an exception. Even if she is a bridesmaid. Bring the boyfriend along for the weekend and let him find something else do to during the wedding, if it's hotel expense that's the problem. But honestly? What guy wants to go to a wedding anyway?
Julia: Yeah, I guess you're right. Probably is bad form to ask, but I think that if it's going to be a weird festering sore for the couple, they should probably just speak up to the bride's mom. What's the harm in asking? It all depends on the people involved, obviously, but I see no reason to be all mad about it (as the question asker appeared to be) without talking to the mother of the bride first. Good point about men and weddings. But I have to say, my man's never met an open bar that he didn't like. That about wraps it up for us today, kiddos. We'll catch you next week!
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Every Thursday, washingtonpost.com's City Guide experts share their best bets for local flavor, great dates and family fun. Got plans? Great. Need plans? Just ask.
| 306.9375 | 1 | 28.25 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803294.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803294.html
|
Don't Blame NAFTA for Downturn, Many Economists Say
|
2008041019
|
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) have fed the anti-free-trade view in campaigning ahead of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary April 22. Facing voters in a state that has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, Obama has promised to stand against trade deals that cost U.S. jobs, while saying Clinton supported NAFTA in the past. Clinton counters that she has always opposed the deal, even as her husband signed it as president, and she has promised to call a "timeout" on future trade deals if elected president. "I don't think NAFTA has been good for America," she said.
But is that judgment fair?
Many economists do not think so. It is true that the United States has lost about 4 million manufacturing jobs since 1994, the year NAFTA went into effect and eliminated most hurdles to trade and investment between the United States, Mexico and Canada. Not only are items such as clothing, toys and televisions increasingly made abroad, but so are more complex goods including sophisticated magnets that help steer military smart bombs and radio frequency identification chips embedded in new U.S. passports.
But many economists blame the march of technology and the increasingly dominant manufacturing role of China, not NAFTA, for that shift.
Overall, they said, NAFTA has been a net plus, if a modest one, for the U.S. economy. Even as the number of factory jobs dropped, manufacturing output in the United States was up 58 percent between 1993 and 2006, as U.S. plants produced more goods with fewer workers. Exports are at a record high, and trade among the three NAFTA partners has tripled since 1994. Meanwhile, overall employment in the United States has grown 24 percent and average unemployment is down since NAFTA went into effect. Some cities along the border with Mexico have grown, and farm exports have gone up.
"On balance, researchers have found NAFTA a slight positive for the U.S. as a whole," wrote Anil Kumar, a Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas economist who studied the impact of the agreement.
The escalating debate over the future of free-trade agreements promises to be a stark fault line in the campaign. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee for president, is an unabashed supporter of free trade, and the Bush administration is pushing for a free-trade agreement with Colombia.
Even with all their objections to these trade deals, Obama and Clinton have been careful about where and when they have attacked NAFTA. Campaigning in Pennsylvania and earlier in Ohio, both places where trade is blamed by many for job losses, they have pledged to withdraw from the treaty if it is not renegotiated to toughen labor and environmental standards.
But the candidates were mostly silent on the deal in Texas, where economists said it has increased exports not only to Mexico, but also to Canada, Europe, Latin American and Asia.
Some top congressional Democrats have said that rather than renegotiate NAFTA -- which analysts call a difficult proposition likely to produce strong demands from the Canadians and Mexicans, who have their own problems with the treaty -- the candidates should focus on easing the transition of workers into the new economy.
"NAFTA is not the main reason workers today are hurting," House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Emanuel, who served as the point man for the passage of NAFTA under President Bill Clinton, called for a "new social contract" of improved health care, job training and economic development to gird workers for global competition.
|
The North American Free Trade Agreement is once again a prime scapegoat for the nation's growing economic troubles, drawing blame for sending jobs overseas and flattening wages for U.S. workers. That sentiment has intensified as the economy has deteriorated, a fall punctuated last week by the...
| 13.54902 | 0.568627 | 0.764706 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803017.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803017.html
|
IMF Puts Cost of Crisis Near $1 Trillion
|
2008041019
|
Worldwide losses from the credit crisis could near $1 trillion, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday, reflecting the massive cost of the breakdown in markets for home mortgages and other kinds of debt.
The IMF, which is holding its semiannual meeting in Washington this week, urged banks to disclose losses quickly, raise extra cash if necessary, improve their techniques for dealing with risk and reconsider how top managers are paid so that they have better long-term incentives.
The IMF estimated that banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and other kinds of investors will suffer huge losses: $565 billion on U.S. home mortgages, $240 billion on debt backed by commercial real estate such as office buildings and shopping centers, $120 billion on corporate loans such as those used to acquire businesses, and $20 billions on consumer loans such as credit cards.
Those figures add up to $945 billion in losses expected within two years. That would be about $143 for every person on Earth, or $3,100 for every U.S. resident.
"What began as a fairly contained deterioration in portions of the U.S. subprime market has metastasized into severe dislocations in broader credit and funding markets that now pose risks to the macroeconomic outlook in the United States and globally," the IMF said in its Global Financial Stability Report.
The IMF emphasized that the numbers are estimates. But they are similar to those of a growing number of private analysts, such as those at Moody's Economy.com and Goldman Sachs, who have also estimated losses in the trillion-dollar range. The IMF report shows that predictions of such losses, which were extreme outliers a few months ago, have become mainstream.
Already, banks and other financial institutions that report publicly have marked down the value of their assets by about $200 billion. Hedge funds and other investment vehicles that do not have to disclose their losses have probably also recognized significant losses.
The report indicated that by mid-March, U.S. banks had reported "most of their estimated losses," with European banks now catching up. But institutions other than banks, such as insurance companies, "may yet also report sizable additional writedowns."
The ultimate scale of losses could end up to be more manageable; estimates such as those prepared by the IMF can swing wildly depending on assumptions such as where home prices will settle and how many people will walk away from mortgages they cannot afford.
"We have all to be a little bit humble on the analysis of the crisis, because it has been a very, very complex crisis," Jaime Caruana, the IMF's director of monetary and capital markets, said at a briefing.
Mickey D. Levy, chief economist at Bank of America, noted that during the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, analysts routinely predicted huge losses -- estimates that turned out to be too pessimistic.
Also yesterday, the Federal Reserve released minutes of the March meeting at which it cut the interest rate it controls by three-quarters of a percentage point -- showing that members of the central bank's policymaking committee feared a recession.
|
Worldwide losses from the credit crisis could near $1 trillion, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday, reflecting the massive cost of the breakdown in markets for home mortgages and other kinds of debt.
| 16.378378 | 1 | 37 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802798.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802798.html
|
Start-Up Kids Grow Up to Be Millionaires So Fast
|
2008041019
|
Kulveer Taggar says he expected to wait a little longer before becoming a millionaire. His start-up company, Auctomatic, a Web-based helper that automates the chores of running auctions for power-sellers on eBay, was doing just fine. He was gathering customers, getting noticed and even about to land a second round of financing. Revenue was nonexistent, but what do you expect when you don't charge customers and don't run ads? It was all about building for the future.
Suddenly, though, the future happened -- or, depending on how you look at it, the future never got to happen.
A Canadian firm called Communicate.com approached the British-born Taggar and his partners about buying the start-up and hiring them to revamp the combined companies. (Communicate's business was making money from the traffic that came from owning prime domain names like Perfume.com.)
Instantly, the dreams of evolving the Auctomatic concept were supplanted by a chance to help out someone else's dream -- and become mildly rich in the process. Quite a temptation for someone like Taggar, who is only 24. The same goes for his partners Harjeet Taggar (his cousin) and Patrick Collison, who are 22 and 19, respectively.
The Auctomatic story is a parable of the Internet's start-up culture, where it's cheap to begin companies, possible to become a billionaire and fairly common to bail out as a millionaire -- all before you're barely old enough to shave. I met Kulveer and Harjeet last year when I was writing a story about Y Combinator, a company that auditions prospective start-ups around the world and relocates the winners to Silicon Valley for three months.
In exchange for subsistence funds, advice and access to the Valley's biggest investors, Y Combinator takes a small slice of equity. At the beginning of the odyssey, everybody gets a gray T-shirt that reads "Make something people want." If a company goes public or gets bought, its founders get a second, black T-shirt that says "I made something people want." By the time I finished my article, one company in the group -- Zenter, which made online-presentation software -- snagged black T-shirts after Google bought it in a multimillion-dollar deal. Other companies had secured funding from some of the best-known investors and venture-capital firms in the Valley.
Auctomatic's story was particularly compelling. Oxford grads Kulveer and Harjeet had pitched Y Combinator as a sort of a Craigslist for college kids, expanding a Web site they'd begun in England. They called the company Boso ("Buy Online Sell Online"), unaware of the clownish connotations that word would have in the States. After three weeks here, they changed not only their name but their entire business plan, gearing their efforts to the multibillion-dollar market of eBay sellers. They wound up their stay in Silicon Valley with funding from former Google executives Paul Buchheit and Chris Sacca.
Not long after, Y Combinator head Paul Graham met Collison, a teenage Irish code-wizard who was applying for the Y Combinator summer program in Cambridge, Mass. Graham sent Collison to the Auctomatic guys, and Collison, who'd left MIT during his freshman year, helped develop software that was winning the hearts of eBay sellers. Then, last fall, came the acquisition bid.
When Auctomatic began negotiating, it put its efforts for a second funding round on hold -- and just about ran out of money. Meanwhile, when word went out that Auctomatic was on the market, two other prospective buyers jumped in. Because of confidentiality agreements, they can't be named, but they can be described as among the top Internet companies in the world. Deeply competitive in the race to hire the smartest people, these fast-growing firms seemed to covet Auctomatic as much for its talent as its technology.
Oddly, one company that exhibited little interest in the Auctomatic technology and its creators was the most logical fit: eBay. One would think that the auction giant -- currently fixated on retaining disgruntled sellers -- would jump at the chance to score some technology that would make life easier for its customers. But eBay yawned at Auctomatic's feelers. It also declined to comment.
"It was a really tough choice," says Kulveer, but Auctomatic decided to go with Communicate, which on March 26 announced the $5 million purchase in conjunction with a name change and shift in strategy. As Live Current Media, the firm will try to build innovative e-commerce applications instead of just cashing in on its domain names. "Their software is a set of tools and technologies to help us fulfill our potential," says Live Current Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Ehrlich. "And the guys are amazing -- incredibly bright and so hungry."
Y Combinator's Graham wishes the Auctomatic team had held on longer; he says the most successful entrepreneurs are those who resist buyout offers and keep building their companies. But he understands the temptation.
"When you're that young and someone dangles all that money in front of you, it's hard to turn down," he says. Now he's going to order some black shirts for the newly minted Auctomatic millionaires.
Steven Levy, a senior editor at Newsweek, can be reached atsteven.levy@newsweek.com.
|
Kulveer Taggar says he expected to wait a little longer before becoming a millionaire. His start-up company, Auctomatic, a Web-based helper that automates the chores of running auctions for power-sellers on eBay, was doing just fine. He was gathering customers, getting noticed and even about to l...
| 17.233333 | 0.966667 | 56.066667 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802848.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802848.html
|
France Cancels Mission to Aid Colombia Hostage
|
2008041019
|
Betancourt, a French-Colombian citizen, was abducted six years ago by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, while campaigning for the presidency.
The rebel statement seemed intended to force Colombian President Ãlvaro Uribe to make the next move. It also leaves Betancourt and dozens of other hostages languishing in jungle prisons while making peace talks more remote.
A French government plane has been waiting on a Bogota airstrip since Thursday with doctors hoping to reach Betancourt, who is said to be suffering from hepatitis.
The FARC wants the government to demilitarize two counties as the first step toward a broad hostage-prisoner swap. Only as part of such an exchange, they said, would Betancourt go free.
The rebel statement, dated Friday and released Tuesday, said France had not coordinated with the rebels before its plane arrived.
|
World news headlines from the Washington Post,including international news and opinion from Africa,North/South America,Asia,Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather,news in Spanish,interactive maps,daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage.
| 3.478261 | 0.347826 | 0.347826 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803252.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803252.html
|
Strife Sinks National Harbor Bill
|
2008041019
|
A bill to create new liquor licenses for the massive National Harbor development in Prince George's County died in the waning hours of Maryland's legislative session Monday night, torpedoed amid heated arguments about minority contracting at the project that escalated into a showdown between Gov. Martin O'Malley and a state senator.
As negotiations broke down, National Harbor representatives requested that the bill be killed, preferring to let the projects' hotels and restaurants take their chances on navigating the standard liquor licensing process in front of the county's liquor board.
The bill's failure came as its sponsor, Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), pushed amendments opposed by the developer. One confrontation between Muse and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) became so animated that their raised voices briefly attracted the attention of a state trooper, an observer said.
Then, late Monday afternoon, O'Malley (D) summoned county senators and County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D) to a closed-door meeting at the State House to try reach a compromise. According to numerous participants, O'Malley told Muse that his demands of the developer might be perceived as a "shakedown."
According to Sen. Ulysses Currie (D-Prince George's), Muse shot back, "Are you calling me a crook?"
"It was pretty rare and pretty uncomfortable," said Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George's), who was also present.
The bill would have allowed for 40 liquor licenses at National Harbor's entertainment complex on the Potomac riverfront, 20 of them to be issued by the county's liquor board in the next year. The bill also would have allowed liquor licenses at nightclubs that do not serve food, otherwise banned in the county, and alcohol at outdoor festivals for 120 days each year.
It failed after Muse, who represents the southern Prince George's district that includes the project, tried to wrest new commitments on minority contracting from developer Milton V. Peterson. The development, which includes condominiums, office and retail space, hotels and restaurants, is under construction and is scheduled to open in a couple of months.
As negotiations foundered, Muse proposed amending his bill to cap at seven the number of liquor licenses issued at the 300-acre development. He said the 40 sought by National Harbor were unnecessary and unprecedented.
In a letter to Muse, Peterson wrote that construction is underway on 18 restaurants and groundwork has begun on six others, including Ruth's Chris Steak House, McCormick & Schmick's Seafood and Rosa Mexicano. The cap would mean the project could not attract more high-quality restaurants, the letter said.
A compromise worked out at the tense meeting Monday afternoon among O'Malley and senators would have capped licenses at 13. Soon after, National Harbor representatives requested that the bill be killed.
The alternative licensing process available to restaurants and hotels might mute the impact of the bill's failure on the $4 billion project. But the experience left county politicians bruised, as some expressed concern about Peterson's commitment to minority contracting while Johnson and others fretted that the events could tarnish the county's business reputation.
|
A bill to create new liquor licenses for the massive National Harbor development in Prince George's County died in the waning hours of Maryland's legislative session Monday night, torpedoed amid heated arguments about minority contracting at the project that escalated into a showdown between Gov....
| 12.44898 | 0.959184 | 45.081633 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040401425.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040401425.html
|
Ready to Go Nowhere Overnight? Get a Berth Here.
|
2008041019
|
All aboard the hotel room.
In truth, my "cabin" at the Fulton Steamboat Inn wasn't departing from the dock anytime soon, nor were my accommodations at the Red Caboose Motel ever going to pull out from the depot. Yet, with a little imagination, I easily could have imagined a flurry of confetti and a wave of hands from well-wishers as I embarked on a great journey in Lancaster County, Pa.
A hotel room doesn't have to be as utilitarian as bed, television, extra roll of toilet paper. Overnight accommodations can become destinations worth REM deprivation. Disney and Las Vegas, of course, perfected the idea of theme hotels, indulging guests who wish to role-play as pirates, New Yorkers or pre-feminism princesses. But you don't have to go Mickey or broke to find such fantasyland beds: Pennsylvania Dutch country, of all places, boasts two hotels that capture the romance of travel in rooms built for sleep.
"We tell everyone we're going on a cruise . . . to Lancaster," said Francine Davio of Clarksburg, who was attending the Knights of Columbus's weekend reunion at the Fulton Steamboat Inn, the third visit for the group of 34. "It's always smooth sailing."
From Route 30, the hotel looms up like a ship tossed inland by a tidal wave. The 97-room property mirrors the design of the 19th-century steamship created by Robert Fulton, who was born in a farmhouse only miles away. The shipshape hotel has two black smokestacks that compete for air space with silos on nearby Amish farms, a red paddle wheel above the entrance and a moat that gives the impression of being at sea. (Unfortunately, ducks stand in for seagulls, koi for sharks.)
The nautical theme continues indoors as well. Each floor is named after a deck (Promenade, Observation and Sun), and the lobby decor is Victorian-era Love Boat, with gilded mirrors, ladies-in-waiting velvet couches and old-fashioned boat prints. Music perfect for a costume ball or tea party is piped into the hallways and elevator. Better than a loop of Celine Dion's "Titanic" theme song.
The 18-year-old hotel is in the midst of a major renovation that will make the rooms even more seaworthy. (Due to a busy holiday weekend, I was assigned a room that in a past life was an office, hence the expansive Staples-style desk and Murphy bed -- for late work nights?) The 25 refurbished nautical rooms -- the others are in a stagey Victorian style -- will feature an oversize steering wheel on the wall or the bed's headboard, gold and blue linens and carpeting, gold-striped wallpaper that evokes wood planks and patterned curtains that swish like waves. "It's like Disneyland," said general manager Peter J. Chiccarine. "It's in costume."
And it's not so hard to stay in character. While relaxing by the indoor pool in the glass-walled bow, I spotted a silvery shark fin slicing through the water. I left before I could fully see what lay beneath (I assume a kid in a "Jaws" bathing cap).
For my second day in Lancaster, I tested my sleeping-car skills on the Strasburg Rail Road before moving into the Red Caboose Motel for the night.
The property's overnight digs include two baggage cars and 38 cabooses. (For those not raised on model train sets, a caboose is a freight train's tail, which provides the conductor with office space and simple shelter.) By comparison, the tourist Strasburg train was a coal-powered steam locomotive with Victorian flourishes. During the 45-minute ride, I fake-dozed comfortably in my velvet seat, stockinged feet up, head bent toward an unadulterated agrarian landscape.
The cabooses were much more austere but a million times more fun. As soon as I arrived, I ran around the rows of cars painted in bright LifeSavers colors and displaying the names of their former lines. The downside was that I experienced train envy. My rust-brown caboose from Pennsylvania paled beside the cherry-red Florida East Coast Railway model and the screaming-orange Illinois Central train.
That was the critical adult in me; the wide-eyed kid was full of glee. I had a whole car to myself, which included two rooms, each with a bed; a small table overlooking farmland; a microwave and fridge; and a bathroom with all the necessary plumbing. The cupola's high windows let in light and a natural fresco of sky and treetops. I could also sit on a back porch and look into other guest's cabooses, unless they closed their Thomas the Tank Engine curtains.
"It definitely brings out the kid in you," said Lori Zuba, whose three children and husband were touring the property before driving back to New Jersey. "This to me would be a photographic memory."
Before the cabooses hosted visitors, they were orphaned workhorses that Don Denlinger bought as a joke at a 1969 auction. Denlinger, a local developer who also built the Fulton Steamboat Inn, started with 19 cars, then expanded to the current number, which also includes two dining cars (the trains date from the 1900s through the 1950s). In 2005, Larry DeMarco bought the dilapidated property with the goal of restoring its former glory and innocence. "I am trying to take you back to old-time family fun," said the 48-year-old Philadelphian, a father of two.
Guests can play with goats, sheep and Lucy the pony in the petting zoo out back; watch films projected on the outside of a barn; take in the view from atop a silo; and bump down country roads in an Amish buggy. (Activities are seasonal.) The dining car serves three meals a day, and if you eat your broccoli, you can press a button at the hostess station to make the car shake as if you were really on the rails.
The motel sits beside the Strasburg Rail Road tracks, and the next morning, I waited on my caboose porch for the locomotive to arrive. I heard the whistle first, then spotted the plumes of white smoke. I walked the few steps to the tracks, sat on a bench, then felt the blast of motion fluff my hair. I waved at children pressed up against windows and returned the twinkle in the conductor's eye. Then I returned to my caboose. Who had train envy now?
|
Find Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland travel information, including web fares, Washington DC tours, beach/ski guide, international and United States destinations. Featuring Mid-Atlantic travel, airport information, traffic/weather updates
| 29.465116 | 0.348837 | 0.348837 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/06/DI2008040602261.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/06/DI2008040602261.html
|
Opinion Focus - washingtonpost.com
|
2008040819
|
Discussion Group: Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood
Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts
Eugene Robinson: Hello, everybody. Today's the day we hear from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on why things are so bad in Iraq that we have to "pause" withdrawal of the troops sent in the "surge" -- but so peachy that we should be proud of this open-ended occupation and continue it indefinitely. Maybe that makes sense in some parallel universe. Anyway, we get to see the three remaining presidential candidates in action. Will any of them be able to see clearly through the fog of congressional testimony?
Condi Rice: While I admire the accomplishments and diverse interests of Secretary Rice, I think she just doesn't have the personality a politician needs. Has she ever had a "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" moment? Have you ever seen a glimpse of a sense of humor? How about an expression of anger, regret or any other emotion. I just don't see her having anything more than a diverse look and an impressive resume.
washingtonpost.com: Run, Condi, Run! (Post, April 8)
Eugene Robinson: She would be an interesting candidate, though not necessarily a particularly good one. She does have a sense of humor, although she does not communicate it publicly. It would be fascinating to see if she could grow into the role.
Washington: Please tell me that you were being facetious in your column this morning. Isn't the fact that Rice's record as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State is one of almost unmitigated disaster just a bit relevant here? She was -- by almost any measure -- the worst National Security Adviser ever. Her job was to make sure that Bush got reliable intelligence, but instead she sat on the al-Qaeda threat and let through hyped Iraq intel. As Secretary of State, she has accomplished ... well, nothing more significant than a fashion statement. So please tell me you were kidding.
Eugene Robinson: I was being facetious, mostly. Anyone who has ever read my column knows that I disagree with her foreign policy and her whole view of the world. I don't dismiss her, however -- I think she was wrong about almost everything, but because of ideology, not stupidity. Her record as secretary of state is not distinguished because the Bush administration's view of the world -- and she helped shape that view -- is nuts.
Arlington, Va.: As a die-hard Democrat, I would absolutely love to see McCain pick Condi as his running mate. If Bush's approval ratings were twice their current level, Condi might be a plausible choice -- but Bush's approval ratings have been mired in the low 30s for what seems like an eternity, and voters clearly want a change from the Bush years. Unfortunately, I think McCain is too smart to pick as his running mate someone who ties him so closely not to an unpopular war (he's already tied to that with his support of the surge), but to an unpopular president and administration. That said, I hope he takes your advice!
Eugene Robinson: Shhhhhh! McCain might be listening.
Katy, Texas: I really liked your previous article on the two black Americas. While I don't always agree with your point of view, I always find it thoughtful and important to understanding other viewpoints (attempt No. 1 to get a comment from you). If only our current administration placed as much priority to understanding all sides (attempt No. 2).
My point is this: Living in Houston, I see plenty of successful whites, blacks and Hispanics living in all communities with very few racial tensions among peers. Going back to my hometown of Birmingham, Ala., I see things quite differently. Whites and blacks refuse to trust the other because they still seem to play off each other to the detriment of both. In an attempt to stay elected leaders of the city and county play to the racial divide that still segregates communities -- and the area as a whole -- from the rest of the country. I don't know which to blame, but until they agree to spread the success, pain and responsibility to manage the area, there will continue to be no real progress to bringing the communities together. Your thoughts?
washingtonpost.com: Two Black Americas (Post, April 4)
Eugene Robinson: I think your phrase "among peers" is relevant. I think people are more likely to get along in an integrated suburb where residents have essentially the same economic situation and educational attainment than in a community (if this is the case -- I'm making an assumption here) where whites hold economic power and blacks, generally, are poor.
Union, S.C.: I know this may sound crazy, but what about an Obama-Rice ticket? Where is it written that you have to be of the same party to be vice president? I'm thinking this is what would be best for this country.
Eugene Robinson: Since Obama and Rice have fundamentally different views of America's place in the world, this never would work.
Arlington, Va.: Interesting column today about the possibility of Condi being on the McCain ticket (yikes!) ... in the unlikely event that such a thing does come to pass, do you think that this would have the effect of helping to neutralize the impact of gender and race in the general election? And -- bottom line -- would having Condi on the ticket help or hurt McCain in the general (both with his "base" and with the whole electorate)?
Eugene Robinson: Actually, I think having Rice on the ticket would neutralize the issue of gender and/or race for some voters -- and heighten the issue for some others. For one thing, McCain would have to completely abandon the Republican "Southern strategy" that has been so successful all these years. And since Rice is "mildly pro-choice" and supports affirmative action, the conservative Republican base -- which still doesn't really like McCain anyway -- would be unhappy, to say the least.
Bethesda, Md.: Is there any interest in Congress in large scale work on infrastructure in the United States? It seems that it would fix things, improve pride, put money in the economy and give people work. And it is needed.
Eugene Robinson: Basically, no. Everyone in Congress talks about the need to get serious about our infrastructure, which is falling behind that of other developed countries. (And occasionally just falling -- like the bridge in Minnesota.) But is anybody serious about it? Only as a matter of pork. At least that's my reading.
Seattle: Mr. Robinson, I find your writings to be generally insightful and sometimes funny. However, I wanted to point out the master: Garry Trudeau. This week, Doonesbury is re-re-running cartoons from years ago that are (and were) insightful and pretty funny. What's the significance of a cartoonist being able to continually re-use the same strips on our Iraq policy and still have them be relevant?
Eugene Robinson: That Trudeau is indeed a master, and that our Iraq policy makes no more sense now than it ever has.
Washington: I don't get the sense that Rice enjoys the partisan political aspects of her public life (as opposed to the diplomatic, which I think she truly loves). She'll do Sunday talk shows and spout the party line (e.g. smoking guns and mushroom clouds), but it is evident that her heart isn't always in it. If she is going to pursue elected office, she will have to learn how to actually believe the lies that she tells. Not the life for Condi.
Eugene Robinson: If politics were such an onerous chore for her, I doubt she would bother to break bread with Grover Norquist and his group. What I don't think she has, at least at this point, is the burning need to run for office. If you don't really want to do it, you shouldn't.
Smyrna, Ga.: Eugene, I cannot imagine why McCain would pick Condi or why Condi would say yes, but let's assume that both happens. At some point the American voters will wake up from their dream of Obama being the next president to Condi being the vice president of their nightmares. Can you cite any accomplishment on the part of Condi Rice that will not take Americans back to the years of "W"? Because if you can't, then I think it is fair to say that the matchup never will happen. And thank goodness, because I rather enjoy the dream I'm having of Obama being the next president. Talk about a rude awakening ... Condi, is that you?!
Eugene Robinson: As I wrote, I don't believe McCain is likely to invite Rice to join the ticket. If for some reason he did, however, I'm not at all sure that she would turn him down. Would she be any good as veep? I'm not sure that's even a relevant question. I worry more about what McCain would be like as president.
Baton Rouge, La.: Thank you for taking my questions. If Condi Rice refuses to join the McCain's ticket, how about Colin Powell? What are McCain's plans to win the blacks' votes?
Eugene Robinson: Colin Powell has made clear his disdain for electoral politics. McCain says he intends to compete for the African American vote, but I don't think he seriously expects to win much of it. Generally, given the loyalty of black voters to the Democratic Party, Republicans make only a token effort. The idea is to demonstrate to nonracist white voters that they're not hostile to minorities.
Rosslyn, Va.: Gene, you mentioned in your column that this years presidential race is the best reality show on TV this year, and I agree, and I'm glad to see you on TV almost as much as Kornheiser. I have been missing your columns about the second best reality show on TV, "American Idol." When will you get around to seeing the show? And when can we expect a column addressing the great issues, such as who should go next, Castro or Kristy Lee?
Eugene Robinson: Castro. The "soulful dreadlocks" thing is getting old.
Baltimore: Re: The 40th anniversary of Doctor King's death, in all the coverage, I was struck by two facts. There was no civil disturbance in Boston because Mayor Kevin White allowed a James Brown concert to go on despite warnings from the police, then convinced the public TV station, WGBH, to carry the concert live. Brown made repeated personal pleas for peace in the course of the show, and Boston kept quiet.
Meanwhile, halfway across the country, Robert Kennedy, on a campaign stop in an African American neighborhood in Indianapolis, broke the news of King's murder to the audience. He discarded his prepared speech and spoke off the cuff for six minutes, making what may have been his only public reference to JFK's death when he told the audience "you know, I had a brother who was killed by a white man." He then went on to plead for peace and even shared a verse from "my favorite poet, Aeschylus." Indianapolis stayed calm. I think it shows how much influence one man (or one woman) can have for good in this world when they are brave enough.
Eugene Robinson: Maybe. I wonder if this version of history doesn't essentially begin with the result and then work backward in search of a cause. I agree that Robert Kennedy's speech was moving and may have had a profound effect on those who heard it that day, but a lot of people in Indianapolis didn't hear what he had to say. In other cities where there were riots, would-be peacemakers also tried to calm emotions -- less successfully, perhaps. My point is that it takes more than one person to stop a riot, or to start one.
Arlington, Va.: When I see Condi Rice on a Sunday news show, the person who she reminds me of the most is Hillary Clinton; they both seem to have legalistic answers that parse words and answer the question without quite answering it. I wonder if it is the fear of being blunt that does this.
Eugene Robinson: When Rice wants to answer a question, she can be blunt. So I assume she doesn't really want to answer the questions.
Richmond, Va.: As a conservative (one who believes in the free market place of ideas and opinions) I really appreciate your work and read it "religiously." I have to ask ... is there a bit of reverse psychology in your piece today? You are hoping Rice is vice president so it will add baggage to McCain, and hence hasten his downfall in November? Oh, I believe your credits to Secretary Rice are genuine, but as a conservative I worry she would bring too much attention to the failures/disappointments in Iraq to the election dialogue. She is very capable, but she seems to represent a lot of the Bush area that went wrong. My question is, does a Rice vice presidential ticket create more conversation about Iraq this fall?
Eugene Robinson: Yes! I mean, I hope so. Darn it, um, pretend I never said anything.
Seriously, I think there are a lot of reasons why McCain would not pick Rice, and Iraq is one of them -- he has sharply criticized the way the Bush administration ran the war, and she was one of the ones running it. Overall, she would add to his Iraq baggage, but he has decided to carry that weight anyway. If I try to take a serious look at McCain's options, from his point of view, who's he going to choose? Mitt Romney? McCain gives every impression of not being able to stand being in the man's presence.
Washington: "The idea is to demonstrate to non-racist white voters that they're not hostile to minorities" This from the party whose leading senators include a former KKK member in Byrd? And whose leading candidate for president attends a black separatist church that is clearly racist against white people? I think a small dose of reality is needed. Look at cabinet secretaries and important positions in the past presidencies, and who has given more opportunity to minorities. Reality check.
Eugene Robinson: A few high-profile minorities in top positions as window dressing is not the same thing as a genuine commitment to diversity and opportunity. And if you deny the Republican Party's acknowledged Southern strategy, dating to 1968, then I'm afraid you're the one who needs a reality check.
Bow, N.H.: Here's my problem with Condi Rice (and other academics in the Bush Administration like Yoo): She gave Bush's radical world view (e.g., preemptive war) a patina of legitimacy by stamping it with her Ph.D. background (never mind that her expertise in Soviet affairs is largely irrelevant to today's world). I think McCain can better see through these people than Bush, so she might not be a total disaster on your dream ticket.
Eugene Robinson: I agree, although I think Yoo is in a class of his own (he's the law professor who essentially argued that the president has the inherent powers of a despot). I disagree on one minor point: expertise in Soviet affairs hasn't been a hot ticket recently, but it promises to be more relevant as Russia becomes rich and begins to assert itself. The U.S.-Russia relationship is getting much more important than at any time since the end of the Cold War. (You'd think a Russia expert like Rice would have recognized this and tried to put the relationship on a better footing...)
Thanks, everybody. My time is up for today. See you again next week.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson discusses his recent columns and anything else that's on your mind.
| 166.421053 | 0.736842 | 1.052632 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702193.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702193.html
|
The Race Issue, Still
|
2008040819
|
In 1988, I promulgated what I now call Cohen's Law of Racial Politics. It goes like this: In states where there are few African Americans, the liberal candidate can win the white vote. In states where there are many African Americans, the liberal candidate will lose the white vote. I forgot about my rule until Barack Obama came along. More and more, he seems haunted by the political ghost of Michael Dukakis.
I know, I know. Obama is an infinitely more talented politician than Dukakis -- more gifted, more exciting and, if you ask me, more needed. But just as Dukakis won the white vote only in states where there were significantly fewer blacks than the national average of 12.4 percent (New York was the lone exception), so has Obama usually taken the white vote in the same sort of states -- Wisconsin and Vermont, for example.
In states with substantial black populations -- Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, New Jersey -- the white vote went to Hillary Clinton. In Mississippi, she took 70 percent of the white vote while Obama got 92 percent of the black vote -- about as stark a racial split as you're likely to find.
Regardless of whether you favor Obama or Clinton (or John McCain), these are not happy numbers. Forty years to the month after the death of Martin Luther King Jr., they suggest the durability of prejudice and the enduring centrality of race in American life. Obama is a political wunderkind, but as the results suggest, one man can do only so much.
It's easy enough to dismiss the contest between George H.W. Bush and Dukakis 20 years ago as having no bearing on this year's race. Bush was the sitting vice president, and the election really amounted to a referendum on a third term for the popular Ronald Reagan. Then, too, Dukakis was an inept campaigner. If there is a single image from that campaign, it has to be the one of Dukakis, his head bobbing out of the turret of a battle tank, looking terminally silly.
But there is yet another image to recall: Willie Horton. He was a convicted murderer who was given a weekend furlough from a Massachusetts prison and went on to rape a woman in Maryland. Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts when Horton was furloughed. The Bush campaign seized on Horton and, in a powerful and repugnant commercial, ran his mug shot: an image of a bearded black man. There it was in one nifty package -- race, crime and liberalism. It's a wonder Dukakis didn't stay in that tank.
From time to time, Obama is likened to John F. Kennedy -- both charismatic and inexperienced politicians when they launched their presidential campaigns. But Obama could be like Kennedy in another way as well. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, and no Roman Catholic had ever been elected president. In the 1960 Wisconsin primary, he ran into a version of Cohen's Law. He won the state but did poorly in Protestant areas. A month later, he won in overwhelmingly (95 percent) Protestant West Virginia and did so because he bought a half-hour of TV time and confronted the religion issue head on. It was a landslide.
Maybe Obama's Philadelphia speech on race served the same purpose. The results from the upcoming primaries, particularly Pennsylvania, will tell. My guess is that he still has not put the race issue to rest -- maybe because he failed to do what Kennedy did in West Virginia. In that speech, Kennedy told Protestant West Virginians that when presidents took the oath of office, they were swearing to the separation of church and state. A president who breaks that oath is not only committing an impeachable offense, he said, "but he is committing a sin against God." In other words, he told West Virginians that their major fear was baseless.
Obama in his Philadelphia speech said nothing as dramatic. On the contrary, when it came to the perceived threat posed by young black men (one out of every nine is in criminal custody), Obama built a fence around the issue by citing his grandmother's "fear of black men who passed her by on the street" -- suggesting it was comparable to what his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had said. He did not confront white fears. Instead, he implied that they were illegitimate.
This is not 1988, and much has changed. For one thing, the GOP nominee is going to be an aging foreign policy hawk with no coattails to run on. But if the upcoming Pennsylvania primary simply echoes earlier racial divisions, Obama has to give yet another speech -- this one directed not at the pundits he so enthralls but at the very people who have so far rejected him on account of race. Will it matter? John Kennedy proved a long time ago that it might.
|
Despite Obama's speech, questions persist.
| 117.75 | 0.625 | 1.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702448.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702448.html
|
The Sin of Speaking Truth
|
2008040819
|
YET ANOTHER Democratic adviser is in trouble for having more common sense that his candidate -- or at least, more than his candidate has the courage to admit having.
First there was Austan Goolsbee, Sen. Barack Obama's economic adviser, who suggested to Canadian officials that a President Obama probably wouldn't be foolish enough to repudiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. As Mr. Obama had been running hard against NAFTA, blaming it for a million lost jobs and ignoring the good it has done for the poorer people of Mexico, Mr. Goolsbee's comments had to be repudiated.
Then Mr. Obama's foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, was forced to resign. Her immediate sin was to call Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a "monster," which was undeniably indefensible. But what caused Mr. Obama more trouble in subsequent days was a contemporaneous comment Ms. Power had made to the BBC suggesting that, once elected, Mr. Obama might not be so reckless as to order an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq but rather would consider the situation and listen to advice from the military. Mr. Obama did not entirely repudiate this truism; but Ms. Clinton pounced. Ms. Power's comments proved Mr. Obama's promises to be "just words," the Clinton campaign said. "And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?" Since Mr. Obama had repeatedly attacked Ms. Clinton as not setting rigid enough withdrawal timetables, her attack was understandable.
Now Ms. Clinton has her own difficulty: One of her top aides, Mark J. Penn, was helping Colombia's government win congressional approval of a U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement that Ms. Clinton opposes. Mr. Penn was charging Colombia for his advice, and a candidate is entitled to ask that her advisers not accept clients with opposing views. But, of course, the real danger was that Democratic primary voters and unions might question Ms. Clinton's primary-season conversion to anti-trade fervor.
This is a particular danger in the case of Colombia, since the arguments against the pact are so flimsy. Colombian exports already have access to the U.S. market, so this agreement would help U.S. exporters without harming domestic industry; and Colombia, with backing from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, has demonstrated remarkable success in quelling civil conflict and restoring order and human rights. Both Democratic candidates rest their opposition on supposed concern about assassination of trade unionists in Colombia, although such violence has fallen so much that the crime rate for them now is lower -- as we've pointed out in past editorials -- than for the population at large. Mr. Obama committed a particularly egregious libel last week when he said, referring to Colombian President Ãlvaro Uribe, who has taken on the violent left and the violent right at considerable risk to himself, "You've got a government that is under a cloud of potentially having supported violence against unions, against labor, against opposition."
Does Mr. Obama really believe that? Does Ms. Clinton really believe a newly elected president should adhere to a year-old timetable for troop withdrawal, regardless of circumstances? Are they each unaware of the real statistics on NAFTA's effects? Voters are left to wonder, and to ponder which would be worse: that the candidates are sincere and misguided or are insincere and lacking the courage to speak honestly.
|
YET ANOTHER Democratic adviser is in trouble for having more common sense that his candidate -- or at least, more than his candidate has the courage to admit having.
| 20.548387 | 1 | 31 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/polygamy_and_intrusion.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/polygamy_and_intrusion.html
|
Polygamy and Intrusion in West Texas
|
2008040819
|
Well, Raul, world traveler. I'm seeing some shades of politics now, too! Congrats, you're human! But you're becoming less and less believable with each subsequent post.
Let's see here: "I do look around - the whole planet Earth. I travelling around, I seeing the people of all races, all nations on all continents. Deeply religious persons does not kill one another. That's not true. That's you presumption, and the incorrect one, as far as my worldwide experience clearly showing."
I've not traveled extensively, and have certainly not seen "all nations" on "all continents" for time and cost constraints mainly, but my job doesn't really allow me time to travel much.
However, I do have the luxury to read people who DO travel extensively, and they seem to reach conclusions that may be a little different than what you describe.
In fact, most of the people I've known who have traveled the world extensively have come to the exact opposite conclusion: there is no one correct "truth" or ultimate authority in matters of religion. ...That religion is a regional phenomenon based on cultural norms, tradition, and societal needs.
In all of your travels, have you noticed a few of those recent conflicts--I'll quote a few from a library book I checked:
Caucasus: (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis bs Catholic and Orthodox Armenians)
Balkans: (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims)
Sri Lanka: (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus)
Northern Ireland: (Protestants vs. Catholics)--finally reached a secular peace...
Indonesia: (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians)
Kashmir : (Muslims vs. Hindus)
Sudan: (Muslim vs. Christians and animists) I have a few personal friends from Sudan, who have shared their stories with me...
These are fairly easily verified on the internet from a few worthwhile sources if you're willing to look.
In regard to your constant assault on the integrity of the people working for the Texas government, (and most recent post on the "Clinton administration" with the Waco event involving the Branch Davidians,) I'm beginning to wonder-
"In a video made by the Davidians and released during the siege, Koresh stated that he had been told by God to procreate with the women in the groups to establish a "House of David", his "Special People". This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only Koresh could have sexual relations with the wives. On the tape, Koresh is also shown with several minors who claimed to have had babies fathered by Koresh. In total, Koresh had fourteen young children who stayed with him in the compound."
By the way, I lived in Waco right before this tragedy. And I moved to Salt Lake City, then, when it was still popular to talk about the "Mormon Murders" Mark Hofmann episode regarding the LDS church and church document forgeries that resulted in the deaths of several people.
I just can't seem to get away from these deserved religious "freedoms..."
And I someday hope to have the extensive world travel over "the whole planet Earth" as you've had. You should write a book!
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 14.727273 | 0.5 | 0.681818 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/04/benedict_xvis_upcoming_visit_t.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/04/benedict_xvis_upcoming_visit_t.html
|
Yoga Challenge for the Pope
|
2008040819
|
Of course only those who believe that the Bible is the divine revelation will appreciate what I'm speaking of, when I refer to followers of Christ as the "church". The "church" is not a specific group of people that meet on Sunday mornings at 9 am to sing and pray. The "church" as Jesus defined it, is the ones who choose to accept God and follow Jesus' teachings.
HIS church was built on Jesus - not on any other man, woman, child or thing. Jesus suffered and died so that you and I could have an opportunity to live in Heaven one day. No other person did that. From reading Matt 16:15-18, some say Jesus built HIS church on Peter, but if you read further in that same chapter, you find it is impossible for such a conclusion to stand as accurate. In the remainder of Matthew 16, Jesus goes on to clarify that HIS church is built on Peter's confession that Jesus is God's son, not on Peter or any other person. One basis for this misconception is that the name "Peter" comes from the Greek word "petros" which means "a small stone" or "a pebble." However, the Greek word for "rock" used by Jesus when He said, "upon this rock I will build my church," is "petra" which means "large rock" or "bolder," or "cornerstone." If I were to say to you "Put the glass there," I obviously don't mean "Put the glass here." The difference in the words "there" and "here" is the same as the difference in the words "petros" and "petra." For even more clarification, look to I Cor 3:11, where Paul says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" and Eph 2:20, which says, "...Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."
There is never a reference in the Bible to the New Testament church Jesus' built as belonging to any but Jesus and God. The Bible often says HIS church is HIS body, HIS brethern, HIS people. Nowhere in the Bible is HIS church referred to as Peter's body, or John's church, or Paul's people, or as any person, place or thing belonging to, or named for, anyone but Jesus and God.
In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, Christ established HIS church. From that point on, in the New Testament, we read of what that church, HIS church, is made up of, it's purpose, how it is to worship, who can be part of it, how to become a part of it, what it and it's membership are to be called, what doctrine it is to follow, what it's structure is to be, and who is to do what. When Jesus died on the cross, the law of the Old Testament ended and a new law described for us in the New Testament was set into motion (Eph 2:14-16, Heb 10:9). For a time after Jesus' death, the apostles continued to perform miracles, speak in tongues and see visions (Acts 2:43) as further proof that they were indeed God's inspired speakers. However, the Bible contains no indication that anyone other than the apostles were given these gifts. Because we now have the Bible as our complete guide (Matt 15:9, II Tim 3:16-17), and because we are to live by faith (Matt 17:20, II Cor 5:7, Gal 5:6, Eph 2:8, Eph 6:16, Heb 11:1-6), there is no longer a need for such acts or for any other physical evidence of God's love for us.
God gives us the opportunity to take advantage of His great sacrifice, but He does not force it upon us. He gives us free will to choose His way our way, or someone else's way but one day, we will each answer for our own decisions (Rom 14:12, Phil 9:12).
One may ask, "if the Bible is so specific about HIS church, why do we have so many differently-organized, differently-governed, differently-named "churches"? That is a very good question, but one quite simply answered throughout the Bible by the many warnings to all people that there is only one church (I Cor 3:11) made up of "many members" (I Cor 12:19-21) with differences in "activities", (I Cor 12:29-30, Eph 4:11-12) that qualifies as HIS church. Note that the Bible says "one church," doing what God says, not "many denominations" doing what man says. By its definition, "denominationalism" in Funk and Wagnell's Dictionary, "to divide into or to form denominations," HIS church cannot be a denomination (Acts 24:5-14).
There are numerous false teachers, false doctrines and false witnesses (Acts 20:29-31, II John 6:9-10, Col 2:8-10, Heb 3:12-13, Rom 16:17-18, I Tim 4:1-3, II Tim 2:16, II Tim 3:1-5, II Tim 3:13, Titus 1:10-16, James 1:13-20, James 2:7-8, II Pet 1:16) to come, after HIS church was established. The Bible warns us not to follow after anyone, even including an angel, that tells us anything different from what we find in the Bible (Gal 1:6-12). These warnings alone should be enough to convince us that God will not accept any "church" that does not fully conform to His instructions. But, sadly not everyone takes Jesus at His word when he says "not all who say to me, ' Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven" (Matt 7:21-23, emphasis supplied). Jesus does not continue on to say "as interpreted by the Priest" or "if it is fun" or "if you want to" or any qualifier other than "the will of my Father." If we can do it any ole way we decide to, or any ole way others tell us to, Jesus statement has no meaning. Jesus also asks us, in Luke 6:46, "Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Jesus promised to build HIS church (Matt 16:18) and bring all nations into it (Mark 16:15). We know that there is "only one Lord, one faith, one baptism" from Eph 4:4-6. The Bible also says that HIS church is the one body of Christ and Christ is the one head (Eph 5:23-27, Eph 1:22-23, Eph 2:14-16, Eph 3:4-6, Eph 4:4-5, Col 1:18-24, I Cor 12:18-27), and that there is only "one Lawgiver" (James 4:12).
There is only one body, made up of many members (Rom 12:4-5, I Cor 12:19-20) so, if we truly want to be counted as a member of HIS church, we must look to the descriptions of HIS church in the Bible. We must do this without adding anything or taking anything away from God's Word (I Cor 4:6, Rev 22:18-20, John 7:16-19, Acts 5:28-30, Gal 1:6-9). Chirst is the one and only head of HIS church, and all oversight of HIS church rests with Christ alone (Col 1:18-20). The Bible says to "test all things" (I Thes 5:21) so let's test "churches" and "sects" and others against Bible teachings. Since we are told in Eph 2:14-16 and Heb 10:9 that the death of Christ took away the old law and established the new covenant, we must look to the New Testament for our answers to questions about HIS church.
If we who claim to be Christians, don't proclaim, teach and share the teachings of Christ himself, and thus tell the world that they are fine no matter what they believe, than we have contradicted ourselves by claiming to be Christians. We are to teach out of love for others and to give them the hope that Jesus told us was the ONLY HOPE. If we truly love and believe what we say, we will continue to admonish when we see people not following the Law that God gave us. If we don't believe, or simply don't care about others, it will be easy to say, "anything you believe, I will support".
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 39.068182 | 0.522727 | 0.568182 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/who_are_the_guys_in_the_blue_t.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/who_are_the_guys_in_the_blue_t.html
|
Who Are the Guys in the Blue Track Suits?
|
2008040819
|
One of the most interesting things in the anti-Olympic demos in London and Paris is the group of Chinese guys in blue and white track suits protecting the Olympic flame. Theyâre pushing and shoving everybody from cops to protesters to participants in the ceremony. Who are these guys?
According to the Xinhua news agency, the squad is called the Protection Unit for the Beijing Olympic Games Sacred Flame Relay and consists of Armed Police Academy cadets, with ranks. So basically Chinese soon-to-be cops.
I wonder if they got law enforcement visas...
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Posted by Hal Straus on April 8, 2008 11:18 AM
|
Pomfret's China features China expert John Pomfret as he deciphers what's behind the latest news from China.
| 6.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/a_coming_out_party_to_forget.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/a_coming_out_party_to_forget.html
|
Don't Expect Protests to Hurt Chinese Regime
|
2008040819
|
This was written by a Chinese journalist, Xiong Lei
By all means, I feel grateful to the western media for their distorted coverage of the recent riots in Lhasa and a few other places. Thanks to their distortion, a new force has risen in the international communication for China, which are the ordinary Chinese people around the globe who have uttered their voices.
They are telling the world by commentaries and self-made videotapes on the web, by letters to politicians and media, and by peaceful rallies and demonstrations that Tibet is, was and will always be part of China.
They are telling the world that the Chinese nation is composed of 56 ethnic groups and the 56 ethnic groups belong to the one family. They want integration of their home. And they would say No to any attempt to part Tibet from China.
Never before have the ordinary Chinese people uttered their voices so openly, clearly and resolutely to the world on issues related to Chinaâs Tibet. As a journalist who has worked for nearly three decades in Chinaâs international communication, I feel an unprecedented reinforcement in these expressions.
This is the real people power, not orchestrated by the Chinese government, but incurred by the western media.
In fact, many of the critics of western mediaâs distorted reports are also critical of the Chinese government and official media. However, they share a same bottom line, which is articulated by an unknown netizen at BBS of tianya.cn, a popular Chinese portal:
âHowever dissatisfied I am with my salary, I wonât support the Taiwan secessionists;
âHowever disillusioned I am at the government, I wonât go for the Dalai Lama; and
âHowever disappointed I am in my life, I wonât do anything to dissociate my nation.â
Actually, this is a political position of the grassroots Chinese spanning different age groups in different countries. As elaborated by a netizen identified as âakaaaaâ and a law major, âWe Chinese no longer harbor a blind faith in western mediaâs reports and we have learned to make our own analysis.â
My friend Zhou Jun, an engineer with a local TV station in Sichuan, is a good example. He just suffered a cut in his salary in the wake of an internal restructuring when the riots in Lhasa burst out. The incident could have nothing to do with his personal life and gains.
Yet he was so indignant at the nature of the riots and western mediaâs crooked coverage that he cast away his personal troubles and was occupied with gathering commentaries and fact pieces showing truth of the issue and publishing them in his blog at bolianshe.com.
Through Zhou Jun and his blog, I came to know a bunch of overseas Chinese, who also went beyond themselves to condemn western media and the Dalai clique with reason and facts.
Out of his conscience for justice, a netizen named âhoujibofaâ â âdeep accumulation but rarely fireâ â took the pains to translate some English mediaâs reports into Chinese and refuted them paragraph by paragraph on an overseas Chinese website called talkcc.net.
Another overseas netizen identified as âlaoneâ â âthis old monkâ â had quit writing online for several years. But the recent event drove the linguistic professor to write several letters to a local newspaper protesting its biased reports on Tibet. Ignored, he returned to the website to share his experience and feelings with more people.
All this indignation and passion have been ignited by the western media. Perhaps the official Chinese media are clumsy, but at least they are not as hypocritical as the western media which always wave the flag of impartiality yet are actually biased on many issues related to China.
If people are entitled to have their voices heard, it should not be only those from the Dalai Lama and Tibetans in exile. But voices other than theirs are often missing in western media. Tibetans who are peacefully living and working in China never get the limelight given to those secessionists, let alone Han people and other ethnic groups.
Even the rallies expressing the Chinese peopleâs position for their countryâs integrity and sovereignty, taking place in the home of those western media, are not fairly covered. The Toronto rally last Saturday (March 29), for instance, drew little attention from the major western media. The few who did covered the event focused on one or two Tibetans in exile but rather ignored the hundreds of participants claiming Tibet is part of China.
Such performance on the part of western media tells lie of their âimpartialityâ and makes the âfreedom of the pressâ pales.
As âlaoneâ noted, âI used to belong to the rightist wing, but all of a sudden I found myself a liberal leftist.â And he attributed the change to the western media.
Western media indeed serve as a negative teacher for the Chinese public, and their education is much more effective than our government and official media that pure freedom of the press is impossible.
Thatâs why I wish to thank these good teachers sincerely. (End)
|
Pomfret's China features China expert John Pomfret as he deciphers what's behind the latest news from China.
| 47.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040800581.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040800581.html
|
Sadr Cancels Million-Man Rally in Baghdad
|
2008040819
|
The cancellation of the demonstration, which was to be held in the capital Wednesday on the five-year anniversary of the city's fall to U.S. troops, came as fierce fighting raged between Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and U.S. and Iraqi troops.
At least one U.S. soldier and 16 Shiite fighters were killed in Sadr's stronghold in northeastern Baghdad on Tuesday, the U.S. military said. Twelve U.S. soldiers have been killed across the country since Sunday.
Iraqi security forces in southern Iraq established checkpoints that blocked hundreds of Sadrists from reaching Baghdad. Sadr's followers accused the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of trying to prevent the planned rally from taking place.
"Is this the democracy and freedom that Maliki's government promised to provide to the people?" asked Abbas Ali, 25, of Diwaniyah, as he stood outside a checkpoint in the southern city of Hilla after national police prevented him from traveling to the capital.
The police were acting on orders from the Interior Ministry to block all men ages 16 to 35 from passing, according to Capt. Muthanna Ahmed, the Babil provincial police spokesman. Iraqi officials said the procedures were intended to maintain security, not to prevent Sadrists from rallying.
The developments accompanied growing tensions between Sadr and Maliki that have plunged Iraq deeper into chaos since Maliki launched a military campaign against what he called "criminal gangs" last month in the southern city of Basra.
The Sadrists contend that the offensive is an attempt by Maliki to weaken a rival Shiite political group ahead of provincial elections scheduled for October.
"We are sure that the campaign against us is being done because some political parties want us to fight and lose our popularity before the elections," said Salah al-Obaidi, a spokesman for Sadr. "We want to calm the situation and stop this from happening."
Ali al-Dabbagh, chief spokesman for the Iraqi government, said that Maliki is not acting for partisan reasons and that his threat to bar Sadrists from the elections if they do not abolish the militia is necessary for security.
"They cannot perform as politicians and at the same time have their own private army," Dabbagh said.
Sadr ordered his militia to lay down its weapons last August after fighting by his followers in Karbala turned public opinion against his group. But at a news conference in Baghdad on Tuesday, Obaidi read a statement from Sadr reiterating warnings that the order could be lifted if the government offensive continues.
|
BAGHDAD, April 8 -- Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose militia has been battling Iraqi and U.S. soldiers over the past two weeks, said Tuesday he was calling off a million-man rally because he feared it would lead to further bloodshed.
| 9.192308 | 0.538462 | 0.692308 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040800854.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040800854.html
|
Dissent May Shift Torch's Route at Last Minute
|
2008040819
|
LOS ANGELES, April 8 -- San Francisco officials and police scrambled Tuesday to find a path for the Olympic torch that would accommodate the obligations of hospitality and the city's historic tolerance for dissent, which has now targeted the Beijing Games.
Taken aback by the ferocity of protests that greeted the torch in London and Paris, city officials have raised the possibility of changing the torch's route at the last moment. San Francisco is the only city in North America where the torch will appear during its trek through dozens of cities in the more-than-four-month run-up to the Olympics. The Games were intended to trumpet China's arrival as a world superpower but so far have become a flash point for outrage over Beijing's actions in Tibet, Sudan and Burma.
The flame arrived at San Francisco International Airport at 4 a.m. Tuesday under the kind of security usually accorded a head of state.
"We were surprised to see that they would bring it here, of all places," said Lhadon Tethong, executive director of Students for a Free Tibet, a group that strung banners high in the Golden Gate Bridge on Monday. It slated a prayer vigil for Tuesday night with actor Richard Gere and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
San Francisco was chosen as a stop in what Beijing calls "the Harmonious Journey" because of its sizable Chinese American community. But the city also embraces an iconoclastic tradition of opposition and dissent that led officials to abandon plans to restrict protesters to "free speech zones" when challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch. The groups argued that security mechanisms developed to safeguard heads of state at G-8 and World Trade Organization meetings were inappropriate for "basically a public parade," said Libby Marsh, director of the San Francisco office of Human Rights Watch.
"At first they were going to be 'restricted free speech zones,' then they were 'designated' zones, and finally they were 'suggested,' " Marsh said. "They moved in the right direction, which is great."
Still to be determined is whether the stocky phalanx of China's "flame protection squad" will accompany the torch, as it did in Europe. "I'm not sure about that. That hasn't been decided," said Sgt. Neville Gittens, spokesman for the San Francisco Police Department, which summoned all hands for the occasion.
The 30 Chinese guards, wearing track suits and drawn from the People's Armed Police, were called "thugs" by a British Olympics organizer. They diverted the flame and its honorary carriers into buses when things got hot in Paris.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom met with China's ambassador for 45 minutes Monday to discuss Beijing's concerns. About 80 individuals are scheduled to take turns carrying the torch on a six-mile route that runs mostly up and down the wide Embarcadero that hugs San Francisco Bay.
"The route has been fixed, and it's subject to change," said Gittens, repeating Newsom's warning that organizers may respond to explosions of chaos by taking off in an unexpected direction.
The warning amused some of the people organizing protests.
"We like being aggressive, We like being edgy. We like being in your face. But we don't take it as far as disrupting things," said Allyn Brooks-LaSure, spokesman for activists pressuring China to use its influence over the government of Sudan to stop the war in the country's Darfur region.
Protests were also being organized by activists from Burma, Chinese human rights groups and the banned Falun Gong religious movement. Tethong, of the Tibet group, chuckled at the idea of a last-minute change in the route.
"San Francisco is only so big," she said. "We'll find it."
|
LOS ANGELES, April 8 -- San Francisco officials and police scrambled Tuesday to find a path for the Olympic torch that would accommodate the obligations of hospitality and the city's historic tolerance for dissent, which has now targeted the Beijing Games.
| 16.4 | 1 | 45 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040801380.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040801380.html
|
IOC Panel To Discuss Altering Torch Relay
|
2008040819
|
BEIJING, April 8 -- Top members of the International Olympic Committee, distressed by the raucous anti-China protests that marred the torch relay in London and Paris, will meet Friday to discuss whether to change, or perhaps even end, the international leg of the journey.
As the torch arrived in San Francisco to begin its next stage on Wednesday, Chinese officials vowed the relay will continue on its planned route, while countries in line to host the torch relay said they are stepping up security.
Meanwhile, the president of the IOC, Jacques Rogge, was asked at a news conference in Beijing whether the continuation of the international relay is certain.
"I'm not saying whether it is certain or not," he said. "There will be a discussion of the executive board on the torch relay, but I attach on that absolutely no speculation whatsoever."
Vigorous street protests in Paris and London sent the torch's triumphal run into disarray, and organizers were bracing for more of the same in San Francisco. Thousands of protesters are expected to gather, with actor Richard Gere and Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu scheduled to lead a candlelight vigil in support of Tibetan rights, and a counter-relay and other events being organized by a variety of groups.
On Monday, several hundred people protested in the city, as officials said they might alter the flame's route to avoid a clash, according to news reports.
Rather than a symbol of the Olympic spirit, the torch has become a magnet for protesting myriad Chinese policies on Tibet, human rights, press freedoms and its support of repressive governments in Burma and Sudan.
Chinese and Olympic spokesmen issued strong condemnations of the protests, calling them "vile" and "blasphemy." Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu emphasized in a news conference that people did not understand the facts of what is happening in China. "Playing up some topics to tarnish China's image ahead of the Olympics will surely get nowhere," she said.
Official Chinese media broadcast images from Monday's protests in Paris. Newspapers generally blamed the actions on Tibetan "separatists," although one newspaper, the Global Times, criticized the French government for not doing more to protect the flame.
Qu Yingpu, spokesman for the Beijing Olympic Torch Relay team, emphasized that the relay is meant to bring people together, not tear them apart. "Mutual understanding and respect is particularly crucial in the context of intensifying globalization," Yingpu wrote in China Daily, the official English-language newspaper.
Among students on Beijing campuses, reaction to the protests was relatively muted.
"I'm surprised about what the protesters did, but there's no smoke without fire. I think our government didn't handle the Tibetan issue as perfectly as we imagined," said Guan Jiaxin, a 25-year-old physics student from Tsinghua University. "Next time all of our internal problems have to be dealt with well before we host another event like this."
Another student, who spoke on the condition that he be identified only by his surname, Shen, said: "It's not hard to understand why they protest so strongly during the torch relay . . . they think human rights is above all."
Shen, a 23-year-old international relations student at Beijing University, said that "the origin of the huge difference in understanding between the West and China is complicated. It's not simply because the Chinese government is not transparent or the Western media is biased, but because Cold War thinking still hasn't finished in the West. The majority of people who haven't come to China or don't know much about China still think that the Communist-led government must be an evil government."
Although many groups, including the banned spiritual movement Falun Gong, have stationed protesters along the torch's route, most of the reaction in China to the relay protests was focused on those supporting autonomy for Tibet. Protests erupted in Tibetan regions of China on March 10, when monks were arrested for demonstrating and calling for the return of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader. The protests soon spread and, in some places, broke out into deadly riots in the worst unrest Tibet has experienced in nearly 20 years. Thousands of Chinese armed police were sent to put down the protests and arrest those involved, sparking condemnations from international human rights groups.
"Some international media have biased opinions about the Tibet issue," said Zhang Wanli, a 24-year-old Beijing travel agent. "They should pay more attention to the human rights issues and minority issues in their own countries."
Researchers Liu Liu and Liu Songjie contributed to this report.
|
BEIJING, April 8 -- Top members of the International Olympic Committee, distressed by the raucous anti-China protests that marred the torch relay in London and Paris, will meet Friday to discuss whether to change, or perhaps even end, the international leg of the journey.
| 17.403846 | 1 | 52 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702364.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702364.html
|
FBI Data Transfers Via Telecoms Questioned
|
2008040819
|
The circuits -- little-known electronic connections between telecom firms and FBI monitoring personnel around the country -- are used to tell the government who is calling whom, along with the time and duration of a conversation and even the locations of those involved.
Recently, three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Chairman John D. Dingell (Mich.), sent a letter to colleagues citing privacy concerns over one of the Quantico circuits and demanding more information about it. Anxieties about whether such electronic links are too intrusive form a backdrop to the continuing congressional debate over modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs federal surveillance.
Since a 1994 law required telecoms to build electronic interception capabilities into their systems, the FBI has created a network of links between the nation's largest telephone and Internet firms and about 40 FBI offices and Quantico, according to interviews and documents describing the agency's Digital Collection System. The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group in San Francisco that specializes in digital-rights issues.
The bureau says its budget for the collection system increased from $30 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2008. Information lawfully collected by the FBI from telecom firms can be shared with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering partners, including the National Security Agency and the CIA. Likewise, under guidelines approved by the attorney general or a court, some intercept data gathered by intelligence agencies can be shared with law enforcement agencies.
"When you're building something like this deeply into the telecommunications infrastructure, when it becomes so technically easy to do, the only thing that stands between legitimate use and abuse is the complete honesty of the persons and agencies using it and the ability to have independent oversight over the system's use," said Lauren Weinstein, a communications systems engineer and co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, a group that studies Web issues. "It's who watches the listeners."
Different versions of the system are used for criminal wiretaps and for foreign intelligence investigations inside the United States. But each allows authorized FBI agents and analysts, with point-and-click ease, to receive e-mails, instant messages, cellphone calls and other communications that tell them not only what a suspect is saying, but where he is and where he has been, depending on the wording of a court order or a government directive. Most of the wiretapping is done at field offices.
Wiretaps to obtain the content of a phone call or an e-mail must be authorized by a court upon a showing of probable cause. But "transactional data" about a communication -- from whom, to whom, how long it lasted -- can be obtained by simply showing that it is relevant to an official probe, including through an administrative subpoena known as a national security letter (NSL). According to the Justice Department's inspector general, the number of NSLs issued by the FBI soared from 8,500 in 2000 to 47,000 in 2005.
The administration has proposed expanding the types of data it can get from telecom carriers under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, so FBI agents can gain faster and more detailed access to information sent by wireless devices that reveals where a person is in real time. The Federal Communications Commission is weighing the request.
"Court-authorized electronic surveillance is a critical tool in pursuing both criminal and terrorist subjects," FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said.
A Justice Department spokesman said the government is asking only for information at the beginning and end of a communication, and for information "reasonably available" in a carrier's network.
Al Gidari, a telecom industry lawyer at Perkins Coie in Seattle who handles wiretap orders for companies, said government officials now "have to rely on a human being at a telecom calling up every 15 minutes to send law enforcement the data."
|
When FBI investigators probing New York prostitution rings, Boston organized crime or potential terrorist plots anywhere want access to a suspect's telephone contacts, technicians at a telecommunications carrier served with a government order can, with the click of a mouse, instantly transfer key...
| 15.346939 | 0.571429 | 0.816327 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702363.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702363.html
|
At Justice, New Pressure To Release Documents
|
2008040819
|
At his confirmation hearing last October, attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey assured senators that "there isn't going to be any stonewalling" over congressional requests on his watch.
Key lawmakers are now calling on the Justice Department to live up to that promise.
The release last week of a Justice Department memo that authorized the military to pursue harsh interrogation techniques has ignited new demands for documents that underpin the Bush administration's most sensitive policies, including the treatment of detainees and the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Despite repeated congressional requests, some made as long as three years ago, key legal opinions and other department documents remain under wraps. That has prompted Democrats to accuse the Bush administration of trying to run out the clock.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said the department has been somewhat more responsive under Mukasey than under his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales. But, Leahy said, "what slight improvement there has been does not overcome the department's continued failure to provide . . . the secret justifications of presidential lawlessness that we have sought for years."
Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said that officials spend "an enormous amount of department time and resources" responding to congressional inquiries, and that they have replied to more than 500 questions from lawmakers this year. "We agree that there is always room for improvement in our effort to be responsive to Congress," Carr said.
At the same time, he said, many requests cover sensitive issues that require cutting through a thicket of pending lawsuits and classified documents, as well as checking with other government agencies and the White House. All those efforts can interfere with prosecutors' day-to-day work, he added.
"The people in the department who must answer these inquiries are many of the same people who are making key operational decisions in the war on terrorism," Carr said.
Mukasey, a retired federal judge, was sworn in to his new job in November. He inherited from Gonzales a contentious relationship with Congress and a shortage of personnel.
More than a dozen senior Justice Department officials resigned last year as congressional and internal probes of political interference intensified, adding to the disarray at Washington headquarters. In 2007, officials spent 30,000 hours responding to Congress over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, the department said.
The management void showed, congressional aides said, as letters went unanswered for months. Hundreds of questions posed to Gonzales at a July oversight hearing were answered by Justice officials more than six months later, in January, on the eve of Mukasey's first appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Replies to follow-up questions posed to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III shortly after a March 2007 hearing were provided to the Senate in late January, in a document marked "current" as of July 31, 2007, according to a copy.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 69.875 | 0.375 | 0.375 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/08/clinton_lead_in_pa_dwindles.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/08/clinton_lead_in_pa_dwindles.html
|
Clinton Lead in Pa. Dwindles
|
2008040819
|
By Jon Cohen Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania lead has dwindled to six points, according to a new statewide survey of likely Democratic primary voters.
With two weeks to go until the crucial April 22 primary, a new Quinnipiac University poll finds 50 percent of likely voters supporting Clinton and 44 percent backing Barack Obama. Three weeks ago, Clinton was 12 points ahead of Barack Obama in the poll; in late March it was nine points.
Clinton's lead, however, may be stronger than the apparent movement suggests. Support for the New York senator has been steady in the 49 to 53 percent range in each of Quinnipiac's polls since Super Tuesday. Almost all of the changes have come from varying percentages of Obama voters.
Since mid-March, Obama has narrowed Clinton's advantage among women, white voters and economy voters, and made strides in the central and southeastern parts of the state. Among women, Clinton's 13-point lead is down from 24 points, and her 15-point edge among those prioritizing the economy is now just four points.
Nevertheless, as many Pennsylvania voters now rate Clinton favorably (71 percent) as said so when her lead was twice the size. And Obama's positive rating is up slightly over the period, to 67 percent.
Also of note in this season of highly variable pre-election polls is that while the Quinnipiac poll is one of the most reliable covering Pennsylvania, the data should not be read as a prediction two weeks out (no poll should). All pollsters conducting interviews until the eve of elections this year have stumbled, with many mischaracterizing the momentum of particular candidates.
Posted at 2:35 PM ET on Apr 8, 2008 | Category: The Pollster Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
"Obama2008 (6:22 PM) You didn´t listen! Barack Obama (during the Foreign Relations HRG) at the end really asked if "status quo" in Irak would be a "success enough"!
Posted by: Elisabeth | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
Funny you mention that Elisabeth,, I was watching with a repub buddy of mine who also thought it was a dumb question. I disagree, what the Sen. was speaking to (he started by explaining that it was a rhetorical question) was the frustration in congress that we're constantly moving the bar in Iraq, as to what will be considered a "success".
He was trying to pin down some sort of "acceptable" level of violence, at which point we can suspend daily combat patrols, and redefine our mission in a sensible way.
If our policy is to keep this war going until Iraq is at peace, we're never going to leave.
If our policy is to stay until radical islamist groups can't recover upon our exit, we're never going to leave.
If our policy is to keep the country occupied till people stop shooting at us, we're never going to leave.
If our policy is to support the Iraqis till they've got enough troops to maintain the current level of violence, (with less direct involvement of U.S. forces) then we might just get to leave.
It isn't pretty, but face it, Iraq is going to be a violent, unstable place, for a long time. They might need to have their own war, without our meddling, we did back in the 1800's, it wasn't pretty, but it did have an end, where whats going on now has none in sight.
Posted by: Fred L. | April 10, 2008 10:39 AM
I'm sorry BD, my last post about the "gutter ball" should have gone to "farfalle" not you!
Posted by: Briskwood | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM
(To BD) Just a thought! If you'd have watched Ellen last week, you'd have seen Hillary bowl a "gutter ball" also!
Posted by: Briskwood | April 9, 2008 3:59 PM
To JakeD and others who want to know how many Black voters will vote for Hillary if she "steals the nomination":
It is hard to say because we have to consider that 1) Hillary insulted the Black community during her campaign via comments made by Bill and her supporters (including ones in these threads), 2) we are aware that we could remain in Iraq indefinitely if McCain was elected, 3) the Clintons are fodder for the Republican machine and probably have a lot of ammo to attack them is she is the nominee and 4) Black people are sick of racist tactics whether they are employed by Republicans or Democrats.
I would consider voting for Hillary to get our soldiers out of Iraq once we rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed during our invasion but I am not sure she would.
Posted by: wetheridge | April 9, 2008 2:43 PM
Her and Bill beat the crap out of the VRWC twice.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 12:05 AM
Posted by: gs | April 9, 2008 8:39 AM
To treetopflyer | April 8, 2008 5:16 PM
I appreciate your response. You are one of the few posters writing logically and intelligently. Most people have a problem with the Wright issue. Unfortunately, people who did not want to vote for Obama because he is black and Wright gave them an excuse not to. Kind of like reverse racism. At least you are considering the issues pro and con before making your decision.
Posted by: GWS | April 9, 2008 8:37 AM
Will someone from the Hillary camp please tell me what you see in her....I'm not a fan of any of the candidates - but I'm dumbfounded how one can support an individual that has been countlessly caught lying..
Posted by: John | April 8, 2008 4:45 PM
I wonder that too. I am dying to hear this.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 4:49 PM
Her and Bill beat the crap out of the VRWC twice.
Posted by: | April 9, 2008 12:05 AM
I guess the government intervention I would like to see
is the enmasse arrest of the Whitehouse crewe and the suspension of payments
and their subsidiaries until the gomers aka "pigs with their snouts in the trough of public funds" aka friends and family members of the bush and associates
are financially seperated from those companies and the books have been examined.
I would also like to know if the flow meters taking out of IRAQI OIL PIPELINES by Paul Bremer have been replaced or if
bush and friends are draining IRAQI OIL w/o keeping records of it and passing it off as SAUDI OIL ????? or KUWATI OIL ???
where are the records ???
where are the papers that Saddam was keeping when he was captured that were immediately classified that showed collusion with George H.W. Bush and Donald Rumsefeld....that would get them shot ???
I am all for a shooting, a public execution of some Whitehouse officials tha thave been found guilty of treason and dispatched
for our viewing pleasure.....can I get an amen?
Posted by: your best friend.... | April 8, 2008 11:54 PM
GEORGE OPENS HIS MOUTHS AND SAYZ......
GEORGE BUSH ON HIS KNEES IN THE WHITEHOUSE GIVING AND GETTING BJ's from $200/hr PROSTITUTE ????
George Bush and this man James Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) - a $200/hour gay male prostitute? (See Monday's expose by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.org)
Sooner or later, Washington will have to ask: Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?
On January 26, George W. Bush called on Guckert/Gannon at one of Bush's rare press conferences, "bypassing dozens of far more experienced reporters" according to Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher.
I guess that depends on the meaning of "experienced."
This was not Guckert/Gannon's first time near Bush. Guckert/Gannon was at other Bush press conferences and was called on by Bush once before. Moreover, Guckert/Gannon went to the White House nearly every day for nearly 2 years. Each time he went, he got specific permission from Scott McClellan's White House Press Office. And Guckert/Gannon went to Bush's White House Christmas Party.
How did a $200/hour gay male prostitute get near George W. Bush nearly every day for 2 years?
Don't tell me the Secret Service didn't know Guckert/Gannon's background. It took amateur bloggers at DailyKos about 5 minutes to find out Gannon owned male prostitution websites, and just two weeks for Aravosis to find out he was a $200/hour PROSTITUTE !!!!! I guarantee Scott McClellan and other top White House officials knew exactly who Guckert/Gannon was. According to RawStory.com, McClellan himself has been spotted at gay bars.
So how will the American people learn the sordid truth about Bush, the White House, and Guckert?
The Lying Right-Wing Media (LRWM) won't ask the question. According to those brave News Hounds who watch FOX so we won't have to, Gannon/Guckert's name has never even been mentioned on FOX. Just imagine the wall-to-wall coverage on FOX if this had happened in the CLINTON White House!
But we'll ask it - and we'll keep asking it until we get the truth.
Did George W. Bush - and/or other top White House officials - have sexual relations with that man, James Guckert?
Lest you think this is an absurd question, I'll refer you to the widespread rumors that Bush had a long-term sexual relationship with his Ambassador to Poland ("don't forget Poland!"), former Yale classmate and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe. As with every other Bush scandal (AWOL, Bulgegate, Harken Energy, etc.), the Victor Ashe scandal has been blacked out by the LRWM.
I'll also refer you to widespread rumors that GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman is gay. Why has DNC chair Howard Dean been put under a microscope by the LRWM, but not RNC chair Ken Mehlman? Surely a party which used homophobia to "win" the 2004 elections should explain how it could tolerate a gay chairman at the same time as it militantly opposes gay rights?
Finally, I'll refer you to the "call boys" scandal of the Reagan-Bush White House, which made the front page of the Washington Times in 1989. (Thanks Necco!)
Last week, we posted a petition for a Special Prosecutor for "Jeff Gannon." (So far, we've collected nearly 8,000 signatures - please sign it if you haven't yet.) Reps. Louise Slaughter and John Conyers asked Plame-gate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to expand his investigation to include Guckert/Gannon's access to secret CIA documents about Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has subpoena powers, so he'd have no trouble tracking down Guckert/Gannon's clients from his pager records.
Guckert/Gannon is at the center of what may be the biggest sex/spy scandal in American history.
Sooner or later, the truth shall set America free.
LET's SEE WHAT FELON REPUBLICANS SAY ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH giving BJ's to JEFF GANNON....
Posted by: let's do the right thing... | April 8, 2008 11:44 PM
And you Obama supporters don't think he lies and you don't think he has bought off these old geezer senators with government jobs! Get serious. He is about as corrupt as the day is long. Fortunately, Hillary will prevail despite the media. You can go to the bank on it!
Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 8, 2008 11:39 PM
THe Clintons lie, lie, lie (probably the subject of the Beatles' song, or it is the Clintons' theme song).
Posted by: meldupree | April 8, 2008 11:12 PM
the Clintons: lying to America from DAY ONE!
Posted by: meldupree | April 8, 2008 11:09 PM
At this rate it looks like I'm going to end up writing in Stephen TYRONE Colbert for President. Yikes.
Posted by: Too bad | April 8, 2008 11:05 PM
Posted by: shockedAndAwed | April 8, 2008 10:55 PM
If Hillary would try to be truthful she would do much better nobody trush a liar and every week shes caught in another lie.
Posted by: sharon | April 8, 2008 10:30 PM
Even America signed various FTAs,The Clinton's still will make big bucks. Yes,Actually,they don't need any job,their fame world wide help their mouth worthy 1 billion dollors.
Posted by: jeff Xiao | April 8, 2008 10:29 PM
Please know that I will never, ever vote for Barack Hussein Obama, Jeremiah Wright Jr., or Michelle "the first time proud" Obama, for anything!
Posted by: Meldupree | April 8, 2008 10:26 PM
I see some idiot hijacked my screen-name to place support for Hillary. jaked and all other Clintonistas, please know that I will never, ever support Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton for anything!
Posted by: Meldupree | April 8, 2008 10:19 PM
Posted by: cesarver | April 8, 2008 10:18 PM
Nixon was a good bowler.....
Posted by: Skins Fan in Maine | April 8, 2008 10:16 PM
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 10:15 PM
I think it is amazing how quickly Obama has cut the lead campaigning against Bill and Hillary.
Posted by: mm | April 8, 2008 10:11 PM
Jacksmith - you ARE an idiot.
Posted by: Mrs, Jack Smith | April 8, 2008 10:07 PM
Do you Obama supporters really not know that BO is misleading you completely when he says he isn't influenced by lobbyists?! Ok, let me explain a little something to you....Obama takes money from "friends" of lobbyists, "firms" that hire lobbyists, has former "registered" lobbyists working on his campaign, takes money from "employees" of the oil and gas industry, has paid the superdelegates more to date than Hillary, has taken more from the drug co.'s to date than Hillary..Why don't you all please check Factcheck.org once in awhile.
Hillary exaggerated the Bosnia story, but if you read her book, there's no exaggeration at all. Also, if you read the entire Bosnia story, you'll find that the trip was indeed a historical one. She was the first first lady to land in a war zone since E. Rooselvelt. There really was sniper fire in the surrounding hills, and there were helicopters patrolling the area. She and Chelsea really were moved to the armored cockpit and issued flak jackets, but yes, there was an exaggeration. If you aren't going to vote for a candidate who exaggerates, I guess you won't be voting at all !!!
The hospital story has now been substantiated by the aunt who says Hillary told the truth. D. Gergen says Hillary told the truth about her Nafta stance. Wesley Clark, and many other military personnel corroborate Hillary's foreign policy experience.
Obama speaks of being a unifier..Well, I wonder why he wasn't interested in working across party lines while in the US Senate, commented C. Roberts. Hillary, she says, demonstrated the ability to do this very well. See..if you listen to people who actually "know" Hillary, they speak of her being of high morals, discipline, knows policy extensively, works her heart out, has a passion to see a commitment to fruition. Now, on the other hand, if you let the mainstream media tell you how to think, that's another story altogether.
Hillary is a good person, one who is complicated, which explains why she is so misunderstood. She is not a liar. She does play too much defense at times, but just imagine if you had been microscopically scrutinized for years ad nauseum more than any other political couple, wouldn't you be a bit defensive too?
I'm glad the Clinton's finally make tons of money. They're intelligent and they work their hearts out. They pay more in taxes and give more to charity than most in their tax bracket. Obama gave 3% in charity.
Did you take the Obama IQ quiz and find out about him almost coming to blows with an IL Senator because Obama mistakenly hit the wrong button, and voted for budget cuts that eliminated a child welfare office from the colleague's district. He also earned the reputation of "gutless" and "absent" while there because he always seemed to be gone when time to make the tough votes. Oh, boy, the Republicans love weak Democrats.
Well..there's so much more..but I'm tired.
Posted by: KMB08 | April 8, 2008 9:38 PM
The majority of Obama's money comes from bundled donations = lobbyist money.
All three candidates are soiled with corporate money. Obama is no different. PAC and lobbyist donations are capped and amount to little or nothing since McCain/Fiengold.
Posted by: NYC Leon | April 8, 2008 9:34 PM
Hillary has by far the highest negativity ratings of the remaining 3 candidates. For some reason over 50% of the nation have a very unfavorable view of Hillary, and that is putting it mildly for how many feel about her. She represents the same corruption and self dealing in Washington DC we are all disgusted with. The sooner we can get rid of her, and the sooner she catches on, the better off we will all be.
Posted by: bastanow | April 8, 2008 9:30 PM
These poll number don't mean much to Hillary, she has got her strategy all mapped out. It's the Politburo stupid !!
Back in USSR it was the Politburo who picked the candidates and that is what Hillary would like to have the Superdelgates do.
Posted by: Democracy Now !! | April 8, 2008 9:28 PM
You people in media are sickening. There was also a poll by C-SPAN in California that showed Obama was ahead by six points just before Super Tuesday as well.
Posted by: Kevin | April 8, 2008 9:23 PM
The writer seemed to twist the figures with caveats until the figures meant almost nothing. But that is not the case. Trends that persist mean something.
The Hillary people phone and rant about the meaning of numbers every time a poll is published? Yup.
Posted by: Coursery | April 8, 2008 9:11 PM
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. Naughty Girl. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 9:04 PM
As an Obama supporter, I worry about those other Obama supporters who say that they will not vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. President McCain??? Are you nuts??? Because he is.
Posted by: lydgate | April 8, 2008 8:51 PM
We all need to email the Super- Delegates and tell them that we WILL un-seat them if they vote for Obama.
Posted by: Supporter of People of America | April 8, 2008 8:47 PM
We all need to email the Super- Delegates and tell them that we WILL un-seat them if they vote for Obama.
Posted by: Supporter of People of America | April 8, 2008 8:46 PM
America has been so focused on Iraq that we seem to ignore the rest of the world.
South America is divided into three political camps: Neutral, Pro-America and Pro-Chavez. Colombia is the only country down there that is Pro-American.
This is why it is so incredibly stupid for Obama and Clinton to be against the only Pro-American country down there, just so they can please the Pennsylvania unions at election time. Shame on both of them - they are pro-Chavez idiots and the worst kind of pandering opportunists!
Posted by: alance | April 8, 2008 8:38 PM
After reading some of the comments here i can't help but lmao. Oblama supporters actually try to give him credit for a speech on race. One that showed no courage or leadership or strength just Political Necessity. I for one viewed his speech as Nothing but a political run for cover from his TRUE feelings on race relations. H e has run a campaign full of racism an sexism from J.Jackson Jr., Axelrod, Rev Wright.
OBLAMAS CAMPAIGN PLAYED THE RACE CARD. DON'T YOU REMEMBER? LET ME REMIND YOU.
2. after N.H. J. Jackson Jr. ( Oblamas Nat. Campaign Co-Chair) on MSNBC " I DON'T REMEMBER HER CRYING AFTER KATRINA" (Code for she doesn't like or care about BLACK PEOPLE "
3. TWO days after Bills "Fairy Tale" Comment Michele Oblama Spaeking in a BLACK Church in S.C. Says " He called baracks entire campaign a FAIRY TALE. WELL LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING THIS CAMPAIGN AIN'T NO FAIRY TALE"
4. In the Nevada Debate Tim Russert ASKED OBLAMA " In the spirit of reconciliation do you REGRET YOUR CAMPAIGN DRIVING THIS STORY LINE?" His Answer " YES I DO! NOT ONLY IN HINDSIGHT BUT GOING FORWARD AS WELL."
NOW IF HE DIDN'T DO IT WHY SAY THAT HE DID. http://youtube.com/watch?v=rW1XR7eXPUM At about 9 min in.
Posted by: Pete Rosa | April 8, 2008 8:29 PM
if everyone is to vote by their belief, instinct or conscience, i think Obama will come out victor. howevr, the race and religion factor seemd to conceal the temperament of this man. he is truly one that can unite all races, religions and humanity.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 8:23 PM
Operation Chaos will make sure our little Hillary wins in Pennsylvania....Don't worry Hillary---we got your back!!
Posted by: charko825 | April 8, 2008 8:18 PM
Yeah right, wash post, we know for the hundredth time, you are in the tank of Obama.
04/05 - 04/07 Survey USA poll
That's a new poll came out today that has Hillary up by 18 points.
Obama's only thread hope is screwing millions in Florida and Michigan. And that strategy is a sure defeat in November.
Obama needs to face the music and quit the race now.
Posted by: John in Northern VA | April 8, 2008 8:17 PM
Clinton cannot catch Obama in delegates. To get close to competitive with Obama, Clinton needs to get 56%+ of the vote in each and every remaining primary.
Even if the party decides to award Florida and Michigan according to their results, Clinton will still need to get 53%+ of the vote in each and every remaining primary.
Clinton simply cannot pull down these big numbers in the remaining primaries.
Clinton is holding on in hopes that Obama implodes between now and the last primary. If he doesn't implode, then she will try to sway the super-delegates to support her.
Mathematically, a Clinton win through the election process is impossible. However, Clinton will not leave the race until the last super-delegate gives her an emphatic "no" to her nomination.
Posted by: C. G. of Houston, TX | April 8, 2008 8:11 PM
When JakeD said my mother sounds like a nice lady, it made my skin crawl. I was just trying to show what Barack is fighting against in PA. I wasn't expecting anyone to agree with her reasoning.
Posted by: bill | April 8, 2008 8:02 PM
If this goes all the way to Denver, my guess would be "the day AFTER" too ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 8:02 PM
hillary's supporters remain strong but there is a growing sense of independents moving around...and not making a final call
...its disturbing..and i'm a hillary supporter
she needs to get the message of her policy issues and her softer image
and its just amazing how much the media has influenced the average voter in pa...
if you care about hillary's campaign
and her ablility to deliver pa
and if you are near pa or can get there
better make plans right now and head for western pa and the pitts area region and get busy with GOTV
please its really really important and the need is serious
she is undoubtedly THE most qualified dem to lead this nation and she has ALL the ORIGIANAL ideas and programs and has the strength to do it ...and
she is a known entity...the rnc will destroy obama the day AFTER the nomination ....
literally...or they may just play like a cat with a ball of yarn for a while
Posted by: appalachian blue | April 8, 2008 8:00 PM
Reading reasonable posts, I am proud.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:51 PM
Posted by: max | April 8, 2008 7:49 PM
I thought it was weird myself...
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:49 PM
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:48 PM
Seriously, though, what matters in the context of these comments is not who you are or what you are but the soundness of your ideas. Once, argument was a search to divine the truth, to reach consensus on what is in fact true. Now, it's just a means to pass the time. Methinks if the debate was, does 2+2=4?, 45% would (a) argue it does not (b) reject any set of facts proving same and (c) ascribe inadequate intelligence and low morals to those members of the opposing side (while giving cyber fist-bumps to fellow non-believers). We really shouldn't choose our leaders with the same amount of deliberation that goes into your average sports talk phone call (though that would explain the last few elections).
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 7:47 PM
Perhaps, Maria, you should take your Prozac and calm down.
Support who you want, don't but presume that I am desperate because I support Clinton. I assure you I'm not. I'm well aware that her chances are bleak, but like your guy says, I can always hope.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:46 PM
Have a good evening as well (although I am registered Independent, not GOP ; )
You'll excuse me for ignoring "personal attacks" from you, I hope.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:44 PM
"Idiots" are people who post things like this:
"Your mother sounds like a nice lady -- did you know that his middle name was Hussein -- if not, you should thank her for giving you little known information."
Seriously, WTF is that about? Maybe Jake needs to explain why this WELL known "information" would mean anything to anyone? OH MY GOSH, "Hussein" is sooo scary. Please.
Perhaps "Hill Yeah!" needs to understand that when you align yourself with Rush Limbaugh fans like JakeD in an effort to make the case for Clinton you start to look desperate.
Posted by: Maria | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
Oh, no! PA is going into an Obama coma! Democrats better wakeup and realize he will not win in November. It is either Hillary or President McCain. And the polls I saw today show it. Obama brings no vision or experience to the table. His interview last week was pathetic. This Edwards supporter finds Hillary bright, wise, visionary and tough. She's ready to do the job and will be the hardest working president in history. Heard this week from reliable sources that Hillary will prevail in the end. She is the only hope for the Democratic Party right now!
Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
Whatever, JakeD, in the end you are still a Republican who has to somehow denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's how ya'll roll, Jake. Have a good evening. I'm outta here!
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM
I approved of the above message. I just forgot to sign it...
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 7:39 PM
How did she "trash Wright". All she said was "he wouldn't have been my pastor", when asked how she felt about his remarks.
I guess you think her MLK/LBJ remark was racist too?
How about Bill's "fairytale" comment?
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:00 PM __________________________________________
You're being glib. She knew how her comments would be received, just like she knew what her comments vis-a-vis LBJ and MLK would be taken by whites and blacks. (Although I will give Bill a pass for the fairytale bit, since in context, it was a fair statement, though I think he DID know what the soundbite would be before he uttered it.)
She attacked a prominent member of the black clergy. She sided with those who demonized him for his remarks (and whatever happened to freedom of expression, for God's sake? Why are you charged with approving of someone whom you are merely listening to? I've read Hitler's speeches, I listen to speakers of every differing POV I can get to -- long as they're not boring. Challenge MY ideas, that's the only way I'll know they're valid. I digress.) and she did it to deflect attention from her lies regarding sniper fire. She will not be welcome in many, many black churches, and she will be booed by some in churches in which she does appear. Do you think her MLK speeches were by accident? No, it's to repair some of the bridges burned by her repudiation of Wright. One way to tell a bigot: they tell you how much they admired a black man who's conveniently dead (Richard Cohen, how are you!).
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:39 PM
To Hillary and her well-meaning supporters:
Sorry, but your candidate is a puppet for the corporate goons and wall street thieves. Shame on her and her dumass husband, Mr. Had-to-ruin-it-for-everyone-by--weakening-Gore-because-I-have-always-gotten-away-with-it-screwing-around Bill Clinton
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:38 PM
No need to bother -- I hope that many more women refuse to vote as you predict -- but, your "demand" (or "Call for Unity") to Obama was clear as a bell.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:36 PM
CAMERA ZOOMS IN.... (on Michelle Obama)
Posted by: GS | April 8, 2008 7:34 PM
Hillary supporters are just afraid of a black president! Silent racism in the heart of the democratic party
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:33 PM
Thank you for your response -- that's exactly how I see it going down -- for all you know, however, I am black too ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:33 PM
We have already experienced nearly 20 years of the Bush/Clinton/Bush Era. Adding yet another 8 years of corporations,lobbyists, and the wealthy calling the shots in Washington will not help the middle class of America. There have been many powerful white men and white women living in the White House. Time has come for something new, something unbeholding to the rich and powerful. The fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence and of Dr. King's Dream. It is time for President Obama.
Posted by: A.Lincoln | April 8, 2008 7:33 PM
I can imagine seeing Obama in the White House... (camera pans left)
But the very glimpse of Michelle Obama is indeed scary!
Posted by: GS | April 8, 2008 7:31 PM
I'm not going to bother, JakeD. I hope you're not implying that I'm a racist just because I've pointed out the obvious. Like I said, we must wait to see how much damage Wright has done to Obama.
Also, this isn't only about black folks not voting for Hillary. Many, many women will never vote for Obama. I'd go so far as to say probably many more than there are black voters.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:31 PM
I can just see you in a couple months: "The Denver police had no choice but to keep order and prevent violence from these extremists!!"
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:31 PM
Operation Chaos will give Clinton the points she needs...
Posted by: Dwight | April 8, 2008 7:30 PM
To Hillary supporters I say when did you exactly sold your soul to the corporations?
Clinton in bed with Military Industrial Complex
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 7:29 PM
FWIW, I'm black. And my take is many stay home, those that show up vote for Hillary. (Keep in mind that, since blacks died to obtain voting rights, black people like to think they have a sacred duty to vote.)
Blacks like to think Republicans are racist (although the few GOP PA whites I know are all crossing over to vote for Obama, and not out of any underhanded motives). Matter of fact, in my experience white Republicans, as opposed to white Dems, are often much more fair-minded, no matter how politically conservative they may be. White Dems often have the arrogance of presuming they know best for blacks (e.g., svreader supposedly marching with King, then expressing regrets because blacks didn't "deserve" it).
These comment boards over the past few weeks should put the "white Dems aren't racist" myth to death. They're as racist as white Repubs, no more, no less.
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 7:28 PM
Have you read "Letter from Birmingham Jail" yet? That offers a much more eloquent answer than I can muster.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:27 PM
I sound like 8 white Alabama clergymen? Why?
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:26 PM
How nice and Obamalike of you to just show up here and call us all idiots. Why don't you have a nice day:)
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:24 PM
Many first time participants / Obama supporters will feel put out if she's the nominee (I think one, above, used a "skunk" analogy). You have to realize that's not Barack HUSSEIN Obama's fault. I'm sorry, but you sound too much like those 8 white Alamaba clergymen.
I am not "afraid" of a candidate with that middle name either. So, who are you calling an "idiot" madam?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:24 PM
JakeD, you sound more like a member of the Xenophobic Redneck High School Drop-out Party.
I love how all the insane Repubicans and Hillary fans here just ignored the eloquent comments Iraq War Vet Paul Hernandez made in his support of Senator Obama.
Here is someone who put his life on the line in Bush's War and he is not "afraid" of a candidate with Hussein as his middle name.
Posted by: maria | April 8, 2008 7:20 PM
I don't see how she would be "stealing" the nomination if the DNC and superdelegates decide, based on the outcome of the remaining contests, that Obama has been too damaged by the Wright story to compete in the general. Why would they put a candidate up that they know is unelectable?
If this happened, he is the only one who could soothe ruffled feathers, by admitting the inevitable and asking his supporters to back Clinton.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:19 PM
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:15 PM
Bottom line, Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 16% on election day. Obama will also lose Indiana by 8%. North Carolina is still toss-up for Obama. He has secured as usual 3/4 of black votes but white votes are still-up-for grab in North Carolina. Even At this late stage, substantial voters are still undecided in North Carolina which is definitely not good news for Obama. Late voters are favorable to Clinton than Obama in many primaries.
We have not seen any Bradley effect on all these election results to date, except one primary state. Will we see Wright-wrong effect in coming three primaries? Stay tuned!
Posted by: YesWeCanForFree | April 8, 2008 7:14 PM
That Letter was a response to a statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen on April 12, 1963 titled "A Call For Unity". They agreed that social injustices existed but expressed the belief that the battle against racial segregation should be fought solely in the courts and not taken to the streets. King responded that, without forceful, direct actions such as his, true civil rights could never be achieved. As he put it, "This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.'" He asserted not only that civil disobedience is justified in the face of unjust laws, but also that "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
The letter also includes the frequently quoted statement that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," as well as the words of Thurgood Marshall quoted by King: "[J]ustice too long delayed is justice denied."
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:13 PM
I think what's most important, is that we have more people whom would turnout for this important process period. Both candidates have a certain amount of people whom refuse to vote for either of them. Race is of absolutely no value to me. I just need to know how many PEOPLE (period) did or did not agree with either candidate. If more people choose to be progressive, then I know there was a larger group (diverse of course) whom chose to move forward. That is my primary concern.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:11 PM
Why would it be up to HIM to "assuage" anyone upset by YOUR candidate stealing the nomination? Perhaps you need to read MLK Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail"?
I heard you the first time. You don't mind if I continue the discussion with someone who will discuss it, right?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:11 PM
I hate to participate in the divisive ideal of racism. It is already known that there are African Americans whom very well support Hillary, as there are those supporting Obama. It is no different than any other "group." I simply don't see any importance to that information. There are various groups of people whom would be upset IF Hillary "steals" the nomination.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 7:08 PM
We just need to all calm down and let the rest of the states vote. No one has voted since the Rev Wright issue came about. If it turns out that it has damaged his chances, he cannot be the nominee no matter how many votes he's gotten so far. In that case, it will be up to him to assuage the anger of black people.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:07 PM
Hey, to the angry black person who left the long post without a name. Are you blaming Hillary Clinton for Reverend Wright? How stupidly absurd! Your post is also full of racist inuendos.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:04 PM
Don't you realize that there will be SOME point in time where she cannot gain the nomination without completely turning off too many Obama supporters she needs to win in November?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 7:04 PM
Can't wait to take down McCain the straw man! Too bad its not Bush!
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 7:01 PM
How did she "trash Wright". All she said was "he wouldn't have been my pastor", when asked how she felt about his remarks.
I guess you think her MLK/LBJ remark was racist too?
How about Bill's "fairytale" comment?
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 7:00 PM
Will ANY African-American Obama supporter please answer my question?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:59 PM
Unfortunately, Obama08 declined to answer my question ...
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:58 PM
That's exactly my point above. How many African-American Obama supporters will vote for her in November after she steals the nomination?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:56 PM
What is your point about the Columbia Trade Agreement? He said "if the right formula is reached". Even Nancy Pelosi has said it could be passed if it had the proper protections for American workers, labor and the environment.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Trust me. The war is one of my most important issues with this country. I've been following Obama with this key issue.
Send me the information you have, and I'll look up clips of multiple debates where he and Hillary discussed their foreign ideals and on the war, as well as send you a link to see where he stands. I've watched him debate, and even outside of debates talking to the people, I keep hearing consistent. So again, it seems we may have a case of miscommunication or misunderstanding.
Give me a link of your evidence. I'm trying to find it so that I may review and make my own judgment. I have to have facts.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Condi Rice...qualified woman...have you ever seen her testify before Congress. Wasn't it her watch as NSA that 911 occurred. Man, she has F'd up time and time again...with lies, distortions, and plain inexperience in her position. She has never stood out or shown any unique skills. That's all you've got?
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Obama2008: How many African-Americans do you think will vote for her, though, if she manages to steal the nomination? Did you see my post to you about "experience" needed to be President? _______________________________
You're touching on a point I made earlier. It's virtually impossible for Hillary to be nominated without doing so in a way in which it will look like she cheated her way into the nomination. Obama's got the most states locked up but leave that aside; it's unlikely she'll beat him in total votes cast or total elected delegates. If the supers counteract Obama's primary edge, many people -- not just blacks -- will be d@mn mad. And they'll stay home (blacks) or vote for Nader (progressives). ESPECIALLY after HRC tacks to the center in the general.
I think most black Dems would support HRC if she was the nominee, if only b/c blacks are so reflexively Democrat. But how can she enter a black church after trashing Wright? (She likes MLK, so what, he's dead, throw out some names of blacks who are alive.) She names a black running mate, so what? It won't be Obama (he'd be stupid to take it). She'll take 85% of a MUCH smaller base.
But it won't happen, because most of those supers are running for something in 08, too, and they need that base to be as big as possible. The supers don't go for Hillary unless it is in their interest to do so, their interest is getting reelected, and I can't see any way HRC at the top of the tickets turns out more votes than Obama. Even if they vote for McCain, those bodies will be there to vote Dem on the rest of the ticket.
People may not like Obama, but Hillary makes people MAD.
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 6:54 PM
I am actually registered Independent, but I would even support John SIDNEY McCain picking Dianne EMIEL Feinstein as his running mate -- anything he thinks could get California in play -- especially against Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:53 PM
RACE IS A FACTOR and skunks don't leave on their own: Of course, we knew it all the time. Race is a factor, in this election, just as it is in America, in general. And, it will continue to haunt us (we Americans), until we circle it, surround it and cut its head off. We applaud Barack Obama's valiant attempt to keep it out of the campaign. We applaud him, even more, for his realizing that it is time for us (we Americans) to fess up. It's time to recognize that those who "whisper about" it are right on track. Now, what are we gonna do about it? Now, that the skunk has been thrown into the room, what are we gonna do? Will we leave the skunk in the room, and imagine it gone? It will not leave of its own volition, you can be sure of that. We could all leave the room, and leave it to the skunk. Or some of us can stay in the room with the skunk and tough it out. But, for some of us, who've dealt with the skunk all our lives we know what to do. We're gonna all get rid of the skunk together, or ya'll will have to deal with the skunk, by yourselves. The skunk is what causes all this "code language" that The Clintons have been using and that the Media is now picking up on. "He can't win." That's code for White folk won't vote for the "N-word" in November. Having "two patriotic people in the race", means "This thing ought to be between two WHITE Americans." We ain't complaining, not yet, we're just 'splaining. See we've been facing this kind of stuff for all our life. We're used to having to work twice as hard to get half as much. We're used to having to watch our back, less our "friends" stab us in that back. We're used to not being a part of the Republican Party mainstream. We expect that from them. We just don't expect it from our friends-you know the ones who "Praise Martin", but won't fully participate in the practice of accepting people based upon their character, rather than the color of their skin. This latest development has caught us totally unawares. We'd been lulled into a relative state of tranquility. We have this magnificent candidate, who's highly qualified, articulate, good-looking, well-married, and blessed with All-American type kids, who's won state after state in the primaries; won the greater number of delegates; raised pots full of money. So, why hasn't the second place candidate dropped out. Why hasn't she been escorted to the sidelines? Well, she's White-stupid.... And, "He can't win." One of the newspapers said "Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen." "The figures shed some light on race's effect on a competition that moves to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania, which has a slightly greater proportion of whites than average. The numbers also underscore the challenge Obama could face in the general election, when whites will comprise a larger share of voters and tend to be more conservative than those participating in the Democratic primaries."
There you have it in a nutshell. We've been told, in a "coded" fashion, by The Clintons. And, the news media has substantiated it in their polls. So, what's left, for Black folk- It's really very simple. Now, that we've been told that "Barack Obama is too Black to win in November. Therefore we're gonna have to keep the White candidate in the race, to ultimately replace him. We've gotta win in November."
As we leave the room, to the skunks an skunk-lovers, we'll leave them to figure out how to beat the Republicans, WITHOUT the Black vote. Hey, surely you don't expect us to support your ticket, after you've chosen a skunk over us.......
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 6:53 PM
Perhaps some of the "invective" is our response in honest disagreement with your opinion that the "current president has really made a horrible mess to be cleaned up." I already posted my "test" for President, above.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:51 PM
All the Clinton supporters would rather see the U.S go down in flames them to vote for Obama.The blue collar voters probably do not really understand what NAFTA has and will continue to do to PA and the rest of the country.and if they do. they don't care as long as a man of color is not POTUS.I do feel for the young marrieds who have chidren or want to have children, understand this,there will be no good jobs left to pay a decent wage. So go ahead vote for Hillary, one day you will curse her as people curse the present POTUS.
Posted by: The End is near | April 8, 2008 6:51 PM
I know you are a Republican, so you would never support Hillary, but I'm glad you would support Condi. At least you're not sexist like so many men have shown themselves to be during this election.
It has been really eye-opening to say the least. I've lost a lot of respect for journalists and pundits that I used to admire.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 6:51 PM
After scanning many of these comments, I believe that I can clearly state that people are quite passionate about their candidates. That is healthy for the body politic. The amount of invective is extraordinary, but understandable, since many writers may be new to the democratic election process. There is also a great deal of mis- and dis- information. We need to focus on the policies that we seek via our candidates. Our current president has really made a horrible mess to be cleaned up. What are we going to do about it? Let's use our passions to generate ideas that will resolve our problems! Let's share these ideas with our candidates and see whether or not they will listen to what we say, right now! That is a good test for leadership.
Posted by: bjbprice | April 8, 2008 6:48 PM
My heros aren't the spoiled sons of Admirals, don't sign up with the Keating Five and vote against the MLK Holiday...they also avoid stingers and keep their war experience as a quite matter and not a qualification for President that they love to share with the world and make little cheesy commercials about. My family were sailors and grunts and died for this country...and...so...you are who you are...heroic pictures with music won't change that.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:48 PM
A reader in Latin America turned up a June 23, 2005 article from the news portal Terra (reprinted (.doc) by the Bogota government) that quotes Bill Clinton offering unambiguous support for the free trade agreement with Colombia.
The article is in Spanish, so what follows is a translation of a translation, but the gist is unmistakable:
"We need your help to expedite the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU is very important to give a clear signal of what the relations between the two countries should be," President Alvaro Uribe said yesterday to the former president of the EU Bill Clinton, during Expogestion 2005.
"I will raise your point when you return to the United States," Clinton replied. "I am in favor of the free trade agreement and it is my hope that we will find the right formula to reach the agreement."
The story also reports that Clinton received a two-minute standing ovation after "applauding Colombia's perserverence for the progress made in the Free Trade Agreement negotiations with the United States."
There is, of course, a little wiggle room here, and the question of what's the right formula. In any case, it will be hard to demote Bill Clinton from his role as chief strategist.
UPDATE: More from Clinton in Colombia in 2005 here, with him regretting the loss of momentum for Andean trade, and saying the failure to reach agreement would be a "mistake."
UPDATE: A Clinton spokesman notes Bill has publicly backed free trade with Colombia since 2000.
Here's the applause, then the exchange, in Spanish:
Clinton elogió la labor del gobierno colombiano en su lucha contra la pobreza y contra el narcotráfico y aplaudió su perseverancia por los avances logrados en las negociaciones de un Tratado de Libre Comercio con los Estados Unidos (TLC).
Esos elogios motivaron los aplausos del público que por más de dos minutos hacÃan sonar fuetemente las palmas de sus manos, cada vez con mayor intensidad.
"Necesitamos su ayuda para agilizar la firma del Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC) con E.U. Es de gran importancia para dar una señal clara de lo que deben ser las relaciones entre los dos paÃses", le dijo ayer el presidente Ãlvaro Uribe, al ex presidente de los E.U. Bill Clinton, durante Expogestion 2005.
"Voy a plantear su punto cuando regrese a E.U.", le respondió Clinton. "Estoy a favor del TLC y tengo la esperanza de que vamos a encontrar la fórmula para que se logre el acuerdo", añadió.
Posted by: Thevail | April 8, 2008 6:47 PM
And, that didn't work out so good for either Kennedy or Carter, remember?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:47 PM
Hillary will not quit as long as we support her. She has shown herself to be the strongest of the three candidates by far. I hope her tenacity pays off in the end.
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 6:47 PM
Posted by: pressF1 | April 8, 2008 6:46 PM
There are, no doubt, some highly-qualified females out there who I would not mind being President some day (or even VP this time around). Condi Rice, for instance ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:46 PM
It is hilarious to listen to those who keep telling her to drop out. Ted Kennedy (the expert at dividing the Democrats) was behind by 1,000 delegates at this point in the election when he ran against SITTING PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter. He took it all the way to the convention.
Posted by: Joe | April 8, 2008 6:45 PM
I try to exclude myself from participating in the divisive racism ideals. I prefer to see people as a general group, as one human race. To answer your question, it is true that there are African Americans whom are already in Hillary's corner. There are African Americans who simply don't feel as though Obama is their #1 preference. I cannot classify the entire group's opinions based on their race. I believe they'll vote as individuals, based on who they prefer to help change some of the woes of this country.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:43 PM
I've finally come around. It was inevitable that at some point, my koolaid injection would wear off. I now support Hillary Rodham Clinton wholeheartedly.
The whole experience is so liberating in a strangely sanguine way. I'm off to make another donation. I just can't stop loving that Hillary!
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM
It's not John McCain I have a problem with, it's the Liberty U/Patrick Henry College nut-job cabal that staffs the mid-level patronage positions when the GOP holds power.
Hillary Clinton is loathed -- and she came by it honestly. If her treatment by now has mutated into unfairness, well, after the Travel Office episode, she had it coming. If she is now reflexively regarded as lying, well, if she hadn't lied over and over and over for the better part of 20 years, maybe we'd cede her some initial credibility now. But for someone who claims to be experienced in fighting Republicans -- as if that's the direction we want for the next four years, more partisan combat signifying nothing -- she sure showed a lack of spine in caving on George Bush's war.
BTW, has anybody seen any of the names of the poor unfortunates who froze to death in Rezko's slums? Yet? And what happens when Rezko gets off after the jury says, you cannot believe a guy who by his own admission "would meet in hotels once or twice a month to take cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, ecstasy and other powerful drugs at all-day sessions," spending $100K/year on same?
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM
Very few men have become President without substantial FEDERAL government experience (mainly Governors in that category), even JFK....
No women have become President.. It's about time....
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 6:39 PM
You "love" her so much that you posted, above, that "she has become an albatross around the Democratic Party's neck"? Bird watcher, huh?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:38 PM
Poll? Has anybody learned the lesson yet?
Posted by: G.Y | April 8, 2008 6:37 PM
I'm so in love with Hillary that I'm going to hillaryclinton.com and make a donation. Who wants to come with me?
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 6:35 PM
How many African-Americans do you think will vote for her, though, if she manages to steal the nomination? Did you see my post to you about "experience" needed to be President?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:33 PM
Let me say this again:
McLame the great war hero was beat by Little Bush.
What makes you think Obama would be easier to beat?
Mccain is going to do the same as Hillary and fail just as bad. Obama will keep building support, while McCain runs his mouth and shoots himself in the foot.
Once Hillary's out, Obama will lock in the female vote and carry the day in November. It all about strategy and Obama knows it. McCain is still looking for his tactical advantage...just like in nam.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:32 PM
Finally relenting to the horrendous pressure from us, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, the Obama campaign and his evil minions, the DNC, Nancy Pelosi and Osama bin Laden, Hillary Clinton has just announced she is dropping out of the race for the Democratic Presidential Nominee.
Posted by: Ariana Huffs a Ton of Crap | April 8, 2008 6:31 PM
I want both candidates to work fairly for the nomination, and let either one win it fair and square. Things have gotten nasty lately, and I am definitely not blind to the fact. In my opinion, it's not about the candidates because, they're just people. What matters most to me is, what's going on in this country and what I feel needs to be fixed, changed, or worked on. That is the sole reason why I am voting. Both candidates, honestly speaking, are taking similar stances on the issues which I feel are important. I would be disappointed if Obama honestly earned it, and the nomination was given to Hillary, yes I would; I would be disappointed for the same reason that I was disappointed in 2000 when Gore clearly won, and the nomination was handed to Bush. Obviously that's not right. I say this without bias, looking at the picture. However, in November, based on what I feel needs to happen with this country within the next few years, I will ultimately vote based on that. If Hillary is the nominee, yes I will vote for her.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
Obama2008 (6:22 PM) You didn´t listen! Barack Obama (during the Foreign Relations HRG) at the end really asked if "status quo" in Irak would be a "success enough"!
Posted by: Elisabeth | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM
If Obama is the candidate, Pennsylvania will be a red state votin for McCain - no question about it. In fact, I would think that nearly the entire US will become red states over it. I for one will vote McCain if Obama is the candidate.
Posted by: Jaye | April 8, 2008 6:26 PM
Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not be sworn in on as President on January 20, 2009.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:25 PM
If people think Bill is a bully, wait till they get a taste of McCain. He talks down to people, unless he is campaigning. Its a fact. I worked closely with his staff and others that worked with him. He thinks very highly of his own opinion and does not hesitate to lecture. Not very effective with children or adults.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:25 PM
That's right -- don't worry too much about it -- we do have another chance to elect him, this November.
John SIDNEY McCain -- the American President Americans Are Waiting For
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:24 PM
Texas Democrat wrote: [Polls? The polls said the same thing in Ohio and it was not the facts. And neither is this ridiculous poll.]
Hmmm...conveniently left out what the Polls said about Clinton versus what happened/is happening in TEXAS aren't we?
Well that's true -THOSE polls definitely turned ridiculous didn't they? HA! If anyone has insulted voters' intelligence - it's the Clintonistas!
That's right - Dems need to AND WILL win in November.
Everyone should just get over it and, if you really are a dem - pull yourself together and get on board with the progress!
Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States! woo hoo!
Posted by: She's_Cleva | April 8, 2008 6:23 PM
I think you and I received different information. The information I received from Obama, is that he will "be as careful getting us out, as our current leadership was careless getting us in." He proposes to bring our military home from Iraq, but also working with representatives of Iraq to help them take more responsibility for their own security. He doesn't want to leave just leave Iraq. He wants to help Iraq at the same time bringing our people home. That is a plan that needs to happen. That's what I would like our brilliant people in office to do, those masterminds of the country; they need to construct a miraculous plan to do just that, in my opinion. I support that idea. This war is one of the main reasons why I personally cannot support McCain though I definitely respect McCain for his military experience. This war was illegit to begin with, and it has cost us to go - 4,000+ individuals of our Defense. Is it the right thing to do, knowing that fact, to just continue down that same line of action?? Crucial family members have been lost, and for what kind of war again? Illegit. I cannot see how it'd be the right thing to do. I think it's time for a different plan.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:22 PM
You had a chance to elect McCain in 2000...you picked Bush.
You had a chance to elect Hillary in 2008...we picked Obama.
You'll have another chance to vote for McCain in 2008.
We'll have another chance to vote for Obama in 2008.
May the best man win...and he will.
McCain is not known for being calm, thoughtful, or diplomatic. We've already had 8 years of that. Frankly, I like a guy that thinks and looks before he shoots. McCain doesn't even know who he wants to shoot...shiite...sunni...Iraqi...Iranian...just get him a gun.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 6:19 PM
I certainly hope she does not pull out of the race, regardless of what happens in PA.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:18 PM
After thinking about it some, definitely Hillary will have to quit if she doesn't win Pennsylvania by double digits. For whatever reason, whatever hard feelings I had about the primary are starting to dissappear and I'm getting used to the idea of President Obama. Definitely has a nice ring to it in comparison to President McCain.....
Posted by: DCDave | April 8, 2008 6:16 PM
I have no idea why the nametags are not working any more. I responded to your post above re: "experience" -- keep in mind that none of that is formally required in the Constitution -- which is the distinction I'm making between "experience" and "qualification" : )
Will YOU vote for Clinton in November if she steals the nomination away?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:14 PM
Congrats for getting out there in the trenches. Keep in mind, though, that she doesn't even have to win in Pennsylvania to prevent you guy from reaching the number needed to secure the nomination. At this point, it's come down to seating the deleagtes from Florida and Michigan, as well as the super-delegates. Will you vote for her in November if she steals the nomination away?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:12 PM
The only post that I've made without a name tag appearing, is the response I typed to you. The rest of the posts without names are not my posts.
I'm used to my name tag automatically appearing when I submit. I'll just have to keep typing it in for now, or copy/paste.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:09 PM
For some reason over 50% of the nation have an unfavorable view of Hillary, and that is putting it mildly for how many feel about her. She represents the same corruption and self dealing in Washington DC we are all disgusted with. The sooner we can get rid of her, and the sooner she catches on, the better off we will all be.
Posted by: bastanow | April 8, 2008 6:09 PM
Very few men have become President without substantial FEDERAL government experience (mainly Governors in that category), even JFK had problems when it came to "experience" and he had TWICE as much time in D.C. as Obama, in addition to that little PT-109 episode ; )
Running a EXECUTIVE branch, on the State level, or some other BIG organization (like an Army or business) probably is the best indicator of Presidential experience. Of course, there's always "on-the-job" training with a position as unique as President -- unless we re-elect Jimmy Carter or Bush41 -- that's what I'm talking about re: "experience".
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Barack Obama (during the Foreign Relations HRG) asked if "status quo" in Irak would be a "success enough". The is one of the most stupid question that I have ever heard! If USA should leave Irak now it would have been chaos in the country and maybe the whole Middle East within only a couple of months. This man is really naive. He also seems to be accepting to hand over the power to Iran..... Hillary Clinton has always been talking about leaving Irak in a responsible way. That`s a realistic vision.
Posted by: Elisabeth | April 8, 2008 6:07 PM
Wie gehts miene Deutcher Freund? Bitte entshuldigen meine Amerikanisher Brudern. Wie liebe Dich!
Posted by: Obama Who? | April 8, 2008 6:06 PM
Chuck gets the nod!! You definitely told it the way it needed to be told. We'll see how much of that information was taken into consideration.
To the reasonable foreigners: You also get the nod. It is a pleasure to know your views.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:05 PM
After doing door-to-door for Obama over the weekend, it still seems like Clinton is ahead around here. I think she ends up winning by about 9%. To the Clinton supporters who ask how that can be considered a loss -- PA is her best demographic matchup and she is far enough behind that she needs to win by at least twice that margin to meaningfully eat away at the Obama lead.
Strange how the Clinton supporters call the Obama supporters cultist A-holes etc, while bemoaning vile attacks by Obama supporters. Looking through this thread, it seems about the vilest thing Obama supporters are saying is that Hillary has already lost, which is basically true.
Posted by: allentown | April 8, 2008 6:04 PM
Is that you posting "Anonymously"?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:03 PM
I'm not used to having to type my name tag.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 6:03 PM
I expect him to beat Obama by getting the women and racists to vote for him ; )
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 6:02 PM
I am indeed interested in your comments. I find that it helps to gain some knowledge and insight talking to others. However, I still do not understand that some particular level of experience which some talk about (is this time served compared to Hillary and McCain that people are referring to?), is not mentioned under the "Qualifications." I would think that I should be able to find a straight forward list of experience needed for the presidential position. I am really trying to find some more information that clarifies that, but so far I haven't found information on that yet. So, we have indeed established that Obama qualifies like the rest.
I do believe that McCain is qualified as well. However, I respectfully disagree with the fact that he should be next. I honestly don't think that he is the president that The American People need during these next few years. I respect your view though. At the least, I don't have to skim through your posts as I do some others.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 6:01 PM
By insulting the German poster (who has every right to express his opinion here), you've brought dishonor and shame to us all.
This is supposed to be an open, democratic country, and the commenter did nothing but share his views, and did not insult anyone. You owe him an apology, but you need empathy and class to do this.
Deep thought of the day: I think if another country had tens of thousands of troops stationed in my country (as we do in Germany) I might take quite an interest in who the next leader of that country will be.
Posted by: chuck | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
Remember Hillary Clinton dumped $25M on the Iowa caucus (party platters, snow shovels when it did not snow, etc.) only to place third after Obama and Edwards. Yeah, Hillary knows votes cannot be bought!
That's why she's going to win. Obama can't buy all those PA votes. He's mad about it too. Guess that's why his campaign spokesman is going around calling African American children "monkeys"
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
Posted by: Invictusplc | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
Relevant experience is not limited to just "years spent in Washington" (although he is no General either ; )
Your mother sounds like a nice lady -- did you know that his middle name was Hussein -- if not, you should thank her for giving you little known information.
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 5:59 PM
If McCain is so great, why did he lose to Bush 8 years ago. If he couldn't beat Little Bush, how do you expect him to beat Obama?
It wasn't dirty tricks...its his record, knowledge and personality.
He is still referring to Al Qaeda as Shiite. He did it again today at the hearing...dude is old, worn out, and out of touch.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:58 PM
After spending most of my growing years in Pennsylvania, I moved away. There is a reason for that.
My mom (in PA) is voting for Hillary because Hillary is a woman and then called me sexist after she found I am voting for Obama (in Oregon). She asked me if I knew his middle name was Hussein (that's Muslim you know). These are the type of people that will be voting in PA.
As far as the polling, it's all spin. Hillary wants to make it look like it will be close and the beat the spread. Obama wants it to look like a rout and to the same.
Posted by: Bill | April 8, 2008 5:56 PM
I'll take good judgment (Obama, for example knowing enough to oppose this idiotic war from the beginning) over years spent in Washington (Hillary) any day of the week.
Posted by: chuck | April 8, 2008 5:55 PM
Remember Hillary Clinton dumped $25M on the Iowa caucus (party platters, snow shovels when it did not snow, etc.) only to place third after Obama and Edwards. Yeah, Hillary knows votes cannot be bought!
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:54 PM
I'm an Obama supporter who's not feeling too good about the upcoming contests. I think the Wright thing has done more damage than even I want to admit. The media and all the national polsters are trying to put a different spin on it, but something just don't feel the same. Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Obamarama | April 8, 2008 5:52 PM
How many African-American Obama supporters do you think will vote for her after she steals the nomination? They won't just be slightly sad for a few weeks.
Posted by: | April 8, 2008 5:45 PM
LOL -- is Barack HUSSEIN a "Nazi" in addition to a undercover Muslim agent?
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 5:44 PM
I am an Obama supporter. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will be sad for a few weeks, but I will vote for her in the general election. I'm not sure I will contribute money to her campaign (she and Bill seem to have enough as it is), but I will vote for her in November.
We need to be mature about voting. We are members of the oldest modern (post-18th-century) democracy in the world.
Posted by: mruth | April 8, 2008 5:43 PM
My fellow Americans, compared to Senators McCain and Clinton, I have superior wisdom and judgment.
That is why I chose Trinity United and the Reverend Wright. You see, I knew that someday, I would have to vindicate him for his racist and anti-American views and out my racist grandmother as well. I sat there all those years and said nothing because I was waiting for just the right moment. It took 20 years, but it was so worth it. I'm so magnificent!
Posted by: Sen Barack Obama | April 8, 2008 5:43 PM
No doubt he "qualifies" for the position -- so do I -- what neither of us have is the experience needed to become President.
John SIDNEY McCain -- the American President Americans Are Waiting For
Posted by: JakeD | April 8, 2008 5:43 PM
Why are all these Germans on here plugging for Obama? Is he a Nazi too?
Posted by: What The? | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Depends which polls you look at...Survey USA poll has Clinton up by 18.
Posted by: Joe | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Every president has learned presidential duties once becoming president, and therefore bearing the presidential burdens.
I do not think that any candidate running would be legit to run if they didn't qualify for the position.
Qualifications for President Natural born citizen; at least 35 years of age; a resident within the United States for 14 years before election
*The Nation's Chief Executive and Chief of State;
*appoints and can remove high federal officials and U.S. diplomats;
*commands the armed forces; conducts foreign affairs;
*may recommend legislation to the Congress;
*signs legislation passed by both houses of the Congress into law;
*may call Congress into special session
Obama, like all other candidates, does indeed qualify for the position. He is educated, has experience, and he also has needed wisdom. Wisdom and education work together as a powerful force, and helpful too. I applaud those characteristics.
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Obama Who? Sounds like Vijay Singh when his caddy wore a cap reading "Tiger Who?" before Tiger summarily kicked his arse! So while Hillary may squeak by in PA, Hillary the Inevitable will get beaten for the nomination. It is that simple.
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:34 PM
Rush Limbaugh has wisely commanded that we not attack Hillary due to Operation Chaos.
Hillary should stay in till the bitter end, trashing Obama not only to the Convention but in the Convention.
Posted by: JaxMax | April 8, 2008 5:34 PM
Hillary spreads AIDS all over Africa.
Bill rapes all the women in Saudi Arabia while negotiating a shady deal.
Hillary vows to eat all American babies within her first 100 days.
Posted by: Ariana Huffs a Ton | April 8, 2008 5:33 PM
FOREIGNER's are also interested as
THEY DON't WANT YOU TO BE LIKE THOSE EVANGELICALS WHO VOTE FOR $4 OR $6 GAS AND EAT IRAQI/NAVY BLOOD SOAKED BREADS.
YOU ASKING THAT QUESTION IS SAME AS CHELSEY TELLING YOU "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"
Posted by: kg | April 8, 2008 5:33 PM
MCANGRY WILL RIP HIS HEAD OFF IN GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
OUR TIME IS NNNNNOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW !!!!!!!!
Posted by: Menopausal Maniac | April 8, 2008 5:32 PM
The Hillary camp is still set up on the river bank. The rest of us know the levy has already broken and we're waiting for them on higher ground.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:31 PM
MCANGRY WILL RIP HIS HEAD OFF IN GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
OUR TIME IS NNNNNOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW !!!!!!!!
Posted by: Menopausal Maniac | April 8, 2008 5:31 PM
Well, I don't put a whole lot of stock in polls...but I do hope Pennsylvanians are smarter than Ohioans. How they could vote for a candidate that 47% of the country says they will never support in a general election is beyond me. Why hitch yourself to a loser?
The best bet the Democrats have is to make Obama the candidate. But even that chance dwindles more each day as Hillary continues to tear apart the party for her own selfish greed for power.
Posted by: noozdude | April 8, 2008 5:30 PM
As a foreigner, I just do not understand why the American people would want to vote for a Clinton to represent the face of America in the world today. _____________
As an American, I'm very happy to have Hillary Clinton represent the face of America and Barack Obama represent it's *ss!
Posted by: Hill Yeah! | April 8, 2008 5:30 PM
From The Huffington Post: "Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.
In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America."
She can fire Penn but she can't fire Bill... Now, Hillary lie, oops, I mean tell me again how you have always opposed NAFTA and believe that free trade hurts the American working class like the people of Pennsylvania.
Posted by: BD | April 8, 2008 5:29 PM
Susan, words matter, especially for the Clintons who made $109M over eight years for speaking and writing words. Yeah, they donated 10% of their money - to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation!
Rezko: there is nothing there. Patrick Fitzgerald the prosecutor (think Enron) is trying the Rezko case and believe it, if there was something, it would be out by now. Nada!
Experience? No one has validated Hillary's thirty-five years of such with any truth; in fact Hillary can't validate her own experience with any truth (i.e., Bosnia, Kosovo, Northen Ireland peace accords, the pregnant Ohio woman story, healthcare reform, etc). So yeah, words matter indeed!
Posted by: MelDupree | April 8, 2008 5:29 PM
Anyway you cut-it, Hillary has a tough one ahead for her, as these Internet Stats and analysis further show as well; Posted by: Dave | -------------------------------------------
Haven't we faces this before. Ohio, Mass, Texas, NH. and Cal. The night before the NH and Cal. he was supposed to be winning. Guess what.
Posted by: Chief | April 8, 2008 5:28 PM
As an American and middle-aged feminist Hillary supporter,
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY A FOREIGNER WOULD BE ON THE WASHINGTON POST, DISCUSSING OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO BACK TO GERMANY, MAXD, WE'RE JUST GETTING STARTED OVER HERE!!!!
I didn't chime in over there for Angela Merckel, though I secretly wanted to.
Posted by: max headroom | April 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Lokks like Washington Post is afreid of Hillary Clinton. Don't worry, because you will always fing some polls that suits you.Even if Obama is leading, you can easely it is because of the cold weather or because of Obamas black shoes. you will always find an excuse. But at the end (of Clinton), after the NC voting, she will be pressed hard to leave. Although the doen't like to go. the pressure of her friends will be to high. That will be the long expected end of the era and it will be good for America. Many Germans think this way.
Posted by: sieweke | April 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Okay...just take a close look at Hillary lately...she's defeated and its showing...her hair has gotten as flat as her campaign. Obama's lookin' awake, aware, calm, and sharp...people notice that crap.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:27 PM
Obama's raised a gazillion dollars and is trying to smother PA with his ads but Hillary is still going to cream him on April 22! You can't buy votes, meldumbree.
Posted by: Obama Who? | April 8, 2008 5:26 PM
As a foreigner, I just do not understand why the American people would want to vote for a Clinton to represent the face of America in the world today.
The world has had enough of these American stupidity. It is sickening.
Posted by: maxd | April 8, 2008 5:24 PM
MCANGRY WILL RIP HIS HEAD OFF IN GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!
OUR TIME IS NNNNNOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW !!!!!!!!
Posted by: Menopausal Maniac | April 8, 2008 5:24 PM
Obama's pickin' up Superdelegates like the leaves of fall...more and more everyday.
What's Hillary been doin'...throwin' gutter balls...preceeded by big talk and empty challenges.
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:23 PM
"I think Obama has operated a lame campaign here - bowling being the only memorable event. Gutter ball! He may not score a 37 in the primary. :P"
Posted by: j9 | April 8, 2008 4:03 PM _______________________
let's examine the numbers for a moment: Hillary Clinton raises $20M to Obama's $40M last month. The month before, Obama raised an astonishing $55M to Hillary's $35M. Now Hillary owes nearly $10,000,000.00 in campaign debt to Obama's $625,000. Hillary's campaign has stiffed vendors (little people) and failed to pay the health insurance premiums for her workers; no such reports about the Obama camp doing this. Obama has brougth more people to the poltical process without using PAC or special interest money. Hillary seems unable to stay on message for all the infighting by her senior staffers. Now tell us all how is Obama running a lame campaign again?
Posted by: Meldupree | April 8, 2008 5:22 PM
Hey Barry, it's time to come home now and get your spanking for calling me a racist. Leave that nice little Hillary alone. She's got a lot of work to do choosing a Vice President. You sure have been mean to her, but she promised me that she would let you back in the Senate if you promise to leave that church. Come on home now!
Posted by: Obama's Grandma | April 8, 2008 5:21 PM
"There's another poll (SUSA) that shows her up by 18. Why not give a headline to that one? Oh, that's right, the Post prefers it when she's in distress"
Posted by: Whatever, Joanne | April 8, 2008 5:20 PM
Posted by: joe | April 8, 2008 5:19 PM
When PA discovers their white knight of change Obama , is mixed up in the same type of corrupt activities as many republican senators have been involved, his surge will dwindle. The corporate news media has squashed any mention of the Rezko corruption trial and his close ties of over 17 years with Barrack Obama, and the shady land deal they entered into. He is supposed to be this squeaky clean champion of change but it turns out its just words....and Obama said words matter. On you tube his words said when elected in 2004 after elected (sworn in Jan 2005) to US senate he would not run in 2008 because he didn't have enough experience...and he just wouldn't do that...Words matter
Posted by: Susan | April 8, 2008 5:19 PM
Clinton supporters...Obama still loves ya!
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:18 PM
There's another poll (SUSA) that shows her up by 18. Why not give a headline to that one? Oh, that's right, the Post prefers it when she's in distress.
Posted by: joe | April 8, 2008 5:17 PM
Posted by: More Like Obama Where? | April 8, 2008 5:16 PM
Gws - you make some really good points. I still think Obama would make the best overall choice. It's just that I'm still a bit hung up on the Rev. Wright thing. Not so much about Wright himself (though I did watch the controversial quotes "in context" and they didn't sound any better to me), but about Obama's seeming inability to anticipate the brouhaha and react in a timely manner. Yes, he gave an excellent speech in response, but why the four day wait, during which this festered into a lasting wound? Why wasn't that speech already written and ready to go before this news broke? It's not like the statements were hard to find - they were on a DVD released by Wright's own church! Seeing how lax Obama was in protecting his own interest really makes me wonder how he's going to protect mine. That said, so far it's the only real slipup I can pin on him. All the other things you said about uniting the country and hopefully the world behind us is right on. He's no sex maniac and he's no peanut farmer, he still might be the Goldilocks candidate to beat McCain in November.
Posted by: treetopflyer | April 8, 2008 5:16 PM
"The former Senator from NY is on the phone."
Posted by: Redline | April 8, 2008 5:15 PM
Nicely served Poll Facial, still dripping off YouLie's grill.
|
Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania lead has dwindled to six points, according to a new statewide survey of likely Democratic primary voters. --Jon Cohen
| 737.88 | 0.96 | 21.2 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403803.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403803.html
|
In the Balance - washingtonpost.com
|
2008040819
|
An ounce of prevention may have been worth a pound of cure in households down through the ages, but in the world of health economics the adage, alas, is not true.
An ounce of prevention is sometimes worth more than an ounce of cure (although rarely worth 16 times as much, or the equivalent of a pound). Usually, an ounce of prevention is worth considerably less. Often it is worth (to mix measures) only a gram of cure. Or even just a milligram.
This is a seemingly illogical truth. Most of us naturally assume that preventing a disease is cheaper than waiting for the disease to appear and then treating it. That belief is especially dear to politicians, who often view prevention as an underused weapon in the battle against health-care costs.
The campaign Web site for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) notes that her health-care plan is "targeting the drivers of health-care costs, including our back-ended coverage of health care that gives short shrift to prevention." Rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) asserts that American families can save up to $2,500 a year each if five cost-containing strategies are implemented, one of which is "improving prevention and management of chronic conditions." (The presumed Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, generally has not pushed prevention as a way to control expenses.)
Even when prevention greatly reduces future cases of a particular illness, overall cost to the health-care system typically goes up when lots of disease-preventing strategies are put into practice. This is usually true whether treating the preventable diseases is cheap or expensive.
In 1986, a health economist named Louise B. Russell published "Is Prevention Better Than Cure?," in which she concluded that prevention activities tend to cost more than they save. Since the book's appearance, her observation has been borne out by studies of hundreds of interventions -- everything from offering mammograms to all women and prescribing drugs to people with high cholesterol to requiring passenger-side air bags in cars and shortening the response time of ambulances.
On closer look, this isn't so surprising. Nor is it reason for despair. After all, you get something from prevention -- less disease, for starters -- which is worth a lot even if it doesn't come cheap.
There are many reasons prevention usually doesn't save money. Perhaps the most important is that prevention activities target many more people than will ever come down with the disease being prevented. The reason (thankfully) is that people tend to stay healthy for most of their lives, no matter what they do.
Take the example of lowering cholesterol to prevent heart attacks.
The vocabulary of cardiac risk uses such terms as "normal," "high" and "very high." But in reality, most people even in the "very high" risk category don't suffer heart attacks over quite long time horizons.
Consider a 50-year-old male smoker whose total cholesterol is in the "high" range (over 240); whose HDL, or desirable cholesterol fraction, is "low" (below 40); and who has untreated moderate hypertension. Sounds like a walking time bomb!
It turns out his chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 years is only 25 percent. For a woman with the same profile, the chance of having a heart attack is 11 percent. Almost nine out of 10 such people will dodge the bullet by . . . doing nothing.
|
An ounce of prevention may have been worth a pound of cure in households down through the ages, but in the world of health economics the adage, alas, is not true.
| 19.657143 | 1 | 35 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403812.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403812.html
|
You Gotta Have Art
|
2008040819
|
As health-care costs skyrocket, a down-to-earth approach to healing is emerging, complementing high-tech medicine with high-touch arts.
The approach is based on the assumption that incorporating music, visual art, writing and performance into clinical care can increase feelings of well-being and even improve health -- an assumption that medical researchers are beginning to recognize the need to test with evidence-based studies.
Growing belief in the healing value of the arts was on display last month at a symposium at New York's Museum of Modern Art titled "The Value and Importance of the Arts in Health Care." Participants -- physicians, hospital administrators and artists -- were as upbeat as if they were promoting a miracle drug: Integrating the arts into health care is in vogue, said Leonard Shlain, a laparoscopic surgeon in San Francisco, "because it works."
The Society for the Arts in Healthcare, which sponsored the symposium along with MoMA and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, has seen its membership rise. As of 2006, the society estimated that more than half of 2,500 U.S. hospitals that were surveyed offer arts-based programs, said Anita Boles, the group's executive director.
Carol Herron coordinates an arts in medicine program at Texas Children's Cancer Center in Houston that involves visual artists, musicians, dancers, mimes, writers and puppeteers.
"We do children a disservice if all we do is treat the disease," she said. "We need to treat the whole child and the whole family."
And at New York University Medical Center, using art to reduce stress has become a priority, according to Marianne Hardart, director of creative arts therapies.
"There's not anyone it doesn't work with," she said, including adults, adolescents and younger children.
Not all institutions are willing to incorporate approaches of this kind, though, Hardart said. "In medical settings geared toward physical and chemical interventions, we're often considered an adjunct instead of an integrated piece."
That's partly because the research supporting these programs is slim.
Some of the documented benefits -- based largely on short-term appraisals of small numbers of patients -- include enhanced quality of life, patients' increased cooperation with painful procedures and helping staff understand a patient's point of view. Mounting evidence from the few early empirical studies also report reduced fatigue, depression, anxiety, pain and stress, which may boost the patient's immune system.
Letting Go of the Pain
Tracy Councill, who developed an art therapy program called Tracy's Kids at Georgetown University Medical Center's Lombardi Cancer Center, recalled an art project by an 11-year-old lymphoma patient who had been in isolation for months following painful bone marrow transplantation. When he came back as an outpatient, "he made a clay sculpture of a sarcophagus with a mummy-looking thing," she said, which he glazed "with a lot of red to look like blood." This grisly object, she explained, served as "a displaced way of putting that aggression for all the stuff he'd been through into art -- a good way for him to be finished and let go."
|
As health-care costs skyrocket, a down-to-earth approach to healing is emerging, complementing high-tech medicine with high-touch arts.
| 20.633333 | 1 | 30 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040801553.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040801553.html
|
Corporate Leader Named Red Cross CEO
|
2008040819
|
The American Red Cross, seeking to restore a reputation battered by its response to Hurricane Katrina, rapid leadership turnover and faltering fundraising, named a veteran corporate leader yesterday as its president and chief executive.
Gail J. McGovern, 56, a professor at Harvard Business School, will take the helm of the nation's leading disaster relief organization at a time of widespread turmoil. She is the charity's seventh chief in as many years, succeeding Mark W. Everson, who was forced to resign in November for having what the Red Cross called an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate.
Faced with a $200 million operating deficit spurred in part by dwindling fundraising, the Red Cross recently announced it would lay off one-third of the 3,000 employees at its Washington headquarters. The charity is also restructuring its organization after undergoing scrutiny from Congress.
McGovern has decades of management experience at AT&T and Fidelity Investments. In 24 years at AT&T, she climbed the ranks from a computer programmer to an executive, overseeing 40,000 employees in the consumer-markets division.
The Red Cross board of governors unanimously selected McGovern from a pool of 170 candidates. Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, the board's chairwoman, said she was impressed with McGovern's financial acumen and her commitment to nonprofits. She called McGovern's appointment a "home run."
McGovern will start June 23, leaving Harvard after six years on faculty. Her salary will be $500,000, plus a $65,000 signing bonus.
"One of the reasons I'm attracted to the position is that it does have challenges, and I'm hoping that I can bring my background and experience to the organization and help lead us to financial stability and growth," she said.
McGovern said bolstering the charity's fundraising is among her top priorities.
As a member of the Johns Hopkins University board of trustees, McGovern helped launch a seven-year, $3.2 billion capital campaign at the university. She also helped raise money in Boston for the United Way and a children's hospital.
"I feel that so much of what I've done in my life and business and in volunteerism has really trained me for this opportunity, and I look at it as a capstone for my career," McGovern said.
H. Art Taylor, president and chief executive of the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance, said he hopes the Red Cross can leave behind past missteps that "left many in the public dismayed about the future of the organization and its capacity to deliver in time of need."
Although McGovern has experience in business and philanthropy, she has done little work in the primary mission of the Red Cross: disaster relief. The 126-year-old agency handles half the U.S. blood supply and has federal responsibility for coordinating the charitable response to the largest U.S. catastrophes.
McGovern will face a steep learning curve, said Paul C. Light, a Red Cross critic and nonprofits professor at New York University's Wagner School of Public Service.
"It is a learnable skill," Light said. "But nature has a way of disrupting our learning curves, so she needs to move very rapidly to get control of these issues."
Dean Zerbe, a former congressional counsel who led Capitol Hill's inquiries into charities, said, "More than anything, the Red Cross needs good strong management and leadership right now across the board."
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Finance Committee, which has held hearings on the Red Cross, said: "I'm looking for somebody that will continue what I think is reform within the Red Cross, making sure that they're good trustees of the money, able to keep the respect that the Red Cross has always had."
With about 35,000 employees and 700 chapters nationwide, the Red Cross is one of the country's largest charities. The agency is the gold standard for charities in the United States, Light said.
McGovern said a top priority is communicating the mission and work of the Red Cross. "I think when more and more people understand our mission, they'll open up their hearts and minds and, hopefully, their dollars," she said.
|
Get Washington DC,Virginia,Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news,featuring national security,science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 19.380952 | 0.5 | 0.547619 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040801532.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/08/DI2008040801532.html
|
Polygamy and the Law
|
2008040819
|
The court-ordered sweep of the 1,700-acre property near Eldorado, Tex., nearly 200 miles northwest of San Antonio, continued into the night Monday, four days into a raid described as the largest single child-welfare operation in state history.
Marci Hamilton, a leading church/state expert who specializes on the issue of whether religious practices that violate the law should be accommodated, law professor at Princeton University and author of "God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law" and the upcoming "Justice Denied: What American Can Do To Protect Its Children," was online Tuesday, April 8, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the situation in Texas.
Marci Hamilton: Authorities in El Dorado, Texas have now taken into custody over 500 women and children who were living in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints compound there. They are seeking the 16-year-old girl who tipped them off to abuse within the community when she called and told them she had been forced to marry a 50-year-old man and have his baby.
She is a very brave girl, but many have known what was going on within the FLDS compounds in NV, AZ, UT, and Canada, as well as TX, for years. Prophet Warren Jeffs is in custody for arranging marriages for underage girls. Why did it take so long to rescue these children? In part because as a culture we are far too lenient when harm is being done by religious organizations. America also has romanticized polygamy with the unfortunate HBO show, Big Love.
Fairfax, Va.: Is polygamy legal in some parts of the U.S.?
Marci Hamilton: No. Polygamy is illegal under federal and state laws. Various groups have challenged its constitutionality, but the courts have consistently upheld the laws dozens, even hundreds of times.
Washington, D.C.: What types of people join these organizations and agree to live their lives like this?
Marci Hamilton: Most are born into the organization, so they do not make a concious "choice" to join. A few escape, like the members of Tapestry, an organization of formerly polygamous wives in Utah, but most never do. They are not permitted to watch television or be exposed to the outside influences that might persuade them there is a better life than the one they are living. The FLDS's "success" depends in no small part on its insularity.
Annapolis, Md.: How restrictive are the churches on the movement of the people that live there? Are they ever able to leave the grounds? Do they truly believe that it is a religion and did they make the choice to join?
Marci Hamilton: Every move is monitored. A number of boys are abandoned by the group to keep the numbers favorable to the men, and when they are dropped off on street corners in cities like Phoenix or Salt Lake City, it is often the first time they have ever been outside the group. They have been dubbed the "lost boys" for good reason.
McLean, Va.: How do they "mold" the people to conform to all these restrictions? Isn't it human nature to want more?
Marci Hamilton: They mold members by keeping outside influences to an absolute minimum. For many, this is the only world that they know. The opportunities beyond the compound are simply unknown. The culture, obviously, does not foster women's or children's rights, which means the horizons for them are very low.
Washington, D.C.: Don't blame "Big Love"! I love the TV show.
Marci Hamilton: Sorry-- the t.v. show is propaganda for an organization that engages in persistent child and spousal abuse.
Washington, D.C.: This is, actually, quite scary. It does seem like "Lost Boys." What happens to the ones who are dropped off/abandoned? And why does this, seemingly, often happen with a religion such as Mormonism?
Marci Hamilton: The FLDS, actually, have been disavowed by the mainstream Mormon church. They practice the polygamy that the Mormons have rejected for over a century.
The stories of the lost boys are often tragic. They are abandoned with no money, no skills, and no knowledge of the dangers in the outside world. It is child neglect and abandonment at its harshest.
Iowa City, Iowa: Hi Marci,
You mentioned that people have known about this abuse for years. The same slowness to react surrounded a lot of abuse cases in the Catholic church. Besides a cultural taboo on prosecuting religions for wrongdoing, are there protected class laws that hinder law enforcement from investigating churches?
Marci Hamilton: So true with respect to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. There has been widespread misinterpretation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause by academics and authorities, who mistakenly read the Constitution as a mandate of "religious autonomy." The Supreme Court has never condoned "autonomy" or freedom from the law. We are only now beginning to see the ways in which this false understanding of free exercise law has led to the harm of others, a phenomenon I examine in my book, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge 2005, 2007).
Washington, D.C.: You may have seen the show that Oprah aired on Polygamy -- they had a few of the wives on the show. They say they should be able to live their lives as any other "family." They do not condone what is going on in the "compounds" but feel that America has quite a few terms for "family" that we live with these days and they should be left alone as well. Where do you draw the line -- or is there no line, just the "Law"?
Marci Hamilton: I do not see how polygamy can be anything other than inherently unjust to women and children. You cannot make the numbers work without abandoning many of the boys (otherwise, you have roughly equal numbers of boys and girls, which makes it difficult for one man to have multiple wives)and without the men keeping the women "in line." I do not doubt that some believe that they have a good life in the iterations of polygamy outside the FLDS, but that does not make it sound public policy.
New York, N.Y.: In the U.K., 16 and 17-year-olds are considered adults who can legally leave school, often get jobs, get married and live perfectly 'normal' adult lives. Yet here, marrying a 16-year-old is somehow child abuse.
I absolutely agree that a marriage between a 16-year-old and a 50-year-old is creepy, and that we should be protecting children (for instance, no 9-year-olds should be getting married), but how is what is perfectly acceptable in other Western countries with similar cultures immoral "child abuse" here?
Marci Hamilton: We are on the verge of a coming civil rights movement for children, and only recently have states taken the steps necessary to protect children from imposed marriages and rape. There was a time when the age of "consent" was as young as 12-years-old in many states; children's advocates have succeeded in pushing up that age to 16 in most jurisdictions. That is the very youngest it should be in my view, because of the ability of adults to exploit teen-agers. I don't think the UK is ahead of the US on this particular issue.
Bowie, Md.: I'm getting the impression from your answers that authorities didn't care that much about all the "lost boys" but took action when a girl complained about abuse.
Are there some sexist assumptions about what abuse is here?
Marci Hamilton: Authorities in the west have not been quick to protect the lost boys. You may be right that there is an element of sexism here, but I also think that the Texas authorities are setting an example the western states need to follow for both sexes.
Pivotal difference between FLDS and Catholic child-molester priests: There's a pivotal difference between FLDS and Catholic child-molester priests (and clergy of other faiths as well): namely that what FLDS does is part of their avowed beliefs and policy, whereas in the other religions it's against the rules.
Marci Hamilton: I agree to a point. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has argued vigorously that it has a constitutional right to avoid lawsuits by victims, because of an asserted belief in the sanctity of conversation between a bishop and a priest. Courts have rejected the theory, but they continue to argue for constitutional rights in cases involving the cover up of child abuse.
McLean, Va.: Anything we can learn from this about how to deal with other religions that are unfamiliar to us (i.e., Islam)?
Marci Hamilton: Yes-- authorities need to keep their focus on the laws they have been given to enforce. Abuse is abuse, whether committed by a religious group or a non-religious group. With respect to some Islamicists, genital mutilation of girls is a serious problem. The law does not permit it, regardless of the religious justifications for the practice.
Washington, D.C.: So what is the reason given for such a delay in addressing this issue? I JUST finished reading Carolyn Jessop's book and was appalled by what I read (persistent child and spousal abuse is an understatement). But, it is also clear that authorities KNOW and knew what was happening in that community.
Incidentally, the person who is challenging the action appears 'from what I read' one, Merrill Jessop, Carolyn's ex-husband.
Marci Hamilton: The delay is due to a mix of culture influences: (1) too much deference by authorities if the harm being done is rendered by religious individuals; (2) the sad and misleading romanticization of the FLDS lifestyle by the show Big Love, which gave it a patina of acceptability; and (3) our culture's frequent choice to favor adults' interests over children. We look away from child abuse all the time.
Re old-time LDS polygamy: My family had an elderly friend whose mother grew up the child of polygamous legitimate Mormons in Utah back in the late 19th century (just before the practice was illegalized). He said life was harsh for his grandmother, in that the Mormon husband set up each wife on her own farm, which he would visit for only a couple months a year. Basically he checked up on how the farm was running, impregnated the wife, then left her to run the farm on her own for the other 10 months of the year (including hiring/firing hired hands) and to raise the huge brood of children on her own. It was a very hard life.
Marci Hamilton: Many of the wives in the FLDS are forced to go on public assistance.
I do not agree with polygamy and I am very against what they are doing to children or young girls BUT if these are adult women and men who are choosing to live this lifestyle who are we as a society to tell them it is wrong?
Marci Hamilton: That is our job as a society -- to set the parameters of marriage, legitimacy, and the definitions of abuse and discrimination. Polygamy is inherently biased against women and children. The fact that the adults are consenting does not make it good public policy or good for anyone else.
Baltimore, Md.: It seems like most of the questions -- and answers -- up until now have been about child and spousal abuse, not really about polygamy. No one is going to argue that what happened in Eldorado and other crazy LDS-offshoot compounds isn't offensive, exploitative, sad and a big problem.
That being said, if one guy wants to live with two women, why is that against the law? Assume they have a normal family life with two-three kids and no one is being abused? Why should that be illegal if it works for all parties involved?
Marci Hamilton: It's not legal in any state, and states would have to change their marriage laws dramatically to make it legal. The history of polygamy around the world is a history of chid and spousal abuse. You just cannot separate out those elements, and lawmakers who consider these issues are right to take these issues into account. It should be illegal because of its enhanced capacity to victimize girls, boys, and women.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Aren't there really multiple issues here, polygamy and forcible underage marriage (including incest)? So even if a faith is monogamous, forcing members to marry against their will or underage, especially to near relatives, is still illegal, right?
Marci Hamilton: That's right. Include statutory rape under the category of underage marriage.
Richmond, Va.: Let's be clear, as much as I dislike pologamy, it is not the same thing as child abuse. Maybe Big Love takes pologamy lightly, but that is not the same thing as the sexual mistreatment of children.
Marci Hamilton: Big Love is predicated on the FLDS, which practice widespread "marriage" of adolescent/teenage girls to men. That is, by definition, the sexual mistreatment of children.
Philadelphia, Pa.: I really think you are griding your axe too hard on "Big Love." First of all, the show has been on for what, three or four years? Certainly the lack of serious investigation into abuses far predates the show. And while I see your point about polygamy being inherently unfair to women and children, the fundamentalist camps like the one in Texas are portrayed as creepy and controlling.
If your issue is that the show indicates polygamy 'could' be acceptable, fine, that's valid, but don't blame the lack of action by law enforcement and other officials on a television show.
Marci Hamilton: I blame the whole culture for the widespread abuse of children, especially within religious organizations. Adults have to ignore other adults abusing children for it to continue as it has. As a culture, we have given too many religious organizations a pass when it came to protecting children, until very recently. We have not stood up for children when they needed us most, even when we knew what was happening. Big Love is just one example of the callousness of the culture toward the suffering that we know about.
Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla.: What is going to become of the kids? Will they all be placed in foster care? Or can the state somehow keep the mothers who sincerely seem to want out of that horrible place, together with their children?
Marci Hamilton: The future depends on what the authorities are learning from their interviews with the various members, including the women and children who are being held outside the compound, and the men still in the compound. One real possibility is that the adult members will not be forthcoming and will obstruct justice.
Seattle, Wash.: How would you solve the debate of religion vs. abusive practice? I can see solutions involving assessing 'voluntariness' or 'compotency' but doesn't that get into areas of religion that are unconstitutional or not acceptable to American society?
Marci Hamilton: The solution lies in regulating and deterring bad behavior, regardless of religious motivation. If a parent physically or sexually abuses a child, or permits the abuse to happen, no amount of religious explanation should protect the adult from accountability. As Americans, we often put on rose-colored glasses when it comes to religion and the result is that the vulnerable remain unprotected.
Washington, D.C.: Will the men in the compound be arrested? Where is the 50-year-old father they're looking for?
Marci Hamilton: If the authorities have sufficient evidence of abuse and legal violation. The more troubling question is where is the girl who tipped off the authorities? They do not seem to be able to find her.
San Diego, Calif.: Texas CPS said they have wanted to search the compound for years, but couldn't without a complaint. However, the girl who allegedly called and caused the raid has not been found, and may not have ever existed.
Even so, new warrants were issued that include gathering DNA from the compound.
What is to keep government organizations from falsifying a complaint so that once on the property they can then find probable cause for other warrants? Does "clean hands" apply?
Marci Hamilton: I doubt that the girl never existed. Readers can draw their own conclusions on why authorities are seeking to search the compound for DNA in light of the fact she has not been found.
Although I admit I haven't been paying close attention over the years, the only FLDS prosecutions I am aware of are for sexual abuse of minors (arranging marriages with unaged females) and welfare fraud. If polygamy is illegal, why no prosecutions for that? To say nothing of child neglect if the "lost boys" are minors?
Marci Hamilton: That is a very good question. It is not because it is legal. Prosecutors make choices all the time, and, unfortunately for those abused within the FLDS sect, they have persistently declined to prosecute polygamy. Had they done so, they might have stemmed some of the worst abuses.
What is interesting is that this TX compound is relatively new; AZ, NV, UT, and Bountiful, British Columbia are more entrenched.
Philadelphia, Pa.: There seems to be a strong sentiment here about separating the practice of polygamy from various abuses. In support of that thought, I would submit that many times more boys, girls and women have been abused in "traditional" wife and husband-based families.
Marci Hamilton: Good point. Child abuse persists across religious, socio-economic, and all other societal boundaries. According to recent studies, at least 25% of boys and 20% of girls are sexually abused. The most important question, in my view, is how we can deter sexual abuse. Only 10% ever go to the authorities, so we don't know the identities of most perpetrators, especially those engaging in incest.
Most states shut the courthouse doors on child abuse victims long before they are ready to come forward, which means many perpetators beyond the FLDS are operating anonymously and putting our children at risk. That is why I have written Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children, which comes out this month, and advocates the elimination of statutes of limitations on child sex abuse.
The FLDS are just one more example of how we permit our children to suffer when we should know better.
Where is the girl who tipped off the authorities?: Maybe she's in custody, but afraid to admit she's the one who provided the tip in a situation where the others who were gathered up are likely to find out. Or maybe she has identified herself to authorities, but they're just saying otherwise in order to protect her identity. After all, she and her mother and siblings could all be at risk for severe retaliation, whether from other women who've been rounded up or later back at the compound at the hands of the men.
Marci Hamilton: I hope you are right in your second suggestion: she has been identified and she is being protected. If one reads books like The Banner of Heaven, one knows that those who go outside can be in serious danger.
Choice to Live this Way: I don't know if people can truly understand that these women and children don't know of any other way of life.
The only somewhat comparison is American slavery prior to the Civil War and even then enslaved people wanted to escape because they KNEW there was freedom. These women have no concept of choice. Where do you go if you are 20 with three or four children dependent on you and you have been told that the outside world is dangerous and the end of the world is coming. Imagine having a son rounded up and abandoned at fourteen and never seen again?
Marci Hamilton: It's even worse-- because the mothers, who have grown up in the organization, typically have not been educated. So their options beyond the group are severely limited.
Re: New York: So we are now trying to push the age of consent down to 16? In many cases, it seems like the law is trying to make people wait until they are much older until they can be treated like adults.
Are colleges still using "en loco parentis" as an excuse for treating undergraduate students from 18 to 23 years old like they are still children? Why is this allowed?
Marci Hamilton: In most states, children's advocates are trying to push UP the age of consent so that children are protected. The law is trying to give children and teens the space they need to mature and be able to make decisions like whom to marry.
Campbell, Mo.: The girl who called the authorities is a true hero in this crazy mess. Does anyone know how did she gained access to the phone or how she received the number to the Children Service Agency in Texas?
Marci Hamilton: If so, they have not told the public yet. She is a true hero, and I hope we will learn her story from her when the time is appropriate.
Silver Spring, Md.: I think that a lot of people don't consider "who decides" when it comes to polygamy. If a young woman grows up in one of these communities she may not have (or be told that she has) options to not being wife number 4 to some old guy.
Can a woman have multiple husbands? Sure, if she is allowed the same opportunities to get an education and to own and control wealth while the boys are given little education, few options and are told that it is God's will. (still waiting for this to happen)
In the U.S., polygamy is usually portrayed as being in secluded, white communities in the western states. Is there any evidence of significant polygamous activity outside of that stereotype?
Marci Hamilton: Polygamy has been a staple of Islamic culture around the world, and is still practiced in some countries. Your second point is accurate- it's all about who has the power -- the education, the wealth, and the physical capacity to insist on their way. That's true in every abuse situation, sadly.
Sacramento, Calif.: It is extremely improbable that every single child there was abused enough to be made a ward of the state. How long will it take before these children are reunited with their fathers?
Marci Hamilton: It depends on your definition of "abuse" and whether the fathers are prosecuted.
Potomac, Md.: Is there brainwashing that goes on inside the compound? I just don't understand how they can keep free-thinking individuals from not wanting freedom, to get out, and I don't understand why more can't escape. One did, Carolyn Jessop. Do you know about her case?
Marci Hamilton: Carolyn Jessop is a hero, like the girl who made the call in Texas. She is the rare individual who could see the horizon beyond the organization.
Seattle, Wash.: Aside from the merits of 'insularity,' which I don't think is a good policy on any grounds, to what extent can governments crack down on such groups if the groups are practicing their religion by choice? Essentially, if the children weren't born into the sect and kept insulated within the sect, would this as much a concern?
Marci Hamilton: No, it would not. Insularity is one of the means by which groups retain control and also make it harder to exit.
Thanks to all for your many intelligent and thoughtful questions. I enjoyed the exchange. Sorry I could not get to every one! Best regards, Marci
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Marci Hamilton, a leading church/state expert who specializes on the issue of whether religious practices that violate the law should be accommodated, law professor at Princeton University and author of 'God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law' and the upcoming 'Justice Denied: What American Can Do To Protect Its Children,' discusses the situation in Texas.
| 67.214286 | 0.985714 | 20.842857 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702805.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702805.html
|
Old Anger Over Land Is Mugabe's Weapon
|
2008040819
|
ARCTURUS, Zimbabwe, April 7 -- There was a thriving farm here once, big and lush and bursting with life. It grew potatoes and tomatoes, cut flowers for export, and wheat and corn. Dairy cows were here for milking, chickens for laying eggs. And the black Zimbabweans who did most of the work toiled in the blazing African sun for a pittance, while white owners kept the profits.
Now, all that is gone: the white owners, the animals, the profits and most of the crops. Some former workers now own scrubby, 15-acre plots of their own. But the raw anger left over from that bygone era -- when a poor, dark-skinned majority was subservient to a moneyed, light-skinned minority -- remains as bitter as ever, giving President Robert Mugabe an effective political weapon as he struggles to recover from a historic first-round election loss.
Since the March 29 ballot, Mugabe has warned that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai will evict black peasants and allow white farmers to return if he wins a second-round vote. Veterans of Zimbabwe's liberation war of the 1970s, meanwhile, have begun invading some of the few white-owned farms still left.
"It's their right to do that, because this land does not belong to any white person," said Mugabe's security minister, Didymus Mutasa. "So they can go ahead."
The threats Mugabe has cited, in a speech Sunday and in state-run media, are fantasies, potent and without supporting evidence. White people supposedly are massing at the borders. Some, government news reports say, have even ventured as far as their old plots, zipping in on motorbikes and threatening to chase away the black Zimbabweans living there.
A political cartoon in the government's Sunday Mail newspaper pictured British Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- current leader of the former colonial power here -- pushing a white farmer toward a signpost leading to Zimbabwe. With a bag of 1 billion British pounds at his feet, the cartoon Brown says, "Don't worry, we will sponsor the re-run."
Analysts are divided on whether the scare tactics will work. Short of simply faking results, Mugabe can't dramatically better his performance without reclaiming the ruling party's traditional strongholds, many of which voted for the opposition in the first round. The date of the second round has not yet been set, nor have the official results been announced, though both sides agree that Tsvangirai got more votes than Mugabe in the first ballot.
"The land issue has exhausted all its energy," said political analyst Eldred Masunungure. "He may resort to that, being a traditional politician, but it's no longer resonating with the people."
But it is resonating here in Arcturus, a Mugabe stronghold about 20 miles east of Harare, the capital. Even those who acknowledge being poorer and hungrier now than they were when whites owned most of Zimbabwe's best land say they are reluctant to embrace a new era if it means losing their farms.
"The government told us that this is our land forever, but we're not sure what the new government will do," said Paulo Paulo, 73, a lean, leather-faced farmer whose feet are dry and cracked from walking his dusty fields barefoot. "We are just waiting. Maybe after the harvest we might be told to leave."
Paulo's experience with the ruling party has not been entirely positive. He was among the hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans whose houses were destroyed in 2005, when Mugabe's police marauded through the nation's slums, demolishing homes and traders' stalls. The destruction deprived Paulo of both his residence and some rooms from which he earned rental income.
This farm, which Paulo said Mugabe's party gave to his wife as a reward for her fervent singing at political rallies and her role in invading the land, has been little better than a disaster. Although crops grown here once spilled into local shops or were shipped to overseas markets, these days Paulo -- who had virtually no experience as a farmer before getting this plot -- barely manages to feed his large family.
Farmers say many of these new plots have been sliced too small for viable commercial cultivation. Government promises to help, meanwhile, have proved empty. Seed, fertilizer, tractors and subsidized fuel have been delivered late or not at all.
Despite heavy seasonal rains, Paulo's meager corn crop is brown and wilted. Other food sources are so scant that he has already spread the corn kernels on the ground for drying so they can be milled a few weeks early -- an embarrassing sign of poor planning in rural Zimbabwe.
Yet for all its shortcomings, the farm is about all that Paulo has to show for a life of hard work, including decades as a "tea boy" serving refreshments at a company run mainly by whites. His wife and children live on the farm, as do 13 grandchildren. Should the opposition take it away -- as Mugabe alleges they will -- Paulo would be left destitute. It's more than enough, he said, to make him vote for the ruling party again.
|
ARCTURUS, Zimbabwe, April 7 -- There was a thriving farm here once, big and lush and bursting with life. It grew potatoes and tomatoes, cut flowers for export, and wheat and corn. Dairy cows were...
| 23.302326 | 0.976744 | 41.023256 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/07/DI2008040701828.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/07/DI2008040701828.html
|
Pulitzer History and the 2008 Winners
|
2008040819
|
Harris is senior editor of CFO magazine. Previously he served from 1971 to 1994 as a reporter with The Wall Street Journal, including six years as deputy chief of its 14-member Los Angeles bureau.
Roy Harris Jr.: Welcome to the Pulitzer Prize Q&A, all.
It was a triumphal day, of course, for The Washington Post, winning an amazing six Pulitzer Prizes-and in such a wide variety of the 14 Pulitzer journalism categories. Besides the brilliant Walter Reed medical center reporting that won Public Service, there was Breaking News (for Virginia Tech coverage); National Reporting (the role of Dick Cheney in the White House); International Reporting (the Blackwater private militia in Iraq); Commentary (business columns of Steven Pearlstein), and Feature Writing (Gene Weingarten's magazine piece on Joshua Bell playing incognito as a subway musician.)
The only other such display of multiple prize-winning came in 2002, with the New York Times's seven. And many of those were for work that related to one horrific event and its global, national and local fallout.
But there were messages in this Pulitzer day, too, I think, for American journalism, which for 91 years has used these prizes as something of a barometer for the excellence in newspapers across the country. While some great mid-sized and small papers around the U.S. were acknowledged as finalists-typically there are two finalists, along with a winner-in each category, the top award went to the Post or Times in eight of 14 cases.
With the big Chicago Tribune and Boston Globe winning two others, only in Local Reporting, Editorial Cartooning and Feature Photography did the prize go to staffers a papers that wasn't in the giant category: the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Concord (N.H.) Monitor and Investor's Business Daily, respectively.
Beyond that perhaps disturbing tally, it's best at Pulitzer time to concentrate on the winning work, rather than the numbers-although I think the Post will be thinking of the number six for quite a while to come.
My specialty the last five years has been following the Public Service prize-winner. But in doing so, I've learned a lot about the other prizes, and how the Pulitzer judging system has evolved to its current, I think, very high level.
Washington: How often does a humor columnist end up winning for a feature story? Rarely, right?
Roy Harris Jr.: It is rare, indeed. Jack Fuller, a former Chicago Tribune editor and Pulitzer board member, told me it was one of his concerns that funny material didn't do well in the Feature category. Gene Weingarten did it VERY well this time. What an amazing story. I could only think of the irony of such a beautiful piece of journalism being passed over by unappreciative readers, and perhaps ending on the bottom of the bird cage, while oh-so-few realized it for the gem that it is.
Of course, now it has its recognition. It's worth a reread.
By the way, I'm in Boston and not a Post reader, so reading Weingarten was a first for me.
Alexandria, Va.: Is there a Web site where I can see the photography winners and read the winning articles for this year? I've seen archives for previous years but haven't yet seen this year's winners.
washingtonpost.com: The 2008 Pulitzer Prizes. Select a winner, then click the "Works" tab.
Roy Harris Jr.: The site above has links to all the current winners, and past winners going back to '95. It's working on filling in the earlier decades. The Pulitzer site often links to the newspapers' own sites, and they're eagerly touting the work, of course.
This year, with The Post winning six, looking up winners seems like a bit of "one-stop shopping."
Washington: Weingarten? Really? This must be a dark day in Pulitzer history. When was the last time a guy and his moustache won a Pulitzer?
washingtonpost.com: Pearls Before Breakfast (Post, April 8, 2007)
Roy Harris Jr.: I guess being provocative is a good feature in a feature writer. As for the moustache, Gene Shalit works on TV and isn't eligible.
Charlottesville, Va.: I was surprised the Times didn't win one for the whole Spitzer saga. Any thoughts? Thanks!
washingtonpost.com: Pulitzer Prize submission rules (.pdf): "Competition for journalism and book prizes is limited to work published during the calendar year, ending December 31."
Roy Harris Jr.: I was in New York when the tabloids "distinguished" themselves with "Bad Girl" headlines and photos. Even Newsday (a finalist this year in Public Service, and a paper with a stellar Pulitzer-winning past -- although it doesn't do as well at holding onto its gold medals.)
The Times did stellar work, I think. But there's a lot of 2008 left.
Arlington, Va.: Why'd it take so long for Weingarten to win a Pulitzer? He's been pumping out brilliant long-form feature stories for years. Nice of the voters to finally wake up.
Roy Harris Jr.: Yes, provocative seems to be the word for Weingarten.
Silver Spring, Md.: I am one of thousands of adoring fans of Gene Weingarten, and thought his Joshua Bell story was great. But what was it about the feature that the Pulitzer committee found so attractive, in comparison to hundreds of other feature stories that were written this year?
Roy Harris Jr.: While we're on the subject, I just read one of the finalists: the Los Angeles Times' vivid, visceral narrative of a grizzly-bear attack to a father-and-daughter in Glacier National Park. (It also covered their recoveries.)
What a job it is for jurors to compare and contrast such diverse work.
My reading of the two? Weingarten's work was genius, and I'm eager to find out about how it was planned and edited. If you read it, you'll know why it won.
Bethesda, Md.: Which reporter has won the most Pulitzers, and how many did they get?
Roy Harris Jr.: Tough question, which can be answered in part by going to the www.pulitzer.org site and going to the "archives" and entering a name under "winner."
But that search will only give you the guys and gals with names on the certificates. The Pulitzers have made some funny decisions about such things. Woodward and Bernstein are not listed on the certificate; The Post won in 1973 for Public Service (a prize that always goes to a paper.) Although individuals may be listed on the certificate -- as Anne Hull and Dana Priest and photographer Michel du Cille were this year.
Bob Woodward told me he does not consider himself a Pulitzer-winner. (It's in my Watergate chapter.) Oh, common, Bob. Give yourself a break.
Washington: I am surprised that no editorial was found worthy of a Pulitzer. Any thoughts on why this might be?
Roy Harris Jr.: I found this absolutely shocking. The editorial is supposed to be the soul of the newspaper. You can take that to the next step if you want....
However, the Pulitzer Board has a guideline of not giving a prize if it can't get a majority in favor (of 19 members.) It did that a few years ago with Feature Writing, which I believe also sent a signal about how features were being written -- perhaps with prizes in mind, rather than the readers.
But the standard of winning a majority of the board does help prevent a case of a good editorial or feature article winning an Pulitzer just because nothing is better that year. That would be a bad precedent.
Washington: With Weingarten's piece it was one piece that won, but with many of the others there seemed to be a litany of articles on the topics. What accounts for the difference?
Roy Harris Jr.: Newspapers can enter any way they like, within reason. (The Los Angeles Times grizzly entry contained two stories.)
For example, they're limited to 20 entries in Public Service (and maybe other categories as well.) When the Boston Globe won for its Catholic Church coverage in 2003, it had written 900 stories on the topic during the year.
The 20 it picked made it a runaway choice of the jury, and later the Board. I suspect that was the case this year with the Post's Walter Reed coverage. I've got calls in to the jurors, and will try to board. Stay tuned.
As for Weingarten's Joshua Bell piece, I wouldn't have put it in with anything else. It was a solitary diamond, and should have been.
Broomes Island, Md.: Mr. Harris: While congratulations are in order for the excellent Washington Post, I am wondering if the pool of Pulitzer-worthy papers is decreasing? I recently visited a medium-sized city in southern New York, and I was astonished at the lack of heft (in both ways) that I found in the daily paper. All the articles of merit were wire-service stories ... and that was 80 percent of the paper. It made me realize what a treasure we have in The Post.
Roy Harris Jr.: Serious, serious question. And a sad one, I fear. The newspaper business has yet to find a new operating model, one that makes print and online pay, and allows for growth.
I believe there are many oases of great journalism--not reflect in this year's prizes, I fear. After studying the Public Service prize, and writing about how reporters got the story, and how papers ran with it to that level of excellence, I was constantly amazed by the examples. Take the Wall Street Journal exposing stock-option backdating abuses to win last year, as one recent example.
But papers like the Oregonian and Times-Picayune (both owned by Newhouse, and thus private) are dedicated to maintaining a strong "project reporting" presence. And S.I. writes the checks for it. The New York Times, Boston Globe, and, clearly The Post do that, too (even if the stockholders might like them to cut more from the budget.)
There are still many, many great newspapers. And great reporters keep getting drawn into the business. Don't forget that it's the reporters who make this happen, as long as they're given a long lead by the editor and publisher.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: How many Pulitzers did The Washington Post win for figuring out the prelude and early march to Baghdad were a complete fraud? Surely that would have merited some investigative reporting trophies. Thanks much.
Roy Harris Jr.: Ouch. The whole news business feels that pinch.
I can just say that without exposing Blackwater, and letting us know about the White House power structure, and, of course, the heartbreaking betrayal that Walter Reed represented for veterans, it'd be much, much worse.
Congrats, Washington Post. And learn a lesson, everybody else!
Philadelphia: When you state that no award if given if the Board can not reach a majority, it made me wonder: how many ballots do they use in their voting? Do they deliberate like a jury and keep revoting, or do they just vote a set number of times?
Roy Harris Jr.: It's a secret body, and we don't know what goes on in the World Room of Columbia's Journalism Building. But I'd think that if the members didn't majority vote, they'd do everything they could to win a majority -- and give up only, like a jury, they were "hung."
Alexandria, Va.: Given the decline of newspapers across the country, how long will it be before the same 20-30 people win a Pulitzer over and over again ?
Roy Harris Jr.: I'm not worried (yet) about the number of people -- that is, journalists -- doing great work. In almost every newsroom you'll find reporters who'd be snapped up by The Post or New York Times, or Boston Globe if those editors knew about them.
The problem is that those eager reporters, who won't take no for an answer, too often aren't getting a chance to ask the questions!
Honesty: If The Washington Post had not won any Pulitzers this year, would you still be hosting this chat on this site? Answer truthfully.
Roy Harris Jr.: I wanted to save this one for last. I'm glad they hosted it (and asked me, a non-Post reader, to help out.)
But I did notice that the Wall Street Journal buried the Pulitzer story (using the AP version by the way.) And unless I missed it, it wasn't even mentioned in "What's News." What's that all about? And it DID have a finalist?
The New York Times? Page C15 of the Business Day section, but with plugs on the front page.
Herndon, Va.: Congratulations to all the winners. I was just wondering why the editors of the winning features are not mentioned, only the reporters.
Roy Harris Jr.: This is one of the concerns that led me to write a history of one of the prizes, the Pulitzer Public Service gold medal. Too often it's the editor who makes the story great, and she/he should be acknowledged.
Also, it's very often that a team of journalists -- editors and reporters -- is responsible, and that the group is too large to be individually identified. (They don't all get bylines, either.)
Notice the Post's Breaking News award for "the staff."
I love the stories behind the stories. But they're usually not very easy to get.
Bethesda, Md.: Who is eligible to submit nominations for the Pulitzers? Can individual reporters submit? Do they lobby their editors or newspaper management, or are the powers-that-be supposed to choose the best? Would a paper the size of The Post nominate something for each category? Can they nominate more than one article/series (e.g. if the reporters of the grizzly bear piece also were at The Post, could The Post have submitted that and Weingarten's Joshua Bell story)? I noticed that Pearlstein's entry was sent in by the business editor after the paper in general passed. Who submits in the literature category -- or does the selection committee chose from all available work that year? Thanks!
Roy Harris Jr.: Every paper is different. Most entries are self-nominated. But some papers have panels of editors that assemble "award lists" during the year.
Individuals do enter their own work, however. And sometimes win.
In some of the cases of Public Service awards I studied, the Pulitzer Board actually went to the paper and suggested that it enter. In 1977 the Lufkin News in East Texas (now called the Daily News) wasn't going to enter its stories about how the Marine Corps had lied to a family about how a young local recruit had died in training. It had exposed the truth--that the young man, who was retarded, it turned out, was beaten to death by other recruits in an exercise--but the editor hadn't thought that such a small paper had a chance.
In addition to having the Pulitzer Prize in the office in Lufkin, it also has the letter that the Pulitzer Board member had written it asking for a nomination!
Arlington, Va.: Does the Pulitzer selection committee look at a given submission in isolation, or is consideration given to a journalist's entire body of work? Thank you.
Roy Harris Jr.: The 14 journalism categories of Pulitzer don't have a body-of-work element.
Generally, the jury of journalists first, and the board later (working with the jury recommendations) deals only with the entry as submitted. But the Board members can and do request more information, and will often investigate if it has questions.
It will never forget the legacy of Janet Cooke, who, on a much darker day in Post history, in 1981, had the paper surrender her prize after it was disclosed that she had invented characters in her narrative.
Troubled Newspapers: You alluded to the Pulitzers as an indicator of the health of print journalism. How are you assessing the results? As someone who was born and raised on the Baltimore Sun when it was not just a good paper but arguably a great one, its death of a thousand cuts is painful to watch. That is pure understatement. I'm curious, is this the health -- or lack thereof -- to which you allude?
Roy Harris Jr.: That's the kind of story that shows newspapers to be seriously ailing. But Pulitzer time is the best time to look at -- and, really, to wonder at -- how much great journalism remains in small and mid-sized papers around the country.
Look at the result those papers accomplished--not just winners, but finalists. This is where the industry needs to build from. How it builds is the worry.
Fairfax, Va.: Is it really "breaking news" with cable TV and the Internet? The category seems a bit outdated, no?
Roy Harris Jr.: The Pulitzers have changed category names repeatedly over the years since 1917 (when there were only three journalism categories.)
Breaking News is covered as breaking, same day, by papers. You'd be comfortable with the designation after reading the three days of Virginia Tech shooting reports.
But, yes, by today's standards there's a lot more "news analysis" in Breaking News entries. There has to be. And that started with TV, not blog posts.
By the way, papers need to do more these days to correct blog inaccuracies in their coverage. It was one of the hallmarks of the Times-Picayune's remarkable coverage of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans -- bloggers ran wild, and printed rumors like crazy. The community needed the investigative powers of the Times-Picayune turned on that subject, too.
Rancho Mirage, Calif.: What other stories were contenders for the Public Service award?
washingtonpost.com: Newsday: The LIRR Gap; The Charlotte Observer: Sold a Nightmare.
Roy Harris Jr.: Newsday was a Public Service finalist for stories that looked at railroad-train safety. Can't wait to dig into that one for the "second edition" of "Pulitzer's Gold." (Only the winners are posted on the Pulitzer site.
The other finalist was the Charlotte Observer, for its work digging into the mortgage and housing crisis. If its work stood above the other reporting on that topic, it must be special.
But it was the year for the Walter Reed scandal to take the gold.
Harrisburg, Pa.: How often are Pulitzer Prizes taken back, and for what reasons have people been stripped of their Pulitzer Prizes?
Roy Harris Jr.: It's extremely rare. Besides Janet Cooke, the debate about Walter Duranty's coverage of the Stalin years is the other case of prize-debunking that's discussed. There's a discussion of that on the Pulitzer site, as well.
Washington: While you're reasoning may be true about why no editorial won a Pulitzer, I personally think the quality of editorial writing in newspapers has significantly declined. First, I feel like most newspaper readers don't read editorials, so maybe they're not aware of the poor quality of writing in most of our country's best newspapers' editorials (I'm looking at you, New York Times). I resolved a few years ago (as a journalism student) to start regularly reading the editorials of newspapers, believing -- as you said -- that they were the soul of a paper. What I've realized is good editorials are few and far between; the amount of poorly written, poorly argued and poorly researched editorials far outnumber the impressive and well-written ones. Perhaps your reasoning for no editorial winner is true, or perhaps it's just that the quality of editorial writing truly is lacking.
Roy Harris Jr.: Could be an explanation. If the Pulitzer Board sends that message, editors should take notice.
Richmond, Va.: When the Walter Reed stories broke, it seemed inevitable that Dana Priest and Anne Hull would win a Pulitzer. How often does a story/series of stories seem like a slam dunk for the prize?
Roy Harris Jr.: Slam dunks are rare. And I know from talking to scores of Pulitzer Board members and jurors about their act ivies over the years.
The Boston Globe Church stories fit that description. And I think the New York Times for creating the "A Nation Challenged" Section after Sept. 11 (the Public Service winner in 2002.)
But sometimes when you think it's a no-brainer -- like the reaction to a storm, for example, the jurors and Board members are cautious. They look harder at stories where a prize is "expected."
Washington -- Proud of Dana!: I just wanted to say that, odd as it may sound -- because I've never met her and probably never will -- I am so proud of Dana Priest! She's one heck of a journalist and a brave, brilliant woman. Her stories (and let's not forget her colleague who worked with her one the Walter Reed pieces) effect change. I feel fortunate that she's out there doing what she's doing, illuminating situations for the rest of us and helping to make people accountable for their actions. Tonight I'm going to go home and tell my daughters about her and show them what brave women can do! Way to go, Dana!
Roy Harris Jr.: Great wind-up comment. The Walter Reed stories -- as is often the case with the Public Service Pulitzer-winner -- seem the cream of a very rich crop of winners.
And the courage of reporters is visible in these awards on many levels. Just "gambling" on a story that looks like it might not pan out -- as is often the case -- takes a bit of nerve, when there are other stories beckoning.
Many of these great stories are literally "unbelievable" at first. Who would imagine that Walter Reed would have come to that, with all the focus on veterans returning? Who would have thought of the extent of sexual abuse of parishioners by priests, and that the Church would cover it up rather than deal with the anguish caused?
I know the Boston Globe didn't expect it to go as far as it did. And I suspect it was a bit of a surprise to Anne Hull and Dana Priest as well.
Roy Harris Jr.: Thanks to all, across the country, for such an enlightening discussion. This kind of interaction is one of the great things about newspaper technology. And, of course, it's changing the nature of the Pulitzer Prizes as well.
Online components are a growing part of Pulitzer entries now. And how wonderful for reporters to get the instant feedback as they work.
Again, congratulations to all the Pulitzer winners this year -- and to the readers of the winning and finalist papers for supporting great journalism.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Roy Harris Jr., author of "Pulitzer's Gold: Behind the Prize for Public Service Journalism," examines the winners of and finalists for the 2008 Pulitzer Prizes, and takes questions about Pulitzer history.
| 118.923077 | 0.948718 | 2.333333 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/03/DI2008040302195.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/03/DI2008040302195.html
|
What's Cooking With Kim O'Donnel
|
2008040819
|
A graduate of the Institute of Culinary Education (formerly known as Peter Kump's New York Cooking School), Kim spends much of her time in front of the stove or with her nose in a cookbook.
For daily dispatches from Kim's kitchen, check out her blog, A Mighty Appetite. You may catch up on previous transcripts with the What's Cooking archive page.
Kim O'Donnel: Whew. I'm exhausted. today's blog post has given me a headache. Someone please pass the smelling salts. Maybe it's time to go hide under a rock and get out of the information exchange business. Anyone looking for a secretary? I'm really good at filing. Sigh. Who's getting ready for Passover? I'm working on a few recipes -- one old school, one out of the box. Let's hear what you've got cookin'.
Washington, D.C.: I used to buy tomato paste in a tube, which was great for when I only needed a tablespoon or so. Now I can't find the tubes anywhere. So, two questions --
1. Anyone have any sightings of tomato paste in a tube in N. Va?
2. If I have to use a can, how long will the leftover paste keep in the fridge? Can it be frozen?
Thanks Kim -- you're the best!
Kim O'Donnel: I have a couple of tubes in my midst, actually. I've seen it at Whole Foods and I believe at My Organic Market. Have you tried Trader Joes? But in answer to 2): Scoop out the remaining paste, put in a small airtight container and it'll last a good while in the fridge. And yes, you can freeze, absolutely.
Organic Gal: Hey, Kim! Just wanted to let you know I'd be here today, and reading in real-time, in case you or anyone has questions about exactly what the National Organic Program says about milk, livestock or anything else!
Kim O'Donnel: Thank you! We are lucky to have in our midst an organic certification specialist for the state of North Carolina, and if you are still confused about what's been said in last week's post on milk, here's a great opportunity.
What would you cook when you are about to sit down to watch the Washington Capitals in their 1st round playoff vs. the Hated Flyers?
Kim O'Donnel: You're saying "Hated Flyers" to a Philly girl? Shame, shame, Alexandria! sounds to me like you need a pot of turkey chili or some chicken curry...tell me more. Do you want dinner or snacks, do you eat meat and how much time do you want to spend in the kitchen?
Dying for the chickpea curry recipe: When will you post it? And I am not Indian, but I love Indian food, and I'm trying your roti regardless of how authentic it is. Looks fab!
Kim O'Donnel: I will post it tomorrow, if that's okay.
Arlington, Va.: In one of your columns I read recently, you mentioned teaching an online food writing course through UCLA. Do you still teach this class? Do you have any recommendations for food writing courses in the D.C. area or online?
Kim O'Donnel: I don't teach this course any longer, no. I know there are online food writing classes through Avant Guild (www.mediabistro.com) and from what I understand, UCLA extension is still offering the class.
I find your blog post today patronizing and offensive. What, South Asians should be happy you bothered to write about them?
What part of your post made it clear that you weren't doing a traditional roti? And which comments did you find so hurtful?
in the future, do you think readers who are perhaps better informed than you should refrain from commenting when your recipes have steps that could be avoided (microwaving) or recipe tips (don't flip too many times)?
Kim O'Donnel: Well, let's see. I make red Thai curry paste, and no one from the Thai community bats an eye. The Italian community doesn't get upset when I use bacon instead of the traditional guanciale, the Jordanian and Lebanese community does not turn up their nose when I share a recipe for fatayer, spinach pies. I am in the business of sharing cooking adventures. If you read my work regularly, you know I never claim to be the all-knowing cooking authority for all cuisines. As I wrote in today's post, I welcome constructive criticism, it's an important part of an online commmunity. But it's the tone that some readers have taken that goes against the very spirit of this blog. We all have something to teach and to learn from each other.
"I would define Jaffrey's version, below, as a roti-chapati hybrid -- chapatis traditionally are made from very finely milled whole wheat "chapati flour" and tend to be thin and papery," is what I wrote to imply I was not doing a traditional roti, and I further added today that Jaffrey herself uses quote marks around the word roti in her recipe name, implying that it is an adaptation.
Question for Organic Girl: Is there an organic lactose-free milk? We don't drink a lot of milk in my family, but when we do (mostly cereal), we need lactose free. I hate that I have to give up organic, but without the lactose... its just not worth it. FWIW, I'm not in the D.C. area, Trader Joes is 45 minutes away and there are no Whole Foods or MOMs around. The one thing I really miss about living in the DC area is the food options. (wistful sigh)
Kim O'Donnel: I am going to let OG answer this...
Vienna, Va.: Kim -- I love your blog and greatly appreciate your efforts to bring world cuisines under our radar. I'm an Indian-American, and I really enjoyed your roti post. Sure, they don't look like some of the rotis I have eaten in various homes, but they do look delicious. I plan on trying them later this week, as my own attempts at rotis or any other Indian flatbreads have miserably failed in the past.
I love sharing in the cultures of the various immigrant communities we find here, and when I try to replicate their cuisines, it's inevitably with a personal twist or spin. And why not? Good food is good food. No need to be huffy about perceived inauthenticity, fellow posters out there. Sheesh. Kim, thanks for sharing your culinary adventures every day, and I look forward to reading about your future Indian-inspired meals (can't wait for the alluded-to chickpea curry later this week!)
Kim O'Donnel: As I said in my post this morning, "A recipe is as real as the moment and the cook who has brought it to life." That applies to all cuisines. Thanks for your comments.
Alexandria, Va.: Looking for lime leaves -- any sightings in the Alexandria/Annandale area? I will travel a bit if I must. I was told that some stores keep them in the frozen section. Thank you!
Kim O'Donnel: Bangkok 54, a Thai market on Columbia Pike has them in their frozen section. Just bought some last week, in fact.
Tomato Paste: I have found the tubes at the Italian Store on Lee Hwy and they are usually significantly cheaper than at Whole Foods. A good trick for freezing is to scoop tablespoons onto a cookie sheet, freeze and then pop into a ziploc so you can just take out what you need.
Kim O'Donnel: Oh this is a great idea! Thanks for chiming in.
Lincoln Park, Chicago, Ill.: Kim,
Everyone complains about the Wal-Mart effect -- putting small mom and pop stores out of business. I'd like to complain about the Whole Foods effect. Since they've become so ubiquitous, it's getting harder to find good, indpendently run health-food stores. I don't mean vitamin stores, I mean the little places with the tiny salad bars, and the weird no-name sandwiches in the fridge case, and the one brand of soap that you really like and can never find anywhere else.
I have fond memories of those places from when I first went vegetarian in high school. Now, at least in my neighborhood, it's just Whole Foods and Trader Joes. Ugh.
Kim O'Donnel: I agree. I miss my neighborhood food co-op, which closed a few years ago. But as you know, the big guys continue to swallow the independent merchant in so many arenas -- hardware stores, record shops, bookstores...
Rockville, Md.: Hi Kim, as I'm sure you and many of your readers know, there is a large literature on what "authentic" means, when and whether it's important, etc. (Just yesterday in your rival N.Y. newspaper there was a story about what authentic means for a national cuisine when immigrants are cooking; specifically here Italian.) Discussions about what constitutes authentic 'for you' are fantastic to have and I think most of the posters to your blog were trying to get to that, but seemed to have at the same time forgotten the prime rule of electronic postings: tone does not compute. "Those are not like my mother's" can mean 10 different things depending on the tone. Given what an otherwise cool crowd I like to think of this group as being, I'd urge everyone to be a little more careful with that. It makes me sad to think of someone being exhausted from discussing food. It should be energizing.
Kim O'Donnel: Thanks for your commments, Rockville. Tone is definitely part of the problem here. Plus, the anonymous quality of the Web gives people license to be less mindful with their words because they don't have to look you in the eye.
20009: I love Organic Valley's lactose-free milk. They carry it at Whole Foods.
Kim O'Donnel: Here's one LF milk idea...
Love all your ideas on Indian food and would like to know if you or anyone else has a good recipe for Saag Paneer? I LOVE it and cannot find a decent recipe to make my own.
Kim O'Donnel: I'm not crazy about saag paneer, so I'll defer to those who can offer more enthusiasm and tried-and-true recipes...
Bag of oranges: Hi Kim,
I recently bought an 8lb bag of oranges and am finding that several of them are quite dry and not much fun to eat. Is there anything I can do with them, so I don't have to throw them out? Maybe a fish marinade/sauce? Can I combine the juice with any vegetables, do you think?
Kim O'Donnel: Oh that stinks. Juicing them is one way to go, to be used for a marinade or sauce, sure. Thing is, you won't need that much. Don't know if this would be of interest, but you could try a cuban-style pork shoulder, which traditionally calls for sour oranges, but in this case you'd add limes to it to make it sour, plus lots of garlic and oregano. Are you game?
Organic Gal: About lactose-free milk, I really don't know, because I don't know how the lactose is removed from the milk. I'm guessing there is a process where something is introduced to the milk that affects the lactose. Whatever that material is, it would have to be on the "National List," which is the listing of all ingredients that may be added to products labeled as organic. For example, yeast is on the list, and dairy cultures (without which we don't have bread or yogurt!). So, the de-lactose-ing material would have to be listed.
Alternatively, I know there were drops that can be added to regular milk to remove lactose. My daughter, Organic Kid was terribly lactose intolerant as an infant and toddler; when she was old enough for cow's milk, we would add these drops to organic milk (of course, it was then no longer organic, but I wasn't selling it!) for her, and she could drink the milk with no problems.
Kim O'Donnel: For the reader looking for info on LF organic milk...
HELP! For our annual progressive dinner with my siblings, I was going to make penne with fennel, onion and sausage since it is an Italian-themed night. Unfortunately, too many people are making pasta dishes so I was asked to now make either a soup or side dish. Most of the Italian soups I've seen in cookbooks have beans which I can't stand and I'm not sure about side dishes. Any suggestions? The dinner is this Saturday. THANKS!
Kim O'Donnel: Hmm...good question. Oh wait -- I have a fun Sicilian-style roasted cauliflower dish, with pine nuts, raisins, anchovies, bread crumbs. Brain is a sieve....let's hear what others have to say.
Organic lactose-free milk exists!: I buy it every week, but am blanking on the name -- but it comes in a light blue carton. You can find it at Harris Teeter, Whole Foods, etc.
Kim O'Donnel: Okay, we're getting closer...
Clifton, Va.: Wegman's carries tomato paste in a tube and its price is the best in the area.
Hey Kim could you stop shilling for Whole Foods its getting old and please Wegman's is much better!
Kim O'Donnel: Hey Clifton, if there was a Wegmans near me, I'd be all over it.
Re: Saag Paneer: There's actually a recipe that I've been hoping to try for saag paneer on the Mahanandi blog (though I haven't gotten around to it yet, so I can't vouch for it). It sounds sinfully delicious...ground up roasted cashews, mmm.
Kim O'Donnel: One idea for the saag paneer adventurer...
Gayu: This is probably a strange question here -- I'm trying to make purple frosting. Purple as in princess purple, 4-year-old girl's eyes light up purple -- I mixed red/blue colors with my white cream cheese frosting, but ended up with lilac-y (not the purple hue I want) color. Kim or anybody on the board who has successfully made Purple frosting - please help. Thanks
Kim O'Donnel: Have you gone to a cookware or baking specialty store that sells food coloring? Anyone with deep purple haze expertise?
Alexandria, Va.: Hi Kim -- Not that you aren't plenty busy, but are you still working on a farmers market update for us? Or is that something the Food section is doing, not you? Thanks!
Kim O'Donnel: I am sure that Food is working hard on an updated list. But one thing you can do in the interim is check out the USDA's updated list, which is organized by state.
Oranges: If the insides are only marginally salvageable, at least use the skins. Zest is always good for all manner of things. And make an orange tea bread using the peels. Mom makes it every Christmas for us, and I love it. It freezes beautifully. There is a recipe similar to my Mom's in the Joy of Cooking. Essentially, you remove the peel in quarters, then slice it very thinly, boil in it a simple syrup, and fold that into the quick bread dough. I don't have proportions on hand, but I am sure the reader can find them. Wonderful stuff. Or, do some recipe searches on orange peel recipes.
Also, found a recipe for chicken in a garden book (Gardening by the Heart) years ago and we love it on the grill or in the oven. Juice of a couple oranges and a couple lemons (and I'd bet you could make it with limes or even grapefruit if you wanted to). Garlic and rosemary in chunks under the bone-in chicken pieces. Let it marinate 24 hours, then roast at 500 (not a typo, as the author said) or grill. Wonderfully moist and delish.
And Kim, THANK YOU for trying new things and sharing those ideas with us -- and encouraging all of us to do likewise. Let the naysayers stew in their own juices.
Kim O'Donnel: Great ideas! Thanks for checking in.
Princess Purple: Gel coloring not liquid food color is what you need. They sell it at any cooking/baking store like Sur La Table. It comes in many colors and you can buy the exact color of purple you are looking for.
Kim O'Donnel: Yes, that's what I was thinking about! Great, thanks for zooming in.
Purple: I just had to make purple playdough for my daughters class. I used McCormick's Neon Food Color & Egg Dye (found at Walmart). It has purple in there. Came out dark and pretty. Another mother had good success with the Wilton gel coloring.
Kim O'Donnel: More purple passion!
purple frosting: Use paste coloring, available at bakery specialty stores. Call around or use the yellow pages (I am not in D.C. so I can't recommend). YOu will definitely get a deep color. I did it with black and red once -- for a "Time Man of the Year" style cake. Worked wonders BUT -- you WILL have black/red/purple teeth, lips, tongue, fingers, counter, whatever it touches. And it takes a bit of brushing to get it off teh mouth/lips/tongue. Caveat emptor.
I'm fairly new at home cooking, and I have a very basic, even embarassing, question.
How do you keep everything hot while other things are cooking, so that everything gets to the table hot? (This is particularly a problem with meat that's rested for a few minutes.)
Kim O'Donnel: Hey Oakton, if it's meat you're worrying about, it needs to rest anyway. Cover with foil, and it'll stay plenty warm while you get the rest of dinner together, as long as you're talking less than an half-hour period.
Maryland: When I saw the heading for "Indian Bread" I thought you meant Native-American Indian Bread, and I was so excited. I grew up (out West) eating Indian Fry Bread and would love a good recipe for it!! Any chance you could do Indian Bread, Part 2?
Kim O'Donnel: I would consider it, absolutely. Maybe in connection with Native American Day on Sept 4 the unofficial day of remembrance and celebration of Native American culture and history.
Kim O'Donnel: Signing off. thanks for stopping by.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Calling all foodies! Join us Tuesdays at noon for What's Cooking, our Live Online culinary hour with Kim O'Donnel.
| 163.565217 | 0.73913 | 1.086957 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/04/DI2008040402389.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/04/DI2008040402389.html
|
Lean Plate Club - washingtonpost.com
|
2008040819
|
Confused about nutrition? Wondering how to fit in more physical activity? Welcome to the Lean Plate Club. Ask Sally Squires, nationally syndicated Lean Plate Club columnist for the Washington Post, about eating smart and moving more every Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET. Sally draws upon her master's degree in nutrition from Columbia University to preside over the lively Lean Plate Club web chat. Whether you're trying to reach a healthier weight or simply maintain it, you'll find plenty of tips and strategies.
Share your own food finds, creative workouts and secrets for healthy, great tasting meals. We'll cheer your successes and help with your setbacks. (None of this, of course, is a substitute for medical advice.) E-mail Sally, author of the newly published Secrets of the Lean Plate Club (St. Martin's Press) at leanplateclub@washpost.com.
Or just sign up for the free Lean Plate Club e-mail newsletter. The Lean Plate Club column appears Tuesdays in the Washington Post Health section and is nationally syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Find other Lean Plate Club members at www.frappr.com/leanplateclub.
Sally Squires: Welcome to the Lean Plate Club! The e-mail newsletter should be in your electronic in-box now.
As always it's packed with a lot of things, including plenty of recipes for tonight's dinner. And for those who are taking the National President's Challenge with the Lean Plate Club and the Misfits, we have nearly 260 participants. Give us updates today here about your efforts or log onto www.leanplateclub.com/group anytime. I set up a special discussion there for you to log in, if you choose.
Call all Washington Metro families! If you're interested in trying to be healthier, I'd love to chat with you. We're looking for two to three families to follow through the summer. We'd like to hook you up with some experts in exercise, behavior and nutrition (that last one will be yours truly) to instill healthier habits. Please e-mail me at leanplateclub@washpost.com. And of course, include your name, address, a bit of info about your family, your phone number and best times to call. Or you can call me. 202-334-5018.
And for those Lean Plate Club members outside the region, we hope to do more things like this in the future with a wider geographical participation.
The Essential Best Foods Cookbook by Dana Jacobi
Abs on the Ball by Colleen Craig
The Biggest Loser Success Secrets by the Biggest Loser Experts Case and Maggie Greenwood-Robinson, PhD.
Prevention's Short Cuts to Weight Loss by Chris Freytag.
Here's the deal: inspire us with your habit change. Tell us about a food find that you've discovered (mine is in today's LPC e-mail newsletter) or how you're adding in more physical activity. Do that and one of these volumes could be yours. Winners are announced at the end of each Web chat.
Now on to the chat!
Thornton, Colo.: I am doing my best to maintain on the President's Challenge, but could really kick it up a wee bit. Glad I have until mid-May. That Bronze medal and a trip to Virginia at the same timeframe is keeping me going. And a Weight Watcher challenge where I win books if get the most activity minutes. I will work out for books.
Sally Squires: Sounds like you are juggling a lot. But it's great that you already know what can really motivate you to stick with what you're doing. I've been surprised at how much I enjoy recording my activity. It's really fun.
Glendale, Ariz.: What is or are the best foods for a pregnant woman to eat?
Sally Squires: A pregnant woman should eat the same kind of healthy diet that everyone should eat. So that means plenty of fruit and vegetables, whole grains, lean protein and healthy fat--especially omega-3 fatty acids,which are crucial for brain development of the fetus. We'll provide a link in a minute to some recent LPC columns that will give you more info on what to eat plus some important information about seafood.
washingtonpost.com: Eating for Two, One Trimester at a Time (Post, Oct. 30, 2007)
Sally Squires: This column will give you plenty on what to eat when you're expecting. Also, check out www.myramid.gov for the special pyramid for pregnant and lactating women. There's even a cool interactive tool to help you see how many calories you need and how much weight is best for you to gain.
washingtonpost.com: Consumer Challenge: Making Head or Tail of Fish and Mercury (Post, October 23, 2007)
Sally Squires: This column will give you information about fish and mercury.
Alexandria, VA: PROMISE SPREAD: PROMISE Fat Free "butter spread" has changed my life. Just substituing that for all butter I have lost over 30 pounds. NO OTHER CHANGES in my diet! It may take a while to get used to, but its worth it. I went a week without ANY butter, so the spread was a nice addition to my dry muffins/toast/garlic bread/pasta.
Sally Squires: Wow! Very impressive. A great example of a small change that clearly added up to some wonderful rewards.And just please PROMISE me that you don't work for the company! :-)
Thank you for including information for vegetarians in today's column!
I just wanted to add something for those trying to find other sources of B12--Red Star Nutritional Yeast (no affiliation with the company). My favorite ways to use it are sprinkled on popcorn or as part of the recipe for Tofu Ricotta from Veganomicon: The Ultimate Vegan Cookbook by Isa Chandra Moskowitz and Terry Hope Romero. The recipe may sound strange, but it's great in lasagna and stuffed shells. Below is the recipe I found on their Web site. I believe it's the same as the one from the cookbook.
prep time: 10 minutes - cooking time: none - makes About 2 cups
Use as a filling for stuffed shells, mixed with tomato sauce in pasta or as a topping for pizza.
1 pound firm tofu, pressed
1/4 cup nutritional yeast flakes
handful fresh basil leaves, chopped fine (ten leaves or so)
In a large bowl, mush the tofu up with your hands, till it's crumbly.
Add lemon juice, garlic, salt and pepper and basil. Mush with hands again, this time you want it to get very mushy so squeeze through your fingers and mush until it reaches the consistency of ricotta cheese. May take 2-5 minutes.
Add olive oil, stir with fork. Add nutritional yeast and combine all ingredients well. Use a fork now, because the oil will make it sticky. Cover and refrigerate until ready to use.
Sally Squires: Thanks for sharing the recipe. And I've been looking with great interest at the Veganomicon cookbook. In fact, it's sitting on my kitchen counter right now where I hope to start making some recipes from it. How do you and others like it?
North Coventry, Pa.: My favorite food find of the moment is dark chocolate bars with hot chilis. I know, you're thinking, how is that lean? The chocolate is just spicy enough that, instead of scarfing down the entire bar and looking for more, I'm completely satisfied with one or two squares (the recommended portion size). I also don't want it every day because of the spiciness. Yum.
Sally Squires: Now that's quite an interesting combination. And do you craft this yourself or is this a product that you buy? And if the latter, would you share the name and where you buy it? Sounds intriguing. Thanks!
Lexington, Ky.: Sally, we are having a wellness tuneup/8 week session at my workplace. Our leader emphasized the value of non-exercise activity -- as well as varying types of well-known exercise -- in weight loss/maintenance.
She cited Dr. James Levine, endocrinologist, of Mayo Clinic, and a study he had done in this regard.
It sounds like even fidgeting during the day can be helpful.
I'll have to find more ways of those non-exercise activities during my workday -- as well as moving more in other ways.
Sally Squires: I'm a huge fan of Dr. Levine, who has done some very interesting work not just on fidgeting but also on fitting in activity into our technological lives. His theory: we're not likely to give up our computers, our cars or our television sets, so why not figure out ways to be more active while using them. Clever, don't you think?
And speaking of clever, check out this video from a Lean Plate Club member in NJ who put Levine's tenets into practice.
washingtonpost.com: Not Your Average Work Space (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 23, 2007)
Sally Squires: Here's the video as promised. And thanks to our producer Paul Williams, who as luck would have it, was also the editor fo the Indiana University newspaper that first heralded Jared Fogle's efforts at weight loss. Yes, the Subway guy. Small world, don't you think? Maybe we can entice Paul to tell us how it all happened. What do you say, Paul?
Chicago: Veganomicon: So far I've only made the tofu ricotta, the marinara, and different variations of the lasagna. It's all been great. I would love to hear from others if they've found good recipes to try from it!
Sally Squires: Thanks Chicago for that additional feedback on the Veganomicon cookbook. It sure has some mouth-watering pictures in it.
Laurel, MD: Sometimes I need something sweet to end my evening and I heard about this light "ice cream" sandwich. I take a chocolate graham cracker and break it in half. THen put 2 tablespoons of light Cool Whip on one-half and top with the other. Freeze for an hour or more, and Voila! A reduced fat and calorie "ice cream" sandwich.
Sally Squires: Very clever, Great Falls. Also, I've been sampling frozen raspberries (unsweetened) with a bit of Total yogurt, a dab of honey and some slivered almonds. And a friend told me about her love of frozen grapes. She said they're better than ice cream.
Other healthful sweet treats out there that you'd like to share? Send them our way.
Can V8 really substitute for vegetables?
Sally Squires: Yes. But if you really want variety--and not too much sodium--it shouldn't substitute for all your veggies. Variety really is the spice of life when it comes to all foods, but particularly fruit and vegetables. That's why expert recommend eating from the rainbow of colors.
But there's nothing wrong with incorporating V8 into your diet. I find that it can be a good appetizer for a meal or part of a great snack. Six ounches has just 30 calories. But the regular variety has 330 milligrams of sodium--which is a slug. So you may want to try the low-sodium variety, which is also pretty good, particularly on ice.
Pittsburgh: I am so glad it's springtime, I can't even tell you.
A few things I am changing around, first is I am taking the bus into work again. This also means I have to bring my gym bag with me when I go in the mornings. This adds about 30 min of walking with about 15-20lbs added 3 times a week!
I am also working in the garden more, and have projects on the house going.
For food finds, I found an awesome Tuscan White Bean Hummus at Trader Joe's I will have to keep an eye out for it again.
I think I may have finally broken through my plateau, -knocks on wood- though if 4-plus hours of gardening on Sunday doesn't do it, on top of going to the gym... not sure what will!
I lost 40 since May 15 of last year. Goal is 53 in 12 months (avg -1/wk for 1year), but the plateau got the better of me. Now I just want to see how close I can get to that before I start my next short term goal, which I haven't decided on yet! (Long term goal is another 85 pounds from where I am at now.)
Sally Squires: Way to go Philly! It sounds like you are really getting into the groove. Congratulations on those impressive 40 pounds lost and continued success on the road to your goal. Hope you'll keep up updated about your progress. And I'm with you: I love spring too, although it's still pretty gray here today. Thanks.
Chili Chocolate Again: Gotta love the Internet. It's made by Frey, a Swiss company.
Washington, D.C.: I thought I had read that you essentially get the same calorie-burning benefit from walking a certain distance as running a certain distance -- it just takes longer (to walk the distance instead of run it). True?
Sally Squires: It's pretty close, DC. So a 140 pound person burns about 91 calories running a mile, but about 70 calories walking that same distance (at 20 minutes per mile.) There's some variation depending on speed, as you can see. But it's not as much as a lot of us imagine. And the most important point is to keep moving! Thanks.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: Is it more nutritious to eat raw spinach or cooked spinach? I frequently eat spinach salads for lunch and consider that to be nutritious, but it occurs to me that perhaps I am relying too much on that as a significant source of nutrition (the spinach is from a salad bar where I include sun-dried tomatoes, roasted garlic and one or more of beets, carrots, chicken, red cabbage, bean salad, chick peas).
Thanks for your excellent columns!
Sally Squires: Ah, that wonderful sounding salad is making me hungry. I've got watercress, goat cheese, olives with a little balsamic vinegar and walnut oil awaiting me for lunch. And after writing those words, I'm really hungry!
In today's LPC e-mail newsletter, find a link to a lovely essay by Barbara Kafka on why she loves salads, plus links to three salads that she often makes. The package, which was published in Saveur magazine, is up for a James Beard Award this year.
Cooking alters some ingredients. Heat will destroy a little of the vitamin C. So there are plenty of raw food proponents who will say stick with only raw food. As for me, I like the flavor of both. And again, variety is the spice of life. Plus, cooking can kill some unwanted microbes...Hope that helps, Brooklyn.
Columbia, Md.: My 33-year-old son has been a vegetarian since he was 11 - sometimes eating fish. sometimes, not. During the last couple of years, he has followed a "raw food diet." He is presently eating some organic cooked veggies, along with the raw. He feels it has helped him a great deal. I read your column, today, and wonder about the iron content he is getting. He doesn't believe in vitamin supplements. I haven't seen him eat any dried beans or lentils for some time. Can you direct me/him to a source that would explain the natural dietary ways of getting the iron he needs?
Sally Squires: I'll post a link in a minute to the Office of Dietary Supplements, part of the National Institutes of Health, which has published a good fact sheet on iron. It will give your son information on the best food sources of iron as well as reasons to make sure he is getting enough.
Frankly, men are less likely to have iron deficiencies than women of child bearing ages. Menstruation means that they lose some iron monthly.
A fortified cereal might be a great way for your son to get iron. But there are plenty of other sources that he can choose from too.
Upper Marlboro, MD: Regarding the vegetarian, or anyone, who wants a good source of iron, hempseeds, grown from industrial hemp, are also a very good source of iron and protein (shelled hempseed is 33% protein), zinc, magnesium and phosphorus, to name just a few.
Just a 3 Tbs serving of shelled hempseeds provide 16% of the rda for iron, 22% of the rda for protein, and nearly half the rda for phosphorous and magnesium.
It is also a great source of Omega-3 and GLA, essential fatty acids, and contains all the essential amino acids in an easily digestible form.
And no, industrial hemp doesn't contain any thc, or very negligible amounts of it(0.3% at most, from what I've read), compared to its cousin marijuana. It actually lowers the amount of thc in marijuana plants significantly when crossbred with it.
There are several manufacturers in Canada that ship to the US, so there are online vendors in the states. Products are also available at some stores and chains.
I wish I'd known more about the seeds and oil long ago! There are protein powders, too. They're all very healthful and tasty!
Sally Squires: Thanks Upper Marlboro.
I am a 60-year-old male, who in the past two years has had two heart attacks, two stents, five catherizations, contracted Type Two Diabetes, anemia, stage two kidney failure, polymyocitis, heart failure and gained 100 pounds. I have just recently been forced to file for bankruptcy protection and filed for divorce from my wife, who abandoned me to die two years ago.
I have never given to all this crap and have lost 50 pounds since the first of the year, and most of my illnesses are gone or are in remission. I am working on getting rid of the diabetes and have started to exercise again. The bad news keeps piling up, however.
Here is my question. How do I stop turning to food whenever I get clobbered with something new and terrible?
Sally Squires: It sounds like you have really been through quite an odyssey, Dayton. More power to you for rising to the occasion. Your fortitude reminds me of what some of our founding fathers had and which is so well depicted in John Adams on HBO. It also brings to mind some people that I have had the privileged to meet and that's patients with Hansen's Disease--or leprosy. Many of them were discarded by their families, but still didn't give up.
So let me congratulate you on your strength and fortitude. It really is an inspiration to all of us. And while you're still struggling with turning to food for comfort, you have already conquered some of that by losing those 50 pounds.
You might take a look at a book called Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink. There's also Mindfulness by Jon Kabat-Zinn. And you might consider joining Food Addicts in Recovery, Food Addicts or Overeaters Anonymous. Also, TOPS is a good program that doesn't cost very much money, which I suspect may be in short supply.
Hope this helps. Continued success with your efforts. Consider us your cheering section. Please let us know how it goes. You've already proven that you can rise to the occasion and inspired us all.
washingtonpost.com: Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Iron
Sally Squires: Here's the fact sheet on iron.
Dupont Circle: Hi there! Thanks for doing this chat - it's my weekly reminder to keep eating smart and moving more. Just had a couple of great suggestions/recommendations:
First, my husband bought me the New Mayo Clinic Cookbook for Valentine's Day and I haven't been able to put it down since. They do a great job of giving delicious-looking, tasty, healthy recipes (with full-page color photos!) along with all the info you need - including how many servings of veggies, protein, etc are in each serving.
Second, I made a delicious marinade and sandwich spread last night that we both loved. This was to go with grilled-veggie sandwiches on whole-grain bread with sweet-potato baked "fries." Mash up about a quarter-cup low-fat silken tofu with about a tablespoon of Dijon mustard, a squeeze of lemon juice or white vinegar, mixed dried herbs, a tiny bit of soy sauce (I used TJ's low-sodium) and plenty of garlic, plus a bit of cayenne pepper. (I added a splash of white wine, too.) I spread this over the veggies after taking them off the grill, and slathered it onto the bread while making the sandwiches. It was delicious - and so good that we didn't notice we were eating FOUR servings of vegetables each for dinner!
Sally Squires: That Mayo Cookbook sounds like a great find! And that sandwich sounds really good! Aren't we glad that it's time to grill outdoors again. The possibilities are nearly endless. And think of all that wonderful fresh produce about to hit our markets in the weeks and months ahead!
Washington, D.C.: Sally: What do you make of the article published online last week in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology by Stanley Goldfarb and D. Negoianu, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine? In it they conclude that there is no positive benefits to drinking 8 (or any?) glasses of water. Drink when you're thirsty, they say. I have found nothing descriptive about whatever research they conducted. It has gotten a lot of media coverage -- my 84-year-old mother called me to tell me I can stop drinking water. So what's the scoop?
Sally Squires: This announcement made headlines, but it's actually not a departure from what the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends which is for most people to drink when thirsty. Also the IOM said that water filled foods, including fruit and vegetables, soups, stews, etc. can be a good source of hydration. So can coffee, tea, juice, etc.
Exceptions to this are those who may be engaging in very vigorous exercise, such as marathons. Or roofers working in the summer heat. Or military personnel stationed in the desert. You get the idea.
Also, the elderly tend to under-drink and as they age, they are less likely to be thirsty. So your 84 year old mother may need to be sure that she stays well hydrated.
Finally, if you want to feel full with fewer calories, drink a glass of water with your meals. The sodium helps you retain it so you feel fuller.
Palma Sola, Fla.: I'm on a low-carb diet, but healthy. The problem is when I do eat any refined carbs, I now have a terrible problem with stomach upset.
Will that ever go away, or is it just a result of my body acclimating to the low-carb lifestyle?
It's not so bad, it keeps me on the low-carb train . . .
Sally Squires: This is just a thought, but have you ever been checked for a gluten allergy? You might mention this problem with carbs to your doctor. Also, do you find it happens only with processed carbs or with things like beans, vegetables, fruit, etc. ?
Atlanta, GA: My friends recently told me that studies have shown that calorie-free sweeteners like Splenda have been associated with weight-gain rather than weight-loss. They hypothesize that frequent use of calorie-free sweeteners breaks your body's association of sweet-tasting food with calories, so your body stops revving-up the metabolism after eating sweets. As a result your metabolism is slowed down over all.
I had assumed that the problem with sugar substitutes was due to people thinking "sugar-free" means "calorie-free" (which it certainly doesn't, since you have to pay attention to all the calories coming from the other ingredients) and as a result people end up eating as many or more calories due to glibly increasing the portion size for sugar-free products. If calorie-free sweeteners actually screw up my metabolism, I'm wondering if I should stop using them altogether, since I'm a big user of splenda in coffee and baked goods.
Sally Squires: There's a lot of debate about this right now. In fact, last week, I just attended a conference on this very subject. So look for an upcoming Lean Plate Club column on the topic.
In the meantime, it seems like there are some urban myths developing...The majority of studies seem to suggest that if you substitute sugar substitutes for sugar, you generally eat fewer calories. And fewer calories usually translates to less weight. I have not read anything about calorie-free sweeteners altering metabolism after eating sweets.
Your theory is likely more in line with fact. So far, we have not been able to overcome the laws of thermodynamics--much as we keep trying! Thanks.
Rockville, Md.: I know that some of the chatters have recommended natural peanut butter, but they also mentioned that you have to stir it. At the grocery store, I recently I noticed that Skippy (no affiliation!) has a natural kind that you don't have to stir. I've since bought it, and it was pretty tasty. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I have to admit that it's the only natural peanut butter that I've ever tried, and I don't even eat peanut butter that often!
Sally Squires: Peanut butter--and other nut butters--can be a wonderful part of the diet. They provide healthy fat and plenty of flavor. And here's a trick to cut some of their calories--because they are mostly fat and protein. Pour off some of that peanut oil before you stir. You can cut about a third of the calories that way. Thanks for posting.
Arlington, Va.: If it weren't for my 2 dogs I probably wouldn't do cardio at all. But because of them, I average 2 miles a day jogging/walking. And I use them as the excuse to jog, not drive, to the gym, grocery store, post office, Starbucks, etc.
Sally Squires: Love those canine coaches every time! Woof! Thanks Arlington.
St. Louis, MO: Good morning. I joined the President's Challenge and have a question about entering activity. I wear a pedometer daily. Can you tell if I enter my steps for the day, or if it is how many steps I get in a walk?
When you click on "Activity" it shows "Pedometer" and then you can put in the number of steps. Many days, I get in 6000 w/o doing any exercise, so that doesn't seem like it should count. If I take a walk and get in an additional 4000, is that what I enter? Obviously, I'm confused! Thanks.
Sally Squires: You can enter both. The point is to get as much activity as possible in as many ways as possible. Althought the daily goal is 30 minutes of activity at least 5 days a week. But you can break that into 10 minute increments too. Hope that helps. Glad you're with us!
Arlington, Va.: Some time ago, the Lean Plate club published a week's worth of family dinner menus that were all fabulous. I'm a big planner when it comes to weekly dinner ideas. Are there any more of those coming? If there are any archived, please direct me to the source. Thank you very much.
Sally Squires: I'm so glad you liked those dinners which were designed by our Food section. I'll see if they exist on our Web site. I'm hoping that they may be in the Recipe Database. And yes, we do have some more collaborations upccoming. So I'll keep you apprised of those too. Thanks.
Great Falls, Va.: Protein question--My albumen level is low (I've got Crohn's Disease that's mostly in remission) and have been told to increase my protein intake. I'm thinking about supplementing my omnivorous diet (I eat lean protein with every meal) with whey protein (about 25 grams per serving). How much protein (grams) can a person absorb at one sitting without expelling it through urine? Wouldn't want to waste my money and calories...
Sally Squires: Because you have Crohn's disease--an ongoing disorder that causes inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract--this question is best posed to your doctor who will be most familiar with your particular nutritional needs. If he or she can't answer this question, you might consider asking for a referral to a registered dietitian who specializes in Crohn's disease.
Also check the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse.
Hope that helps and that your symptoms improve.
Sally Squires: Thanks to all for a great chat! Winners today are Dayton, Ohio; Chili Chocolate; Chicago and St. Louis. Please e-mail me your name and address to leanplateclub@washpost.com and please include winner in the subject line for faster mailing and handling.
Until next week, look forward to staying in contact with you in the Lean Plate Club Discussion Group at www.leanplateclub.com/group.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Post health and nutrition writer Sally Squires talks about how to eat healthier.
| 418.142857 | 0.857143 | 1.428571 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702630.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702630.html
|
A Tactical Turn to Green for Marriott
|
2008040819
|
The Bethesda firm's new greening tactics, detailed among singing birds at the National Zoo's Amazonia rain forest exhibit, come as the hotel industry is seeing the kind of demand for environmentally sound products that is already being felt by companies ranging from Wal-Mart to Alcoa.
Marriott is reducing fuel and water consumption, as well as furnishing its rooms with Bic pens made from pre-consumer recycled plastic. But the centerpiece of its strategy is the effort to protect 1.4 million acres of endangered rain forest in the Brazilian state of Amazonas.
Besides the $2 million that Marriott has committed to a fund to help pay for a rain forest protection plan, the company will also help guests offset their hotel stays with contributions of as little as $1 to the same fund. With more than 539,000 rooms, and if only a small portion of guests contribute, environmentalists said the company's impact could be profound. Meeting participants will similarly be able to offset their use of hotel facilities.
"It's meaningful. It's unique. It's innovative," said Jeff Hayward, a verification services manager for the Rainforest Alliance, a New York advocacy group.
But it's not entirely altruistic. Besides meeting customer demand for more environmentally conscious hotel stays and corporate meetings, chief executive J.W. Marriott Jr. said he is worried that climate change poses a serious threat to many of the company's 3,000 hotels, including some of the most profitable.
"We've got to protect our hotels," he said. "We've got a lot of beachfront hotels. We don't want two feet of water in the lobbies. We're also in New York City. We have a lot of coastal properties, which I worry about the ocean rising and coming right in, in places it's not supposed to come."
When some of his executives asked for the $2 million, Marriott recounted, "I said, 'Good. Do it.' I was glad to do it. It's really good from a PR standpoint and it will help the environment. I don't know how you could spend your money any better."
Hayward, of the Rainforest Alliance, said "as committed as they may be to the environment, they are making a calculated guess that their guests or some portion of their guests are concerned about the environment." In the tourism sector in particular, Hayward said, "there's a certain amount of guilt people feel when they go on these long haul flights to get somewhere."
In an example of the company's delicate interplay between business and image as it tries to go green, Marriott's environmental efforts are being led by senior company executives on the business and public relations sides: Arne Sorenson, the chief financial officer, and Kathleen Matthews, head of global communications.
Those executives are working with Conservation International, an advocacy group that has also counseled Wal-Mart, Alcoa, Starbucks, Fiji Water, and Bank of America.
Glenn Prickett, a senior vice president at the organization, said Marriott's efforts were particularly important because of the rain forest initiative. The company's announcement noted -- with the agreement of environmentalists -- that the clearing of rain forests is more damaging to the environment than the impact of the world's cars, trains, and trucks combined.
Besides the rain forest initiative, Marriott has committed to reducing fuel and water consumption by 25 percent per available room in the next decade.
By 2017, it wants to install solar power in as many as 40 hotels, a very small portion of the properties it manages and franchises. The company also wants to expand recycling programs: While 90 percent of its hotels recycle, only some of them recycle in-room guest trash.
Marriott is also updating design guidelines for its hotels to meet the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED standards.
The company is also pressuring its suppliers to provide greener products. The company said it will order 47 million of the greener BIC pens a year. It is also buying one million "room-ready" towels, which eliminate the initial wash cycle, saving 6 million gallons of water a year. Marriott is also looking into recyclable carpet and key cards that turn to compost.
Next month, Marriott plans to introduce a green meetings concept which will feature recycled paper and responsible packaged water, among other things.
"People really want to know now if you are an environmentally friendly company," Marriott said.
|
Marriott International announced a broad strategy yesterday to reduce its impact on the environment, pledging $2 million to protect the Brazilian rain forest and promising that by the end of the year its guests will be able to offset greenhouse gas emissions from their hotel stays.
| 17.693878 | 0.795918 | 1.530612 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.