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/2007/09/26/AR2007092600852.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092600852.html
|
For Gesher Jewish Day School, Finally, a Place to Call Home
|
2007092819
|
After 25 years of cramped classrooms, a computer room that doubled as prayer space and meager outdoor recess facilities, Gesher Jewish Day School has room to breathe.
Earlier this month, after six years of fundraising and construction, the 175-student school moved into a $14 million facility that has plenty of space.
Shari Schwartz, who has two sons at Gesher, compares the school's move to Shirley Gate Road, to that of a potted plant transplanted from a cramped container to a garden.
"This is a place where we can really put down our roots," Schwartz said.
The 46,000-square-foot facility is illustrative of the rapid growth in full-time Jewish education throughout the country. Jewish day schools (so named to differentiate them from synagogue-based part-time education) have proliferated as parents have embraced them as a way of fostering a committed and literate generation of Jews at a time when intermarriage and other factors are pulling some away from congregation membership.
The schools grew mostly in the later half of the 20th century as ethnic neighborhoods disappeared, Jews and non-Jews intermarried and families began to play less of a role in educating and rearing their children in the Jewish religion and culture.
Until recently, most day schools were affiliated with either the Conservative or Orthodox branches of Judaism. But in the past 20 years, Jewish "community" day schools such as Gesher, aimed at any Jewish child, no matter what the family's religious adherence or affiliation, have proliferated.
In the past seven years, the number of Jewish community day schools that are members of the Jewish Community Day School Network has grown 70 percent to about 120 from 70 in 2000, said Marc Kramer, executive director of the network. He said that mirrors the growth in the number of schools. "It has been growing at lightening speed," he said.
As with other religions, Jews are increasingly less inclined to align themselves with one particular branch of the faith, so a community day school -- generally not affiliated with any of the four major branches of Judaism in the United States -- is more appealing, Kramer said.
In the Washington area, other community day schools include Aleph Bet Jewish Day School in Annapolis, the Hebrew Day School in Silver Spring, the Jewish Primary Day School in the District and the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School in Rockville, which added a high school in 1999.
For 25 years, Gesher was housed in temporary spaces and was moved four times. Most recently, the school was jammed into two locations -- the bottom floor of the Jewish Community Center on Little River Turnpike and down the road in a building housing another Jewish organization, the Chabad Lubavitch of Northern Virginia. Gesher's new facility will allow it to double its population and, with a few expansions, triple its enrollment in coming years.
Demographic studies of the number of Jewish households in Northern Virginia show there is plenty of room for that kind of growth, according to school officials, particularly since Gesher is the only Jewish day school in Northern Virginia. In the past two decades, the Jewish population in Northern Virginia has doubled, according to a 2003 study by the Jewish Outreach Institute, the fastest rate in the Washington area. The number of synagogues has more than tripled, to 20.
At Gesher, 40 percent of the curriculum is devoted to the study of Jewish religion and history. Students study Hebrew and learn the holidays and prayers. In the middle school, students study rabbinic texts and all four major branches' prayer books.
The new school's sunny interior has plenty of details emblematic of Jewish heritage. The golden-hued wall along the front of the school is designed to look like Jerusalem stone, a limestone quarried in Israel. A glass-roofed beit midrash, or study hall, serves as the architectural centerpiece of the school and will soon house the ark (where Torah scrolls will be stored) and serve as a worship space.
At the daily prayer service last Thursday morning, younger students recited prayers and wriggled in their seats as older students and teachers clustered around one of the school's two Torah scrolls in the front of the community room at the rear of the building. Wearing prayer shawls and tefillin -- small boxes containing Scripture attached to the head and arm by thin leather straps -- they chanted a portion of the Torah.
The morning prayer ritual is not very different from the service the school held each day in its previous space in the basement of the Jewish Community Center in Fairfax. But, said Head of School Zvi Schoenburg, "It just feels good to do the same thing in this nice space."
For eighth-grader Rachel Cotton, the new school has meant a separate wing for her and her middle school peers, her own locker and less effort to keep the noise down so they don't disturb others. "It's a lot easier because before we just kind of had to share classrooms, and the space was really cramped." The new building, she said, is "really cool."
|
After 25 years of cramped classrooms, a computer room that doubled as prayer space and meager outdoor recess facilities, Gesher Jewish Day School has room to breathe.
| 32.766667 | 1 | 30 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092100543.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092100543.html
|
Free Wheeling: Paris's New Bike System
|
2007092819
|
Everyone knows that rules are made to be broken, the French better than most. Which explains why, two months after government-owned, almost-free communal bikes were introduced in Paris, the City of Light has been transformed into something akin to the Wild Wild West. Businessmen speed across traffic lanes, stately grande dames cycle the wrong way down one-way streets, and students weave in and out of pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Velibs -- the name combines "velo" (bicycle) and "liberte" (freedom) -- have transformed the way Parisians get around. With more than 2 million journeys made in the first 40 days of the program, the French have taken to their new mode of public transport like canards to water.
But does the system work as well for visitors? Parisian drivers are notorious for their, ahem, forthright manner, so it is little wonder that some tourists feel uneasy about cycling. "I'm looking at the drivers and I'm looking at the bikes and I'm thinking, 'Americans just won't do that,' " said Diane Hansen, 49, visiting from Seattle.
But Paris is surprisingly cycle-friendly, and bicycling is statistically the second-least-dangerous way to get around the city (after riding a bus). Most large roads have bike lanes, and since the introduction of the Velibs, many cyclists have noted that drivers have become more conscious of their presence.
Here's how it works: Velibs can be picked up and dropped off at any of a thousand stations around the capital, where users insert credit cards into a machine to sign up for a day (one euro, or about $1.40), a week (five euros) or a year (29 euros). A fee of $205 is taken from your account if the bike is not returned. Caveat: At this point, only smart-chip Visa cards and American Express cards are accepted (see "More Velib Tips" at right).
The system is designed to encourage short journeys: After paying your subscription fee and picking up a bike, the first half-hour is free. The second half-hour costs one euro, the third costs two euros and a fourth would cost an added four euros, to encourage people to stick to the half-hour system.
But you can take a bike out as many times as you like in a day -- and each time it's free for the first 30 minutes. "This is a utilitarian way of getting around," explained Velib project manager C¿line Lepault. "The Velibs are for everyone, but tourists should realize they are simply a way of getting from A to B. If they want to take a bike for the day, they should hire one" from a rental shop.
There are now 14,197 sleek gray bikes around town. They are elegant, sturdy machines made more for cruising than speed, with three gears, large padded seats and good hand brakes on the "sit-up" handlebars. By the end of the year, there are to be 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations -- or about one station every 900 feet.
The Velib system is complicated and possibly nerve-racking. So why bother? Quite simply, the Velib does exactly as its name promises. It gives you the liberty to discover Paris at your own pace, under your own steam. Most journeys take less than 30 minutes (it takes about 15 minutes to cycle from the Musee d'Orsay to the Eiffel Tower, for example), and instead of popping up at the sights like a touristy mole, you discover all the hidden attractions in between.
When asked what she would say to people reluctant to try the Velibs, Cathy Gills, 50, visiting Paris from Alberta, Canada, looked down at her elegant machine and smiled. "Have a sense of adventure," she said. "And think about how you are working off the baguettes and red wine."
Here's a primer on how to navigate the system.
1. Pick up a map. Start by visiting the tourist information bureau outside the Hotel de Ville in the center of town to pick up a free map of the city with all Velib stations marked.
|
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
| 19.186047 | 0.325581 | 0.325581 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501347.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501347.html
|
Thwarting Terrorists: More to Be Done
|
2007092619
|
As early as 1993, al-Qaeda attempted to buy highly enriched uranium in Sudan. Seized documents from Afghanistan detail al-Qaeda's efforts to gain nuclear materials there from 1996 to 2001; Osama bin Laden has called getting the bomb a "religious duty." In Russia, Chechen terrorist teams carried out reconnaissance at two secret nuclear weapon storage sites in 2001.
If terrorists could get enough highly enriched uranium or plutonium, it is frighteningly plausible that they could make a crude nuclear bomb, capable of incinerating the heart of any major city. Some of the multitude of buildings worldwide that hold the ingredients of nuclear weapons have excellent security -- but some have little more than a night watchman and a chain-link fence.
While this is a global threat, Russia, Pakistan and research reactors using fuel made from highly enriched uranium pose the most urgent dangers of nuclear theft. Russia has the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the materials to make them, scattered in numerous buildings and bunkers. Security measures have improved dramatically since the early 1990s, but serious weaknesses remain, and threats are posed by outside attackers as well as pervasive insider theft.
Pakistan has a relatively small nuclear stockpile, believed to be heavily guarded -- but the country faces threats from al-Qaeda, other jihadist groups and nuclear insiders with a demonstrated willingness to sell sensitive technology.
Roughly 140 research reactors fueled by highly enriched uranium exist in dozens of countries -- some of them on university campuses -- and many have only modest security measures in place.
Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs and related efforts are making real progress in reducing these dangers. In Russia, the most egregious security weaknesses of the 1990s have been fixed. U.S.-funded security upgrades have been completed for more than half of the Russian buildings with potential bomb material and more than half of Russia's warhead sites. The key remaining issues there are whether security improvements will be sustained after U.S. assistance phases out; whether the people at the heart of any security system will take security seriously; and whether the new levels of security are enough, given the threats Russian nuclear stockpiles face from both outsiders and insiders.
Nuclear security cooperation with Pakistan is underway, though the details are secret. Security at one nuclear site in China has been upgraded with U.S. help, and U.S.-China nuclear security discussions and training activities are continuing, but these talks have not yet led to major nuclear security upgrades. Also, despite the signing of a new U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement, nuclear security cooperation between the two countries has not yet begun.
The Energy Department's Global Threat Reduction Initiative has been helping HEU-fueled research reactors around the world upgrade security, has accelerated the pace of converting these reactors to low-enriched fuel that cannot be used for a nuclear bomb, and is removing the highly enriched uranium from vulnerable sites wherever possible -- the surest way to prevent bomb material from being stolen.
Yet there is still a dangerous gap between the urgency of the threat and the scope and pace of the U.S. and international response. No binding global nuclear security standards are in place. Many nuclear facilities around the world do not have security measures that could protect against demonstrated terrorist and criminal capabilities. Only about a quarter of the world's HEU-fueled research reactors have had all their highly enriched uranium removed, leaving a major gap to be closed.
We urgently need a high-priority global campaign to make sure every nuclear weapon and every significant cache of potential bomb material is locked down. This should be a key issue raised at every level with every country with stockpiles to secure or resources to help. We need to forge effective global nuclear security standards. We need stronger efforts to get countries to sustain upgraded security for the long haul, and to help those individuals who work with nuclear materials to understand that corners can never be cut on security. And we need to expand efforts to completely remove nuclear weapons and potential nuclear bomb material from as many facilities worldwide as possible. To get all this done, President Bush should appoint a senior White House official to take full-time responsibility for policing these efforts, overcoming the obstacles to progress, and keeping the issue a priority at the White House.
As President Bush has said, the nations of the world must do "everything in our power" to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of terrorist hands. We aren't there yet.
Matthew Bunn, a former adviser in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Clinton administration, is a senior research associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He is the author of "Securing the Bomb 2007", on which this article is based.
|
The world must do 'everything in our power' to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of terrorist hands. We aren't there yet.
| 34.111111 | 0.925926 | 11.888889 |
medium
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401154.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401154.html
|
Nuclear Terrorism FAQ
|
2007092619
|
Yes. Unfortunately, terrorist use of a nuclear bomb is a very real danger. During the 2004 presidential campaign, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) agreed that nuclear terrorism was the single greatest threat to U.S. national security. Published estimates of the chance that terrorists will detonate a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city over the next ten years range from 1 percent to 50 percent. In a 2005 poll of international security experts taken by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the median estimate of the chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years was 29 percent -- and a strong majority believed that it was more likely that terrorists would launch a nuclear attack than that a state would. Given the horrifying consequences of such an attack, even a 1 percent chance would be enough to call for rapid action to reduce the risk.
What materials could terrorists use to make a nuclear bomb?
To make a nuclear bomb requires either highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. Neither of these materials occurs in nature, and producing either of them requires expensive facilities using complex technologies, almost certainly beyond the capability of terrorist groups. Hence, if all of the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons, HEU and plutonium can be effectively protected and kept out of terrorist hands, nuclear terrorism can be prevented: no nuclear material, no bomb, no nuclear terrorism.
How difficult would it be for terrorists to get the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb?
Highly enriched uranium and plutonium are hard to make, but may not be so hard to steal. These raw materials of nuclear terrorism are housed in hundreds of facilities in dozens of countries -- some with excellent security, and some secured by nothing more than an underpaid guard and a chain link fence. There are no binding global standards setting out how well nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them should be secured.
Theft of the essential ingredients of nuclear weapons is not just a hypothetical worry, it is an ongoing reality. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has documented 15 cases of theft of HEU or plutonium confirmed by the countries concerned (and there are additional well-documented cases that the countries involved have not yet been willing to confirm). In many of these cases, the thieves and smugglers were attempting to sell the material to anyone who would buy it -- and terrorist groups have been seeking to buy it.
How much expertise is needed to make a nuclear bomb? Would a large operation be required?
Unfortunately, government studies have concluded that once a terrorist organization had the needed nuclear material, a handful of skilled individuals might be able to make a crude nuclear bomb using commercially available tools and equipment, without any large fixed facilities that might draw attention, and without access to classified nuclear weapons information. Getting nuclear material and making a crude nuclear bomb would be the most complex operation terrorists have ever carried out ¿ but the risk that a sophisticated group could pull it off is very real. Roughly 90 percent of the effort in the Manhattan Project was focused on making nuclear bomb material; getting stolen nuclear material would allow terrorists to skip the hardest part of making a nuclear bomb.
The simplest type of nuclear bomb, known as a "gun-type" bomb, slams two pieces of nuclear material together at high speed. The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, for example, was a cannon that fired a shell of HEU into rings of HEU. Plutonium cannot be used to make a gun-type bomb with a substantial explosive yield, because the neutrons that all plutonium emits cause the bomb to blow itself apart before the nuclear reactions proceeds very far. To make a bomb from plutonium would require a more complex "implosion-type" bomb, which would be more difficult for terrorists to build -- but government studies have repeatedly concluded that this possibility also cannot be ruled out.
How much nuclear material would terrorists need to make a bomb?
The amount of nuclear material needed to make a bomb depends on the material and the skill of the bomb-maker. A simple gun-type nuclear bomb would require approximately 50 kilograms of HEU -- an amount that would fit in a suitcase. Implosion-type bombs are more efficient, requiring less nuclear material. Unclassified estimates suggest that basic first-generation implosion-type bombs like the Nagasaki bomb can be made with 6 kilograms of plutonium or 15 kilograms of HEU. With these relatively small amounts, a terrorist group could potentially build a bomb with the power of thousands of tons of high explosive. Sophisticated nuclear weapon states can potentially make nuclear bombs with smaller amounts of nuclear material.
|
The Managing the Atom Project at Harvard University answers common questions about the world's nuclear stockpiles and the threat of nuclear terrorism.
| 37.541667 | 0.666667 | 1.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501753.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501753.html
|
Ruth Marcus - The Two Obamas
|
2007092619
|
Obama's first speech came Monday, before the Service Employees International Union. It was a tour-de-force demonstration of Obama's ability to inspire an audience. That 2004 convention speech was no fluke. The SEIU is John Edwards's crowd. The former North Carolina senator has been wooing it for years. Edwards received a rousing reception when he spoke later that afternoon.
But Obama, who had fallen flat in an appearance before an SEIU health-care forum in March, was on fire this time -- a performance that contributed to the SEIU's decision to hold off on a presidential endorsement.
"I don't know about you, but I'm tired of playing defense. We wanna play some offense," said Obama, who was wearing a tie in SEIU's trademark purple and wasn't too shy to point it out. "We're ready to play offense for a living wage. We're ready to play offense for a secure retirement. We're ready to play some offense for universal health care."
Granted, giving a red-meat pro-labor speech to a union crowd isn't the world's hardest act. Obama checked all the necessary boxes (letting workers unionize by signing cards, toughening enforcement of worker safety and overtime rules). If there are issues on which he diverges from the union line -- trade, perhaps? -- he wasn't saying.
By the time he finished, Obama had the crowd chanting. "Fired up! Ready to go!"
The next day, Obama was at a different hotel a few blocks away -- but it might as well have been a different universe. The spellbinding candidate had disappeared in favor of a guy in a suit reading his speech from a teleprompter. This wasn't surprising for a Serious Speech about tax reform. The Brookings Institution and the Tax Policy Center aren't a call-and-response kind of crowd.
But Obama's tax policy was more -- at least $80 billion more -- of the same old Democratic campaign playbook. He proposed a big new tax cut for the middle class, whose tax burden -- even factoring in payroll taxes -- is at the lowest level in decades. No income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 a year -- though seniors already receive an oversized slice of government benefits and special tax treatment to boot.
Not a word about fixing the alternative minimum tax, which has required increasingly expensive annual patches. As to serious tax reform -- maybe taking on the deductions for mortgage interest or employer-sponsored health care ( Hillary Clinton took a baby step in this direction in her health-care plan) -- nothing.
No matter. Obama got what he wanted, which was stories such as this from the Des Moines Register: "About 300,000 Iowa seniors would never again need to file federal tax returns under the plan, and 100,000 of those would save roughly $1,400 each year, the Illinois senator said as he campaigned through Iowa." Probably a coincidence, but nearly two-thirds of Iowa caucus-goers in 2004 were 55 or older.
This is the candidate whose announcement speech decried "the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics . . . our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points"?
A presidential campaign -- a successful one, anyway -- is not a suicide pact. But there has to be some space between Walter Mondale's I'm-going-to-raise-your-taxes candor and George McGovern's $1,000 tax rebate for everyone. Not that either one worked very well.
In "The Audacity of Hope," Obama deftly describes the unpleasant budgetary picture and its consequences. "We will probably have to postpone some investments that we know are needed . . . and we will have to prioritize the help that we give to struggling American families," he wrote.
Where's the prioritizing in an $80 billion-plus tax cut, on top of a $50 billion to $65 billion health-care plan? To put this in perspective, John Kerry's proposed tax cuts were the same size as Obama's -- over 10 years, not one.
Obama, to be fair, has had his mini-moments. At the National Education Association, in the midst of a speech as fiery as his address to the SEIU, he mentioned the dread subject of merit pay for teachers. In Detroit, he proposed higher fuel-efficiency standards for automakers.
The day before his SEIU speech, Obama was on Wall Street to talk about the need for "shared sacrifice" -- though he waited for the Brookings crowd to talk about the specific sacrifices of raising capital gains rates and eliminating the "carried interest" loophole for hedge fund managers and venture capitalists.
The question about Obama is not "where's the beef," Mondale's famous putdown of Gary Hart's "new ideas." It's: Where's the audacity?
Subscribe to the podcast of this column athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/podcast. The writer's e-mail address ismarcusr@washpost.com.
|
On Monday, a spellbinding candidate; on Tuesday, a traditional pol reciting the Democrats' old playbook.
| 49.2 | 0.65 | 0.95 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501754.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501754.html
|
Can She Reach Religious Voters?
|
2007092619
|
There was a stiff dose of political calculation in her remarks -- but also a streak of sincere liberal Protestantism. As Clinton methodically consolidates her hold on the Democratic presidential nomination, Republicans are facing, in the words of her spiritual biographer Paul Kengor, "the most religious Democrat since Jimmy Carter." And this introduces an unpredictable element into a wide-open election.
Republicans are accustomed to Democrats who are either frankly secular -- Howard Dean once asserted, "My religion doesn't inform my public policy" -- or so uncomfortable with religious language that, were the sound on the television switched off, you'd think they were admitting a sexual vice instead of affirming their deepest beliefs.
Clinton is neither secular nor awkward about her faith. She cites her Methodist upbringing as a formative experience, with its emphasis on "preaching and practicing the social gospel." As a teenager in 1962, she heard and met the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Chicago -- what would have been a profound experience for a spiritually alert youth -- and was later politically radicalized by his assassination. The likely Democratic nominee participates regularly in small-group Bible studies and is familiar with the works of Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- the theological heroes of mainline Protestantism (and of some stray Evangelicals like myself).
In a nation obsessed by the influence of religious conservatives, it is easy to forget that liberal Protestants were once the dominant cultural influence in America. Beginning in the early 20th century, the social gospel advanced swiftly through most American denominations. Progressive presidents such as Woodrow Wilson spoke in the cadences of this movement: "Christianity was just as much intended to save society as to save the individual, and there is a sense in which it is more important that it should save society."
This high-minded theological liberalism had many successes. It opposed the harsh excesses of industrialization, embraced the civil rights movement, resisted the Vietnam War and led opposition to apartheid in South Africa. It also had debilitating weaknesses -- a preference for democratic socialism, a soft spot for Marxist strongmen, a flitting fascination with trendy causes and a theological shallowness that caused millions to flee the pews.
As an heir to this religious tradition, Hillary Clinton combines two traits that seem contradictory but really aren't -- moralism and social liberalism.
As a moralist, she has been willing to work with conservatives on issues such as religious freedom in the workplace and highlighting the destructive impact of pop culture on children. She has joined congressional efforts against human trafficking and was an early supporter of public funds for faith-based social services. None of this indicates a privatized religious faith.
At the same time, as Kengor points out in his insightful book, "God and Hillary Clinton," her defense of abortion rights has been strident, even radical. She has attacked pro-life people as enemies of "evidence," "science" and "the Constitution." And she has blamed pro-life "ideologues" for the prevalence of abortions because of their "silent war on contraception" -- a remarkable accusation that Roman Catholic opposition to birth control is somehow responsible for abortion in America.
How are religious voters likely to respond to a religious believer who is also a social liberal? Roman Catholics, with their strong commitment to the poor, should be open to a Democratic message of economic justice. A majority of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, support the goals of broader health coverage and increased humanitarian aid abroad. But the most intensely religious Americans of both traditions also tend to be the most conservative on moral issues such as abortion. And it is hard to imagine that these voters will be successfully courted by the most comprehensively pro-choice presidential candidate in American history.
That might change under one circumstance: if Rudy Giuliani were the Republican nominee. Whatever Giuliani promised concerning the appointment of conservative judges, a pro-choice Republican nominee would blur the contrast between the parties on abortion. And between two pro-choice options, a larger number of religious voters might support the one with a stronger emphasis on poverty -- because, after all, Jesus did have a lot to say about how we treat the poor.
|
Hillary Clinton combines two traits that seem contradictory but really aren't -- moralism and social liberalism.
| 44.944444 | 1 | 18 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2007/09/from_iraq_to_us_re_jena.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2007/09/from_iraq_to_us_re_jena.html
|
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2007092619
|
Imagine you are an Iraqi who knows something of American history, and admires it.
You have read John Winthropâs famous City on a Hill speech, about America as a community where people labor, suffer and rejoice together. You are familiar with the bold statements about human equality and the guarantees of due process in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. You have heard about Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King Jr. and others who fought to extend the American promise to all people regardless of background.
You believe America is a place where people from the four corners of the world live in equal dignity and mutual loyalty. And America â although she makes mistakes, and sometimes acts narrowly and selfishly â can help other places build democracy and pluralism as well.
Now imagine that you are watching and reading recent news reports of the Jena 6 (this is assuming, of course, that your electricity is working).
You must be asking yourself: What is a âwhite treeâ? Arenât nooses the ugliest symbols of a past that America is proud to be beyond? What of excessive criminal charges based on race? Arenât American prosecutors and American judges impartial?
You see leaders from the Civil Rights era marching in support of the Jena 6, but you remember that part of what made the Civil Rights Movement great was that people responded peacefully to police dogs and water cannons. Didnât these six kids from Jena stomp another kid unconscious?
You start to watch the various videos on You Tube related to this incident: the Neo-Nazis organizing and threatening, whites and blacks calling each other vile names, the promises of violence and the plots of revenge.
You think about Iraq. There are roving bands of young men from both sides looking for people to stomp (and worse). There are police and prosecutors and judges who are so partial that people from a different community donât even hope for fair treatment. There are Sunni and Shia neighborhoods.
You wonder if there are Sunni and Shia trees. âIsnât America trying to build pluralism in Iraq?â somebody asked me hopefully at a talk I gave at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week.
What might our imaginary Iraqi think of such a question?
Perhaps he would suggest that we build pluralism at home.
|
Eboo Patel on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/
| 55.75 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601506.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601506.html
|
Senate Endorses Plan to Divide Iraq
|
2007092619
|
Showing rare bipartisan consensus over war policy, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a political settlement for Iraq that would divide the country into three semi-autonomous regions.
The Biden plan envisions a federal government system for Iraq, consisting of separate regions for Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations. The structure is spelled out in Iraq's constitution, but Biden would initiate local and regional diplomatic efforts to hasten its evolution.
"This has genuine bipartisan support,and I think that's a very hopeful sign," Biden said.
One key Republican supporter was Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who under strong White House pressure last week abruptly withdrew his support for a proposal to extend home leaves for U.S. troops. Numerous Republicans considered supporting the extension, but they backed off when Warner reversed his stance. The veteran GOP lawmaker called the vote on the Biden plan "the high-water mark" for bipartisan efforts on Iraq this year.
Warner said the vote represented a de facto acknowledgement of the now widely held view that Iraq's long-term problems cannot be solved militarily. "This amendment builds on that foundation," said Warner. "This amendment brings into sharp focus the need for diplomacy."
The resolution collected an unusually diverse group of co-sponsors who disagree sharply on other aspects of the war, in particular how long U.S. combat troops should remain. The list ranges from conservative Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a GOP presidential contender, to liberal Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.).
"We can't walk away from Iraq," said Hutchison. "That would make all the sacrifices that have been made irrelevant. But we do have a potential solution that can save American lives in the future."
Boxer said: "I see here a light at the end of a very, very dark tunnel. A darkness that is impacting our nation. It's impacting the Senate. In a way, we are paralyzed."
The vote also was a political boon for Biden, one of the Democrats' most respected foreign policy voices, yet a long-shot for his party's 2008 presidential nomination. The floor debate, which started last week, provided the struggling candidate with a moment in the spotlight -- and Biden made the most of it. He spent hours on the Senate floor, held two news conferences, and placed an op-ed Monday in the State, a newspaper in Columbia, S.C., an early 2008 primary state.
Two of Biden's competitors, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), voted with him. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) missed the vote, as did Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a GOP presidential candidate and a leading war supporter.
Biden has made his Iraq plan the centerpiece of his 2008 candidacy, and he will likely herald his Senate success in a Democratic debate tonight in New Hampshire.
|
Showing rare bipartisan consensus over war policy, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a political settlement for Iraq that would divide the country into three semi-autonomous regions.
| 21.034483 | 1 | 29 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/25/DI2007092501022.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/25/DI2007092501022.html
|
UAW Strike
|
2007092619
|
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.
His column archive is online here.
New Brunswick, N.J.: I'm glad something has been worked out, but I feel some despair over the disappearance of manufacturing from the U.S. - and even more over the alternative, an absolutely impoverished workforce. I sure would like all those people criticizing the UAW to consider taking a voluntary wage cut to $12/hr and also paying sharply higher monthly premiums for health care.
I also am sick of the term "legacy costs," (as though a benevolent uncle has asked ungrateful children for a little help) rather than the reality: the companies want to break their contracts with retired workers because they are costly. How about if I tell the company I want to reduce my auto payments because they're too costly?
The workers are asked contribute cash out of their pocket to pay for management's poor decisions. The alternative: impoverishment.
Steven Pearlstein: Yes, for those who haven't heard, the strike has been settled and a contract tentatively agreed to, pending worker ratification. Details are still sketchy.
You raise an interesting question though: suppose a company's wages and benefits have got way out of line, with serious consequences for the competitiveness and profitability of the company. Its losing lots of money. If you are a worker, you can bitch and moan and say, "Why should I have to take a $12 pay cut?" just to use your hypothetical. Getting your pay cut is a lousy thing to have happen to you. Or you can say, "Look, we obviously got way above market for my set of skills, I had a good run at above market wages, and now I have to decide if I want to work for a market wage, which is less, or try to earn more by looking for a new job. But I understand that if I don't agree to cut my wage, there won't be a company left to work for for very long, or it will file for bankruptcy reorganization and I'll be paid $12 less anyway, only my pension will be seized by the creditors." So this is the reality. You chose to see it only through the narrow lens of the worker, and come up thinking its unfair. But tell me: was it "fair" that, for all those years when the Big Three owned the US market, that people paid more for their cars (on a quality adjusted basis) than they should have so these workers could earn twice what other American workers did with the same skills, working under the same conditions? The harsh truth is that, in business and economics, fairness in that sense doesn't have much to do with things.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Steven. How much backlash has there been against UAW workers on strike? I've gotten the sense most workers don't support the UAW. The Michigan economy is in shambles with the highest unemployment rate of any state. Thus, could GM simply fired some of the strikers and hired (or rehired) some of those unemployed willing to take these jobs? Thanks.
Steven Pearlstein: I'm sure that now that the strike has been settled, the UAW will come off looking good because of some guarantees it won about investment in U.S. plants.
But I should point out another piece of news I stumbled over this morning: Bank of America is going to eliminate more than 2,000 jobs after completing its acquisition of LaSalle Bank, most of them in Michigan.
Michigan, with Ohio close behind, are probably already in recession. They have the highest foreclosure rates. They are still trying to make the transition from manufacturing to service. And they are losing their best and brightest. It is a real problem and they deserve some help from the rest of the country. The $15 billion a year we are wasting on farm subsidies would be a good place to start.
Fairfax, Va.: Steven, I think that GM is being proactive at correcting their mistakes of their product line. I think the 2008 model year is much more innovative than previous ones and GM is focused on being more flexible. That said, how does this two-day strike affect the public's opinion of GM products?
Steven Pearlstein: I doubt a short strike will change perceptions one way or the other. A longer strike would have hurt the brand image.
Alexandria, Va.: Hi Steven, in light of the tentative agreement between the UAW and GM, what would happen if the UAW was unable to cover retiree medical expenses should the VEBA ever run out? Would GM then be obligated to pay for the shortfall?
Likewise, how has GM's health package changed for newer UAW workers? Do they still receive the same benefits? Thank you.
Steven Pearlstein: I don't know the details. On the VEBA, I think the obligation and the assets go to the new trust administered by the union. And there is a safety valve clause in there that requires the company to increase its annual contributions if there is excessive health care inflation. But the point of the deal was to get it off GM's books, which includes the open-ended nature of the liability. So if, for some reason, health care costs go up, or the money is invested poorly, it is possible that retirees may have to pay more toward their coverage or accept lower levels of coverage. But that would only be if things don't work out as expected.
Falls Church, Va.: Good columns this week, but I had a few questions about Sunday's column on the falling dollar. You cited oil dependence as a primary cause, but the dollar has also been falling against currencies from other countries that are just as oil-dependent as we are, like Japan, hasn't it?
Also, you didn't mention the Chinese currency peg. As long as the yuan can't adjust, and the US economy remains robust enough that the capital account is drawing money in, the dollar is naturally going to fall, isn't it?
washingtonpost.com: Foreigners Descend on U.S. Fire Sale| The Dollar in Decline
Steven Pearlstein: Currencies are complicated, and there is never a simple explanation for anything. But a significant part of our trade deficit is caused by imported oil. Obviously, there are other factors, like misaligned currency values with the Chinese yuan, which is kept pegged to the dollar, artificially, by the central bank of China.
Geneva, Ohio: How far is the UAW going to give up retiree benefits to gain GM assurances of job security. Especially in view of GM's past record of saying one thing and then reneging?
Steven Pearlstein: We'll find out how much they gave up, but my sense is that very little was given up on retiree benefits, and alot of job security remains.
Falls Church, Va.: Why is GM better off paying to establish a UAW health-care trust fund for its retirees than it would be if it remained directly responsible for its retirees' health care?
Steven Pearlstein: Because if health costs continue to rise faster than expected, the risk is borne by the workers, who would either have to contribute more to their own health care or accept lower levels of benefits. It represents a shifting or risks and obligation.
Kensington, Md.: Although you do not advance such arguments, I would just like to mention that the field of economics does not universally despise unions. Just the situations when a union's goals are so narrowly focussed that it causes distortions in the economy and inefficient re-allocations of resources, which is what the auto makers are up against.
Yes, we have unions to thank for the weekend. And for much of the work safety rules. And many other things that have been recognized to have positive net benefits in all jobs (mundane things like bathroom breaks). This is where they are brilliant. In these cases, employers initially underestimated the demand for such "benefits" (or could ignore them because they were monopsonies). In other words, unions helped educate employers about what the underlying labor supply function really looks like. When they have gone beyond that, they have effectively negotiated for things that workers really do not demand except in the context of the strike-game that they used to be able to control the outcome of. Now that that game is broken, unions should perhaps retreat to issues that are still broadly fair and relevant.
I think it would be fantastic if unions more enthusiastically fought for basic workers' rights internationally, the lack of which in so many other countries puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage and ultimately threatens a wide scope of jobs. Instead, that task seems to have been left to idealistic college students who are preparing ultimately for white collar careers and who are barely literate in the complex realities of the issues.
Steven Pearlstein: Interesting take. I would say that too much of the energy of the union movement has gone into maintaining above-market wages and benefits for the old industrial unions and too little into organizing and winning acceptable wages for workers much farther down the income ladder. This is why, in my opinion, the SIEU has the right take on a lot of things, because the janitors and hospital workers and hotel workers and garbage collectors that it organizers are the ones who suffer the most economically and need the clout of collective bargaining to obtain very basic things, like health insurance and sick days and pregnancy leave.
St. Louis, Mo.: The overall consensus among many in my area is that members of the UAW make too much money for performing unskilled labor and even those performing what the UAW considers "skilled" labor, isn't what the majority of the public thinks is skilled labor. The UAW has been gouging the big three for years and the party's over. It's time for UAW workers to work like the rest of America.
Steven Pearlstein: Well, that's rather bluntly put, but it is probably correct. The trick is for the UAW to work with the company to replace unskilled work with capital investment and new technology that requires more skilled, but fewer, workers. That will mean fewer union members. But it would allow the company to remain competitive while paying those wages which, as you point out, are right now above market by a considerable degree.
Atlanta, Ga.: Just curious: What kind of wages do the striking workers make now (ballpark figures)? Maybe a low, high and average figure. I find it hard to believe that some of the highest paid workers in Michigan are going on strike when Michigan has one of the higher unemployment rates in the country. It seems as is if it would be better for them to strike when the economy was strong and there were fewer replacement workers available to take their jobs.
Steven Pearlstein: One of the reasons people form unions is to use collective action (i.s. the threat of a strike) to insulate themsleves from the labor market and win above-market compensation. And this results in the market anomalies you mention, which is the state's highest paid workers are striking at a time of high unemployment. Which is why job security is such an issue for them, because they know what the reality would be if they had to be out looking for a job. The practical reality is that these job guarantees give the workers leverage when the companies want to downsize, because it forces the company to offer them generous severance packages to achieve workforce reductions.
As a retiree: I'm not sure whether having control of my health-care funds in the hands of the UAW is better or worse. Something tells me the fund's annual returns will be lower than if GM gave me the money to invest myself, and the UAW bosses will still be driving Caddys.
Steven Pearlstein: There's an interesting point of view. My own view is that this is a good thing for the union movement, if union leaders can do it well, because it gives a legitimate reason for people to join or affiliate with unions, whether they are part of collective barganing units or not. If it comes to pass that unions are known for offering the best health care plans, that could be a very powerful selling point.
Washington, D.C.: I have always considered myself liberal and progressive but I have to say, this whole UAW issue makes me realize how irrelevant and out of touch unions are in America. Sweat shops workers in south Asia need protection, not these folks. Who do the UAW people think they are? I have never seen such entitled workers in my life. I have a college degree, masters degree and work 50 hours a week (no paid overtime), I help pay my health insurance and know that once I quit I am fully responsible for it. So please explain to me why semi-skilled workers in an autoplant think they are entitled to free health care for LIFE and 100 percent job security? no one else gets it in this country, why do they think they are somehow being singled out? no wonder the auto industry is tanking. when the company goes bankrupt who will the UAW whine to? wait, they may have to actually compete like every other American in every other industry!!
Steven Pearlstein: You know, I've always considered myself a liberal and progressive too, and I've written just about those exact words. But you should know that when a union member hears that, they just see red, because they think they earned it fair and square. Their reference point is never the marketplace. It is always the last contract (and what the company executives make). And the UAW is one of the worst in this regard, because Detroit is such an insular business culture. Its that insularity that led to Detroit losing touch with its customers. And it leads to union contracts that make sense only if you are sitting in Detroit.
New York, N.Y.: Steve, I have a question about a similar concept in a different area. What are your thoughts about the fiscal crises municipalities will face in paying pensions and retiree health care? Whenever this issue arises it appears that the labor unions and city and state governments are stuck in a time warp and think that municipal workers are entitled to free lifetime health care and generous pensions.
Unlike GM, it doesn't seem that municipalities are willing to take on this issue. Thanks!!
Steven Pearlstein: You got that right. It is one of the biggest financial time bombs out there, ticking away. And you just never find a governor or legislature that is willing to take this on and start getting real about it. The reason is obvious: by the time it becomes a problem, it will be some other politician's problem. But that is not responsible leadership.
You see the impact of this most especially in France, where the public sector workers have actually won for themselves special rights to retire earlier with bigger pensions than other workers. And to his credit, President Sarkozy, new in office, has given them until the end of the year to work out something more fair and reasonable. It could be his crucial showdown with labor.
Princeton, N.J.: Just a line that if we had a national health-care program such as Medicare for all, there probably would not have been a strike, etc.
Steven Pearlstein: I knew you'd say that. But that is really taking the point too far. Its more than about health care costs. It's about wages, about inflexible work rules, about retiring at full pension after 30 years. And, yes, its about gold-plated health insurance coverage that unnecessarily drives up utilization and cost.
Alexandria, Va.: My mother was a salaried employee with GM, serving as a nurse at the Buffalo plant, so while she retired with GM she was not a member of UAW. We are afraid this deal may be the one that yanks her retirement out from under her but don't know for sure. How does this deal affect her retiree benefits?
Steven Pearlstein: No, if she's not in a union, she can't be required to have her health benefits administered by the union.
Clifton, Va.: GM should have played hard ball and let the strike go on and use the strike as a reason to file Chapter 11 and then they could have kicked their pension fund liabilities, dumped the retiree health care and renegotiate all their union contracts. The idiot in charge of UAW needs to realize this isn't 1957 anymore and it would be in union's best interest to work with GM to save jobs and increase market share.
Steven Pearlstein: Well, I think the union realizes this and was doing just what you asked, working with the company to save jobs and increase market share. That's their view of it, its why they have made the concessions they did. But here's the problem right there, in a nutshell: they view them as "concessions," because their point of reference is the last contract, rather than the marketplace. If you think agreeing to pay $10 a month for the first time for your health insurance premium is a "concession," then you are still not being realistic. But that is the way they view it.
Albany, N.Y.: Why can't workers, managers, and owners have shared success in an enterprise? If it fails or declines, most will have to find a new job. If it does well everyone is happy. I'm still a grad student, so I lack perspective, but is finding a new job the worst thing in the world?
Steven Pearlstein: This idea of shared success and failure is precisely what I was driving at so inarticulately this morning. The fact is that it is ridiculous in 2007, in a troubled industry, to have a pay scheme that is based almost exclusively on seniority and negotiated/fixed "bonuses." No more than two-thirds of the autoworkers pay should be fixed, and the rest should vary on the basis of individual, group and company performance measures. And the fact that they are nowhere near that -- nowhere!-- is what is so disappointing, because it means they don't really yet have that culture of sharing in success and failure. The mentality is still: I go to work, I do my job and I go home -- and the company's fate is management's problem. The union, and even the management, think they've gone beyond that. But the truth is that unless the culture of shared success is embedded into all the systems -- the compensation system, a system of shared decision making, the marketing and design of the products and so forth -- its really not there. It's just lip service.
Oakton, Va.: Do you know what sort of pension benefits and job security Toyota offers to its employees?
Steven Pearlstein: They offer little or no job security and pretty middle-of-the-road 401 (k) contributions.
Arlington, Va.: Since GM likely had more cars in inventory than they wanted, how much pressure did a short strike actually put on the company? Isn't this more likely posturing by the union leadership to help sell their membership on a tough deal?
Steven Pearlstein: To be cynical, it may have been a bit of a show the union leadership wanted to put on in anticipation of pushback by militants.
Dayton, Ohio: Hey - tell New Brunswick that manufacturing hasn't disappeared from the US. It's just not done by big vertically-integrated monsters like GM any more. The Honda plant in Ohio uses hundreds - yes hundreds - of suppliers in the area, for everything from nuts and screws to complete dashboard assemblies.
Manufacturing doesn't have to mean huge smokestacks and thousands of people in one building.
Silver Spring, Md.: Control of benefits by the UAW could be a great thing and fits within the trends of companies shedding lifetime responsibilities for workers. GM gets these obligations off their books and the union gains control of the assets. If they succeed, this should be good all around and could become a model for other companies and local governments where there are unions.
My dad worked for the same company for 37 years and about zero people that I know will be able to say the same thing when we retire. Portability of skills, retirement benefits and health insurance will be key for the current generation.
Steven Pearlstein: Also exactly right.
Arlington, Va.: Given the short duration of and relative lack of invective over the UAW/GM strike, was the strike really just symbolic theater for both sides?
Boston, Mass.: As I'm sitting in my cube, doing computery type things for my employer, I'm wondering if you know...
Does the UAW represent the geeks and engineers and non-managing finance-type number-crunching people who work for GM too?
Steven Pearlstein: Some but probably not many.
Princeton, N.J.: Ya know, I would have more sympathy with all this stuff about how bad unions are if youse guys would look at a much more important economic problem, namely that of increasing wealth and income inequality. When my friend Jim Simons makes $1,700,000,000 last year and the top 1 percent and even more, the top .1 percent take more and more of the wealth and income of the country, when very little of the productivity gains benefits those who made it possible, I can't get excited about a bunch of middle class guys in Mich. trying to better their lives How many UAW members are in the top 1 percent?
Steven Pearlstein: Well, that makes for very effective rhetoric. But the right response is that the $1.7 billion is ridiculous and so is paying semi-skilled factory workers $75 an hour in wages and benefits. And if you took all of Mr. Simons $1.7 billion and distributed it among all blue collar workers, it wouldn't go very far.
Seattle, Wash.: I'm not sure how much I agree with this, but floating the question for an answer anyway:
How much of the "paid too much" argument is based on the fact that UAW is an organized union and Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. autoworkers aren't? How would things change if those workers did organize?
Steven Pearlstein: What do you think would happen if we could wave a magic wand and -- voila-- every auto worker around the globe was organized by the UAW and paid the same exact wages and benefits. The union view is that this would be a tremendous thing, and bring workers everywhere into the middle class. But where do you think that money would come from? Unions like to argue that if you give all that money to all those people, the spending will create so much economic activity that it will virtually pay for itself. In terms of economic thinking, that's on a par with arguing that if you lower tax rates, you will wind up with more tax revenue. They are both voodoo economics.
The right answer to my question is that, if you waved that magic wand, you would push up the price of cars to consumers and, in the process, dampen demand for cars so that the companies would have to reduce their workforce. But of course if they were UAW companies, they couldn't reduce their workforce because of lifetime job security, so they would file for bankruptcy reoganization.
Medway, Mass.: All this talk about the wages a GM worker makes, I would like to know which plants are being closed and UAW workers are loosing their jobs. thank you.
"we obviously got way above market for my set of skills": True, true Steven! Thanks for telling it like it is!
Next thing you know the peons will start questioning why the auto executives keep getting massive pay increases in the context of substandard company performance and horrid business decisions.
Thanks for putting smack down on those who deserve it! The one's who had no clout to make any of the disastrous decisions which got us into this mess.
Steven Pearlstein: Look, you're talking to someone who writes all the time about excessive executive compensation. But just because theirs is excessive (less excessive, by the way, that executives in other industries) doesn't really bear on the question of whether unionized auto workers receive above-market wages and benefits. This is the typical UAW view of the world, which is you ignore everything outside of the Detroit auto industry. And you can keep doing it, and you'll ride that point of view right into bankruptcy court.
You can take all the "massive" pay increases received by Big Three executives, put them in a pot, and they don't amount to a fraction of a percent of what these companies lost last year. So please, if you are going to argue finances, get your numbers right.
Re: Albany: What about the flip-side of Albany's argument? Say GM turns itself around and starts raking in tens of billions of pure profit each quarter. Do you think that their management would share that with the UAW and other workers? Isn't that why unions formed in the first place?
Steven Pearlstein: Yes, and they should share those profits with the unions. Absolutely.
Illinois: I've only ever had jobs with benefits that range from zero to lousy, so I see your point that requiring small co-pays for insurance shouldn't be regarded as unreasonable by the UAW. Still, I have sympathy for the members of the UAW because they aren't getting what they were promised. How are people supposed to plan their finances if they can't be certain what their benefits really are?
I also have a lot of sympathy with workers looking at inflated management salaries and asking why their own are falling. Why should management that is making poor decisions be well paid for incompetence while lower-rung employees seem to take all the financial hits?
Steven Pearlstein: Again, the management of the auto companies has done a lousy job over the years, but of all the things they did wrong, paying themselves ridiculously inflated salaries is pretty low on the list.
Washington, D.C.: What about a grand bargain between government and the auto companies: the government takes on a high percent of the pension costs negotiated to date and medical costs due to retirees in exchange for the auto companies dropping their lobbying, obstinacy, and stupidity about using existing technology to increase mileage for cars made at US plants? That includes calling off Dingell.
Steven Pearlstein: Might be worth it!
Washington, D.C.: Do the auto companies have a profit-sharing plan for UAW members? If management and labor are really going to cooperate for the success of the company, each side should have a stake in that success. A profit-sharing scheme could provide that, and possibly temper the anger that many feel at the size of executive compensation packages.
Steven Pearlstein: I think there are some profit sharing provisions in this contract, but without seeing the details, I'm fairly sure they don't come anywhere near the significance in the overall compensation scheme that they need to be. Furthermore, the variable pay has to be tied to more than just the company's financial performance. It needs to be tied to individual and group quality and productivity goals.
Seattle, Wash., again: Not really what I was aiming at. Instead of making the foreign auto-workers part of UAW, I meant more along the lines of 'they form their own unions and use collective bargaining themselves'.
Steven Pearlstein: If they did, their wage and benefit costs would still be a fraction of what they are in the US, and you wouldn't really change that much.
Falls Church, Va.: I don't know if it's necessarily relevant, but one of the health plans available to certain federal workers is administered by the Mail Handlers Union, and it's very highly regarded. So there's good precedent for the UAW's approach.
Steven Pearlstein: Didn't know that. Thanks.
Steven Pearlstein: That's it for today, folks. "See" 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.
|
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.
| 137.536585 | 0.658537 | 0.902439 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092500194.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092500194.html
|
At U.N., Iranian Leader Is Defiant on Nuclear Efforts
|
2007092619
|
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Tuesday not to give in to pressure by "arrogant powers" trying to force him to abandon his nation's uranium-enrichment program and unilaterally declared that as far as he is concerned, "the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed."
In a fiery speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad denounced what he called the "master-servant relationship of the Medieval Age" imposed by the United States and other leading nations through the Security Council. He expressed confidence that God would not allow the Bush administration to launch a military attack against his country and said Iran has "spared no effort to build confidence" that it wants only civilian energy, not nuclear weapons.
His address punctuated a shadow debate with President Bush, who spoke to the assembly earlier in the day and called on world leaders to join him in a global "mission of liberation" against repressive governments such as that in Iran. Although the two men never crossed paths, their competing visions presented here framed the opening of the assembly's annual session and underscored the diplomatic confrontation between the two nations.
Bush did not mention the nuclear dispute with Iran in his speech, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other advisers used their time here to build support for a new Security Council resolution that would impose more meaningful punishment on Tehran for ignoring a U.N. mandate to suspend its enrichment program. For his public remarks, the president focused instead on tyranny, citing Iran as a prime example.
"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under a dictatorship," Bush said in his address. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of Human Rights.
The president used the occasion to announce new sanctions against the military government in Burma, where tens of thousands of demonstrators are in the streets protesting what he called "a 19-year reign of fear." Bush also pointed to Cuba, where he said "the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end"; Zimbabwe, for launching "an assault on its people"; and Sudan, for "repression" and "genocide."
Ahmadinejad sat 14 rows back as Bush spoke, idly touching his lower lip, whispering to a seatmate and once checking his watch. While the Cuban foreign minister stormed out in protest, Ahmadinejad fired back in his own speech hours later, lacing his remarks with religious references and anti-American rhetoric. Bush skipped the speech, attending another meeting.
While not mentioning the United States explicitly, the Iranian leader denounced nations that establish secret prisons, abduct people, tap private telephone calls and ignore the law. "Some powers do not value any nation or human beings," he said. In Iraq, "no day passes without people being killed, wounded or displaced," Ahmadinejad said, adding that the "occupiers," as he referred to U.S. forces, "do not even have the courage to declare their defeat and exit Iraq."
He then held a news conference that was typical Ahmadinejad -- outspoken, in command and impervious to diplomatic norms. He called any U.N. sanctions against Iran "illegal" and brushed off concern about U.S. military action if he does not comply. "They want to hurt us," he said, "but with the will of God, they won't be able to do it." Asked whether he is concerned that Israel might strike Iran, as it did Syria recently, he snapped, "Next question." He also ignored a plea shouted by the wife of an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hezbollah last year.
An Iranian reporter asked Ahmadinejad how he could say during an appearance at Columbia University on Monday that there are no homosexuals in Iran, noting that she knows a few herself.
"Seriously?" he replied. "I don't know of any." He asked for their addresses so the government could "be aware of what's going on."
The U.S.-Iran confrontation played out all day through surrogates and allies. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in his maiden address to the assembly, warned that a nuclear Iran would be an "unacceptable risk" to international stability and said "there will not be peace in the world" if the international community falters in its bid to stop Tehran's program. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega delivered a fist-pumping condemnation of the United States, saying it had no right to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program, because it was the only nation ever to use an atomic bomb.
|
Find Washington Post science, politics and opinion coverage of the growing threat from global warming.
| 52.882353 | 0.352941 | 0.470588 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/26/DI2007092600528.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/26/DI2007092600528.html
|
The Ahmadinejad Visit
|
2007092619
|
Washington Post staff writer Robin Wright spent three days tracking Ahmadinejad's American adventure -- at Columbia University, at the U.N., at a press conference and at meetings with American academics and religious leaders. She was online Wednesday, Sept. 26, at 1 p.m. ET to talk about what he did and did not achieve in New York.
Robin Wright: Hi guys. I've just come from covering the third day of President Ahmadinejad's trip to NY. I look forward to your questions.
Minneapolis, Minn.: There is a lot of speculation about the administration's planning on Iran, but precious little solid reporting on the state of debate within the administration. Is there anything new, or is it still just an unknown balance between the Cheneyites, on the one side, and Rice and Gates on the other?
Also, how would congressional Republicans respond if Bush were to launch an unauthorized attack on Iran? Is there any reason to think they would do anything other than bark a little and bite not at all?
Robin Wright: Yours is the question of the hour. I wish I knew more about the internal debate.
My sense is that the majority of the Bush administration's foreign policy team -- at the top levels -- really want to give diplomacy a chance. Many of them understand at least some of the problems that of a confrontation with Iran. But there's also a growing frustration -- for example, that the three rounds of talks between US and Iranian officials in Baghdad since this spring have not gone anywhere. They claim that the pace of arms to militants in Iraq has actually increased since then.
There is, however, clearly a drumbeat emerging from many of the same quarters that argued that the only means of getting Saddam Hussein to cooperate.
So there's a lot of tension in the air.
Poplar Bluff, Mo.: Robin, thanks for taking questions. I heard someone talking on one of the news networks about Israel having a three-month window if they are to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. My question: Is there a three-month window and what is the significance of that time span?
Robin Wright: I have not heard of any three-month window nor am I familiar with what you're referring to. I think there is an enormous amount of speculation out there -- and not a lot of verifiable facts.
Regarding the U.N. speech given by the Iranian President: I believe at one point the translator said only that Mr. Ahmadinejad was reciting verses from the Koran, has anyone translated what these verses were and what their significance might be?
Robin Wright: Ahmadinejad usually invokes references to the 12th imam, the mahdi, at the beginning of every speech and appearance. At the UN yesterday, he said, "Oh God, hasten the arrival of the Imam al Madhi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness."
The Iranian president believes that the Mahdi, who disappeared in the ninth century, will some day reemerge. Interestingly enough, he often talks -- as he did this morning with American and Canadian religious leaders -- about how Jesus will also reemerge and at the same time as the Mahdi.
Westwood, Mass.: Did you get an invite with the likes of Brian Williams to the private dinner with A'jad last night or are you persona non grata with the Iranian regime? Also, why do we pay so much attention to him when the real power in Iran is with the the Supreme Leader, Khamenei (military, intel, security, judiciary, press, etc.)? Shouldn't any articles about him provide that context for readers who may not understand the Iranian system?
Robin Wright: Yes, I went to the dinner last night -- about 3 dozen US academics and about 20 media -- with Ahmadinejad.
You're absolutely correct that the real power in Iran has always been in the hands of the Supreme Leader -- first Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolutionary leader, and today with Ayatollah Khamenei (yes, very confusingly similar names).
You make an interesting point about how the West gives so much attention to Ahmadinejad -- sometimes with more fuss than he gets at home. But his comments have also been quite contentious and differ significantly from the more conciliatory tone take by his predecessor President Khatami.
The invitation to the dinner did not reflect anything about being in or out of favor with the regime. People like Gary Sick -- former Carter administration official during the 1979-81 US embassy takeover -- was also there. He has often asked to go to Iran but always been refused.
Charleston, S.C.: Why only focus on Iran while we intentionally look the other way regarding Israel, which already has in excess of 200 nuclear bombs in its arsenal? If we truly believe in nuclear disarmament, we should campaign for the entire Middle East to be nuclear-free region. This approach will prove to the citizens of the region that U.S policy is even handed, NOT ONE-SIDED.
Robin Wright: Your question was reflected in the comments of the Iranian president at least twice during his visit here.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Thanks for taking questions. I am no fan of the Iranian president, but I don't believe Columbia was out of line in inviting him to speak. That said, I found Bollinger's condemnation of him at the forum way too rude. Regardless of what you think of Ahmadinejad and his ridiculous statements, he was an invited guest. At least Bollinger could have found a less abrasive way of expressing his views. I know Iran isn't an Arab country, but don't they ascribe to the same cultural views of hospitality? Bollinger made a media martyr of Ahmadinejad by treating him so harshly.
Robin Wright: It will be fascinating -- and telling - to watch the fallout of Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia at home. I've been talking to both Iranians and Iran experts in the US about it. There are some who contend that even Iranians who don't like their president will be offended by what they see as rudeness and lack of hospitality. There are others who contend that his treatment at Columbia will undermine his standing in Iran --and show how much damage he does to Iran. It's one of the questions I am trying to answer today for a final story on his 3 day visit to the US. We may not know the answer for some time, however.
Stamford, Conn.: I read in this morning's Post editorial "The Iran Impasse" that Iran is engaged in a "race for a bomb." Is that true?
washingtonpost.com: Editorial: The Iran Impasse
Robin Wright: Many of you have asked about Iran's nuclear program. I wish I knew more first hand. I share the concern of many that the US could make the same mistake we make in Iraq. I try to use the terms "alleged" or "suspected" nuclear program and I usually also try to point out that Iran is not in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty in enriching uranium for a peaceful nuclear program. The problem of course is that Iran had a secret enrichment program for 18 years and that has undermined any trust among the international community.
I often ask senior officials if they have seen any tangible, concrete, reliable intelligence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program since 2002 when Iran admitted it had been lying. I have yet to get a fully satisfactory answer. At the same time, there are a lot of reasons - given Iran's neighborhood surrounded by nuclear powers, its history of being attacked or occupied by neighbors from the Soviet Union to Iraq - that Iran might want the technological capability to develop a bomb.
But I'm the first to admit, I don't know the answer and wish I had more concrete information.
Columbus, Ohio: During his tour, and watching him at NPC, the U.N., Columbia and Charlie Rose show, I increasingly felt that the media is blindly following the U.S. government positions.
When journalists were challenged by President Ahmadinejad, on the accuracy of their claims about the nuclear issue, Holocaust-denial, Journalist Imprisonment in Iran, Women's Rights issues in Iran and alike, they were speechless.
It left me the impression, the journalists' only source has been the U.S. government reports. They haven't been doing their homework. They haven't event been thinking for themselves.
Exactly when did investigative and independent journalism die? May I lay a wreath?
Robin Wright: There is enormous variety in the media when it comes to first hand knowledge of the Middle East, notably a place like Iran that is off limits to many journalists. I've been going there since 1973, and along the way covered the revolution, hostage drama, Iran-Iraq war from the warfront, the reform movement and the rise of Ahmadinejad. You might be surprised at how many US journalists have gone to Iran over the past 28 years, since the shah's ouster, and have deep interest in this pivotal geostrategic country. A lot of us try very had to understand the diverse dynamics. At the same time, we also watch as thoughtful scholars we know - such as Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh - are arrested and held in prison for months without access to lawyers or due process.
Arlington, Va.: Ms. Wright, when you don't know the answer to a question, just say I don't know and we will understand.
When you were asked what verse of the Qur'an Ahmadinejad recited, you said he invoked a call for the Messiah. That is not a verse from the Qur'an, that is a prayer. Then you said "Interestingly enough, he often talks -- as he did this morning with American and Canadian religious leaders -- about how Jesus will also reemerge and at the same time as the Mahdi."
That is a big DUH! In the religion of Islam, Imam Mahdi will appear with the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon them both) praying with him. That is not "interestingly enough", that is actually the religion of Islam, Jesus is one of our Prophets.
Robin Wright: Yes, but a lot of Americans don't know that. I'm delighted you do. I'm often surprised by how many Americans do not understand the Muslims worship the same monotheistic God and that "allah" is only the Arabic word for the same god. I often get Christmas cards from Muslim friends quoting verses about the birth of Jesus -- from the Koran.
Tragically, too many Americans don't understand the the similarities among the three Abrahamic faiths.
Baltimore, Md.: While the Iranian president (and I won't try to spell the name) is in America talking about giving succor to Holocaust deniers, state TV in his country has been airing an Iranian-produced dramatic mini-series about the plight of European Jews in WWII and how some of them found asylum in Iran. (The series was profiled in the N.Y. Times.) I found that a pretty interesting message for the Iranian media to be sending the people at this time.
Have you heard of this series? Any comment?
Robin Wright: Yes, I've heard of the program. It's been profiled in the Wall Street Journal and by the Associated Press (which the Post ran on its world news pages).
It's quite striking, given the statements by the regime on Israel. But Iran is home to the second largest Jewish community in the Middle East, after Israel. I've been to synagogues, Jewish schools, a kosher butcher, the Jewish hospital (as well as Christian schools, weddings, services etc).
Iran's Jewish community is only a fraction of what it once was but it is still vibrant and many want to stay; they think of themselves as Persians. Some government officials will make the point that their objection is not to Judaism or Jews but to Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
Winnipeg, Canada: It seems to me that the major effect the Iranian president created during his visit was probably unintentional: he demonstrated remarkable similarities to President Bush: a folksy charm, a reluctance to face unpleasant truths, a fundamentalist approach to religion and a willingness to make scurrilous statements that do not stand up to reality: no homosexuals in Iran vs we're kicking a_ _ in Iraq.
Could it be that the reason for much of the outcry about the Columbia speech from conservative commentators came out of a fear that people would see a faint mirror image of President Bush in the Iranian president?
Robin Wright: I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole. But I will say that I am constantly struck on every trip to Iran about the similarities between Americans and Iranians -- their curiosity, hospitality, generosity, often their naivete. And it makes me all the sadder that the tensions have gone on between governments for so long -- longer than the political tensions lasted between the US and Vietnam after a war in which 57,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese died.
Alexandria, Va.: In your article "U.S. v. Iran: Cold War, Too" in late July you made the following statement following an analysis of Iran's increased influence in the Middle East:
"And that's all before the question of Iran's nuclear intentions -- whether it is using a legal and peaceful nuclear-energy program as cover to develop the world's deadliest weapon -- is factored in."
Are Iran's intentions no longer in question? This morning Washington Post editorial states that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Has there been some development I'm unaware of?
Robin Wright: You're right. There are still lots of unanswered questions about Iran's nuclear intentions, which I acknowledged in the July piece. I wish we all knew more.
Feel free to query the editorial page. As you know, there is a firewall between the editorial and news pages of many papers and I have no idea what discussions or reporting goes into the pieces the editorial writers produce.
Washington, D.C.: Bollinger got it wrong. The man that he introduced on Monday is not a "dictator." His position is similar to the position of presidents of Iraq and Israel. The real power in Iran belongs to others, mostly the clerics.
Robin Wright: Iran's president is one of the autocrats, but only one of several in Iran.
But Iran's election is no where near as open or democratic as in either Iraq or Israel. A panel of Islamic scholars approved by the Supreme Leader vets all candidates for all elected office and huge numbers -- these days, mainly reformers -- are always disqualified. There is no independent group that monitors or rates democracy anywhere in the world that gives Iran high marks on democracy.
Northern Virginia: Mr. Ahmadinejad's ignorance might have been in full display in the US, but that hasn't stopped him from making new friends. This week he travels to Bolivia to establish diplomatic relations with that country, which has no cultural, commercial, nor historical ties, with Iran. The only common denominator between both leaders is their rabid hatred towards the U.S.
Robin Wright: On a previous trip to the UN, Ahmadinejad also went to Venezuela and won endorsement from more than 100 developing countries for some of his positions. Iran has allies and, more tellingly, a lot of oil-trading partners. China's growing trade with Iran is increasingly complicating the US and Europe plan to get a tough 3rd resolution imposing new sanctions against Iran for its failure to comply with a UN mandate to suspend uranium enrichment.
Garden Grove, Calif.: Now that we know the Iranian president has committed his country to the uncontrolled and illegal nuclear project, what will the U.S. and the rest of the Western nations do? Will there be a stiffer sanction imposed on Iran? What if Iran just wants to use this issue as a leverage to get it out of the international embargo and sanctions?
Robin Wright: The Bush administration is trying to win approval from the other 4 veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council for a new resolution. Sec of State Condoleezza Rice meets Friday with her counterparts here in NY to discuss it. The Russians don't want any action before President Putin makes his first visit to Iran on Oct. 16. But neither Russia or China supports the measures the US wants, so what we may see play out is a third weak resolution later this year -- maybe November -- and then a new separate track of sanctions against Iran by the US and Europe that is much tougher.
K Street: Thanks for taking my question. In the editorial today, one can read that "debates" such as the one at Columbia University can only make Ahmadinejad more popular in the Middle East. Is that so? Would you say Ahmadinejad is indeed popular and well-liked, or at least respected/admired in his country and across the region?
Robin Wright: Ahmadinejad is one of the most controversial figures in the region. Remember, he won the presidency in 2005 in large part as a rejection by voters of the other main candidate, former President Rafsanjani, who was seen as corrupt and representative of a bygone era. Ahmadinejad was little known politically at the time as he had only been major of Tehran for 2 years, when he was seen by many in the electorate as a clean politician concerned with the little guy. It's interesting to see what trouble he has had actually improving the lot of Iran's lower classes. Because of Iran's own serious energy problems - it has to import 40% of its own oil since it doesn't have the refineries necessary for its own purposes -- the government had to impose rationing. I have one friend who can only buy enough gas to drive her child to and from school and get groceries on her way home.
Juneau, Alaska: Hi Robin -- On the gays in Iran issue...the translation I heard was that there are not gays in Iran like in the USA. I didn't hear that there are no gays in Iran only that it wasn't like the USA. Not to be an apologist, but in retrospect, what was really said? Thanks
Robin Wright: He made the comment twice. Yesterday at a press conference here at the UN he was asked by an Iranian reporter again and she even added that she knew several Iranian gays herself. Ahmadinejad replied, "Seriously?" and then said he knew of none. He later asked for their addresses -- in front of hundreds of reporters -- so the government could be "aware of what's going on."
San Diego, Calif.: People in Iran in general still have very positive attitudes towards American people. In fact, it's basically not significantly different than European peoples' attitudes towards us. So, from people to people perspective, we can still have great relationship with Iran today. So, why is it that government to government (Iran vs. U.S.), it looks blick?
Robin Wright: Yes, you're correct. The bonds between Americans and Iranians have survived the revolution and extraordinary crises. Iranians distinguish between Americans and the American govt, whoever is in power. But Iranians know far more about us and still travel back and forth far more than Americans do, a situation that has been even more difficult since 9/11.
West Bend, N.C.: It is custom for speakers to receive an Honorarium for speaking at university events.
Have any reporters asked Columbia University if they paid the President of Iran and if so how much?
Robin Wright: I don't know. Perhaps Khatami spoke there after he left office. Columbia has a huge leadership lecture series. Little noticed on the same day that Ahmadinejad spoke, so did the presidents of Chile and Turkmenistan and many more now at the UN were expected to speak on campus too.
Dranesville, Va.: To what extent do you think Ahmadenijad's infamous quotes have been translated incorrectly or out of context? For example, his "wipe Israel off the map" might have simply meant that Israel as a state should not exist geopolitically (as opposed to nuking it off the map...doing so would presumably kill a lot of Palestinians, too). Also, I wonder why his point that Palestinians should not have to give up their land for atrocities committed by Germans/Europeans is so ignored. It seems a fairly reasonable argument to suggest that Germany give up some of its land for Jews, instead of Palestinians.
Robin Wright: A lot of you have asked about Ahmadinejad's positions on the Holocaust and Israel's right to exist -- the issues that make him most controversial. There are lots of academic debates about the translations and context of his remarks. Juan Cole has particularly strong views that are posted on his Web site. AIPAC has its views too. I'm only a reporter.
ON Israel, he has said in NY this week that he wants all "Palestinians" to have a referendum on their future to decide what becomes of what he calls the "Zionist entity." He refuses to say the word "Israel." But "Palestinians" in his view includes Jews, Muslims and Christians. My sense is that he is counting on demographics to determine the "Palestinians" future. There is clearly no real room for political compromise in his view on Israel. But that also doesn't mean that Iran intends to bomb Israel into obliterations -- if largely for the reason that Iran knows what the world would do in response.
Thanks for all your questions. I have to go write for the paper now!
Robin Wright: Thanks for all your excellent questions. I enjoyed the back-and-forth. I have to go write for the paper now. But this subject will remain a hot one so hopefully we can address it again 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.
|
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.
| 104.707317 | 0.609756 | 0.756098 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502162.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502162.html
|
Antiwar Protesters Decry Handling of Iran
|
2007092619
|
A group of antiwar protesters demonstrated outside the White House yesterday to condemn what they termed the government's "demonization" of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said they think the Bush administration is preparing the public for an attack on Iran.
The 25 protesters, most of them from the Troops Out Now Coalition, walked in a circle on the sidewalk north of the White House, chanting "Get out of Iraq! Stay out of Iran!" and holding signs that read: "Don't Terrorize Iran" and "Don't Appease Israel."
They dismissed the criticisms this week of the Iranian president, saying the United States had criticized Saddam Hussein before invading Iraq.
"There's a hysteria in the media emanating from New York . . . against the president of Iran," coalition spokesman Larry Holmes said. "We're here in response to what's been going on in New York: the Columbia debate, the front pages of the tabloids, the electronic media, demonizing the president. And we know what it's about.
"We know that the government is in very advanced stages of planning for a war in Iran. They've got a naval armada" in the Persian Gulf, he said. "The Pentagon's got its plans. And now we see the psychological preparation."
The Iranian president has been criticized this week for questioning the Holocaust and saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Referring to Ahmadinejad's controversial statements, Holmes said: "I don't think it's relevant. I think that's an interesting philosophical discussion about theology, about social views, that you have over coffee."
Yesterday's protest is part of week-long antiwar rally that will culminate Saturday in a march scheduled to begin at noon from a coalition camp on the west side of the U.S. Capitol.
Spokesmen said the events are aimed mainly at stopping the war in Iraq and what they called injustice at home. The march route was being worked out, organizers said. The National Park Service said the group's permit suggests that between 2,000 and 5,000 marchers are expected.
"The focus here is stop the war at home and abroad," coalition spokesman Dustin Langley said Monday. "We think there's a real connection between the fact that they're spending $750 million a day on the war and people here die because they don't have access to health care."
The march comes after a large antiwar protest Sept. 15 and precedes an antiwar, anti-global warming rally scheduled for next month. The coalition says there have been numerous marches because the war has not ended and because antiwar groups might have different targets.
"Repeated protests are even more important than whether we get half a million people out here," Langley said. "It may just be important to be here and just dog them because they're lying to us."
|
Get Washington DC,Maryland,Virginia news. Includes news headlines from The Washington Post. Get info/values for Washington DC,Maryland,Virginia homes. Features schools,crime,government,traffic,lottery,religion,obituaries.
| 12.152174 | 0.434783 | 0.478261 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502675.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502675.html
|
Private Security Puts Diplomats, Military at Odds
|
2007092619
|
In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department's authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. "The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event," the official said.
"This is a nightmare," said a senior U.S. military official. "We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term." The official was referring to the prison scandal that emerged in 2004 in which U.S. soldiers tortured and abused Iraqis.
In last week's incident, Blackwater guards shot into a crush of cars, killing at least 11 Iraqis and wounding 12. Blackwater officials insist their guards were ambushed, but witnesses have described the shooting as unprovoked. Iraq's Interior Ministry has concluded that Blackwater was at fault.
In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and government officials, many expressed anger and concern over the shootings in Nisoor Square, in Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Some worried it could undermine the military's efforts to stabilize Iraq this year with an offensive involving thousands of reinforcements.
"This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their hands around yet," said another U.S. military official. "It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude, which means they rarely listen to anyone -- even the folks that patrol the ground on a daily basis."
Most officials spoke on condition of anonymity because there are at least three ongoing investigations of Blackwater's role in the shootings. There are also sensitive discussions between various U.S. agencies and the Iraqi government over the future of Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq.
A State Department official asked why the military is shifting the question to State "since the DOD has more Blackwater contractors than we do, including people doing PSD [personal security detail] for them. . . . They've [Blackwater] basically got contracts with DOD that are larger than the contracts with State."
According to federal spending data compiled by the independent Web site FedSpending.org, however, the State Department's Blackwater contracts vastly exceed those of the Pentagon. Since 2004, State has paid Blackwater $833,673,316, compared with Defense Department contracts of $101,219,261.
A Blackwater spokeswoman did not return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment.
The State Department official, directly addressing the question of Blackwater, said: "The bottom line of this is that we recognize that there's an issue here. We don't think we need to be told by anyone else that the incident on September 16 raised a whole series of other issues with respect to how these kinds of contract services operate, and that's why we're both working with this joint commission with the Iraqis as well as [conducting an] internal investigation here to ensure we can address some of the underlying issues."
Scores of private security firms play a vital role in the U.S. military mission, from force protection to securing the perimeters of American bases and guarding generals. They free up more U.S. soldiers for combat duty and to secure neighborhoods.
|
BAGHDAD, Sept. 25 -- A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State Department is unfolding over the involvement of Blackwater USA in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square Sept. 16, bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military and private secu...
| 13.173077 | 0.711538 | 1.096154 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092600231.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092600231.html
|
Coalition Reports Heavy Toll For Taliban
|
2007092619
|
KABUL, Sept. 26 -- U.S.-led forces used artillery and airstrikes to kill more than 165 insurgents and repel large assaults on coalition troops in two Taliban strongholds, officials said Wednesday.
The battles in Helmand and Uruzgan provinces came shortly before President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai met in New York to discuss Afghanistan's escalating violence and rising opium poppy production. Both said progress was being made.
Nearly six years after a U.S.-led offensive toppled the Taliban government for sheltering Osama bin Laden, violence related to the insurgency has escalated. More than 4,500 people, mostly combatants, have died this year, according to an Associated Press tally of figures from Afghan and Western officials.
The two latest battles were part of a spike in violence during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The military is making a major thrust against insurgents before colder weather forces a lull in fighting in the mountainous nation.
One of the battles began with an assault by several dozen insurgents on a joint coalition-Afghan patrol near the Taliban-controlled town of Musa Qala in Helmand early Tuesday, which the U.S.-led coalition said set off a day-long fight that drew in more Taliban insurgents.
The coalition said its troops responded with artillery fire and attacks by fighter-bombers that killed more than 100 guerrillas. One coalition soldier was reported killed and four were wounded. The coalition reported no civilian casualties.
The coalition said the second battle was in neighboring Uruzgan province, where more than 80 Taliban fighters attacked a joint Afghan-coalition patrol Tuesday night.
Artillery fire and airstrikes on the Taliban positions killed more than 65 insurgents, the coalition said. Three civilians were wounded in the crossfire, it said. No Afghan or coalition soldiers were hurt. The battle took place near Deh Rawood, where more than three dozen insurgents were killed six days earlier as they prepared an ambush, the coalition said.
Karzai and Bush talked on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. Despite the rise in opium poppy production and the surge in Taliban activities, Bush said Afghanistan is becoming a safer, more stable country because of Karzai's efforts.
"Mr. President, you have strong friends here," Bush told the Afghan leader. "I expect progress and you expect progress and I appreciate the report you have given me today."
|
KABUL, Sept. 26 -- U.S.-led forces used artillery and airstrikes to kill more than 165 insurgents and repel large assaults on coalition troops in two Taliban strongholds, officials said Wednesday.
| 12.8 | 1 | 35 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/25/DI2007092500463.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/25/DI2007092500463.html
|
The Reliable Source - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092619
|
Reliable Source columnists Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts were online Wednesday, Sept. 26, at Noon ET to discuss your favorite gossip, what you think about their recent columns or who you want to see them writing about in future ones.
Amy Argetsinger: Good morning all. Looking forward to your questions -- but first, let me give you one.
Last night, I was at a reception, and a guy walks up to me and says, "Are you from Pennsylvania?... I was just wondering, because you carry yourself with so much confidence."
I know -- huh??? And here's the best thing: He wasn't even trying to pick me up! His wife was standing a few feet away. He was apparently -- like me -- kind of bored and didn't really know anyone there and was looking to make conversation. And you know what, it worked! We had about three minutes of happy chit chat.
I found this deeply inspiring and realized that I, too, need a charming non sequitur with which to start conversation. But what line should I use? Any suggestions?
New York: So did you guys see Brad Pitt last week in the newsroom?
Amy Argetsinger: Yes, I saw him. But just out of the corner of my eye. I was trying to be cool and not stare like, ahem, everyone else here.
As Roxanne said, to see these cynical journalists, male and female, in a massive swoonathon was like the most perfect vindication of our jobs.
Washington, D.C.: So that's it? The bad press you provided couldn't convince the hotel bosses at the Ritz to keep the elevators open for the gym rats. I'm so disappointed in the Source....
Amy Argetsinger: We are completely neutral on this topic -- have no opinion one way or the other as to whether the Ritz Carlton should allow the members of Sports Club/LA to use their elevators. We just think the whole darn thing is hilarious. I love how the Sports Club members are talking about boycotting the Ritz bar. No justice, no pinot gris! (And yes, I'm recycling that line from today's column, just in case you haven't read it yet.
Charmin non-sequitor: How about, "Do you grow tomatoes? You look like you would have a gift for helping things grow."
Amy Argetsinger: Okay, that is pretty good, but it's more sleazy than charming (or charmin, if you will). I want something I can use to initiate conversation in a non-leering fashion with any stranger, not necessarily someone I'm hitting on.
Gym rats: I'm having a hard time feeling the pain of these folks. Most of us get to the gym from the sidewalk. Besides, this give us a new place to hang out and celebrity-watch.
Also, requiring a room key to use hotel elevators is basic security in a big city.
Roxanne Roberts: Point taken BUT---it's not like the hotel didn't sign on to the club from the very beginning or didn't know that the members would be using the lobby and elevators. Kinda bait-and-switch, if you ask me.
George Clooney: Life is not fair. I live around the corner from where GC was shooting a Coen Brothers movie on Thursday in New York. I also work down the street from where he had his motorcycle accident. I MISSED THEM BOTH!
Amy Argetsinger: So was this in Brooklyn? Because I read on some Brooklyn-based blog (I know, can you believe I'm citing the reporting of some blog?) that they painted some Brooklyn rowhouses and decked them out in Georgian trimming to make them look like Georgetown. No fair!
Herndon, Va.: Yesterday morning, I saw Al Sharpton and a young male associate in the Starbucks near the Mandarin Oriental Hotel on Maryland Avenue, SW. Do you know why he was in that location? Thanks.
Amy Argetsinger: Nope, don't know -- though if you had e-mailed us at reliablesource@washpost.com yesterday, we could have done the due dilligence reporting to find out why he was here.
He's here a lot, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's here for some of the events connected to the annual Congressional Black Caucus festivities getting underway now.
Washington, D.C.: Why does marriage make some entertainers so tame that their work suffers? (I'm talking about J.Lo specifically. Her new single is a yawner to this otherwise avid female fan.)
Roxanne Roberts: Here's a thought: Maybe we don't like our stars to have mature, non-dramatic lives. Maybe we LIKE the chaos. That's not to excuse a boring single---but I'm wondering if you would have liked it more if she was making headlines every day.
Ellicott City, Md.: Chevy Chase is a "B lister"? What did he ever do to you?
Amy Argetsinger: Are you saying he's an A-lister?
Lost opportunity: Why can't Chevy Chase ever be sighted in Chevy Chase? There's no justice in the world.
Amy Argetsinger: I was just thinking the same thing.
I noticed...: you're bipedal and homeostatic. So nice to see that in a town mostly populated by snakes.
Amy Argetsinger: Not quite the light touch I was looking for, but thanks...
Staring at Brad Pitt: I would have thought that staring at Brad Pitt was part of your jobs as Reliable Source columnists and Gossip Chat-masters.
Amy Argetsinger: You gotta be cool around celebrities if you want to hang with them, you know? Plus there were all kinds of other complicated journalistic dynamics going on.
MCI Center: Did I read correctly in your paper -- Genesis tickets were $130-$230? The cheap seats were $130? For Genesis? Is that a joke?
Amy Argetsinger: No way, really? That boggles the mind. You would have to pay me that much to go see Genesis.
Pitt stop: I'm sure you TRIED to act cool, Amy, but I heard you stood on your desk and shouted, "Stop adopting those babies with Angelina! You can have one with me the old fashioned way!"
Okay, I made that up. Wishful thinking.
Amy Argetsinger: Seriously, he faced no serious stalking risk from me. Handsome man and all, but just not my type.
Washington Post Newsroom: I know you often wonder if people are taller or shorter than expected, but with Brad Pitt, was he better looking in person, or less so? He have that movie star aura, or was it disappointing at all?
Roxanne Roberts: Here's the thing: He looked EXACTLY like I expected: Same height, weight, even that stupid racing cap. The aura: Sure, but that could have been the 100 or so eyes staring at every move he made. Is a movie star still a star if no one is watching? Hhmmmm.......
Amy Argetsinger: These are good questions, and they're the ones I always have about celebrities. The thing is, it's almost impossible to objectively assess Brad Pitt since his face is so famous. I kept wondering if he weren't famous/weren't Brad Pitt, would we all think, "wow, what a handsome guy"? And I honestly can't tell you.
Genesis : a bunch of D-listers.
Amy Argetsinger: Did Phil Collins since any of his Disney soundtrack songs?
Anonymous: No question here, but Roxanne, I love listening to you on "Wait Wait." When I hear you're on the panel I clap like one of those battery operated monkeys. Though I think they hold cymbals. Anyway, I like listening to you.
Roxanne Roberts: Oh, thanks---love that! Gotta get that cute little hat and cymbals and make it a weekly ritual.
Jersey City, N.J.: Rudy and Judy are soooo cute -- calling each other on the campaign trail during speeches. So romantic! Schmoopy, schmoopy, schmoopy.
Roxanne Roberts: Yeah, but does it make you want to vote for him more---or less?
Opening line:"I find always meet the most intiguing people at these events -- how about you?"
Then you have a topic of conversation for at least a little while. (Also, they'll be flattered and think you meant them)
Amy Argetsinger: Oh, I really like that. Thanks!
Not HRC: Son and GF went to Old Ebbitt with GF's mom last week, and were stared at/stalked for upwards of two hours by a woman who finally came over and asked mom if she were Hillary Clinton. Hysterical laughter ensued. So if you get a "sighting" of Hil -- be forewarned. (The mom is younger and better looking, BTW.)
Amy Argetsinger: No kidding -- doppelgangers are everywhere, as the story of Lionel Holmes told us today. I was a little concerned about the Kal Penn sighting at Stetson's, thinking very well that it could merely be Washington Post National staff editor and prize-winning author Rajiv Chandrasekaran. It's not that they look a little bit a like (link to photo will folow), they sound an awful lot a like.
Though actually, I think Kal Penn would fare a whole lot better in the deal if he tried to pass himself off as Rajiv instead of vice versa.
Charming non sequitur: So, what do you think is the best $18 bacon cheeseburger in town?
If they look aghast at the idea, you know they are not from here and you can agree on how being inside the Beltway makes you lose touch with the heartland, etc.
Amy Argetsinger: That's not bad. By the way, if you haven't read it yet, Jane Black's search for the best high-end hamburger in town is the best story in the paper today. Link to follow. Also, I'm hungry now.
washingtonpost.com: Seeking Bliss on a Bun
Alexandria, Va.: So we can assume you guys have people startioned outside the Ritz- Carlton, just hoping for that sweaty picture of Paul Wolfowitz?
Amy Argetsinger: So you're saying you really want to see that photo?
George Clooney's motorcycle accident: How is he doing? Probably not well, because for some reason he turned down my offer to nurse him back to health.
Roxanne Roberts: Alas, alas, the accident confirmed our worst fears: George is being nursed by his girlfriend du jour---waitress Sarah Larson, who suffered a broken toe and a black eye in the crash. This week, he brought her to the New York premiere of his latest movie "Michael Clayton," and I figure she lasts an extra month or two---at least until she's off crutches.
"Rudy and Judy are soooo cute ": Really? I think it's a big turn off. Okay, we get that you want us to know you have a great relationship. If it's really that great you don't need to parade it in front of everyone.
Just like I don't want to see JLo and hubby all over each other on stage. I find it a bit creepy when it's over the top.
Roxanne Roberts: Makes me wonder how much is real. Also makes me long for the olden days when Sonny and Cher used to bicker on their show.
Washington, D.C.: Okay fine, make fun of Phil Collins. He deserves it. But what's on your iPod these days?
Amy Argetsinger: I don't have an iPod. But I'm listening to Buck Owens and R. Kelly and the Killers and my old Bob Dylan albums these days.
Charming non sequitur::"So, do you read Tom Sietsema?"
Re: J.Lo: I'm not saying that the chaos is a criterion for me liking her work, but it seems that she took more chances with her material and therefore her songs were more interesting. For example, her songs from the album when she was dating Ben were dance-worthy, and felt more authentic. This newest single seems like yet another mish-mash attempt from the producers more than any personal effort from Lady J.
That said, I'll always be one of her biggest fans, if for nothing else than the fact that her clothing line actually makes me look cool and sexy, even though I'm a plus-size "mami-chula."
Roxanne Roberts: Makes sense----her only chance at the tabloids now is a baby or an affair.
Non-sequiter: You're not from the World Bank, are you, I've heard the infighting is terrible over there.
Amy Argetsinger: Hmmmm, might want to work on that more.
Indianapolis, Ind.: What do you make of all of the swooning over Ahmadinejad on Weingarten's chat yesterday? Frankly I can't help but think of Andrea Bocelli when I look at him. Talk about Brad Pitt not being your type...
Amy Argetsinger: Seriously, chatters were swooning over Mahmoud? I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the link...
Being mistaken for famous people: Who are you mistaken for, Amy and Roxanne?
Amy Argetsinger: I'm mistaken for someone you went to college with. And sometimes I'm mistaken for someone from Pennsylvania. Back in the day, I used to be mistaken for other dark-haired, same-aged female Metro reporters whose first names ended in an "ee" sound and whose last names ended in an "er" sound. So colleagues would walk up and compliment me on Katie Shaver or Jackie Spinner's A1 story that day.
Roxanne Roberts: I never get mistaken for anyone---which is either a good thing or kind of pathetic. Can't decide.
SW D.C.: What, 30 minutes in and no chatter about Britney? Is she old news already?
Amy Argetsinger: I was just thinking the same thing.
The Rudy-Judy show: Roxanne asks: "Yeah, but does it make you want to vote for him more -- or less?"
Gee, I don't know...is gagging a negative thing?
Re: Staring at Brad Pitt : When I worked for a certain news channel, you could get into serious trouble for bugging the celebs who came in. A couple of people got fired for requesting autographs and swooning. Not that you couldn't say hello or smile, but you really do have to play it cool.
Roxanne Roberts: Who caused the biggest stir?
Clooney dates waitresses?: I heard she was on reality TV, which if true, makes me love Clooney a little less. If she's really just a waitress -- well I'm a bartender, date me I can make free drinks!
Roxanne Roberts: He does tend to date non-actresses, which is interesting. Sarah was reportedly a waitress at the Palms in Las Vegas and possiblity a semi-nude model.
15th and L St, NW: I work right down the street from The Post, and therefore from Brad Pitt last week. I was also at work a couple of months ago when Ryan Gosling was down the street, in town to testify to Congress. I wish I knew they'd be in the area BEFORE they leave! Do you purposefully wait until afterwards to let your readers know about the celebrity sightings to give the celebs privacy, or do you really not know when they're in town?
Amy Argetsinger: No, it's more that there just isn't much to say about someone until they get here and do something. You don't really want to give an overdose of publicity to someone by writing about them before and after they're here. And you also have to be careful since you never know if some of these advertised celebs are actually going to show up.
Anne Coulter Fatwa: I saw where Anne Coulter said that the fatwa on Salman Rushdie actually helped his career, and she wishes someone would declare one on her. How do we oblige Ms. Coulter?
Amy Argetsinger: By not writing about her anymore?
"Just not my type": Any woman who's seen "Thelma and Louise" has got to have a soft spot for Brad Pitt. He had that "gentleman bandit" thing down cold.
Roxanne Roberts: But that was years ago. I like the grown-up version better---same persona, more sophisticated.
19th and M: The redone Palm -- better than ever or the charm is gone?
Amy Argetsinger: I actually haven't gotten there since the reopening, am hearing mixed reviews. What do you think?
Amy Argetsinger: Confidential to the Four Seasons tipster -- that's a good sighting, send us the details at reliablesource@washpost.com and we'll put it in tomorrow's paper.
Washington, D.C.: Is former CBS anchor Dan Rather in town? I saw a dead ringer for him at G-town Barnes & Noble this morning.
Amy Argetsinger: He is in town, doing one of those Q&A luncheons at Nathan's. More details in tomorrow's column.
Clooney's gal: She was a Fear Factor winner
Washington, D.C.: So how about Kiefer? You'd think the guy could afford a taxi when he's had a few. Is he looking at time in the joint?
Amy Argetsinger: Yes, he's definitely looking at time in the joint, if found guilty, what with the fact he was on probation. I don't know what I'm going to do about Kiefer -- am at wit's end.
RE: Sighting Celebs at News Channel:"Who caused the biggest stir?"
Amy Argetsinger: Ah, but who among you can recognize Sietsema?
If he weren't famous/weren't Brad Pitt, would we all think, "wow, what a handsome guy"? : Yes! His mischeivous smile and sparkly eyes... cute. But sometimes his acting bores me.
Roxanne Roberts: Just another pretty face? And I hear his new Jesse James movie is not going to win him an Oscar.
Line:: Are those space pants you're wearing?
Amy Argetsinger: Wait, I know this one.... Doesn't that follow with "becuase your butt is out of this world?"
Richmond, Va.: Another thing on the Weingarten chat yesterday was whether or not you two would cover the premier of his movie. His script, written with Dave Barry, has been optioned. He said no, writers are not gossip-worthy. So, would you?
Amy Argetsinger: Weingarten's kind of in a class of his own, though, you know?
Clooney's dating a Fear Factor winner: Better than a Fear Factor loser.
Hey, here's an idea: You probably can't get the Post to agree to do a Celebrity Death Pool as a standing feature (durned editors). But what about a Politician Resignation Pool, or Scandal Pool or Rehab Pool?
Roxanne Roberts: I just said to Amy that we should start a pool on who lives longer: Britney or Lindsay? I like "rehab pool" a lot.
Re: Rudy and Judy: Just the rhyming names gags me. I don't think his kids will vote for him; don't know why anyone would.
Roxanne Roberts: There is that.
JLo: So, is she or isn't she?
Amy Argetsinger: Pregnant, you mean? Who knows. The tabs have been reporting that she's pregnant for literally two years now, which I don't think is possible.
Charlottesville, Va.: Amy, I couldn't mistake you for someone I went to college with because, well, I went to college with you! When are you coming back down here? There's a small football game this weekend, and Homecomings (yes, with an "s") in two weeks. Big athlete alumni doings that weekend too. C'mon down, I'll save a room for you!
Amy Argetsinger: Okay, I'm going to show my total ignorance here... is THIS weekend the Virginia Tech game?
Space pants: I dunno...my first thought after hearing "space pants" was "astronaut in diapers," which is probably not a good association.
Amy Argetsinger: It's a definitely conversation-starter, but maybe not a conversation you want to have.
Heard she was on reality TV: She and her previous BF were on "Amazing Race" or one of those Dare-type reality shows. The one where you had to eat bugs and stuff
Roxanne Roberts: Oh, one of those on-the-edge-of-fame-might-meet-someone girls.
Amy Argetsinger: Regarding celebrity death pools.... maybe you'd be interested in the new blog by our obituary writers? (link to follow)
Verizon Center: Wait -- no love for Phil Collins? Invisable Touch? Take Me Home? Against All Odds? And who can forget Su-Su-Sussudio?
Forget Cole Porter -- this is like the great American songbook.
Roxanne Roberts: Phil Collins is no Cole Porter.
The Ritz: True or false:
All celebs stay at the Ritz in Georgetown when they're touring, shooting movies, biking the C&O, etc?
Amy Argetsinger: False. Some celebrities stay at the Ritz on 22nd Street. Some stay at the Four Seasons. Some stay at the Mandarin. Some stay at the Hay-Adams. And increasingly, some stay at Palomar or the Park Hyatt.
You listen to R. Kelly?: You mean that you people aren't afraid to listen to that kind of music? I expected that your iPod would contain Josh Groban, the Beatles and the Fray and no resemblance of R and B.
No, I'm kidding. I understand that not everyone behaves sterotypically. Bill O'Reilly on the other hand, could perhaps use a reminder. Not a big one, but a little one, after that comment he made about the patrons in Sylvia's restaurant.
Amy Argetsinger: So here's what O'Reilly had to say recently about his trip to the landmark restaurant in Harlem (via the ABC News website): "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City," said O'Reilly on the Sept. 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show.
"There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who [was] screaming,'M-Fer was, I want more iced tea," he told National Public Radio's Juan Williams. "[It] was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
D.C. - conversation starter: Have you ever met Tom Sietsema? Someone told me he was the guy standing (pick someone).
Amy Argetsinger: Actually -- that's pretty good.
Charming non-sequitur?: I never believe gossip, my partner says I should, what do you think?
Arlington, Va.: I usually go with comments about something they are wearing -- like "I love your coral necklace," "that is a great watch," etc. Not exactly a new and exciting approach, but generally it will elicit conversation.
Amy Argetsinger: Yeah, I do that, but I think the opening line needs to be a question, something that elicits more than, "oh, thank you."
Arlington, Va.: So what's so bad about getting hit on?
Amy Argetsinger: Depends on who's hitting on you.
Clooney's girlfriend du jour: Seriously, what does he see in that one, other than that she's half his age?
He could do so much better. You probably think I'm referring to myself, but that's... Well, okay, that is what I mean.
Roxanne Roberts: Exactly what I was thinking.
Phil Collins is no Cole Porter: Correct -- and he's not even American! Sheesh! Billy Joel's repertoire is probably the Great American Songbook!
But a Fear Factor loser: would be better than a Bachelor or Rock of Love reject.
Amy Argetsinger: My favorite quote from the season premiere of The Bachelor came from the Annapolis school teacher:
"My strategy is to not cry and to not get drunk."
omg, me too! Alas, she didn't make the first cut.
Ah, but who among you can recognize Sietsema?: We might be able to, if certain gossip columnists would give us a few hints.
Amy Argetsinger: Sorry, it's a code of silence that we have among web chat hosts.
Washington, D.C.: Hey, you know who else looks like Kal Penn? Zach Braff. Really, they could pass for half-brothers.
Amy Argetsinger: Huh. You think?
Who caused the biggest stir? : The one that is sticking out in my mind is Jimmy Page. There was also an incident with some young actor, but I cannot remember who it was. Darn!
Afterwards, memos would go out about helping the celebs feel safe and comfortable when they came to the studio. Makes sense, you don't want anyone refusing to come back.
Amy Argetsinger: There was a memo like that around going around at Michael Jackson's D.C. law firm before he came in to visit.
Charlottesville, Va.: Nah, Virginia Tech is Thanksgiving weekend. This is really a small game (Pitt). But we did have Hillary fundraising here with John Grisham, and Obama is coming soon for the same reason.
Amy Argetsinger: Okay. I promise I'll come back for a visit soon. Is that restaurant that Patricia Kluge opened in the old gas station still around? Delicious.
Re: Chevy Chase in D.C.: Caddyshack makes him A-List in my book.
Any idea what the name of the limo service he used is?
Amy Argetsinger: Sorry, don't have the name...
RE: Clooney's Girlfriend:"Oh, one of those on-the-edge-of-fame-might-meet-someone girls"
Now, now, Roxanne -- step away from that saucer of milk...
Amy Argetsinger: Roxanne Roberts has left the building, btw. She's off to stalk Prince Albert of Monaco.
Boston, Mass.: Bridget Moynihan is unbelievable. First she pulls the goalie unbeknownst to Tom Brady when she knew their relationship was coming to an end and traps him with a baby. Then she leaks this news to the press just when pictures of Tom and Gisele in Europe hit the papers to make Tom look like a schlep. Now she volunteers for a photo spread with the kid for OK Magazine with the headline, "Life Without Daddy" when Brady is the one with no choice where to live because he has to pay to support the baby (and her). Should Tom request a trade to San Diego so he can be closer to her? And don't tell me she didn't have control over what OK Magazine chose for a cover headline -- she didn't have to do the shoot in the first place. Hollywood screenwriters couldn't make this stuff up.
Great American Song Book: Today is the 109th anniversary of George Gershwin's birth.
Amy Argetsinger: What do you know, you're right! This summer was also the 70th anniversary of his death.
Re voting: The only thing that Rudy's telephone calls make me think of, if he ever becomes president will he answer his phone when he is in the middle of something important like maybe another attack. The next thing I think of who will be the decision maker, him or his wife?
Amy Argetsinger: Lot of Rudy-hate in the chat today. Interesting.
Re Clooney: I'm glad he'll date a noncelebrity woman, but why why why couldn't it be ME?
Amy Argetsinger: I'm sorry, honey, you're too old.
Phil Collins is no Cole Porter: True, but a few years back my daughter was really into the Disney Tarzan movie, which meant I heard the sound track over and over again. It wasn't bad. I was just grateful I wasn't hearing "Barney's Greatest Hits" or "Elmopalooza" over and over. I realize that's setting the bar pretty low, but still....
Amy Argetsinger: Lesser of two evils, I guess.
Roxanne's next stalking task: I hear she might find Prince Albert in a can.
Amy Argetsinger: Ha ha ha! Is your refrigerator running? Well you better go stop it!
Roxanne Roberts has left the building: Again with the leaving early thing? That is so unfair to you, Amy! Even if it is for Prince Albert, who I'm sure is much older than both of you (and isn't there some question about his relationship priorities?)
Amy Argetsinger: Oh, shhh. I'm hoping they fall in love. I'm willing to look past his babymama drama if he makes Roxanne the Princess of Monaco.
Prince Albert: He was sort of "in a can" when I met him years ago -- he was driving a bobsled at the Olympic trials! Quite charming, so good luck on the stalking, Roxanne!
Amy Argetsinger: I forgot about that chapter of his life...
And who can forget Su-Su-Sussudio?: I had happily forgotten it. Until NOW, and I can't get it out of my head. Thanks.
Amy Argetsinger: Sorry, I'm not happy about it either.
Anyone see "American Psycho"? My boy Christian Bale has a hilarious monologue about the brilliance of "Sussudio."
Washington, D.C.: Didn't Clooney blow through your newsroom recently also? If so, did he or Pitt get the most attention from the staffers?
Amy Argetsinger: If Clooney came through the newsroom recently then he must have done so in a quiet and stealthy fashion so... I don't think so. (Unless this was back in my Cali days, when he was skulking around D.C. promoting "K Street" and "Good Night and Good Luck.")
Charlottesville, Va.: Amy, hate to disappoint, but "Fuel," Kluge's restaurant is closed. She's spending more time and money on her winery, where I think they're planning to serve food, and build McMansions.
Amy Argetsinger: I am broken-hearted. They had a pork belly entree to die for.
Rosslyn, Va.: I was at the Genesis concert in the cheap seats -- they were $80.
Amy Argetsinger: Oh, okay. Thanks for correcting us on that matter.
Washington, D.C.: Amy, how would you remain cool if Daniel Craig or Clive Owen were standing behind you? Who's better?
Amy Argetsinger: Well, I'd love to find out.
Actually, you know what celebrity flustered me the most? Dennis Haysbert who played President Palmer on "24." He's such a ridiculously cool charismatic guy who KNOWS that he's cool and charismatic and seems to love to knock reporters off balance with it.
Washington, D.C.: How would you two divas rate Henry Hager on looks from a scale of 1-10 with 10 being hot?
Amy Argetsinger: Doesn't matter what we think, does it? As long as he's a "10" in Jenna's heart...
Amy Argetsinger: All right, everyone, time to go back to the salt mines. Thanks for all your questions and your excellent opening-line suggestions. Stay in touch all week long at reliablesource@washpost.com, and come back to the chat 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.
|
Reliable Source columnists Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts talk about the mystery man that everyone confuses for Adrian Fenty (or sometimes Tony Williams, or Ray Nagin); the Ritz Carlton locks out VIP gym rats; and Kiefer Sutherland's DUI arrest.
| 137.869565 | 0.73913 | 2.26087 |
high
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001278.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001278.html
|
Federal Diary Live - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092619
|
Little Continuity Without Leadership in Reserve (Post, Sept. 26)
Archive: Federal Diary Live transcripts
Stephen Barr: Thanks to all joining in this discussion today! For all practical purposes, the government ends this fiscal year on Friday and will probably greet Fiscal Year 2008 on a "continuing resolution" that keeps agencies open until a budget agreement is reached. It could take time; this year's funding, for example, was enacted only after the government endured four CRs. Best of luck in the new year! With that, we'll go to the questions and comments.
Furlough for Government Employees: Hello. I work at a government agency in Washington and there has been plenty of conversations about the furlough that is supposed to happen -- do you have any news or information on this?
Stephen Barr: I don't expect to see any widespread furlough of employees, and it is difficult to imagine that any agency could be so strapped for cash right now that it would result to a furlough.
The CR before Congress will probably run through Nov. 16, so you should have that breathing room. The real issue is whether any agencies have to take cuts for '08 that are below their '07 funding level. That too, seems unlikely, but possible, I guess.
Virginia: I went to the Air Force Association convention yesterday. Many military and civilian personnel don't see happy. What can we do to improve the morale of the civil servants and the military?
Stephen Barr: This is a difficult time for many Defense employees. The Iraq war is such a big issue, from so many perspectives, that Defense leaders do not have time to pay attention to other issues. The war also has led to long hours in the office for subordinates, and that leads to burn out over time and family discontent.
Some people also may be finding out that their program priorities up for grabs, starting in January 2009, when a new White House team moves in. Between now and then, these folks also have to respond to Congress, controlled by Democrats, who are holding more oversight hearings.
But I think Iraq is the primary reason for morale problems, and there may not be much that can be done, except to encourage people to keep working hard and laud them for their hard work. It took the military a long time to dig out from the criticism of the Vietnam war, and we may be seeing a replay of that today.
Arlington, Va.: So, you write that IRS managers are not happy with their performance-based pay system, that SEC may have discriminated against some employees with its pay system, and that NSPS employees are not getting the full 2008 cost-of-living adjustment but may or may not get a bigger raise than the GS depending on their performance ratings. Is this worth all this trouble?
Stephen Barr: I suspect the answer depends on where you work and how you feel about your boss. A good resource for employees in new pay systems is a study written by Prof. James R. Thompson of the University of Illinois at Chicago. The title is "Designing and Implementing Performance-Oriented Payband Systems" and provides a good overview of what's going on in the government today. You can find it right here, sponsored by the IBM Center for the Business of Government.
According to Thompson, many experts believe that pay bands help agencies make organizational changes, support high-performance workplaces, give managers more discretion and help agencies control their payroll costs. Check it out!
Arlington, Va.: The last furlough happened before I started my fed career; what happens in one? I can see a situation where I'd still have to come in because of legal deadlines on outstanding work, but would we eventually get paid? Are paychecks seriously disrupted? Thanks.
Stephen Barr: They are not pretty. You essentially get sent home, without pay. If you are deemed emergency essential by your agency, you can work, but without pay. At some point, Congress and the White House reach an accord, and Congress writes into the law that employees should receive retroactive pay, back to the time of the agency shutdown.
Virginia: What would be the most effective way to get NSPS overturned? Should one write letters to their congressmen? I truly believe it is eroding our government workforce and is causing a renewed distrust in management. I am getting ready to transfer to another location where I will rejoin the GS pay system and I intend to join the union (a first in my 25-plus years of government service). The designers of NSPS produced an extremely complicated system with many flaws. Are managers better engaged with subordinates? No. Are they able to pick and choose who gets reassignment pay adjustments? Yes. Do we need a whole new career field of compensation experts because the rules are too confusing? Yes. The list could go on ... follow the money and you will see NSPS will bankrupt us if allowed to stay in place.
Stephen Barr: Congress wrote the law that permitted the Department of Defense to set up the NSPS, so I think your best bet is to call and write your members of Congress. To be effective, you need to give them a real-life example of how it has worked to the disadvantage of your organization.
Arlington, Va.: How does one go about organizing like GAO has done? What union do you call, or do they come see you?
Stephen Barr: In the GAO case, some analysts went over to see their friends at the Congressional Research Service about how to unionize, and then met with their bargaining representatives. Sometimes a union will test the waters at an agency if it thinks employees are interested in joining together for collective bargaining. Some unions specialize in representing certain occupations or types of workers, so that might be a factor, too.
Alexandria, Va.: What can one take from the GAO's decision to unionize? Is it really a Top Place To Work? It seems that if it were, the employees wouldn't be disgruntled enough to unionize. What does this mean for the proponents of pay-for-performance in other areas?
Stephen Barr: I can only speculate. Some GAO analysts did not believe management really listened to their concerns, and they wanted a stronger voice in workplace decisions. Other analysts were angered that they did not receive a pay raise or only received a partial pay raise under the new pay system, as compared to the old. And some other analysts joined because they truly want to only concentrate on their work and the GAO mission, and believe that GAO should provide them with a stable, predictable salary, because GAO is not about making a profit, a big deal in the private sector.
Hard to know what it means, overall, except that unions generally thrive on agency proposals that impact pay. After the FAA adopted a new pay system, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees formed four bargaining units, including one that represents agency lawyers.
And, yes, I think GAO is a best place to work. Smart colleagues, an interesting client (Congress) and big issues to tackle. No boredom there.
Washington: I was very interested in your article about attracting "Generation Y-ers" to the Federal Government. Good luck! The government is just too large and bureaucratic for individual employees to have any impact. I joined the FCC shortly after receiving my law degree in 1998. I and at least eight colleagues spent four years on a massive rulemaking that still is working its way through the process, with very few tangible results. In my case I left after four years, more than doubled my salary, and it's gone up since then. This undoubtedly will get me brickbats, but my experience was that most of the top lawyers did the same. More possible brickbats, but the exception was working mothers, who appreciate the generally light workload (as opposed to the private sector), generous leave and other benefits to the point that money is less important.
It's possible to occasionally make an impact; I have a friend who worked for a smaller, consumer-oriented agency who takes pride in having helped enact a rule on infant car seats that he feels has saved lives. Friends at the FCC who worked with the FTC to enact the largely successful "Do Not Call" registry have the same sense of satisfaction. But these exceptions are few and far between.
I know the question of pay equity is a hot one, but it has reached the point that first-year associates, and not just those on Ivy League law reviews, are making close to what top government lawyers make at the end of their career. On the other hand, the FCC has dozens of GS 7-11 secretaries (lawyers start at GS-11) where no college is required, who make $50,000, $60,000 or even $70,000 a year. Some do a good job, while others either have poor skills or too much time, which they spending on the phone or surfing the Internet. As you know, it's virtually impossible to fire a government employee short of theft or other substantial malfeasance. This leads to serious morale problems all across the board. The system clearly is broken, and I have no idea how to fix it. But you have done a good thing by at least starting the dialogue. As I said above, good luck!
Stephen Barr: Thanks for your comments. The experts tell me that the Gen Y crowd is wary of getting drawn into places where they can't make a difference. I'm sure agencies will fill their job openings in the future. But will any White House have the courage to ask whether the best and brightest are applying and staying?
Washington: Your column on Gen Y was not clear on what it will take to get them to pursue a government career. Your comment?
washingtonpost.com: Bringing Generation Y Into the Fold (Post, Sept. 24)
Stephen Barr: It's all about marketing. Gen Y will respond to agencies that can demonstrate whey they are special or unique. They also want to work at places that don't demand 9-to-5 hours and have Mickey Mouse rules. So agencies that are flexible will do the best, according to the experts and papers I've read.
Baltimore: When will there be another Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance open season? I'd like to add my spouse now that he is unemployed (thus, no longer has affordable life insurance through his employer). However, I missed the time window for a Qualifying Life Event (we've been married four years now).
Stephen Barr: I don't think so. But the Office of Personnel Management will soon issue a guide to the new benefits season that starts in November, and you should check that out. I'd also talk to your personnel shop to see what can be done sooner rather than later. Best of luck!
St. Louis: I am a Fed under FERS approaching retirement in a few years. During a mid-career retirement seminar some years back, the presenter suggested that at some point, the rules regarding sick leave would be changed to resemble the CSRS rules -- that a couple of years of near-end-of-career sick leave abuse would drive the change. Have you heard any rumblings to this effect? I hope so, otherwise I'll need to start scheduling that use-it-or-lose-it sick leave!
Stephen Barr: I've not heard of any movement on this, so you may want to check the weather forecast and judiciously plan to take a sick day or two.
Alexandria, Va.: To see about organizing, contact the National Treasury Employees Union or the American Federation of Government Employees's headquarters. Our agency is represented by NTEU, which has an excellent national team and does great work helping employees in all kinds of situations. Go to this Web site; the phone number is at the bottom of the page.
Stephen Barr: Information and unions rights and responsibilities are posted on the Labor Department's Web site. There also is information posted by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
There are many more unions that NTEU and AFGE, although they are among the best known to many federal employees.
Washington: For Arlington: I would try this Web site It lists the current government employee unions and their functions. I am a current member of NTEU and witnessed first hand how they came to our agency and recruited people. It was very organized and the process was a pleasant one.
Kansas City, Mo.: Thank you for the comments on Gen Y ... As a younger fed, I was beginning to think that my values regarding work flexibility and arbitrary rules just made me crazy ... nice to know that others in my generation feel the same. Assuming the president signs the recent student loan bill submitted by Congress, how do you think the new loan forgiveness programs will benefit younger feds like myself?
Stephen Barr: Difficult to know. Agencies will need to seek funding from Congress to finance loan reimbursement programs, and some have shown little interest. But a few are leading the way, and I see it as a great perk that can make agencies more competitive in recruiting and retaining employees.
Reston, Va.: Your Sept. 14 column on health insurance costs headlines a 2.1 percent average cost increase. Is that just a paraphrase of OPM's news release? With BlueCross BlueShield (it's by far the largest plan, isn't it?) going up "as much as 8.5 percent"; the other plans must have dropped precipitously to offset the much higher BlueCross BlueShield increase. Have you done any calculations to confirm the 2.1 percent average? Intuitively, it seems way too low.
Stephen Barr: As the column noted, OPM tapped into the financial reserves of the fee-for-service plans to lower the premium increase, probably by a full 3 percentage points. So you got a real break, compared to private-sector employees, who will likely face premium increases in the 6 percent to 7 percent range next year.
Yes, Blue Cross standard option went up, and that is significant, since about 60 percent of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is covered by big blue. But Government Employees Health Association rates stayed the same or went down, and other rate hikes vary dramatically. So it makes sense to shop around in FEHBP, I think.
Manassas, Va.: Hello Steven. Are you aware of any formal hiring freeze by any federal agencies? I cannot remember a time where I have had less response from job applications, seen jobs advertised to "current agency employees only" or seen fewer advertised openings. What is really going on? It has been like this for 18-24 months.
Stephen Barr: Can only guess, but I'm assuming lots of agencies are going into a soft freeze, waiting to see how the CR and budget battles play out. It's possible some started earlier; it's also possible that agencies are leaving jobs vacant so that they can use payroll savings to cover other overhead expenses.
La Jolla, Calif.: Thanks for taking my question, Mr. Barr. With the recent announcement that the Department of Defense, via the NSPS, will only allow employees to gain 50 percent of the congressionally-approved cost of living increase this year, and next year will zero it out, how much more proof will it take to show the true intent of NSPS? And since when is a COLA (a cost-of-living adjustment) tied to perceived performance? Pay raises are step increases and promotions. COLAs should not be taken away.
Stephen Barr: Unfortunately, we all use "COLA" way too much. From DoD's view, you get a pay raise. That used to be what Congress approved, the general increase, plus a locality pay supplement.
Under NSPS, these lines are getting blurred. I assume your pay band does not include step increases, and promotions may be more competitive, if you have to change pay bands.
You still get locality adjustments under NSPS, but the rest of your pay is now linked to job performance ratings.
Think of it this way -- only federal retirees get COLAs.
Rockville, Md.: "They are not pretty. You essentially get sent home, without pay. If you are deemed emergency essential by your agency you can work, but without pay. At some point Congress and the White House reach an accord, and Congress writes into the law that employees should receive retroactive pay, back to the time of the agency shutdown."
Why isn't it pretty? You get sent home and then get paid, or you stay and work and then the get paid. Worst case, you are where you are right now. Best case, free time off.
Stephen Barr: Rockville, you get the last word, for better or worse.
Once again, we've run out of time. Thanks for joining in this discussion today. I had a little technical glitch, and appreciate your patience on that. See you back here at noon next Wednesday--in the new fiscal year!
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 columnist Stephen Barr answers questions about navigating the federal workplace. Federal Diary runs weekdays in the Business news section of The Post.
| 131.192308 | 0.769231 | 1.153846 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100509.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100509.html
|
The Washington Nationals
|
2007092619
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
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: Greetings from Shea Stadium. A couple things to point out. First, I don't know what you can see of it on TV, but the new Mets ballpark is going up really swiftly beyond the left and center field walls here. They want to have the facade on by winter so they can work inside till spring.
Second: How about those Nationals? My goodness, four wins in five games against the Mets -- making people in these parts rather nervous. And I'll ask something I asked over at the Journal: Does matching last year's total of 71 wins mean anything to you? (It certainly seems to mean something in the clubhouse.)
Finally, thanks for all those who stopped by the Nationals Journal tailgate party on Sunday at RFK. Wish I could have stayed for a beer or three. Alas, I'll have to wait for a day off next time.
Looking for a Goal?: How about exceeding the World Champion Cardinal's win total this year? They are at 73.
Barry Svrluga: Ooh, there's a good goal. Man, I couldn't believe it when the Cardinals got back into the (joke of an NL Central) race. When the Nationals crushed them at RFK, they looked horrible. Just horrible.
Can this team go 3-1 in its last four -- even with the Phillies and Mets doing their best to hang on? I'm really looking forward to the last few games. They're going to be fun.
Washington, D.C.: Three guesses which Washington National not named Dmitri Young has an OPS over .800 for the year.
Barry Svrluga: This is a good one. I've got:
Joel Hanrahan: .857 (yeah, I know that hardly counts)
Ryan Church: .807 (I figure this is the guy you're getting at)
Leesburg, Va.: Since the Nationals don't plan on signing any big time free agents, do they consider trading for Johnny Damon until Justin Maxwell is ready for full time duty?
Barry Svrluga: Dave Sheinin wrote a note about this on his MLB Sunday page a few weeks ago, saying it wasn't the craziest idea. One thing the Nationals will likely try to do -- since Stan Kasten has said it's unlikely the team will pursue big-ticket free agents -- would be to trade for guys on teams that might be willing to pick up parts of their contracts.
Does that mean Damon? Not sure. He's now a below-average center fielder, particularly because of his horrible arm. But he would be a great OBP guy at the top of the order.
Should be a good, interesting offseason.
On the job in Woodbridge: Barry,
Does Lenny Harris get the "interim" removed from his title before next season? I know the guy he replaced left for "personal reasons," but one would have to think that it will become permanent before too long
Barry Svrluga: I keep meaning to get stuff about this in the paper, but the Shawn Hill surgery has prevented me so the past two days. I spoke to Harris about this a couple days ago. He says he wants to and expects to be back, but Jim Bowden has not assured any of the coaches of anything.
My read: Bench coach Pat Corrales and pitching coach Randy St. Claire will be back. Kinda no-brainers. Three others -- bullpen coach Rick Aponte, first base coach Jerry Morrales and third base coach Tim Tolman -- are all Acta guys, and there's no guarantee. Harris was a Bowden selection to replace Mitchell Page, and I think that gives him a better chance.
Read more about this in the $.35 edition soon.
snArkansas: Any chance we'll get a visit from snarky Barry this afternoon? We love him.
Barry Svrluga: Who's he? Never heard of him.
With the new stadium opening next year let me offer that some consideration be given to having Tony Williams throw out the first pitch since he did so much to bring back baseball to the area. I have already personally thanked him for bringing baseball back and Tony stated that if asked he would throw out the first pitch. Forget about Bush.
Barry Svrluga: An interesting thought. My guess is there might be about seven "first pitches" next spring.
I would hope that the Prez -- whatever you think of him -- would be there. It'd be great to keep that tradition alive.
I also think the Nats should do a 10-foot-tall presidential candidates race all summer next year. The Kucinich one would be hysterical.
Bethesda, Md.: Do you think Kasten dislikes you more than Snyder dislikes La Canfora?!
Nook Logan Circle: Hey Barry,
Who's got the best chance of making the squad next year: Detwiler, Smoker or McGeary? Who's got the most long-term upside?
Barry Svrluga: Easy, now, Nook Logan Circle. Take a deep breath. Several deep breaths.
Smoker and McGeary are 18-year-olds just out of high school. Neither was anywhere near the best high school pitcher in the draft (Rick Porcello of New Jersey, who went to Detroit). If they make the majors, it'll be well down the line.
Detwiler will be in big league camp, and it's possible he arrives sometime late next year, depending on his development. Talked to Randy St. Claire about him yesterday, and though he hasn't thrown in many games (1), his bullpen sessions have been excellent. St. Claire said he has a very good arm, and he's been surprised at the sink in his two-seam fastball. The four-seamer is good, the curveball is good, but he tends to overthrow his changeup a bit. He's still getting a feel for it.
Still, that's four pitches. His progress will be interesting to watch next year -- likely starting at Class AA Harrisburg.
Forestville, Md. : Good Afternoon Barry,
Have we reached the point where poor Chad is sent somewhere (anywhere) for a bag of balls? Last night was bad, and I thought the loss in Colorado was a road-trip killer.
Barry Svrluga: That was rough. It came in Cordero's career-high 75th appearance. He now also has a career-high 3.41 ERA.
I give Acta credit on this one. It was clear Cordero had nothing -- bouncing balls in the dirt, etc. -- but I think there are a lot of managers who would have stuck with their closer just because of the title. Removing Cordero and bringing in Rauch won the game.
Cordero's future: I suspect we'll hear more about him being on the market this winter. That doesn't mean he'll be dealt. But they'll talk about it.
West Alexandria, I guess: In the best case scenario, I'm assuming Chico, Bergmann and either Hill or Patterson are 3/5s of the rotation next year. Is that in line with what the braintrust thinks the rotation will be in '08?
Barry Svrluga: I think that's a pretty good educated guess. I think they're counting on Hill more than Patterson, even with the latest injury problems. Bowden said the day they decided to do surgery on Hill that he will "absolutely" be ready for next season. Shawn was more cautious when I talked to him, so we'll see.
Chico: The league's ERA is 4.43. Chico's ERA is 4.75. That's not horrendous. Starters in the National League have a 4.64 ERA. The kid's hung in there fine, even with all his inconsistencies.
All credit to the Nats for a great season especially given the expectations, but RFK was never more electric than the during the final Presidents Race. From the Nats bullpen tackling George, Tom and Abe to the mixture of glee and disappointment as Teddy appeared at the wrong stadium, the crowd was laughing, cheering, shouting. Whoever came up with this gimmick and has orchestrated it up to this point should get a bonus this year.
Barry Svrluga: I was saying this the other day at RFK: For all the shots I've taken at the Nats marketing department (hello, Clint), whoever came up with the Presidents Race deserves tons of credit, and whoever came up with the shtick about Teddy losing is brilliant. What stadium has ever had 40,000 people chanting the name of a mascot? Incredible.
Now, we'll know Washington has come a long way as a baseball town when there are regular chants for players -- as the late-inning "Wi-ly Mo! Wi-ly Mo!"
burke, va: All other things being equal, do you think the new park will help or hurt the Nat's home record next year? Keeping in mind that the Nats were nearly .500 at RFK this year (40-41).
Barry Svrluga: That's an interesting one, and it depends entirely on the shape of the roster, which we don't know yet. If you add an Adam Dunn, then maybe some of the expected inflated numbers for the pitchers will be offset.
The reality: We really don't know exactly how the park will play, and we won't until the team gets in it.
Section 108: Barry, I like to thank you for all the coverage you've done on the Nationals this year. I've read every article and post in the Nats journal and think the job you've done this season was just terrific. I hope you'll drop us a Nats piece every once in a while during the offseason to keep us diehards going.....
Barry Svrluga: Section 108, you are kind. There are some other questions, comments about the Post's coverage, and I'll get to them. I think I'm also going to open myself up to a Nationals Journal post on the subject, so check back there.
Offseason: Yes, we'll absolutely try to keep you informed in the offseason. I'll be at the winter meetings, checking in on injured players, dealing with trade and free agent rumors as best I can.
Trade Bait: Surprisingly enough, the Nats may have some players they can deal to help themselves without tapping into the farm system. Am I nuts (okay, I am, but let's move along) but couldn't they get a starting pitcher for some combination of Rausch, Ayala, Cordero, Church, Guzman, D. Young and N. Johnson? Don't you think either Young or Johnson goes at some point in mid-May of next year, assuming Nick comes back?
Barry Svrluga: The Young/Johnson question is among the most intriguing for spring training next year, I think. That's $10.5 million of first baseman right there, and neither can play another position. What happens?
And yes: If the Nationals are able to pull off a significant trade this winter, I'd expect it to involve some of their very good relievers going elsewhere.
Batter's Eye Seats: Barry, does it bother you as much as it bothers Sheinin and the rest of us that Stan never gives any details about anything?
Barry Svrluga: This is, obviously, a touchy subject for me right now. But as I've said before, Stan Kasten wants to dictate when and how he delivers news. "When there's news," he has often told me, "we'll let you know." That differs from the job of people like me and Sheinin.
Formerly of Sect. 419: Hi Barry:
Bet you're grateful you don't cover Oklahoma State football,huh?
Assuming the braintrust isn't willing to invest $30 mil a year in A-Rod or $20 mil a year in Andruw "can you use 'contract year' in a sentence" Jones -- smart in both cases, IMO -- what type of creative moves are out there?
Would they part with a package of newly-minted prospects for Johann Santana? Trade a bag of balls to take JD Drew (and about one-third of his contract) from the Red Sox?
Just trying to figure how they improve the major-league product without spending big bucks or deviating from "the plan."
Thanks for the coverage, the Journal and these chats...
Barry Svrluga: This is a central question heading into the offseason: How do you improve the major league product and, presumably, increase payroll without signing significant free agents and without having a top-heavy minor league system from which to deal?
Creative? I would expect that. That's probably Jim Bowden's middle name. And I think you're right that someone like Santana would be a good target -- if they could be allowed to get a 72-hour window to negotiate an extension.
But think of it this way, too: How is that different than signing a free agent? Getting an extension done is tantamount to going out and signing him on your own -- but you have to give up players, too.
(For Santana, by the way, it'd be worth it. Can you imagine how he would reshape a franchise? My goodness.)
Bowie, Md: In case no one noticed, the final score of the Nats' last game at RFK, 5-3, is the same as the final score of the Nats' first game at RFK. Both wins of course.
Rod Serling, call your agent.
(Man, really hard to replicate TV theme songs in a chat.)
Svrluga Nation, the world: I watched that Washington Post Live interview with Stan Kasten. I am a big fan of bashing the media whenever and wherever possible on any topic, big or small,real or perceived, whether deserved or not. It's all good. Moreover, I am an even bigger fan of sarcasm, as an experienced practitioner myself. However, Kasten was wrong to go after The Post like that. He seemed like a guy who lives in a Bush-like shell and can't take the heat of a the big time. I'm sure the ATL media is good but the Braves were never top billing (that honor belongs to SEC football) and I bet he never had to face the scrutiny in Atlanta like he does here. I know he was trying to make a point but he needs thicker skin.
Barry Svrluga: That was a pretty combustible day for us all, and he certainly had issues with the Post at that time. Whether he still does, I don't know, as I haven't talked to him.
Sheinin in his chat yesterday said "the Nats, at the major league level, appear to be farther away from contending than I believed they were at the start of the season, not closer. . . .And let me explain what I mean by "farther away from contending." When the season started, I thought the Nationals had a pretty decent core of 27-and-under players that could form the core of a contending team two or three years down the line. In that category, I included (off the top of me head here) Zimmerman (obviously), Cordero, Patterson, Schneider, Kearns, F. Lopez, N. Johnson, Rauch and Church. But my own opinion is that the list not only hasn't grown over the last six months, it has actually gone down, as certain players have been exposed, so to speak. I like the fact that Shawn Hill and Jason Bergmann proved themselves to be very solid candidates for the rotation-of-the-future, but I'd need to see both of them stay healthy for a full season before I add them to my list."
Do you agree? Are the Nats farther from being a contender at the end of the season than the beginning?
Barry Svrluga: Sheinin and I have talked about this, and it's a really interesting discussion. (Of course, when he and I discuss anything, it's simply fascinating, as you can imagine.)
The counterpoint to his argument is that a slew of guys on this team -- Kearns, Lopez, Schneider, Cordero -- have "underachieved" this year. In fact, Manny Acta said as much the other day. If you get Kearns to be an 85-RBI guy, Lopez to get on base 35 percent of the time, Schneider to hit .260 instead of .230, and Cordero to cut down on his blown saves, then the major league roster improves automatically.
So it comes down to whether you believe these guys are having off years or whether you believe this is who they are.
Prince William Co., Va.: As many Nationals fans pray that "Sweet Caroline" will be left behind at RFK (damn Boston-related song, typical of the lack of imagination and originality of the Nats' in-game entertainment staff), any word on when a new radio deal (likely with Bonneville) will be announced, or who might replace Bob Carpenter in the TV booth? (I'd love to see former Phillies announcer Scott Graham hired, but I fear Stan Kasten will bring in one of his Atlanta cronies. I don't know whether the Nats are Reds East or Braves North.)
Barry Svrluga: I grew up going to games at Fenway Park, and while I'm OK with the "Sweet Caroline" thing there (even though it certainly wasn't part of my youth), it seems ridiculous at RFK. Equally ridiculous is having an usher prance around on top of the home dugout, pointing at the crowd and the players as the song plays. What is that about?
Carpenter: The latest rumor out there, care of the Examiner's Jim Williams, is that TBS's Chip Carey would be in line for the Nats' job. I'll check on it, but the Kasten-Atlanta connection is strong.
Jimmy's Old Town Tavern, Herndon, Va.: With the Nationals search for a new TV announcer, does MASN have any say in this matter? With a local following, could Frank Herzog be under consideration? Do you have any suggestions who would be a good fit for this position? In only 3 seasons, does continuity seem to be lacking?
Barry Svrluga: Here are the Nationals' TV pairings:
2005: Mel Proctor and Ron Darling
2006: Bob Carpenter and Tom Paciorek
2007: Bob Carpenter and Don Sutton
2008: Don Sutton and ????
So beginning next year, there will have been six different men in the four seasons of the franchise's existence. So no, there's no continuity.
MASN works with the Nats in picking the announcer, but the decision ultimately rests with the club.
Washington, D.C.: Just my 2 cents, but I absolutely do not think The Post has been too harsh on the Nationals. In fact, they've been extremely positive about the many surprising developments they've had over the course of what was predicted to be a 120 (or worse) loss season. What is he thinking? I was really sorry to read this.
Barry Svrluga: I got sarcastic about all this in my chat last week. He got upset. Really upset. It's a week later. Let's move on.
Section 419: I heard some Ry-an Zim-mer-man chants as well at RFK on Sunday, but granted they weren't as loud as the Wi-ly Mo chants - and definitely nowhere close to the Ted-dy Ted-dy roar. Might have been because Ryan Zimmerman is a bit of a mouthful to chant. (Although not as tough as Svrluga, to be sure...)
Barry Svrluga: You could do "Zim-mer-man! Zim-mer-man!" to the same cadence as "Wi-ly Mo! Wi-ly Mo!" (Come to think of it, "Svr-lu-ga!" fits the same beat.)
Rockville, Md.: Any word on the Adam Dunn front? What would it cost to get him and where would he play?
With the Nats' glaring need for a big-time bat, his history with Bodes, and his friendship with Kearns, it seems like a natural fit.
Barry Svrluga: If the Reds pick up his option, he'll make $13 million next season. They could pick it up with the intention of trading for him.
I'll make the same point as I did above, though: The Nationals wouldn't trade for him, I don't think, without trying to sign him to an extension first. Otherwise, you potentially end up with a Soriano-type situation.
Downtown: (I also happened to be on "Washington Post Live" with Stan Kasten a few days before the season started, and when he asked me if I thought they'd be the 30th-best team in baseball, I said something like, "Is there a 31st?" Think I've heard about that since then?)
This is the kind of sarcastic cracks that helped scare fans away. Do you believe me now? You were complicit in the attendance drop. Many others too and by the way I am a fan of the journal and most of your work. I just hope there is a lesson learned. And I had 70 wins as the over under for the year and won the bet.
Barry Svrluga: Anyone who had 70 as the over and took the over, congrats. As I've said, I had 62-100, and have been on the road to wrong for the better part of two months. The record since May 11 -- 62-62. Wouldn't it be cool for them to play the last four-and-a-half months over .500? That's possible.
Complicit in attendance drop: Not sure about that. Clearly, one of the things about TV (and even this chat) that's different from writing for the $.35 edition is that if you say something -- even sarcastically -- you can't hit "delete." That "31st" comment? Yeah, I've heard about that a time or two.
One of the few people who will actually miss RFK: I got to drive past the new SE ballpark recently--the night before the final RFK game, in fact!--and it excites me greatly to know that that's where we'll be seeing our games from next year. That complex is just HUGE!
Even so, I'm also honestly sad to leave RFK, because I'll always associate RFK with the return of baseball to DC. Getting the opportunity to see the last two home openers there was more thrilling and more satisfying than words could express, and I'll honestly miss RFK.
Barry Svrluga: I drive by the new park about every two weeks. Every time I go -- including the few times I've been inside -- I am pretty impressed. It's going to take a few years for the neighborhood to settle in. But it really could be a special place to watch a game.
As for RFK: I would think anyone who's a lifelong Washingtonian would have feelings for the place. It makes sense.
Dupont Circle: Barry, spill the beans. When is the home opener next year? And against whom?
Barry Svrluga: They're still trying to work on that Sunday night opener on March 30, a way to kick off the new ballpark. I don't have the opponent on the tentative schedule, but will get it. Thanks for reminding me.
Fickmania: I just want to give a shout-out to Robert Fick, who really delivered when given a string of starts at the end of the year.
It seemed from the outside to be a tough, disjointed year for Fick (family issues, lack of consistent at bats) but (again from the outside) it seemed that his positive attitude and personality provided some real leadership during the peaks and valleys of a long year.
I don't know if he'll be back, but we appreciate what he brought to the Nats the past two years.
Barry Svrluga: A good time to give a shout out to Fick, who is hitting .366 in September, lifting his average to .241, and possibly saving his career. I'd expect he gets an invitation to someone's camp next spring, even if it's not Washington's.
Re: Downtown:"Complicit in the attendance drop"? Please. It was pretty obvious halfway through the year that this team wasn't going to be historically bad, yet attendance still dropped. The problem going into this year is that the team made no visible signs to improve on the field that would encourage people to buy tickets. The question is, what will they do during this offseason to improve the on-field product or will they just sell a new stadium?
Barry Svrluga: The stadium will obviously be a central part of the team's sales campaign, as it should be. But Kasten is on the record that he wants to improve the on-field product as well. But -- and I apologize for flogging Secretariat here -- this is why I consider 2009 the pivotal year for the franchise. The newness of the ballpark will be gone, the season ticket base will have to be robust, and the focus will be where it should be -- on the field, where the product best be improving.
The Meaning of 71 Wins:71 wins means a lot to Manny and the players. It doesn't mean that much to me as season ticket holding fan. We still had a losing season. Interesting is the fact that they won this many with their core players underachieving, a revolving door for a starting rotation, a cavernous stadium, no big HR guy, and a shaky closer. When I look at it from that perspective, I must take my hat off and give the credit to Manny Acta for keeping this team fighting right up to the end. His leadership and management of this team deserves both a bonus from the Nats and serious consideration for MOY. A masterful job by the rookie manager. Just think what he will do with a really good team.
Barry Svrluga: I think, as mentioned in Sheinin's piece on the Diamondbacks this morning, Bob Melvin is the most likely winner of the NL Manager of the Year award. But over the past couple weeks -- as I've traveled around and talked to a lot of national writers -- Acta will receive lots of third-place votes. (Not likely to get a ton of first- or second-place votes, considering the team will finish anywhere from 12 to 20 games under .500.) When I point out to out-of-town writers that the team is basically .500 for three-quarters of a season, they're stunned.
Washington: Believe me Barry, we love your stuff etc. etc. but there's no way what you write determines whether we go to the games or not.
Barry Svrluga: Which, I think, makes complete sense.
Svrluga "complicit in attendance drop"?: Gimme a break. And the media's coverage of the Redskins has led to FedEx being less than half-full for the past year...
Barry Svrluga: Thanks for the support.
Silver Spring, Md.: The ovation that Frank Howard received was outstanding. It was impossible to hear the introduction from where I sat. I thought the reception was much louder than even his introduction in the first opener in 2005. I think it's because the younger fans who hadn't heard of him in 2005 have since seen the white seats and learned about the man and what he did. It wasn't just us old guys who stood and cheered this time.
Barry Svrluga: Yeah, I'd agree with that. I also think that taking the field with Zimmerman -- stars of past and present -- was a nice touch, even if Howard wasn't a third baseman.
You can't: chant "Svr." It just can't be done.
Barry Svrluga: It can be in Sarajevo.
Perplexed: I don't understand something (not unusual). You and The Post, understandably, won't let Kasten dictate the news. You don't just react, you go get it aggressively. Yet, when asked repeatedly about the level of Post coverage of the team, Posties say - we cover the team according to the market interest. Sheinin said yesterday this isn't a baseball town yet. So, I suppose, it won't get baseball town coverage until it is. The Post is reacting, according to its statements, not aggressively acting. Helping to make DC a great baseball town by providing broader news and opinion about the team certainly won't hurt The Post. Why doesn't it then step up its coverage in its own best interest. As a great philosopher once said: Build it and they will come.
Barry Svrluga: It's an interesting discussion, one which I'll touch on if/when I do a Journal post on the subject. What we've found is that the Nationals stories online -- and even the clicks on Nationals Journal -- simply don't stack up to that of the other teams in town. That, of course, could be a reflection of the quality of my coverage. If people think the coverage is poor or not worth reading, then they'll make the decision not to click on it. But it could also be a reflection of the overall interest of the team in town. Something I'm going to look into more in coming weeks is the team's TV ratings. They are 30th and last in all of baseball. That's not good.
As I've said before, other than Boswell, we don't have a columnist who feels comfortable writing about baseball. Mike Wise takes a stab every once in a while, but he's not out at the park learning the players and the personalities because he's got so much else on his plate.
I really do believe, however, that if and when the Nats get good, we'll step up our level of coverage. But the chicken-and-egg discussion is worth having.
pollyanna: This is probably an insanely optimistic statement...but I would be completely excited to watch this team next year with the kid pitchers a year older, some sort of deal to bring in a professional starter to flesh out the mix, and a legit center fielder with a modicum of power (Torii Hunter?).
The addition of Wily Mo, prospect of a healthy Guzman (not to mention Johnson) and a more stable (and experienced) rotation makes me think this team could be in the mix next year.
In other words...the Nats are much closer to the .500 team we saw most of the year than the 9-25 trainwreck in April.
Or am I just off base?
Barry Svrluga: I don't think you're off base at all. Three-quarters of a season, as I've said, is a pretty good sample size. And if you consider that it's been with lots of guys under-performing, well, then, I suppose you can expect better.
Torii Hunter? Didn't Stan say that big-ticket free agents are unlikely? Yes, he did.
Section 506 (Before moving): When do you leave for China? Any handicapping on who's going to make your start for you?
Barry Svrluga: I leave next July 31. Non-stop Dulles-Beijing. (Amazing you can do that.)
As for the replacement starter, the pitching coach and manager are meeting about that, and we'll get you an announcement as soon as we can.
Solla Sollew, Va.: Operation Buck Sez 70 Wins: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Barry Svrluga: Where should I send the buck?
Louisville, Ky.: I'm hesitant to take a player away from what he's done well, but has there been any talk of moving Austin Kearns to centerfield? He certainly shows enough range in right to make me think he could battle center to a draw.
Barry Svrluga: I think Kearns is one of the better right fielders in the league. (Francouer and his stronger arm also comes to mind.) He can play center a day here or a day there, but I don't think he'd be a good fit every day. Lack of foot speed -- he's not slow, but he's certainly not fast -- would be a problem.
I really think CF is the biggest need for this team in the future.
CeeJay, Va.: I know you'll be jet-setting to Beijing and all, but what's an interesting offseason Nats' storyline of which the average (or even avid) fan might be unaware?
Barry Svrluga: I'd watch the continued development of the Nationals' presence internationally. I do think their understanding of the talent in the Far East is growing, and that they have an interest in signing one or more players from there at some point soon. They fielded a Dominican Summer League team that won the championship this season -- beating the Yankees' entry -- and while that's a small step involving 17- and 18-year-olds, it's something that was unimaginable even two years ago. I'm going to try to do some stories along these lines in the offseason.
Section 121, Row 10: Barry - you rule.
In terms of the Post, the only issue I have with the coverage is that you don't get enough respect from the Sports editor and the Nats don't get enough love in terms of their visibility. Examples include no real link to the Nats Journal that should be on the front page of washingtonpost.com.(at least during the season); the day after a thrilling Nats victory, the Post ran an article on the front of the Sports page on Rugby (and that was intended for whom?); also, Boswell is one of the pre-eminent Baseball baseball writers, but he rarely writes about the Nats. Why?
I hope that you have lots of print room in the off season and still do an occasional chat. Would you consider that?
Barry Svrluga: Thanks for the perspective, Section 121. I have heard similar things from others. I don't think it's a matter of "respect" from editors and others, but rather a matter of keeping the front of the section interesting and relevant, etc. When college and pro football season starts, it's simply harder to get the Nats on the front of the section. If/when they're in a pennant race, they'll be making the decision for the editors, and something else will have to get bumped.
I would argue the point that Boz rarely writes about the Nats. He's out there at least twice a home stand.
Section 206: I give The Powers That Be a D- for the RFK closing ceremony.
First of all, seeing these poor old guys try to jog onto the field in the sun was just sad. The jersey thing took WAAAAYYYY too long. We just ended up leaving.
At least the Nats won.
Barry Svrluga: Another perspective. I thought the jersey exchange started too slowly -- maybe an awkward minute or two -- but then was just fine. Screech's entry was kind of a dud (but then, he's no Teddy). But the other stuff -- and, in fact, the entire day -- I thought was pretty cool.
Dr. Phil: Have you and Stan kissed and made up yet?
Barry Svrluga: Not sure. One of us will call your office for an appointment soon.
If not Cardiac Cordero - who?: Any ideas on a replacement closer if Chad is dealt? On their current ML roster I think only Ayala would be a likely candidate. Any one from the minors? FA/trade markets?
Barry Svrluga: I actually don't think there are others on the major league roster who would fit the role very well. Ayala, as you said, might be the best choice, but he's still working his way back from that ligament replacement surgery in his elbow in spring 2006. I'm excited to see if he's fully recovered next year.
Cordero is really an interesting case study. Is this year a blip? Or is he already on the down-turn at age 25?
Bowie, MD:2008: Don Sutton and ... Riggo!!
Barry Svrluga: Out of the box, Bowie. Out of the box.
Barry Svrluga: Folks, I've got to go. Thanks so much for chiming in today and over the course of the season. Please keep in mind that the Journal will live on into the offseason, and that I'm sure to be doing some chats from the road during the playoffs. I'm happy to answer Nationals questions there -- and we'll see what we can do about having some Nats chats in the offseason.
Have a great rest of the day, and enjoy the final four games of the season.
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.
| 180.829268 | 0.707317 | 0.95122 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501217.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501217.html
|
Sprint Wins Patent Case Against Vonage
|
2007092619
|
Vonage, which lost another major patent case earlier this year, said it would appeal the decision that sent its shares plummeting 33 percent.
Vonage must also pay Sprint a 5 percent royalty on future revenue, the jury decided after the three-week trial in U.S. District Court in Kansas. Sprint, which is based in Reston, said it planned to ask the court to permanently ban Vonage from using its patented technology, and District Judge John Lungstrum can triple the damage award if he agrees with the jury's decision that Vonage deliberately infringed the patents.
In a statement, Sprint said it was pleased with the verdict and viewed it as a "validation of the strength and depth of its patent portfolio."
Vonage's chief legal official, Sharon O'Leary, said the company's 2.4 million subscribers would not be affected. "Vonage has already demonstrated that it can keep its focus on customers and on its core business while managing ongoing litigation," she said.
Sprint's victory is the latest blow to Holmdel, N.J.-based Vonage, which lost a separate patent case to Verizon Communications in March. Analysts said they did not expect yesterday's verdict to affect Vonage's appeal in the Verizon case.
That verdict called for Vonage to pay Verizon $58 million in damages and 5.5 percent of its future revenue. Vonage's appeal is pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
An apparent delay in that court's decision has given Vonage additional time to devise a technology that does not infringe on Verizon's patents, according to several analysts. But the two cash-guzzling losses deepen the company's troubles as it struggles to maintain the confidence of customers and investors.
"Each case in isolation isn't the death knell for Vonage, but the accumulation of the two losses is pretty grim," said Rebecca Arbogast, regulatory analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "It's a real one-two punch."
Richard Doherty, research director with Envisioneering Group, a market-research firm, said the two firms could reach a revenue-sharing agreement. "Sprint doesn't want those royalties as much as it wants access to those customers," Doherty said, adding that the decision gives Sprint more leverage in either reaching a settlement with Vonage, or acquiring the company, as was rumored earlier this year.
Vonage shares fell to $1.30, and trading was halted after news of the verdict. Sprint shares rose 13 cents to $18.43.
|
A federal jury yesterday ordered Vonage Holdings to pay Sprint Nextel $69.5 million in damages for violating six of its patents, prompting analysts to question whether the troubled Internet phone company could survive.
| 13.194444 | 0.611111 | 0.944444 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502397.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502397.html
|
Let Down Again in New Orleans
|
2007092619
|
It's as if all that Saints magic had an expiration date. The NFL's feel-good story of a year ago appears to be just another rejected script this year. The Saints, inexplicably and virtually overnight, have gone from the hot preseason Super Bowl pick to bag-over-the-head bad, from 10 wins to zero wins. Of course, something like this happens almost every season in the NFL, but never with this kind of social and cultural consequence.
While the nightly national updates about New Orleans post-Katrina have disappeared, the area's recuperation is in earlier stages than most folks would believe. People still don't have their homes, their schools, their churches. They have the Saints. As Archie Manning, Papa Saint, said here during the "Monday Night Football" game between the Saints and Tennessee Titans, "Much of the recovery of New Orleans is built around the Saints."
After many uplifting mornings-after last season, New Orleans awoke to a downer Tuesday morning that reminded the locals of the bad old days. The Saints, playing at home for the first time since they beat the Eagles in an NFC second-round playoff game in January, got bounced around pretty good by the upstart Titans. The World War II-size headline on the front page of the New Orleans Times-Picayune read, "Dat Hurts." The people pouring coffee and selling newspapers at the airport clearly hadn't slept much, if at all. The conversation came in short and usually angry bursts at the taxi stands, the ticket counters. Since the devastation wrought by Katrina and its aftermath two years ago, the people of New Orleans haven't had much to feel good about, but last year they did have their Saints.
And right now, that's been taken from them, too.
Renaldo Wynn, the defensive end who played five seasons in Washington, made his debut for the Saints on Monday night. He's been in New Orleans only a few weeks, but that's long enough to have been jolted into the reality of the codependence of the Saints and their fans, and how nothing like it exists anywhere else in the NFL.
"I grew up in Chicago, so I know how loyal Chicagoans are to the Bears," Wynn said. "And I played for the Redskins, so I know how loyal people in the Washington area are to the Redskins. But that's nothing compared to what the Saints mean to New Orleans. The passion is unreal. When we took the field, I could just feel the hope from last year. They wanted to explode, to celebrate something . . . and they left without having much to celebrate."
The parts of New Orleans that tourists frequent appear to be pretty much back to normal. But there are so many neighborhoods still uninhabited or where people still are living in FEMA trailers in what used to be their front yards. The population of the city has been reduced by nearly half.
"I came down here expecting things to be pretty much back to normal since it has been two years since Katrina," Wynn said. "But I found that wasn't the case at all. You run up on people all the time who are still hurting, who have no house, no place to go. The thing they have is they all love the Saints. There's a desperation about it. I tell people [in Chicago and Washington] that this is different. It's another level of loyalty. What happens here brings life and hope to the fans and to the city. You realize that we're not playing just for ourselves. It's deep, man. As much as nobody in here wants to be 0-3, losing three games is a drop in the bucket compared to losing your home. They're still fighting. This is a strong community with some kind of human spirit. Okay, we're 0-3. We've got to fight and demonstrate spirit ourselves."
Scott Fujita, the linebacker whose first season in New Orleans was 2006, has a little more historical perspective than Wynn. Asked if it's possible that trying to win for the city has put too much pressure on the players and contributed to the team's early-season woes, Fujita said, "There might be a little bit of that, but not as much as last year."
The coaches and players are desperate to find out why a team with the No. 1 offense in the NFL last season ranks near the bottom of the league this season. The offensive line is having trouble protecting Drew Brees, who has been spectacularly off-form. Reggie Bush scored two touchdowns Monday night but has had trouble busting loose. And the Saints' defense, which wasn't all that special last year, has been hammered by Indianapolis, Tampa Bay and Tennessee, 103-38. The despair that accompanied each of Brees's four interceptions on Monday was palpable.
I waited what I thought was an appropriate amount of time to call my friend Susan Saulny, a New Orleans native and reporter for the New York Times who lives in Chicago, to find out if she was okay the day after the loss. She wasn't.
"The emotional toll goes far beyond losing the game," she said. "There's that feeling that we're losing the hope in something that was a great distraction from the awfulness that is still reality down there."
After the Titans took an interception back for a touchdown to seal the game, "I turned it off," Saulny said. "My heart sank. I couldn't watch anymore. There's not a lot to be excited about when you're living in a trailer."
So it's still more a crusade than a game. The Saints have this Sunday off and hope to spend the next two weeks figuring out how to win a game, the next coming against Carolina at the Superdome. But there's the matter of having lost running back Deuce McAllister for the season with a knee injury. Without him, the Saints can't pound the ball and can't really help slow the pass rush with play-action passes.
Coach Sean Payton and his players say they aren't about to panic. But Payton did go for it on fourth down in the first quarter, down only 3-0. Plus, trailing 17-14 late in the third quarter, Brees went airborne and was knocked silly trying to gain a first down instead of sliding safely as two Titans defenders approached. He fumbled on the next snap. The effort, the sincerity, the appreciation of the unrelenting support aren't to be questioned, just the results.
Fujita, a man with a great sense of humor and irony, said: "Last year they were dependent on us. Now [having started 0-3] we're dependent on them."
|
The NFL's feel-good story of a year ago has fallen on hard times as the Saints, the chic Super Bowl pick for many, have started out of the gate 0-3.
| 35.5 | 0.894737 | 4.526316 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502515.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502515.html
|
Striking Out Pythagoras
|
2007092619
|
PITTSBURGH, Sept. 25 -- So, there's this guy, name of Pythagoras, who's been going around bad-mouthing the Arizona Diamondbacks. Says they're a fluke, that they should have a losing record -- that, matter of fact, they should be scratching and clawing just to stay out of last place, instead of preparing to clinch the National League West title. Well, word has gotten back to the Diamondbacks about this character, and let's just say if they came across him, they'd be liable to punch him in the hypotenuse.
"Pythagoras?" said rookie center fielder Chris Young, when apprised of the verbal potshots. At age 23, Young is not that far removed from 10th-grade algebra. "You mean like the Pythagorean Theorem?"
Now, if you're getting confused as to what Pythagoras, a sixth-century B.C. Greek philosopher best known for inventing the theorem showing the relationship between the lengths of the sides of a triangle, has to do with the Diamondbacks, follow along closely:
Several years ago, Bill James, the noted statistician and founder of the modern sabermetric movement, developed a formula showing the correlation between a team's winning percentage and its ratio of runs scored to runs allowed. Because it involved math similar to that of Pythagoras's formula, he dubbed the product the "Pythagorean winning percentage" -- which, in a nutshell, equals a team's runs squared divided by the square of its runs plus the square of its runs allowed.
And because the Diamondbacks, despite being 20 games above .500 (88-68) entering Tuesday night's game against the Pittsburgh Pirates, actually have been outscored by their opponents by 14 runs this season -- for reasons we will attempt to explain later -- their Pythagorean winning percentage (.487) and their actual winning percentage (.564) are at odds with each other in a way rarely seen in history.
"It just shows," Young said, "you can't put this game into a math equation."
Other Diamondbacks players are well aware of how little Pythagoras thinks of them -- how, if you took the NL West standings, where the Diamondbacks held a three-game lead over the San Diego Padres entering Tuesday, and recalibrated them using Pythagorean winning percentages, they would actually be in fourth place, nine games behind San Diego, and only one game ahead of last-place San Francisco.
"I enjoy proving all the stats guys wrong," said rookie third baseman Mark Reynolds. "It's fun to read about how we should be a last-place team. I guess even Pythagoras can be wrong sometimes."
Thing is, Pythagoras is almost never wrong. Before this year, there were only three teams to make the playoffs while being outscored by their opponents -- the 1987 Minnesota Twins, 1997 San Francisco Giants and 2005 Padres. And according to Retrosheet.org, only the 1905 Detroit Tigers outperformed their Pythagorean winning percentage by a greater margin than the Diamondbacks have this year.
The Diamondbacks, in fact, may be one of the strangest playoff teams in recent history. Out of 16 NL teams, they rank 15th in batting average (.250), 14th in runs scored (690) and 16th in on-base percentage (.320). They have six rookie position players and one rookie starting pitcher seeing significant playing time. Their leadoff hitter, Young, carries a .298 on-base percentage. There's not a single .300 hitter or 100 RBI man on their roster. They have a bona fide ace in sinkerball specialist Brandon Webb (17-10, 3.02 ERA), but their other starting pitchers have ERAs hovering in the mid-4s.
"Baseball is a stats-oriented sport, and I understand that," said first baseman Conor Jackson. "But in the end, it doesn't matter. We find ways to win. We get big hits. We get big outs on the mound. We make big plays."
Added Young: "No matter what anyone else says, we've been playing great baseball. Not every player is having a great season, personally. But as far as a team playing the game the right way, we're doing a great job."
As for this Pythagorean thing, it's actually fairly simple: The Diamondbacks are a staggering 32-18, best in the majors, in one-run games, but have 13 losses of seven or more runs.
Although the stats crowd often argues that success in one-run games is largely a matter of luck, the truth is the Diamondbacks have one of the best bullpens in baseball -- at least at the back end -- and a manager, Bob Melvin, who knows how to deploy it. By tossing his lousy mop-up men into blowouts while saving his best relievers for high-leverage situations, he permits the Diamondbacks to absorb ugly losses while winning a greater proportion of close games.
"When we lose, it seems like we lose 15-0," Reynolds said. "But if we win the first two games of a series, then lose 15-0 in the third game, we still won the series."
In addition to his deft handling of the bullpen, Melvin, a leading candidate for NL manager of the year, has also shown a knack for lineup-juggling, often as a means of protecting his young hitters, such as 20-year-old right fielder Justin Upton, from the league's nastiest pitchers. Entering Tuesday, he had used 141 unique lineups in 156 games, most in the majors.
"Unlike other teams where there's a set lineup every day," Melvin said, "we have to be cognizant that we do have some very, very young guys here, and on a particular day, if they don't need to see a certain guy -- because of the psychology of it -- I might be apt to pull them back a little bit."
While the Diamondbacks were the envy of baseball this spring, with their dazzling collection of young, blue-chip talent, even the team's brass figured the kids needed a year to put it all together -- which meant 2008, not 2007, was the target.
How it all came together in such a short time may be a question better left to the theorists and stats geeks. They can explain everything, right? All the Diamondbacks know is, it's fun proving people wrong -- especially 2,500-year-old smack-talking philosophers.
"That's what we like to do," Jackson said. "We want to be able to hold up the World Series trophy at the end of the year and say, 'What's up now? Anybody else? Anybody else got something to say?' "
|
Baseball's Pythagorean winning percentage, which relates a team's runs to its win-loss record, says the NL-leading Diamondbacks should be a losing team.
| 42.580645 | 0.935484 | 1.83871 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101818.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101818.html
|
Shingles Vaccine Proves Painful
|
2007092619
|
Clara Davidson is the kind of person public health officials had in mind when they approved the shingles vaccine last year.
At 83, she recently suffered through a painful bout of shingles, a reactivation of the dormant virus that causes chickenpox. It was, she recalls, "quite nasty," an experience she is eager to avoid repeating. With the possibility of a recurrence in mind, her suburban Maryland internist urged her to get the shot known as Zostavax, which an advisory committee to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended for Americans 60 and older.
But Davidson's willingness to be immunized evaporated once she discovered the unusual rules governing the vaccine: Medicare won't pay for it, as it does flu shots and other vaccines; her doctor doesn't stock it, so she'd need to pick it up at a pharmacy and bring it back to his office within 30 minutes; and her supplemental Medicare Part D prescription drug plan doesn't cover it.
As a result, the Columbia resident is just saying no to the shot that would cost her $200.
"I can afford to do it, but I got my back up and I'm not going to," said Davidson, who regards her refusal as something of a moral issue. "More people should take a stand; $200 is a horrendous amount of money. The drug companies are rolling in money and should help pay instead of running full-page ads," she said, citing prominent advertisements for the vaccine taken out by manufacturer Merck earlier this year.
Vaccines that are particularly beneficial for older Americans, including those for flu and pneumococcal pneumonia, have been fully covered under traditional Medicare rules. Zostavax is the first vaccine that is -- or isn't -- covered by Medicare Part D drug plans, a byzantine patchwork with a wide variety of rules and reimbursement rates.
"It's become a free-for-all, " said Kenneth Schmader, chief of geriatrics at Duke University Medical Center who heads the research committee for the American Geriatrics Society. While most Part D plans cover Zostavax, he said, some practices are charging as much as $500 per shot (doctors pay about $150 per dose) in an effort to recoup their overhead. Zostavax, which is a live virus, must be handled carefully and remain frozen until shortly before it is injected.
The result, he said, is that many patients who could benefit from the vaccine and avoid shingles and its severely painful aftermath known as postherpetic neuralgia -- nerve damage that can persist for months -- aren't being immunized. Health officials estimate that 35 million to 40 million Americans are candidates for the shot; according to Merck, 1 million doses of the vaccine have been sold.
Merck spokeswoman Mary Elizabeth Blake said that the company "is working to address logistical challenges" confronting patients. "Progress is being made."
"We certainly believe it is priced appropriately and reflects the value of this vaccine," she added.
Most health plans, Aetna included, require that patients pay doctors upfront for the full cost of the vaccine and its administration and then file for reimbursement.
"The amount of reimbursement would depend on the plan a person is in," Aetna spokesman Walt Cherniak said in an e-mail.
|
Clara Davidson is the kind of person public health officials had in mind when they approved the shingles vaccine last year.
| 29.045455 | 1 | 22 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502400.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502400.html
|
Fillmore Music Hall To Be Built In Silver Spring Under County Deal
|
2007092619
|
Ted Mankin, a Live Nation executive, said the club would offer a wide palette of programming -- rock, folk, blues, jazz, country, comedy and children's entertainment -- while also hosting local talent nights and community events. "It's not going to be just another rock club," he said. The Silver Spring Fillmore's interior will be patterned after the original San Francisco venue once owned by Bill Graham, the late promoter, including crystal chandeliers, dark red walls and historic rock posters.
Parties to the deal said the Fillmore is expected to open in late 2009 or early 2010.
Leggett said yesterday that Live Nation's willingness to open the venue for public and private events -- from graduations to receptions -- was "a key thing" in reaching a deal. "Given the public investment, their ability to bring a wider array of people into Silver Spring was part of it."
The project's roughly $10 million budget relies on $4 million each from the state and from Montgomery County. The balance would come from private parties in the deal.
In late July, the county ended negotiations with the owners of the Alexandria-based Birchmere Music Hall. The administration of former county executive Douglas M. Duncan had approached the Birchmere in 2002 about opening a second venue in Silver Spring, and Duncan announced a tentative deal last year. But the county and the Birchmere ultimately could not agree over what Leggett described as "a host of critical issues."
Duncan, now an administrator at the University of Maryland, announced a new plan yesterday to open a Birchmere venue in College Park. The 500-seat music hall would partner with the university's school of music and be part of its major redevelopment project to bring more restaurants and stores to the campus.
County Council member Valerie Ervin, who represents Silver Spring, expressed confidence that Live Nation would not require ongoing taxpayer subsidies because of its "reservoir of funds." She also said that the Fillmore would bring "an enormous amount of cachet to Silver Spring."
The Fillmore is a new brand of nightclubs that Live Nation has introduced in six cities to complement its 11 House of Blues clubs. Live Nation, when it was a part of SFX, purchased Bill Graham Presents in the late '90s. In the '60s, the legendary Graham-owned Fillmore in San Francisco launched the careers of rock, soul and jazz icons including the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Santana.
Most of the Fillmores are renamed older facilities, including New York's Irving Plaza and Detroit's State Theater. The Silver Spring venue would be the first Fillmore built from the ground up, although the facade will remain. It would occupy the empty J.C. Penney retail space and parking lot as part of proposed $110 million redevelopment plan that will include offices, a hotel and shops.
Lee Development Group is contributing $3.5 million in land for the music hall and for public improvements, said company president Bruce Lee. Under terms of the agreement, LDG will construct the music hall as a major public amenity before building the balance of the proposed development, he said.
Lee said the swift agreement with Live Nation was made possible by "the music operator agreeing to the business terms, which was a major problem in dealing with the Birchmere."
Live Nation was approached when negotiations with the Birchmere began to break down. Live Nation was spun off in 2005 from Clear Channel Communications, which (under the name SFX) acquired many concert production companies around the country, including Alexandria-based Cellar Door in 1999.
It owns, operates or books more than 160 venues globally, including 39 amphitheaters and 58 theaters. Locally, the company operates Nissan Pavilion (which it owns) and the Warner Theatre, and books shows at Verizon Center, Constitution Hall and other locations.
On Monday, Seth Hurwitz, head of Bethesda-based IMP, which owns the 9:30 club (the nation's busiest in terms of ticket sales) and operates Merriweather Post Pavilion, sent a letter to Leggett expressing his "sincere interest in the proposed music facility in Silver Spring." Hurwitz said he had held off, hoping the county and the Birchmere "would all get back to the table because it's probably what belongs there. . . . As a lifelong Montgomery County resident, and with 28 years of experience in the music business, I would have liked to be considered for this opportunity."
The Fillmore would likely pose major competition to the 9:30 club, a District venue long celebrated for booking important rock bands and ranked as one of the nation's best places to hear music.
Leggett said Hurwitz's letter came "sort of at the last minute" and too late. "We've been out there and some people have come and talked to us, but this was the first I heard from them."
|
Live Nation, the world's largest producer of live concerts, has sealed a deal to build one of its Fillmore clubs in Silver Spring, bringing a hallowed name in rock history to the entertainment district in the city's revitalized downtown.
| 21.088889 | 0.733333 | 1.311111 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401322.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401322.html
|
A Little Rock Reminder
|
2007092519
|
Fifty years ago this week, President Dwight Eisenhower risked igniting the second U.S. civil war by sending 1,000 American soldiers into a Southern city. The troops, with bayonets at the end of their rifles, provided protection for nine black students trying to get into Little Rock's Central High School. Until the soldiers arrived, the black teenagers had been kept out by mobs and the Arkansas National Guard, in defiance of the Supreme Court's 1954 ruling ending school segregation.
The black children involved became the leading edge of a social experiment. Their lives offer answers to the question of what happens to black children who attend integrated schools, a question underscored by the recent Supreme Court ruling that voluntary school integration plans in Louisville and Seattle are unconstitutional.
The June decision said a focus on mixing students based on their skin color violates every student's right to be judged as an individual without regard to race. The ruling confirmed a political reality: America long ago lost its appetite for doing whatever it takes -- busing, magnet schools, court orders -- to integrate schools. The level of segregation in U.S. public schools has been growing since 1988, reversing the trend toward integration triggered by Brown v. Board of Education.
The movement away from school integration is glaring. The Civil Rights Project found in 2003 that the nation's 27 biggest school districts were "overwhelmingly" segregated with black and Latino students. Nationwide today, almost half of black and Latino children are in schools where less than 10 percent of the students are white. Those essentially segregated schools have a large percentage of low-income families and, according to researchers, "difficulty retaining highly qualified teachers." Meanwhile, the average white student attends a school that is 80 percent white and far more affluent than the schools for minority students.
This trend toward isolation of poor and minority students has consequences -- half of black and Latino students now drop out of high school.
Integrated schools benefit students, especially minorities. Research on the long-term outcomes of black and Latino students attending integrated schools indicates that those students "complete more years of education, earn higher degrees and major in more varied occupations than graduates of all-black schools."
That conclusion is reflected in the lives of the Little Rock Nine, who represent the black middle class that grew rapidly as better schools became open to black people during the 1960s and '70s.
Ernest Green, 65, who became the first black student to graduate from Central High, is the most prominent of the nine. He earned a master's degree in sociology and worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations. He is director of public finance in Washington for Lehman Brothers.
Melba Pattillo Beals, 65, chairs the African American history department at Dominican University in River Forest, Ill., and wrote an award-winning book about her experiences at Central High; Elizabeth Eckford, 65, is a probation officer in Arkansas; Gloria Ray Karlmark, 64, moved to Sweden to work for IBM and later founded and edited the magazine Computers in Industry; Carlotta Walls LaNier, 64, started a real estate company in Colorado; Terrence Roberts, 65, is a psychologist in California; Jefferson Thomas, 64, fought in Vietnam and worked in government in Ohio for nearly 30 years; Minniejean Brown Trickey, 66, worked in the Clinton administration and is a visiting writer at Arkansas State University; and Thelma Mothershed Wair, 66, became a teacher.
Part of their success comes from their ability to mix easily with black and white people and to comfortably join the social and professional networks that segregation kept from black people. In fact, most of the nine worked in mostly white organizations. And four of the nine married white people (three black women married white men, and one black man married a white woman).
In her book "Turn Away Thy Son," Arkansas native Elizabeth Jacoway notes that the nine never take a group picture with white spouses or mixed-race children. Jacoway believes they don't want to take away from black pride in their achievement or reignite segregationist fears about interracial sex.
Terrence Roberts, who went on to become a psychology professor, thinks "fear of black people in the family" is still a driving force pulling Americans away from integrated schools. Ernest Green, whose first wife was white, calls it the "zipper issue . . . sex and race are highly combustible."
The interracial daughter of Minniejean Brown Trickey, Spirit Trickey, works as a Park Service tour guide at a memorial to the events at Central High. She says visitors regularly ask why so many of the nine broke the taboo against interracial marriage.
"My answer is that the Little Rock Nine followed the principles of nonviolence," she said. "They married who they fell in love with. But it is telling that so many people ask about it. It tells me where we are today."
Juan Williams is a political analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News and the author of "Enough" and "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965."
|
Fifty years ago this week, President Dwight Eisenhower risked igniting the second U.S. civil war by sending 1,000 American soldiers into a Southern city. The troops, with bayonets at the end of their rifles, provided protection for nine black students trying to get into Little Rock's Central High...
| 18.296296 | 0.981481 | 52.018519 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401444.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401444.html
|
Mr. Obama's Cookie Jar
|
2007092519
|
DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate Barack Obama last week proposed $80 billion or so in tax cuts for middle-class taxpayers. These are the sort of have-a-cookie proposals that sound great to voters, especially Democratic primary voters, so they might be smart politics. That doesn't make them smart policy.
Ostensibly, Mr. Obama would pay for his giveaways with a hazy combination of closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens, and raising taxes on capital gains and dividends. Even if it made sense to spend all this revenue to shift tax burdens rather than deal with other problems, the Illinois senator's proposals are poorly crafted, lavishing tax goodies where they're not needed.
Start with by far the most expensive part, a refundable tax credit of up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per family. This would phase out as incomes rose, but why do families making as much as $200,000 a year need new tax help? Since 2001, they've had their tax rates cut and gotten a child tax credit; the middle-class tax burden is at its lowest level in decades. Mr. Obama says he wants to help families squeezed by stagnant wages, but this is an awfully expensive Band-Aid.
The second piece of Mr. Obama's plan is better: a new mortgage credit of 10 percent of mortgage interest costs. This would add complication to a tax code that Mr. Obama simultaneously promises to simplify. But it would have the advantage of fairness, extending the tax benefits of the home interest deduction to those who don't earn enough to itemize or, because the credit would be refundable, to those who don't owe income taxes. But Mr. Obama lacks the courage simultaneously to propose reasonable limits on the mortgage deduction for mega-mansions.
Perhaps the most troubling part of Mr. Obama's plan is his proposal to exempt seniors making $50,000 a year or less from paying income tax. Seniors already enjoy government benefits and preferential tax treatment; it makes little sense, except as a political matter, to ask less of them.
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards has a tax plan that is less expensive (about $25 billion a year) and smarter, targeted at taxpayers who need the most help and at creating incentives for savings. Mr. Edwards would expand the existing Savers Credit to match savings up to $500 a year for retirement, education or home down payments. He also would triple the earned-income tax credit for childless adults and make other changes in that valuable program; Mr. Obama has similar plans for the EITC, but that $3 billion proposal would come on top of his $80 billion-plus in middle-class tax goodies.
If a candidate wants to spread around tens of billions a year in tax largesse, the Edwards plan is a preferable, and more fiscally prudent, way to do it.
Click here for other editorials in the Ideas Primary series.
|
Tax cuts for middle-class taxpayers might be smart politics. That doesn't make them smart policy.
| 28.4 | 1 | 10.9 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101546.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101546.html
|
College Drinking: Less Than You Think
|
2007092519
|
Last month, we took our younger son back to college. Ben's a sophomore at the College of Charleston now, almost 20, and he just moved into an off-campus house with five buddies. (I know. Scary.)
First thing he needed was furniture. So my husband and I loaded up a U-Haul, drove to South Carolina and made Ben's room rather nice, we thought. We put an old chair of ours in the corner by the window. Good place for all that reading you have to do in college.
That night, we went our separate ways, Ben meeting up with friends from freshman year. We made an appointment for lunch the next day. When we arrived, Ben seemed out of sorts, had a headache. The cushion on the chair was backward. I turned it around. There was a big greenish-brown stain on the bottom.
"What happened to this cushion?" I asked. Ben looked down sheepishly. "I puked on it," he said quietly.
What? I was stunned into silence, which isn't an easy thing to do to me.
First because he'd been drinking until he vomited. We knew he drank, but hadn't he learned yet that drinking that much wasn't any fun? And then the stupidity of vomiting on a chair we had just brought from Washington for his new room. While we were still in Charleston. Omigod. The kid had no brain, and we were leaving him in this big, drafty old house nine hours from where we live.
Thing is (and I don't think I'm just a mom deluding myself here), Ben's a pretty normal college kid. He's a nice guy with a heart of gold, I swear. He's close to his family; he's doing fine in school. I don't want to jinx anything, but we're pretty sure he'll turn out okay in the end.
But he drinks. Regularly. Plenty, apparently. Sometimes until he throws up, I guess, although he swore that that was a rarity and that he usually aims for the toilet. When I told the chair story to my older son, who's at James Madison University in Virginia, he informed me that some girls actually like to drink until they vomit, to get rid of all those unwanted calories. There are lots of fun games at college that involve imbibing huge amounts of booze really really quickly. A $150,000 B.A. in beer pong, anyone?
Lots of college kids -- mostly underage -- drink. We all know that. But it's against the law. And that means something.
I've been thinking a lot about the law these days, ever since I started covering a crime and courts beat here at The Washington Post in March. I've seen some heart-wrenching, thought-provoking cases involving underage drinking since I started -- cases that have made me look hard at my own parenting, how my two sons view drinking and how the law views all of us.
I've been doing a lot of soul-searching -- and the cushion incident only made matters worse. Have my husband and I been too permissive, hostages to our own upbringing? Did we give these boys too much credit for knowing when enough is enough?
Soul-searching turned into researching, though, and what I found actually quieted my anxious heart. Despite the headlines, the truth is that drinking among college students has decreased. And young people's attitudes about drinking and driving have changed, too, with many of them much more reluctant to get behind the wheel after imbibing.
|
Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia obituaries, appreciations and death notices.
| 55.076923 | 0.538462 | 0.538462 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101543.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101543.html
|
College Sex: Going Home Alone
|
2007092519
|
One year, shortly before graduation, the mother of a friend came to visit him at college. As they walked across campus after dinner, a young woman he knew stopped to say hello and ask where he was going. "He's going home," his mother snapped. "Alone."
Has it really come to this? Has adult obsession with college sex reached such a pitch that a parent assumes that every cordial conversation will, without his or her intervention, end in frantic intercourse?
Actually, we understand parents' alarm. College today is portrayed almost exclusively as a sexual free-for-all, where undergrad action is effortless and frequent, where randy young things not so much leap into the sack as never leave it in the first place.
Rolling Stone calls it "the booze-fueled culture of the never-ending hookup." In her book "Unhooked," The Washington Post's Laura Sessions Stepp sniffs that hookups are as "common as a cold." Bill O'Reilly airs furtive footage on Fox News of "pure debauchery" at Brown University's annual SexPowerGod party. And of course, in Tom Wolfe's impossible-not-to-cite novel "I Am Charlotte Simmons," set on a campus where sex is in the air -- sorry, where the air is "humid with it! Tumid with it! Lubricated with it! Gorged with it!" -- students practically major in "herky-jerky . . . bang bang bang." One envisions RU-486 available at the dining hall salad bar, next to the croutons.
But as the Class of 2011 settles in on campus this month, we're betting that the students are discovering the cold-shower truth: The type of action they're likely to get is more hanky than panky.
We say this at our own peril. As the editors of IvyGate, a blog that dines out on all that is base and scandalous about the Ivy League, we have written about students and sex once or twice. It's hard not to, when even the smallest incidents get hyped to the max.
This year, two weeks before Valentine's Day, we posted an e-mail that the beleaguered master of a Yale residential college had sent to his charges -- subject line: "Shower Stalls are for Showering" -- asking an unnamed intimate couple to please stop clogging the bathroom drain. Hilarious? Absolutely. (The man has a PhD!) Did we give it a second thought? Nah. Not, that is, until a New Haven newspaper got wind of the professor's plea. And then the Associated Press. And then about 130 news outlets worldwide, including the "Today" show.
It wasn't the first time, obviously, that a campus sex story had been blown out of proportion. Last fall, the New York Daily News ran a thoughtful, nuanced article with the headline "WILD SEX 101: S&M Clubs, Nude Parties, Porn, X-Rated Romps Rule at Columbia." Having gone to Columbia, where we had experience with only the third item on that list, we read eagerly. Had the school really become a "playpen for sexual hijinks" in the months since we'd graduated? By e-mail and instant message, we canvassed some friends for our blog: Forget the kinky part; how often are you having sex at all? Here are some of the responses:
"Once every six months. Columbia is a rough world for single people."
"The average in the engineering school is probably like once a semester."
"Either I missed out or everyone else in college isn't having sex at all."
"Random hookups do happen, but it is probably rare for most students. At night people just go back to their rooms and finish their homework, or maybe heat up a Hot Pocket."
|
One year, shortly before graduation, the mother of a friend came to visit him at college. As they walked across campus after dinner, a young woman he knew stopped to say hello and ask where he was going. "He's going home," his mother snapped. "Alone."
| 13.051724 | 1 | 58 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101817.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101817.html
|
THE MISFITS: GEARING UP FOR FALL
|
2007092519
|
In the six months that journalists Howard Schneider and Vicky Hallett have been exercising as the MisFits, they've learned a thing or two -- about bun-building workouts and 100-mile bike rides and, most of all, about how important it is to dress for the occasion. Feeling that fall nip in the air, Vicky recently worried that Howard might quit his fitness regimen and pack on pounds unless she could find gear to protect him from the cold; and Howard realized that Vicky needed clothing that would allow her to straddle, sweat-free, the lines between home, gym and office. So we sent them out to do a little shopping together . . .
in the world than Howard Schneider. The man swears by his collection of four pairs in grubby shades of navy and gray that look as if they're about my age. "Sweat pants are perfect," he tells me.
Under most circumstances, I would have merely smiled and nodded and put it down to his, well, Howardliness. But since he had taken up yoga and pledged to bike and run through the winter, I'd begun to worry about Howard's sartorial limitations. I couldn't let him revert to his old ways of saying it's too cold to exercise, not when the shelves are stuffed with gear that will prove his excuse to be just what it is -- lame. Read More
and I have to write about it even though I have no idea -- just as a for-instance -- what a "Mary Jane" is, beyond a nickname for marijuana or a really sticky piece of candy.
As a feature writer for The Post company's free daily paper, The Express, Vicky has a job that often involves trying out new exercise equipment and routines, then shifting gears later for a formal interview. "Going to the Ritz to interview a movie star" is how she put it over lunch with me at California Tortilla (and, yes, I guess that means I am not quite on her "A" list). Read More
|
In the six months that journalists Howard Schneider and Vicky Hallett have been exercising as the MisFits, they've learned a thing or two -- about bun-building workouts and 100-mile bike rides and, most of all, about how important it is to dress for the occasion. Feeling that fall nip in the air,...
| 6.491803 | 0.983607 | 59.016393 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401929.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401929.html
|
What Defines a Killing as Sectarian?
|
2007092519
|
Such determinations are the building blocks for what the Bush administration has declared a downward trend in sectarian deaths and a sign that its war strategy is working. They are made by a specialized team of soldiers who spend their nights at computer terminals, sifting through data on the day's civilian victims for clues to the motivations of killers.
The soldiers have a manual telling them what to look for. Signs of torture or a single shot to the head, corpses left in a "known body dump" -- as the body of the Sunni man found on Sept. 3 was -- spell sectarian violence, said Chief Warrant Officer 3 Dan Macomber, the team leader. Macomber, who has been at his job in Baghdad since February, rarely has to look it up anymore.
"If you were just a criminal and you just wanted to take somebody's money, just wanted to discipline them, you're not going to take the time to bind them up, burn their bodies, cut their arms off, cut their head off," he explained. "You're just going to shoot them in the body and get it over with." That, the team judged, is what happened to the four Shiite men, sprayed with gunfire and left where they dropped.
In the Iraq conflict, traditional military measures of achievement -- troops deployed, enemy dead, territory won -- are challenged by the chaos of counterinsurgency warfare. But Congress, the public and the military itself demand an accounting. Far from the battlefield, platoons of soldiers in Iraq and at the Pentagon are assigned to crunch numbers -- sectarian killings, roadside bombs, Iraqi forces trained, weapons caches discovered and others -- in a constant effort to gauge how the war is going.
In recent months, most of the military's indicators have pointed in a favorable direction. As with all statistics, however, their meaning depends on how they are gathered and analyzed. "Everybody has their own way of doing it," Macomber said of his sectarian analyses. "If you and I . . . pulled from the same database, and I pulled one day and you pulled the next, we would have totally different numbers."
Apparent contradictions are relatively easy to find in the flood of bar charts and trend lines the military produces. Civilian casualty numbers in the Pentagon's latest quarterly report on Iraq last week, for example, differ significantly from those presented by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his recent congressional testimony. Petraeus's chart was limited to numbers of dead, while the Pentagon combined the numbers of dead and wounded -- a figure that should be greater. Yet Petraeus's numbers were higher than the Pentagon's for the months preceding this year's increase of U.S. troops to Iraq, and lower since U.S. operations escalated this summer.
The charts are difficult to compare: Petraeus used monthly figures on a line graph, while the Pentagon computed "Average Daily Casualties" on a bar chart, and neither included actual numbers. But the numerical differences are still stark, and the reasons offered can be hard to parse. The Pentagon, in a written clarification, said that "Gen. Petraeus reported civilian deaths based on incidents reported by Coalition forces plus Iraqi government data. The [Pentagon] report only includes incidents reported by Coalition forces for civilian causality data."
"There is a current effort to consolidate multiple databases in theater," a Multi-National Force-Iraq headquarters spokesman said in an e-mail.
The number of sectarian killings in 2006 -- a key reference point in measuring improvement this year -- has changed considerably in the line graphs used in the Pentagon's past three quarterly reports, increasing between the March and June assessments this year and again in last week's report. Macomber, the analyst in Baghdad, said the first jump occurred when his office realized after the March version was published that a backlog of Iraqi government data had not been included in the 2006 figures.
The most recent increase came when the Pentagon decided to include Iraqis killed in vehicle and suicide bombings, the most obvious forms of sectarian violence. Baghdad had always tallied those numbers along with other killings, Macomber said, but the Pentagon had always taken them out in compiling its own graphs. Asked about the change, a Pentagon spokesman e-mailed that "We regularly review our metrics to determine the most informative way to report what is happening in Iraq."
In an Iraq assessment released this month, the Government Accountability Office said it "could not determine if sectarian violence had declined" since the U.S. troop buildup began in the spring and saw no decrease in overall attacks against civilians as of the end of July. The GAO recommended that the administration expand its statistical sources to include "all relevant U.S. agencies" and that it use "broader measures of population security" to establish trends. An unpublished, classified annex to its report listed the sources of differing agency opinions and provided more detail on the kinds of measurements the GAO thought should be included.
|
On Sept. 1, the bullet-riddled bodies of four Iraqi men were found on a Baghdad street. Two days later, a single dead man, with one bullet in his head, was found on a different street. According to the U.S. military in Iraq, the solitary man was a victim of sectarian violence. The first four were...
| 14.712121 | 0.80303 | 1.348485 |
low
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401660.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401660.html
|
Iraqi Prime Minister Says That Civil War Has Been Prevented
|
2007092519
|
"I can't say there is a picture of roses and flowers in Iraq," Maliki told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "However, I can say that the greatest victory, of which I am proud . . . is stopping the explosion of a sectarian war." That possibility, he said, "is now far away."
While political reconciliation is not yet complete, he said, progress is being made. "Reconciliation is not a decision that can be made, but a process that takes continuous efforts and also needs strategic patience," Maliki said.
He said cabinet ministers who have left his government in protest will be replaced, and he expressed confidence that the Iraqi parliament will pass legislation that he, the Bush administration and Congress have demanded.
Maliki, who will speak to the U.N. General Assembly tomorrow, deftly dodged questions about last week's incident in which employees of Blackwater, a private U.S. security firm, allegedly killed 11 Iraqi civilians. While "initial signs" are that "there was some wrongdoing from Blackwater," he said, he will await the results of a U.S.-Iraqi investigation. He dismissed a statement by the interior minister in Baghdad that Blackwater will be banned from Iraq, saying the positions of the ministry and his office are "the same."
Iraqi security forces, Maliki said, are increasingly capable of operating without U.S. support. But he agreed with the Bush administration that an early U.S. withdrawal would be unwise.
Iraq's political leadership, he said through an interpreter, "wants the process of withdrawing troops to happen [simultaneously with] the process of rebuilding Iraqi Security Forces so that they can take responsibility." No one, he said, "wants to risk losing all the achievements" they have made.
But although Bush administration officials have spoken of a smaller, long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq, similar to the tens of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea over the past half-century, Maliki said he does not foresee it.
The two governments, he said, are in the initial phases of discussion about "a long-term multilateral treaty and not necessarily a long-term presence for troops." Any agreement, he said, would have to be approved by the Iraqi parliament.
Maliki's view of Iran's role in fomenting violence in Iraq also diverges from that of the administration. He said his government has begun a dialogue with Iran and Syria and has explained to them that their activities are unhelpful. As a result, he said, "our relationships with these countries has improved to the point that they are not interfering in our internal affairs."
Asked about Iran's Revolutionary Guard Forces, which the U.S. military charges is arming, training and directing Shiite militias in Iraq, Maliki said: "There used to be support through borders for these militias. But it has ceased to exist."
He said he has no fear of Sunni tribal forces recruited by the United States in their Anbar province stronghold because all Sunnis are "sons of Iraq."
Maliki said his goal as leader of Iraq's Shiite-majority government is for Shiites and Sunnis to perceive him as evenhanded. "When people talk about Prime Minister Maliki," he said, ". . . some Shiites say he is with us, some Sunnis say he is against" and vice versa. "This is the equation I want to maintain. I am multi-nationalistic."
|
Washington Post coverage of the American occupation of Iraq, the country's path to democracy and tensions between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
| 27.08 | 0.56 | 0.88 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400417.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400417.html
|
Workers At GM Walk Off The Job
|
2007092519
|
DETROIT, Sept. 24 -- The autoworkers union called its first national strike in more than three decades against General Motors on Monday, sending thousands of workers streaming from plants across the country even as both sides prepared to resume negotiations on a new contract.
The strike came on the 10th day of talks between the United Auto Workers union and GM as the two sides attempt to negotiate a new three-year deal. A prolonged strike could cripple an already troubled automaker, which earlier this year lost its 76-year reign as the world's largest carmaker to Toyota.
GM and the UAW are haggling over wages, job security for U.S. workers worried about jobs moving overseas, and the company's continued investment in new products and job creation. Another substantial item, transferring the management of $50 billion in retiree health-care benefits from GM to the union, is not a sticking point, the union said.
"The No. 1 issue here is job security," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said at a news conference Monday. "This strike is in no way about" the retirees' health-care benefits.
GM spokeswoman Michelle Bunker said: "We are disappointed in the UAW's decision to call a national strike. The bargaining involves complex, difficult issues that affect the job security of our U.S. workforce and the long-term viability of the company."
Despite the mass walkout, some experts did not expect the strike to drag on.
"My own opinion is the strike will be a short one, but time will tell," said David B. Healy, an auto industry analyst with Burnham Securities. "I think it's a little bit of heat just to get GM off the dime. But it lets the workers let off steam and it lets him [Gettelfinger] prove that he hasn't given away the store."
Some of GM's 73,000 union workers disagreed.
"It could be a long strike," said Mark Schindler, a member of Local 659 in Flint, Mich. The UAW's GM workers are seasoned strikers, with a 1998 walkout to its credit that temporarily shut down the automaker. "We've got the most prior experience against management," Schindler said. The strike in 1998 was limited to two plants in Flint and cost GM billions of dollars in income and halted production for 53 days.
GM and the UAW appear to be far apart on job guarantees. The union wants GM to commit to maintaining current production levels in the United States. With the company moving more of its work overseas, the union wants assurances that GM would introduce new products at U.S. plants even if it phases out vehicles being built at them now.
Gettelfinger said yesterday that GM would not budge on the issue.
Gary Chaison, a labor professor at Clark University, said the UAW fears becoming weaker if it allows Detroit automakers to keep moving production overseas.
|
Washington,DC,Virginia,Maryland business headlines,stock portfolio,markets,economy,mutual funds,personal finance,Dow Jones,S&P 500,NASDAQ quotes,company research tools. Federal Reserve,Bernanke,Securities and Exchange Commission.
| 12.727273 | 0.409091 | 0.409091 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/09/24/VI2007092400858.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/09/24/VI2007092400858.html
|
Auto Workers Go on Strike Against GM
|
2007092519
|
» This Story:Read +|Watch +|Talk +
{ "movie":"http://media10.washingtonpost.com/wp/swf/OmniPlayer.swf", "id":"oplayer-video-swf", "width":"100%", height:"100%", "vars":{ "title":"Auto Workers Go on Strike Against GM", "stillURL":"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/11/11/PH2009111128841.jpg", "mediaQueryString":"http://static.washingtonpost.com/wp/swf/OmniPlayer.swf?id=09242007-13v&flvURL=/media/2007/09/24/09242007-13v&playAds=true&adZone=wpni.video.bc&canShare=false" }, "params":{ "allowFullScreen":"true" } }
Suspicious package sits at Fed building for months
Toyota expects to halt production in U.S.
Aerial view of Japan destruction
Truck dangles over ramp; two trapped
Aftermath of blast, Gaza strikes
Elementary class graduate after tsunami
Baking behind bars on Rikers Island
Plea deal nixed in Conn. home invasion case
Police: Teen shot guardians after being grounded
Playing the oil prices money game
Elizabeth Taylor's stand against AIDS
Obama struggles to enter White House
Radioactive water triggers fear in Japan
Buying a new home means paying more
Allied forces crippling Gaddafi's power
Goldman CEO offers no cover for ex-boardmember
Audio: Silence in the tower at DCA
Libya mission gaining; U.S. looks to cede control
Deadly plane crash in Republic of Congo
Strong storms bring wild weather
Watchdog groups want Ukraine zoo closed
Blast at bus station shakes Jerusalem
Japan buries its dead as radiation fears grow
Obama struggles to enter White House
Obama again defends U.S. involvement in Libya
McCain on no-fly zone: "It's been very effective"
U.S. fighter jet crashes in Libya
Obama lauds Chile's transition to democracy
Coalition stops Gaddafi push on rebel stronghold
The Post's Perry Bacon on Obama in Chile
Obama favors Gaddafi stepping down
Palin: 'Overwhelming' to be in Israel
Gates: U.S. will soon yield control in Libya
The Fast Fix - Is Romney winning the base?
Obama: Brazil's democracy example to Arab world
Obama plays soccer with Brazil youth
Obama authorizes military action against Libya
The Post's Forero analyzes Obama's trip to Brazil
Obama: Coalition prepared to act in Libya
Banks boost dividends as Fed loosens leash
Wisc. judge blocks controversial union law
Obama: U.S. ready to enforce sanctions in Libya
Clinton: 'No other choice' in Libya
Westfield and Robinson tie, 1-1
Post Sports Live: Boudreau vs. McPhee - who deserves more credit?
Post Sports Live: Sweet 16 preview
Post Sports Live: Alex Ovechkin's mysterious injury
Post Sports Live, March 22
Georgetown Prep beats Langley, 12-3
Post Sports Live: Verizon Center has Big East feel for NCAA Tourney
Ali asks Iran to free U.S. hikers
JaVale McGee on his first triple-double
Post Sports Live: Mason faces tough road in East region
Post Sports Live: Georgetown's chances rest on Wright's hand
Navy knocks out in-state rival Towson, 14-11
Georgetown draws 5th-seed, faces Princeton this Sunday
Post Sports Live: NCAA Tournament preview
Post Sports Live, March 15
George Mason reacts to first-round matchup with Villanova
Sneak peek: 'History Will Be Made'
North Point claims 4A title
Centennial loses to Milford Mill, 56-44
Toyota expects to halt production in U.S.
Aerial view of Japan destruction
Aftermath of blast, Gaza strikes
Elementary class graduate after tsunami
No Tweeting: A royal wedding etiquette guide
Playing the oil prices money game
Radioactive water triggers fear in Japan
Allied forces crippling Gaddafi's power
Libya mission gaining; U.S. looks to cede control
Deadly plane crash in Republic of Congo
Watchdog groups want Ukraine zoo closed
Blast at bus station shakes Jerusalem
Japan buries its dead as radiation fears grow
Mass protests in Yemen as emergency law imposed
Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop
Obama again defends U.S. involvement in Libya
Missing Va. teacher's body located in Japan
U.S. fighter jet crashes in Libya
Carriages prepared for royal wedding
Japan slowly recovers, mourns dead
Obama lauds Chile's transition to democracy
Coalition stops Gaddafi push on rebel stronghold
The Post's Perry Bacon on Obama in Chile
Truck dangles over ramp; two trapped
Post Today, March 24: U-Md. demands nuclear fallout info
Baking behind bars on Rikers Island
No Tweeting: A royal wedding etiquette guide
Police: Teen shot guardians after being grounded
Elizabeth Taylor's stand against AIDS
Obama struggles to enter White House
Aflac debuts Gilbert Gottfried-less commercial
Strong storms bring wild weather
Elizabeth Taylor's tempestuous love affair
Adorable polar bear twins meet the public
Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop
Elizabeth Taylor dies at 79
Massive shark spotted off Florida coast
Iowa tornado caught on tape
Post Today, March 23: Naming military operations
Circus elephants take a walk through D.C.
Missing Va. teacher's body located in Japan
Footage of crashed U.S. fighter jet
U.S. fighter jet crashes in Libya
Carriages prepared for royal wedding
|
Thousands of United Auto Workers walked off the job at GM plants around the country Monday in the first nationwide strike during auto contract negotiations since 1976. Video by AP
| 31.774194 | 0.419355 | 0.483871 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/07/DI2007090701973.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/07/DI2007090701973.html
|
Fall TV Season - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
With new programs beginning and past favorites returning, the fall TV season is in high gear. Which shows will be instant hits (or turnoffs!)?
Will the much-hyped "Pushing Daisies" become this season's "Heroes"? Can the controversial "Kid Nation" attract loyal viewers, or just more controversy? Can critically acclaimed "Friday Night Lights" score more viewers in its sophomore season? And which shows will be the first to go, as viewers vote with their remotes?
The TV Week staff was online Tuesday, Sept. 25, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss television's newest fare and answer questions about your old and new favorite shows. What programs are YOU looking forward to seeing? Share your comments.
TV Week Staff: Hello and thanks for joining us for our annual chat about the new season's shows. We've got a lot of questions, so we'll get going right away. Of the new shows you've seen, what are your likes and dislikes so far?
NYC: Last night, I watched "How I Met Your Mother," the second half of the geek show that followed, "Heroes" and "Weeds."
"Weeds" blew all the other shows out of the water.
Are there any fall network shows that can keep up with cable?
TV Week Staff: Granted, "Weeds" is an acquired taste. Of the new fall network shows, there are several that could do well. For drama, try CBS's "Cane" on Tuesdays or ABC's "Dirty Sexy Money" on Wednesday, for comedy try "Reaper" on CW on Tuesdays. For fantasy, "Pushing Daisies" on ABC on Wednesdays. We thought "Viva Laughlin" which starts Oct. 18 on CBS has the high production values of some cable shows. And we kinda liked that geek show you mentioned "Big Bang Theory" on CBS.
Eagerly anticipating:: Okay, I confess, I can't wait to see "Cavemen," even if it's only watchable for five minutes, I just want to be able to say I saw it. It seems to have built up a high level of negative energy among critics.
TV Week Staff: Let the anticipation continue to build until the premiere on Tuesday Oct. 2. We suspect a lot of people like you will tune in to the show, some just to see how bad it is.
TV Week Staff: and maybe we'll all be surprised.
Silver Spring, Md.: How long will ABC stick with "Grey's" if it continues to slide both critically and ratings-wise the way it has?
TV Week Staff: ABC is going to stick with "Grey's Anatomy for a while, we're betting. For one, it's gotten huge ratings, even if it has slipped some. (Fox certainly isn't going to dump "American Idol," even though that show has slipped some, too.) And now ABC has a spinoff of Grey's to consider, too.
Alexandria, Va.: What are you hearing about "FNL"? Is NBC going to stick with it for all of Season 2?
TV Week Staff: FNL moves to its new time slot, on Fridays at 9 p.m., beginning Friday Oct 5. (see TV Week's FNL cover story this coming Sunday) The show was picked up for a full run, and has had a loyal, if small, viewer base. NBC is committed to the series, now we'll just see if more viewers are too.
Washington, D.C.: I haven't watched anything new yet ("The War" is more compelling than anything else so far), but I am looking for a new guilty pleasure. I find it hard to believe Peter Krause would do anything bad, so what are the prospects for "Dirty Sexy Money"?
TV Week Staff:"The War" is amazing, no doubt, and we're glad you're watching. "Dirty Sexy Monday" couldn't be more different -- the perfect guilty pleasure, as you say. And we really loved it -- a great mix of characters, actors and lots of intrigue. Hard to beat that combination. And with shows like "Six Feet Under" and "Sports Night" under his belth, Krause is one of our favorites, too. -
"Heroes": I loved "Heroes" last year and was looking forward to this season. But, I thought last night was a big disappointment. It just seemed to lack the energy and whimsy of last season. Is this a portent of things to come?? I hope not.
TV Week Staff: While we've heard from at least one other chatter that they loved the season premiere, we agree with your take: We thought the first show of the season was okay, but not great -- a bit of a letdown after a fantastic first series. But we'll keep tuning in for several more shows because we love the series and hope it will rebound.
Potomac Falls, Va.: Okay, am I the only one who can't stand Kristin Bell from "Veronica Mars"? She's going to ruin "Heroes" and her voiceover work on "Gossip Girl" is really annoying and unnecessary (and I thought that before I knew she was the voiceover actress). Ugh, please tell me there's an end in sight of her work this fall.
TV Week Staff: You are not alone, although we did not find Kristen's narration on "Gossip Girl" especially annoying. She's got Broadway experience and other acting chops, so we'll take a wait-and-see approach to her role on "Heroes."
Alexandria, Va.:"The Bionic Woman" looks pretty decent, but my question is this -- if it holds to the original show, she gets bionic legs, one arm and an eye. In the trailer, she's getting her butt kicked by the evil bionic woman. While her bionic parts could withstand that punishment, her non-bionic parts and organs would not be able to handle the shock of her leaps and bounds, running and beatings. Does the show account for that? I think we nerdy viewers these days, while willing to suspend disbelief on the bionics, do not want to see all other physical laws broken.
TV Week Staff: Sorry, but this show is less about physical laws being broken and more about suspended disbelief! As an action adventure series, it's all about the effects and, well, action.
Rockville, Md.:--Why did "Scrubs" kill off the nurse character, when she was probably the sanest person in the cast?
--Why has the SciFi Channel continually killed off every decent show that it has snagged, including "The Outer Limits," "Sliders," "Farscape" and "Stargate SG-1?"
--Why does SciFi show wrestling? No one watches that show.
--What, exactly, is MyTV, or whatever that thing is? Who runs it, what is it trying to do, and why is it even there? It's the absolute worst lineup of old movies, reruns, bad shows and dumb scheduling we've all seen in a while. And execs wonder why no one's watching TV? This is why no one is watching TV.
--"Kid Nation," in its premiere was so astoundingly awful and offensive, all the CBS execs should be investigated, punished and sent to Bonanza themselves -- with no camera crews, no boxes of food, no water wells, nothing. For 40 days. And no phones, televisions or radios. Then we'll see some reality.
TV Week Staff: According to the folks at the trade newspaper Variety, creator Bill Lawrence struck a deal with Aloma Wright, who plays Nurse Laverne Roberts. He killed off her character to create some emotional charge in what he assumed was the show's final season. But the deal was this: If "Scrubs" returned for another season, he would bring back Wright to play the part of Laverne's twin sister, Shirley (a takeoff on "Laverne & Shirley," of course). Wright reportedly will sport a wig when she returns, but other than that her character will essentially resume its presence, just under a different name.
TV Week Staff: We can answer the first part of your list of questions and observations.
Falls Church, Va.: The first poster was referring to "Chuck" - the geek show. I watched it and while it was a bit over the top, I liked it. My husband loved it. We'll be coming back for more.
TV Week Staff:"Chuck" will remain 60 minutes -- though the tone is more of a comedy, so we can see why you're a little confused. We, like you, enjoyed it a lot and think it has a lot of potential
Abingdon, Md.: I saw 'Chuck' last nught and enjoyed it very much. I was surprised though that it was an hour long -- I know that last night was the pilot, so I don't know it the regular format will be 30 minutes or 60. Have you heard any other feedback on the show?
TV Week Staff: More about "Chuck"...
Durham, N.C.: Had high hopes for, but was sorely disappointed by "K-Ville." Thoughts on how long that one will last? Must confess that I adored "Chuck" last night -- funny, sweet and enjoyable.
TV Week Staff: Couldn't agree more on "K-Ville" -- it can't decide if it wants to be a high-speed action thriller or a social commentary on post-Katrina New Orleans. But there's no question the most compelling character is the city itself.
(As for "Chuck," see above...)
"Prison Break": Ummmm. I am not quite sure where this season is going -- what are the prospects for Season 3 recapturing the greatness (Okay, really really goodness) of Season 1?
TV Week Staff: We agree "Prison Break" was great for season 1 but the premise, along with the show, has worn thin.
Rockville, Md.: Watched "Heroes" with my husband last night. Both of us were not impressed. The whole hour was jumping from one plot with another, making it hard for to keep up with every character. I read on the post that the series has 935 characters. Based on last night's jumble of plots, are they expecting the audience to keep up with 900 plots this season?
TV Week Staff: Thanks for your comments. We're getting a lot of reaction to "Heroes" and will try to share as many as possible.
When can I expect...:..."Scrubs" and the "Amazing Race" to be back in the schedule?
(I am also looking forward to new eps of "Ugly Betty" and probably -- hopefully -- "Dirty Sexy Money.")
TV Week Staff:"Amazing Race" won't be back till the winter, but "Scrubs" is slated to return Oct. 25.
As for "Betty" -- we've seen the first two episodes of the new season, and we're re-hooked. The campy soapiness of it all is strangely addictive...
"Heroes":"Heroes" premiere was GREAT last night! Worth the wait.
TV Week Staff: Glad you enjoyed it!
San Bruno, Calif.: Am I the only person who feels "War" is exceedingly sloooow and repetitious? Unfortunately, when they repeat some facts, i.e. 60 bombers did not return neither did 600 men, the contexts change and the facts don't mesh. Last night the bombing soundtrack got to be too much so I turned it off. Even the music in this movie does not hold up to "Civil War."
TV Week Staff:"The War" spans 15 hours, so there is repetition throughout. With multiple focuses in each episode, viewers will find some parts more interesting and appealing. And some may actually be turned off by some of the material.
Falls Church, Va.: I just wanted to say thank you to Tom for his great review of "Chuck" on NBC. I watched it upon his recommendation and loved it. I'm adding it to my regular Monday viewing. Do you all know how "Chuck" did in last night's ratings?
washingtonpost.com: Way to Go, 'Chuck'! (Post, Sept. 24)
TV Week Staff:"Chuck" got 9.3 million viewers, putting it ahead of "Prison Break" on Fox and two CBS sitcoms (including the brand new "Big Bang Theory"). However, it got walloped by the first hour of the "Dancing With the Stars" premiere, which drew more than 20 million viewers.
Chevy Chase, D.C.: Do you think "Lost" will be hurt by starting in February? Is their fan base so interested in going without commercial interruptions that it is willing to wait?
TV Week Staff: The long hiatus isn't ideal, but the episode shuffle ABC did last season (rerun, then new episode, then rerun, then new episode) really frustrated a lot of people. We think "Lost" fans will be willing to wait.
Washington, D.C.: I saw "Journeyman" last night, and I actually liked it. I didn't love it as much as I love "Heroes," but I'll keep watching because it did get interesting in the middle. Especially the part of learning about... is it Dan?...the main character's past.
Also, I thought "Heroes" did dabble too much in the comic relief and not enough edge-of-your-seat drama. But, I watched this show from the very beginning, and no matter what, like Rihanna said, "I'ma stick it out 'til the end."
TV Week Staff: Yeah, the best thing "Journeyman" has going for it is "Heroes" as its lead-in. Too much headache-including hopscotching across time, and the '90s pop-culture references are a bit jarring, to say the least.
(LOL at your "Umbrella" reference. Nice.)
Arlington, Va.: Will "Rescue Me" be returning for a fifth season?
TV Week Staff: Rumors are flying that the series may not come back for a fifth season, primarily because the FX network president has kept mum on the subject. In previous seasons, renewal buzz started early, but this past season wrapped with no indication of the future for Denis Leary's pet project.
Silver Spring, Md.: Have you seen the second season premiere of "FNL" yet? I saw it online and was hugely disappointed after recently discovering the perfection of the first season on DVD.
TV Week Staff: Thanks for letting us know, we haven't seen the first episode of the new season yet, but having watched the entire first season, we liked its dramatic arc, the small town flavor and the well-drawn, mostly likable characters
Silver Spring, Md.: Any guesses on how "Pushing Daisies" will fare throughout the season? To me, it looks like the sort of thing that will start out great but quickly flame out...
TV Week Staff: So much will depend on character development. The impossible romance between Ned and Charlotte (aka Chuck) may be hard to sustain, but then again the tension between the two could keep the show alive (remember Sam and Diane?).
Arlington, Va.: Oh, come on. "Prison Break" is brain candy, and I'm finding the preposterous "hablas ingles" Panamanian prison grotty fun. It's far more enjoyable than the disparate chases of season 2.
And we get more MacGuyerisms from Michael.
TV Week Staff:"Prison Break" is brain candy. Wentworth Miller is eye candy. We're feeling a sugar rush coming on...
Washington, D.C. : OMG, there are just too many shows I want to watch. And "Dancing With the Stars" is on THREE times this week? Seriously? The funny thing is that the show is on the nights that I go dancing, so I end up taping it and will have to watch later.
Super psyched about "Grey's" and "Big Shots."
When are the two "Sex and The City" look-alike shows coming out?
TV Week Staff: We're guessing you're refering to ABC's "Cashmere Mafia," which is set to premiere Dec. 4 at 9 p.m. (with a special preview Nov. 27). NBC's "Lipstick Jungle" doesn't have a set premiere date yet, but it's supposed to air on Sundays at 10 p.m. starting sometime in January.
Rockville, Md.: Had the chance to see the premier episode of 'Bionic Woman' the other day and thought it was great -- very dark and serious, a big 180 from the original. I haven't seen any advance reviews of the show, so I'm wondering what you guys know -- should I plan on watching it for the long haul, or should I avoid getting too attached to it?
TV Week Staff: We didn't like it as much as you did, but we'll keep watching because you never know where things will go in TVland!
"Bones": I've been 'in training' with a marathon of "Bones" episodes from Season 2 that I missed. I really enjoy the characters and screenplay in this series. The storylines are pretty good too. I think they did a good job adapting the feel of the books to television.
Can't wait for tonight's season premier. (And Thursday "Ugly Betty," of course!)
TV Week Staff: It's funny you say that. Kathy Reichs, who writes the books that inspired "Bones," says the TV version of Temperance Brennan is actually much younger than the one she envisions while writing. Reichs is still a consultant on the show and helps keep things feeling real.
Washington, D.C.: I watched both of the geek shows last night-"Big Bang Theory" and "Chuck." Thought both had potential. Is it wrong that I totally thought the guys in it were cute and not all that dorky?
On an another note what Tuesday show should take the place of my usual "Gilmore Girls" watching?
TV Week Staff: We thought the same thing! The protagonists were dorky, but definitely in an "adorable dork" sort of way.
On Tuesdays -- try "Reaper." It's not as snappy as "Gilmore Girls," but then again, "GG" was an original. By the way, "GG" exec producer Amy Sherman is coming back with a new midseason show, "The Return of Jezebel James."
Eugene, Ore.: I don't watch much network television, but I saw "Chuck" last night with my wife. Wow! This show is as good as most movies. We were impressed and plan on watching every episode. How were the ratings and what did the critics think?
TV Week Staff: Thanks for your thoughts, and we're glad you're going to watch the entire season. (And please see an earlier question for the ratings.)
TV Week Staff: It'll be back in January...
Ellicott City, Md.: I'm waiting for the second season of "Dexter" on Showtime. And as far as I'm concerned, "Back To You" should go back to Fox. Same goes for "Til Death" (when are they going to axe this dog?). And "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" (send it back to school!) "Prison Break" is awful. Dylan McDermot's "Big Shots" looks like a dog. Best show on TV? "Meerkat Manor" on Animal Planet!
TV Week Staff: What an eclectic viewing pattern, from bloody "Dexter" to sometimes cuddly "Meerkat." You seem to like dogs, so perhaps your best bet is to wait for the annual Puppy Bowl in February!
What about "Private Practice"?: I've read that despite the horrible viewer and critic responses to the pilot, they moved forward with the original premise. Yuk.
Why would they take the complexity of the Addison character in such a superficial, one-dimensional arc? Too bad cuz Kate Walsh is talented. Also, the reduction of complex female characters to non-threatening bimbos -- as we're heading into an election in which a woman might become president no less. Very disappointing.
TV Week Staff: Bimbos -- ouch! That's a tough label -- though not entirely off base. We hope they'll add some more dimension to Kate Walsh's character as the show develops. But "Grey' has been superficial and "lite" at times -- and viewers seem to love that. So who knows how they'll react to the L.A. version of Addison.
Harrisburg, Pa.: I kept hearing great things about "Heroes", so I watched it on DVD and found it a fantastic show. I was all set to begin watching it this season, but I find it is opposite my favorite comedy "Two and a Half Men." So, I may wait and watch the second season of "Heroes" when it comes out on DVD. This has me thinking: what is considered the biggest showdown between two shows that have been scheduled opposite each other?
TV Week Staff: Interesting question, and one we don't have the answer to -- there are so many to consider. Chatters, do you want to weigh in?
Downtown D.C.: Have you seen "Aliens in America"? Thoughts? I heard Luke from "Gilmore Girls" will be on it.
TV Week Staff:"Aliens" might sound a bit hokey on paper (Muslim exchange student teaches tolerance to small-town Midwesterners), but it works on a purely comic level. Amy Pietz just nails the Wisconsin accent -- she's a native of the state.
Haven't heard about "Gilmore's" Luke joining the cast...
Atlanta, Ga.: What's your take on "Life"? I want it to do well because of Damien Lewis.
TV Week Staff:"Life" is intriguing somewhat along the lines of quirky detectives such as "Monk" and "Psych" but with a different flavor. Lewis handles the part well.
20 million: for "Dancing With the Stars"? Ugh. What have we become?
TV Week Staff: Preaching to the choir...
Chicago, Ill.: I watched "The Bachelor" last night. Corny show -- but wow is he hot!
TV Week Staff: Hey, whatever gets you watching!
Alexandria, Va.: What do you think "Viva Laughlin's" chances of survival are? Given the American television audience's seeming disdain for musicals, and the inevitable comparisons to "Cop Rock" in all of the press I've read (ugh), it seems like it's being preemptively doomed. But having watched, and loved, the brilliant, campy, wow-fun British series on which it's based ("Blackpool") I have really high hopes. Am I deceiving myself?
TV Week Staff: We're split on "Viva Laughlin": Some of us like the fresh concept, while others thought the premise was a bit contrived. We appreciate the effort to try something new on the part of CBS, and we're looking forward to seeing Hugh Jackman and Melanie Griffith on the small screen. But in general, the show pales in comparison to the British version, where the songs play an understated, tongue-in-cheek role and the acting is more nuanced.
"Project Runway": When will it be back?? Tim Gunn's new show just isn't doing it for me.
TV Week Staff: Bravo's still mum on the Season 4 premiere date, but Heidi Klum's website recently spilled the secret -- the show is rumored to return on Nov. 14.
To Potomac Falls: Yes, you are the only one who dislikes Kristen Bell. The rest of us love her and mourn the loss of "Veronica Mars."
TV Week Staff: Duly noted!
TV Week Staff: We're out of time today, but thanks for all the great questions and input on the new season's shows. Sorry we couldn't answer them all. We'll plan to do another chat soon, so stay tuned!
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.
|
The TV Week staff discusses television's fall TV season and answers questions about your old and new favorite shows. What programs are YOU looking forward to seeing? Share your comments.
| 143.470588 | 0.941176 | 15.117647 |
high
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401562.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401562.html
|
GOP Senator Says Bush Should Put Health Bill Before Policy Goal
|
2007092519
|
With a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the children's health insurance program due for a final vote in the House today, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and White House aides agreed that Bush's opposition to the legislation stems not from its price tag but from far larger health policy issues. The White House wants to use the issue of uninsured children to resurrect the president's long-dormant proposals to change the federal tax code to help the uninsured, adults and children alike, Grassley said, calling that a laudable goal but unrealistic politically.
"The president has a goal that I share, that we need to take care of the uninsured through private health insurance," said Grassley, relating a sharp conversation he had with Bush on Thursday morning. "But you can't put that on this bill."
"It's bad policy," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said of the children's health bill. "Why should we go along with bad policy if we've got something better?"
A day before the House vote, lobbying on Capitol Hill was in high gear. A broad coalition -- including liberal health policy advocates and their usual foes, the health insurance lobby -- endorsed the SCHIP bill, urging House Republicans to get on board and the president to sign it. The bill appears to have at least 69 votes in the Senate, a bipartisan, veto-proof majority, so White House lobbying has focused on House Republicans.
Reps. Heather A. Wilson (N.M.) and Ray LaHood (Ill.) released a letter to fellow Republicans yesterday, urging them to vote for the bill.
Perhaps two dozen or more House Republicans are likely to vote for the bill today, GOP leadership aides said, far more than the five who voted for a more ambitious House version on Aug. 1, which included cuts in subsidies for private Medicare plans. But that would still be well short of the 60 or so that would be needed to override Bush's threatened veto.
"That's not going to happen," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
White House lobbying has targeted the bill's price tag and the mechanism that the bill uses to pay for itself, a 61-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes. Grassley said he was surprised to hear Bush bring up his broader health policy goals.
In talks this spring with Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, White House National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard and Hubbard's deputy, Keith Hennessey, Grassley discussed linking an extension of the 10-year-old SCHIP program to a more ambitious effort to address the adult uninsured. Grassley encouraged the White House to try to round up Democratic support for that approach, but when White House officials made no such effort, Grassley told them in April that the children's health program would have to stand alone.
That is why he said he was surprised when Bush brought it back up in a phone call Thursday, just minutes before the president went before microphones at the White House to blast the SCHIP deal.
Asked if Bush was holding the children's health bill hostage, Grassley said, "Yes."
|
A senior Senate Republican accused President Bush yesterday of holding a bipartisan expansion of the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program hostage to his broader policy goals of using tax deductions to help people afford private health insurance coverage.
| 15.268293 | 0.756098 | 1.731707 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401692.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401692.html
|
Emboldened Taliban Reflected In More Attacks, Greater Reach
|
2007092519
|
KABUL -- Preying on a weak government and rising public concerns about security, the Taliban is enjoying a military resurgence in Afghanistan and is now staging attacks just outside the capital, according to Western diplomats, private security analysts and aid workers.
Of particular concern, private security and intelligence analysts said, is the new reach of the Taliban to the provinces ringing Kabul, headquarters for thousands of international security troops. Those troops are seeking to shore up the government of President Hamid Karzai, help stabilize the country, find Osama bin Laden and rebuild a nation deeply scarred by almost three decades of warfare. So far, they have had only mixed success.
"The Taliban ability to sustain fighting cells north and south of Kabul is an ominous development and a significant lapse in security," said a recent analysis by NightWatch, an intelligence review written by John McCreary, a former top analyst at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
While the number of attacks around the capital has been small compared with the number of attacks in other areas of the country, McCreary wrote, the data showed that the Taliban this summer "held the psychological initiative. They still lack the ability to threaten the government, but moved closer to achieving it than they have in six years."
Analyses by the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, a project funded by the European Commission to advise private aid groups about security conditions across the country, found "a significant monthly escalation in conflict" in the first half of the year. Attacks by armed opposition groups increased from 139 in January to 405 in July, according to the project's director, Nic Lee.
"Every month there's a 20 to 25 percent increase in offensive activity," he said, adding that attacks in June and July were 80 to 90 percent higher than the same period last year, showing a general escalation in the conflict, rather than seasonal fluctuations.
"Attacks have spread across the entire southeast border area, with a rapid escalation in the east, and in the last four months in the center" around Kabul as well, Lee said. "These guys have the strategic intent to take back the country."
NATO and U.S. officials have not released their own statistics about attack trends, but they dispute the notion that the Taliban is significantly expanding operations from its traditional base in the south or that Afghanistan is sliding backward.
U.S. Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, said much of the activity attributed to the Taliban and other militant groups probably was not part of the anti-government insurgency, but more likely was related to criminal activity, narcotics trafficking and tribal disputes. And in some cases, he said, levels of conflict are up because more NATO, U.S. and Afghan forces are pushing into areas of the country where they had never operated. There are an estimated 50,000 international troops here, about half of them American.
"Logic tells you the number of incidents you report are going to be increased," he said.
The Taliban's use of guerrilla warfare tactics -- particularly suicide attacks and roadside bombings -- is on the rise, largely because the insurgents cannot challenge foreign security forces through conventional means, McNeill said. About 60 percent of Afghanistan -- a country slightly smaller than Texas and with 32 million people -- experiences on average less than one significant security event a week, he said, although "the south and the east are clearly exceptions."
The rise in attacks reflects "acts of desperation," said Humayun Hamidzada, the spokesman for Karzai. "If you go and blow up 20 civilians, what does it show? Does it show strength? It shows their weakness. It's no resurgence. It's just showing who they really are."
|
KABUL -- Preying on a weak government and rising public concerns about security, the Taliban is enjoying a military resurgence in Afghanistan and is now staging attacks just outside the capital, according to Western diplomats, private security analysts and aid workers.
| 16.155556 | 1 | 45 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092101137.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092101137.html
|
What's Cooking With Kim O'Donnel
|
2007092519
|
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.
You may submit a question before or during the show.
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: Greetings! The weather we're having is nothing short of dreamy, but in all fairness, I must admit I'd really like some rain. It is SO DRY, and I'm worried for the farmers and their fall crops. I am also desperately trying to stay focused, working on this holiday cookbook project indoors, and a bit of rain would help the hunkering down mode. As promised, I played with phyllo dough and made baklava, a lesson in humility and grace and one that I'd definitely repeat. This week is a two-fer, with the WC vegetarian hour Thursday at 1 ET, fyi. Oh, and to make life easier, our friends in the tech department created something called a vanity url for A Mighty Appetite, which means a shorter Web address that's easier to remember. Now you can find the blog at: www.washingtonpost.com/mightyappetite
And now, let's get this cooking party started...
Alexandria, VA: Hi there Kim!
I posted this last week, but I don't think you got to it in time. Last week you asked a poster where they had been in Italy so you could recommend cookbooks. I am not the original poster, but I recently returned from Florence and was wondering if you could recommend any cookbooks from the region which are easy for the "beginner" chef to understand.
Kim O'Donnel: The original question inspired me to write a blog post about Italian cookbooks. Florence (aka Firenze) is the capital of the famed Tuscany region, and to get started, I recommend Nancy Harmon Jenkins's "Flavors of Tuscany." Frances Mayes, author of "Under the Tuscan Sun" wrote "In Tuscany," which is more of a photo essay/valentine to Tuscany, with 25 recipes. Other Tuscan cookbook ideas?
Washington, D.C.: I wanted to offer a great time-saver tip. I made an applesauce spice cake for a Yom Kippur breakfast this weekend. It called for 1 1/2 cups of applesauce. I always make my own applesauce and didn't have any. So I grated about 2 cups of apple and it worked beautifully. Question -- is there a difference in doing this v. applesauce, i.e. moisture? Also - what can I do to reduce or even eliminate the 1 stick of butter, 1 cup of sugar called for?
Kim O'Donnel: Thanks, dear. Always good to hear of first-hand kitchen reports. The difference in your cake batter b/t applesauce and grated apples was invisible, as you discovered, but if you were to serve at table, the grated stuff would quickly brown. The benefit of applesauce is that it's been cooked and will last a good while. This time of year, I'm making a batch of applesauce every week for Mister MA who lives on the stuff. My Celebritology pal LizKel and I have been kicking around idea of canning apples to have all season long. As for reducing/eliminating the butter in the cake, try Earth Balance shortening. It has become my new favorite sub in baking. It's made with an oil blend and is easier on the cholesterol levels. You can always try reducing sugar, say down to 3/4 cup, but I might not go much lower than that.
I've been experimenting with Moroccan food recently, mostly involving couscous and various spices, but I want to be more adventurous/authentic.
Are there any good Moroccan cookbooks you or the chatters can recommend?? Thanks!
Kim O'Donnel: Good for you. I would check out titles by Claudia Roden and Paula Wolfert, for starters. Anyone want to chime in on Moroccan cookbook titles?
Arlington Gal: Hey Kim, to celebrate turning in a big grad school paper today (hooray!) this weekend's project is homemade cinnamon rolls. I'm good with muffins and pizza dough, but making a sweet-yeast dough has me a little nervous. Any tips? Any baking books I should consult for recipes before starting? I was going to use Mark Bittman's "How to Cook Everything" as my starting point. Also, any thoughts on raisins, nuts, or other spices? I'm not into super sweet things and will probably omit icing, so I'm looking for a little more of a substantial filling than brown sugar, butter, and cinnamon. Thanks much, as always!
Kim O'Donnel: Consider Nick Malgieri when looking at yeasty titles, and I'm wondering if Peter Reinhart has something for sweet buns in one of his books. I'm a fan of cardamom mixed in with cinnamon, and walnuts are always nice, but then again, so are pecans.
I'm having garlic issues. I thought I was moving up in the cooking world by graduating from the pre-minced garlic in a jar to a bag full of bulbs (about 10) that I've been peeling and mincing myself. Unfortunately, I've found that many of the cloves (and sometimes an entire bulb) will be brown, soft, and foul-smelling upon peeling. I'm still working on my first bag (which I store on my countertop), and it's now a few months old.
Is this just too long to keep garlic? Do other people buy garlic in smaller quantities (or on an as-needed basis)? Do more experienced cooks actually use the jarred stuff?
Kim O'Donnel: Akron, do you have a farm market nearby? Garlic is being harvested RIGHT NOW, and it will be fragrant and very un-foul and wonderful. Problem is that so much of the supermarket garlic is coming from China these days, way too far for those bulbs to travel and show up nice for you in the produce aisle. I buy local garlic like crazy while in season, and use it up before I even consider buying some at the store. I've even considered growing my own garlic. Anyone with experience in that department?
Washington, D.C.: I put mint and parsely in the fridge, and never got around to cooking the dishes I had in mind for them. The mint went black and gooey but the parsley, lost scent but looked fine, and upon chopping, smelled like parsley again. Is there anyway to naturally dry mint (leaving to sit out on counter?) so that I can still use it even when I've forgotten about it?
Kim O'Donnel: I tend to think dried mint tastes and feels like saw dust, but I'd love to hear what others have done to solve this dilemma. For fresh mint, put in a plastic container and add water to help stave off the black gooeys.
Looking ahead to the holidays ...: I'm really excited that my husband and I will be hosting my family for a week at Christmas this year in our new house. But I need some recipe help. My younger brother is very restricted in his food: he has celiac disease, severe lactose intolerance (not even butter) and is allergic to soy. How can I turn some Christmas standards (stuffing, pies, sweet breads) into food he can enjoy? Thank you!
Kim O'Donnel: I wrote a piece last month in WP Food section about a Maryland woman with celiac who has developed a GF flour mixture that has proven to be very versatile. Her Web site is: www.nearlynormalcooking.com
For lactose and soy-free fat, consider the Earth Balance spread I mentioned earlier.
Garlic, Md.: Hi Kim, I was told that the way to tell American garlic (which is healthier) from the Asian garlic is that the American garlic has that little brown fuzz on the bottom and the Asian garlic has a flat, clean bottom. Had you heard this?
Kim O'Donnel: I have not heard this. But ever since June 2006, when I found out about those little bulbs coming from the other side of the world, it drives me crazy to think about all the fossil fuel expended -- for garlic!
Washington, D.C.: Okay, silly beginner question, but what's the best way to store potatoes and carrots? My mom swears that you should not keep these in the fridge, but rather in some sort of cellar, but has no explanation other than "that's the way it's done."
Kim O'Donnel: Well, in an ideal world, where we live in houses with cellars and we've got lots of storage room, yeah, the ideal place for root vegetables is in a cool, dark 'root cellar.' But most of us don't have that kind of space freedom, at least not this cook. So I keep those items in my fridge and have no problems to report from doing so.
Chicago, Ill.: Hi Kim. I had the most amazing, delicious bread at a restaurant in Maine. It was served wedge-style, so I'm assuming it was made in a cast iron skillet. Not cornbread, though. It was served with olive oil for dipping. Ever since, I've been searching online for non-corn containing skillet bread and coming up empty. Any recipes you can offer? Thanks.
Kim O'Donnel: Wonder if it was some kind of pan-like focaccia. What was the texture?
I recently relocated to Idaho, but lived in Greenbelt for years and grew awesome garlic. I refuse to buy the kind in the grocery stores now. I have had good luck getting my seed garlic from a company called Filaree Farms in Washington. In fact, we just planted our first Idaho crop last weekend, although in Greenbelt we always planted on Columbus Day weekend.
The local farmer's market here is awesome, too - which was a happy discovery. The only thing I haven't been able to find is pasture raised chickens.
Kim O'Donnel: Hey Idaho! Great info on planting garlic on this side of the country. I may have to get busy. Glad you are getting into things out west. keep us posted.
Arlington, Va.: Hi Kim! When soaking beans overnight do I leave them on the counter or put them in the fridge? Covered? Uncovered? Does it matter?! Thanks! I'm excited to try an alternative to canned!
Kim O'Donnel: Keep'em on the counter. Covered or uncovered doesn't matter, unless you've got critters that might be tempted...
Washington, D.C.: Hi Kim! I am a big fan of sauteed spinach and it usually turns out great for me with just some olive oil and garlic. Last night I prepared it the way I normally do but it was extremely bitter. I am assuming it was just that bunch of spinach I used. Is there something I could have done to cut the bitterness?
Kim O'Donnel: Well, maybe. Have you tasted your oil lately? Pour some on your finger and taste to see if it's gone rancid. And the garlic might be the culprit as well -- how old is that bulb?
Washington, DC: My sister is visiting from Asia, where she really misses fall. Foliage, food, etc. I wanted to make a dinner that would be very fall-ish. Any suggestions? She loves roasted veggies. And we eat all meats.
Kim O'Donnel: I would make a squash puree to start things off. A salad of spinach and sliced pears with your favorite nuts. Baked sweet potatoes with garlic and chiles, to go alongside a roasted chicken with rosemary and olive oil. Dessert -- apple pie?
Washington, D.C. -- Healthy Beef Stew: I made beef stew this weekend and while good -- it was lacking something special. I use an eye round cut of meat (the meat turned out great), and low-fat organic beef broth, and simmered onions, mushrooms, carrots, potatoes and finely minced celery. The broth thickened, but I used a little flour to help it out (mixing flour with broth in a sep. bowl then adding it in). I seasoned with salt, pepper, a bay leaf. Any suggestions for herbs or ingredients which would help my cause but still keep it healthy-ish?
Kim O'Donnel: You're missing acid. I would use some red wine and/or a can of plum tomatoes. The acid does wonder for flavor and balance. I'd also add some fresh sprigs of thyme.
New Wine Drinker: I have a bottle of cabernet savignon and a bottle of chardonnay. I would like to build a dinner around each bottle. Which meats, poultry or fish goes with each bottle and what seasonings and veggies (tex-mex, cajun, southern, italian, thai, asian, etc.) match.
Kim O'Donnel: Generally speaking, cabernet sauvignon and chardonnay are big wines, full in flavor and body, so you need something in the edible dept that doesn't get lost against the wine. That said, I wouldn't choose anything spicy to go with either one of these wines -- in fact, for Thai, Indian or other spicy cuisines, I usually pick a crisper Sauvignon Blanc, a Viognier, an Albarino, something with more acidity. Steak, burgers, lamb chops are classic partners with a Cab, and Chardonnay, well, it's a hard wine to pair with because it can be so buttery. A grilled piece of fish, perhaps.
Ashburn, Va.: I know I'm late sending this in, but I just go out of my meeting! I'm a cooking novice who has enjoyed various types of squash in restaurants. I would like to try to cook butternut squash, but I am not familiar with how. Could you please give me any tips or tricks or even flat out instructions? THANK YOU!
Kim O'Donnel: To cut a butternut squash or any winter squash, you need a sharp knife to pierce its tough skin and go through the flesh with ease. Some folks like to prick a squash with a fork, then put in microwave for a minute, which helps to soften exterior and make for easier cutting. Slice squash in half, scoop out seeds and strings, lather up with olive oil, herbs, salt and pepper, and place on a sheet in 350 oven and allow to roast until fork tender, which can take about an hour. You can also peel squash, scoop out seeds, cut into cubes and boil, then puree.
Washington, D.C.: I'm so excited to read your piece on baklava. I have always wanted to try it, finding the store bought ones very dry, but have always been frightened by phyllo. Even when I cover it with moist paper towel, it get dry and flaky on me.
Kim O'Donnel: There's a really useful tip from a reader in Philadelphia in comments area on how to apply melted fat and move sheet to baking tray without it tearing. Forget paper towel, think dish towel instead.
Washington, D.C.: What's up with this weather?? Mentally, I'm ready for some big, cozy batches of soup, but it still feels like gazpacho weather. Any good transition recipes?
Kim O'Donnel: It is strange, I agree. I feel like I'm in Key West in January. Last night, Mister MA and I had a very ad hoc meal, after 8, that took less than 30 minutes to put together. I had a bunch of sun gold tomatoes that needed attention, so I halve d them, chopped a few cloves of garlic, half a chile and threw all of that into a skillet lined with olive oil. I added a splash of white wine and in another pot, boiled some penne pasta. Used a little bit of cooking water to add to sauce. Chopped parsley went on top, plus a bit of parm, and some olives in fridge that needed to be used.
Alexandria, Va.: We have had great results grilling Tri-Tips but are wondering if it would be a good piece of meat to put in a crock pot/slow cooker? Getting ready to have our first baby in a few weeks and trying to do some make ahead meals, my husband loves this cut of meat but I'm not sure if it's good for slow cooking? Thanks!
Kim O'Donnel: I think I might do beef shoulder for slow cooker. It's muscle-y and needs the long, slow braise to coax it into melty goodness. It's also cheaper than tri-tip.
Parsley lover : A great cook taugh me a little trick many years ago....
When I buy parsely I buy 3 or 4 bunches from the market. I wash it and mince it well. I than add it to ziplock bag, and drop them in the freezer. When I need some parsely, I open the freezer and break off a tiny bit, seal the bag and keep moving.
If you adding to something as a garnish, drop it in a little for a few minutes and its good to go.
Kim O'Donnel: Nice. Excellent tip. Thanks for checking in!
Morroccan cookbooks: I have one from Williams and Sonoma that I like -- it's their own personal brand of cookbooks.
Kim O'Donnel: Excellent. Good to know.
Washington, D.C.: I tried Tom Yum soup the other day and just found it's sourness unappealing to me. Is it that kaffir lime leaves or the lemongrass that makes this Thai soup so sour? I know others love it.
Kim O'Donnel: The lemongrass would not make it sour, but combined with the limes and kaffir lime leaves, well that makes for a sour combination. Have you ever thought about making it at home?
Kim O'Donnel: Ack, it's already time to go. Thanks for stopping by. Come back Thursday for vegetarian hour, if you've got a minute. In the meantime, you can get your daily online bread with A Mighty Appetite, and if you'd like to be on my mailing list for holiday cookbook updates and other treats, send me an e-mail to: writingfood@gmail.com. In the subject field, type "Mailing List."
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.
| 158.826087 | 0.782609 | 1.217391 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001849.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001849.html
|
Asking for a Flexible Work Schedule
|
2007092519
|
Many women struggle when it comes to balancing work and family, especially if their career demands that they be in the office or on the road. Learn the right way to approach your employer about a more flexible work schedule to better fit your lifestyle.
Career expert Tory Johnson will be online to answer questions about women's advancement in the workplace and how to balance your personal life and career.
Find more career-related news and advice in our Jobs section.
Submit questions and comments before and during the discussion.
For more information about Tory Johnson, visit www.womenforhire.com.
Washington, D.C.: What role do you think the power of story has in matching the right applicant with the right job?
Tory Johnson: I think you're asking about the power of a connection -- your ability to connect the right person with the right position. If so, it's hugely powerful. Part of determining the right fit isn't just about hard skills -- the knowledge, skills and experience. It's also about the soft skills -- the ability to convince someone that you'd be a good fit within their culture. That you share the same work style and passion for the business. That type of stuff is rarely conveyed in a resume. It's the story you tell about yourself, your background, your career goals and more. And it can be a powerful way to convince someone to hire you. That story should also go both ways: you want the employer to offer you a compelling story too -- convincing you that they offer what you want. Good luck.
Arlington, Va.: I am the supervisor of a team of 19 people,this position was priviously held by my current manager. When he was the supervisor he never address behavior problems, lates or absenteeism. (I manage a call center contractually we have to be on time.) I have and because I did we no longer have any issues. The problem is that my reputation is shot with our unit manager. He doesn't understand that these issues were here before I took this position nine months ago. (The unit manager and my manager are best friends)
Last week the unit manager wrote me up. I have never been written up in my life. Worse I have been here for nine months and I haven't received a job description. I feel like I have been set up to fail.
P.S. I have 15 years of health care experience.
I am never late (always at the very least 45 mins early) and have never taken unplanned leave.
Tory Johnson: Can you set up a meeting with your direct manager and someone from HR? If that might cause problems, then you should talk to your manager directly. Don't get defensive, but just spell out your concerns while first focusing on the positive -- list your accomplishments since taking over the role. Explain how you've corrected problems that existed prior to your arrival, but RESIST the urge to complain or point fingers at the previous person. That person is gone. You should say you have always had strong, positive relationships with your managers and you look forward to a positive one here too. Ask if there are things he'd like you to focus on. Would he like to talk weekly or every other week or monthly to address any concerns or areas for improvement? Let him know that you appreciate constructive feedback and your goal is to be a stellar performer which is why they selected you for this roll. You can say you were stunned to be written up since it's never happened before -- and that you'd like to resolve any differences or issues through direct conversation. If that effort fails, then you can go to HR. Keep track of all issues so you keep it professional, not personal. You can't say "he's out to get me" without backing it up with facts and specifics. So avoid the accusations and keep it professional. I hope this helps -- best of luck to you. (Oh, and in the end, if you decide this isn't the right fit, look to move on. Obviously not every manager is a good fit for each of us. SOmetimes there is nothing you can do to change that.)
Washington, D.C.: How do you ask a quasi-federal govt agency ( The U.S. Postal Service) for a more flexible schedule when its HR rules do not call for flexibility? I'm a new mom and I've been taking leave every Friday because it is the only day I do not have child care and I'm really not interested in getting it. I have not regretted one moment.
Tory Johnson: Try looking at some of the other government programs for federal employees. For example, some agencies allow workers to have a compressed work week. So for example, if you are required to put in 40 hours over 5 days, which is typically 9 to 5, try to compress those hours into 4 days -- 40 hours over 4 days. It'll mean longer days, but you'll also get shorter weeks. Maybe you can ask for this on a trial basis once or twice a month and then expand from there. Look at what other agencies are doing and use those examples to deliver a solid proposal to your manager. Offer a win-win. You'll be more productive and loyal, which serves your boss well. Good luck
Washington, D.C.: Is there anyway to inquire as to the salary being offered before going through 3 interviews or even the first one, for that matter?
Tory Johnson: Depends on the position and the employer. Sometimes you can ask outright: Can you give me a sense of the compensation? One downside of doing that upfront is that youre saying you care more about money than the opportunity. While that might be true -- and you don't want to waste time if the money isn't right -- you could be limiting yourself. What if they say the job pays $30k, but you want $70k -- so you drop out of the process? Had you gone through it, perhaps you would have connected with execs, they would have been impressed by you, and they would have figured out another opportunity for you. Keep that in mind. Beyond asking directly, do some research on the industry, size of employer, etc to see what the position should pay. Payscale.com and salary.com plus industry-specific associations can be good sources. Hope this helps.
Washington, D.C.: You have worked with a lot of women who look for flexibility in thier careers to help balance thier lives. What do you feel is the most fulfilling solution?
Tory Johnson: There's not one perfect solution for everyone. The most fulfilling situation is one in which everyone is satisfied -- your employer is happy and so are you. The work gets done and everyone has some peace of mind! For some people that means compressed work weeks. For others it's working from home. For some it's working only part-time. It all depends on the other needs and issues you're juggling. But rarely does one solution work perfectly for all.
Reston, Va.: The company I work for is owned and run by men. They offer 4 weeks unpaid maternity leave. We don't have family here, and both my husband and I have to work to pay our mortgage. How do people in our situation handle this? I would consider trying part-time with my company, but we need my full salary. We also won't be able to afford day care. With all this said, we have been putting off starting a family for years. I don't want to run out of time, yet I feel like we don't have many options.
Tory Johnson: This is the challenge impacting millions of Americans. We're the only country of our stature that doesn't offer a paid family leave policy. We talk a lot about family values, but we don't back it up with policies. Your situation is the topic of a segment I"m doing live from DC for GOOD MORNING AMERICA on Friday. Perhaps you can join us live: Friday morning participants should arrive at 6am to the Russell Senate Office Building, which is just across the street from the US Capitol. The entrance is on Delaware Avenue, approximately 15 yards past the Rotunda entrance at the corner of Constitution Avenue and Delaware Avenue. We will not be able to admit people past 6:50am. Once you are in the location of the Russell Senate Caucus Room, we ask that you stay until the end of the broadcast at 9am. Please bring as few items as possible, as you will need to go through security and we will not have a coat check. All participants will be given a blue "GMA Take Control of Your Life!" T-shirt that we'd like everyone to wear for this event. Coffee and light breakfast items will be provided. In your case, try talking to your bosses. Even men get it! You should NOT delay your family dreams -- you can always get a job, but you can't always have a baby. And if a baby is important to you, then you can make it work. Maybe you work some overtime starting now to bank extra money or take on extra work -- and then during your leave, try to negotiate with them for some paid time off and then offer to work part-time during that leave as well. Also, focus now on your finances. Maybe there are ways to cut back and save so you're ready for what may be some lean times for a period. Good luck
Washington, D.C.: I find, in most cases, that is difficult to figure the company's culture until after I have been hired...anyway to hone in on the culture BEFORE begin hired?
Tory Johnson: Ask questions! Ask to speak to some of the employees. Ask what what the culture is like. What's a typical day or week here? How long have you been here? Why is this position vacant -- is it vacant because high turnover is a problem? Or was someone promoted? Ask the prospective boss to describe his management style. Ask for the downsides of working there -- you can say, if you could change 3 things about the culture, what would they be? Do some probing like this and you'll discover a lot!
Washington, D.C.: what are the industries that looking for more women? Top 5 companies for women to work for in the U.S.? International?
Tory Johnson: I don't like lists on top companies for women because any company can be great for some and dreadful for others. Industries looking to attract more women: engineering/technology, accounting, financial services, sciences. But no matter what you skill or industry preference, if you're a strong candidate, employers will want you. Instead of looking at lists, focus on the right opportunity with a manager and team you'd enjoy being with. Look at company policies and benefits and culture to determine if it's a good fit for you.
Fort Worth, Tex.: I've been in a flexible work arrangement with my benevolent employer for four years. I would like to continue to have this arrangement, but I'm afraid my time is coming to an end as there are other members of my team that have indicated an interest in a FWA. What is the average length of time for a FWA without appearing like you are taking advantage of the employer or other employees? Is it ultimately a zero-sum arrangement? How can I make the argument for keeping my FWA while supporting the expansion of FWAs for my fellow employees? Thank you.
Tory Johnson: I don't think you have to worry about a formal end date -- most times, if an employer sees that it's going well, they'll allow it to continue. Not every job can be done on a FWA and not every FWA looks the same. You can be a champion for others, but everyone need not have the exact same accommdation. For example, maybe one person would love to work at home once a week. Others might like to come in later and stay later. Think creatively about how you can make it work not just for you, but for your company and colleagues too. Applaud the boss for a willingness to entertain this for others -- and remind them of the benefits to the company.
Southern Maryland: Balancing work and personal life was easy with an average child. A child becomes more independent.
The difficulty came in when my parent became ill, and sicker, and hospitalizations and discharges, and nursing homes, and medical appointments, etc., for several YEARS. Businesses need to open their eyes about employees having to care for baby boomer parents. As parents become older and live longer with fewer children, it will become a major business issue in the upcoming years. Children and working parents will be remembered as being easy. Aging adults and their adult children responsibilities is the next tidal wave. Are we ready?
Tory Johnson: Some workplaces are ready, but not all. Some families are ready, but not all. It's kind of insane that we're the only country without a formal paid family leave policy to support working families. Eldercare is an enormous demand - it's no longer only childcare that we're dealing with as a society and a workforce. Savvy companies get this and they are developing benefits to support the needs of their workers. But not every company -- in fact, not most -- get this. We all have to speak up more about it -- and make our voices heard. That's how change occurs. In fact, as I told another poster, this is the exact subject of a segment I'm doing from DC this Friday. Perhaps you'd like to join us live on GOOD MORNING AMERICA to share oyur support. It's this Friday morning and participants should arrive at 6am to the Russell Senate Office Building, which is just across the street from the US Capitol. The entrance is on Delaware Avenue, approximately 15 yards past the Rotunda entrance at the corner of Constitution Avenue and Delaware Avenue. We will not be able to admit people past 6:50am. Once you are in the location of the Russell Senate Caucus Room, we ask that you stay until the end of the broadcast at 9am. Please bring as few items as possible, as you will need to go through security and we will not have a coat check. All participants will be given a blue "GMA Take Control of Your Life!" T-shirt that we'd like everyone to wear for this event. Coffee and light breakfast items will be provided. I interviewed Dept of Labor reps and others on this topic and the whole discussion should be one that gets this issue out in the open more than it has been...but it's up to us to use our voices on issues that matter most to us.
Tory Johnson: If you're looking for a new position -- or perhaps you're happily employed, but you're always eager to know who's hiring and what's out there -- I'd love for you to attend this Thursday's Women For Hire Career Expo. Held at the Hilton Crystal City on 9/27 from 10 to 2, this free event is an ideal opportunity to connect with so many top employers and with other incredible women. Details can be found at www.womenforhire.com.
Washington, D.C.: What about those of us without children? Why shouldn't we be able to have a flexible schedule or get time off for other pursuits (education, sabbaticals, volunteer work, etc.)? More importantly, why should we have to pick up the slack or, more realistically, be denied time off, because of our co-workers with children?
Tory Johnson: You should absolutely get the same access to flexible work options. Many people want this for reasons that have no connection to kids. I do a lot of work at showing employees and employers that they can't expect people without kids to pick up the slack. Just because you have a sick kid or a soccer game doesn't mean someone without kids can stay late to cover. I support you 100%. It's all about talking to your employer or manager to work out something that works for you.
Crofton, Md.: So, how does one ask for part-time or less than 40 hours? I've been re-approached for a position I interviewed for last fall. At the time, the person interviewing me was very firm the position was full-time, 40 hours a week. I turned down the job for personal reasons.
Given that she called me after a year, what's the best way of asking for a more flexible work schedule (e.g., 30 or 35 hours a week)?
Tory Johnson: If you're truly interested, go through the process and then ask what they'd consider in terms of flexible work options. If they really want you, then you're in a great position to ask for that flexibility. Go for it!
Re: baby: Reston can do what those of us in the federal government do, since we don't get any maternity leave (FMLA doesn't count): save as much of your leave as possible and use it for maternity leave. It's certainly not the best option, but it's all we've got.
Tory Johnson: FMLA is great for some people, but most workers in this country can't afford to use that time. It's a financial killer. Yes, saving vaca and personal days is an option. Though that times runs out quickly too.
Maryland: I an only child and I live about three hours from my elderly mother. I would like to move back to the west coast, but I did the long distance care thing with my father and it nearly bankrupted me. The company I worked for at the time was too small for FLMA and the only family leave offered was paid maternity. I have a job opportunity on the West Coast. How do I bring flexibility in light of an aging parent?
Tory Johnson: Ask them about their policies and benefits around flexibility. Find out if other people have flexible work options. The topic of eldercare shouldn't be taboo -- even if someone doesn't have kids and doesn't care about your childcare woes, there's a very good chance they can relate to caring for an elderly parent. Don't be afraid to discuss it once you've discovered that they really want you for the job. And better to discuss in advance before signing on for a position that turns out to be difficult.
Springfield, Va.: For Southern Maryland: I'm with you as long as the discussion includes families whose children have disabilities. Lots of hospitalizations, doctor's appointments, educational meetings. The challenges are not unique to baby boomers with aging parents.
Tory Johnson: I agree--thanks for adding that. You're absolutely right.
Washington, D.C.: What about those of us without children? Why shouldn't we be able to have a flexible schedule or get time off for other pursuits (education, sabbaticals, volunteer work, etc.)? More importantly, why should we have to pick up the slack or, more realistically, be denied time off, because of our co-workers with children?
Tory Johnson: You shouldn't have to pick up the slack!
Reston, Va.: I'm a woman in the workplace, and I have another female co-worker, who I feel is taking advantage of being at a somewhat family-friendly company.
She is on daily calls with her husband about her children, as well as daily calls with her children. Isn't this what time at home is for? She's always saying how hard she works -- that's generally because she used to stay late when she was working on a college degree, and now, she even mutes out of calls to take calls from her kids!
I've complained to my manager before, but it isn't getting better. What can I say or do without being the bad guy here? I am just sick of hearing her talk on the phone to her family -- this is a job, not a hobby!
Tory Johnson: Life does happen while we're at work. So it's likely that some personal stuff is done during work hours. It's no different than someone walking outside for a smoking break, etc. But if it impacts productivity, then it's a problem. Some people can do everything at once -- talk to their kids and get their work done. So if her performance isn't suffering, then I'm not sure there's much to be done. If she's slacking, then that's a problem -- and you can point to her performance flaws and the need for improvement.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Serious question: why don't more people take advantage of laws mandating a 40 hour workweek? MSNBC has an interesting article on increasing lawsuits on this issue: Wage Wars (MSNBC)
Our parents and grandparents fought for this right - why have so many just abandoned it as worth nothing?
Is it simply fear: I ask for my 40-hour week, and I get fired?
Tory Johnson: Some people have no compliants about working whatever hours it takes to get their work done. Others very much expect to stick to a specified amount of time. In general, yes, I'd agree whether it's fair or not that clockwatchers are frowned upon unless they're hourly workers. But nobody should feel like they're being taken advantage of...so if you're concerned, talk to your manager. Make sure you know your rights and the laws in your state before raising the issue. Good luck
Can't Afford Kids?: For the person who wrote in about not being able to afford kids or day care -- depending on your job, you might find that you could work out some child care swaps. I know some work-at-home parents who are neighbors and take turns caring for each other's children while the other person works. I think they each work part time, though.
The bonus of this is that your kid gets to socialize with another child, and honestly, it's easier to care for two preschoolers than one, because they do entertain each other. (Babies are another story, but that's a short stage.)
Quite honestly, my husband and I are going into debt so that I can work part time while our children are little. We know that day care expenses are only for five years, and once they're in school we'll be able to pay off our debt and start saving for college. Even part-time day care is pricey!
Tory Johnson: Great suggestions -- it's not easy, but many people manage creative ways to get by and thrive.
Annandale, Va.: What are good resources for a job search by someone who wants flexible, part-time work, esp. telecommuting or work from home type of employment?
Tory Johnson: I have lots of resources on my site -- www.womenforhire.com -- but you should not rule out traditional employers. Once you find the right position, you can often negotiate a flexible work arrangement.
How to ask for part-time schedule: Tory, there are lots of great resources out there for putting together a part-time or flexible work proposal. If you go into a meeting with a written proposal, you'll be taken more seriously.
-- www.whenworkworks.org -- a Families and Work Institute project on flexibility
-- www.thirdpath.org -- a nonprofit institute promoting balanced lives
-- www.bluesuitmom.com -- a work-life balance site aimed at working moms
-- www.workoptions.com -- a commercial site on negotiating flexible arrangements
And of course, the best resource: http://www.womenforhire.com/
Tory Johnson: Aren't you sweet--yes all are great resources. Thanks for sharing.
washingtonpost.com: This concludes our discussion with Tory Johnson. Thank you for joining us.
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.
|
Career expert Tory Johnson will be online to answer questions about women's advancement in the workplace and how to balance your personal life and career.
| 175.814815 | 1 | 27 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100659.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100659.html
|
Station Break - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
Heard or seen something on the pop culture landscape that appalled/delighted/enlightened you? Of course you have. That's what Station Break with Paul Farhi is here for. Local stations, cable, radio shows, commercials, pop culture -- they're all fair game.
Farhi is a reporter in the Post's Style section, writing about media and popular culture. He's been watching TV and listening to the radio since "The Monkees" were in first run and Adam West was a star. Born in Brooklyn and raised in Los Angeles, Farhi had brief stints in the movie business (as an usher at the Picwood Theater), and in the auto industry (rental-car lot guy) before devoting himself fulltime to word processing. His car has 15 radio pre-sets and his cable system has 500 channels. He vows to use all of them for good instead of evil.
Paul Farhi: Greetings, all, and welcome back (shouldn't you be out playing on this lovely day? Shouldn't we all?)...So I've watched about 10 hours of Ken Burns' PBS documentary, "The War," (that's five of the seven episodes, for those scoring at home), and I can say with assurance that it is very good, very long and very hard to watch. Death is portrayed in many iterations and in much detail, as well you might expect from a documentary about a conflict that took 60 million lives. There's a sub-issue here that intriques me (and perhaps you), one that Burns has raised in various interviews: Has our latter-day media "sanitized" the Iraq war so that Americans are shielded from its true horror?
Here's Burns' comment on Keith Olbermann's program on MSNBC last week:
During World War II..."we saw caskets coming back. Today, in order to find out a sense of what the real cost of war is, you sort of feel like a pornographer on the internet. You have to search out these desperate sites because we do not have a media in this country willing to say this is what [the war] looks like."
This is, I admit, not a very nuanced point. There is far, far more information available about the Iraq war and its conduct than anything Americans saw or read during, I would guess, any war in American history. But I think Burns is on firm ground on one point: You can READ lots about the Iraq war but you don't SEE all that much of it in the mainstream media. When was the last time (if ever) that an American newspaper or TV program ran a picture of a dead American soldier or Marine? (I'm not advocating this, I'm just sayin'). During WW II, the U.S. government--the government!--released a newsreel of dead Marines at Tarawa (it shocked the hell out of everyone back home when it was released in '43). The government HAS censored a lot of stuff (the coffins arriving at Dover, for instance) but the MSM has self-censored the rest.
This is a long way of getting to my question: Would MORE disclosure of the war's horrors change the course of American policy in Iraq?
Let's go to the phones....
Reston, Va.: Hi -- Thanks for taking my question. I must say that I would give the award for the worst commercial of the past couple years to those Taco Bell spots where everyone has cheese hanging out of their mouths. What were they thinking? There are few commercials that will make me NOT buy something and this ad is one of those (IMO, of course). What do you think?
Paul Farhi: Cheese? Is that stuff supposed to be cheese? It looks like some kind of industrial goo. Horrific looking (the "cheese" AND the commercial).
Bowie, Md.: Shall we observe a moment of noise for Marcel Marceau who passed from this earth yesterday?
Paul Farhi:[Sound of one hand clapping in response to your suggestion]
Rockville, Md.: What is real reason behind the very offensive and dumb firings of longtime local veteran newsman Ira Mellman and 10-year host Diane Kepley from WTOP? Both were competent, well-liked, knowledgable, hard-working radio veterans. So these are people who you fire on the spur of the moment, without any discussion or advance notice? How does that make a better radio station? What do you gain from firing decent people? And Ira was previously fired from WBIG -- again, for no good reason. And don't say money -- WTOP can literally afford Ira Mellman and Diane Kepley.
Paul Farhi: Well, sorry for this, but I have to say money. WTOP apparently is making room for Hillary Howard and Bob Kur, who became boat people after the wreckage of Washington Post Radio. I can't speak to WTOP's personnel priorities, or its newsroom budget (although, suffice to say, WTOP makes TONS of money), but that's the official reason, I believe.
Fairfax, Va.: Speaking of Burns: what's with the Hispanic protests of his work, saying he's racist? Is this a deliberate snub, an artistic oversight or manufactured outrage?
Paul Farhi: The Latino thing goes back quite a few months. Some latino vets organizations felt overlooked by Burns. I don't think he set out to snub anyone; he just didn't think to tell (or want to tell) the stories of latino and Native Americans in the war. He DOES tell quite a bit about black and Japanese-American experiences during the war, so I can understand the feeling of being overlooked. As is, he was "compelled" to add 28 minutes on latino and Native American contributions to the war effort.
Columbia, Md.: Just wanted to chime in, the new Cingular commercial with Roger Clemens and his wife is the best one so far. My wife loved it, and didn't even know who Clemens is!
Paul Farhi: I had to explain the particulars to my wife, who didn't know the backstory. She wasn't too impressed.
Arlington, Va.: Did you see George Michael's exclusive interview with Daniel Snyder on Comcast? Obviously George Michael has no shame. How could he go on with a straight face asking Snyder why the media is so out to get him and why is the media unfair to him? Hey George -- not being a shill and mouthpiece for the organization is not the same as being mean and unfair to poor little Danny! But George has been the Redskins mouthpiece for 20 plus years. Back in the 80's when Christine Brennan was the Post's beat reporter, George would regularly come on the news at night and attack columns she wrote.
Paul Farhi: I think George, and to a lesser extent the other TV sportsguys in town, have made a determination that there's no point in being too hard on the Redskins. This is such a huge Redskins town/region that I think they think they'll alienate viewers if they're too tough. There's another bit of journalistic corruption here, too: The Redskins have bought time on every local station over the years and hired local sportscasters (George Michael, Exhibit A) to act as the "hosts" of these in-house promotions. They're basically infomercials masquerading as sports "journalism." Shameless.
War Scheduling: Why oh why does PBS do this? I love stuff like this but I can't take it every day. They used to put these series on once a week and I was happy to make it appointment TV.
Now, even if I'm home every time it's on, I can't watch the same thing all night every night.
Paul Farhi: Yeah, it's a lot to take in, isn't it? I watched the DVD screeners back to back and, man, that was a lot of war and death to handle. But I think PBS has found that "stripping" (i.e., running them on consecutive nights) builds a bigger audience throughout the week than a once-weekly schedule would.
Showing War's Costs: It won't happen in the MSM, but not because the government doesn't want it. It won't happen because if the MSM shows what's going on in Iraq right now, they'll have to include the carnage being wrought by the Islamic terrorists.
Paul Farhi: Well, we don't show death in just about any form (car accidents, shootings, whatever), so we're at least equal non-opportunity about what kind of death we'll show.
The U.S. government did not allow photos of American war dead to be shown until late in the war. The media back then did not go around this. It was only when the government thought that support for the war was slipping, mainly due to the fact people thought it would be over soon, did they allow photos of dead Americans. I don't think you can equate the two wars, or the two medias. Believe me the U.S. media is not sanitizing the current war.
Paul Farhi: Very true. This comes out in Burns' film. The showing of the newsreel ("With the Marines at Tarawa") was a calculated propaganda move by the U.S. government. It hoped the film would inspire even more enlistment. It didn't, but it did goose war-bond sales...
Domino's Oreo cookie pizza:...is my vote for a commercial that hypes its product in an actively distasteful fashion (guys with the "moustaches"). No way would I want to try that mess.
Paul Farhi: I am soooo with you. That stuff looks even more disgusting than the Taco Bell "cheese."
McLean, Va.: Paul: There are two new TV ad campaigns that have to be stopped and stopped now. The one for AT and T/Cingular with the British guy "finding" the Internet everywhere and the spots for Toyota featuring the really smarmy guy talking to the farmer and circus clowns. They're so annoying and not funny I'm beginning to hate the companies whose products they're pushing. Please make them go away. Thank you.
Paul Farhi: I keep waiting for the Toyota ads to have some kind of comic payoff. They're so manic and strange that you think there's going to be some "punchline" that brings it all home. Nope. Just another stupid, loud, hit-you-over-the-head car ad.
Falls Church, Va.: In response to your question on the effect of seeing the war on our policy -- of course it does. That was the lesson learned from Vietnam. Before it was on TV, no one but those pesky college students/hippies knew where Vietnam was. Once it was brought into the American living rooms, the course of popular opinion changed...dramatically. So naturally the current administration doesn't want to show the bodies on TV. On the other hand, how many viewers turn it off when war stories come on? For MSM, its probably a matter of dollars and cents. My opinion, for what its worth.
Paul Farhi: Well, hold on a second. TV's effect on changing minds about the Viet Nam war is greatly exaggerated (usually by TV people). Many polls at the time, before and after the advent of war footage on TV, showed little change in opinions about it. Walter Cronkite's declaration in 1968, that the war was stalemated, might have been a bigger event than anything coming off the battlefield (and by the way, the battlefield footage that did get on the air was largely sanitized, too).
I have found that watching Barbara Harrison on Channel 4's morning news is getting more painfull every week. I have come up with some ideas and maybe others can add more.
1 - Don't give her any words with more than three syllables
2 - Avoid alliterations such as four Fords
3 - Avoid words where the the addition or subtraction of one letter creates another word for example - black
4 - Keep her reports to 3 sentences or less.
Paul Farhi: No comment on Barbara, just a comment about your comment: Why does this news person, out of all the many millions of news persons out there, inspire such animosity/contempt/fascination on this chat? (Okay, that's a question, not a comment, but answer it anyway)...
Limited Commercial Interruption: Kudos to NBC for running the first episode of "Heroes" with limited interruption. I actually watched the whole thing without switching channels and I can even name the product that was being advertised. I wonder if NBC lost money by doing that or if they had a special rate for Nissan. I wish the whole season could be like that because I know once the normal breaks come back, I'll TiVo the show and skip the ads. I think the nets should consider a "less is more" approach to their ad time, especially for their marquee shows which attract the most eyeballs. What do you think?
Paul Farhi: I think it would be great, but would also be impossible. I find myself increasingly annoyed by the length of commercial interruptions on network and cable shows. Any movie with commercials in unwatchable to me now; I've gotten too used to commercial-free stuff on HBO and many other movie channels. Here's why it would be impossible to do single sponsorships of regular episodes: Single sponsors pay a special premium to be single sponsors. It's cost effective, I guess, as a one-shot, but not over the course of 24, 25 episodes.
Johnson Center, George Mason University: What do you think of the chances of 3WT (old Washington Post Radio) doing well in the ratings? Very little local, original shows; mostly nationally syndicated shows.
Paul Farhi: I think I agree with my man Dave Hughes over at DCRTV on this: It will do worse in the ratings than WaPo Radio, for the reasons you cite. These syndicated shows (O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, etc.) have already been tried on local stations and found wanting. I think 3WT had better hope ol' Tony Kornheiser comes back in January (not a sure thing at this point) because the off-the-shelf stuff will never be a home run.
Silver Spring, Md.: So, WAPO radio is replaced by something much worse.
I miss my Roxanne Roberts fix every morning!
Paul Farhi: I'll send your love to Rox. I like her on the radio, too.
NW D.C.: What is the real skinny why Drudge is giving up his radio program?
Paul Farhi: Is there a "real" skinny we haven't heard? What's wrong with the official skinny (he's too busy and wants a break)? Do you have a good conspiracy theory to share (i.e., the "real" skinny)? We're listening...
Commercial interruptions: Last night I tried to watch "Chuck," but the same thing happened as always does when I try to watch commercial TV in real time -- I'd get up to do something on the computer at every commercial break, then come back...but eventually I kind of forgot the show was on and just didn't go back. Surely there must be a better way to pay for television. I'm so spoiled by watching TV shows on DVD (I've been rewatching "Alias" lately) that I kept wanting to pause it, or rewind to catch a line I'd missed. Am I the only person who finds watching TV incredibly tedious and inconvenient?
Paul Farhi: This is, of course, the story of the television industry for some time. Audiences aren't showing up at the appointed hours any more. They're time-shifting, watching something else or not watching at all. This has made the fall TV "season" far less of an event than it used to be.
Tony's return: I don't want to get you in further trouble with your best bud, Tony, but why would they bring him back if they get him for seven months or so before he goes back to football? What's the benefit in that?
Paul Farhi: The benefit is that he has a following, and does a very fine radio show. His program was the most popular thing on WashPost Radio during its short, somewhat unhappy life.
Oreo pizza: The cookie beards are gross, but the whole idea of an oreo pizza is just disgusting anyway. Yuck. Not everything works in pizza format. What are we going to have next? Twinkie pizza? French fry and hamburger pizza? We're going to need a Tums and Gas-X pizza at this rate.
Paul Farhi: Yep. The fast food companies just don't care about that low-fat, low-sodium, organic hippie stuff. They sell indulgence--double bacon cheeseburgers, please-- as much as food. So, as much as you or I find the very idea of an Oreo "pizza" appalling, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that it's a huge, huge seller.
Burns said that!?: Regarding the media covering the caskets coming home, Burns is just clueless about current history it seems. Does he not know that our military is forbidding this? Did he not see the big news stories when some pictures were taken and they were released (by the media!):
It's a clueless ignorant statement by Burns. And comparing WWII and Iraq is about the most ignorant part of it. Remember the Ford segment in "The War": some 3 million cars made in 1941 in Detroit, less than 200 from 1944-1945. EVERYONE sacrificed, EVERY job changes, every life changed. This is just not true now, nor was it even close to true in Vietnam. Over 400,000 dead. Over 600,000 wounded. Get this, over 30,000 just plain MISSING! We haven't even had 30,000 dead in Iraq, Afganistan and 9/11 combined, much less just plain missing.
That said, despite Burns' ego, I am enjoying the series.
Paul Farhi: Well, that was, in many respects, his point. We're just not as invested as a nation in the Iraq war the way WW II consumed everyone's waking existence. Thank heavens for that--world wars are pretty awful, as it turns out. But he's indicting the media's role in our current indifference. His point is, if we had more reporting, more visual evidence, of the awfulness of THIS war, it might change our consciousness and opinions about it.
My problem with Ken Burns is that he comes off as a sanctimonious, boring know-it-all who wastes time and money on ground that is more than well-trodden, speaking from a point of view that states the obvious in a way that he thinks is controversial. My God -- after Winds of War and War and Remembrance, Band of Brothers, Flags of Our Fathers, Sands of Iwo Jima (not to mention Schindler's List) -- what place or possible usefulness does another 14 hour documentary have?
I'm just waiting for his next project -- the shocking waste of infanticide.
Paul Farhi: That's a fair criticism of "The War"--it's very, very well-trod ground historically. But I think it's always useful for another generation to discover history (assuming anyone under the age of 40 is watching PBS). And "The War" seems less a document of the Big Picture--this battle, that general--and more a document about the emotions, anxieties, and national responses to such a vast conflict. As such, it will stand up to all of the great films and documentaries about the war.
WETA/PBS "The War" schedule: If you don't want to watch "The War" every night for four nights this week and three the next week, starting October 3 through November 14, every Wednesday night will air a single episode of it for seven weeks. The complete schedule is here:
Paul Farhi: Much obliged for that.
Anonymous:"Paul Farhi: Yeah, it's a lot to take in, isn't it? I watched the DVD screeners back to back and, man, that was a lot of war and death to handle. But I think PBS has found that "stripping" (i.e., running them on consecutive nights) builds a bigger audience throughout the week than a once-weekly schedule would."
Did they not see the ratings for "Planet Earth"? PBS executives are dopes. This is just the latest example.
Paul Farhi: Hmmm. Well, frankly, I like PBS and, moreover, think what it does is generally good for the country. I'll fall back on an old PBS slogan here: "If PBS didn't do it, who would?" (I think that's it; it might be "If you don't get it, you don't get it").
Falls Church, Va.: During WWII we saw caskets coming back? Lest we forget, there was no TV during WWII.
Paul Farhi: Newsreels? Life and Look magazine?
War Scheduling: This is what Tivo is for. I just tape 7 straight episodes of "The Universe" but watched them over a 2-week period.
Paul Farhi: Or DVDs. Many ways to skin this particular cat now.*
* No animal was harmed in the making of this cliche.
Re: Limited interruption: Paul, while I agree that it's costly, do you ever think we'll see a return to the days where a single company sponsors a show? It might be viable in the current market, where ratings are down, but you can hit a key demographic with the right show. Besides, think of the possibilities ("Lost" sponsored by Orbitz, "How I Met Your Mother" sponsored by Match.com).
Paul Farhi: Yes, as a one-shot, sure. But the networks make far more money by having multiple sponsors over multiple shows over multiple night. There aren't enough single-sponsor deals out there.
Long Breaks: I tried to do the record-fast-forward thing with a couple of ABC shows, but what I realized wasn't just that the shows now last only about 35 minutes. It's that the breaks come so often that the segments have to be short, which reduces the writers' ability to carry out interesting plotlines. So less is actually less.
Paul Farhi: I'm not so sure how much difference the length of the show makes to creative quality, but more commercials sure makes it seem worse. By the way, HBO and the "commercial-free" cable networks do this, too. Many one-hour or half-hour shows on HBO aren't. HBO just pads out those 24 minute "Entourage" episodes and those 53 minute "Big Loves" with promos.
Columbia, Md.: Don't you think it's likely that Tony will go back to 980?
Paul Farhi: I have no inside info on this, but if I were betting, yes. Since there's no more Post connection at 3WT, he's a free agent.
"Why Barbara Harrison": I'm not one of those who post complaints about her. (Don't care enough to do so.) But I will say...she is pretty awful as a news anchor and has been around FOREVER.
Paul Farhi: I won't defend or support her, but the fact she's been around forever suggests she has some fans, and possibly a lot of them. And I will say her longrunning "Wednesday's Child" adoption bit is one of the finest public service campaigns any local station has ever done.
* No animal was harmed in the making of this cliche. : Not physically, anyway. Emotionally...
Paul Farhi: By the way, I caught ABC's telecast of "Anchorman: The Ron Burgundy Story" some nights ago. The scene in which Jack Black's motorcyle hood dropkicks Ron's Spanish-speaking dog Baxter off the freeway bridge was cut. CUT! HOw dare they mess with a classic! And why, why, why?
Arlington:" ...would give the award for the worst commercial of the past couple years..."
The universe of "worst" commercials is too vast for any awards. It's like getting a smilely face in kindergarten for daily attendence, everyone wins.
As for best comercials, Visa wins hands down for the ones in the deli/flowershop/wherever that have the checkout going smoothly until someone wants to pay with cash. Not only is this visually tricky and memorable, it's selling something that's completely FALSE and doing it successfully. I have yet to be in a store where cash is not the fastest way. Except if the dope infront of me isn't ready but that works for cards too.
Paul Farhi: That whole series of Visa debit-cards ads is superb (remember the Christmas shopping mall ad from last year?). As for cash vs. plastic, what, you want TRUTH to get in the way of a good TV commercial? Sheesh...
Old Fogie La, ND: Hi Paul (hey, you StaBraDancers, too)...
Just got me a new car and it has that there XM radio on it. And I'm loving it. (insert joke about my trading in a horse and buggy -- I'm amazingly unhip).
Anyhoo. What's latest with XM/Sirius merger? Which one has better programming? Would they meld channels, double them, cut them way back?
Paul Farhi: Funny, but I've yet to find anyone who says they just can't stand that satellite radio. It seems to be one of those try-it-and-you'll-never-go-back products...As for the proposed merger, both parties are still grinding away, trying to convince the government to approve it. I'm betting it won't fly, based on the politics, but maybe XM-Sirius have better lawyers and lobbyists than I think.
Entourage: Yeah, but 24 minutes seems like an hour.
Paul Farhi: Love the Entourage! A very kick-back, guy fantasy of a show. And Ari and Lloyd alone are worth the price of admission!
North McLean, Va.: In theory, multiple sponsors dilute the influence of any one sponsor on content. There is an old story about a show solely sponsored by a soap company who wanted "Joy to the World" replaced with "Lux to the World."
Paul Farhi: I'm sure that's true (the dilution; I dunno about the Lux thing). But I seem to recall that the FCC passed some rule long ago limiting single sponsorships. Might have been a response to the quiz-show "scandals" of yore.
Greater Green Bay: Why Why Why? Because the network is more afraid of PETA than dog kickers. The terrorists have won.
Paul Farhi: I fear that you are correct...
Krystal Koons: Do you think Krystal Koons is a real person or some computer generated "thingy"?
Paul Farhi: No computer in the world could come up with a creation that original and magnificent. Computers would come up with "Mark Down."
Paul Farhi: Folks, I'd like to stay and defend Barbara Harrison longer, but still another deadline looms (perhaps that could be the title of autobiography, or maybe a steamy soap opera). Anyway, we'll have another chance at this in two weeks. So come on down then. In the meantime, check out our new TV blog, called "Channel This" (see the Washington Post's home page for details). Glad to have your comments there. Until next time...regards to all. --Paul
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 Paul Farhi takes your questions, comments, rants and reviews on the best and worst pop culture has to offer.
| 213.769231 | 0.769231 | 1.076923 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/11/DI2007091101275.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/11/DI2007091101275.html
|
K Street - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
Thanks for writing in. Congress is really heating up, and so is lobbying of big issues. I see we have lots of questions about those issues, so let's get started straight away.
Lindon, Utah: Jeff - While you're usually In the Loop, your column today was very much Out of the Loop.
Patent Reform is not about Tech vs. Pharma, it's about a few big tech companies vs. little tech companies, pharma, biotech, manufacturers, universities (who license the patents their research generates) and even some other big tech companies (Texas Instruments and Motorola to name two).
I work for a little tech company that is strongly opposed to the current patent reform bill. Think for a minute - Who sues big tech companies for patent infringement? Pharma? No, other tech companies, small and large, who hold tech patents are the most frequent plaintiffs in these suits.
I agree that Microsoft, Intel, Oracle and their lobbyists have pursued a brilliant strategy to reduce or eliminate the judgments they pay for "borrowing" other people's inventions. The question that I haven't heard anyone in Washington ask is, "Why are the biggest supporters of patent reform also frequent defendants in anti-trust suits?" The answer to that question illuminates the real reason for their support of patent reform.
washingtonpost.com: Tech Industry Builds Lobbying Machine for Patent Fight (Sept. 25, 2007)
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, that's certainly another angle. As you can see, though, it is a very complicated topic. My goal with today's column was to introduce the lay reader to the issue, not to touch every part of it. Thank you, though, for adding another layer.
Allentown, Pa: Why does the media leap to embrace any grievance the black community whines about? We had months of trashing the Duke lacrosse team, and now the real victim in Jena is ignored while we parade around the gang of thugs who viciously attacked him. Where's the justice here?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: The media tries to identify controversies and to explain them. Where there is passion, and conflict, there is news. That's basic in story-telling, which at heart journalism is. I think participants on both sides of the Jena controversy want justice. Reporters want to lay out those points of view and let readers, and viewers, decide. You have obviously chosen. Others might choose differently. A good newspaper story or stories will give enough information to allow that kind of informed decision.
Palo Alto, Calif.: I was a Microsoft Division President, and an Apple Principal Scientist, and I've run 8 startups and my technology has produced billions in revenue. I've seen both sides of this patent debate and it is NOT between tech & pharma. It's between parties that don't rely upon patents and parties that do. Last week 2 inventors, Dean Kamen (440 patents: Segway, portable dialysis & insulin devices, etc.) and myself (72 patents: QuickTime, WebTV, etc.), presented to Senate staffers and explained how tech companies with high market power do not need patents to survive, but tech startups, tech universities, and tech companies with proprietary technology (like Texas Instruments with DLP projector technology) do. The Patent Reform Act is characterized as anti-troll legislation. It doesn't address trolls. It's anti-innovation legislation that just weakens patents to better secure the positions of existing tech stakeholders. Ironically, many of them, notably Intel, litigated their patents aggressively to get to the position of power they are in. Now the shoe is on the other foot. -Steve Perlman, President & CEO, Rearden Companies, www.rearden.com
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for taking the time to write in.
Yes, yours is another way to look at the patent debate, and a useful one at that. But in a basic, political way, the debate is seen in Congress as largely between tech and pharma. Or at least in its broad outlines. Yes there are other ways to look at it. Yours is an example. But for the average fella', mine isn't a bad short hand. Yours is also very useful, and I thank you for it. I was hoping with my column to introduce the topic to readers, not to give anything close to the final word.
Lindon, Utah: Another twist on patent reform has not been covered very thoroughly. The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association) are not partisan organizations and both oppose the current patent reform bills. IEEE is a very large professional association of engineers working in a wide variety of organizations. The AIPLA is the largest professional group of intellectual property attorneys in the country and includes large firm, small firm, plaintiff, defendant, large company, small company and every other kind of IP lawyer.
These groups don't fit into the tech/pharma split that the pro-reform lobbyists are trying to sell.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, this may be the last time I try to make simple a complicated topic. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
Washington: I see you're the K Street columnist. Is there anything you can do about the traffic on that street? At rush hour it's crazy.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank heavens, a non-patent attack. And not even an attack! Well, I'm afraid I don't have much say over traffic patterns. In fact, I don't actually have a say about anything to do with lobbying; I'm only an observer. But I agree with your criticism. Traffic is terrible. I wish the city fathers would get rid of those islands that separate the regular traffic from the local lane, freeing up another lane for traffic to flow better. Now it's a mess, and not many folks use those local lanes. Maybe I should write a column on this. Whadya' think?
District of Columbia: Where is all the big money coming from in the presidential campaigns? Won't that ever slow down and is it good or bad for Democracy?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: A lot more of that dough is coming in smallish contributions over the Internet. Fundraising used to be big money from really rich folks. It's still that, of course, but it's also $25 donations posted online with credit cards. That has allowed lots of middle income people to participate in a way they never used to. I think that's generally good for democracy and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down. I say, the more involvement the better when it comes to elections.
New York, N.Y.: Do you think it's right that congressmen can still get all the earmarks they want? I thought that was being done away with last year.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Earmarks, which are narrowly focused spending programs, were never slated to disappear, just decline a whole bunch because of their overuse and misuse in recent years. Personally, I never had a problem with earmarks; they're what lawmakers hope to provide for their constituents. So I wouldn't be surprised at the end of the year to see nearly as many earmarks as before. Pork buys votes, after all.
Lindon, Utah: I don't mean to monopolize the conversation, but there don't appear to be too many participants today.
Another group that opposes the current patent reform bill is research universities. The president of every Big Ten university signed a letter opposing the bill as being detrimental to the universities' research programs, which rely upon patents to move their discoveries into commercial use.
Lindon, Utah: Jeff - You're not the only one who is receiving a rude awakening on this legislation. I am informed that the patent reform bill was sold to many legislators as non-controversial, a slam-dunk, by its supporters.
A lot of congressional offices have been startled by the uproar that this legislation has created and were shocked at how narrow the margin of victory in the House was for this "consensus" legislation.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I am told that the bill will probably pass in the Senate without too much trouble and in not too long. Not a slam dunk, but also not far from a finished product either. That's why I chose to write about it now.
Detroit: When will the auto workers lose their clout enough not to make a difference with the big strike going on now?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, they have a lot of clout now, that's for sure. This strike could show ultimately how much power organized labor still has in the workplace.
Chevy Chase: Who's lobbying for Dubai now that it's trying to buy some a that stock exchange?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Dubai's purchase of part of NASDAQ is likely to be controversial, though maybe not as controversial as the Dubai Ports issue of earlier. DLA Piper represents Dubai Bourse, I think, and NASDAQ has several folks including Public Strategies Washington, Akin Gump and Skadden Arps.
Anonymous: How badly did Rudy Giuliani mess up his speech to the NRA with that crazy phone call from his wife right in the middle of it? What was he thinking?
washingtonpost.com: Giuliani's Speech at NRA Doesn't Reassure Skeptics (Sept. 22, 2007)
Jeffrey Birnbaum: He literally phoned in that speech, I'm told. He clearly could have worked harder to woo a key constituency of his party. Giuliani needs to be careful, I think. His poll numbers nationally have been holding up ok but more conservative candidates could surprise him in the early contests and take away that lead in a hurry.
Palo Alto, Calif.: Jeffrey - Please don't give up bringing the patent debate within reach of the average joe. It's a complex issue, but one that will profoundly affect America. Your voice is an immensely valuable one. Startups don't have a lobby. All we can do is reach out through the media.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate them. I will try again, on that topic and others.
San Francisco: What will happen with the SCHIP program? I read that it will expire at the end of this week. The Congress won't let it disappear will it? It's very important to poor kids all over the country. Why would politics get in the way of that good deed?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Congress plans to pass its compromise bill expanding SCHIP, but President Bush has vowed to veto it. To make sure the children's health program does not lapse at the end of the month, Congress plans to pass a simple, short-term extension. It will then see if the veto can be overridden. At the moment, Democratic leaders do not appear to have enough votes in the House to override. That will mean going back to the drawing board and coming up with an extension of the program that the president will sign. What that will be I don't know. But the program will not lapse.
Boston: Who has Hillary Clinton gone into the tank for with her NEW health care plan? It must be someone or else she wouldn't have backed off the old one, which I liked so much.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know if it's that way. She is not relying entirely on government to provide health coverage, so maybe health insurers are slightly happier about her new proposal. But I doubt she was trying to please them. Rather she did not want to be labeled as a big government Democrat. Allowing some market coverage also helps reduce the overall cost of the thing.
Berkeley, Calif.: There is a lot of negotiation on revised patent reform language going on behind the scenes in the Senate.
As one example, Senator Feinstein has most of the big tech supporters of the bill in her state, but the University of California has given testimony opposing the bill. The Senator's husband is the president of the UC Board of Regents, so she is hearing a lot of conflicting arguments.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for the insight. But I bet Sen. Feinstein would not agree with your assessment of how she chooses her policy positions.
Orlando, Fla.: Why don't you report that Sen. Menendez of New Jersey is behind the hold up in the confirmation of the temporary U.S. attorney in Puerto Rico? There's something rotten there, I suspect, don't you?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I wrote about that flap today in my column. I could not confirm that the senator had a hold on the nomination of the U.S. attorney in Puerto Rico, though I have read news accounts of that. I was also told that a Republican might also be holding up the confirmation. Clearly, it is a mess, which is the way I wrote about it. I'm sure we'll hear more about it soon.
Washington, D.C.: What happened with Lynne Ross and the National Association of Attorneys General that you mentioned in your column last week?
washingtonpost.com: Health Insurance Industry Looks to Senior Lobbyists (Sept. 18, 2007)
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I am not aware of any change in her situation. She was fired by a vote of the executive committee. Anyone out there have an update?
Bethesda, Md.: Why aren't I reading more about the lobbying law? I bet it will change a lot downtown but you're not telling us for some reason.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: You're right and you will read more I'm sure. Why else have a lobbying column?
Lindon, Utah: Jeff - Let me echo the Palo Alto comment that you provide a valuable service by bringing patent reform into the light.
Patent law is an immensely complex area, but in a world of increasing globalization, the creation of valuable intellectual property is a significant competitive advantage for American companies. If that property can't be effectively protected, the advantage disappears. The Pharma companies are very concerned about what Indian generic drug manufacturers will be able to do if patent infringement becomes inexpensive.
Washington, D.C.: Jeffrey, you refer to the debate over patent reform to be one between pharma and hi tech. This is not accurate. The debate is between a very narrow sector of "big tech" and some financial/software institutions and just about everyone else (pharma, smaller high tech, non-banking financial institutions, bio, VCs, universities, etc.). I keep seeing the press mischaracterize the situation. Can you please help to set the record straight?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for your suggestion.
Lindon, Utah: On a non-patent subject, Politico had a report yesterday that GQ was preparing to publish an unflattering inside look at the Clinton campaign. The report said GQ pulled the article after Bill Clinton's press aide called and told them that Bill would not allow his photo to be used on any more GQ covers if the article was published.
How much of the press is going to be dealt with in this fashion as the campaign moves forward?
Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know if that report is true. But such threats are usually disregarded by reputable journalistic outlets.
Cleveland, Ohio: It didn't make any sense to me that your column last week was about a part of a law that will probably come back. The Medicare Advantage cutbacks is what I mean. How is that a victory is you keep saying "for now" or "so far." That seems like a rip to me.
washingtonpost.com: Health Insurance Industry Looks to Senior Lobbyists (Sept. 18, 2007)
Jeffrey Birnbaum: If I wrote only about things that were absolutely finished, I would never write a word. That's the nature of Washington. It's a process town. I chose to write about the health industry's victory in the SCHIP bill because it was about to be news and it was in fact a major success for the lobby. Even its opponents agreed. It is now much, much harder for Congress to go back and cut the Medicare Advantage program. In Washington, that's a point worth highlighting.
Jeffrey Birnbaum: Wow, thanks everyone. That was a jam-packed hour. Let's do it again in a couple 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.
|
K Street columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online to discuss the intersection of business, politics and government on Tuesday, Sept. 25, at 1 p.m. ET.
| 115.678571 | 0.75 | 1.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001115.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001115.html
|
Opinion Focus - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts
Eugene Robinson: Hi, everyone. Lots to talk about today -- Ahmedinejad at Columbia yesterday and the U.N. today; the president at the U.N., barely mentioning Iran or Iraq; lots of politics, of course. My column (on Dan Rather's lawsuit) ran yesterday instead of today, but next week I'll be back on the regular Tuesday-Friday schedule.
Arlington, Va.: The "Rathergate" incident (among others) clearly showed how the major media attempts to manipulate the news for political ends. Bloggers and alternative media have been able to break the "gatekeeper" function that the old dinosaur media used for decades to control the narrative that people heard.
Now that the stranglehold has been broken, are you going to keep publishing embarrassing out-of-touch opinion pieces like your defense of Rather in today's paper, or are you going to just go fishing?
Eugene Robinson: I don't much like fishing, so I'll stick around.
Laurel, Md.: I assume by now you've seen the AP story that, among other things, brings into question some of the factual background of the Jena 6 case?
Among the bulleted facts asserted:
There was no "white tree;" students of all races used it
The noose-hangers were given six weeks of in-school discipline, not three days
An investigation by the FBI determined the December Jena 6 attack was not directly related to the September noose incident
Of course, I have no independent knowledge of which set of facts is true. But since this became a national story because of an organized protest, it doesn't seem a stretch to infer that our "knowledge" started as the talking points of activists (possibly with accurate attribution as such) and became accepted wisdom through repetition and lack of contrary viewpoints.
As in the Duke lacrosse and NJ turnpike cases (in case you didn't know, a study determined blacks and whites were stopped at equal rates once adjusted for driving practices), black activists seem to have the ear of the media to claim their own reality.
Doesn't it bother you that someone like me who's never voted for a Republican president in my life, is now paying attention to Rush Limbaugh seeking news balance?
Eugene Robinson: I did see the AP story, and in fact I know the reporter, Todd Lewan -- he's a really good journalist. (We overlapped in South America.) I suggest you read the story more carefully, however, because it doesn't fundamentally bring into question what we know about the case. It says students of both races sat under the tree at various times -- and is silent about whether they ever sat there together. The point about the way the white noose-hangers were disciplined is that they were suspended, not expelled -- the school wanted to expel them, but the school board overruled. And whether the December incident was "directly related" to the noose-hanging is not the point. No one disputes that the tree-and-noose incidents sparked several months of escalating racial clashes in Jena. That's like saying the letter "z" doesn't "directly" follow "a." I don't see anything in that story that contradicts the basic story of a town that decided to put some uppity black kids in their place.
DC Metro: Eugene: First off, thank you for the chats - we know you are busy.
Regarding - Arlington, Va.: The "Rathergate" incident (among others).. this is only a comment - the bloggers and alternative media is just that...alternative. News/Opinion Reporters have to go dig and find the information that they use to write about and then present it in a way that all people can read and make their own interpretation of the article.
Keep UP the GREAT work! Love to see you on HARDBALL
Eugene Robinson: Thanks! I get weary of making that point, buy you're right -- where are you going to get the basic facts about which to argue, except from actual reporting?
Palo Alto, Calif.: Hi Eugene,
Thanks for the great work and engaging your audience through these chats. How do you think Ahmedinijad's Columbia talk played outside the U.S. I suspect many outside the U.S. continue to see him as standing up to Bush and big bad Americans. Any ideas on this?
Eugene Robinson: I have the same suspicion -- that to many people around the world, Ahmedinejad was Daniel in the lion's den. Even people who are not inclined to agree with him on things like the Holocaust or the supposed nonexistence of gay people in Iran might still enjoy seeing him stick it to the Americans. That's the way a lot of people see us these days.
NYC: Lee Bollinger's behaviour at Ahmadinejad's conference was a disgrace. Say what what you want to say about Ahmadinejad's views, but yesterday he came out the better man. I was in the audience and while white students cheered Dr. Bollinger, the Asian and South American students enthusiastically cheered for Mr.Ahmadinejad. Thanks to Dr. Bollinger's stupidity, what could have been a forum to educate and inform, turned out to be a partisan squabble. The prestige of U.S. higher education took a big hit yesterday.
Eugene Robinson: Bollinger looked and sounded like a man caught between a rock and a hard place. He had been under such attack for inviting Ahmedinejad that he obviously felt the need to distance himself from his guest. In the end, though, Ahmedinejad got what he wanted out of the event -- an open forum.
Washington, DC: Regarding Rather, I think we should be focusing on whether the facts of the story about Bush's service were true. Marian Carr Knox, the secretary to Bush's superior in the National Guard, said on CBS that the basic facts about Bush were true even if the documents were suspect. Don't you think that is the real story?
Eugene Robinson: That was one of the points of the column. I can't agree that you can just overlook the documents -- they weren't what CBS said they were, and that's a serious error. But that doesn't mean that the basic story is necessarily untrue.
Quarterbacks and Columnists: Donovan McNabb recently said that African-American quarterbacks in the NFL receive more criticism than white quarterbacks. Do you agree with him? Do African-American columnists receive more criticism than white columnists?
Eugene Robinson: Yeah, they say we're too quick to take off downfield when we ought to hang tough in the pocket. Seriously, I think black and white columnists get about the same amount of grief these days. When McNabb came into the league, black quarterbacks were still a novelty and definitely came under more scrutiny. Now, you can turn on an NFL game and not realize until the second half that the opposing quarterbacks are both black. There was a time when that would have been the story of the game.
Amarillo, Tex.: Your column on Dan Rather and corporate journalism asks whether the corporate chiefs would put the public's right to know at the forefront in a new Pentagon Papers case. Wouldn't the first obligation be to insure the authenticity of those papers?
Eugene Robinson: Of course. But then what?
Arlington, Va.: Eugene, who do you think in the White House said to Bill Sammon that Barack Obama was too intellectually lazy to be president? Aren't they projecting just a tad?
Eugene Robinson: I don't have any idea who said that to Sammon, If I were going to guess, based on the "senior official" description, I'd say Karl Rove. But I don't really know.
Do you worry that the upcoming congressional debate on defense funding, which implicitly involves discussing the future of our involvement in Iraq, might distract us from the larger issue of the Moveon ad?
Eugene Robinson: I am confident that Republicans in Congress will work tirelessly to keep the focus on the most important issue facing our world today, which is the MoveOn ad.
Fairfax, Va.: It was a bit painful to watch a smart, respected journalist like yourself get pulled into the OJ story. With all the important issues you regularly comment on so intelligently (saying this even when I don't agree with your positions all the time), what is it about OJ that draws you in?
Eugene Robinson: I guess you have to write me off as "formerly smart and respected." But O.J. Simpson, like it or not, is a kind of cultural touchstone in this country. There's something about the mix of elements in the O.J. narrative -- race, sex, murder, wealth, etc. -- that people find engrossing. I am stunned at how deeply people still feel about the case.
The "inevitable" Hillary: Eugene: Nothing ticks me off more these days than having the MSM decide that they are going to decide the election for the voters, such as determining that Hillary is the inevitable nominee for the Dems. I've read reports that she showed her front-runner status by...doing interviews on all five Sunday talk shows!!! Wow, what an accomplishment. I also read that this was considered a real test for her candidacy. As if none of the other candidates would be able to answer questions from reporters from five different networks, back to back. Please. Your thoughts?
Eugene Robinson: The fact is that Hillary Clinton leads the national polls by a substantial margin. Those polls don't mean everything, but we're getting to the point where they definitely mean something. We'll see what happens when all the campaigns begin spending some of that campaign money on media. Maybe the needle will move. But for now, I think you have to call her the front-runner.
Re: Quarterbacks and Columnists: You may want to catch up with your fellow columnist, Michael Wilbon, for his view on McNabb's comments. BTW, how come there is no "PTI" like show for The Post news columnists? Who would be on it and what would be a good title?
Eugene Robinson: I saw Mike Wilbon's excellent column about McNabb. And I have a hard time believing a "PTI" with op-ed columnists would be must-see television. Then again, nobody around The Post thought a "PTI" with Wilbon and Kornheiser would work, either...
Bow, N.H.: Why don't the Democrats on the Hill propose activating the draft to provide troops for the continuing surge/occupation in Iraq? It seems to me that if the defenders of our continued presence are correct that losing is an unacceptable risk, then why also run the risk of breaking the Army, when that risk can be largely mitigated by the draft? In any event, the draft would spread the burden more broadly if not more equitably.
Eugene Robinson: Congressman Charlie Rangel has done just that -- proposed a draft. Not gonna happen.
Chicago: I am curious why the MSM hasn't gone after Rudy for his "fourth most famous American in the world" assertion. In 2000 you guys went after Al Gore with a vengeance about his alleged "I invented the Internet" comment and other incorrect affronts to civilization. Maybe the Democrats need a Drudge/right wing radio/Fox News echo chamber to motivate you guys.
Eugene Robinson: It was the Republicans who made an issue of Gore's alleged Internet remark. Maybe the Democrats should make an issue of Rudy's "fourth-most-famous-American" boast. Especially since Rudy really said it...)
Hillary and Bill: Eugene: Here's my favorite example of the easy ride Hillary's getting from the media, this from the NY Times: "'No, no,' she said when asked, on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' whether her husband would have any policy-making role in her White House. 'And among the many lessons that I have learned, we want to be sure that the president, my husband, does whatever he can, just as I tried to do whatever I could, and I think he has a very special and important role in reaching out to the rest of the world.'" That's either a lie or a reason NOT to vote for her. She wouldn't utilize a spouse who's a former President in a policy-making role? Would somebody please press her on this point?
Eugene Robinson: What Bill Clinton's role would be as "first gentleman" or whatever is one of the most interesting questions about a Hillary Clinton presidency. Obviously he would be an influential adviser. I'm not sure he would be much more than that -- I'll bet President Clinton would want to make clear that she makes her own decisions, and that she's in charge, not her husband.
An historical note: Eugene: Before Duncan Hunter and the other right-wing nutjobs completely blow themselves to pieces in moral outrage over yesterday's events at Columbia University, I'd like to point out that in September 1959 Nikita Khrushchev toured the U.S., including a famous impromptu debate in Iowa with Richard Nixon. Somehow we were able to allow the leader of the "evil empire" to travel in our country and the world didn't come to an end.
Eugene Robinson: And this was at a time when the Soviet Union had enough nuclear missiles pointed at our cities to reduce us all to cinders.
Arlington, Va.: Okay, I'll bite. Who are the three Americans more famous than Guiliani? Britney? George Clooney? Brad Pitt?
Eugene Robinson: I don't think he specified. I'm thinking the Big Three -- Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan... and then Rudy Giuliani.
Eugene Robinson: Thanks, everyone, for making this such a lively hour. My time is up. 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.
| 146.157895 | 0.736842 | 0.947368 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001266.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001266.html
|
D.C., Maryland and Virginia Politics
|
2007092519
|
WTOP political commentator Mark Plotkin will be online Tuesday, Sept. 25 at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the race for John Warner's U.S. Senate seat, whether Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley will call a special session to fix the state's budget, an imminent vote on the D.C. voting rights bill, and more.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Archive: Mark Plotkin discussion transcripts
Plotkin joined WTOP after 10 years as a political analyst for WAMU radio. He has been active in D.C. and national politics since attending George Washington University in the late '60s.
Just wondering what Yvette Alexander has been up to for the past month. I called down to her office, explained to her assistant that it is felt throughout Ward 7 that Vincent Gray sold us a lemon. Her assistant said that Yvette is very active in the community by meeting with the local ANCs, to which I guess the ANCs will pass on your views to us. What happened to the days when the local representative would have a town hall meeting to outline their plans for the Ward. Is she still MIA to you?
Mark Plotkin: Are you the same person who wrote in last week? I did see Yvette Alexander with the rest of the council members last Tuesday for the vote on the DC vote. She volunteered without me saying a word that she "was here". She said that I presume because I had made a big deal of the fact that she had not shown up for the meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. When she made her comment, it was said as if she should be awarded some medal of great distinction. I found it odd. Harry Thomas Jr., and thank god, Marion Barry, were the only two council members not to be in attendance for the vote. While on this subject, the Mayor did everything he could to push this issue, made all the calls that he was asked to make and appeared at every press conference and march on the issue. My only criticism is that, when he was on the Senate floor for the vote, he spoke mainly to Democrats. What he should have done is seek out Republican Senators whom he had not met and introduced himself and talked to them. This is probably a staff screw up but it was inexcusable. The staff when it comes to congressional relations, stinks. I can't put it any other way. Neal Richardson, the Deputy Chief of Staff, was on top of this issue and merits praise. But the Mayor is not being well served with whoever else does congressional relations in his office. I'm sorry to be blunt but it just has to be said. One council member turned to another council member and commented with sympathy "the mayor looks lost out there". He should have not been put in that position. I've got some suggested topics. I'd like to hear from you on: *seats in the VA assembly *who's up *who's down *who's in trouble *who's a lock Also, what is your reaction to the O'Malley tax plan and how about the recent poll results that show Hillary Clinton far ahead of Obama in the Maryland Feb. 12th Primary. What does anybody think of Police Chief Lanier's shake up of the police department and can Carroll Schwartz be knocked off in a Nov. 2008 general election. And finally, at 3:50pm this afternoon on WTOP (103.5fm), I'm going to talk about the snub of the minority form at Morgan State by GOP front runners. I'll also talk about Tavis Smiley and how he is exactly the wrong pick for such a forum. Smiley is not a journalist. He's a showman and would be impresario.
Washington, D.C.: Do you vote in political elections?
Mark Plotkin: Of course I do. I haven't missed an election since I was eligible to vote. Don't you think I should vote in elections?
West Alexandria, I guess: How would I go about finding out how much Alexandria gets back from the Virginia government in spending vs. taxes paid? I want to find hard numbers to support the "for every dollar we send to Richmond, we get back XX cents" statements I have routinely heard..
Mark Plotkin: I would suggest you try to contact Brian Moran who is one of your state legislators and wants to run for Governor in 2009. I'm sure he'll get you this information or tell you how to get it. He's the chair of the house Democratic Caucus in the legislature. If that fails, I suggest you call the Mayors office in Alexandria and ask to speak to the chief financial officer for the city. Hope this works.
SE, D.C.: What is your background in political journalism?
Mark Plotkin: Well before I was a political journalist, i worked in five presidential campaigns. I ran for office twice for the DC city council and was elected twice to the DC Democratic State Committee and was twice elected to my advisory neighborhood commission. Then I worked part time at WAMU-FM from 1982 to 1985 and then became the Political Analyst there from 1989 to May of 2002. From May 2002 to today, I am the Political Analyst and commentator for WTOP. I hope this satisfies your curiosity and that my credentials put me in good standing.
Adams Morgan, Washington, D.C.: Marky Mark: Happy Holiday. What are your thoughts on an Evan Bayh for VP situation?
Mark Plotkin: You continue to great me with that ridiculous, stupid, nonsensical salutation. I am putting you on notice that this is the very last time I will respond to your preface. Get a new one. Have I made myself perfectly clear as Richard Nixon would say? To answer your question, Evan Bayh is an attractive guy who has never truly reached his potential. I do solute him for getting elected Governor twice and Senator with huge margins in a conservative, Republican State. I'm really a bigger fan of his father, Birch Bayh, who is the author of numerous constitutional amendments such as the 18 year old vote and the presidential disability amendment. Bayh lost to Dan Quayle in 1980. Inexplicable. I dont think Bayh ads to the ticket if carrying Indiana is not such a big deal. They should pick somebody from a bigger state that is truly a swing state such as Ohio or Missouri. I think Hillary just wanted a centrist Democrat to add to her list of supporters.
Fairfax, Va.: What's going to happen to the chairmanship in Fairfax? Gerry Connolly, the developers best buddy versus Blaise, the polluters best friend. Is this a case of 'the devil or the deep blue sea'?
Mark Plotkin: I'm trying to get Gerry Connolly on my show, the Politics Program. He's been on Ask the County Executive on WTOP. As for Blaise, I'm going to ask him too and then try to get a debate between the two of them on WTOP Radio right before the election. I'm reserving judgment on both of them until I question them in depth, in person. I will say this about Connolly, my colleague Bruce Alan told me that he would not make a commitment to serve out his entire term. Many people feel he will run for Tom Davis' congressional seat if Davis should become the Republican nominee for the US Senate. He'll have some opposition from Leslie Byrne and Andy Hurst. Hurst I spoke to today and he reminded me that he was the first Democrat to get over 100,000 votes in that district and he held Davis to 55%. Hurst feels he could beat both Byrne and Connolly.
Arlington, Va.: Tom Davis seems to be a good moderate Republican. Recently, he has gotten excited about the MoveOn.org advertisements, supposedly to show conservative Republicans that he is their kind of candidate. I think that trying to change your political stripes is a losing proposition because both the moderates and the conservatives will wonder who you are, something akin to what Mitt Romney has been going through.
Mark Plotkin: I think you are absolutely right. Tom Davis is a moderate and on some issues, he literally is a courageous moderate (the DC voting issue). I thought the move on advertisement issue was exactly what you thought, an attempt to appeal to conservatives because he needs their support if he is to be nominated for the US Senate in Virginia. The MoveOn ad was read meat for conservatives and Davis needed to show that he was sympathetic to their concerns. It was given to him on a silver platter and being a shrewd pol, he gave them what he wanted. The comparison to Mitt Romney is an apt one. Can I steal that and use it as my own? Davis doesn't want a convention, he wants an open primary where Independents can participate. A convention, I really think, would be a disaster for him. Gilmore wants a convention. Whoever is nominated faces a big big challenge because Mark Warner is presently between 28-30 points ahead. I still repeat that Davis could create a scenario by which he could win. Gilmore has no chance. None. He'll get clobbered in Northern Virginia where a third of the state votes.
Carol Schwartz: Is there someone out there who can beat Carol? For sure, but the question is will that person run? Carol is really well liked and it will take a stand-out candidate to beat her. The only opposing candidate of note so far is Dee Hunter who failed in a bid to unseat Jim Graham and is now a not-so-well-liked ANC Commissioner in the U Street area.
Mark Plotkin: Carol Schwartz can be beaten with the right kind of candidate. Someone well known, a former Democrat, who becomes and Independent, and is well financed. As you know, two of the at large seats are by law reserved for non majority party members. Schwartz is well liked but really has not been tested city wide against a strong candidate. I do salute her for working the DC Voting Rights issue and actually delivering Susan Collins of Maine who delivered a Olympia Snowe for the cloture vote. Your description of Dee Hunter is right on. I always considered him a slippery character.
Washington, D.C.: Please explain the "Newt" factor that you spoke of on the radio this morning.
Mark Plotkin: Newt misses the action. Before I go any further, let me tell you my one personal experience with him. I was working for another radio station and I had him as a guest and I asked him about voting rights for the District. His response which made the New York Times Magazine was the following. "Mark, You should be happy. You have more freedom in anyone in Cuba." That's a direct, verbatim quote. Think about that for a minute and you'll realize what an idiotic and just plain stupid remark that is. He challenged his supporters in a Washington Times article yesterday to come up with 30 million dollars in pledges in three weeks. I think that's dreamy. Newt wants to be a force. He was disgraced and had to leave the scene very quickly a few years back. He now wants back in. He's made a fortune in speaking fees but misses the political prominence. He's an excellent and persuasive speaker and debater and I think he feels that he could take the whole show with the present list of candidates as far as debating skills. But he has no organization and he's starting far too late. He has a very high opinion of himself well find out if anybody else shares that opinion.
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.
|
WTOP political commentator Mark Plotkin discusses D.C., Maryland and Virginia politics.
| 176.461538 | 0.923077 | 2.461538 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001050.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092001050.html
|
Post Politics Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
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.
Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to a podcast of the show.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
Burlington, Vt.: One positive thing that can be said about Ahmadinejad (and there are, as we all know, a lot of negative things one could say) is that he was willing to appear before and answer questions from a hostile audience. May not be much, but it is more than can be said of our own President. And we live in a liberal democracy that theoretically values such conduct far more.
Why isn't that part of the story about his appearance at Columbia University?
Michael Abramowitz: Good morning everybody. Thanks for all the good questions already flowing in.
I am not sure I agree with the premise of your question. First of all, whether Bush appears before hostile audiences or not has nothing really to do with Ahmadinejad's speech. And while I agree that Bush almost always appears before friendly audiences these days, he still has at least monthly press conferences, where I think the questions, at least many of them, are usually tough. One can argue that he should do this more of these news conferences but I don't think he's as insulated from alternative views as your question suggests.
Minneapolis, Minn.: There is much overheated reporting on the Bush administration's Iran policy these days, seemingly based mostly on speculation, assumptions about where policymakers stand, and unreliable sources. Do you have solid information on the state of the debate within the administration? Is Bush likely to push for some kind of military action, either on his own part or on the part of Israel, before he leaves office? Is the occasionally belligerent rhetoric - and strategically timed stories about OVP's desire for an attack - just a negotiating tool?
Michael Abramowitz: I agree with you that there is a lot of speculation about what is going on with respect to Iran. My sense is that there is a kind of policy gridlock right now, with some senior officials (like the defense secretary and secretary of state) skeptical of the value of air strikes and others (like Cheney) wanting to keep them on the table. I think Bush wants to keep going the diplomatic route for now, both because it might work and also so he can say they did evetything possible diplomatically if they decide for some kind of military action. I think there is still a distinct possibility that we could see military action before the end of Bush's term, but he's not at that decision point yet.
This is my guess about what's going on.
Centreville, Va.: Yesterday you had a front page story about Hillary's "inevitability." And I read that GQ killed a critical story about Hillary at her request. Has there ever been a presidential candidate with this much control of or cooperation from the media? You look like lapdogs.
After she's elected, can we expect tough questions?
Michael Abramowitz: Again, I respectfully disagree with the premise of this question. The Post and other news organizations have written plenty of tough stories about Hillary Clinton--just witness the slew of stories here and elswhere about her fundraising in recent weeks. I agree that the Clinton crew, like Bush and others, are very aggressive about trying to get good media and block bad media--but there's definite push-back from reporters. As is to be expected.
Re: Burlington, VT: Mr. Abramowitz,
I think you brushed off the chatter from VT. When was the last time you saw Bush stand in front of a group of people that he -knew- would disagree with his statements? When has he stood in front of an audience that he or his people would suspect would react in ways other than clapping? Forget the useless press conferences. VT has a valid point.
Michael Abramowitz: Thanks for your thought though I did point out in my answer that Bush generally picks friendly audiences for his appearance.
Washington, D.C.: Assuming Senator Obama doesn't get the nomination or get picked as vice president, what activities do you see him taking up? He's obviously still young enough to make a run at a later time, but what do you think he'd do in between? Does he pick a signature issue to focus his attention? Does he get into the leadership? Does he run for governor of Illinois?
Michael Abramowitz: I have no idea. I suspect he could be attractive as a vice presidential candidate if he doesn't get the nomination himself. Maybe he would want to be a Supreme Court jusice since he was editor of the Harvard law review.
Anonymous: Is there any concern that our commitments in Iraq and Afghanastan have severely and strategically limited our ability to address Iran...if it were wise to do so? I mean, we here about over extended troops, lack of proper equimpment, etc. yet the pro-war with Iran crowd seems to be getting louder with little talk about capacitites. Thoughts?
Michael Abramowitz: I think there's a lot of concern about this in military and foreign policy circles. One result of our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan has been to take care of two regimes that were hostile to Iraq, thereby strengthening Iran's power and influence in the region. And I think the military leadership of the US is very concerned about our ability to respond to challenges from Iran--or anyone else for that matter--while we have troops tied down in those two countries.
Kingston, Ontario: Mr Abramowitz: What is your view about the proposed meaure to change the composition of the California delegation to the Electoral College? Does it have a chance of success?
Michael Abramowitz: I suppose anything is possible and I am not an expert on California politics. But I find it hard to believe that a measure like this--which would have far-reaching consequences and possibly change the 2008 election results--would survive the political and legal challenges itis likely to face.
(For those who don't know, the measure would change California's system for choosing electors from winner take all to one that allocates electors based largely on congressional districts.)
Helena MT: Awhile back, Peter Baker defended himself by saying he used "political shorthand" when reporting on a Democratic candidate and yesterday Dan Balz said, "I think you clearly have a particular point of view about the parties" when reporting. In my view, either of these shows a disturbing amount of preconceived notions that creep into the reporters' stories. Political shorthand = stereotypes, as far as I'm concerned. Do you have the same kinds of preconceived notions? If so, how do they affect your writing?
Michael Abramowitz: I think journalists are human beings and thus have developed certain notions or ideas abou the subjects we write about. I would be disingenuous if I tried to deny that. Our job is to try to be as fair and open-minded as possible, and to make sure those notions don't interfere with getting our stories as accurate and fair as possible.
New York, N.Y.: Recent reports indicate that Condoleeza Rice's influence within the White House is waning, giving way to the more extreme policies of Cheney and his allies. Do you have any perspective on this? She sure hasn't been front-and-center much lately.
Michael Abramowitz: Hmmm. I am not sure exactly what "reports" you are alluding to. My sense is that Rice continues to have a lot of influence with the president, and he has given her a lot of latitude to pursue diplomacy on North Korea, Iran and the Middle East that he did not give her predecessor.
Seattle, WA: We're been hearing a lot of Republican Senators urging Bush to sign S-CHIP when it comes to him, but I admit I've seen nothing from House Republicans on the matter. Do you get the sense that they will support the compromise legislation as much as their Senate counterparts do?
Michael Abramowitz: This is only a sense, but I suspect Bush has more support for his position among House Republicans than among Senate Republicans--so he has a better chance of having a veto sustained in the House.
Come on, Michael: Not a question, really, but more of an observation. Most readers of the WaPo are sensible people and critical thinkers; I include myself in that lot. So I cringe when I read your answer regarding the speech by Ahmadinejad. Regardless of the guy's loony quotient, he did address a hostile audience, which is indeed something Bush seldom does.
And whereas you as a reporter may think that the questions asked of Bush in press conferences are relevant, many of us readers would like to see a bit more pressure put on the administration by the media to explain just what is going on. Pat or evasive answers really don't do much to inform the electorate.
Having said that, I'd also like to offer gratitude for these discussions. I'm a confessed 8 a.m. (PST) addict!
Michael Abramowitz: I am getting a lot of follow-ups to my comments on the Iranian president's willingness to appear before a hostile audience. Let's put aside the question of press conferences, and I will stipulate: I can't remember Bush appearing before as openly a hostile crowd as Ahmadinejad did yesterday at Columbia. I agree Bush does not do this as a rule.
(I do suspect, though I have no proof, that the crowd at the United Nations this morning was pretty hostile towards Bush--though not openly so.)
South Bend, Ind.: So my main man Evan Bayh endorsed Senator Clinton. How high up on the list do you think he'd be for potential VP picks? Even though he's incredibly popular here, there's no way he can turn Indiana blue with Clinton on the top of the ticket. Who else is out there for her? Richardson? Rendell? Strickland? Feingold? Webb? Bill Nelson? Obama?
Michael Abramowitz: The four that seem to be mentioned a lot among the chattering classes are Bayh, Mark Warner, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack. Here's another stab at wild speculation: Richard Gephardt, who could help Clinton in Missouri and in helping her with Congress if she is elected.
I do want to assure you: This is all rank speculation!
San Francisco: Will someone in the White House press corps continue to ask for comment about the Israeli raid on Syria, or does the President's thorough "no-comment" end the matter?
Michael Abramowitz: I am sure that question will be asked again and again, but at a certain point it's hard to get around a firm "no comment." Circumstances change, however, and at some point Bush may want to say something about this matter.
Boston: Politically, was it a mistake for Democratic leaders in Congress to allow the focus of Iraq war policy to fall on General Petreus, a military figure difficult to challenge (see Moveon) really just in charge of the military mission in Iraq not the policy of being there relative to other international threats? Conventional wisdom was set without testimony from Sec. Gates, Sec. Rice or Admiral Fallon about the efficacy of the Iraq war policy as well as its place against the larger al-qaeda threat to our homeland in Pakistan. Are they setting themselves up for more of the same with General Petreus coming back in March?
Michael Abramowitz: Perhaps but I am not sure there was a way around that, since figures in both parties said they wanted to hear what Petraeus had to say. The issue in Iraq continues to be what happens on the ground: if violence spikes up, if the "bottom-up" reconciliation falters, I am not sure how much the administration can spin that. (Though I am certain they will try!)
That's all the time I have for questions. 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 White House reporter Michael Abramowitz discusses the latest buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
| 111.181818 | 0.954545 | 7.318182 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100498.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100498.html
|
NFL Insider - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
Mark writes the NFL Insider blog, and is the author of the new book War Without Death: A Year of Extreme Competition in Pro Football's NFC East.
Mark Maske: Hi, everyone. Let's get right to it. I have to take a five-minute break in the middle of our chat to take a phone call, but I'll stay five minutes longer at the end. I promise.
Washington, D.C.: Good morning -- do Pittsburgh and Baltimore belong in the same class as Indy and New England? What about Dallas? Thanks!
Mark Maske: I don't think anyone belongs in the same class right now as the Patriots and Colts. The Steelers and Cowboys, to me, are the next tier.
Stevens Point, Wisc.: Looking at their schedule, I can easily see the Packers going 11-5 (if they keep playing the way they have been). Our Defense looks well above average and our short passing game is looking solid. I wasn't sold until a quality win over San Diego. Am I delusional??
Mark Maske: No, you're not delusional. I have become a believer. Clearly, that defense is for real. I still don't know if there are enough offensive weapons and if Brett Favre will start forcing things at some point and pile up the interceptions. But certainly it's so far, so good for the Packers, and anyone in the NFC with a halfway decent team has to be considered a Super Bowl contender.
Bowie, Md: Sure, I was mad ... sure I was spitting at the TV as I screamed "You've got a 6-5 mobile quarterback with an arm who can run, roll out!!!" ... but the fact is if they punch it in we're all happy. Gibbs' explanation sounded fine to me. My problem is who was calling the boring, predictable offense that brought about the 3-and-outs? That's where the game was lost, with a tired defense trying to stop an inspired team.
Mark Maske: I re-watched the series down at the goal line, and I didn't have a problem with the play calls. There were some running lanes for Ladell Betts on third and fourth downs. You've got a break a tackle or two down there some of the time, and he didn't. He gets taken down by Kawika Mitchell, who has never been mistaken for Dick Butkus, on third down, and gets knocked over by his own blocker's legs on fourth down. Maybe the need was for better running, not better play-calling. Maybe Clinton Portis should have been in the game. He does seem to have a nose for the goal line. That would be my only real problem with what happened.
As for the overall play-calling in the second half, if the Redskins have the lead, they're going to run. That's what they do. That's who they are. They're not going to be fancy or try to be unpredictable under those circumstances. It just so happens that the Giants are a team that can stop the run okay, and can't stop the pass at all. You can say maybe that should have factored into the play-calling, but the Redskins want to be a run-first team. The approach didn't surprise me.
Bethesda, Md.: Is spygate over? What was on the tapes turned over to the NFL? Will we ever know? Did New England cheat in the playoffs, the Super Bowl? It all seems very incomplete.
Mark Maske: It seems to be over. People in the league office are saying they don't expect further penalties. I'm guessing that all the tapes that were turned in were very much like the Jets tape, with shots of coaches giving play signals and shots of the scoreboard to give context about the game situation. It stands to reason that this, over time, is what the Patriots did.
Charlottesville, Va.: Mark, what is going on with the Saints, especially Drew Brees?! I cannot remember such an unexpected collapse in recent NFL history. Do you believe the Saints/Brees turn it around?
Mark Maske: I thought they would score some points and win last night. It is baffling. It's not so much that they're not winning. You knew there could be some issues on defense and maybe that could be a problem. But it's really surprising that the offense is struggling so much. Now it looks like Deuce McAllister might be done for the season. It's getting tougher and tougher to envision them turning it around.
Boston: Would Randy Moss be smart to accept a bit of a hometown discount to stay with Tom Brady and the Pats after this year or do you think he's going to go to the highest bidder?
Mark Maske: He should stay right where he is for as long as he can.
Pats Offense/Cinci Defense: The Patriots score 38 points for three consecutive weeks and now face the Bengals defense. Maybe they should just start Matt Cassell and give Brady a rest.
Mark Maske: They might need the points in this game. The Bengals can score, too. We haven't seen anyone exploit the Patriots' defense yet while Richard Seymour and Rodney Harrison are out, but this might be the game in which we see that happen. I'm not saying the Bengals are going to win. But I am saying the Bengals might be able to put some points on the board and make it at least somewhat interesting.
Thanks for doing these chats. I must preface my question by saying I was very concerned about the 'Skins before the Giants game -- both the offense and defense seemed vulnerable. After this loss, it definitely is apparent the team has a long way to go. Do see this as a temporary setback (they did win in Philly) or is this loss indicative of things to come?
Mark Maske: This is just life in the NFL. When a team starts to feel good about itself, maybe a little too good, it gets brought back to reality. It's also life with a young quarterback. There are going to be some ups and downs. I still look at the Redskins as an above-.500 team and a playoff contender.
Hurting Bills: Hope the team has a good medical program! Here in Happy Valley we're mourning Poz's broken arm -- he was off to such a promising start! Does he miss the rest of the season?
What is the outlook for defense?
Mark Maske: Yes, he was placed on injured reserve and the Bills used the roster spot to re-sign Craig Nall as a backup quarterback, with J.P. Losman hurt and probably out a couple weeks. I would say things don't look good at all for the Bills, with an 0-3 record and a rookie taking over as the starter at quarterback in Trent Edwards. That will put a lot of pressure on the defense, and any defense tends to break under those circumstances.
Norfolk, Va.: The NFL's reputation has taken quite a hit this year: the scummy players (Pac-Man, Tank), the dogfighting, the cheating. But it doesn't seem to have hurt. Baseball was bruised by the steroid scandal (which is probably a bigger problem in the NFL) and player misbehavior in the NBA has led to the thug reputation for all NBAers. But the NFL? Still squeaky clean.
And the media seems disinclined to push the issue. Belichick got his hand slapped mildly for admittedly cheating. He should have been permanently banned from football. It wasn't just stealing signs -- he was undermining the fundamental integrity of the game. Do you know if anyone in the media will force the NFL to disclose exactly what was on those Patriots' tapes? And how far they go back?
Mark Maske: I don't know that the media hasn't pushed the issue. There was quite a bit of attention given to the player criminality, to the Vick case, to the Patriots' spying case. If the public continues to buy the product, if people continue going to the games and the TV ratings remain unchanged, that's what creates the impression that the NFL's reputation is unchanged.
WDC: The San Diego GM has made the right move in most cases recently. For instance, Brees's arm looked kind of weak last night. Forgoing Vick for Tomlinson and Brees will always be a coup in my book. However, Norv appears to be a big bust. How much of that is SD still not over their failure last year, or Norv? I see them whoofing like they are champs or the big guy on the block, meanwhile they have nothing to show for it.
Mark Maske: The funny thing is that the whole idea of bringing in Norv Turner was that there would be this seamless transition, since he'd been there before and the offensive system would remain the same. The transition hasn't exactly been seamless, has it? I thought it was a mistake to fire Marty Schottenheimer, especially when Dean Spanos and A.J. Smith waited so long after the playoffs last season to do it. So far, it's not working out for them.
Spygate: Were other NFL teams asked to sign a representation that they did not have video or files similar to the Patriots spygate materials?
Mark Maske: No, they weren't. But then again, other teams hadn't been caught red-handed like the Patriots were. The other teams were "reminded" what the rules are and were told their activities will be closely monitored.
Bethesda, Md.: Can you tell me how long the NFL/DirecTV contract is in effect? For those of us who don't have the Dish (and believe me, I've tried--too many trees the wrong direction), I need to know when I can buy viewing passes to my home team's game!
(Go Steelers!) I imagine the NFL has a plan to eventually sell those packages through their own NFL HD cable channels...
Mark Maske: The DirecTV deal runs through the 2010 season. You have a little waiting to do.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: In view of last week's game against the Ravens and that their coach was a former Steelers' coach, do you think the Cardinals will be a tough match for the Steelers?
Mark Maske: I think it will be a tight game because of Ken Whisenhunt and Russ Grimm, and because the game is in Arizona. But I can't see the Cardinals beating the Steelers with their unsettled quarterback situation. Whisenhunt rotated Matt Leinart and Kurt Warner last week, and that goes back to the old saying that if you have two quarterbacks you really don't have any.
West Chester, PA: Jason Campbell doesn't seem to make the same mistakes twice, does he? Am I just overly optimistic to think he can continue to improve as quickly as he has done? He's better than Danny Wuerffel, right?
Mark Maske: He is a good young quarterback. His development is going fine. But there will be some bumps in the road. It happens with everyone who plays that position.
Couple of thoughts: Regarding the Saints -- maybe it's the coach. I remember when Payton was the offensive coordiantor for the Giants. One year he was a genius, and the next year he was awful and the head coach took the play-calling away from him. Seems like a similar pattern here?
Regarding the Chargers -- maybe the Rivers/Manning trade wasn't as lopsided as everyone thought.
Mark Maske: Everything that Sean Payton touched last season turned to gold. I covered a good number of their games and he would take these risks, and it seemed like just about every one of them worked out. It's not working that way this season. You saw him take the fourth-down gamble in his own territory last night, and it didn't work. He seems to be pressing a little bit, trying to make something happen, and making bad decisions because of it.
Manning and Rivers very well could turn out to be comparable quarterbacks. But remember that the Giants gave up some other picks, including one that the Chargers used to get Shawne Merriman, to get Manning. In that light, it will be very difficult for Manning to be as good as Rivers and Merriman.
Leesburg, Va.: Has the rushing game in the NFL reached a nadir of historic proportions? After week 3, only two running backs have 4 rushing touchdowns (Addai and Barber). And only three more backs have three rushing TDs to their credit.
I know that "running back by committee" has become fashionable, but the team rushing statistics don't look much better with only five NFL teams having 4 or 5 rushing TDs so far this season.
Mark Maske: I don't know, a running back having three or four rushing touchdowns after three games is pretty good, I think. We've become spoiled by the huge touchdown numbers that guys like Shaun Alexander and LaDainian Tomlinson have had within the past few years. It's not that way every season.
Upper Marlboro, MD: Hi Mark,
I am a lifelong Dallas Cowboys fan. I am so excited about this year, but I'm a bit concerned about our defense. How do you see them performing agains the Pats at home?
Mark Maske: That will be an extremely interesting game. I'll be curious to see if the Cowboys stack up because they might be the only team in the NFC capable of playing with the AFC heavyweights. I do think the Dallas offense measures up. The defense? I'm not sure we've seen enough to know yet. The results were terrible in the opener against the Giants, but they've been better against two bad offenses since then. I would say if Terence Newman is healthy, the Cowboys should be able to play with anyone. If he's not, their defensive shortcomings will be too much to overcome against the top teams.
Milwaukee: I know it's REALLY early....but who are your picks to win each division?
Mark Maske: Patriots, Steelers, Colts, Chargers in the AFC.
Cowboys, Bears, Buccaneers, Seahawks in the NFC.
Yes, for now, I'm sticking with the Chargers and Bears (provided that the Bears make a quarterback switch this week, or else I'll take the Packers). I do believe in the Packers and I do now consider them a playoff team, but I'll take the Bears if Lovie Smith benches Grossman this week and goes to Griese.
Kansas City: Why is Herm Edwards's play calling so predictable? Did he finally realize the pass opened up their running game on Sunday? Or... will he stay predictable and always play from behind?
Mark Maske: The Chiefs have been a major disappointment to me. I thought they'd hold it together and still be a decent team this year, maybe not a playoff team but at least a contender. I don't fault the offensive approach too much. If you have Larry Johnson, you're going to give him the ball. They're just not getting any yards.
Washington, DC: Why IS the AFC so much better than the NFC?
Mark Maske: It's just a cyclical thing. We're in a long cycle of AFC dominance after a long cycle of NFC dominance. There's no particular reason. That's just how it is at the moment. The better coaches and better organizations are in the AFC.
Mark Maske: I'm going to run, folks. Thanks for the questions and see you here next Tuesday.
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 columnist and NFL Insider blogger Mark Maske discusses discuss the latest news from around the NFL.
| 165 | 0.631579 | 1.157895 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/18/DI2007091801676.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/18/DI2007091801676.html
|
Chatological Humor - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
At one time or another, Below the Beltway has managed to offend persons of both sexes as well as individuals belonging to every religious, ethnic, regional, political and socioeconomic group. If you know of a group we have missed, please write in and the situation will be promptly rectified. "Rectified" is a funny word.
On Tuesdays at noon, Gene is online to take your questions and abuse. He will chat about anything. Although this chat is updated regularly throughout the week, it is not and never will be a "blog," even though many persons keep making that mistake. One reason for the confusion is the Underpants Paradox: Blogs, like underpants, contain "threads," whereas this chat contains no "threads" but, like underpants, does sometimes get funky and inexcusable.
Submit your questions, comments and rants before or during the show.
This Week's Polls: First, everyone please take this first Very Serious Poll. Then, women please enter here and men here for the second, humorous poll.
Important, secret note to readers: The management of The Washington Post apparently does not know this chat exists, or it would have been shut down long ago. Please do not tell them. Thank you.
Weingarten is also the author of "The Hypochondriac's Guide to Life. And Death" and co-author of "I'm with Stupid," with feminist scholar Gina Barreca.
New to Chatological Humor? Read the FAQ.
P.S. If composing your questions in Microsoft Word please turn off the Smart Quotes functionality or use WordPad. I haven't the time to edit them out. -- Liz
On Sunday morning, there came a yelping and howling and mewling and keening from our front yard. We investigated. Murphy the Plott Hound was beside herself, pawing at the ground, yipping and whining, trying to get through the fence to something on the other side. We looked.
This is what it was.
Had you ever seen a baby squirrel? We hadn't. This one had apparently fallen 20 feet to the pavement from a nest in one of several trees, and then crawled, blind, about 20 feet onto my neighbor's walkway.
His name is Cholmondeley, pronounced "Chumley."
The real story here, though, is Murphy. She watched intently as we picked up the squirrel, put him in a box, brought him into the house. She tried to lick him. She was deeply agitated, wanted to mother him, and when we gave him up to Animal Rescue, she whined and mourned for hours, searching every nook and cranny of the house.
QUICK! TAKE THIS EMERGENCY POLL!
I think you know where this is going. The Rib and I looked at shelter kittens yesterday, and have put in a request for one. She looks exactly like Murphy. If we get her, perhaps we shall name her "Little Murphy."
I am awaiting a call from the shelter to tell me if Cholmondeley survived. I am afraid of this call.
Okay, so. Remember the debate in the last two weeks over whether the Prank Wars were real or faked? If you recall, this was the increasingly vicious series of pranks played on each other by Streeter and Amir, two staffers of collegehumor.com, culminating in Amir arranging for Streeter to propose to his girlfriend on the Jumbotron at Yankee Stadium, a surprise to both of them. Much hilarity, and a slap in the face, ensued.
(Prank Wars 4 -- Comedy Club| 5 -- Human Giants| 6 -- Proposal)
I said that I thought the odds of Prank Wars being real, and not a prank, were about 50-50. I now put the odds at 80-20 that it is real. Last week I phoned both Streeter, whom I talked to for five minutes, and Amir, whom I talked to for a half hour. Streeter sounded deeply weary and upset by the whole thing, swore it was true, and, simply by virtue of being a man, vowed that he will exact revenge that will be "quick and mean."
It was the conversation with Amir Blumenfeld that has mostly nailed this for me, in part because, uncharacteristically for someone seeking publicity, he refused to go on the record, despite my taunting him with serious verbal attacks on his manhood. I am not allowed to reveal the contents of the conversation at all, but I will say that he performed well on one important test: I asked him my key question--- How had he prepared for the eventuality (women's bladders being what they are) that girlfriend Sharon might be in the ladies room when the prank happened, and miss the whole thing? His answer was so thunderously stupid that it could not have been scripted. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure this thing is real, and that Streeter's revenge will be either literally or figuratively deadly.
The company that is printing the Old Dogs book is located in Hong Kong. Its address is "1 Fuk Wang St."
You may recall that last week, I said that if a disease is ever named for me, I wanted it to involve calcification and keratinization of the male sexual organ. Within just a few hours, this link arrived. ( NOTE: This link is in NO WAY safe for work. Nor is it endorsed by myself, washingtonpost.com or the dead tree operation. -- Liz)
Have you read about the obnoxious kid who was obnoxiously tasered by obnoxious security guards at a Kerry speech? This kid should never have been tasered, and heads should roll for it, but he was being a disruptive jerk and mostly got what he wanted -- publicity.
In response, in support of free speech, the student newspaper at Colorado State University published a four word editorial: "Taser This: (f-word) Bush." The paper's editor is in trouble; the school is considering firing him. If they do, it's a disgrace. Unlike the tasered kid, this editorial had a succinct and effective point. They had every right to say it, and they had an obligation, as callow college newspaper editors, to be a little irresponsible and over the top. Leave the kid alone, I say.
Nothing, alas, in this chat is going to be as funny as Ahmadinejad's straight-faced declaration yesterday that there are no homosexuals in Iran. I'm not even going to try to top that.
Besides, we have the first poll to neatly suppress much of the jocularity this week. I am sorry to inflict this on you. Your answers are illuminating, and I thank you for them. It is important that I keep a completely open mind, and so, for reasons I know you will understand, I'm going to be uncharacteristically reticent and taciturn on this one. I will publish your thinking about it, but not mine. A whole bunch of your posts are going to be answered by: "Thanks."
Now, the Second Poll ( women please enter here and men here) is also interesting. It has a guest judge, Dave Barry, who chose his top three and bottom three jokes. Like the letters of transit in Casablanca, his decision cannot be superseded or even questioned. In each category, I have added a fourth, to give you a little room for error. Here's the thing: Something is happening in the results of this poll that I do not believe has ever happened before. It's exciting. I can't wait to tell you.
A weak comic week, except for the CPOW, Sunday's Doonesbury, which is great for many reasons, including that Bush's slowly eroding Roman soldier had has now completely lost its top. First runner up is Sunday's Agnes. Honorable: Saturday's Pearls and Sunday's Lio.
I grew up in Metairie, La., and my family still lives there. I visit often, particularly since Katrina. Your perverse verse in The Post Magazine almost caused me to spit my coffee. THANKS!
Metairie is a pretty bland place, full of retail chains, ranch houses and strip malls. Pointing out that there well may be strong current of horniness coursing through those manicured Metairie lawns jazzes up our perceptions of ourselves as Metairians.
washingtonpost.com: A Garden of Perverses ( Post Magazine, Sept. 25)
Gene Weingarten: I had a really bad problem with that poem. I wrote it and sent it to Pat the Perfect, who liked it, but dryly informed me (she knows everything) that the town is pronounced MET-er-ee, not Met-AIR-ee. This screwed up all of the meter and some of the rhymes, including my last two lines, which originally were:
But if you plan to enter politics, you might be somewhat wary
Of starting your career out in that Babylon, Matairie.
So I had to change that.
An additional problem was that even though it is pronounced MET -er-ee, almost everyone will assume that it is pronounced the other way. So I had to rewrite the poem entirely, making the meter work out whichever way you pronounced it.
One more little fact: The editors made me change a line in that poem. Originally, the linens were not "after they've been mussed." It originally read "(with just a little crust.)"
Chicago, Ill.: Gene, I need some humor help. In my in-law's village, there's a fair-sized cemetery, maybe a few blocks long. They sold off the corner of the cemetery, at a busy intersection, and put in a Starbucks. I'm sure there's a joke in here about waking up the dead, but I can't find it. Can you?
Gene Weingarten: I'm sure their drinks will be coffinated.
Indianapolis: Was the Tasered kid being especially obnoxious? From what I saw, he was trying to ask three questions -- legitimate questions, I'd say -- when he was only supposed to ask one.
Kerry, of course, could have stopped the whole thing if he'd spoken up. But he acted just like the John Kerry we've come to know and expect nothing from.
Gene Weingarten: He was being pretty disruptive, and deliberately so. He told the woman next to him to video the whole thing, because he knew he was gonna be expelled. He was being rude.
Movie Fan: Dave Barry, quoted in Entertainment Weekly, says that he and Gene have co-written a movie script that has been optioned for production. Does it feature VPL, the Flash, hypochondria, or straight razors? Does this mean that at some future date, Liz (in her Celebritology guise) will report on Gene's appearance at a movie premiere, walking the red carpet ("Gene, who are you wearing tonight?")?
Gene Weingarten: Yes, to Lorne Michaels' production company. It has become one of 634 million scripts currently "in development."
Liz would never confuse script writers with celebrities. She knows the old Polish joke -
Did you hear about the Polish ingenue? She went to Hollywood, and to get ahead, she slept with the writers.
(No offense, Poles. An old, invalid stereotype.)
I think you left out a very important question in your serious poll, namely: Are you a father of children? (or words to that effect).
I pretty much threw the book at the guy and I honestly believe my response is colored by the fact that I have two boys that fall into the age range of the the children that are being violated.
If you asked me before I had kids, I probably would have answered more along the lines of what the chatters are currently voting.
Was this a conscious decision on your part?
Gene Weingarten: No. Not deliberate.
But I doubt that the parent/non-parent divide is explaining anything about the results. A large percentage of the readers taking this poll are parents.
We all were children, you know?
Virginia Beach, Va.: Oh, Gene, I am heartbroken that you didn't include my absolute favorite guy-goes-into-a-bar joke:
A mushroom walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "You'll have to leave; we don't serve your kind here." The mushroom says, "Why not? I'm a fun guy?"
I had a hard time with this poll, though. There's a fine line between a terrible pun and a terrific one, and many are both simultaneously.
Gene Weingarten: I didn't include it because it contains an illiteracy, and "I'm a fun Gus" isn't nearly as good.
Before you go and get a cat, how about you and the Rib consider watching my three-year-old Siamese cat for two weeks while we're in China? Seriously, I can't put her in boarding because that seems terrible, my brother has two little kids running around his house, my neighbor is unreliable, and my girlfriend's co-worker seems to be offering just to be looked upon favorably. I trust you with animals more than anybody else. She is nice and cute. Pretty please?
Gene Weingarten: Write to me after the chat.
Anonymous: Who would you choose for a night passion, including dinner and conversation and all the passion implies, between Dick Cheney and the President of Iran?
Gene Weingarten: Actually, this is a good question to throw out there to women and gay men:
It seems to me that Ahmadinejad is an extremely hot guy. Am I right? And if so, does his hotness diminish or disappear on account of who he is and what he says?
Silver Spring, Md.: I agree with the sentiment of "what happens in a person's head isn't an extra reason to punish them." I disagree with prosecuting "hate crimes" for that very reason.
But in terms of child pornography -- clearly a child HAD TO BE ABUSED for the picture to be generated. There is no greater crime than child abuse and if I wasn't pretty sure I'm against the death penalty, I would have voted for that.
Very Serious Poll: To me, the crime that was committed was the vile abuse of children in the creation of the porn. The otherwise-fabulous guy paid money for this porn, playing an integral role in its creation. The porn was created because people like this man had their credit cards at the ready. It's not really different from him calling up some pornographer and custom ordering something ("Make me a video of a 5-year-old being raped and tortured"), is it?
So he didn't actually abuse a child himself -- great. But if someone pays to watch someone else abuse a child, the one with the money has made the abuse happen.
Washington, D.C.: Gene, I work for a marine conservation organization, but I'm hiding in my office with the curtains shut. See, I'm undergoing fertility treatment and my food cravings are undeniable. I'm having a completely non-sustainable lunch. My question is, Tennessee at New Orleans, spread is NO by 4. What's the pick here?
Bethesda, Md.: Although I'm not a therapist, I've worked with hundreds of pedophiles and the therapists that work with them. The odds that your 50-year-old lawyer actually abused children is very high. Sorry.
Gene Weingarten: I know those numbers. But there are pretty compelling reasons to think he didn't. I can't go into them. The evidence was so great that during the sentencing, in a highly unusual move, the judge stated that there was no evidence he had molested children.
Tasered kid: He was trying to ask Sen. Kerry about Skull and Bones which is the most inane, wacked-out conspiracy theorist question out there.
Arlington, Va.:"An additional problem was that even though it is pronounced MET -er-ee, almost everyone will assume that it is pronounced the other way."
Why? Because everyone else is as ignorant as you?
A quick show of hands. Who knew the correct pronunciation who has never lived in Louisiana?
Spook, ED: Some guy called me with a sexual phone prank last night. No idea who, so I'm filing a police report, but wondered if you knew what you can say to such a man to freak him out? Give him the opposite affect of what he was calling for? He knew my name, and had my number. I'm a little spooked now, especially since I live alone, and I'm in the phone book. Knowing what words could make him think twice about calling someone else is my one comfort right now, and, after the gross-out discussions on tampons, thought this would be a short leap. Thanks, Gene!
Gene Weingarten: Prank? Sounds more like an assault.
Engaging this person in any way is risky. The best strategy, which may be unavailable to you, is to hand the phone to a man.
You're proud of that, aren't you?
Livermore, Calif.: While the laughter of the crowd was the best response to Ahmadinejad's assertion that there are no Iranian gays, in a sense it's true. Same-sex acts are thought of as youthful indiscretions, and many men, especially the "tops," do not believe they are gay at all.
See this fascinating article on why it's easier for a gay couple to date in Saudi Arabia than a heterosexual one.
Gene Weingarten: I'll trust this link.
Meat eater: I am a meat eater. And not too apologetic about it.
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that stated, "Cow's deserve to be eaten".
Doesn't look good for my side, does it?
Orlando, Fla.: This chat seems to cross this discussion often... Are thoughts punishable?
I'm a female, elementary school teacher and a cheer coach. My fantasies are illegal, usually involving pre-teen females and deviant sexual behavior, usually of the BDSM variety. Now, if that's all you knew about me, I should be at punished, but there is more to it...
I read, rather than watch and view, my fantasies, so it isn't illegal, but I know I would be quickly discredited if it were to ever be found out. What is important to note is that they are all safely locked inside of my head. The actual thought of acting out one of my fantasies is abhorrent to me. It physically sickens me to even contemplate it happening to one of my students... but who would believe that?
Pornography is fantasy, not reality. It only creates a problem when someone wants to transfer fantasy to reality. How many divorces have resulted because of the proliferation of porn? How many jobs lost due to porn addiction? Assuming everything else to be true, his only real crime was supporting an organization that will continue to exist because as long as there is a market, children will continue to be harmed to supply that market.
If I were guessing I would have to say the thought of one of his little league team members in that situation would sicken him as well. But as long as it was online with children he didn't know, he could perpetuate it in his mind as a victimless crime. He should receive counseling to help him learn it isn't a victimless crime and he should be monitored to be sure that he isn't viewing it any longer, but beyond that, why should he be punished for merely thinking?
If you would be comfortable talking to me about this, in complete confidence, no names ever disclosed to anyone, please email me at weingarten(at)washpost.com.
Joke...: So, a seal walks into a club....
Gene Weingarten: I like it. And it reminds me of the joke about the penguin eating ice cream.
Nope Not, ME: No good 'nopes this week?
Gene Weingarten: No. I didn't like the crop I saw.
North McLean: The notion of somebody getting his jollies off on tortured children creates a visceral reaction of disgust, but I realize that this cannot be the sole criterion for punishment. Nor can the fact that this response is uncommon be used to assign blame. One cannot reasonably control which stimuli induces a sexual response.
The only reasonable basis for punishment is the extent to which this crime promotes the exploitation of children. And in this case it is a matter of distributed responsibility. The man in question is only one of many people supporting this exploitation. And given the revulsion that the knowledge of this proclivity produces in the vast majority of people, it would seem that being exposed, briefly incarcerated, and then officially stigmatized would be punishment enough.
The more profound criminal responsibilities rest with those who create and run this hypothetical web site. For them I would have less mercy.
Accessory to Crime: How can 41 percent (as of Monday afternoon) say the lawyer contributed to the crimes by creating the market demand, but very few believe a prison sentence is in order? I don't get it. What's your take?
Gene Weingarten: I don't have a take, yet. Honestly. I think this is a complicated morass of conflicting moral issues. One person I know, who was sexually abused as a child, feels that in this case, the excruciating public humiliation this man has suffered (combined with counseling and sex-offender registry) is sufficient punishment. Another person I know, with no such baggage and no children, opted for 25 years to life.
I don't have a take, yet.
Ahmadinej, AD: Female talking here to answer your question:
I think Ahmadinejad is only considered "hot" when compared to other world leaders. But if he was a regular guy just walking down the street, I doubt I would take notice.
College Park, Md.: OMG! I might be a little late, but I'm just discovering that you LIVED WITH Liz and that you hooked up with PtheP?!
washingtonpost.com: Ahhh. Gotta love Facebook. To clear things up, it was while Gene and I were living together that he and Dave Barry stole my film script. The rest is history.
Gene Weingarten: It was after Liz kicked me out that I sought emotional solace by nailing Pthep.
Nowhere, VA: I'm having a hard time with the first poll. While I agree that you shouldn't punish people for things that go on entirely inside their heads, the money-changing-hands thing makes it different: he is actively supporting the awful crime. However, we do this indirectly all the time: we buy meat, contributing to the torture of animals, we buy oil, diamonds, and all kinds of products that support drug and human trafficking if you look into it closely (most of us just try very hard not to think about it).
Granted, this is more direct support, but...I don't know. Part of me thinks we have to go easy and find the actual producers of the material, and part of me wants to track down and human who is supporting the business. BUT, you can't possibly track down everyone - it's like the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty, or the War on Terror (ahem) - so. I don't know.
Very Serious Poll: I feel as though you set the bottom bar too high, as far as the punishment goes. On the initial scenario, I would have liked to see some minimal jail time -- say, 30 days -- in recognition of his shared culpability in creating a demand for child pornography, but I don't get the lifetime registration as a sex offender. The original scenario doesn't suggest there's any evidence he's ever touched a child inappropriately (which is why I chose "it doesn't matter" when you added that the thorough investigation not turning up any evidence of actual abusive contact with children - was everybody else factoring in some assumption that if he looked at the pictures he must have been abusing children?) I think it does make a difference how vile the things are that are being done to the children, since the shared culpability for creating a market for this kind of material seems to me the legitimate justification for punishing someone for looking at pictures. (At some level, as a society, I think what we're doing is punishing him for WANTING to look at those pictures, which is not a legitimate justification for punishment.)
Boynton Beach, Fla.: The men are liking the amnesiac joke! That's a stupid joke. The woman isn't going to know he's amnesiac. It's just going to be some jerk sitting next to her asking an idiotic question. There's no remotely plausible setup to that joke. Maybe men relate to it the most?
Gene Weingarten: The women are liking it, too, sweetie. Know why? Because it is really good. Whether the woman understands that he is an amnesiac is irrelevant.
Doghou, SE: Okay, so I got busted. This really hot little chickie moved in right next door to me and runs around in tight shorts and little midriff tops all the time and my girlfriend caught me drooling over the little honey. I tried to laugh it off but she got this really glazed look on her face and she won't talk to me about it. She just keeps saying that it's okay and then practically runs out of the room. She's started cancelling dates - suddenly she has to work late or she has a headache or something. I keep trying to tell her I think she's really attractive and sexy but she won't hear it. We're both divorced and I know she had a tough time with her ex, but what can I do? I can't make my neighbor move. Maybe this is a Hax question but you're a guy, you know where I'm coming from. What do I do?
Gene Weingarten: Boy, this whole chat is turning out to be about the crime of thinking something, isn't it? Thinking versus doing.
Is paying for child porn "doing?"
Is visibly scoping out a babe "doing?"
We've established what you are, son. Now we're just haggling over price.
You need to talk to your girlfriend. Talk it over. Explain that no guy is immune to recognizing and appreciating female hotness, but you will, in the future, not drool. That you recognize that it is disrespectful to her, and you apologize. And that you have no designs on this woman.
Postscript: I would not think well of a woman who got so terribly upset and offended over this. That is a degree of controlling behavior I find ditasteful.
Very disturbing poll to say the least, but it, combined with Joel A's recent article on the complexity of the brain, did make me wonder how much of the passive viewing of such pictures is a mental issue that should be addressed as such rather than a criminal act. I am not placing violent video games or movies on the same level at all, but many people enjoy watching all sorts of sadistic horrible activity that, in theory, they do not act upon or believe to be "right." Obviously the difference is real people are not being killed, tortured etc . . in a movie or game, but what would be people's response if the images being looked at were computer generated?
washingtonpost.com: What Makes Up My Mind, ( Post, Sept. 23)
Gene Weingarten: I think they would dislike the person, but not feel he has done anything illegal.
Seattle: As a former small-town newspaper reporter, I find that this "The Onion" headline kinda sums up why I'm not too sympathetic to Tasered Guy:
"Town Hall Meeting Gives Townspeople Chance To Say Stupid Things In Public"
Pet Sitt, IN: No offense, Gene, but the person with the Siamese should hire a pet sitter. Mine is marvelous: Beverly Swanson at Companion Care Pet Sitters. She can be reached at companioncare@rcn.com. She'll come to your house, feed and play with your cat, and leave you a daily diary of his/her behavior.
You pulled it out at the end: For a second there, I thought you were going to rely on the "it's only in his head" dodge as a way of giving this scumbag a walk. Then I saw the answer that matters in this case: by buying kiddie porn, he enables the market for that particular kind of evil.
A year in prison is enough, as long as he loses his livelihood and is required to register. Odds are, with those penalties and the generally unforgiving nature of felons vis-a-vis child molesters, he'll be dead in a year anyway, either by his own hand or his cellmate's.
I'm not anti-porn, as long as it's consenting adults. But hands off, and eyes off, the kids.
Serious Poll: This poll was hard to take, but I was encouraged, I guess, by the answers. My father was (is still I guess) a pedophile. Caught numerous times with graphic and disturbing child pornography. He was also a doctor, a decent member of the community, and a fairly OK dad. He was ill and never admitted it to himself or anyone else. He also never touched a child as far as anyone (FBI) could figure out, just had the stuff on his computer. I've struggled for years trying to figure out what this means about him, or says about him as a person. But he was always mentally a little off. Did it affect how good a doctor he was? I don't think so. Only his close family ever knew about this. I hated finding this out about him (I knew from a young-ish age) and I split hairs with myself by saying that because he never ACTED on anything, it wasn't as bad as it could have been. He was never a predator. But he was also my dad and still a good person in many ways. I chose the probation and suspension for the poll.
Same offer. If you are willing to discuss this, contact me at weingarten(at)washpost.com.
Ahmadinej, AD: I always thought he was hot until I noticed how bizarre his eyes are -- not only are they tiny, it is almost like he has them closed all the time.
Gene Weingarten: True. He has shifty little beady eyes. Kinda like Bush's! They BOTH look like they are always looking into the sun.
Re: Metarie: Am waving my hand here.
Anglicized pronunciation of French word -- why wouldn't the emphasis be on the first syllable?
Gene Weingarten: Because it looks like prairie at the end. Surely, you are not arguing that it LOOKS like it should be MET-er-ee.
Late: Probably too late to get this in.
I am one of the three who voted for death, both before and after.
Look. The "kept it in his own head" arguement only goes as far as we're talking about cartoons or written fiction or whatever doesn't involve real children. Further, that he had this problem and coached little league suggests a very great deal, regardless that the law enforcement folks are convinced he didn't actually DO anything.
I can't watch Law & Order: SVU when it involves kids. I just ... I have kids. I can't watch those episodes. I want to hurt people. This is what I keep in my head, and I try to stay away from things that get me het up. Same thing with this guy.
If I can convince the law enforcement community to do what I'm thinking, I'm happier all day long.
If he was willing to assist law enforcement with a sting operation of some kind that put his own life in jeopardy to catch the sickos who run the website from Eastern Europe or China or wherever they are, I'd be willing to take death off the table.
I'm really the guy in the glass house throwing stones here. I play violent video games. I find it cathartic. Of course, it doesn't involve real people, which is the thing that got me going about this guy - the real kids, but still, it is a gray area. My problem would, if let out of the box, involve adults, not kids, and that is a huge difference in my head.
This guy is an adult. There has to be a time when you say "enough". That's why I don't watch bum fights, boxing, professional wrestling, or MMA.
Though I wonder, I think boxing may be less real than the games I play ...
Same offer to others: If you'll talk to me, please email me at weingarten(at)washpost.com. Any others who chose "death," also.
Washington DC:"Postscript: I would not think well of a woman who got so terribly upset and offended over this. That is a degree of controlling behavior I find distasteful."
On the flip side, I would say that use of the terms "little chickie" and "little honey" to describe the neighbors are grounds for dumping.
Silver Spring, MD:"Postscript: I would not think well of a woman who got so terribly upset and offended over this. That is a degree of controlling behavior I find ditasteful."
This is what Hax would say, I betcha.
Gene Weingarten: Hax would say what? That it's distasteful? Or that it's fine for women to chastise guys for peeking?
Eewww: Liz, you think he's hot? He's gross. He'd be gross even if he was just some guy on the street.
washingtonpost.com: He also knows better than to wear pleated pants.
Gene Weingarten: I don't understand Liz's comment, but I bet it's really snarky.
What I thought was far enough away: Gene,
You are inescapable. I'm minding my own business sitting in High Holiday services, looking forward to what I'm sure will be another eye-opening and life-changing sermon from my parents Rabbi. He starts out by saying his inspiration is from an article from the Washington Post. As a loyal Post Reader I wonder, who could he be talking about? One of the fantastic Political Reporters? Tom Boswell of the sports page (my Rabbi likes sports metaphors)? I know- it must be Dana Priest and Anne Hull for their fantastic reporting on Walter Reed- after all, the Rabbi's son is in Iraq right now!
Nope- it's you. It's you and Josh Bell. Great work, but can't you leave my holidays alone! How does it feel to be sermon material?
Gene Weingarten: That story has been hijacked by various religions, and used as proof of the existence of God!
Venus: Ahmadinejad is hot. His twistedness contributes to his hotness.
Hey, can't punish me for what I think, ok?
Gene Weingarten: Okay, the poll.
You are going to love this.
Collectively, you are humor geniuses. Men and women, both.
Your choices and Dave Barry's choices track almost 100 percent, and when I add my fourth, your scores are perfect.
Dave picked as best 2, 6, and 15, which are the amnesiac, the Chihuahua and the big pause. As worst, he picked 3, 4, and 14, which are jumper cables, brain, and giraffe. )
(He and I were in almost complete agreement. I liked jumper cables more than he did.)
To his choices, I add, as best, 5, which is, Descartes, and as worst, cowboy, which is 12.
I'm happy to discuss WHY some of these are funnier than others, and was prepared to do this, but you seem to already know, so it would be patronizing.
Providence, R.I.: After my first year of law school, me and most of my fellow students endure journal competition where everyone has to write a lawyerly paper on a specific topic using only a set of materials provided. Our topic was the legal implications of "virtual" child pornography, i.e. porn that is really someone of legal aged but, through the miracles of modern technology is photo shopped or something to look like it is a minor.
It raises all sort of interesting questions... should this be illegal? Does it matter if the person knows or doesn't know it is not "real" porn, etc.
But I bring this up mainly because one of the competitions-within-the-competition amongst our friends was for the most creative title of the paper. The hands down winner was "Children of the Porn."
Serious poll: Well, I am off to take your non-serious poll, but I am surprised with the overwhelmingly similar responses to, particularly, the time in jail question. I am a conservative mom of 3 young girls, and I voted for 1 year in prison with the extra fun options, especially the sex offender bit. It's illegal for a reason.
But I do think watching it doesn't fall into the same category as the person making the video. It's like a drug user versus a drug dealer (um, except doing child porn is way, way worse than being a drug dealer). But it seems that most people agree with me.
Oh, and the bit about representing the disadvantaged, etc. makes no difference. Many, many child predators do very nice things, perhaps to be put into situation that allows them access to kids. Goody for him for doing nice things to allay his guilt.
Phenom, ENAL:"We do not have this phenomenon [of homosexuality] in our country"
Has a world leader ever made himself look more ridiculous on the world stage? This is why I think people miss the point when they say Columbia was wrong to let him speak. You give a nut like Ahmadenijad a forum, he will make himself look like a crazy person.
Gene Weingarten: Columbia was right to let him speak, for exactly the reason you said. I think all the pols who santimoniously criticized Colombia were shameless.
Did you read the university president's "introduction." It was fabulous. He called Ahmadinejad a buffoon.
Old Dogs, Yay!: Gene, when is Old Dogs coming out? And will you be promoting it around our Nation's Capital?
Gene Weingarten: Old Dogs doesn't appear until next May.
Flip Si, DE: For the guy caught oogling his neighbor -- how would you feel if you caught your girlfriend oogling some buff bare-chested dude as he ran by in tiny shorts? My boyfriend and I have an equal-opportunity oogle policy; I don't get mad at him when he checks other women out, and he doesn't get mad at me when I note that football's only watchable as a sport because of the men's heinies in those tight pants.
This should be a verb. It would mean googling for porn.
Big Fat Hairy Deal: Gene,
This morning, local public radio personalities were discussing an uproar over a headline in an area paper which reads POW POW POW! It is a story about a young man who evaded police for awhile, then turned around and assaulted one officer and was eventually shot to death by authorities.
Is this headline really so offensive, in your opinion? I fail to see the big problem here.
Gene Weingarten: Yeah. The tone is wrong. That's not a good headline, even if it is a riveting headline.
Believe it or not, the column I finished yesterday is on this very topic.
Not only have I never seen a baby squirrel....: I have never seen squirrel poop. Think about it. Squirrels are ubiquitous in our area. Like pigeons. Pigeon poop I've seen. Squirrel poop never. Big mystery. Where is the squirrel scat?
Gene Weingarten: I don't know!
Charlottesville, Va.:"I'm happy to discuss WHY some of these are funnier than others, and was prepared to do this, but you seem to already know, so it would be patronizing."
And you wouldn't want to do that...
I generally don't like the jokes that couldn't possibly happen (like the cowboy), but I do love the skeleton one. I don't know why. Maybe it's the mental image of a skeleton drinking a beer...and it going straight through.
Gene Weingarten: The skeleton would be my fifth best choice.
Hot, hot, hot!: Yes, that man... Ahamd-...-halalal, or whatever his name is, happens to be very hot. From his eyes, to his jawline, to the grey speckling his hair, he's got it. I'd like to take a turn at being one of his wives.
Washington, D.C.: I am a 35-year-old sane professional single woman. I have no history of any kind of abuse (either to me or from me). Almost all of my sexual fantasies involve dominance and submission, and I enjoy reading erotica online with those themes. In particular, I enjoy fantasies of a powerful man acting like a twisted father figure to a younger woman (including spankings, etc.). It's truly just fantasy to me, but very exciting.
Does reading about these things -- fiction about consenting adults PRETENDING to be father/daughter make me prosecutable in chatters' eyes? Again, no real-life children of any kind were involved in the creation of this "porn." Is it possible that reading ANY fiction - even if it involved actual child abuse - makes me someone who should be a public outcast?
This is a fascinating topic.
Gene Weingarten: It's why I'm writing a cover story on it.
Washington, D.C.: Why do overzealous guards at a Kerry speech lead to the Colorado State paper attacking Bush? If there's an effective point there, I missed it.
Gene Weingarten: They saw it as an issue of free speech. So they said, we'll fight for free speech right here by saying something we're not supposed to say, and daring someone to do something about it. Taser us, if you dare.
Buck Nekk, ID: The poll brings up something that concerns me. My daughter recently e-mailed us (and several others) a picture of her three year old son, stark naked, standing on the hood of a car with a Rocky-like victory pose. My wife and I laughed, and then I told her to delete it, because it could be construed as child pornography. She thought I was being ridiculous. Your opinion?
Gene Weingarten: You are right. She should not send that to anyone else. Because the wrong person sends it to a child porn site.
Columbia's President's intro.: Now, I know that Ahmadinejad is a bit of a wacko to say the least. And I agree the best thing for someone like him is to let him speak, since he just will end up looking even more bizarre. However, I felt that the university's president was off base in his intro. In my mind, this guy is a guest to the university (a choice that many protested), and as the president of the university, he should not have been that over the top.
Gene Weingarten: I disagree. I think he had to make the point, forcefully, that by inviting him, the university was in no way endorsing him.
When google is bad: Gene,
My two year old needs surgery on his "pee-pee" (not sure of the censors on the other word) because his circumsicsion grew back. I want to learn more but I am petrified of what the google search will return. I do not need Dateline and/or the FBI at my door.
It also petrifies me that I need to be scared of googling toddle private parts will bring back porn stuff. Why is this out there? It makes me physicallly ill to think of people harming toddlers in this way.
Mens Wear Dept, Tysons Corner: I went shopping last night at Macy's for a pair of dress pants for work. I found NO plain front pants in my size, and had to make do with pleated ones. As I drove to work today, I looked at my new pants, I thought of of the derision I would get from Liz. Then I realized this: In 25 years, when tattoos are out of fashion and people with tattoos (ahem, Liz) are routinely derided as fashion pariahs, I can simply walk into the Mens Wear Department and buy a fashionable pair of pants.
washingtonpost.com: And I suppose I'll be cowering at home for fear that you -- or anyone else -- lay eyes on my desecrated skin?
And, sorry. If you couldn't find a pair of flatfronts in 2007, I don't think you'll have much luck getting "fashionable" in 2032. Hiss.
Gene Weingarten: I love it when Liz gets pissed.
Either, OR: The guy checking out the next door neighbor is a chucklehead.
If I check out another girl while I am with my significant other, she understands I am not trying to demean her in anyway. I am not going out of my way to check this out, I am not going to say anything about her one way or another.
She does the same, she is a nurse and works with all these attractive doctors, and I understand it works both ways. She is also madly in love you with you, Gene.
Gene Weingarten: I love nurses. It's true but I also have to say this from time to time, ever since the nurse's association got mad at me when I said that if I were ever in a vegetative state, I wanted to be strangled to death by a honey blond buxom nurse with one of those cute hats.
Dallas, Tex.: Get two kittens! Two kittens/cats is not much more work than one and they will be so much happier if they have each other to terrorize. Yes, the kitten will have Murphy to play with as well, but kittens want to play all. the. time. Especially when you (and Murphy) are trying to sleep. Having two of them will slightly increase the odds that they will just harass each other instead of you.
Plus, if there is anything that could bring more joy and laughter into your house than one kitten, it is two kittens!
Gene Weingarten: Is this true? One kitten is not good?
Annapolis, Md.: This whole chat is very interesting. Without giving myself away, I'm closely involved in the legislative process in the Maryland General Assembly. The hearings on child porn last year were very interesting. Our current laws have yet to catch up to the technology involved in child porn like internet porn. The law is trying to figure out how to prosecute the real offenders with out accidentally bringing in people who accidentally came across a picture online by going to the wrong website, and to make sure that child porn doesn't include the picture you have of you son in the bath tub. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw legislation next year to expand the definition of types of child porn and a debate over these clarifications of what is porn.
That aside, I'd be curious what position people would take if this was the guy's 2nd or 3rd offense?
Gene Weingarten: I think it would matter to people. Judging from the responses.
when google is bad: so don't google it. start your search at www.webmd.com
Alexandria, Va.: Gene, I put this question to you, an experienced dog person, in hope of some good analysis.
My husband and I have had dogs all our lives, but usually only one at a time. I once had a large neutered male and a smaller female, and that worked out fine. What are the chances that two neutered males, one older and one a puppy, would get along all right? Both would be mini-poodles. The situation is only hypothetical, but could become reality depending on how things go at the animal shelters. Advice?
Gene Weingarten: Neutered should be just fine.
Washington, D.C.: I have prosecuted several persons who produced kiddie porn on their own for their personal use, and so I have necessarily seen those sorts of pictures. Suffice it to say that these are not -- NOT -- mere "nudie" shots. I can never remove those horrible, sickening images from my head.
BTW, in my cases, these defendants tended to get about five years per victim -- sometimes concurrent, sometimes consecutive, depending on the facts. At that's the guideline I used to answer the poll.
Gene Weingarten: But, wait: They abused the children, right? I mean, this is not parallel, is it?
Pittsburgh, Pa.: I recall reading that nowadays some producers of child pornography are getting around one facet of the laws by using computer-generated images rather than real humans. I realize that means that no child was harmed in the actual creation of their product. But I still can't decide whether that lessens their crime; what do you think?
Gene Weingarten: It probably ELIMINATES their crime.
Tatt, OO: Aw, come on, a tattoo on a woman is like graffiti on a Rembrandt. Quite simply, it is defilement!
Gene Weingarten: I like the argument!
Serious Survey: Why should he be suspended from practicing law? If there is no issue of legal malpractice, why take away his way to make a living? He may be a great lawyer with a twisted part of his personality.
We all know that all lawyers are not pure and upstanding. Some are, some aren't. Poor judgment in one confined area should not mean all his judgment is suspect. Probation, community service, monitoring are all appropriate. Maybe a ruling to donate 50% of future income to an organization that works to stop sexual exploitation.
On the other hand, the judge who sued for $67M for his pants should be disbarred for abusing the limited resources of our legal systems.
Gene Weingarten: A few people made this point, about law practice.
I think, typically, convicted felon lawyers lose their right to practice. F. Lee Bailey lost his. The poll stipulates "indefinitely," suggesting he might get it back eventually.
Charlottesville, Va.: Jesus Christ, Gene. By which I mean, Holy Crap. That poll. Ruined. My. Day.
Gene Weingarten: Tell me about it. I had to write it. And I'm looking at two months of living it.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Some time ago you commented that those who choose In God We Trust license plates likely feel that there is not enough religion in public life. What do you think about this?
License plate holder on a giant black Escalade reads: In the event of Rapture, vehicle will be unmanned.
Was I wrong to detour out of my way to avoid this car and driver?
Gene Weingarten: Yes, you were wrong. Driver was guilty only of having a sense of humor.
Tilting the Seat Back: Well, I'm sure you don't need her to have your back (heh heh), but it seems the number one authority, the indubitable Miss Manners, is in agreement with you.
Airplane Etiquette: Oh, please take this question! In your travels, do you tilt your seat back on the airplane? Is it rude to do so?
Judith Martin: It's rude of airlines to enable you physically to tilt your seat back when it is going to produce discomfort for the person behind you. No, I don't tilt my seat back but I resent the situation that makes it impossible for everybody to be even mildly comfortable.
Gene Weingarten: In the interests of provocation, I often take strong stances on subjects about which I am privately less than certain. This is not one of them. It is rude to recline in an airplane when there is someone behind you. Period. The only exception I can countenance is if it is 2 a.m. and EVERYONE is, or reasonably should be, asleep.
Clock Help: Please help! My husband says that he has always wanted to own a cuckoo clock since he visited Germany with his dad as a teenager. So I gamely looked at some online, hoping to find something sort-of contemporary and not too ugly. Unfortunately they all look like Oktoberfest on a Wall and have stunning price tags to boot.
He will be traveling to Germany on business soon. Do you have any suggestions for talking him out of this, or should I just suck it up and play along? The good angel over my shoulder says to just let him buy one, but the bad angel says that I would want to punch the damn cuckoo every hour on the hour (plus I stay at home with the kids, so I'm home a lot). He normally has good taste -- I don't know what happened here.
washingtonpost.com: Neon Cuckoo Clock. A bargain at $10.
Gene Weingarten: Wow, that is VILE.
I bought my parents a cuckoo clock for their 25th anniversary (I was 15) and cleaned and repaired it for them every five or six years. Since my father died, it has been in a box in my basement, on account of I want my marriage to survive.
I like it. It's funny. But a cuckoo clock is unignorable, and if it is annoying to you, nothing will ever make the hurt go away.
So, it sort of has to be a joint decision. I'd reach the following agreement: He can buy one, but if you hate it, he has to turn around and sell it on ebay.
And of COURSE they all look like Oktoberfest. They're supposed to look silly. They're cuckoo clocks.
The Serious Po, LL: Rather than the arbitrary punishments you presented, I would have felt more comfortable if you presented them in the context of the actual law.
Reccomended guidleline (or what ever it is called) is XXXXX
Typical first time offenders is XXXXX
Gene Weingarten: The punishment guidelines vary state to state. There are also specific guidelines if the perp is prosecuted federally, as this man was. Federal sentencing guidelines tend to be more severe.
This man got ... seven years.
Hot dictators: I once drunkenly confessed to a table of liberal women that Ahmadinejad was terribly hot. They all immediately agreed. I always feel guilty that my first reaction to him is always Yum!, not, Ruthless Pscyhopath.
Rockville, Md.:"It's why I'm writing a cover story on it."
Then you ought to get very clear on what to do with computer generated porn as opposed to "real porn."
I don't know yet if you see a difference.
Gene Weingarten: I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Computer generated child porn is not child porn. It is adult porn, and, hence, not illegal.
Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: I work in a pet shop on the Hill. Last week an attractive woman came in to buy dog food. She was talking about her daughter the vet student who brought home a kitten on break from school. I said to her, that's interesting, there's a columnist for The Post whose daughter did the same thing! It was your wife. She is hot. Good work, dude!
The man I work with in the pet store thinks I'm a total dork now. After she left, I was as giddy as if I had met a celebrity that I really admired. So the question is: am I a total dork because I'm obsessed with these chats? At least once a week I reference something discussed here. Does this put a notch in my coolness?
She told me about that, in fact.
Washington, D.C.: I was abused by a babysitter's boyfriend. It lasted from when I was about four years old until I was 10. He took pictures that he shared with others (some pictures later turned up in a sting). The constant, lifelong struggle to move beyond what happened to me, although pretty successful, has been made all the more difficult by the knowledge that these pictures are probably still out there. It hurts to know that, even today, someone could be looking at them and enjoying what he did to me. So, please, spare me the "it's just thinking" crap.
Same offer: Email me if you'll talk about this.
Abbad, ON: A couple weeks ago, a hypothetical about taking over Dick Cheney's body was put forward on this chat. Along the way, it was extended to what would happen if Dick Cheney got to take over your body, and you said you'd find out about it when your wife asked why you screamed out something like "Beelzebub, Harvester of Souls!" in an intimate moment.
Switch to my life: This past week, my wife passed her 6-week postpartum checkup, which means that intimate moments are medically allowable again. We took advantage of this fact, and at one point I called out her name (as I am wont to do)--but then, immediately, the words "Beelzebub, Harvester of Souls!" flashed through my mind.
It took a supreme act of will to keep from exploding into a fit of giggles.
And no, I haven't told her this story. Might, but maybe not until a few years down the road.
Knoxville, Tenn.: I was the first answer on the men's poll! I probably got them all wrong, but at least I had the fleeting pleasure of knowing that I got there first.
Gene Weingarten: Okay, actually, this gives me an opportunity to ask a question I've been wanting to ask for some time.
I usually write the poll on Sunday or Monday morning, and C'woman usually posts it within an hour or two of my writing it. The time it gets posted, therefore, is completely unpredictable and varies within a 12-24 hour window.
And yet, without fail, the first entry arrives within three to five minutes of our putting it up. Many more follow within the next few minutes.
Do you guys have some sort of automatic computer alert set up, or do you guys really need a life? (Choose the best answer.)
I need some unbiased advice here. I met a woman this summer, and we had a great, albeit brief time together. The problem is that she lives in Texas. In a dull town with not much to do. With her two kids. And her ex has shared custody. I'm between jobs, so it would be relatively easy to pack up and move to Texas. We both agree that a long-distance relationship doesn't make much sense, because I'll get a job here and moving will then be harder, and she can't leave her little town. She very much wants me to come to Texas, but realizes the hardship that would be. I very much want to continue seeing her, but find the idea of living there very difficult to swallow. But the other part of me wants to embark on a wild adventure and let things play out without taking the safe, predictable route here in DC. I have the feeling that we could be very happy together, but I don't know how happy I could be with life outside her down there. I am very torn at the moment, and I'd be grateful for some thoughts. Thanks.
Is there no pretty big and cosmopolitan city within 100 miles of her?
Then, wait and see what happens.
DC: Re the serious poll: He's not being punished 'just' for his thoughts. He can have whatever twisted, perverted fantasies he wants, AS LONG AS they originate in, and stay within, his own mind. By downloading the images, whether or not he paid for them (though IMO that is worse than finding the same filth for free), he has contributed to those acts against children. Don't argue 'the harm had already been done, he was just watching what was already a fait accompli' - if there was no market (either by paid subscription or advertising based on page 'hits') then at least some children would be spared these horrors. (Some of these guys are in it just for the kicks, but some are in it for $$$, and the latter would drop out if no viable marketplace.)
Now tell me that no children were actually involved, photoshopped etc images, and I think no jail or even probation - no children were actually harmed. Even though he seems to have potential to molest, 'potential' isn't criminal.
Otherwise, jail for even 'routine' pedophilic images, lots of jail time for viewing actual torture/rape. He's criminally complicit in the original crime.
Why would he be complicit if he had looked at it for free?
Nitpick City: Why would the fact that the peanuts have a taste and texture that complements beer ("they're complementary") be funny? If they had been complimentary, that would be a funny play on the distinction between "free" and "tending to give compliments." I guess I just don't understand modern humor.
Gene Weingarten: You're right! That was a mistake. Should have said "complimentary."
Not funny: I am a victim of sexual abuse at a young age, and I know several other people who were abused. We talk, cry, and try to understand, but there is no understanding of this crime. It is the vilest expression of hate, whether it be against a child or adult. It robs you of a part of your life. For some it robs you of trust, others joy, and still others a feeling that you "belong" in any setting.
The perpetrators know how the crime makes the victims feel - they must because there is pleasure drawn from the domination. I would argue that being inclined to draw pleasure from destroying the sense of self in another person is a perversion that is extremely detrimental to the health of a society...and to the health of a particular minority, the abused. I do not think that one can rehabilitated from that pleasure. I have seen my abuser go on to a "normal" life, but what others call "peculiar" or "strict" in them, I recognize as being yet another expression of the desire to harm. Yes, I see that being a good citizen may be a reason to temper one's opinion of an abuser or potential abuser, but I dare say that most successful abusers (those who function in society while being able to sate their desires) are successful because they are not solely pathic. They assimilate. If you consider it, you could draw a parallel between them and a spy - assimilate, gather, act.
I don't believe for one second that anyone attracted to depictions of abuse can limit their activities to viewing. I believe it is akin to any threshold people set for themselves; once it is crossed, the next step is that much easier and justifyable.
While I don't advocate for the death penalty, I do firmly believe that if we are willing to put to death those who kill, we should give a serious look at condemning those who rob others of the rest of their lives. Murder and abuse do have similar results.
Now I have to work, play with my children, and otherwise pretend that I don't have an enormous hole in my life that nothing on this green earth has been able to fill.
If you feel comfortable in talking to me in confidence about this, please email me at weingarten(at)washpost.com.
Leicester, UK: In 1971 the British TV series " Nanny and the Professor" aired an episode titled "Cholmondeley Featherstonehaugh" about a character by that name. The name is pronounced, as you mentioned in last week's updates, "Chumley Fanshaw."
Kitte, NS: Yes!! (I am a vet and know, trust me) You really, really should get two. Get two neutered males for the best combo (brothers are good). They will amuse each other, get each other exercise, etc. Some cats get incredibly bored unless you play with them ALL THE TIME, so this is for your sanity and the cats' health.
Columbia, MD: Here is a joke my dad used to tell me when I was little, I usally don't remember jokes, but I have remembered this one for 50 years.
Two construction workers were sitting on the top ledge of the Empire State Buildings eating lunch, one dropped his sandwich and said to the other one "I'm glad it wasn't in me."
I can remember my dad telling me this job during a car trip when I was about 5. It reminds me of him so I'm glad I remember it.
Gene Weingarten: I like it. Very odd.
What DC are they talking abo, UT?: There is an article in Monday's Style section talking about luring more conventions to DC. In it, an urban planner from The Brookings Institute says, "The key issue is having a lively, 24-hour downtown, which obviously downtown D.C. has, but now the convention center is a few blocks from that liveliness."
What 24-hour downtown is he talking about? I have been in this city for 10 years and haven't found anything of the sort. Would have loved to have something even close during grad school (at GW). Just two years ago, they were still kicking us out of bars downtown at 1:30. And aside from a half-dozen diners open 24 hours on the weekends, there's no love there, either. Am I missing something?
Gene Weingarten: I have no idea. Washington will never have a lively 24-hour downtown so long as it insists on closing the Metro at midnight to two a.m.
I hate that. Makes us seem small-townish.
Re: Squirrel Poop: In the fall of 2002 at W&M walking across campus to get to class I had squirrel poop land on the sleave of my jacket. It was smallish, round and just SEEMED like poop from a squirrel. To make it more obvious though, the squirrel was directly above me "laughing". So they poop all right and have no problem aiming.
Gene Weingarten: Maybe we just ASSUME it's all bird poop.
Poll Land: No. 9 is only funny if Inspector Clouseau happens to be the man whose hand is bitten. The accent is crucial. And the dog really has to maul his hand. And after being bitten, Sellers has to do the classic Clouseau eyes. Only then is this scenario funny.
Serious Poll: This is rough. I've got to stick the guy in prison for a year if I want him to be subject to lifelong monitoring?
Truth is, I don't think he's done anything worthy of societal retribution (as he would have if he'd, say, beaten someone up or stolen a car). He's made a financial contribution to a market that may or may not encourage other people to do vile things. Come on. That's politicospeak for "The things you like really gross me out."
One could just as easily argue that a wider, more open market in child pornography would lead to better fakes and fewer actual children in the trade. And pornography may be providing these guys an outlet that helps them resist their urges, too.
But, that said, I want this guy monitored, for life. Not because he's a criminal, but because he's sick. Pedophiles don't recover, and I think it's reasonable for the rest of us to keep a particularly close eye on them. If the pedophile in question is also a decent human being (and I sense that he is), I think he'll be comfortable with this.
It's a quarantine, not a punishment.
Silver Spring, Md.: Are we kidding here, people? I answered "2-3 years" for the poll initially, thinking to myself that the children involved in this Web site would undoubtedly grow up to be potential abusers or molesters themselves due to their traumatic upbringing. Statistics prove that child molesters, rapists, and other sex offenders are almost always victims themselves as children. So, he was paying to ruin an innocent child's life. And then, to find out that torture and rape were involved! And as young as four! I don't care if he held the camera himself, he might as well have. Whether this man acted on his impulses is irrelevant, we know he contributed to ruining countless children's lives, probably permanently, through this website. He must serve jail time for these crimes.
Deadly Serious: The poll on the lawyer who secretly watched porn is well put. The porn in question was truly evil; the lawyer was widely respected and had done great service to his community. There is no indication he did more than watch it, but there is weight to the argument that he contributed to a market for such offal. In the final analysis though, prison will not affect his behavior or that of anyone similarly afflicted. It will not undo the horror done to the victims. Counseling may not work, either, but there is a chance. The whole business of the list seems to me to be a political trick. It inhibits any hope of ultimate reformation for these people, and it doesn't really deter future misconduct. It does allow legislators to say they acted.
The Empress of The Style Invitational: From a Style Invitational contest last year to write valentines to particular people:
Mr. Ahmadinejad, is that a nuclear rod
Or are you just happy to see me?
Please don't be so coy, my Persian pinup boy,
I'll show you a time nice and steamy.
I'm your new biggest fan, O leader of Iran,
You fantasy life is so crude.
So don't be a snob. Let me doff this hijab
And I'll put you in the Mahmoud.
Gene Weingarten: I had forgotten that!
Washington, D.C.: From a gay man -- Ahmadinejad is in no way hot. I'm saving myself for Putin.
Actually, they have a similar ... intensity, don't they?
We need a life: But you knew that. At least we are all young and hot. With attractive VPLs. And the occasional tattoo. But no pleated pants.
Well, except for that one guy.
Rockville, Md.:"I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this."
You are correct, but out of date. Since then legislation has been introduced - several times - to make it illegal. The excuse is "If we can not tell the difference, they can use real children and we can not put them in jail if they say the children are computer generated."
The worst case I know of was a person going to jail for what they wrote in a diary.
Do some research. It is astounding to me what they will do to put someone in jail.
Gene Weingarten: Interesting. Will do, thanks.
Leave his pee-pee alone: For gosh sakes! Don't re-circumcise that poor little kid! Was it not bad enough to mutilate his genitals once? While there are rare medical reasons for circumcision (my family has had some of these conditions), I can think of no valid medical or religious reason to do it twice, even if it did grow back. Sheesh!
Gene Weingarten: A circumcision zealot! We have one!
Got a Life!: RE: the first poll answer.
Consider the number of people who read this chat and take the polls. Consider that we all know the poll goes up sometime Sunday night or Monday. Consider that in these days of 24/7 information, we are all probably on our computers once a day even if it is to only check the email or read the headlines. It is easy to pop by the Washington Post site after checking the email. Even if each one of us only checks for it once on Sunday/Monday, someone is bound to hit the page shortly after Liz posts the poll.
Take it as a compliment that your chat is so popular and the polls so highly anticipated.
Gene Weingarten: Oh, I do. No disrespect intended.
Gene Weingarten: Okay, we're done for the day.
Listen, you have no idea how hard it was for me to stay silent on the key issue; I kept wanted to insert an opinion, or ask a question, or raise a parallel.
Thanks so much; you made today's chat terrific. See you in the updates.
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 Gene Weingarten answers your questions about his column, "Below the Beltway," and more. Funny? You should ask.
| 561.538462 | 1 | 1.692308 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100650.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100650.html
|
Financial Futures - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092519
|
To read past Financial Futures columns, click here.
Martha M. Hamilton: Hi, there, and welcome to our chat. We're fortunate to have Chris Brown, president of Ivy League Financial Advisers, with us today, and we've got questions waiting, so let's get started.
Laurel: A lot of us dream about becoming "yearly cyclers" and live in the north from say, April-October and Florida in November-March. Considering the state of the condo market in may places, including much of Florida, is now a good time to act?
Christopher N. Brown: My advice would be to find a good real estate broker in the section of Florida that you're interested in and get the "pulse of the market that way". My real estate friends here tell me that Florida has been incredibly overbuilt and that there are "bargains" to be had. However, they have also told me that the foreclosures will probably peak in 18 months to 2 years--so there will probably be more downward pressure on the prices before they turn up again.
My guess (I'm not an expert on Florida real estate) is that you can take your time and there are more opportunities available if you are patient and wait a bit. But the best thing you can do is find a good real estate agent and work with them.
Martha M. Hamilton: And what a great retirement plan!
Oviedo, Fla.: What makes financial sense for those of us without health insurance? To get a very high deductible policy - catastrophe only like spine surg. - and just pay out of pocket or routine care and rx? I pay nearly $500 month for an expiring Cobra policy that I rarely used. Could pay a lot less for bare-bones hospital/surg. only...hate to be Chicken Littled out of $6k per year.
Christopher N. Brown: I hate to see anyone without catastrophic coverage. It would only take one illness or accident to wipe many people out financially--so you need the catastrophic insurance. If you want to go with a high deductible policy, that would be fine--but make sure you have the catastrophic coverage. If you haven't hade a recent quote, you might also contact an insurance agent that specializes in health insurance to see what policies are available. You mentioned COBRA--my understanding is that COBRA usually offers coverage only for a limited amount of time--usually a year. Additionally, if you are a member of any groups or associations, they might possibly have some benefits available also. It can't hurt to try.
Herndon, Va.: Hi Martha and Christopher, I have an account at Merril Lynch and I can't get a straight answer from them about fees. They keep saying the fees vary, which I could deduce on my own, but they won't say how much they're charging me in 2007. I'm in my mid-20s and don't have that much invested. My family has been doing business with them for a while so they got me a high yield money market (they call it CMA) account. I also have a Roth IRA with them. All totaling less than $15K.
What's the best way to go out figuring out the fees they're charging me? Thank you.
Christopher N. Brown: Fees can be very confusing. Technically as broker-dealers instead of Registered Investment Advisors, I'm not sure they have to disclose them.
That being said, you can look for the fees in several layers, depending on the type of investment:
1. Internal Costs of the mutual funds. This is known as the "expense ratio". You can typically look this up on Morningstar at www.morningstar.com.
2. Sales loads or charges of the mutual funds. This typically takes the form of front end loads ("A" shares), back end loads ("B" shares) or ongoing loads ("C" shares). If you hold mutual funds, you should see a share class, i.e. Mutual Fund XYZ, Series B. that tell you which share you have. You can then ask the rep the sales load or look that up on Morningstar also.
3. "Wrap Fees". Depending on the type of account, you may have quarterly or annual charges that are charged directly to you. Most brokerage firms have these in so called "wrap accounts"--these charges should show up on you statements.
4) Imbedded costs. Financial instruments such as annuities, insurance, have imbedded costs which take additional digging.
So basically the fees depend on the type of product and/or account you own--keeping asking until you get an answer you satisified with--or find another advisor who will disclose in advance and in writing what the fees are. I recommend using a finding a Fee-Only Advisor at www.napfa.org
Washington, D.C.: Recently moved to D.C. and am amazed at the value of the government pensions. Your column Sunday mentioned a government couple with a guaranteed, inflation proof pension of $116K almost 2.5 times greater than the median income for US families!!!! With the average fed making over $88K-it's no wonder my friends are saying "Why work when you can get a government position and pension." It's clear, I'm not in Kansas anymore.
Martha M. Hamilton: The folks I've known over the years who work for the federal government work exceedingly hard, and so do teachers. And they often work for lower salaries than they could command in the private sector, something that good retirement benefits compensate for.
Christopher N. Brown: The previous retirement system (CSRS) that the Federal Government offered is no longer available to new employees. It was generous (maybe too much), and replaced with the FERS (Fedral Employees Retirement System) which incorporates a lower pension but incentives in terms of savings in the Thrift Savings program (TSP) similiar to 401(k) plans. I think this happened in the 80s.
But Martha is correct--these are civil servants (my father worked for the state of Virginia for over 30 years) who worked hard all of their lives when they probably could have made more in the private sector. The pension, in effect, was part of their benefits in lieu of a higher salary.
This is not too different from the private company pensions which workers had but which many companies no longer offer--also because they are too expensive. Also keep in mind that individuals who collect pensions in the CSRS system generally do not qualify for Social Security.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Posting early and hoping and praying you will answer. My husband and I are 61 and anticipate retiring at 65. We have decided not to stay in our present home upon retirement. Our 401(k)s at the moment equal approximately $1.1 Mil (we each invest 15 percent)and we have a cash balance pension with a value of approximately $725,000 at the end of this year. Our home has a mortgage balance of approximately $65,000 (payment of $700). We will also have our social security payments which will be in the neighborhood of $3,000. We have 2 IRA's with a value of about $140,000. We are looking at 55+ communities with an eye toward retirement. In order that we would not have two mortgage payments I proposed that we should sell some stock that we have which would produce about $200,000 in our pocket after factoring in the taxes. I would also like to cash in the 2 IRA's and also use this money, along with the stock proceeds for a down payment. My husband hit the roof as far as cashing in the IRA's. My thought is that when we retired we would sell our present home and that money would then also be invested. Is my idea as far out of line as my husband has portrayed it?
Christopher N. Brown: One issue that you need to be aware of in terms of pulling money out of an IRA or 401(k) is the tax treatment. All of this money is generally taxable as income--which will be your highest tax rate. Individuals generally want to put off paying these taxes as long as possible, so they generally tap into their regular, or "taxable" accounts first until they are exhausted--then access the IRAs. Keep in mind that capital gains rates right now are very low --15%--so even if you have to liquidate so holdings in your taxable accounts, the tax rate will be lower than if you pull money from an IRA.
The best solution for you will depend on the specifics of the situation--the timing of the purchase and sell--as well as the relative costs of the properties.
Please get some professional guidance with this--you don't want to mess this up. If you do not have a financial advisor, I recommend finding a Fee-Only Financial Advisor--you can search for one at www.napfa.org. I know of several good ones in the Philadelphia area. Good luck!
Columbia, Md.: I have a second home and have it on the market. In order to price it competitively, I will need to reduce the cost so that I am near a break even after two years ownership. However, every month I keep it, it costs me about 3000 in net interest, taxes and utilities. My thoughts are get out, even if it is only a break even, then take the monthly amount and invest it. Others say wait for the housing market to turn around - your thoughts? House is priced at $399,000.
Martha M. Hamilton: My own instinct would be to hold on and rent out the house until the market improves, but then you have the hassle of being a landlord. However, if you can't rent it for enough to cover your expenses, it wouldn't be worth it.
Christopher N. Brown: I think a lot of this will depend on your cash flow situation. If you can hold onto it and rent it out to pay for a majority of the costs, that is probably the best situation. The housing market is a buyers market right now, even in the DC/Baltimore area. Speak to a good real estate agent and find out what they think about the rental market, and then examine your cash flow and access your situation after that. You might also speak with a tax adviser about the implicaitons of renting out the house and/or selling it at a loss (if that will be the case) if you have not already done so. Good luck!
McLean, Va.: The couple in the article is set in terms of being able to afford a second home. What about the possibility of doing a Reverse Mortgage on their current home, given that it is all paid off, but for a line of credit?
Martha M. Hamilton: They didn't seem to need to take that step, although it can be a useful tool for some retirees.
Christopher N. Brown: It can be a useful tool, but keep in mind I believe you have to be over 62 to qualify for it, and they didn't need the resources to buy the second house. The reverse mortgage tends to be used only when someone doesn't any other resources-it's a complicated instrument.
washingtonpost.com: A Timely Turnaround With a Reverse Mortgage
Chicago, Ill.: I have about $10-15k that I'd like to invest (non-retirement). I'm thinking about T. Rowe Price's new Africa fund (open to suggestions though). I have European and Asian funds in a 401(k). I'm not terribly concerned about liquidity, but I'm wondering if I should be concerned about the weak dollar - does this mean non-American/global stocks and funds are overpriced for Americans?
Christopher N. Brown: What's important here is how your investment fit together. I strongly recommend that you construct (either yourself or with the help of a good financial advisor) a well diversified portfolio in line with your goals and risk tolerances. A percentage of your investments should be in overseas/international funds, but first start with the overall allocation rather than trying to do this by pieces and hoping it fits together.
Columbia, Md.: How do you suggest getting your adult children to get their financial house under control. My married daughter cannot seem to find a way to curtail her husband's spending, he just doesn't get it.
Martha M. Hamilton: That's a tough question. I'm not sure that this is a situation that you can control or fix. If you have a good financial adviser of your own, I suppose you could pay him or her to sit down for a session with your daughter and her husband. They might take advice more easily from a third party. We really need to do a better job of educating our kids about finances when they are young, and by we, I mean the schools, too, not just parents. I give my 31-year-old daughter financial advice when she asks for it, which she does from time to time. Occasionally I ask my older stepson and daughter-in-law questions like whether they have established 529 plans for their kids' college education. But my experience is that advice only works when it's asked for.
Christopher N. Brown: I agree with Martha on this. If you have a good advisor and they don't want to use him/her, offer to pay for an introductory meeting with another advisor that they find. This might make a good birthday or holiday gift--but talking about finances with loved one can be tough--good luck on this!
washingtonpost.com: Preparation Can Make A 2nd Home Possible
Potomac, Md.: Hello! I'm a 63-year-old single woman (may be marrying soon) who is about to retire. My father just left me enough money to pay off my $260K mortgage with a little left over. I want to know if that makes sense.
I also own a condo in a prospering area of Rockville - the mortgage is $68K - these were selling for $250K back in the spring. The condo fees are high: nearly $500 per month. I'd like to sell it in the spring when the lease runs out and take the proceeds (after cap gains and realtor fees) and invest them. But where - T Bills, tax free munis? or someplace else?
Other than this, I have about $150K in IRAs and TSP. I'm planning to take Soc Sec ($1160 per month) and have income from a renter ($800).
I would also consider for cash needs taking a reverse mortgage on my home. Does this plan make sense? Thank you! Barbara
You certainly have a lot going on. Congratulats on your possible nuptuals!
Okay let's take these one at a time:
1. Does it make sense to pay off the mortgage with your inheritance? Possibly, when I run the numbers for this question, it is almost better always to keep the mortgage because you can usually do better over the long term investing the money. However, paying off a mortgage is usually an emotional decision also--so it can get complicated. Please get some advice on this before you write the check to pay off the mortgage.
2. Selling the condo in Rockville and reinvesting the proceeds. The best advice I can give you here is to sit down with a good financial advisor and have them examing the situation and put together a strategy and portfolio that makes sense for you. Except for incorporating principles like diversification, there is no "one size fits all" advice that I can give. The advice depends on your overall goals and concerns and more importantly, your cash flow needs in retirement. This might all change dramatically if you get married also!
3. Taking a reverse mortgage on your home. You're old enough to do so, but do you need the cash flow and are your willing to live the the provisions of the mortgage. AARP offers some good information at http://www.aarp.org/money/revmort/and the federal government offers some information also at http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hecm/rmtopten.cfm. Make sure you check these sites out.
Please get some help with these issues before you make a decision. If you do not already have a good financial advisor, you can find an objective Fee-Only advisor by going to www.napfa.org.
Martha M. Hamilton: We'll attach a column I wrote about when it makes sense to pay off a mortgage and when it doesn't.
Ashburn, Va.: Hello Martha and Chris, Are you aware that the couple in Phila could use a Reverse for Purchase mortgage to buy the home in a retirement community using only the profits from the sale of their present home. This is not always the best answer, but it could work very well for them.
Christopher N. Brown: I'm sure that there are many possible solutions once a good advisor sits down and considers all the options, has a discussion with the clients, and makes the best decision.
Many times, though, financial instruments are used without knowing all the facts. These tend to be "solutions which are looking for problems" so I'm cautious of them until all of the facts are examined.
Ashburn: I am curious about your view of using a Reverse Mortgage for the couple in your article on Sunday. The funds would be tax free and therefore require 15 percent less to make the down payment
Martha M. Hamilton: But reverse mortgages have their own costs. And some people aren't comfortable with the idea of not being able to pass on the family home.
Christopher N. Brown: I agree. They have resources to buy the second home and expressed no desire to take out a reverse mortage on their primary residence.
Atlanta, Ga.: re the woman with the husband with the bad spending habits:
Well, it would seem to me that there is something more wrong here than finances, and while a financial counselor MAY be able to help - they probably need marriage counseling. The husband needs to grow up and see why his spending habits matter, that he's in a marriage and that he needs to think of others before spending what they can't afford.
It is a marital issue, not a financial issue. So when people say: oh, more marriages break up over finances than any other reason, typically that's not true - it's maybe true in one sense, but in reality, the financial issues are masking other issues (lack of communication, being one of them, becoming an adult, etc...).
Martha M. Hamilton: I think you make a valid point that financial issues may just illuminate other issues in a marriage, such as lackk of communication. But it's hard to judge someone else's marriage from a distance and from someone else's description.
Chicago, Ill.: I had a Simple IRA with an employer. When I changed jobs five years ago, I left it as is instead of rolling it over, because I like the fund company (American Funds). Are there any risks in leaving it thus?
Martha M. Hamilton: If you're happy with it where it is, I see no reason to move it. If, eventually, you find yourself with multiple IRAs and 401(k)s, it might make sense to consolidate for ease of managing them.
Christopher N. Brown: I personally like the idea of consolidating all old Qualified Plans like 401(k)s etc. They are much easier to manage if they are consolidated into one account. In addition, you much broader investment options in an IRA with a discount broker than in any employer's 401(k) plan. The main reason that investors don't move them is just inertia--then they end up with several "old" accounts down the road. For housekeeping sake and for better investment options, I would recommend that you consolidate it into one IRA. Thanks for the question.
Oviedo, Fla.: Re: questioner who may go the Florida snowbird route - I moved to Florida in '84, out of school, and have spoken to many snowbirds since then. Advise her (them) that there are lots of issues to address with the Florida condo. You don't just shut the door in May and bolt - someone needs to check the place, maintenance needs attending, hurricane-proofing must be done and maybe amped up as a storm approaches, the door needs to be cleared of fliers and mail and packages that get left, etc. Will other family visit in the summer - how will that work, who will clean it before and. To say nothing of where residence is established for tax purposes, to have a car or not and how it gets looked after, etc. It would make a good col. or two - ins and outs of two homes, two cars, two golf clubs, two drs.
Christopher N. Brown: Thanks for your comments. Owning a second home or being a landlord has issues which are more than just financial-related--they can really complicate your life!
Martha M. Hamilton: That's great advice, Oveido. Thanks for pasing it on.
Alexandria, Va.: This is a question related too the column written a week. It is about investing for dividends. I have been retired for 15 plus years. I built my retirement income around an idea that I had 33 years ago. Invest in dividend paying stocks that have a history of annual dividend increases. today my income from this portfolio is more than twice my peak salary when I was working. And yet financial professional think this is not such a good idea. I had several professionals tell me this idea is somewhere between dumb and stupid. Could you give me your thoughts. David
washingtonpost.com: Spend The Income Or the Assets?
Martha M. Hamilton: I'm glad it's worked out well for you. I do think it's a good idea to have diversity in your portfolio even in retirement, rather than to invest for income only.
Christopher N. Brown: Congratulations on your success. Just make sure that your portfolio is well diversified and in line with your goals and risk tolerances. Different investment styles come in and out of favor during different time periods. That's why diversificaiton is important--what worked in the past may not work in the future.
washingtonpost.com: Rolling Over Into Retirement
Bethesda, Md.: Where do you place Parent Plus Loans in the pecking order of financing children's college expenses?
Christopher N. Brown: I would examine the total components of the finacial aid package--grants, student loans, work-study, etc, first and then decide what is the best loan for parent to take out based on current interst rates, etc. Other options that that people consider might be be to use a home equity loan or line or credit because of its tax deductibility.
The current rate on the Parent Plus Loan Program appears to be 8.5%. The right solution for you will depend on your current situation.
Martha M. Hamilton: Thank you for joining us today and for all the good questions. And special thanks to Christopher Brown for providing his expertise. Remember, if you have suggestions for future columns, email me at hamiltonm@washpost.com. See you next time!
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 columnist Martha M. Hamilton and Christopher N. Brown, president of Ivy League Financial Advisors, discuss how to make smart retirement decisions.
| 176.730769 | 0.807692 | 2.5 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400839.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400839.html
|
U.S. Nuclear Power Revival Grows
|
2007092519
|
A New Jersey electric power company yesterday filed the first full application to build new U.S. nuclear plants since Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island reactor had a partial meltdown in 1979.
NRG Energy said it had asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to add two new nuclear reactor units with a total capacity of 2,700 megawatts to an existing nuclear facility in Bay City, Tex. It estimated that the project would cost between $5.4 billion and $6.75 billion and provide enough electricity for about 2 million homes. The company hopes to complete construction by 2015.
The commission expects to receive applications to build as many as 32 new U.S. reactors as utilities and independent electricity generating companies rush to take advantage of generous federal tax incentives, streamlined application procedures and the surge in concern about greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil and natural gas.
NRG Energy chief executive David Crane called it "a new day for energy in America" and said in a statement that the nuclear reactors would contribute to U.S. energy security and offered the "the only currently viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation" that did not produce greenhouse gases.
In an interview, he said electricity demand in Texas is growing at a rate of 2 to 3 percent a year, the equivalent of 1,000 megawatts to 1,500 megawatts a year. "Texas is a fantastic market . . . to do nuclear," he said. In addition to rapid growth, he said it has lots of space and a strong transmission system.
But he added that federal tax incentives and loan guarantees were the key catalysts for the company's plans. "The whole reason we started down this path was the benefits written into the [Energy Policy Act] of 2005," he said.
That legislation provided as much as $125 million in annual tax credits for a nuclear plant, plus loan guarantees that would cover as much as 80 percent of construction costs. The government provided insurance for application costs too, protecting companies against the possibility that they would be unable to finance a nuclear project and against the possibility of regulatory obstacles. The first half dozen new plants would get extra benefits.
NRG Energy applied for a combined construction and operating license, which is part of a streamlined application process. Other firms have filed less comprehensive requests. In July, Constellation Energy Group filed a partial application, asking the NRC to review environmental plans for a new reactor to be built at its Calvert Cliffs site in Maryland. Other firms have asked for permits for new sites.
NRG Energy said that it planned to use advanced boiling water reactors designed by General Electric. It also said that Tokyo Electric Power , which owns and operates two of those reactors, would help support the project.
NRG Energy is an independent power generating firm. It sells power to utilities and large commercial and industrial consumers. It has 23,000 megawatts of generating capacity, primarily in the United States, and it is the second largest power producer in Texas.
Crane said that he hopes to bring in the San Antonio municipal utility as an equal partner in the new units and perhaps a third partner with a smaller stake. He said NRG Energy wanted to keep a 40 percent stake.
|
A New Jersey electric power company yesterday filed the first full application to build new U.S. nuclear plants since Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island reactor had a partial meltdown in 1979.
| 19.25 | 1 | 32 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401696.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401696.html
|
'Everyone Is a Free Agent,' Not Everyone Is Happy
|
2007092519
|
Five weeks after the start of football practice, Terrell Marshall hoped this would be the day he could finally tackle someone.
The Eastern High School senior arrived on the practice field, but saw only 13 players joining him in helmets and pads. Five others stood on the sideline, waiting to get medical clearance to participate. Some players gave up, depressed by a seemingly hopeless situation -- Eastern could muster only the personnel for seven-on-seven drills and special teams work that seldom goes beyond reinforcing fundamentals. Three days later, the Ramblers were still unable to dress the minimum 18 players, as required by the D.C. Interscholastic Athletic Association, and had to cancel their second straight game on Sept. 14 against Coolidge.
Meantime, across town at Dunbar, which has roughly the same number of students registered this fall, the football team was preparing for its third game with a varsity roster of 45, plus 35 more on the junior varsity.
There's nothing in the water in Shaw that makes teenagers want to play football. Many of the Crimson Tide's players took advantage of a D.C. Public Schools provision that allows a student to seek a transfer to any school within the system for any reason, regardless of the proximity to the student's home. The result is a league so unbalanced that teams in many sports at several schools struggle to fill rosters, and lopsided scores are hardly uncommon.
"Every day, I wake up and I come out here and dream we've got 20 guys," said Marshall, a four-year varsity player. "I don't care if you're a ninth-grader. We just need people. It's a hard thing watching all these teams . . . and they've got 40, 50 people out there, and we're looking for 18."
Since 2000, only four of the 11 DCIAA schools that have varsity football programs have sent teams to the league's annual championship game, the Turkey Bowl, on Thanksgiving. From 1979 to 1999, 10 different schools played in the Turkey Bowl, including six at least three times apiece.
The trend toward perennial powers doesn't exist only in football. Over the past decade, DCPS high school athletic programs have accelerated active recruitment from the city's middle and junior high schools -- and occasionally, other high schools -- to build dynastic programs that are among the best in the Washington area. Whether schools seek chemists or quarterbacks, recruiting among public schools is widely accepted by the school system's central office, school administrators and students targeting the best chance for college scholarships or a championship.
Eastern football coach Burnell Irby, who led his team to the DCIAA final in 1999, said he's coaching a much different kind of football these days.
"I have so few kids, I'm teaching them how to put on equipment," said the coach, who played at Theodore Roosevelt High in the late 1970s. "Things went in cycles [30 years ago]. Someone would have a good team for two or three years, and after the senior class graduates, they'd have to regroup. It doesn't go in cycles anymore."
Eastern finally played its first game last Friday, when it was able to dress 20 players. The Ramblers lost, 55-14, to Cardozo, another team that began practice wondering if it would have enough players. The Clerks dressed only 25.
"If everyone went to their neighborhood school," said Jackie Johnson, an Eastern assistant for nine years, "the demographics would be the total opposite of what they are right now. I'm not saying we'd be on top, but it would be much more balanced. Right now, everyone is a free agent."
Each February, the DCPS Office of Student and School Support Services accepts applications for students in all grades seeking spots in schools outside of their zoned boundary. Those applications are placed in a lottery, held March 15, and spots are awarded randomly based upon the available slots submitted by each school. According to Diane E. Powell, assistant superintendent for the department, 4,827 students applied for out-of-boundary transfers last year, and 1,234 were granted changes.
|
Many football players are taking advantage of a D.C. Public Schools provision that allows students to transfer to any school for any reason, causing schools like Eastern High School to have difficulty meeting the minimum to form a team.
| 19.804878 | 0.853659 | 3.390244 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400444.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400444.html
|
Violent Crime, a Sticky Issue for White House, Shows Steeper Rise
|
2007092519
|
Violent crime in the United States rose more than previously believed in 2006, continuing the most significant increase in more than a decade, according to an FBI report released yesterday.
The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program found that robberies surged by 7.2 percent and homicides rose 1.8 percent from 2005 to 2006. Violent crime overall rose 1.9 percent, substantially more than an increase of 1.3 percent estimated in a preliminary FBI report in June.
The jump was the second in two years, following a 2.3 percent rise in 2005. Taken together, the two years represent the first steady increase in violent crime since 1993, FBI records show.
The uptick presents a significant political challenge for the Bush administration, which has faced growing criticism from congressional Democrats, big-city mayors and police chiefs for presiding over cuts in federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies over the past six years.
The findings also come as the administration seeks confirmation of former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey to replace Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned as attorney general earlier this month.
Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum in Washington, which studies crime trends, said the FBI report shows "a significant departure from the previous 10 years of fairly flat or declining crime numbers."
"What it underscores is what a number of communities have been seeing firsthand, and that is a spike in street-level violent crime," Wexler said. "For some cities, crime is back as a significant issue."
In addition to the overall number of violent-crime reports, the violent crime rate rose by about 1 percent, the FBI said. The rate measures the number of reported crimes based on population.
Not all types of violent crime showed an increase. The number of forcible rapes, which has been declining for years, dropped again by 2 percent in 2006, and the number of aggravated assaults edged down slightly.
Car theft and other property crimes dropped 1.9 percent, continuing a four-year decline. Burglary was the only property offense that increased; it was up by 1.3 percent.
The FBI report includes data broken down by locality, but it does not compare those results with previous years. In the District of Columbia, the city's police department reported in June that violent crime had jumped 9 percent in 2006.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement that while "violent crime remains a challenge for some communities," there is also "encouraging news" in the report. He said the overall crime rate -- a combination of violent and property crimes -- "was the lowest crime rate measured by the UCR in more than 30 years."
Roehrkasse said the Justice Department has introduced or strengthened several anti-crime initiatives this year and is seeking $200 million to help support violent-crime task forces for fiscal 2008.
Gonzales unveiled an anti-crime package in June that would set new minimum sentences, establish stronger penalties for firearms violations and broaden conspiracy laws to allow easier prosecution of violent gang members. The proposal has stalled in Congress.
|
Violent crime in the United States rose more than previously believed in 2006, continuing the most significant increase in more than a decade, according to an FBI report released yesterday.
| 18 | 1 | 33 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401653.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401653.html
|
Fired Teacher Wants to Join School Board
|
2007092519
|
Pierre, 40, was a county school teacher from 2004 until the school system terminated his employment this spring, according to Prince William school sources. His probationary contract was not renewed, the sources said, primarily because of alleged problems he had with other teachers.
The sources declined to be identified, citing the confidentiality of personnel matters, but Pierre confirmed the general circumstances of his departure. He also denied having any trouble with former colleagues and said job evaluations showed he had an exemplary record. He believes his contract was not renewed because he had voiced concerns about the use of certain federal funds at Stonewall Middle School near Manassas, as well as Freedom High School in Woodbridge, where he taught English for Speakers of Other Languages and U.S. history.
"It was complete retaliation," Pierre said. "I will not compromise my credibility and ethics when I know that federal funds are being used for purposes other than educational." The funds at issue, Pierre said, were meant for ESOL instruction.
Pierre's unusual candidacy -- as a former employee terminated by the school system he now wants to help oversee -- distinguishes what is an otherwise low-key campaign for the board of Northern Virginia's second-largest school system.
Pierre is one of two challengers facing incumbent board member Julie C. Lucas (Neabsco) in the Nov. 6 nonpartisan election. The other is Belkacem Hacene-Djaballah, the head of a local foreign language school.
In another competitive School Board race, for an open Brentsville district seat, D.R. "Desi" Arnaiz, a technology company owner, faces Gilbert A. Trenum Jr., a systems engineer for a defense contractor. Six incumbents face no opposition for other board seats.
Lucas, a board member since 2002, declined to comment on Pierre's job history, citing the confidentiality of personnel matters.
Also, Pierre has filed two complaints against the Prince William schools with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the past two years, both of which have been dismissed.
As a teacher in Prince William for fewer than three years, Pierre had a probationary contract, the sources said, which meant he could be let go without cause and without the possibility of lengthy, closed-door personnel hearings. Some teachers felt "threatened" by him, one source added: "He was one of those people who constantly wanted to create problems."
Questions about Pierre's relationship with the school system began percolating in public last month on a Virginia politics blog, Black Velvet Bruce Li.
Pierre, born and raised in Haiti, said he was a teacher in Florida before moving to Prince William. From 2004 until this spring, he taught at McAullife Elementary, Stonewall Middle and Freedom High School.
Frank E. Barham, executive director of the Virginia School Boards Association, said it is not uncommon for aggrieved former school employees to run for school board -- and win. "They come in with an agenda or an ax to grind," he said.
Pierre said that, if elected, he wants to cut some administrative jobs, make it easier for employees to raise concerns, increase the graduation rate and reduce the use of trailers at overcrowded schools.
With a bit of humor inspired by his favorite U.S. movie star, Pierre said: "I am the 'Chuck Norris' candidate who will hold corrupted folks accountable, wherever they may be within the school division."
|
Manes Pierre, an English adjunct professor with the online University of Phoenix, sticks out among the candidates for Prince William County School Board.
| 25.346154 | 0.615385 | 0.923077 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/09/24/BL2007092400717.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/09/24/BL2007092400717.html
|
What Has Bush Done to the Government?
|
2007092419
|
What makes that particularly fascinating is that it's a realization that the public has reached pretty much on its own.
While there's certainly been spirited debate and extensive news coverage about the ideological merit (or lack thereof) of Bush's policies pretty much across the board, there's also a critical underlying issue: Whether those policies are being competently carried out by the people Bush has put in charge of the agencies, departments and branches of the armed forces responsible for their execution.
It's certainly hard to find anyone, even among Bush's most ardent supporters, who would argue that the war in Iraq has been carried out intelligently. As one example, there is ample evidence that many warnings from career bureaucrats about post-war challenges were blithely ignored by their political bosses.
Just this past week, stories about the unregulated conduct by employees of private security firms, a massive corruption investigation involving the Pentagon's war-zone procurement system, and yet another sudden ballooning of war costs make it clear that the competence issue in Iraq is anything but ancient history.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's tragically botched response to the catastrophe in New Orleans in 2005 briefly turned director Michael " heck of a job, Brownie" Brown into a poster-boy for incompetence, but didn't lead to any sort of rigorous administration-wide assessment.
The admission by top officials at the Department of Justice that they engaged in a systemic pattern of putting political hacks not just in the traditional appointed slots, but in senior career-level positions as well -- i.e., the places where the hard work of government traditionally gets done -- has apparently been written off as an isolated incident.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the president's public acts and statements get the most attention from the media. But it's well past time to ask ourselves: What has Bush done to our government?
Bush's two top advisers -- Vice President Cheney and just-departed political guru Karl Rove -- made little secret of their desire to have the wider federal bureaucracy serve their purposes. But just how much has the exertion of absolute White House political control, through a network of loyalists put in key positions, damaged government agencies' ability to accomplish the tasks the American people expect of them?
How many long-time senior career employees have been marginalized, micromanaged or driven out of government? How low have the standards dropped for senior-level appointments amid the need to find people who would be sufficiently loyal?
David E. Lewis is a political scientist at Princeton University and author of an upcoming book, The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Over on NiemanWatchdog.org, where I am deputy editor, Lewis today raises some important questions the press should be asking about the federal government under Bush. Among them:
"Have Bush political appointees taken away hiring authority from senior-level career employees elsewhere besides the Department of Justice? Is there any evidence that those career hires have been made on a partisan basis? . . .
|
The last two times the Pew Research Center asked people to describe President Bush in a single word, chief among the overwhelmingly negative responses was the word "incompetent."
| 18.375 | 0.5 | 0.5625 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300715.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300715.html
|
Some Bad News to Break
|
2007092419
|
Well, after reading the court papers (and dusting off a couple of appropriate Ratherisms), I think you can safely "bet the double-wide" that the money is less important to Rather than the sight of certain network executives "standing up like they got stuck with hat pins." And he might well get his way.
It's too easy to dismiss Rather's they-done-me-wrong lawsuit, filed last week in New York, as nothing more than a bitter parting shot from a legendary broadcaster whose Emmy-winning, Peabody-winning, everything-winning career with CBS ended under a cloud. Make no mistake, he does intend to settle a few scores. But I hope the brass at CBS and its parent company, Viacom, aren't dismissing his lawsuit as a mere tantrum. That would be a mistake.
Rather's lawsuit gives his account of how he came to report on the since-discontinued "60 Minutes II" that a young George W. Bush not only relied on political connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard -- which allowed him to avoid serving in Vietnam -- but also got special treatment while he served. Bush escaped punishment for infractions and indiscipline that could have landed a less well-connected guardsman in the brig, the story said.
The story was based in part on a batch of Nixon-era documents. When Internet bloggers noticed that the documents didn't look as if they had been produced by Nixon-era technology -- that in fact they looked as if they might have been written using Microsoft Word software -- the story, and Rather's career, started to fall apart.
After the story was questioned, Rather steadfastly defended it on the air, refusing to give an inch. In the lawsuit, he says he was ordered to take that combative posture by Andrew Heyward, who was then president of CBS News -- and who had taken personal responsibility for vetting the story before it aired, according to Rather's account.
Rather says that because he was busy with other assignments, he had little to do with reporting the story. This doesn't fit the globetrotting-gumshoe image that network anchors like to project, but it's the reality of TV news -- high-priced talent is stretched way too thin to get bogged down in the details of every story.
The lawsuit says that Rather still believes the documents are probably genuine. I'm not sure about that -- come on, Dan, they're "shakier than cafeteria jello" -- but I do think he makes a valid argument about the larger issue: The point of the story, that Bush got kid-gloves treatment while he was avoiding Vietnam in the Air National Guard, didn't rest entirely on the disputed documents. But CBS never tried to defend the story's central thrust. The network backed off, ordered Rather to apologize on the air, eventually fired him as anchor of the "CBS Evening News," restricted his airtime on "60 Minutes" and finally let his contract expire.
Rather says he offered to hire a private investigator to do more reporting on the story. CBS hired its own investigator, the lawsuit says, but ignored the investigator's findings that the documents "were most likely authentic, and that the underlying story was certainly accurate."
Why did CBS back off? Rather contends it was because Sumner Redstone, chairman of Viacom, wanted to avoid being at loggerheads with the Bush administration. Stories critical of the administration, such as Abu Ghraib -- which Rather broke on "60 Minutes II" -- got unusual attention from nervous higher-ups, Rather's suit says.
Anyone could use an extra $70 million, but Dan Rather needs it less than most of us; his base salary at CBS was $6 million a year. What he's really doing with his headline-grabbing lawsuit, aside from calling out some former bosses and colleagues who he believes betrayed him, is making a point about the relationship between journalism and government -- and how and why that relationship has changed.
The point is that when the next set of Pentagon Papers comes down the pike, how will our corporatized news media react? If such documents happened to be delivered into the hands of CBS News, would Redstone do what the Sulzbergers of the New York Times and the Grahams of The Post did back in the early 1970s? Would he put everything he owns at risk in the service of the public's right to know?
That hope is "as thin as November ice," Rather would say. Or maybe "as thin as turnip soup." Take your pick.
The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. tomorrow athttp://www.washingtonpost.com.
|
You've heard about Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit against his former bosses at CBS, and you're perplexed. I can almost hear you telling one another, just as Rather once told the nation, "We don't know whether to wind a watch or bark at the moon."
| 16 | 0.666667 | 1.017544 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300736.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300736.html
|
The Maestro's False Notes
|
2007092419
|
Greenspan knows that the surest route to praise in Washington is for a purported man of the right to be seen as embracing the left. Although appointed by Republican presidents to four of his five terms heading the nation's central bank, Greenspan in his memoir is markedly more negative about those political benefactors than reviewers have suggested. Only Gerald Ford, the hapless, short-term president, gets passing grades.
But the "Maestro" sounds false notes in a book that probably reveals more than intended. Instead of a detached policymaker, Greenspan comes across as engaged in political games. I have had enough contact with Greenspan to know that in private the central banker is a political junkie, but I had no idea how deeply he was involved with the one Democratic president who appointed him: Bill Clinton.
One veteran Greenspan-watcher, going first to the book's photo section, was surprised that Greenspan had selected an image of himself between Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore, a place of honor, at President Clinton's first State of the Union address, in 1992. Federal Reserve colleagues had viewed his taking that seat as undermining the central bank's cherished independence. Greenspan's memoir does not mention Clinton's quest to get him to cut interest rates as compensation for tax increases, but the Fed chairman was quite concerned at the time about being seen as the president's pawn. When my column suggested then that his presence in the presidential box played into Clinton's designs, he called me (for the last time) to complain.
In "The Age of Turbulence," Greenspan buys into the discredited depiction of Ronald Reagan (who first named Greenspan to the Fed) as an amiable dunce and does not conceal his contempt for both Bushes (each of whom nominated him). Even more surprising is his adoration of Clinton. While scathing in attacking increased spending by George W. Bush, he ignores massive non-defense spending hikes under Clinton and embraces the Democrat's tax increase "as our best chance in 40 years to get stable long-term growth."
Greenspan's book treats Reagan's tax-cutting, supply-side movement as if it never happened. Seeing no inherent benefits from a lower tax burden, he accepts the Democratic deficit-reduction formula that a dollar of higher taxes is equivalent to a dollar of reduced spending.
With the memoir retreating from his passive endorsement of Bush's 2001 tax cuts, it is hard to tell the Greenspan of this book from a conventional Democrat. He indicates that his favorite colleague in the younger Bush's administration was the dysfunctional Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who opposed the tax-cut strategy while ruining morale in his department.
The tip-off to Greenspan's mind-set is his reference to Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad as a "fiscal conservative." Conrad is an avowed deficit hawk whose advocacy of high taxes and high spending earned him a 16 percent fiscally conservative rating last year from the National Taxpayers Union.
Though Greenspan's memoir makes him a virtual member of the Clinton administration, he describes himself as a reluctant public servant -- which runs counter to my firsthand observations. He writes that he turned down a job in the Nixon administration, but in fact he was rejected by the new president's staff because of his performance as part of the 1968 campaign. (Temporarily exiled to political Siberia, a distraught Greenspan was reduced to scheduling breakfast with me on his trips from New York to Washington.) His book has him reluctantly accepting Reagan's appointment as Fed chairman in 1987, but in fact he aggressively promoted himself for the job. (He approached me at a Washington reception that year to say he had heard I opposed his appointment and asked me why.)
"The Age of Turbulence" lacks the confessional candor of the best memoirs, but it tells enough to leave intriguing questions for a future biographer. Why did three Republican presidents name a Federal Reserve chairman fundamentally opposed to the GOP's economic doctrine? Did Greenspan deceive them?
¿ 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
|
After four decades of Alan Greenspan's nimble maneuvers, it seemed no accident that publication of his long-awaited memoir, "The Age of Turbulence," coincided with global financial turmoil. Instead of examining his frequently suspect management of monetary affairs during 18 years as chairman of...
| 14.660377 | 0.584906 | 1.45283 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/miriam_leitao/2007/09/columbia_is_perfect_forum_for.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/miriam_leitao/2007/09/columbia_is_perfect_forum_for.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007092419
|
What is a Universityâs purpose if not to encourage free thinking? If Columbia were to limit its lectures to only the speakers it considered to be friends of the U.S. State Department, what would happen to the universityâs 253-year history of academic freedom?
Itâs important to remember that these categories of âfriendsâ and âenemiesâ of Washington are ever-changing. During the Iraq-Iran war, Washington considered Saddam Hussein a friend. If he had gone to the United Nations at the time, he probably would have been welcomed into official circles there. Attitudes change.
The controversy over Ahmedinejadâs visit is overshadowing a more important issue at the U.N. General Assembly, the meeting that heâs in New York to attend: for the first time, climate change is on the Assemblyâs official agenda. This issue has been gaining momentum globally, not because it is the hot news topic of the day, but because Earth has been showing signals that we are endangering our survival by stressing, beyond all limits, the Earthâs capacity to renew itself. The real news is the U.N.âs decision to include the issue in the General Assembly agenda, not Ahmedinejad´s visit to Columbia.
Itâs not the first time the climate change issue hasnât gotten the diplomatic attention it deserves. Some here at PostGlobal have argued that President Bushâs failure at the APEC Summit was due to Chinaâs aggressive diplomatic initiatives. But I would argue that his actual mistake was to dismiss climate change and the need for prompt action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions â the main items on the agenda. Thatâs a failure he shares with many other heads of state who attended the APEC summit in Australia, a country that has been suffering extreme, record, four-year drought. Bush made his usual series of diplomatic mistakes: he called Australians, Austrians; he called APEC, OPEC; he left the meeting before its concluding session. It could all be an effect of jet lag...
President Ahmedinejad should be heard not so we can follow his authoritarian ideas, but because intelligent dialogue requires exposure to different and opposing ways of thinking. A university is the ideal place for that dialogue to develop. It must not hold any prejudice; it ought to place itself beyond political circumstance and stand up against intolerance. It should be a temple for creative thinking. Columbia is a superb example of upholding that human ideal. It did the right thing.
|
Miriam Leitao at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/miriam_leitao/
| 25.055556 | 0.555556 | 0.666667 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401136.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401136.html
|
Minn. Prosecutor Argues Sen. Craig Understood Plea
|
2007092419
|
In a 41-page motion that seeks to preserve Craig's guilty plea to misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges, prosecutor Christopher P. Renz charged that Craig was upset with the political results of his plea but has no legal grounds to overturn it.
"The real basis for the defendant's motion -- displeasure with the outcome -- is not an appropriate basis for relief sought," wrote Renz, who noted that he spoke with Craig three times over a six-week period before the plea. "The court should also deny the defendant's motion as untimely because it was sought only as a political reaction."
Craig is expected to resign from the Senate this week unless he can overturn his plea to disorderly conduct charges stemming from his June 11 arrest in a sting in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Police said the undercover operation was prompted by complaints of lewd conduct in the restroom stalls.
Craig, who faced condemnation from Senate Republicans and former conservative allies after the case became public last month, tried at first to keep his arrest from his family, friends and colleagues by quietly pleading guilty without seeking legal advice. He made his plea through the mail, without a judge's involvement.
A hearing is set for Wednesday afternoon in Hennepin County District Court, where under Minnesota law, Craig's lawyers must prove that a "manifest injustice" has occurred in order to withdraw the guilty plea. Legal experts say that is a very high bar to clear, but Craig's attorneys have filed motions saying that the senator was "deeply panicked" about a home-state newspaper investigation into his sexuality and pleaded guilty only after the arresting officer promised he would not tell the media of the arrest.
Had a judge been involved in the plea process, he would not have accepted it because Craig's behavior was not illegal, according to Billy Martin, Craig's lead attorney.
Craig was arrested after allegedly peering into the restroom stall where an undercover officer awaited, entering the stall next to him, tapping his feet and bumping the foot of the officer in the other stall, then running his hand under the partition. The prosecution contends those are well-known signals among men seeking to have sex in restroom stalls.
Renz is a private attorney who, under the county's system, was hired as prosecutor for the Metropolitan Airports Commission. In his filing today, he rejected the notion that Craig was "panicked" during the process and was desperate to shield himself from the public stigma of fighting the arrest charge. Renz said that in at least three phone conversations the senator "seemed calm, intelligent and methodical in his questions" leading up to his early August guilty plea.
In their second conversation after the arrest, in mid-July, Craig explained that he was in "a difficult situation" because of "his position as a United States Senator," Renz said in an affidavit. The prosecutor said he told Craig it was "a situation regarding which he should seek advice from an attorney."
|
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) should not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to charges of disorderly conduct because he fully understood the legal process leading up to the deal, the Minnesota prosecutor who handled the case contended in legal documents filed today.
| 11.897959 | 0.714286 | 1.081633 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/24/the_hillary_blitz.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/24/the_hillary_blitz.html
|
Can Clinton Be Stopped?
|
2007092419
|
Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press. (NBC).
The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.
She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.
Clinton's goal has been to surround her candidacy with an aura of inevitability, which is certainly common among front-runners. The more she can do that, the more she puts the focus on whether her rivals have a strategy to stop her. The more she does that, the less focus there will be on questions pertinent to what kind of general election candidate or president she actually might be.
The rush to anoint Clinton as an inevitable nominee overlooks the history of nomination battles, which is that few candidate win these contests without a struggle or without at least one serious setback or stumble -- either self-inflicted or inflicted by the voters. What happens before the voters are heard from is not unimportant, but it is rarely decisive.
What could trip up Clinton? Many things: a scandal, a mistake or an unexpected event -- although mistakes seem the least likely given what has transpired to date. The most likely is a defeat and that certainly appears most possible in Iowa. A Clinton loss in Iowa would instantly change perceptions of the Democratic race and bring new scrutiny to Clinton's candidacy that may be overlooked right now.
Iowa is the outlier in the polls at this point in the campaign. Clinton holds a sizeable lead in national polls, and she has, on average, double-digit leads in the other early states. But in Iowa, the polls show a three-way contest that also includes Barack Obama and John Edwards -- and what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire will affect all the other states.
Iowa's electorate is notoriously picky about its choices. The voters there demand considerable attention and, even when they get it from the candidates, wait until the last minute to make up their minds. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin believes more than half the likely Democratic caucus voters have not settled on a candidate. Advisers to the leading candidates say the percentage may be even higher than that. No matter what the polls show elsewhere, Iowa is a real battleground.
An Obama victory in Iowa would deal a serious -- though not fatal -- setback to Clinton. Although Clinton has a lead in New Hampshire today, Obama has a potentially receptive electorate in New Hampshire because of the sizeable number of independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary. If Obama were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton then would be in deep trouble.
An Edwards victory over Clinton in Iowa would present a potential obstacle to her nomination, but perhaps not one as significant as if Obama were to win Iowa. That's because Edwards did not do well in New Hampshire in 2004 and has struggled there this year. Knowing that, he and Elizabeth Edwards have been investing more time and resources in New Hampshire, but no one can say with any confidence whether it could pay off if he wins Iowa.
Clinton is acting as if her whole campaign depends on Iowa -- and it may. She has rebuilt her ground operation there. She has used Iowa as the venue for major speeches on Iraq and health care to position herself favorably for the Democratic electorate. Twice now she has brought in her husband to campaign across the state with her. She and her advisers believe a victory there could secure her nomination. They also know that a loss there would scramble what has so far been generally smooth march forward.
What happens next depends in part on her opponents. She and the other Democrats will assemble in New Hampshire for a two-hour debate on Wednesday night (9-11 p.m. on MSNBC), moderated by NBC's Tim Russert. That event likely will reveal how they intend to try to stop her.
Obama may be forced onto the attack, if only to shake up a race that has been largely unchanged for months. Or he may try to avoid direct confrontation awhile longer, hoping that Edwards assumes that role immediately. Last week's debate in Iowa also found Joe Biden and Chris Dodd willing to challenge Clinton on the key question of whether she is the strongest Democratic standard-bearer in the general election and the kind of politician who could accomplish big things as president.
At some point, the voters will face up to those questions more directly than that have. Whether that will be during the primaries or, if Clinton is the nominee, after she has effectively wrapped up the nomination, depends in part on what the New York senator's opponents decide. But after the week she just wrapped up -- her most dominating week of the campaign to day -- her rivals must be ever more aware of the consequences of not doing so.
Posted at 12:55 PM ET on Sep 24, 2007 | Category: Dan Balz's Take Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
I'm crossing my fingers that those dems supporting Hillary Clinton will wake up. We need the whitehouse. Desperately.
In the polls with republican matchups, Hillary either loses or has the slimmest lead of any other dem candidate.
It is too important an election to risk losing it because of an unlikable, possibly unelectable dem nominee , like Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: julieds | September 24, 2007 01:44 PM
"I'm crossing my fingers that those dems supporting Hillary Clinton will wake up. We need the whitehouse. Desperately." More importantly, in my opinion, this country needs a new direction, a new leadership style. Another Clinton presidency would aggravate the already-poor political climate. We need new leadership that will draw the country together, rather than more of the wedge-issue politics that we've seen lately.
Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 01:57 PM
This election is about the future of our country not the past, H.R. Clinton as the nominee would put the focus of the general election in the past, there are dozens of scandals the Republican are just waiting to bring out if she is the nominee. America needs a real change, not just a slogan from someone who is married to a former president.
"It's our countries future, stupid"
Posted by: sjxylib | September 24, 2007 02:01 PM
Go Hillary...you got them on the run. When you become President do a great JOB!
Posted by: Issa1 | September 24, 2007 02:04 PM
Yes, I hope that democrats wake up in time, too. We already know what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like: the same triangulation, to the right- of- center, corporate-pleasing government which we had with her husband. For some odd reason there are a number of democrats who think that Mrs. Clinton is a closet progressive. But to be honest, I just cannot imagine that she will be elected if the party'snominee. Her candidancy will unite republicans.
Posted by: saturniidae | September 24, 2007 02:10 PM
I remember the Clinton years as pretty good. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillarys. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win in NY and a reelection where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 or 62 counties including the mostly Republican ones in upstate NY. People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but becasue he saw the writing on the wall.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that he had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the world. I predict that many Republican women will join my friends 78 year old mother who recently told him, " I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for woman everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
Posted by: peterdc | September 24, 2007 02:12 PM
If the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillary, they deserve what they get... which will be another 4 or 8 years of a GOP White House with a continuation of the present gross incompetence, scandals, and disastrous foreign and domestic policies.
Posted by: checkered1 | September 24, 2007 02:13 PM
Hillary, as a brilliant, highly educated, and self-assured woman has the largely dumb Republicans on the run for their political lives. Can anyone imagine a single nazi-Repo as a real challenge to Hillary, without resorting to electoral fraud, or coward 'speed-garbage' political tactics?
Posted by: analyst72 | September 24, 2007 02:13 PM
I agree with Julieds - Clinton will lose when posted against any Republican. So I encourage all Democrats to support her so that she can lose and we can stay away from her supercilious way that she promotes her liberal-think attitude that thinks govt can solve all our problems. A vote for her is a vote for white males to get waaaay back on the bus. Sorry, but I totally belive that. Just look at her campaign managers -- Almost all women!
Posted by: steven7753 | September 24, 2007 02:13 PM
Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the nominations without winning Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
Posted by: tev | September 24, 2007 02:19 PM
Who is that I hear whistling off-stage every time Hillary is on camera? No, it's three people whislting. Or maybe one person whistling three things at once. One sounds like "Dixie." The other sounds like "Pop goes the weasle." And the third? Why, it sounds like that old ditty about the bunnies rolling eachother out of the bed. That Bill is one talented vocalist.
Posted by: jkoch1 | September 24, 2007 02:20 PM
we need Clinton in the White House--she is the best candidate out there that can actually do what she says without all the political compromising the other candidates are willing to subject us to in order to get the nomination--her ideas are not self-serving as so many of the other candidates' platform
Posted by: prejeanm1 | September 24, 2007 02:20 PM
I see Clinton as our worst candidate because of her devisive effect. Even democrats may vote against her. She's got NAFTA, that outsourcing/free-trade albatross around her neck. She's got a slew of scandals like Whitewater that they will dish up, not to mention Hsu and other bundlers. People just don't like her. How will she overcome that. She can't just claim she's the one to fight them, the GOP, because she did it before. Yeah, she fought them, and people seem to hate her for it.
Posted by: goldie2 | September 24, 2007 02:21 PM
I agree with julie and saturn. Hillary is the Democratic candidate most likely to NOT win the general election. Hillary has huge negatives. Democrats who would otherwise vote Democratic will stay home or vote Republican because they cannot bear to vote for Hillary. Republicans who would otherwise stay home in disgust about Republican scandals and overspending will show up to vote against Hillary. 58 million people voted for George Bush in 2004. Every single one of them will show up and vote against Hillary in 2008. 54 million people voted for John Kerry in 2004. Millions of them will stay home or vote Republican in 2008 if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. It is hard to see how Hillary can overcome those numbers.
The key to this election for the Democratic party is to get people who voted for George Bush to stay home or vote for the Democratic candidate. Hillary Clinton is quite clearly the Democratic candidate LEAST likely to accomplish that goal.
Posted by: taxguru | September 24, 2007 02:22 PM
She really is very impressive. I believe her approval/disapproval will steadily improve with the increased exposure of the campaign. Many will note her dissimilarity from the caricature they've been fed by their "news sources".
Posted by: zukermand | September 24, 2007 02:22 PM
The fact that currently so many Democratic voters are even considering Hillary as a candidate suggests just how out of touch with the rest of America they are; it explains why they struggled against the incompetent Bush for so long; and it suggests that even if Hillary wins we are looking 4 more disastrous years for America.
Bush has been a cancer that has threatened the life of the nation, Hillary would be the cure that kills it.
Posted by: chunkylimey | September 24, 2007 02:23 PM
"Obama has a potentially receptive electorate in New Hampshire because of the sizeable number of independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary"
I think the independents will be voting in the Republican prmary for Ron Paul. He will get the independent antiwar vote, not Obama or Hillary. Ron Paul actually voted in Congress against going to war and wants to remove all troops from Iraq now. Obama and Hillary are Bush lite, they want to keep some forces in Iraq.
Posted by: info4 | September 24, 2007 02:25 PM
We do not need yet another product of the corporate aristocracy in the White House. It does not matter that Clinton is a Democrat and a woman. The fact is she gets most of her campaign money from large corporations, so she is beholden to them as well.
Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate I trust. He is the only candidate who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well.
Stop listening to what the candidates say and start watching what they do. Actions truly do speak louder than words.
Kucinich's actions speak loudest of all.
Posted by: kevinschmidt | September 24, 2007 02:26 PM
Ron Paul? Please! If he is so great, then why is he still a member of the Republican Party?
Actions speak louder than words.
Who in their right mind would want to vote for another Republican from Texas???
Posted by: kevinschmidt | September 24, 2007 02:28 PM
Let's hand the Obama spinners a clue-phone: Clinton, as a woman, already represents change to many voters, and an acceptable, safe level of change at that. The "change" she represents is inherent in her candidacy, just as Obama's is in his as an African-American. And since Hillary has, inarguably, enough years in government behind her to claim the mantle of "experience", you can vote for her and think you are having it both ways, getting change and experience at the same time. Obama's people are running out of time to find the proper way to market their candidate, because putting him out there as the "change" candidate isn't working.
Posted by: dyinglikeflies | September 24, 2007 02:30 PM
Excuse me WaPoo and the rest of the MSM, there are other candidates.
The deck has been stacked against WE THE PEOPLE by the MSM and the corporate aristicracy Their actions amount to malfeasance.
Stop following the fascist MSM propaganda and start following the real news on the internet.
Posted by: kevinschmidt | September 24, 2007 02:33 PM
Just because she is making rounds and sounds like she wants to be given the mantle doesn't make it so!!! She is going to have to turn out the votes at the end of the day!!! Polls aside the real excitement is Obama!!!
Posted by: crews2me | September 24, 2007 02:35 PM
Let me see if I have this correctly. We had Bush I for 4 years, Clinton I for 8 years, Bust II for 8 years, so we now need Clinton II for at least 4 years? OK. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Gharza | September 24, 2007 02:44 PM
dylinglikeflies writes " Clinton, as a woman, already represents change to many voters, and an acceptable, safe level of change at that. The "change" she represents is inherent in her candidacy, just as Obama's is in his as an African-American. And since Hillary has, inarguably, enough years in government behind her to claim the mantle of "experience", you can vote for her and think you are having it both ways, getting change and experience at the same time." You are talking about the wrong kind of change. The change this country needs is irrelevant to the President's gender or race. If the candidate most likely to be able to repair the political dialogue in this country is a white male, I'll happily vote for him. As the race stands right now, that candidate happens to be bi-racial, though is usually called a black man. Whether its her fault or not, Senator Clinton is an extremely divisive candidate - and seems far more willing to use partisan attacks to further her own candidacy than any other Dem candidate. Some view that as an advantage, that Sen Clinton will not let the 'swift boat' attacks stand unchallenged & without response. I view such an approach to be unhelpful to the future of this country. I find her references to the 'vast right wing conspiracy' to perpetuate the divisiveness & leave me quite unimpressed with her ability to lead the whole country in a new, positive direction. Perhaps she has that ability; thus far she has not chosen to demonstrate it.
Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 02:45 PM
Posted by: troy | September 24, 2007 02:54 PM
Unfortunately Hillary's polarizing numbers are not getting better. I really see her as the only Dem. who could lose this. Besides his message of reconciliation, Obama's experiece matches Hillary's. Years as "wife of" don't really count.
Posted by: dlcaskey | September 24, 2007 02:55 PM
We don't need another Democratic candidate who will be forced to explain why she was for the War in Iraq before she was against it. Hillary both Edwards voted to give George Bush the blank check to wage a war of aggression in Iraq that he is still cashing. It was not until public opinion turned that they suddenly discovered their inner "doves". That colossal lack of judgment (or was it courage?) should not be rewarded with the Democratic nomination.
Posted by: dmooney | September 24, 2007 02:59 PM
This "first woman President" or "first black President" mentality is dangerous. Vote for the person who will put the good of the nation above all else.
I don't yet know who that will be, but it clearly isn't Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: JerryFla | September 24, 2007 03:00 PM
The 2008 contest is shaping up just like the election of 1886. Just kidding, 1886 was an off-year election charactized by hawkish rhetoric against native Americans and low turnout among blacks and women.
But seriously folks, the only thing predictable about elections at this point is their unpredicability. That said, the only thing that could seemingly throw the Clinton campaign off the rails would be an endorsement from Al Gore.
Posted by: blasmaic | September 24, 2007 03:05 PM
The '90s were great years for America. The country had a balanced budget, strong job growth, strong growth overall, peace and international respect. Presumably some of us support the Democratic Party because we want what's best for America.
All the candidates are good. Let's not sling too much mud at ourselves. Clinton has a lot of useful experience and has done a great job as a senator. Republicans in Congress may get rabid at the thought of a Clinton back in the White House, but the electorate is kind of bored with Republican outrage over the Clinton family drama. We should focus on the candidates with the best policies and the best experience, and if we have to accept a very good second or third choice, that's still going to be good news.
Posted by: lartfromabove | September 24, 2007 03:05 PM
Hillary is by far the most experienced Democrat running for President. I am really sick of the "he/she is the most politically possible, some what moderate candidate out there" vote. Even though I think we all know Hillary's hands are not clean when it comes to weapons and war funding and I'm all Green but I would still vote for her.
Posted by: elpasedor | September 24, 2007 03:06 PM
I fondly remember the Clinton years as pretty good ones. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY. In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 03:11 PM
Talk of Clinton winning the primary, and being smart, polished, focused, etc really misses the point.
She can't win. She doesn't have her partner's (Bill's) charm or charisma. 50% of the country already hates her. She voted to put us in Iraq. She doesn't have the moral high ground on anything.
With all those negatives, she'll unite the republicans in a way that nobody inside the party could.
And what we'll end up with is the equivalent of GW Bush.... somebody who is just not Clinton or Gore.
Nominating Clinton is the same as giving the general election to some kooky right wing religious zealot. Why do the democrats insist on being humiliated in the polls when they should be doing well?
Posted by: Skeptic1 | September 24, 2007 03:11 PM
Not one vote has been cast and the race is over without a word of debate?
Posted by: bullshigidty | September 24, 2007 03:21 PM
In my mind, Ms. Clinton does not represent change. She is part of the establishment, and nothing that she is talking about sounds like the kind of change that I think we need! I might feel differently if she were acting as a genuine leader in congress, and championing the issues that are important to me... this is not about her being a woman, any more than it is about Obama being a black man. It is about bringing genuine change and healing to our nation, and indeed, to the world. It is about genuine leadership. She does not have it!! She is a corporatist, just like the rest.
Posted by: jdonnelly1 | September 24, 2007 03:21 PM
My wife moved here from the former Soviet Union in 1990. In that time she has witnessed (almost) 12 years of control under a father-son, and may see 12-16 years under a husband-wife.
And we have the nerve to question how well Democracy functions in other countries!
Ask yourselves: Would Hilary Clinton be the front-runner if she were not Hilary Clinton?
We really don't need to make American Democracy more of a joke than it alread is.
Posted by: biteMeWaPo | September 24, 2007 03:22 PM
I could honestly care less. Hilary Clinton is, right now, almost identical to George Bush in all her positions. He's for the Iraq War. She is not for making any changes right now, supports the troops and does not want to cut off funding, but she also wants to consider alternatives and involve other nations (and the line of nations wanting to get involved is forming where?) and blah, blah, blah. Bush is against gay marriage. Hilary is for full spousal rights without it being marriage but it might be marriage unless there's blah, blah, blah.
Once again, my vote will come down to gun control. The Republicans have consistently lessened it, and the Democrats have consistently increased it. Gun control is one of the last issues where there's really a difference between the two parties, and it's on that issue that I will cast my vote. And no, it won't be for Hilary.
Posted by: mattldyer | September 24, 2007 03:23 PM
Great, another liar moving into the White House. I did not have relations with that woman....
If she gets elected, it's time to pack up and move to Canada.
Posted by: JNichols2 | September 24, 2007 03:23 PM
The Clintons have but one goal -- Power.
They crave and seek it. Bill Clinton had not agenda -- he did everything he could to maintain power and stay in office, even if it meant betraying his supporters.
Hillary has shown that she will do the same. Guess what "MoveOn" people, it's you that will be "Betrayed" by Hillary once she gets the nomination she will scoot to the center.
Bill and Hillary are sharks. They move through the water with no morality, no position, no grounding -- they seek food, and eat it, to survive and become more powerful.
Unfortunately the American public has ceded its right to govern to the media and the moneymakers. Is it worth trying to stop her...or does one simply get out the way of the sharp teeth?
Posted by: jabailo | September 24, 2007 03:23 PM
A Clinton nomination is hardly inevitable, the field on the Left is full of diverse ideas by candidates with very good chances at taking the nomination. Although her numbers are good nationally, this may reflect name recognition more than a conscious decision by the electorate -- we have to remember that we're still several months from the primaries and voter education isn't as high across the country as it is in early states.
Also, Hillary is not Bill. Isn't it kind of sexist to assume that just because the 90's were grand, that electing Hillary is just a loophole to get Bill back in office? Hillary is her own person, and she has shown time and time again that she's a centrist Democrat who will give us more of the same that we've seen over the last eight years with Bush. Even Dubya has suggested to the press that Hillary might be favourable to continuing the war in Iraq if she were elected, rather than holding true to her current anti-war stance. She goes where the political winds take her, leaving her integrity questionable.
Posted by: tucsonobama | September 24, 2007 03:25 PM
As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election.
Posted by: jmmiller | September 24, 2007 03:30 PM
All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above".
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 03:32 PM
I suppose Mr. Moderate Republican you are for the North American Union, New World Order, continued weakening of middle class America, the dangerous sell out to China, just like Hilary and most republicans...
Posted by: US-Citizen | September 24, 2007 03:36 PM
She has as good a chance as anyone else to win the position of National leader. Look at the "powers" she has demonstrated--ability to raise huge sums of money using crooks from China, move that consistently dodge questions, make lots of money with future trading on the commodities market and smear others using others. What a President! Watch out what you ask for, you just might get her.
Posted by: djudge1 | September 24, 2007 03:37 PM
I, for one, welcome our gynocentric overlord masters.
Just because you're not driving the bus doesn't mean you're way in the back. And if you think that looking to a woman for leadership is somehow injurious to we white males (I assume you're a white male, and not just their advocate), then I would ask you about your opinions on motherhood.
Posted by: mbachand44-kualum | September 24, 2007 03:37 PM
As an ex-Republican after 40-years, and as a voter who worked for Kerry in 2004, I can assure those who may be interested of this:
From what I have heard and seen so far, I could easily vote for Obama, Edwards, Biden or Dodd. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Vunderlutz | September 24, 2007 03:42 PM
1. Flip-flop-flop-flip Romney and No-Family-Values Giuliani knock each other out of contention for the Repug nomination.
2. Empty-suit O-BOMBA and Conniving Calculating Clinton knock each other out of contention for the Dem nomination.
3. The country then focuses on quality candidates who are worthy of being elected president.
Unfortunately, the idiots are in charge of this asylum and this scenario has as much chance of happening as DickNBush obeying the Constitution and rule of law.
Posted by: ImpeachNOW | September 24, 2007 03:56 PM
Sure, Sen. Clinton is "poised, polished, [and] knowledgeable." She's been in politics for years. But those are not the only qualities, or even the most important ones, of a successful president. How about character, judgment, and sense of history? On these questions, there is a lot we don't know about HRC. Her significant role in her husband's administration, after health care, was mostly behind the scenes.
Posted by: wesfromGA | September 24, 2007 03:59 PM
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the prescense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right. They must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave him stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak). Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers are gloomily admitting it.
Posted by: johnbsmrk | September 24, 2007 04:00 PM
I think the GOP is salivating far too much for Hillary because they know she's their best hope for taking an election they seem doomed to lose. I hope the Democrats don't give the GOP what they want by nominating her. We must have a Democrat next time, if for no other reason than Supreme Court nominees. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health has been iffy and despite the NY Times Magazine profile, John Paul Stevens can't last forever. The sad fact is that it's likely that no matter who the next president is or from which party, they likely will be a one-termer since Dubya will leave the flaming mess that is Iraq to them and it will be hard for even the most thoughtful and skillful of politicians to pull that off.
Posted by: edwardcopeland | September 24, 2007 04:04 PM
I am from New York and refer to SENATOR Clinton with much disappointment. She has done nothing for the up-state economy as promised. Our state bears nothing more than her footpriont on our back as she attempts to ascend.
I am completely opposed to her candidiacy as her views are socialistic, narrow and without thought as to the consequences of her positions. I read her speech concerning economic devlopment and find it troubling she is so staunchly opposed to the free-market and capitalism. Her plan for universal health care will be an unmitigated disaster, underfunded, and a huge contributor to the ever skyrocketing deficit (of which President Bush has contributed to greatly) I oppose her on the basis of her positions and policies.
When are politicians going to understand that policy positions based on encouragement of individual responsibility and hard work have historically led to great advances whether it be environmental, economic, cultural or technological. Government needs to be minimized and return to its core functions provision of national security and proper regulation of commerce.
Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 04:08 PM
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.
September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.
Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.
Posted by: boyer | September 24, 2007 04:14 PM
We can only hope it is not too late to reverse the numbers that you have cited. If elected(and sincerely hope that she is not), she a one-termer guaranteed
Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 04:16 PM
Hillary will have probably have nailed the nomination by the time the NY democratic primary is held in June but I will vote for John Edwards because he most closely stands for what I believe. That said, I will have no difficulty voting for Hillary in the general election and do not even remotely agree with those who say she can't be elected. I am optimistic about this because the republicans, God bless 'em, apparently like what they like about George Bush so much that they are are going to nominate someone just like him. Other than John McCain who is probably their most electable candidate, the republican field of Giuliani, Romney and Thompson is unbelievably weak. I can't wait to see a two person race between Ole' Fred and Hillary or Hillary and Rudy. And the most interesting part of George Romney's campaign was him trying to defend strapping his dog to the top of his car to go on a 1000 mile vacation trip.
Posted by: jdpurvis | September 24, 2007 04:19 PM
I read the continued disdain of democrats with Bush and have to chuckle. Such venom and hatred. What will they have to hate after 2008?
Like I always say Bush is bad huh? Remember it could have always been worse, John Kerry or the the absolute worst, Al Gore. Mmm, Bush looks better to me!
Now back to the question of who they will hate next, probably President Giuliani, as Clinton has yet to answer any real tough questions with well-thought out answers.
Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 04:25 PM
I am far from a Hillary hater and will admit that I would never vote for her. Fact is, a Clinton presidency can and will bring out the worst of what's wrong w/America. It's great to talk about the Clinton years and how wonderful they were. It's peachy to talk about how great of a candidate Hillary will be against the republicans.
To have ANY discussion about Hillary being the "best" candidate to move us forward is an empty proposition. Along w/domestic/foreign policies, we need someone who can move this COUNTRY forward.
We shouldn't forget that! This country suffers from a dire need of healing.
Hillary is not the person.
Maybe Obama, Maybe Edwards, Maybe Huckabee, Maybe even Romney.
What a sad day for America that will be.
Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 04:28 PM
Hilary would make a great Senate majority leader. If you want to mobilize voters, Republican voters, run her for the White House. If you want a change and less division, pick someone else.
Posted by: thebobbob | September 24, 2007 04:29 PM
In repsonse to "taxguru", democrats are going to cross the aisle and vote replubican? Your out of your mind! If she's the nominee, democrats will "suck it up" and vote for her. Democrats feel we should've had the white house the past two elections, so to think that democrats will cross over and vote republican in large numbers is wishful thinking. We want to win in 2008, so i'm sorry my friend, whoever the dem nominee is, they will be receiving upwards of 92% or better of the democratic vote. Also, last time i checked, the republican base probably tops out @ 35-38%, if you believe all of the polling done on "party id" over the past year or so. Another point, the 58 mill vote total of george bush includes probably 4-6 million people who either were scared about mushroom clouds, came out in record numbers because they thought he would ban gay marriage(evang. christians), and it was and still is "wartime", so changing power mid-way through wasn't happening in 2004, and it almost actually did. The repubs will be lucky to crack 45 mill votes this go around, doesn't matter who we nominate.
Posted by: leonh86 | September 24, 2007 04:31 PM
Candidate (A) will be the best to beat Republicans
Candidate (C) will be the best to beat Democrats.
What about what the country needs?
Last I checked, neither the Democrats NOR republicans have a lock on what America is/needs.
Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 04:32 PM
As much as I loath to admit it Hillary will win the 2008 Presidential election running away. The GOP Asst. US Attonery's and SES'are fleeing to the public sector. The GOP is in full retreat for a 2010-2012 rebound.
Posted by: Neocon | September 24, 2007 04:33 PM
If she wins the Primary.....many....many Independent voters will; A)vote Republican B)Vote Inependently or C) not vote at all. I work in the Obama Campaign in Iowa and I am a disabled veteran. People from both camps have pointed this out to me. College students won't vote, nor will military families. Don't believe me? Look at the polling....Dems are playing political suicide!!!!
Posted by: gigorgei1 | September 24, 2007 04:34 PM
peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
Posted by: winngerald | September 24, 2007 04:34 PM
If she wins the Primary.....many....many Independent voters will; A)vote Republican B)Vote Inependently or C) not vote at all. I work in the Obama Campaign in Iowa and I am a disabled veteran. People from both camps have pointed this out to me. College students won't vote, nor will military families. Don't believe me? Look at the polling....Dems are playing political suicide!!!!
Posted by: gigorgei1 | September 24, 2007 04:36 PM
Did anyone listen to her on the Sunday shows? She never answers a direct question. She deflects and changes the subject. The question is, are the majority of Americans smart enough to realize this? Most of previous posts are on the money. She is the one Democratic candidate that will have trouble winning the general election, and if she does happen to win it will only send the country into a deeper divide. I desperately want change. I am digusted with the direction of the country. As a registered independent I can tell you with absolute certainty that the only scenario in which I would vote for Clinton is if she were running against Dick Cheney.
Posted by: lvbuc31 | September 24, 2007 04:38 PM
The thing those commies who now run the once proud US Republican party most fear is a Democratic Party with a Clinton/Obama ticket with the Democratic conference shouting "16 Years, 16 Years, 16 Years!"
Posted by: walker1 | September 24, 2007 04:39 PM
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
Posted by: ogdeeds | September 24, 2007 04:40 PM
It is time for a woman president and a Clinton is as good if not better than anyone out there right now except one other. That one should be vice if she should win. I talk about Obama. He has the honesty, the zeal, the will to bring good to the US and with Hillary's intellegence, experience in politics and balance that would be a good ticket. Whichever is President and whichever is the vice that is a ticket I would vote. It would bring about postive effects for American and the way the world sees us, which since world opinion of American politics and foreign policy has hit bottom. We need leaders with vision, intellegance and charasma that are for the people of the US, not just the businesses and elite and that will bring us through this crisis of confidence that we are in now. It is time for a change in politics as usual and really look at the people we are voting for, not who they are having sex with or what sex they prefer or what religion they are but how they would serve our country in this time of crisis. Do they have the knowledge of different cultures and countries as well as the drive to know what the people in this country need and the will to achieve the near impossible. That is who we need to vote for. Not a decider but a team that can unite our lawmakers and people into doing what is needed in this country and this world.
Posted by: cattnapp | September 24, 2007 04:42 PM
I fear Bill Clinton's health might suffer terribly if he continues to be enslaved by Hillary's blind ambition. It takes more than a village to raise a child in Iraq Mrs Clinton. You should know better before continuing with your double speech farse.
Posted by: amayasatt | September 24, 2007 04:42 PM
What is need is policies and actions that are best for America. History proves time and again this country does well when individuals are responsible for their own actions and with minimal government oversight. Advances in global warnming and energy conservation will come from private individuals and companies and not the government. Lets fend for ourselves and get off the Hillary experess to higher deficits and more costly government intervention!
Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 04:43 PM
I love how some Dems(Hillary Drones) like to attack us Ind. voters with GOP rhetoric...I guess they aren't that different.
Posted by: gigorgei1 | September 24, 2007 04:44 PM
Posted by: PrinceofSobry | September 24, 2007 04:45 PM
I am a Democrat and I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is too shifty and doesn't really believe in anything other than getting elected. I also feel that having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the White House sets a very bad precedent. We are supposed to be a democracy whereby everyone is under the law and both the previous Clinton and the current Bush think they are above it like a King. The current president regularly asks us to believe that 9-11 and Saddam Hussein were inn cahoots. The Republican candidates lack the cajones to stand up to this nonsense. We need a new, fresh start.
I'll take Barack Obama any day.
Posted by: william | September 24, 2007 04:46 PM
'tucksonobama' writes: "As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'walker1' writes: jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.
September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.
Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.
Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 04:51 PM
"The best pitching in political journalism"?
That's a little like "the decaf coffee with the biggest kick." Journalists on television get ahead by looking good, not by making celebrities uncomfortable. Given any excuse to do so they will roll over for Sen. Clinton the same way they did for then-Gov. Bush eight years ago.
Posted by: jbritt3 | September 24, 2007 04:55 PM
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark. Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire). I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction. Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh! The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!
Posted by: freespeak | September 24, 2007 04:58 PM
Obama absolutely. Second choice Edwards. I can stomach Clinton if I have to, but she offers to much fodder to the right-wing hate machine. Sure, TASS - I mean Fox - and company will sling mud at whomever the Dem nominee is, but it'll be harder to stick. Edwards, the man with the stalwart wife staring down cancer? Obama, who preaches a politics of inclusion, not division? And how to attack Obama without looking racist, anyway?
There's also a sense of entitlement that seems to emanate from Clinton, as disgusting as that of Shrub.
Posted by: kargovroom | September 24, 2007 05:01 PM
Freespeak, count me out of those who think Bush is doing a good job.
I am and have always been a democrat.
The Clinton years were great on a lot of fronts.
However, much of the toxic poison that has infiltrated American society (as well as political) can be attributed to his tenure.
Hillary, will be a continuation of that.
I've yet to see much evidence of how "she" reached across lines to work the Republicans.
What are her successes in THAT regard.
Like it or not, reaching across lines is what we desparately need. Through her fault or not, she is poison...pure, unabashed poison.
If she's the nominee, you won't have to worry about me and many others voting democrat.
Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 05:03 PM
Like her husband, Hillary is a slick liar and weaseler, but not slick enough. Very recently, Hillary tried to dodge a criticism concerning her new health care proposal. A critic noted that her earlier proposal was a miserable failure -- the proposal she put when she was First Lady. She responded that her earlier proposal was not hers, but her husbands' (Billy Boy Clinton's) and that she pushed it as hers because she and Billy Boy thought the method might work better than Billy Boy's pushing it as his.
If her recent statement is true, then she lied hundreds of times publically when she pushed the earlier proposal. If her statement is not true, then she lied when she uttered it. (I wonder at the press's not making a big point of her lie or lies concerning the two health care proposals.)
Hillary has weaseled her way into and out from most of her positions. She says whatever she thinks likely to advance her candidacy. So does Obama, but with more suave charm and seemingly greater intelligence (or SOME intelligence). And still he would beat any of the top three Republican hopefuls were the election held now -- though Hillary would not.
How is Hillary front runner though she is a stupid liar and could not win? The U.S. public is badly educated, abysmally stupid, and seduced by myriadly repeated, rampant glitz.
Posted by: ljaffee | September 24, 2007 05:04 PM
"I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President"
I'm sure she would be shown the same deference you showed for the current president in your next sentence.
Incidentally, that is exactly why the question of whether she's due any deference as president will not arise: someone else will be president.
Posted by: taniwha | September 24, 2007 05:08 PM
I'm a lifelong democrat, and I certainly hope that she can be stopped. She'd be a disaster.
Posted by: adrienne_najjar | September 24, 2007 05:09 PM
No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.
Posted by: DrColes | September 24, 2007 05:10 PM
I've been a Barack Obama fan for some time, but was seriously rattled when he said that as President, he might send US forces into Pakistan to chase after terrorists, not realizing that this could lead to the replacement of the current Pakistani government by something much worse. Where is the exit strategy in that?
This gets to the question of experience and judgment - and there, Hilary has Barack beat. Yes, it would be good to have new approaches from Barack or someone else - but then again, the Clinton years were good years, and Bill Clinton had fundamentally sound policies that Hilary would surely build upon.
As for Barack, he would be the perfect candidate for Vice-President. The Democrats absolutely need strong support in the mid-west (Ohio cost them the 2004 election), and Barack, from Illinois, could be very helpful there.
Posted by: JSD | September 24, 2007 05:12 PM
People keep thinking that anti-Hillary sentiments are also anti-Bill sentiments and that's not true. If Bill could run again, he'd win. Hillary is not Bill. She's Dubya with a brain wearing women's pantsuits.
Posted by: edwardcopeland | September 24, 2007 05:16 PM
It has been demonstrated time and time again that black candidates shown to be leading comfortably in pre-election polling often lose or win by much closer margins as white poll respondents do not tell pollsters their true preference for fear of being thought of as "racist".
I can't help but wonder if the same is true here about men reacting to a female candidate--especially a radical feminist like Hillary. Remember that canard about Bush 41 reminding every woman of her first husband? Can't the same be true here in reverse?
Posted by: nvthumbs | September 24, 2007 05:17 PM
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
Posted by: charly_n | September 24, 2007 05:19 PM
You know what "inevitable" means? It means inescapable AND UNWANTED.
So, if Hillary is the "inevitable nominee," then that puts her right up there with DEATH AND TAXES in my book.
Posted by: miraclestudies | September 24, 2007 05:23 PM
President Bush, playing the role as the perfect loser is assuring democrats a win-win situation.
As the President commits another Monday morning press folly, we can see the real nature of the beast. Traditional conservatives save money, not spend money like it is the end of the world.
Oh, maybe it the end of the world as it is reported that Iran has test fired another secret missle. Baby-boomers, taught to duck-n-cover, upon seeing the bright white flash are all about non-proliferation of wmds. I think that fear was exploited in recent pass years, that is what I think.
Violent crime is up again, as civil unrest is probably up in general. Focusing assets on the wrong targets leaves other assets free to roam. Those of us who looked at crime statistics back to Ashcroft days were left to wonder just how much political leverage was put on Judges and Law enforcement to make the numbers look good. You know that there are certain requirements for your district to recieve the benefits of a crony contract and crime figures into that equation.
Continuing on this perfect loser strategy to give democrats a win-win situation in 2008 is healthcare and organized labor tension now through collective bargaining. The old school hates collective bargaining, they want all the power for profit. Not respecting the little guys goes back to garbage strike in the civil rights era right ?
Of course there is Iraq, a toss up right now. Don't tell anyone but the advantage is with Maliki government because they can give Bush orders now. President Bush had his chance for years and years. It would be to the advantage of Iraqis to dictate orders to Bush, but stay safely away from him as he is bad luck, witness the loss of a Sheik recently. I am truly sorry for your loss.
As the Decider marches towards his destiny of one of the all time Perfect Losers his hypocracy should not gain much attention but it is good for ratings. Corporate and Faith Welfare is sort of discriminatory to me. I doubt the Catholics would accept government charity in the United States. Mainly though Conflicts of Interest between government officials and privately held entities is illegal. Must be a Texas thing to think that illegal is a sick bird, no respect for the law in my eyes.
Well, I am a perfect loser too by proxy being an average American. But I am thank-ful that the Bush Administration has made me what I am today. I feel honored, respected and blessed by those who have revealed their self-absorbed charactoristics to the rest of us in the new land. We now have a choice as to worship them as once we did worship Donald Trump.
Or we have the choice to live the good life putting Middle America on the pedastal where it belongs. I am proud to be a perfect loser, thank-you all.
Democrats have to do little or nothing, rules are not to make or prevent liabilities, that is all.
Posted by: truthhurts | September 24, 2007 05:38 PM
I remain totally baffled by these people asserting that HRC cannot win! As we found to our detriment, it is the Electoral College stupoid!! Meaning, name a state that Gore and Kerry carried that Hillary would not? There are none. Add to that, she puts other states in play like Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Ohio, FLA.; and pending on her VP choice, maybe Indiana or New Mexico. and pending the candidate on the other side - Guiliani - she could win a southern state with a large african american population.
I know, don't confuse you with the facts but only 3 states flipped between 2000 and 2004. face it, the next election will a 51/49 decision regardless who runs on either side.
Posted by: kpayne | September 24, 2007 05:40 PM
Only with a really stout Ugly Stick.
Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | September 24, 2007 05:49 PM
The politico has a story today opening up the curtains on Hillary and her campaign and how they are controlling the media through intimidation. I think it's time for the media to understand they don't have to do Hillary is wonderful stories to keep her happy. Afterall, with her running for president, she needs the press alot more than you need her. It's time to take a stand against this woman and stop giving her a free pass. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html
Posted by: vwcat | September 24, 2007 05:50 PM
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
Posted by: jnurse | September 24, 2007 05:50 PM
Obama doesn't stand for african-american He represent the real change in washington. Clinton represent corruption and convention.We don't wanna see same families Bush-Clinton rule USA for 32 years that can not happen.....we are tired with all those scandal. She voted for the war 4000 dead, 3000 wounded which change can she bring to american-people ? Clinton was there what happen ???????? no health care, scandals etc...
Posted by: aondouan | September 24, 2007 05:52 PM
Even though every candidate plays the "spin game" with every question they answer, I can't help thinking that Hillary's answers sound very disingenuous a lot of the time. It's like she knows that most people will only care about is the sound bite, and feels no need to take any sort of risk with a fuller, more thoughtful answer. That's great for protecting a 20 point lead, but it also means that everyone who votes for her will have to just hope that she does the right thing once elected, since there's no way to tell right now what she really thinks. Of course, compared to Thompson or Giuliani I would gladly make that leap, but it's still a little disquieting-- I'd like to at least pretend I'll be able to make an informed decision in 2008.
By the way, whoever said that Hillary's positions are virtually the same as Bush's needs to factcheck... that sort of "let's throw everyone to the right of me in the same category" logic is part of what's gotten us in the trouble we're in right now. Help us save the world in '08, then if successful, you can claim your own little piece of it in '12.
Posted by: valjean24617 | September 24, 2007 05:53 PM
I hope hillary will be President Clinton. She is so bright intelligent smart and really connects when she speaks. Its stupid to listen to those republicains who is trying so hard to destroy her. They are so scared of this remarkable women. Never will we have another woman or man who is more ready to be the President.
Posted by: mawurtele | September 24, 2007 05:55 PM
DEMS! 2008 is OUR year! We know it, the GOP knows it, even uninformed voters know it. Best of all, we have more incredible candidates to pick from than we could have ever dreamed of in 2004, and even in 2000. So then WHY, WHY, WHY are we settling for a "least worst" candidate when we can have our pick of the "best imaginable"? For me, that is a uniter like Barack Obama, perhaps even John Edwards. Heck, I'd take Dodd over Hillary Clinton. Don't let the glitz of the Hillary-Machine sway you, and don't let such a divisive candidate with ties to Big Money take over for the next 4 years!
Posted by: dani2914 | September 24, 2007 05:58 PM
The mainstream media's fix is gaining strengh. How did she get appearances on FIVE morning Sunday talk shows? Her health plan copies John Edward's, yet the mainstream media are falling all over H. Clinton as if hers is "special". Did you hear her hidious "cackles" in response to Wallace's questions on Fox? Do Americans really want to here that for another 8 years? On the same day as her five appearances, the NYT rans a page one above the fold story cheering on H. Clinton's alleged clear path to the nomination. Yet when I talk to fellow democrats and voters, most clearly don't want her as the nominee, let alone president. Is anyone polling the college students, whose support of Obama greatly outnumbers those who support H. Clinton? Just what is the connection between her campaign manager, Mark Penn, and the polling "experts"? Just like the leadup to the Iraq war, the mainstream media is pushing for a Clinton/Guilliani race, because it would be a very ugly and sensational. Can the nation take anymore division among it citizens? I can't.
Posted by: bringbackimus | September 24, 2007 06:00 PM
JSD said "I've been a Barack Obama fan for some time, but was seriously rattled when he said that as President, he might send US forces into Pakistan to chase after terrorists, not realizing that this could lead to the replacement of the current Pakistani government by something much worse. Where is the exit strategy in that?"
Barack never said he`d go chasing.He said "..if we knew where Bin Laden was we`d act ..if the Pakistani government wouldn`t take care of him, we would " ( Paraphrase) This implies a surgical strike to eliminate him, not an incursion. ..Don`t be too rattled, OK ?
Posted by: eSPO1 | September 24, 2007 06:01 PM
Clintons are liars...Bill Clinton said the same .After what happen ?They know how to lie..She never say sorry for the WAR SHE VOTED FOR, SHE STILL THINKING THAT IT'S BUSH WAR at the same time SHE FORGOTE THAT SHE VOTED FOR THAT WAR. WHY THIS WAR IS BUSH WAR ? SHE GAVE THE PERMITION TO GO TO THE WAR. I'm democrat but HILLARY doesn't my vote for GENERAL ELECTION.
Posted by: aondouan | September 24, 2007 06:01 PM
After listening to all the negative comments, the first thing that comes to mind is what it appears to represent. The gamut seems to run from misogyny to simple right-wing hatred of anything that merely appears left wing. It all seems so gut-level and visceral as if it comes from anywhere but a thinking organ. If anything deserves a visceral response, it's the evolution of "conservative values" in this country. They - so-called conservatives - should look more closely at both their agenda and their leadership. They should apply that razor-sharp biblical (small b intended) lens through which they proclaim to view everything and look at themselves. I personally think that what they see would not be pretty. Ultimately, I think we could do worse than Hillary - we already have.
Posted by: afitzgerald | September 24, 2007 06:01 PM
Those pining for the glory days of prosperity and peace in the Clinton years are not looking at the real choice. The Democratic Party has become a catastrophic force against national security. We are paying now for the moronic policies of Jimmy Carter, we are paying for Clinton not taking Al-Quaeda with sufficient seriousness, and for letting Hussein continuously thumb his nose at the UN. The Dems' tepid and late response to moveon is a metaphor for the antipathy that this party has to protecting the country. Unfortunately, the Repubs are not much more grown up themselves, with their own deficiencies. But there is no comparison on the issue of security. The Dems including Hillary are unwilling or unable to realize how utterly serious the stakes are. They deserve to lose ignominiously. Unfortunately for the country, the Repubs do not deserve to win. But Hillary, Obama, Edwards? No way.
Posted by: lukeliberty | September 24, 2007 06:02 PM
I finally got a chance to watch the AARP debate that was on my DVR - had not watched it initially due to NO OBAMA (it was not DNC sponsered.) And something I noticed is that every time one of the candidates refers back to the time when we had a balanced budget, the Clinton "brand" comes up. Hillary gets points for things her husband did and that's just a fact. And he'll still be an advisor off stage, so everyone thinks we'll have the same kind of prosperity if we elect a Clinton. Considering these are very different times, that is not logical to me and it seems that folks ought to look a little deeper than that. I am an Obama supporter, but the deck is stacked. And if Hillary is the candidate, then Hillary will win. She is not MY candidate, but she will get the Dem vote and she will win. In the mean time, don't be afraid to support the most inspiring candidate we have had since Bobby Kennedy was taken away from us - Obama 2008!! We COULD finally change the world.
Posted by: sheridan1 | September 24, 2007 06:03 PM
She did not win one law suit as an attorney. She has not initiated one bill on the Hill as a senator. Billary never went after Bin Laden after the first attack on the WTC. Why is the American public subjected to the daily patter of this pretentious fool from Illinois who has not done ONE THING in her career but live off taxpayers money? Cut the bull cr*p here and get her OFF the public circuit. She is good at fabricating the lie of the day. That is ALL!!!!!!
Posted by: virgin12 | September 24, 2007 06:03 PM
To you DEMS out there. Go ahead. Nominate Billary. You'll make our day. You won't win anything south of the Ohio River, nor anything in between the Sierra Nevadas and the Mississippi River. You may get California and New York, but not much else. Go ahead. Nominate Billary. You'll make things real easy!!!
Posted by: bdstauffer | September 24, 2007 06:04 PM
If HRC is the nominee then I suggest to the voting public to have a write in candidate. Mine would be Barack for the real change in D.C.
Posted by: jrubin1 | September 24, 2007 06:05 PM
Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh 2008! A dream team for sure. We love you Hill. :=)
Posted by: aboyzboi | September 24, 2007 06:05 PM
To all those smart people who will never vite for Hillary. Go ahead and don't vote. the party does need people who allow their egos to manage their thinking. Sen Clinton took on 5 shows, held her own and showed some mettle. Even that sourpuss and tireless self promoter Russert was given a swift kick in his in the pants. He with all his quotes. I would like a woman or a black man to be President. It is time the white male, a miserable lot , gave way to a woman or a black. After what Bush has done anything will be better than a white man..
Posted by: alan_bennett720 | September 24, 2007 06:07 PM
I echo what many others are saying on here. Wake up Dems! You have almost as much of an advantage to win the White House as you did in '76. Why are you all getting behind the most polarizing candidate who, lets be honest, probably would lose to Rudy Guiliani as he would get more swing votes. Now is your chance to pick someone who can actually fix some problems and work on both sides of the aisle. Hillary means you will get half of your agenda done due to vehement GOP opposition. Pick a moderate like Obama or even better..Richardson. I honestly don't understand why you love Hillary so much. As a former NYer, she did very little for our state. She has authored almost no major legislation in 7 years in the Senate. She just shows up for signing ceremonies and makes broad statements against the GOP with no counter plan. Hillary is not the answer for '08 if the Dems honestly want to fix the quagmire Bush and Cheney will leave behind. Wake up folks.
Posted by: BurtReynolds | September 24, 2007 06:09 PM
"I fondly remember the Clinton years as pretty good ones. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY. In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams."
As a resident and voter in Upstate NY during that election. Guiliani was polling well, especially in Upstate NY before he dropped out. She won because Rudy's replacement was Rick Lazio, a little known US Rep from Long Island. The GOP threw that election when they put Lazio in the race. No one in Upstate NY knew who he was and if you know anything about the Upstate/Downstate divide, people are wary about a Downstater adequately representing their interest. Hillary of course promised "Jobs for Upstate NY!"...of which they have seen zero in 7 years. In 2006, she again faced a Downstater with no name recognition beyond the NY suburbs in John Spencer. I hardly think her track record in NY against a dysfunction party machine on the GOP side would be indicative of an outcome in a national election. Facing Guiliani she would have a hard time winning NY, as Upstate voters will go back to the GOP and many NYC residents will have to think long and hard about their choice.
Posted by: BurtReynolds | September 24, 2007 06:20 PM
Four years ago at about this same time the refrain was Howard Dean will be the next nominee. We spend too much time contemplating who will be the next candidate and not enough time examining issues. Perhaps elections would become more meaningful if more time was spent on issues rather than the weekly insight into who had the best week.
Posted by: pdkatz | September 24, 2007 06:20 PM
Well, I'd vote for the proverbial yellow dog before I'd vote Republican. But I hope I won't have to vote for Hillary. I'd much rather cast my ballot for Obama, Edwards, or Richardson.
Posted by: csdiego | September 24, 2007 06:39 PM
If youre a GOP appointee start packing your sh@t and passing out resumes I am.
Posted by: Neocon | September 24, 2007 06:48 PM
'freespeak' writes: The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark. Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire). I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction. Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh! The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!
'charly_n' writes: After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes: All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes: peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes: "As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes: jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes: One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes: For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.
September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.
Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 06:52 PM
The only person that defeat Hillary is Colin Powell and he might even endorse her.
Posted by: hillaryclinton2008 | September 24, 2007 07:03 PM
8 years for Hillary! The republicans hate her. But the republicans are irrelevant and now only represent molesting children, taking bribes and getting busted in bathrooms. Oh, and ignoring the American people in order to try to make the Iraq war last forever.
Posted by: FrankDiscussion | September 24, 2007 07:17 PM
I'm afraid that Hillary is a lose/lose proposition. If she is the nominee, the republicans are going to smear her from here to kingdom come. If she should be elected - which I doubt - she will be simply Bush lite.
If you want more of the same, just let Hillary get nominated. It'll be more neocon crap with or without her.
Posted by: bovid4585 | September 24, 2007 07:50 PM
Like many disillusioned small "c" conservatives I am backing Clinton. I really do not care if the Republicans have ongoing conniptions and political heartburn as a result of her winning The Presidency. I am thoroughly disgusted with the hypocracy and abandonment of principal and policy that has marked this administration and the Republican Congress during the years that it held a majority. Instead of using their power to roll back years of profligate spending and big government, we instead saw more of the same added to some of the worst corruption and conflict of interest it has been my misfortune to see. Damn them!
Posted by: df | September 24, 2007 07:50 PM
Why would ANYONE vote for a candidate who - by her own admission - (during the AFL-CIO debate in Chicago) believes that "you can't always say what you think when you're running for President." At what point will she say what she thinks - the actual truth - instead of what she believes the voters want to hear? Don't we have a right to know what she thinks NOW? That's a major difference (one of many) between Obama and Clinton that should be stressed by Obama's campaign. Clinton seems to believe she's somehow entitled to Democratic votes and that magically the rest of the country will look beyond what we all know about the Clintons. God help us if she isn't stopped.
Posted by: literate1 | September 24, 2007 07:58 PM
I see the purpose of most Hillary Bashers as being
Republicans pretending to be Democrats...
I think what inside the beltway people, bushCO and CRONYists don't want is to lose their place at the feeding trough...
if CRONYISM, is the one sure way to get paid....what does a Clinton in office mean?
those people are out of a job unless all of a sudden they can start producing something other than
1. connections 2. influence peddling 3. graft
they will actually have to work for a living or retire.
that is a good thing for AMERICA. A dollar spent gets a dollar's worth of goods.
the current OCCUPATION OF IRAQ costs $720 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, including Sundays and Holidays...
what would that money spent on AMERICA BUY? Amazing cities with transport systems that would make gasoline a luxury rather than a necessity?
Revamping highways and railroad systems? Maybe improving River Traffic? Maybe funding to improve city life with some well thought out ventures?
Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 07:59 PM
The negative headline, "Can Clinton Be Stopped?" is a type of editorial comment. Why be that way?
We have suffered with the results of (faked) personality campaigns so why not read and listen to what the candidates say and judge from that.
Why listen to Rush and O'Rielley(?) tell us that she's the worst candidate ever? That's the GOParty line which has in the past two elections specialized in destroying their opponents' reputation.
If Hillary is nominated I will gladly vote for her.
Posted by: benjcrawley | September 24, 2007 08:03 PM
War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says
By Kari Lydersen Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 22, 2007; Page A11
CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.
The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.
The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.
"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.
The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.
But some supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq say that even if the war is costly, that fact is essentially immaterial.
"Either you think the war in Iraq supports America's national security, or not," said Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "If you think national security won't be harmed by withdrawing from Iraq, of course you would want to see that money spent elsewhere. I myself think that belief, on a certain level, is absurd, so the question of focusing on how much money we are spending there is irrelevant."
The war's unpaid long-term costs do not include "macro-economic consequences" described by Bilmes and Stiglitz, including higher oil prices, loss of trade because of anti-American sentiments and lost productivity of killed or injured U.S. soldiers.
In 2006, Bilmes, who was an assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, and Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, placed the total cost of the Iraq war at more than $2.2 trillion, not counting interest. The American Friends group used cost breakdowns and interest projections from the Congressional Budget Office to calculate the daily cost of war emblazoned on the banners flown in Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities.
The banners show what this could buy in terms of health care, Head Start programs, new elementary schools, free school lunches, renewable energy and hiring new teachers. Protest organizers say they hope to turn more people against the war by laying out its true financial impact.
"I think people are becoming more aware of these guns or butter questions," said Gary Gillespie, director of the group's Baltimore Urban Peace Program, which displayed the banners in the Baltimore suburb of Bel Air on Friday.
"But when you talk about $720 million a day, even people who work on this issue are shocked by the number and shocked by what could have been done with that money.
War has no return -- you're not producing a product."
3 out of 4 former FACTORY WORKERS, read that as BLUE COLLAR MIDDLE CLASS
are working RETAIL w/no bennies and no retirement, just trying to hang onto what they acquired
3,000,000 [3 MILLION ] Computer PEOPLE w/jobs outsourced to INDIA...WHITE COLLAR MIDDLE CLASS...Computer Support Work
now inside the beltway companys are having to compete with Bangalore for Government Contracts...
TREAT COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE OVERSEAS, and claim to be American as FOREIGN COMPETITION...set up tarrifs, give the companies 6 months warning...
save the ECONOMY and THE UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE...
it is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.
Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 08:07 PM
For the last two elections I've voted Democrat, in fact I'm registered as a Democrat (although it really matters little in Oregon where our Primary is in May) but hey...however, if Hillary turns out to be the nominated candidate I will vote Republican. I'm really tired of the same two families in the White House. Not only that, here true colors were shown when she stood by and was humiliated by her husband. What kind of example is that?
Posted by: nd.sullivan | September 24, 2007 08:16 PM
BurtReynolds is a Republican, selling you what is best for Republicans...a single example, let's see if I can find some more...usually they travel in herds...
julieds, bsimon, checkered1 [referring to his past of course], sjxylib, Gharza, jabailo, dlcaskey...and so on...
they sell dishonesty as easily as honest people sell you the truth...
these kinds of people have nothing in mind but continuing to get bushCO and CRONYs money in their pockets....
Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 08:16 PM
Hillary actually is elected president
Under her leadership, Republicans end up doing to a Clinton Adminstration the same as they are doing now to a democratic Congress...
Very little gets accomplished in a bi-partisan way.
When (not if) the Republican regain control of the White House, they will make sure that the Democrats pay dearly for everything done under a Clinton Adminstration.
This is the baggage that Clinton will bring...along w/her experience.
Our short term gain will have long-term consequences.
Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 08:25 PM
As a foreigner, I am amazed and curious why the most powerful nation in the world could consider electing a Clinton to US Presidency after having Bushes and Clinton for the last 15-16 years. Can't you guys simply elect someone else? Is there no one else? or is the great American democracy simply another American Idol/Survivor contest? A Sanjaya contest? Come on guys, who else after Hillary? Jeb??? Oh my, I guess we can't expect much since you guys elected George W Bush not once but twice!
Posted by: ecschan | September 24, 2007 08:25 PM
let's look at the current WH...
Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue
"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."
-Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator INTRODUCTION: Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar, beginning in December of 2001, began filing reports to their superiors at the FBI. These reports could lead to the collapse of a corrupt power structure that has a stranglehold on the very institutions that are obligated to control it. We cannot excuse these institutions, for while they fiddle, they pass death sentences on their own troops, and on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my guest for 50 minutes on WGDR radio. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview. The editing is for the sake of a more readable piece.
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved.
THE INTERVIEW JH: The people who have so far been interviewed on this program have all been authors and researchers, and here we have someone who, for the most part, has first-hand information. Ladies and Gentlemen, your guest is Sibel Edmonds, formerly of the FBI, a translator who joined the FBI shortly after 9/11. Ms. Edmonds, what I'll do is invite you to tell us whatever you would like--your stint with the FBI--and what the brouhaha with Ashcroft and company is all about.
SE: I started working for the Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance. And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way before 9/11. And certain documents were being sent that needed to be re-translated for various reasons, and of course certain documents had to be translated for the first time due to the backlog.
During my work there I came across some very significant issues that I started reporting in December of 2001 to the mid-level management within the FBI. They said to basically leave it alone, because if they were to get into those issues it would end up being a can of worms. And after I didn't see any response from this mid-level bureaucratic management I took it to higher levels all the way up to [assistant director] Dale Watson and Director Mueller. And, again, I was asked not to take this any further and just let it be. And if I didn't do that they would retaliate against me.
At that point, which would be around February 2002, they came and they confiscated my computer, because, they said, they were suspecting that I was communicating with certain Senate members and taking this issue outside the Bureau. And, at that point, I was not. They did not find anything in my computer after they confiscated it. And they asked me to take a polygraph as to the allegations and reports I'd made. I volunteered and I took the polygraph and passed it without a glitch. They have already confirmed this publicly.
In March 2002 I took this issue to the Senate Judiciary Committee and also I filed it with the Department of Justice Inspector General's office. And as per the Senate Judiciary Committee's request the IG started an expedited investigation on these serious issues; and they promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that their report for these investigations would be out by fall 2002 latest. And here we are in April 2004 and this report is not being made public, and they are citing "state privilege" and "national security" for not making this report public.
Three weeks after I went to the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bureau terminated my contract, and they cited "government's convenience." I started working with the Senate Judiciary Committee that was investigating this case, and I appeared before the Inspector General's office for their investigation several times, and I also requested documents regarding these reports under the Freedom of Information Act; and they blocked this by citing again the "state secret privilege" and "national security" refusing to make these documents public.
On October 18th 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft came out personally, in public, asserted this rare "state secret privilege" on everything that had to do with my case. And they cited "diplomatic relations" and certain "foreign relations" that would be "at stake" if I were to take this issue and make it public. And, since then, this has been acting as a gag on my case.
I testified before the [9/11] commission on February 11th 2004, and as I said, I have been waiting for this report that they [the Attorney General's office] have been blocking for a year and a half from becoming public. The information I requested under the Freedom of Information Act has been blocked for two years. And I have been campaigning for the past three months trying to get the Senate Judiciary Committee that has the oversight authority and responsibility to start its own public hearings. However, this request is again being blocked. Now they [AG] are citing this upcoming election as reason. And here I am.
JH: And it is the Attorney General who is blocking your testimony.
SE: Senator Leahy, on April 8, 2004, sent a very strong letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, citing my case stating that he, Senator Leahy, has been asking questions, and has a lot of issues that have not been addressed, and asking AG Ashcroft to come and provide answers. And AG Ashcroft for the past two years has refused. So he [Leahy] is calling for a public hearing. However, Senator Hatch, who is the Republican Chairman of the Senate, has been a road block. And Senator Grassley [a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee] went on the record with New York Observer's Gail Sheehy and said that Senator Hatch is blocking this investigation from taking place and for this public hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
JH: So Hatch has the power to keep Leahy and Grassley....
SE: Correct. And now it is becoming a partisan issue. However, I keep reminding them that this issue is not a new issue that has come out for this election. This issue has been in the courts for two years and two months now.
JH: I've watched Hatch perform since the Contra Hearings in the mid 1980s, and I can assure you that for Hatch, everything is a partisan issue. You have a tough one.
SE: We have to remind the people: Congress has the constitutional obligation and public responsibility to oversee these issues and the Department of Justice's operations. That's why they are elected. That's why they are there. That's what they are getting paid for.
you as AMERICANs need to understand something...
if bushCO and CRONYs don't disappear, it is over for AMERICA...
SEARCH on BCCI, GEORGE H.W. BUSH
money laundering and drug trafficking has and still is a great amount of what the bush family stands for...
and people like dcis1 hope you don't catch on.
Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 08:32 PM
I just saw Hillary yesterday at an event in Charlottesville, VA, where she answered questions posed by John Grisham. I felt very emotional listening to her speak and felt incredible hope for the first time in the last 6 1/2 years. She expressed her views intelligently and was very warm and humorous. I was 65% behind her when I went in and 100% afterwards. She has true respect for the role of president and the Constitution and I hope she has the chance to restore some dignity to the office. One of her best lines was, "the days of cowboy diplomacy are over".
Posted by: robinstafford | September 24, 2007 08:32 PM
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Posted by: sawargos | September 24, 2007 08:36 PM
As I watched Hillary on MTP & CBS, I couldn't help but notice the background: the books and papers arranged on the bookshelves suggested that her library belonged to a scholar, someone actively using those resources. NYT article yesterday claims that this "library" is a camera set that her campaign set up in a barn located on her NY estate.
My point is that Hillary 's campaign is trying to create in the electorate's mind an "air of inevitability", which is as real as the "library" from which she spoke yesterday.
But I did not learn anything of substance from the TV blitz. Both Russert and Schiefer needed to interrupt her long, vacuous responses and redirect her to the question they had asked and that she avoided. Her longwinded responses gave her voice a shrill sounding monotone. She literally made a point of cackling at questions or concerns from the opposition about her Healthcare program. That cackling has become her standard response. Of the contradictions between her past actions and her present campaign "promises," she did not explain them satisfactorily. Her past decisions actually debunk her claim of experience and wisdom. My take away is that Hillary has intractable ideas of what she is going to do and who she will nominate for various Cabinet positions. She does not seem like a person who tolerates opposing ideas or positions.
I hope voters are tired of geting fooled by and electing a candidate's persona. Because of the real power of the White House mircophone, I knew once Bush got elected - with that phony "uniter" image - we were getting stuck with him for two terms. I hope people keep demanding the truth from pols.
As an independent I would have to vote for Rudy - who I dislike - because he at least entertains the notion of being okay with people who offer different postions
Posted by: Anadromous2 | September 24, 2007 08:39 PM
The title of this post "Can Hillary be stopped" suggests where the Washington Post is with respect to prospect of Hillary presidency. It is sneaky attempt by Dan Balz to cast her candidacy in a negative light. There seems to be a familiar trend in the Washington Post to prop GOP candidates regardless how idiotic they behave and try to tear down the opposition to GOP. I am not even a Hillary supporter but I cannot help but laugh at these pitiful posts.
Posted by: IrateCitizen | September 24, 2007 08:39 PM
Any Democrat who spends more time criticizing Democrats than Republicans is effectively a Republican.
Posted by: bengtl | September 24, 2007 08:40 PM
When America elects its President, the World weeps! President Hillary Clinton ... HAHAHAHAHHA
Posted by: ecschan | September 24, 2007 08:41 PM
READ THE WHOLE INTERVIEW FOR YOURSELVES
about the Interviewer Jim Hogue, a retired high school teacher and professional actor, has been doing a Vermont-based listener-sponsored radio show each week for over 10 years. Prior to 9/11, the show was literary in nature, but since then Hogue's coverage has greatly expanded.
from another site: READ THIS: Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear. Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the BUSH FAMILY and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents. In the late 1970s Brown and Root was implicated in drug smuggling and gunrunning from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico built by Brown and Root and using ships owned by Brown and Root. In the 1990s Brown and Root was implicated in smuggling heroin to Europe through Russia. The heroin originated in Laos. The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels. THERE IS $80 BILLION IN UNRECORDED PROFITS IN THE FIRST STEP OF AFGHANI OPIUM COLLECTION, refinement...three steps later it could be worth $400 BILLION, in unrecorded profits...
think I am crazy, deluded, what does this have to do with Hillary? why do you think these pen d ayholes attacked Bill Clinton so badly...
bushCO and CRONYs had to wait 8 years to harvest IRAQ...
SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, George H.W. Bush, IRAN CONTRA, Letter of Understanding....
read the letter of understanding...
it gives the CIA the ability to drug traffick in Central and South AMERICA and AFGHANISTAN W/O PENALTY OR A NEED TO RECORD OR REPORT PROFITS....
AEI is running the WHITEHOUSE, PNAC is AEI
Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 08:45 PM
I'm a transplant from Upstate New York where it was/is easy to be a Democrat.
Now I call the Commonwealth of Virginia my home where in Central Virginia it's hard to be a Democrat working the Polls by yourself while there will be three or more Republican Poll Watchers keeping each other company.
But I believe in the Democratic Party and what it stands for --
Improving their Lives in terms of
a More Equitable Tax Burden,
Coming to Grips with Global Warming and Climate Change and Energy Independence,
Helping Protect the Jobs of Working Families,
Promoting Universal Health Insurance and Health Care,
Challenging the Reckless Military Adventures of George "Mission Accomplished" Bush now in our Fifth Year in Iraq.
Republicans will always be Republicans, with their "Dirty Tricks", Smear Campaigns, totally dishonest "Swift Boating", Vote Fraud. And, frankly, it does worry me, because the Republicans are So Effective at it.
But I think that we are tracking Republican Presidential Campaign Activities much more closely this time.
Democrats assume that Presidential Politics in 2008 will be a Full-Contact Contest, with No Holds Being Barred. As they say, "All's Fair in Love and War, and Presidential Campaigns!!"
My money is literally on Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: leochen24551 | September 24, 2007 08:59 PM
Yes, she is running a flawless campaign. But from the very start, the repubs were giving her the nomination; most likely because they really, really want her on the ticket. They so miss beating up on a Clinton. So, they resort to the Lee Atwater method of convincing the masses - keep repeating the mantra and it will become the truth. Remember, please, Mrs. Clinton is a carpet bagger, a political opportunist - and most importantly - she voted to go to war. There is an extraordinary slate of other candidates to consider who can bring a fresh approach to a system that has become so flawed.
Posted by: jillgoodsell | September 24, 2007 09:00 PM
You can parrot all the media spin about Clinton all you like...
The Iraq invasion was one of the most venal, stupid, costly and catastrophic actions taken by a state in modern times. This, and the motivations behind it, were obvious to millions of people across this country at the time. (Even now, watching the press debate "why did Bush invade Iraq?" - it's like watching kids: everyone in the world knows why Bush did it. It's written in the NeoCon strategy documents, written in the 1990's.) No politician who facilitated these criminal actions should be considered as a Democratic nominee. Where is the heart and soul of the Democratic party?
That leaves one person who had the integrity and wisdom to oppose it publically at the time. That's Obama. He is smart, principled, non-divisive and 'a doer'. He will be an enormous success if he gets the chance.
Unless of course you want to fall for all the little 'stories' that the media are trotting out about "Clinton's inevitability", as so many seem to. As with Clinton herself, this is the same media that also used their courage, integrity and foresight to facilitate Bush's disastrous policies. Go ahead....make the same mistake again. Vote for Rupert Murdoch's preferred candidate. Sometime you people will wake up....maybe in the 22nd century, if we are still here....
It is a critical time, and we need to break out of these patterns. Can we please have our future, instead of this endless parade of 'spin-controlling' political players beholden to special interests, perpetually in danger of freezing in the headlights of the Republican Attack Machine.
Posted by: tony | September 24, 2007 09:08 PM
Posted by: jillgoodsell | September 24, 2007 09:15 PM
I would have thought this country would have had enough clinton the last time around. question just when was the last time the democrat party really did anything for the working people in this country.
Posted by: usaII | September 24, 2007 09:16 PM
My Creation is ready for Life! I have slaved over it for weeks now! A little splice of Military Genius, a few Genomes of Legal expertice, some "Watchdog", a little bit of Contrarian, all forced into a Statesman Appearing pair of Super Beings!
Not even an attempt at a merge of Obamillary can save you!
It LIVES! Dr. McRomsonedo LIVES!!!!
Posted by: rat-the | September 24, 2007 09:36 PM
I think its time for a woman president to take over just look what a mess were in with men running the country. I dont mean to offend any men but men just are not as smart or competent as wemen.We need more wemen in the white house in order to fix the many problems men have created.Men are really not that great at politics two wars with no end in sight and billions of wasted dollars prove that.They are better left to take out the garbage and change lightbulbs.You go Hillery!
Posted by: smorrow | September 24, 2007 09:36 PM
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2008.
Posted by: petera2 | September 24, 2007 09:58 PM
Here's a question for Obama supporters, for everyone really: Is there anything that Obama has said or done since he became so prominent that has made you feel SIGNIFICANTLY MORE INSPIRED BY HIM than you were when you were first moved to support him?
Posted by: gormannrpe | September 24, 2007 10:22 PM
I wonder if H. Rodham Clinton has the courage to refund donations from MoveOn.org to clearly indicate disapproval of the disgusting "betray us" advertisement? Also, I wonder if she has the courage to ask Bill to depart the White House if his intern shenanigans there were to continue? She has a way to go to earn my vote.
Posted by: Loizeaux | September 24, 2007 10:32 PM
I am a life long democrat, and will be voting Republican for the first time ever if HRC represents the democratic party in the general election.
I frown upon 24 plus years of being governed by either a Bush, or a Clinton...
I might have to seek asylum in the Carribean if this happens...
I'd rather live on an island, soaking up the sun, and lounging on the beach for the next 4-8 years.
I am a male real estate developer, so I have the luxury of getting paid on the 5th of the month 12 times a year.
Posted by: chadcampbell | September 24, 2007 11:00 PM
I disagree with Clinton over several things: . . 1) I am terrified that if Bush tried to end Bush's War, he would screw it up. I think America would be better served if Clinton did it.
2) I am disappointed that Clinton and all the other candidates refuse to talk about overpopulation in America as well as the world. . . . They have refused to acknowledge that the possiblity even exist. . . . How can they talk about immigration when they won't acknowledge overpopulation?
Posted by: coldcomfort | September 24, 2007 11:03 PM
hillary will get the nomination, her or obama would not win the general election. she is too devisive, and he is too black. she and obama will not be on the same ticket, they hate each other. check the rasmussen polls. fred thompson is now leading. many say fred is dumb, lazy, doesn't care, but look at his voting record and hear what he says. look at the record hillary is running from, also tell me one thing she has accomplished in the senate, except to promote herself. her record speaks volumes.
Posted by: harleyjohn45 | September 24, 2007 11:13 PM
"What person in their right mind would vote to put another Texas Republican in the White House?" First of all, what percentage of the electorate do you think is in their right mind, and just how much IQ credit do you give them? The same people that gave boy george a second shot at ruining this country for all time are still voting and they are still stupid. There is not a democrat alive that has no chance to lose the election to even the stupidest nincompoop republican as long as our electorate is as ignorant, uneducated, illogical and gullible as they are now. You can bet that any democrat is going to face scandals and rumors of scandal, real and manufactured by the unscrupulous nazi wing of the republican party. You can also bet there will be at least a sizable minority that will buy even National Enquirer headlines about any democrat. Hillary's husband was pretty capable of overcoming the true and the untrue. Perhaps his mate will be just as capable. My personal choice would be John Edwards, but any democrat is better than the best the GOP has to offer. Unfortunately, I suspect Fred Thompson, a man with zero integrity, will utter whatever tripe the masses want to hear, and his personal charisma will overcome anything the democrats offer. It is probably just as well because boy george will succeed in passing off his Iraqi Folly and any democrat following him will be blamed for "losing" this war, and the economic problems we face in paying for "VietNam With a Vengeance" is going to be a millstone around presidents for years to come. We democrats probably need to let a Republican win the Whitehouse and make sure one of those rat bast@rds gets the blame.
Posted by: mckolb | September 24, 2007 11:20 PM
It is interesting how anything about Hillary brings out Republicans and woman haters from the woodworks. Those who rail against 'another Clinton' must have thought it was OK to have 12 years of Bush father/son. Neither has done the country any favors and, as Cilizza is pointing out, Bush jr is destroying our government--does that not scare anyone? Who can best start repairs on the constitution? In my book, that is a woman who recognizes the need to show the world that bush was an aberration and that the USA can again be a positive world leader. We are long overdue for a woman president and Hillary can more than do the job. Go Hillary!
Posted by: vienna12 | September 24, 2007 11:45 PM
there is a game going on,
called hide the dishonesty.... if the NSA had any balls, they would be a little less partisan, and a little less greedy
about destroying other countries economies or letting the United States get taken over by INTERNATIONALISTS INTERESTS...
wiretapping is being used, not to monitor but to increase the probability that the bush family interests get served...
these guys would be shot for treason.
there is no "war," in IRAQ...
there is an OIL INDUSTRY TRYING TO GET UP AND RUNNING, and a GAS AND OIL AND HEROIN OPERATIONs GOING GANGBUSTERS IN AFGHANISTAN...
the rich, corrupt and elitist interests of bushCO and CRONYs, STEAL MONEY FROM THE COFFERS OF THE UNITED STATES...
as our infrastructure crashes and burns, our manufacturing is gone and our blue collar MIDDLE CLASS JOBS, WHITE COLLAR COMPUTER JOBS, CUSTOMER SERVICE JOBS, get sent overseas so that corporate bottom liners can make a
ONE_TIME_SAVINGS on cost that means AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE JOBS AND CAN NOT BUY THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE TO SELL....
so now, with AMERICANS OUT OF WORK or working at retail or jobs that pay them 15% of what they used to make...
the elitists start selling off AMERICAN PROPERTIEs, Corporations, mines, farms, etc.... to make that money...
BLACKWATER COMPANY IS AN EXAMPLE OF A MONEY PIT.... put the money in, what do you get....advertising for "war," an attempt to get you to spend U.S. TAX DOLLARS ON SOMETHING THAT GENERATES NO THING...
war for war's sake doesn't generate a better world.... since it is UNNECESSARY it depletes the economy....since it is a lie, it creates despair over there and in the United States....
Ask AMERICANS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE FUTURE. QUIT BELIEVING THESE SELF AGGRANDIZING PROPHETS OF "YOU NEED TO KILL PEOPLE." it's B.S.
if we _needed_ to kill people we could nuclear flash the middle east and move in...this is about getting the government to spend money.
. we don't need to be herded by fabricated "war" stories, niether do we need to havea false flag attack in_country, or attack or instigate conflict w/IRAQ
because Boy George, wants to keep troops in IRAQ for 30 YEARS so he gets a payoff from the oil....and AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR HIS BANKROLLING...
can you say collusion with SANDBROs against the United States best interests?
bring the whole team in and take over the whitehouse
Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Dennis K.
make AMERICA right again, in a good way.
Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 11:52 PM
Hillary Clinton is, far and away, the most stellar of all the Democratic candidates and she most certainly outshines every single Republican candidate. Her campaign and she, herself, have impressed me and my family so much. Her healthcare plan is the best one presented. Her government reform proposals are excellent and very needed. And she exudes nothing but charm and competence.
Can she beat Rudy Giuliani or any other Republican candidate? Oh yes. And she is anxious to do it.
Posted by: audart | September 25, 2007 12:10 AM
Biden is a great guy too, he has shown a lot of character when it came to getting what needs to be said said...
Posted by: afraidofme | September 25, 2007 12:21 AM
Hillary Clinton towers above both her Democratic rivals and any of her probable GOP opponents. Clinton is her own woman. She is super smart and savvy and her presidency will belong to her and not be a continuation of her husband's presidency.
Obama in the abstract seems like a strong November 2008 candidate, but I do not think he has the right stuff to succeed. He is too inexperienced. Edwards could not even probably be reelected as Senator in his home state, so I do not believe that he can win the White House.
Clinton is the strongest and most sure bet the Democratic Party has to win back the White House. Moreover, she has the experience, poise, and polish to help the nation through these troubled times.
The pessimist and those who are jealous of Clinton's strength and accomplishments will have to eat their unkind words about Clinton once she is elected president.
Beni Dakar ~ Duluth, GA
Posted by: wedaconnectionmoderator | September 25, 2007 12:24 AM
...catch me if you can.
1. Dan, didn't you see the size of her caboose on PBS; or, the freighter-size milk sacks of campaign fund scandal hanging from her 'war' chest?
She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself.
2. Humpty dumpy will fall.
She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes.
3. Hello, what about that $800 K, Dan. And, that fact she parses "It" like BJ did with "Is"?
What could trip up Clinton?
4. U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section I. Only a certified gender male can hold the office of president. Chief Justice Robert's trump card.
The most likely is a defeat and that certainly appears most possible in Iowa.
5. Hillary will come in dead last in Iowa. Richardson will win, Dodd will finish second. There rest it doesn't matter.
Posted by: lockmallup | September 25, 2007 12:32 AM
The Republicans have such a rabid hatred of anything Clinton, they will just revert to the tactic of going after Hillary with the same vehement attacks using the same issues they used while Bill was President (Travelgate, Whitewater, etc.), none of which even come close to the Iraq war debacle Bush foisted on the country. It will simply demonstrate that the Republicans are more interested in the past than in the future. They won't be able to stop themselves, and become their own worst enemies in the process.
Posted by: Schweg | September 25, 2007 12:34 AM
I'm voting for Hillary. Everyone in my family is voting for Hillary. She represents change, strength, intelligence and tolerance. I'm 99.9% sure that she will be the nominee. Just in case the 0.01% happens, I still will vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is.
Posted by: cyliu503 | September 25, 2007 12:41 AM
there is a game going on,
called hide the dishonesty.... if the NSA had any balls, they would be a little less partisan, and a little less greedy
about destroying other countries economies or letting the United States get taken over by INTERNATIONALISTS INTERESTS...
wiretapping is being used, not to monitor but to increase the probability that the bush family interests get served...
these guys would be shot for treason.
there is no "war," in IRAQ...
there is an OIL INDUSTRY TRYING TO GET UP AND RUNNING, and a GAS AND OIL AND HEROIN OPERATIONs GOING GANGBUSTERS IN AFGHANISTAN...
the rich, corrupt and elitist interests of bushCO and CRONYs, STEAL MONEY FROM THE COFFERS OF THE UNITED STATES...
as our infrastructure crashes and burns, our manufacturing is gone and our blue collar MIDDLE CLASS JOBS, WHITE COLLAR COMPUTER JOBS, CUSTOMER SERVICE JOBS, get sent overseas so that corporate bottom liners can make a
ONE_TIME_SAVINGS on cost that means AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE JOBS AND CAN NOT BUY THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE TO SELL....
so now, with AMERICANS OUT OF WORK or working at retail or jobs that pay them 15% of what they used to make...
the elitists start selling off AMERICAN PROPERTIEs, Corporations, mines, farms, etc.... to make that money...
BLACKWATER COMPANY IS AN EXAMPLE OF A MONEY PIT.... put the money in, what do you get....advertising for "war," an attempt to get you to spend U.S. TAX DOLLARS ON SOMETHING THAT GENERATES NO THING...
war for war's sake doesn't generate a better world.... since it is UNNECESSARY it depletes the economy....since it is a lie, it creates despair over there and in the United States....
Ask AMERICANS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE FUTURE. QUIT BELIEVING THESE SELF AGGRANDIZING PROPHETS OF "YOU NEED TO KILL PEOPLE." it's B.S.
if we _needed_ to kill people we could nuclear flash the middle east and move in...this is about getting the government to spend money.
. we don't need to be herded by fabricated "war" stories, niether do we need to havea false flag attack in_country, or attack or instigate conflict w/IRAQ
because Boy George, wants to keep troops in IRAQ for 30 YEARS so he gets a payoff from the oil....and AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR HIS BANKROLLING...
can you say collusion with SANDBROs against the United States best interests?
bring the whole team in and take over the whitehouse
Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Dennis K., Joe Biden....
make AMERICA right again, in a good way.
Posted by: afraidofme | September 25, 2007 01:22 AM
'freespeak' writes: The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark. Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire). I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction. Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh! The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!
'charly_n' writes: After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes: All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes: peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes: "As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes: jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes: One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes: For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.
September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.
Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.
Posted by: ajain31 | September 25, 2007 07:50 AM
"We democrats probably need to let a Republican win the Whitehouse and make sure one of those rat bast@rds gets the blame."
The silliness of this notion will be clear before the question arises, since it won't even be November 2008 before the word 'blame' becomes inoperative. 'Blame' is for efforts that fail, and it is clear by now that Dems will not be able to force a surrender. The troops will have started coming home because they're not needed there anymore, before the election. People looking to hang 'blame' will by then look pretty unhinged. Their manifest and uncontrollable rage at this state of affairs will not help their image much, either.
Posted by: taniwha | September 25, 2007 09:18 AM
I personally think that the dems have shifted to far to the left to nominate Hillary Clinton. I think that the candidate to look at more closely is John Edwards. In my opinion, Edwards represents most of what dems and their base believe in. He has demonstrated true leadership by being the first candidate to make his opinions known about all of the issues. The mainstream media doesn't give him the same coverage as they do Clinton or Obama because he is fighting big corporations and their practices. This doesn't sit very well with the media conglomerations at all. I hope that people will give look at Edwards and see what he stands for. Come on over to johnedwards.com
Posted by: JPOWERS2 | September 25, 2007 09:26 AM
Mr. Balz, you're spot-on. If Clinton comes in third in Iowa, and Obama comes in at least second in New Hampshire, it should give him tremendous momentum going into South Carolina.
My sense is that, once black voters feel confident that Obama has a fighting chance, he'll get their vote. If Obama takes South Carolina after a strong finish in Iowa and New Hampshire, watch out. He most certainly has the money to battle Clinton in Tsunami Tuesday states.
If Clinton goes down and Obama rises to the top, it will very interesting to see how the GOP reacts, especially after saving most, if not all, of their ammo for Clinton. After all but ignoring blacks and Hispanics, attempts to take down the first African-American-identified major presidential candidate could serious backfire amongst moderates and independents.
P.S. As to the Clinton/GQ flap, I most certainly hope someone out there questions her on freedom of the press. If Russert dares to tomorrow, I may have to send him a bottle.
Posted by: GordonsGirl | September 25, 2007 11:35 AM
'petra2' writes: I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes: The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark. Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire). I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction. Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh! The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!
'charly_n' writes: After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes: All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes: peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes: "As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes: jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes: One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes: For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.
September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.
Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.
Posted by: ajain31 | September 25, 2007 01:25 PM
I offer two theories on the Hillary Haters out there:
1) The Republicans DO NOT want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee because they know that she's the most formidable candidate. So they're out bashing in droves to scare Dems into thinking that she can't be elected. Run a search on "Hillary Clinton" on Google News -- I don't know how or why it's so, but right wing bashing originally published a year or more ago are moving up to the top for some reason. The search says today's date - yet look closely at the articles and they were, in fact, written so long ago -- old news that the Google engine is managing to bring to the top.
2) Hillary Haters among Dems are those who are upset that their own candidates are not faring well - that HRC is stomping all over them just by showing up.
I'm excited with the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton because she's the smartest of the lot on both sides and secondarily because she is a woman. We will see amazing things from an HRC presidency because Hillary knows that the world will be watching her, that she'll be setting a new standard for what it means to be president of the United States, and that history will judge her more closely because she is a woman. And she will not take this responsibility lightly.
And I am thrilled that I will be meeting her face-to-face this weekend.
Posted by: femalenick | September 25, 2007 01:25 PM
First of all I'm a republican and due to our current field of candidates would likely have little reason to vote in the next preidential election. If Hillary were given the democratic nomination, which i hope she is, not only would I have a great reason to vote but i would have a great reason to get involved with the republican party. The race would change from elect whomever to elect anyone but Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is just like her husband willing to sell our National secrets for money and to stab the American people in the back if she can profit from it.
Oh and all those people talking about how good the Clinton years were, remember he never won a majority of Americans in either election he only got into the White House because of popular third party candidates.
Here's hoping for Clinton's nomination because Republicans need something to get excited about.
Posted by: giardinere | September 25, 2007 01:42 PM
"The Republicans DO NOT want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee because they know that she's the most formidable candidate. So they're out bashing in droves to scare Dems into thinking that she can't be elected."
Good. Good! Go with the reverse psychology ideation. It's what dishonest people would do, and God knows that's what you have the most experience with, in the circles you undoubtedly travel in.
This is why they say dishonesty is its own punishment - you're liable to assume everyone else is as dishonest as you. That's why whenever liberals lose, they can't figure out what happened to save their lives. And the next thing you know, there's incohate rage, and conspiracy theories, and laughable charges of fraud, and so on and so forth.
Posted by: taniwha | September 25, 2007 01:43 PM
Free speech to democrats = LIE LOUD AND LIE OFTEN.
The fact is that most people that vote democratic are either stupid , ignorant or just plain criminal or anti-American. Rodham Clinton herself whined like a pig that 85% of FELONS would have voted democrat in the 2004 election.
I fall into the ignorant category , I blindly and ignorantly voted democratic for nearly 16 years. I didn't even know who my Senators were and didn't care. There are people that don't vote and have no clue what a democrat or republican is. I have been informing these type people of the facts and the truth many of which only speak Spanish.
NO INFORMED TRUE AMERICAN WOULD VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT. Democrats are not Americans and each day that goes by makes it clearer and clearer. Democrats can't help themselves but prove me right. They are "DEMOCRATS" and nothing more and certainly not "AMERICAN"
Anyone can buy American Citizenship or their way into power like democrat criminal frauds. They will always be those same losers who through out their criminal career claim to speak for Americans. The ones that proclaim "WE AS DEMOCRATS".....
Democrats can go to hell along with all you stupid asinine phony bleeding heart imbeciles.
Posted by: RobLACa | September 25, 2007 03:11 PM
The last three or so comments are rite on. I use a category system for the opponents of Hillary, some have been mentioned. Examples, "Jealous/Envy", "Fear", and "Hate". These factors are found in almost every comment. The repubs "Fear" her because they know they can't beat her. The dems "Hate" her because she is not Liberal enough. The "Jeaous/Envy" comes mainly from men, who cannot stand a strong woman. I think she is going to be the winner in 08, and these folks claiming to be dems will never vote for is horse manure.
Posted by: lylepink | September 25, 2007 03:28 PM
Correction, that does not include RobLACa, was posted while I was thinking and typeing.
Posted by: lylepink | September 25, 2007 03:35 PM
Will Clinton's Democratic rivals ever attack her weakness as a Washington Insider? Her fundraising tactics? More voters cited corruption and ethics on Election Day in 2006 than the Iraq War.
It is most definitely an issue important to the Democratic base.
Both Edwards and Obama are campaigning as outsiders determined to change the business of campaigns and the business of Washington. Why have they been so timid in explicitly in calling out Clinton for her establishment love?
If they're waiting for the Republicans to do so, then they'll be waiting until after she wins the nomination.
Posted by: screeeeeaaaaam | September 25, 2007 03:40 PM
Afraidofme , another example of stupid democrats who abuse the freedom of speech.
"if we _needed_ to kill people we could nuclear flash the middle east and move in...this is about getting the government to spend money."
Another example of democrats failed school systems and the liberal pukes that indoctrinate our future generation.
"IF we needed to kill"
You stupid democrat retard, STFU. You are a disgrace to this Country. If you had any honor you would jump off a cliff.
"Hillary Clinton" on Google News -- I don't know how or why it's so, but right wing bashing originally published a year or more ago are moving up to the top for some reason."
First of all allow me to correct your mistakes. You willfully attempt to deceive like good little Rat , "THE FACTS" as "right wing bashing". This is a common tactic from the party of perpetual fraud. They really can't help themselves since it "IS" their only successful means of getting elected. Oh and this is a fact , a historic fact for at least the last 40 years and will be in the future to come. Honesty spells death for the party of democrats so don't expect anything near the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth , honesty , integrity , competence , or sincerity from the despicable traitorous democrats.
"I don't know how or why it's so,"
I'll tell you why. It's because every day more and more people are informed of that an evil maniacal cold hearted pig Hilary Rodham Clinton "IS".
Aren't you tired of being a stupid criminal supporting democrat?
Posted by: RobLACa | September 25, 2007 03:48 PM
More democrat lies. Democrat lie because they are , well liars. Plain and simple. Oh and It helps that over 90% or the MSM and Print Media are voting democrats as well. Did I mention immoral puke in Liberal Hollywood as well? Ya they are democrats as well and have a crap load of UN-AMERICAN liberal biased movies distorting reality for their criminal partners more than ever for this next election.
"The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect."
Your wrong democrat liar. A great many don't even know what a democrat is.This proves you to be a shameless stupid liar. Less than half of the Americans population vote. 40% is not the whole Country stupid. Again you are proven a liar.
Funny you admit many "GOOD REPUBLICANS" lost seats. However they were more likely sick and tired of hearing democrats whining and crying and begging like babies to be put back in power. The non stop lies and smears and non crimes democrats accused Republicans of being parroted by the Democrat Media surely did not have any effect on the undeserved unmerited democrats being elected. Certainly not. Let me see if I can name a single thing the democrats did to so deserving to earn their ill gotten gains. Oh ya , that's where you come in. "ILL GOTTEN" speaks for itself.
Let me translate that for you stupid democrats.
The criminal democrat party of perpetual frauds never cease to amaze with there relentlessness. It's the sign of desperation. Like BJ Clinton claiming have done everything to get Bin Laden. He even thought getting a Blow job in the oval office would some how miraculously put Osama in US custody. Yet he never bothered to talk to his CIA director on a daily basis.
It is the duty of any and all informed Americans to stop the Traitorous democrat criminal frauds. Having been an ignorant blindly democratic voter gives me all the motivation I need to expose the puke scum supporters here and everywhere of the party of democrats. Democrats do not speak for Americans.
Posted by: RobLACa | September 25, 2007 04:31 PM
RobLACa: The real shame is shutting down the nut houses and letting people like you free to spew your horse manure.
Posted by: lylepink | September 25, 2007 05:38 PM
Hillary WILL NOT BE STOPPED because people know she is the BEST candidate!! She is the most experienced, most intelligent, most qualified, and has worked the longest on these issues that are facing the country! Hillary is a great Senator from my state of New York and she will be one of the best (along with Bill) presidents this country has ever had!!!!!
Posted by: carfasa | September 25, 2007 07:54 PM
I'm not certain why all of the Hillary bashing and such avid support for both Obama and Edwards.
Edwards was here before and didn't win - let's just move on. Dick Cheney slammed him during the VP debates - think that won't happen again?
As far as Obama, he made one outstanding speech and he has the 'audacity' to think he would be a good president. He is, on multiple accounts too inexperienced to hang in there & beat the republican nominee. I am tired of the 'I didn't vote for the war' rehetoric. Truth is that he wasn't the Senator from Illinois to vote at that time. If his absentee record is any indication of how he would of placed a vote in the Senate - he missed 80 votes - 23% of all cast since his career as a U.S. Senator. He, more than likely, would have called in sick the day the votes were cast for the Iraq War.
If you are from Illinois, you would recall that Barack Obama won the U.S. Senate out of pure luck - there were republican scandals at the time (surprise-surprise) but he was NEVER the frontrunner - that is until he beat Alan Keyes (pretty easy to do).
I am a proud, life long resident of Illinois. I've got to ask the Illinois voting public - What the heck has Barack done as your U.S. Senator? Dick Durbin is the guy that helps Illinois - Barack has had only one goal since he took office - the White House.
It is good to be ambitious - his time will come. But a little more hard work for Illinois would be good here. He will NOT win the Illinois primary hands down - Hillary and John Edwards will give him a fight. What does that say about your home state?
Once you answer that, you can honestly say that he will never win the presidency. I will cast my vote for a democrat - Hillary Clinton '08.
Posted by: a_p_arnold | September 26, 2007 08:13 AM
Been Scanning a lot of this-no one seems to get the idea that the MEDIA needs to relearn how they were taught to do there jobs!! Like report the FACTS not make them up to suite their point of view! That would go a long way to fix a great deal of the problems in D.C and healing this country! But the media enjoys THEIR POWER TOO!! Makes me sad as an ex-media person to see the country fall apart this way!
Posted by: esmalley | September 26, 2007 11:02 PM
Okay, since I can be accused of being a misogynist since I don't like Clinton I think I'll vote for the candidate that is Italian like me, Guiliani.So many women will vote for Clinton because she is a woman, we should all vote for the candidate most like us: you're black, Obama is your choice. See, it does not require the thought process. Vote with the one who shares the same urogentical system as yourself.
Posted by: sperrico | September 27, 2007 11:11 AM
Perhaps a president with super powers would be a good thing. After all, Hillary (and Bill) seem to have the power of invisibility when it comes to their crimes. Or, perhaps, it's Teflon power; the power to deflect blame for the dozens of despicable crimes that would be a political death blow to a republican and have them slip off like slime into the back pages of the lefty leaning mainstream media.
Yes a president with these kind of scandal proof super powers would be a plus. And The(_!_)Clintons certainly need and frequently use this power granted them by virtue of the what ever planet they dropped off of.
HILLARY: DON'T ELECT HER... JAIL HER!
Posted by: BERTCONVY | September 30, 2007 11:32 AM
|
Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press. (NBC). The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five...
| 2,035.105263 | 1 | 9 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/weller_to_retire.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/weller_to_retire.html
|
IL-II: Another GOP Open Seat
|
2007092419
|
The hits keep on coming for House Republicans who watched another member -- Illinois Rep. Jerry Weller -- announce he will not seek re-election in 2008.
Weller's announcement, which was made just weeks after a Chicago Tribune story that raised questions about land owned by the Congressman in Nicaragua, brings to eight the number of House Republicans headed for the exits. (It also came on the same day Politico's John Bresnahan and Patrick O'Connor detailed the rising tensions between House Minority Leader John Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole.)
And, Weller's seat -- like those held by Reps. Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Rick Renzi (Ariz.) and Jim Ramstad (Minn.) -- is almost certain to be competitive between the two parties. While the district was made slightly more Republican in the 2001 redistricting process, it's still relatively evenly divided along partisan lines.
Here's our sketch of the district:
Geography: The population hub of the seat is Joliet -- home of the prison where Jake Blues was incarcerated -- in the northeast corner of the district. But, thanks to a creative redistricting pen, it snakes southward all the way to the outskirts of Bloomington, Illinois.
Election Results: Weller, who formally announced his retirement last Friday, has held the district with relative ease since 1994 especially after redistricting made it more strongly Republican. President George W. Bush carried it 50 percent to 48 percent in 2000 before the redraw and 53 percent to 46 percent after it. Weller took 55 percent in 2006 against a little-known challenger, and given his potential ethical complications would likely have faced a more serious race in 2008.
Candidates: On the Democratic side, the leading choice appears to be state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson who has a trip planned to Washington to talk with party leaders about the race. On the Republican side, state Sen. Christine Radogno is the most oft-mentioned name. Radogno took 41 percent -- roughly 1.4 million votes -- in her failed run for state treasurer in 2006. Radogno's big problem? She doesn't currently live in the district. Other GOP names mentioned include Frankfort Mayor Jim Holland, state Rep. Renee Kosel and state Sen. Gary Dahl.
Outlook: Another major problem for Republicans. In a neutral political environment Republicans would likely start off as the favorite to hold the seat but the current environment is anything but neutral. Much depends on whether each side gets their first-choice candidate and how much or little the political landscape changes between now and Election Day. The x-factor? If Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) is on Democrats' national ticket it could give his party's candidate a major boost in this seat.
By Chris Cillizza | September 24, 2007; 1:43 PM ET | Category: House Previous: FixCam: The Week in Preview | Next: Tom Davis and the Politics of MoveOn Bashing
Add The Fix to Your Site
'petra2' writes: I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008. 'freespeak' writes: The question is, can anyone stop Clinton? I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark. Batter up? I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire). I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton. When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction. Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction. Oh! The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job! I get it. 'charly_n' writes: After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president. The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary. In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect. I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President. 'jnurse' writes: All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow. 'winngerald' writes: petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water. You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do. I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House! 'jmmiller' writes: "As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election." 'ogdeeds' writes: jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart. 'wesfromGA' writes: One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right. The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak). There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it. All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008. What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time! People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering. I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY. In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war. People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams. We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary. When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world. Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows. It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!" People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere. It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill. It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world. 'jmartin' writes: For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see. In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.
September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.
Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.
Posted by: Ajay Jain, Dallas, USA | September 25, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse
Dear Friends: No send another invitation. Send some history books, have a moment of silence that lasts his whole visit, invite every other Arab nation to a Black tie dinner for a fiest and their wives at the White House and then to the U N to discuss world caution in trade, industry, oil, gas, solar, development, protection of the natural fauna of the land, air, and waterways, the rain foresst protection of their and protection of action in space, Agiculture and land use world wide and future travel and transportation and communicate.
It is intriqueing yet incorrect that you pretend the Iranian economy is not impacted by war. It is and where to you get your supplies and weapons. Is it China or from some other illegal source.
You are wrong that President George W Bush Jr. is attempting to state or convince the world that he has some plan for the Iranian. He knows you have your own government and does not want another nation that is regrouping to be overtaken by some other force the alkida or Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin is a criminal who pretends that he is a man of faith. He is nothing when he follows a paper written by someother man who is nothing but a combination of thoughts, religions and criminal objectives for what a class, an audiance. He is the falsehood, his work is the attempt to disrupt all faiths including the Arab. Maryterdom is a christian word. Why would he ever use it to imply a goal or reward for murder. God does not teach murder in any faith. Martrys are not murders in any faith.
The sole purpose of Bin Ladin and all terrorists is to divide and destroy the good people of Iraq. They are one of the oldest societies in the world and they want them destroyed and divided. Together in their true form of prayer they can then cause and bring about with the power of God a nation powerful, educated, historical and a threat to those who want their land. Their nation for the terrorists.
President George W Bush JR and the USA and citizens there of do not have a purpose to continue in Iraq nor to govern any other foreign nation. It is the objective and always has been to reward and respect citizens of all other nations. To respect your government and economics and education as you may decide. It is Bin Laden who attacked the USA on 9/11 and we will not ever forget that a man two faced and a face of evil can be like a garbage can. One who took the good of an education from the USA and destroyed its good meaning and all he learned.
Bin Laden you know history, then you know that Abraham was a brother to another nation.
You cannot change that. But the person you took and pergered his writting is an illegal writer a great pretender. You are one that uses something else you learned in the USA, the media, sience, medicine, and drama.
You also learned of Hitler. Your are a dramatic copy cat of him and will be destroyed. All who follow you and any terrorists of any nation is in fact following the false angel or the devil.
You are a false hood.
May there be no dust on this earth of you or your offspring for you are the Satan that has revealed your attempt and purpose to destroy all faiths including the Koran or ARAB Faith.
You are visible in the mountains of Pakistan and the rivers and streams and under the soil. And Iran will come to know the true destructive force of which you falsely teach.
President George W Bush Jr. is our president and does want to negotiate with Iran when they are purposfully honest. But you have given missles and supported bombing in Several other nations including Lebanon which is in our scriptures and in historical teachings. He is one president of this time. You tried to destroy and theaten the children and people of the USA on 9/11 Bin Laden, but did not succeed. We the people of the USA are who you were educated from, and we are alive and still fighting and will until you are dead. Wanted dead or alive yet with a reward for any one with information leading to his capture.
You see president of Iran and Komini we have not issued a wanted dead or alive for you. We have tried to talk. Intelligently and respectively for we are concerned for the largest and the smallest of all nations. Not with purpose to govern but for reasonable peaceful resolve.
Our futures are now for our children and offspring of the future.
The borders you accused Britain of crossing, Iran crossed illegally. For you are not respecting the Iraqi people, their borders and their nation and new constitution respectfully and proudly voted on by all their citizens and people. They are a nation, with a new consititution one they decided on. They are a proud and strong people that will survive time as per history. Do not be that which is the will of Satan for God may open the ground of which you stand on.
We the people of the USA will return home. The quicker peace and no war and resolve within and by all the intellectually intelligent Arab world or nations the sooner this will happen and the stronger you will be.
A larger threat has shown it's face the illegal chemical destructions of China in food, product and rain. This is a threat to all the world including the ARAB people and nations. Their economic growth and gold and consumption of oil will destroy.
We the people of the USA have choices to decide to buy or not as does every other nation.
Historically the peaceful intelligent ARAB and Israel nations have survived time and will as is written.
June 30, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 30, 2007 14:09
Iran has made a statement that they would blast Israel if they attacked or bombed them. I declare that is not very nice. A light bulb goes off just thinking and or saying such a thing. Why in Virginia my grandmother would say such a thing Darling you should not be worrying your little head about.
Now why don't you gentlemen be sociable and talk nice. There are storms all over the world and your Great ancestors were relatives.
I know you are not like Osama Bin Laden a rather crude, highly insulting, cowardly person who is deceiptful and certainly would not be a guest at our home front. Now you have come to our nation and have talked and unlike the jabbering Venezuelian Chavez, you have tried to think through things. However, making a threat before the act is like a gentlemens quarrel. Surely you are not anything less than educated, you have shown manner, you have shown you are a leader, and willing to talk and appear before the public, unlike the mannic depressed, schizophrenic, paranoid, pedephillia that Osama Bin Laden is.
There is no warrant for your arrest and no reward for you. Oh please be gentlemenly, I know all those little children in Iran need to know you are a titled and intelligent man.
We have been taught to respect those who are our off distant nations people and God taught us he does have a place for those he chooses.
A light bulb a computer, cells, solar power magnified. You know the small security cameras and those long light bulbs. Perhaps in the nations of the world someone can invent a cheaper more efficient light bulb. The children of Iran I hope they like all the children of the world each and every one tries to compete for the world competition of the Olympics. Perhaps one day the Olympics could be in an Arab nation.
The Arabian horse with the chariots the world knows the Arabian is one of the stonger of breeds and who is the worlds best dresser, rider, trainer and olympian. Bring it back to the Olympics Iran. You and all the Arabian I would like to see entrants in every event. Swimming modify the suits.
The world would like to see your countries peacefully. Your people visited from afar more. Can this be???
September 19, 2007 7:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 19, 2007 19:32
WELL! WELL! WELL! DID ANYONE SEE THE ARITICLE IN THE SACRAMENTO BEE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 IRAN FREES U.S. SCHOLAR.
NOW I HAVE TO SAY THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF INTELLIGENT LEADERS WHO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE OF SOMEON WHO IS NOT A DANGER AND RELEASES AMERICAN SCHOLARS. MY RESPECT FOR SUCH ACTION!!!
COMMENDABLE FOR YOU PERSONALLY, FOR YOUR PEOPLE, FOR YOUR NATION. IT IS THIS AND THE FACT YOUR LEADERS HIDE NOT WHEN THEY SPEAK, BUT COME AND DISCUSS THINGS WORLD WIDE AND MAKE DECITIONS ALSO WITH THIS TYPE OF CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE TO DISAGREE FROM TIME TO TIME. YOUR LEADERS UNDERSTAND THIS. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOT FEARFUL TO GO BEFORE OTHER LEADERS OF THE U.N. AND OTHER NATIONS. I AS A CITIZEN OF THE U. S. A. AM FEARFUL AND PRAY FOR OUR CITIZENS WHEN THEY GO TO OTHER NATIONS THAT THEY MAY BE PERCEIVED AS QUESTIONABLE IN THEIR ACTIONS. IT IS THANKFUL AND A STATEMENT TO THE WORLD THAT THESE TYPES OF LEADERS RESPECT THEIR CITIZENS, THEIR NATION, AND ARE RESPECTFUL OF OTHER NATIONS.
THIS ALSO SHOWS THE PEOPLE AND LEADERS OF IRAN ARE EDUCATED AND NOT FEARFUL OF SHOWING THEIR PRESENCE IN THE WORLD WITHOUT WAR. UNLIKE THE TERRORISTS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN.
I AM A PROUD AMERICAN CITIZEN, MY COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED ON SEPTEMBER 11, A DAY OF WHICH WE WILL NOT FORGET EACH AND EVERY YEAR. BY CRIMINALS AND MEN WHO HAVE MENTAL DISEASE AND WHO DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR PEOPLE. THEY FOLLOW NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE OF LONG AGO GIVEN TO THEIR PEOPLE BY GOD THROUGH PROFITS, BUT BY A DOCUMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN WITH MIXED RELIGIOUS LANGUAGES, WORDS AND FALSE PROPHESIES. THEY ARE WORDS THAT WERE AND ARE PLAGERIZED. IN CLUDING THE WORD SOLUTION WHICH WAS USED BY HITLER. MANY PEOPLE DIED OF ALL FAITHS. HITLERS INTENT WAS TO DESTROY ALL OF ONE NATION AND WOULD HAVE GONE TO THEIR BROTHERS FROM BIBLICAL TIMES. YOU THE ARABS. HE WAS STOPPED BECAUSE PEOPLE CARED.
THIS YOUR NATION YOUR PEOPLE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE OF THIS AND NATIONS LIKE MINE STOPPING HIM. TODAY THE WORLD, THE ARAB WORLD NEEDS YOUR HELP. OSAMA BIN LADEN IS JUST LIKE HITLER.
September 21, 2007 7:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2007 19:33
You know the question is why is Iran advancing when ......? Well Well Well? Brilliant question ummmm!!! This is one of the oldest societies in the world, they have colleges, they know how to cook, buy, trade, legally and understand illegal trade, they know how to keep illegal activities outside of their society when they want to from guns, to drugs, criminals, invasions from Mexico, Bad products from China, their leader goes to one of the most argumentive, satiric nations of the world that does try to examine all sides and factors whether they agree or not. Their leader does not hide in the dark. He has taken unknown about of jabs even from schoolastic leaders, they and he has gone into the U N and would stand up for protection of the world if they saw fit including the Jungles of Amazon for clean air, they have bought the best of automobiles with the cleanest of air and have agreed to sell oil in a world that also asks for clean oil and gasoline and filters in automobiles even if the cost went up for the best product.
This is a nation that has many goods and services, and has explored the universe or outer space without blowing up their trash.
How has this nation like other nations of the Arab world progressed and succeeded in being economically what they are? Are you kidding!!!
Get with this century!!!! Modernization is not only in one nation but many.
Now they also can deny or try that Hitler existed. Birth records are there, his active military is a record, lives, burials, graves including some Arabs that were caught and would not do what he wanted were there, Oil you see, Germany traded for oil also whether it was Iran or another. My ex husbands step grandmother a woman from Poland who lived in Connecticut, USA had the burned numbers on her wrist. She was a soft spoken, honest, christian woman, catholic, she wore long sleeves and barely wanted to talk about it. Banks throughout the world and history and all other evidence in nations all over the world are not lying. Neither was she!!!
Mahmouund Ahmadineyad you may have been protected from this tragic and ugly time of history but it occurred due to a terrible man who was manic depressed, schizophrenic, paranoid and sexual abuser. This man committed attrocities of which no person or persons should ever experience.
His intent was to commit these until all the Jewish in the world and then Arabs ( their genetic brothers ) He believed races that should not exist.
Denial also occurs phsychologically for painful history and for not the want of. It also can be due to not exploring, reading, and or researching. He did not see the numbers burned on the Arabs wrists and other things that also occurred to Christians all over the world from this person.
The News week or Sacramento Bee suggested that Mahmoud is Hitler. This is not so. A lack of understanding and denial even if possibly for political reasons is not the same as the collective heyonous acts of Hitler that is like Osama Bin Laden.
How loud can I say this? Get educated your self and do not ask such a leading assuming and ignorant question.
Papers, and Blog questioners and News Media take a more responsible position. You are to report not make news and not assume. Or you can be held liable. Ignorance as you suggest can lead to false teaching to the young of history and politicians.
Such as Was the News Week kidding when they said that President said that Hillary has won the Democratic Election? Ladies and Gentlemen, first to the Spanish as the paper suggests, this is the party election competion that is now on. If you do not understand that go back to school.
Just because the Republicans are not willing to attend a debate with the Democrats is not wrong, it is because their party can debate. Get to know the party. Both. Then vote!!! Do not be a robot.
As to the comment by the News Week, The races for each party are still just beginning. Obama do not give up. The President of the United States of America is not suggestive nor is he predudice as the News week might suggest. Americans are you predudice ( Spanish Americans ) Black and White? Race???
Hillary what a bust, what a disgrace that you allowed the artist strip, and make a bust of you. Art it is not!! Disgrace it is. For you are a mother, for your daughter, for the state of New York, for the Senate and the title you hold, for the previous Presidency history as the wife of the President of one of the largest nations of the world. And you want to be the President of the United States of America. Giving away it all! Kick in the rear jack ass!!! China kick backs for trade has cost this nation how much money? Where did all this money go? Legal fees for the bag lady???? No more!!! No more!!! Viet Nam we still do not have health care. Agent Orange!! Where are you. Right Bill is high and he went some place else.
China, Nafta ( they do not care ) Mexico oh to Japan auto.
GM on line for a strike!!! Home Run!!! All the way, it is a great day for a Bond Market.
Hey first time home buyers do not believe the Sacramento Bee or any other paper that says it is hard for you. Good credit, a job, real estate loans are available for up to 100%, special bond issue are there, FHA, in if applicable VA and prices are down. BUY LAND, HOMES AND COMMERCIAL. SACRAMENTO BEE RENTAL OR LANDLORDS WHO HAVE THE MONEY HELP TO MAKE HOMES AVAILABLE FOR RENT. RENTALS FOR FAMILIES, WHO LOST THEM DO TO CHINA. RENTALS FOR THE SINGLES, WITH OR WITHOUT AIDS, FAMILIES AN SINGLES THAT ARE HANDICAPPED AND OR MENTALLY CHALLENGED. SINGLE WOMEN THAT ARE ABUSED. THIS PRESENT GOVERNMENT IS PAYING FOR THIS AND
I love you Gerry Seinfield, I say you realized that the Sacramento Bee made the front page.
Speak out for and against those that love the Star bucks coffee. While it is over priced and promised to reward with diabetes, they are paying $1.50 approximately a month to a person who picks and grows coffee in Africa. They are unprotecting the Amazon Jungle, Scars like the roads in the Camelback mountain in Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, AZ may occurr. Oil in the little rivers of the Amazon. Oh God!!! Oh God!!! How much is a cup of Starbucks???
My credit limit is not that high. Oh says the street person neither is mine. Take a bus. SAve the Air. Seinfield knows the Sacramento Bee, Oh they printed on September 23, 2007 the article about Starbucks. Cheers your crew speak out. Howabout it day time and night time TV. 60 minutes or 60 years how long could it take to destroy the Amozon Jungle, Animals and African fauna and the ocean. Water you see every drop even in the jungle is dear.
Oh God!!! Then there are patents, what no laws? What about royalties!! Hey I do not want Starbucks to go out of business. I know the owner is a million donates and all and American. But Rubbermaid and all the rest wake up. This happened to the Africans in early history of the British and India. Now correct this wrong, son.
There is a Bible story of all coming to the fields to work at different times of the day and they are each paid the same wages. This is a teaching for equal pay and representation to brothers and sisters all over the world.
Oh God! The food of the day WATER. Keep it clean. Hillary you do not have a clue. Do you drink or Chelsea or Bill Starbucks?
You have no clue bring it to the UN.
Families and national leaders all over the world including you Iran speek out. Protect the jungle and water and air of all the world. It runs and goes into all nations in one way or another.
Iran and the Arab world any China products or guns. Are they safe? Water, cancer, air.
September 25, 2007 2:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 14:00
New York duck is Bin Laden coming down the runway!!!
Is he drawing in on another group? In Britain and or the States? How about Iran now that his speech is made? Paranoid that Osama Bin Laden is, he knows not history!! Nor the Future!!!
Brace your selves another group of terrorists talking on a cell. Phone it in if you hear it. Please!!!!! Hurry where ever you are.
Southwest in the business world, meeting are sometimes held on a plane one on one. Not having a reserved seat can mean defete of your purpose. Which was to be a business service flights and to make it quick and cheap. For the cost of peanuts, Oscar Meyer snack packs, small with just a film across the top. Change the candy to a small mint, a teeny little pack of peanuts, or California Raisins or dried fruit. A go and great for stalled or delayed flights.
Watch for activities pilots of all American Flights and all over the world. When you take off!!! Pilots, crew and passengers think of youselves on a flight like 9/11. Who was there for you as President of the USA? George W Bush Jr.
Now pretend I am a little girl who likes to bake and date and mad my boy friend got a new girl friend. Would you want me as your President, I have no experience to defend. my name is HI, Hill over there ry.
NO NO Bad choice. I want someone with experience and who wants to protect this nation and who will stand up for my family, constitution. Got this my rights, Religion and Race.
Oh Columbia, drug wars, bad choice, tell your children to protect their nation. Business stay away from China products pollution, Peru to Japan and his daughter, see the Sacramento Bee a No NO. Or the world will go away. Do not buy Japanese Cars. They are owned by China. Did you not know. The change in rule from British to China. Now the communist country is in their control. What is in the product and the air of the autos of Japan and China? Small particles of lead???????????????
Send my Blog comments to as many as you can.
September 25, 2007 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted by: sharon walkr | September 25, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse
Good item, Chris, with some good points. The Democrats would have a great candidate in Sen. Halvorson, and since the Democratic party in this state has been ascending in power for a number of years now, there is a real chance that she could be elected. The Republican party has had so many scandals and problems in Illinois that they are in a total state of disarray. Both the Illinois Senate and House have strong Democratic majorities, every constitutional office is held by a democrat, both national Senators are democrats -- it is difficult under these circumstances to recruit any Republican candidates with a real chance of winning.
Posted by: JP | September 25, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse
We don't need term limits; they are horrible. We do need enforcement of some Post blog rules here though. Forgive my being Gen X or Web 0.0, but has it become unfashionable to post comments that have something to do with the initial entry? Have Americans become that stupid?
Another Post blog mentioned some more potential GOP House retirements: Chris Shays, Bill Young, Ralph Regula, Don Young, Barbara Cubin, Tom Davis, John McHugh, Mike Castle...any thoughts on other potential retirements? Who they'd benefit? How many this cycle will end up having? Cubin seems like the rare one (with Renzi) that would help her own party. And most of those seats would go Democratic or have very competitive races at least. The anonymous GOP insider quoted saying the only safe Senate seats in 08 are the ones not on the ballot seems to encapsulate the current situation well.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 25, 2007 3:22 AM | Report abuse
Kudos to any political blog entry making relevant reference to Joliet Jake. :) Perhaps we'll see Joliet Jerry Weller sometime soon. He best get himself to church.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 25, 2007 3:10 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse
newbies are fascists fascists are everywhere
Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse
Yup. Long off-topic posts = spam.
But hey, I was mocked as a 'newbie' for urging people to stay on topic a few weeks ago. So what do I know, right?
Posted by: Scott in PacNW | September 24, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse
drindl, maybe she was just real cute...
Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 24, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse
"republicans don't care about stuff like that?"
I think Republicans call them 'freedom fighters'.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse
'that I forgot who Weller was by the time I got to DCAustinite's post.'
Yeah, that's the problem with the long posters, I have short attention span myself and I think I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome on top of it -- or Mouse Finger, or whatever you call it.
This did catch my eye about Weller though, that he was married to the:
'daughter of brutal military dictator and death squad leader, EfraÃÂn RÃÂos Montt.'
Good lord. How did people like that get elected in this country? Is it just that press is so lazy people don't hear about it, or people are so lazy they don't read about it, or god forbid, republicans don't care about stuff like that?
Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse
Plz take cntrol of your blog and remove the cut/paste nonsense that is making my mouse work overtime.
Good riddance to Weller - We really need term limits as it always seems that just when the members of the house win that 4th term, the invincibility factor makes them put the hand out for deals/cash with their benefactors.
Posted by: I am Mad at Chris Cizzzz | September 24, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse
I quickly read through and saw that bsimon, proud, and DCAustinite had posted. I read those. Actually, it took me so long to scroll through the cut-and-pasted blognotes that I forgot who Weller was by the time I got to DCAustinite's post.
Thanks to the three of you and anyone else I missed who was not reposting other blogs for trying to keep the thread alive.
Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 24, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse
Rudy calling for a 'ban' on criticism of Gen. Petreus. Here's his history:
Rudy's singular assault on expression has, in fact, caused the Thomas Jefferson Center this year to create a new form of reproof -- the Lifetime Jefferson Muzzle. In the Mayor's case, the particulars are as chilling as they are novel. Notably, the Giuliani Administration has shown its disregard for -- or inadequate understanding of -- free speech principles by:
-refusing to permit more than 20 taxi drivers to assemble for a protest against proposed city pick-up and drop-off rules (a federal judge ruled that action unconstitutional); -imposing strict licensing rules on sidewalk artists, and limiting severely the number of such artists who could display their work near the Metropolitan Museum of Art (a policy struck down by the federal court of appeals as a violation of artists' rights); -imposing a $45 a day permit fee on street musicians, which a federal district judge held excessive and far beyond any actual city costs; -barring city employees from talking to reporters without specific approval - a policy which the federal appeals court found in violation of public workers' free speech rights; -directing the transit authority not to display on city buses ads bought by New York Magazine which contained a gentle if critical caricature of the mayor's quest for publicity (an order held by federal district and appeals courts to be in violation of the First Amendment); -barring a Lutheran church group from demonstrating and conducting an AIDS education program in a city park (a ban which a New York state appellate court held in clear violation of free speech);
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse
'In July 2004, Weller announced that he was engaged to three-term Guatemalan Congresswoman Zury RÃÂos Montt, daughter of brutal military dictator and death squad leader, EfraÃÂn RÃÂos Montt. They later married.'
Posted by: fyi | September 24, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse
"It's Word War IIIOn third visit to New York, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questions Holocaust, calls Israel racist, defends attempt to visit Ground Zero, claims Iran is misunderstood | SPEAKOUT!
ââ¬Â¢ Click Here to Watch the Speech in a Separate Window ââ¬Â¢ U.S.: Iran Sneaks Missiles Into Iraq to Attack GIs "
FROM YOUR BARVE REPRESENTATIVES AT FOX SIMON/PROUD. Or should I say, zouk:)
"I thought you were gone. AAHHH wwaaaaa. But, but but".
Shut UP. HAHAHAHAHA. Your party is about to be obsolete gop. At least you still have the dem's in your back pocket to keep you around, for now. The gop is done. The dem's have four years. Use your time wisely, cry baby middle school fascists.
Posted by: RUFUS | September 24, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse
Rufus, falling off the wagon so quickly with your multiple personality posts coupled with thinking that Cindy Sheehan could lead anything says that you really need help.
Come see us at: http://www.va.gov/rcs/
Posted by: Elias | September 24, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse
Leader of the new left.
My remarks to Rabbi Michael Lerner's Beyt Tikkun
In San Francisco on Yom Kippur 5758 (Sept.22, 2007)
I am very excited to be here again to speak to you at your Yom Kippur services. It is such an honor to be invited and to have a chance to spend some time with you at your wonderful celebration. The Universal Creator must be well-pleased with your worship here at Beyt Tikkun with Rabbi Lerner on Yom Kippur. .
Atonement is something that is so foreign to our experience as Americans. We are taught by our culture, the media, our government leaders (if not by our families) that we are to attain success at whatever cost to whomever and even to our own souls.
We see countless examples of this in our elected officials. If you want to win an election, you just steal it at any price. You disenfranchise voters, most of them people of color; you put emotionally manipulative measures on ballots regarding same-sex marriage and you convince the easily fooled voters that if you win you will end abortion and to ensure success, in case all of the above measures fail, you have supporters of your campaign write the programs for the machines that count the votes. In your mind, it's okay because the fake ends justify the criminal means.
Then, when you twice attain the highest office of the land, and indeed the highest office on the planet, you use a national tragedy to justify invasions of two countries that had nothing to do with an attack on our soil. To satisfy personal vendettas, ambitions and greed, hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and you do not have to say "sorry" and indeed, you continue to manipulate simple people by telling them that millions of people have been "liberated" from a dictator and our country is safer and freer now, never mind that you have imposed a more severe dictatorship on the people of the lands.
Corporations are now free to pollute our skies and waters and send our jobs overseas and reap profits globally off the backs of people all over the world and to the detriment of workers here in the United States. Many free-trade agreements have the effect of harming the citizens of all the countries involved for the benefit of a few Many people have lost their savings and retirement while the CEO's of these companies still "rape and pillage" like Blackbeards and receive their enormously immoral bonuses. Atonement is not even possible in these situations because the wealthiest in our country are looked up to as people who are really living the "American Dream."
Never mind that the American Dream is a nightmare to so many people all over the world, even people here in America. Unions have been busted; 45 million of us have no health insurance; (including me) the No Child Left Behind Act is designed as a recruitment tool for the military to funnel our children right into the jaws of the war machine. Even after signing the "opt out" of military recruitment, schools are still handing student's directory information to military recruiters and if schools refuse to turn their students into human cannon fodder for the unscrupulous Bush regime, they don't receive desperately needed federal funding.
Our freedoms here at home have been eroded while spreading phony freedom and false democracy to the Middle East, we have no more rights to Habeas Corpus; we can have our phone calls listened to and our emails read and slimy BushCo doesn't even have to get warrants for their voyeuristic thrills; and Congress not only refuses to hold BushCo accountable, but it has been busy legalizing the crimes of George and Dick while making itself less legitimate.
But no matter how bad we have it here, our brothers and sisters around the world, but especially in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering beyond what most of us can imagine. While my family and thousands of others here in America are feeling the pain and devastation of war, (sometimes I wonder how the body can produce so much moisture without drying up and blowing away) it is a small drop in the bucket of pain that Middle Easteners are feeling because of the illegal and immoral occupations. I met a Sunni Sheik the last time I was in Amman, Jordan who had brought a Shi'a Sheik who had survived an assassination attempt, although badly wounded, to a hospital in Amman (most of Iraqi doctors have had to flee the country). The Sunni Sheik told me that he was sorry for my loss, but eight members of his family and dozens of members of his tribe had been killed. I met another Sheik the first time I was in Amman who was sitting at home with his wife and son when American soldiers broke into his home and beat him and raped his wife in front of their son. I hate to tell General Betray-Us and the rest of the neocon crooks, events like these and raping a 14 year old girl and then burning her body after killing her entire family; massacring innocent citizens in Haditha, Falluja, Samarra, and on and on does not win hearts and minds. These horrible crimes only increase feelings of desperate hatred to the occupiers all over the Muslim world. Not just in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other peoples in Asia, Africa and South America particularly are feeling the oppression of American imperialism and populist governments are arising in these places that are hostile to America. In Africa our brothers and sisters are dying to make diamond and other mining companies profits so Americans can have a diamond engagement ring or the minerals to power our cell phones and computers. Our brothers and sisters are dying, being torn apart and families uprooted so we can fill our gas tanks. Our brothers and sisters in Asia are slaving away for American companies so we can buy cheap (and oftentimes dangerous) crap from Wal-Mart. South America has been used as a corporate dumping ground and dumping ground for our military dictators since the Monroe Doctrine of the early 19th Century. We are less than 5% of the world population, but we consume between 25-40 percent of the world's resources.
How can we as a nation atone for these sins? Do we believe in some kind of collective responsibility for everyone who lives all over the world? Do we even believe that we can make our next door neighbors' life better when we don't even know them, or we spend 40-60 hours a week working as wage slaves so we can be better than them? How can we present ourselves as moral beings when our own nation is still torn by racism?
What are the solutions to violence and do we want to solve these problems or do we want to allow our governments to commit state sanctioned murder so we don't have to take personal responsibility for what our nation does?
We are Americans by accident of our births, or voluntary immigration and naturalization. You are Jewish because of your births, or voluntary conversion. I am agnostic because of choice. Muslims are Muslims because of birth or choice. Christians are Christians by birth or conversion. We can identify ourselves by so many ways: Mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter; Christian, Jew, Muslim, nothing; straight, gay; American, Iraqi, Israeli, Palestinian, etc; Young, old; Black, brown, yellow, or white; but there is one thing that we all are. We are all human and we all, whether we like it or not, have hearts that beat as one and come from the same mother and father and the same Universal Creator that loves us all equally and without condition.
There will come a time in the not too distant future when we here in America will be forced out of our comfort zones by violence or economic ruin if we don't voluntarily give up some of our materialism, nationalism, or just plain creature comforts to help our brothers and sisters all over the world. Everyone on this planet deserves by the bare fact of being human, the rights to security, clean water, healthy and plentiful food, education and shelter. These are the bare necessities that so many go without as we have an over abundance.
The problems are daunting, but the solutions are simple.
First of all, do not allow our children to be consumed by the military industrial complex so the war profiteers can be enriched. This is the biggest sin of my life that I will be atoning for until I die. To do this, we must repeal the No Child Left Behind Act and make education good and free for all from Kindergarten to University.
Secondly, we must repeal all free trade agreements that oppress the citizens of all countries. We must ensure that worker safety and pay are commensurate and fair wherever our corporations do business.
Thirdly, all US military bases all over the world and occupying forces must be withdrawn and brought home to the US. We have over 800 military bases all over the world, mostly with the consent of the governments, but under strong protestation of civil society.
We must demand that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan be brought to a swift and safe close and the mercenary soldiers and other US war profiteers be expelled from these countries so the citizens in those two countries can reclaim their jobs and their lives.
We must apologize to the world for our creeping corporate military imperialism and for our mistake of historic and horrific proportions in Iraq and Afghanistan and we must make atonement to those people in the form of reparations and any other kind of material, diplomatic or political help they need.
All torture camps must be closed and reparations should be made to the innocent and fair trials and due process should be given to others.
Our liberties must be restored at home by repealing the Military Commissions Act, The Patriot Act, and the abuse of FISA laws and the right to Habeas Corpus must be restored. We must recognize the latent racism that still exists as evidenced by Katrina and Jena, we must face that fact that we still do not have true-equality and battle to reform our own hearts and national attitudes.
To show our brothers and sisters that we care about them and justice, George Bush and Dick Cheney must be forced to withstand the constitutional remedy to such blatant abuse of office by impeachment and they must be tried in the Senate for their high crimes and misdemeanors and then be tried in international courts for their crimes against humanity.
Then when America is restored to the moral authority of a strong nation that uses its power for peace and not constant war-making we can help in other war-torn places and challenge other regimes that commit human rights' violations.
It is urgent for the sake of my children and unborn grandchildren, your children and grandchildren, and all of our children all over the planet Earth. that we lead our world to peace and environmental sustainability and not continue to drag everyone down with us in our greed and arrogance. I am positive that we can do this, but only when we recognize our individual and collective failings and work diligently to overcome them. Not only for our own souls, but for the one soul that binds all of us together as one.
There is much to atone for today, but the biggest thing I think we all must atone for is believing that we have nothing to atone for.
Recognizing ones failings and mistakes is the first step to wholeness, but asking for forgiveness and being forgiven is sacred and the way to healing and peace.
I really am done here. Just letting you people know why.
"ANd your accounted for. Everything that you heard.
Do not speak to folls they scorn the wisdom of your words."
Peace. Now you know. Watch the new left. The Word will flow from the bay area. Anyone stopping us needs to take a long look in the mirror and see wha tyou respresent. Party over country is treason. ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.
Peace GOd BLess. LAst one. Now GO, peanut gallery. Or should I say pea brain gallery
God will be your judge. I was only trying to help you. And inform you. you have all been informed. Where you go from here is your choice. All I can do is cut your chain. It's for you to walk out of the cave. Peace.
Posted by: sheehan (rufus) :) | September 24, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse
"Introducing her, Rabbi Lerner pointed out how effective the media and the political leadership of both parties have been in transforming the public image of Ms. Sheehan from an outraged mother whose son had been killed in Iraq to a "shrill" and "irresponsible" leftie whose voice should be ignored. And this parallels the treatment of Move-On, and the millions of Americans who have demonstrated against the war--so that the media and the political leadership of both parties are able to shift the public discussion from moral outrage at the war to outrage at those who challenge the war. To counter this tendency, Rabbi Lerner had invited Ms. Sheehan to talk. He also invited Nancy Pelosi, the Congressperson representing the district in which Beyt Tikkun holds its services in San Francisco, but she declined. in questions and answers after this talk, Ms. Sheehan announced that she was in fact running for Congress against Nancy Pelosi as an independent in November, 2008 in order to give anti-war voters a clear opportunity to vote for a candidate who would not equivocate.
When asked what could Nancy Pelosi do, Ms. Sheehan reminded the congregants that the Speaker of the House has the power--frequently used throughout history and especially in the last thirty years--to decline to put on the agenda of the House any appropriations bill or any other bill that s/he does not think ought to be considered. Indeed, many of the peace proposals, for example those of Dennis Kucinich and other peace advocates, have never faced a vote because the Speaker can decide not to bring the issues to the floor. If Congresswoman Pelosi were to use that power to refuse to bring any authorization for more spending on the war onto the Floor of the House for a vote until the President make a firm commitment to begin withdrawal of troops now and completed by Spring of 2008, she could force an end to the war. If she did that, and if she brought to the floor the impeachment resolutions already introduced by several Congresspeople, Ms. Sheehan would withdraw from the political campaign. "
Posted by: no link. Pelosi vs Sheehan | September 24, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse
bsimon - yep, you got it. I owe you one. Looks like now he's greenwald. Damn.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 24, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse
For Christ's sake, Greenwald, get your own blog!
Weller was pretty dirty. His Nicaraugan wife is tied to the death squads, I beleive.
Posted by: DCAustinite | September 24, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse
"Along those same lines, this "interview" of Ahmadinejad by Scott Pelley of "60 Minutes" has to be read to be believed. As Ezra Klein says: "Pelley declined to interview Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and instead popped off aggressive statements as if he were a White House press release with a cardiovascular system."
It would be perfectly appropriate for Pelley to pose aggressive and challenging questions to Ahmadinejad. That is actually what reporters in general are supposed to do when questioning any government officials, not merely the Foreign Muslim Enemy du Jour. Fathom how elevated our political discourse would be if "reporters" like Pelley were even a fraction as adversarial and challenging when interviewing Bush officials as Pelley was when yelling at Ahmadinejad.
But Pelley did not question him so much as make a series of highly dubious war-fueling statements as fact. And far more revealing than Pelley's tone were the premises of his "questions" -- ones which blindly assumed every accusation of the Bush administration towards Iran to be true -- such as these:
PELLEY: Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans.
AHMADINEJAD: Why should it be insulting?
PELLEY: Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world. . . .
PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans, as if to be mocking the American people.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?
PELLEY: Well, the American nation . . .
PELLEY: Mr. President, you say that the two nations are very close to one another, but it is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, this is what the American officials are saying. . . .
PELLEY: Mr. President, American men and women are being killed by your weapons in Iraq. You know this.
PELLEY: Why are those weapons there?
PELLEY: The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq. The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There's no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir. . . .
AHMADINEJAD: Very good. If I may. Are you an American politician? Am I to look at you as an American politician or a reporter? . . . .
PELLEY: Mr. President, you must have rejoiced more than anyone when Saddam Hussein fell. You owe President Bush. This is one of the best things that's ever happened to your country.
Scott Pelley wants Ahmadinejad to know that -- like all of us -- he "owes President Bush." Almost every word out of Pelley's mouth was a faithful recitation of the accusations made by the Bush White House. Ahmadinejad obviously does not watch much American news because he seemed genuinely surprised that someone he thought was a reporter was doing nothing other than reciting the script of the government. "
Posted by: greewald | September 24, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse
"But what is new, and what most certainly is worth commenting upon, is this extremely disturbing report from The New York Sun regarding the threats made by Democratic State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to use state power to punish Columbia for inviting a speaker whom Silver dislikes. Silver -- who, among other things, has long been a leader in efforts to free convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from prison -- did not even bother to disguise the threats he was making:
As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus.
In an interview with The New York Sun, the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, said lawmakers, outraged over Columbia's insistence on allowing the Iranian president to speak at its World Leaders Forum, would consider reducing capital aid and other financial assistance to the school.
Lawmakers warned about other consequences for Columbia and its president, Lee Bollinger, who has resisted campus and public pressure to cancel Mr. Ahmadinejad's appearance today, arguing that Columbia's commitment to scholarship requires the school to directly confront offensive ideas.
"There are issues that Columbia may have before us that obviously this cavalier attitude would be something that people would recall," Mr. Silver said. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of . . . knowing that this is that kind of an institution" . . .
"It's not going to go away just because this episode ends. Columbia University has to know . . . that they will be penalized," an assemblyman of Brooklyn, Dov Hikind, who also attended the rally, said. The lawmaker said Mr. Ahmadinejad should be arrested when he sets foot on campus "
Posted by: greenwald | September 24, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse
"In any event, there is not much new worth saying about the "debate" over whether Columbia should have invited Ahmadinejad to speak. People either believe in the value of having academic institutions be a venue for airing all viewpoints or they do not. "
Posted by: greenwald | September 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse
"Monday September 24, 2007 11:05 EST Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy All of the hysteria over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speaking at Columbia University is so tiresome for so many reasons, beginning with the fact that it is all rather transparently motivated by exactly what Juan Cole says: "The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state."
In their minds, we are at war with Iran -- even though, in reality, i.e., according to our Constitution, we are not -- and all of the ensuing hysteria is rooted in the fantasy world they occupy in which Iran is our Enemy at War. By their nature, such fantasies cannot be reasoned with.
This desire to prevent people from speaking when they express views that one finds offensive is just always baffling. That is true in general, and includes even pettier though still inane suppression efforts such as this one, which recently resulted in the recission of an invitation to Larry Summers to speak at an event for the University of California regents. Other than converting the individual into a martyr and dramatically elevating their importance, what do people think is accomplished when a person with a certain viewpoint is denied a forum? "
Posted by: greenwald | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse
"Sunday September 23, 2007 06:21 EST Dianne Feinstein, symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat In the wake of the series of profound failures that define the 2007 Democratic Congress, there is much debate over what accounts for this behavior. There are almost 300 "Congressional Democrats" and they are not a monolithic group. Some of them are unrelenting defenders of their core liberal political values and some are committed to providing meaningful opposition to the radicalism and corruption of the Bush administration. But as the sorry record of the 2007 Congress conclusively proves, they are easily outnumbered in the House and Senate -- especially the Senate -- by Bush-enabling and Bush-supporting Democrats.
The standard excuse offered by many apologists for Bush-enabling Democrats -- that they support the Bush agenda and capitulate to the right-wing noise machine due to political fear of being depicted as too liberal or "soft on terror" -- is clearly inapplicable to many, if not most, of the enablers. California's Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein provides a perfect case study for understanding why the Congress has done virtually nothing to oppose the most extreme Bush policies, while doing much actively to support it.
Feinstein represents a deep blue state and was just easily re-elected to her third term last year. She won't run for re-election, if she ever does, until 2012, when she will be 80 years old. Her state easily re-elected a Senator, Barbara Boxer, with a much more liberal voting record than Feinstein's. Political fear cannot possibly explain her loyal support for the Bush agenda on the most critical issues decided by the Senate.
Additionally, Feinstein is a 74-year-old divorced Jewish woman currently on her third husband, and it is thus extremely unlikely that she harbors any hopes of running in the future on a national ticket. She has as secure a political position as any politician in the country. Whatever explains what she does, it has nothing to do with "spinelessness" or fear. What would she possibly fear?
And yet, her votes over the last several years, and especially this year after she was safely re-elected, are infinitely closer to the Bush White House and her right-wing Senate colleagues than they are to the base of her party or to the constituents she allegedly represents. Just look at what she has done this year on the most critical and revealing votes:
* Voted in FAVOR of funding the Iraq War without conditions;
* Voted in FAVOR of the Bush White House's FISA bill to drastically expand warrantless eavesdropping powers;
* Voted in FAVOR of condemning MoveOn.org;
* Cast the deciding vote in August on the Senate Judiciary Committee in FAVOR of the nomination of far right Bush nominee Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2006, Feinstein not only voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act without any of the critical safeguards sought by Sen. Feingold, among others, but she was one of the most outspoken Democratic proponents arguing for its extension ("I have never been in favor of allowing any provisions of the Patriot Act to expire."). Also in 2006, she not only voted in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw flag burning, but was, as she proudly described herself, "the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment."
In October of 2002, she (naturally) voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq. She now self-servingly claims that she "regrets" the vote and was tricked by the Bush administration into believing Saddam had WMDs, yet Scott Ritter has disclosed: "This is far different from the statement Feinstein made to me in the summer of 2002, when she acknowledged that the Bush administration had not provided any convincing intelligence to back up its claims about Iraqi WMD." And when it was revealed in August of this year that Awad Allawi had hired the most influential GOP lobbying firm to help oust Prime Minister Maliki, there was Sen. Feinstein leading the way in demanding Maliki's ouster.
Time and again, not only does she vote in favor of the most right-wing aspects of the Bush agenda, she uses her alleged expertise in areas of intelligence to pressure or give comfort to other Democrats wanting to do the same. Several of the 16 Democratic Senators who voted in favor of Bush's FISA bill in August, such as Jim Webb, cited assurances by Feinstein that she had obtained Secret Information as a member of the Intelligence Committee which proved how necessary this bill was. Similarly, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, she was one of the Democratic leaders urging the confirmation of Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA Director notwithstanding the central role he played as NSA Director in Bush's illegal surveillance programs.
Her primary allegiance is to the Beltway power system and her overwhelming affection is reserved for Beltway power brokers who are her true colleagues and constituents. That is particularly true of right-wing members of the defense and intelligence communities. Here, for instance, is the praise she oozed for the illegal-surveillance-implementing Gen. Hayden when urging his confirmation as CIA Director:
"I think the most important thing is that the individual be a competent, qualified, intelligent professional, and Mike Hayden is all of those things."
She said that while she supports a civilian leader of the CIA, "I don't know a civilian that's really as well-connected and competent in the present stage of intelligence in America, and I think that's relevant."
And to explain her vote in support of Bush's FISA bill, she cited the Absolute Integrity of Mike McConnell as her reason: I spoke with Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, at length this evening. He believes the United States is vulnerable, and that we need to move quickly to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The intelligence community is deeply concerned that chatter among suspected terrorist networks is up. I am concerned as well. We are living in a period of heightened vulnerability, and must give the intelligence community the tools they need to protect America. . . .
I voted for both bills because one needed 60 votes to pass. It is vital that we act now. We cannot leave the nation unprotected in this post-9/11 period.
What is so notable -- and most revealing -- about this is that Feinstein is a Democratic Senator from one of the most liberal states in the country. Conventional wisdom holds that she is a "liberal" or at least a moderate. She came onto the national scene in the 1980s as the Mayor of San Francisco, one of the most liberal large cities in the nation, and was twice re-elected by San Francisco residents.
In fairness, she casts some (usually futile) votes in favor of the standard Democratic agenda on issues such as the environment, gun control and the Military Commissions Act. And she'll listlessly participate in investigations that go nowhere, even when the White House defies or outright ignores subpoenas. But what she does with the greatest conviction is supports right-wing Bush measures and, above all else, is an ardent defender of the Beltway power establishment.
In this regard, she really symbolizes a major imbalance in the Washington political system. The right-wing Republicans in Congress have an affinity with their base and share the same basic values. One saw that quite vividly in the recent immigration debate, where most Congressional Republicans -- particularly the "conservative" ones -- embraced rather than ran away from their angry, impassioned base by blocking enactment of the immigration bill which the GOP establishment favored but which the right-wing base hated. Most conservative Senators sided with their base over the GOP establishment, as they usually do when there is a split (Harriet Miers, Dubai Port Deal, even steadfast support for the Iraq War). And they rarely repudiate the political value system of their base because they respect it and share it.
By very stark contrast, most (though certainly not all) Democrats in Congress -- particularly the most influential and longest-serving ones in the Senate like Feinstein -- have contempt for their base and share virtually none of their values. In March of last year, I had an e-mail exchange with the spokesperson for a key Democratic Senator on the Intelligence Committee regarding how bloggers and their readers could work more closely with Democratic Senators to highlight the need for the NSA lawbreaking scandal to be investigated and taken more seriously. Ultimately, they made clear that they wanted nothing to do with actual citizens who were eager to bring that situation about, as I was told:
I think there is an opportunity for us to figure out a better way to work together. But, you have to understand, my ultimate goal is to help [the] Senator [] achieve his objective of real oversight on national security matters by the Intelligence Committee.
Even with the best of intentions, I'm not convinced that bloggers can help us meet that goal. In fact, I worry about it hurting our efforts given the increasingly partisan environment.
As Digby said yesterday of Senate Democrats: "it surely seems true that they loathe the Democratic base as much as the Republicans do." Hence, Dianne Feinstein funds Bush's war with no limits while condemning MoveOn. She votes to vest vast new surveillance powers in the President. She defends and vouches for and places blind faith in the whole litany of Bush intelligence officials who have spent the last six years radicalizing this country and breaking the law.
Plainly, Feinstein does not do this out of political fear or "spinelessness," but because it is who she now is and what she believes. She and those like her are the reason why there is such a gaping disconnect between the Beltway political class and the political views of most Americans.
Most of these political officials who feed off of Washington year after year become appendages of it and vigorous defenders of nothing other than the Beltway system. They are drained of all belief, conviction and passion. And in Feinstein's case, it is particularly easy to understand why this is so. Her current husband, Richard Blum, is an extremely rich defense contractor whose companies have endless relationships with the work Feinstein does in the Senate. It is entirely unsurprising that Feinstein's affection is reserved for officials in the intelligence and defense communities because those are her social peers, the individuals with whom her husband interacts professionally and socially and with whom she most identifies.
More than anything else, Feinstein worships at the altar of the Beltway power system and its most revered members. Conversely, she has contempt for the liberal base which elects her and the constituents she represents. She long ago ceased being driven by the political values which serve as props for her campaigns, if she was ever driven by them. And that is the story of so many of the Beltway Democrats.
It really is one of the most extraordinary -- and downright embarrassing -- political facts that more Republicans than Democrats approve of the 2007 Democratic Congress. And why wouldn't they? The Democratic Congress has not restrained the Leader at all, but has done much to support and empower him. The Democratic Congress -- especially the Senate -- is controlled by the likes of Dianne Feinstein, and what Bush supporter wouldn't be satisfied with the role she is playing?
There are absolutely members of Congress who are ardent defenders of our basic Constitutional liberties and who are genuine opponents of the Bush administration. But the record of Congress leaves no doubt that they are wildly outnumbered.
It isn't only -- or even principally -- the "Blue Dogs" which make the "Democratic Congress" nothing but an enabling instrument of the Bush White House and its right-wing policies. Far worse are the establishment-defending, soul-less, belief-less, self-perpetuating "liberal Senators" like Feinstein who render the concept of "opposition party" nothing more than a deceitful illusion. Dianne Feinstein is the drained and Bush-enabling face of the 2007 Democratic Congress.
Moderate sell-outs are worse than the fascsit gop. At least the fascists stand for something, although they are scared to say what they REALLY are for. The moderates stand for nothing but money
Posted by: GREENWALD | September 24, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse
It reminds me of 1996, when Montana Democratic Congressman Pat Williams decided to retire before the first election that occured after the GOP took control of Congress. He wasn't alone as several senior Democrats decided to retire.
Williams had been the 1st District Congressman for several terms. When Montana lost its second house seat after the 1990 census, he faced off veteran Republican Congressman Ron Marlenee of the 2nd District and won the new at-large seat in a close vote. Since Williams' retirement, the at-large seat has been in Republican hands. Current Republican Congressman Dennis Rehberg hasn't had a strong challenger since his initial election to the seat in 2000.
This year the only serious competitor for the seat is Bill Kennedy, one of the commisioners of Yellowstone County, Montana's most populous. But Rehberg is a native son of Yellowstone County as well. Whether Kennedy can make a serious run is going to depend on whether he can form a strong grass-roots campaign like Democratic Senator Jon Tester did in 2006 when he knocked off three-term incumbant Conrad Burns.
Of course Rehberg has no scandal cloud hanging over him the way that the Abramoff affair shadowed Burns, who was the largest single recipient of funds raised through Abramoff (his former chief of staff also worked for Abramoff).
Still, Montana has proved to be a purple state when it comes to state offices. The Legislature is evenly divided. Democrats hold a 6-2 edge in state-wide elected seats to State Government and Congress.
If Kennedy can get the footwork done to make a strong challenge, he may eck out a win if 2008 turns out to be the big Democratic year that some are anticipating.
Posted by: Alan in Missoula | September 24, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse
Anon writes "'NOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST. MAYBE WE'LL EVEN GET A 67 SEAT VETO-PROOF MAJORITY AT THIS RATE."
Given that the 67 seat veto-override requirement is in the Senate and this post is about the House, your observation can best be described as 'misinformed'. Though other, stronger adjectives might be more appropriate.
p.s. proud- who called it? ;-)
Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse
'NOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST. MAYBE WE'LL EVEN GET A 67 SEAT VETO-PROOF MAJORITY AT THIS RATE. HALLELUJAH!
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse
You cucceded in silencing one leftist. Congradulations.
"tO ANY AND ALL THAT WANT ME SILENCED. To everybody who thinks only the right should have a voice in this country. You have won a small battle. i am done blogging. Rejoice, everyone who is for the silencing of free speech, and is for fascism. The right is forcing Clinton on the nation. I had hope the people would not be for it. The right is forcing the democrats to run hillary. The democractic/republican party has made it's choice. It choose more of the same. We will get the same partisan bickering for four years. At that time we will revisit this again. The GOP/Democratic party bought themselves four more years of fascist rule. They choose fascism over democracy.
The political conversation is slighted so that only conservatives opinon is heard. And the left are now crazies and voice-less. You win. I'm going back under ground. I hope you are satisfied. silence the left. Just know everything you claim to be for, you are not. Free speech, democracy, republic, right AND left.
A new thrid party will burst on the scene in the next four years. It will be for the constitution. It will be a party of the people. Watch for it.
But you win. you have tilted the conversation so much to your side it is not possible for me to make any leway in this format. The government is so one sided, for republicans, they are forcing the opposition parties candidate. Does anyone see anything wrong with this?
You win. you silenced one socialist. Congradulations. Now continue destroying the country gop. Force your will down everyone's throughts. put a camera on every corner. Listen to every conversation. Just know you have used your time foolishly and selfishly.
One party rule is slavery. You may have won this small battle. You may tilt the agrument so much the other side no longer exists. But we still will exist. I will always hold the feeling I profressed here. Whether I am silenced or now i will hold these feelings. Just becasue I am no longer allowed TO SPEAK, doesn't mean that I don't hold these feelings in my head and close to my heart.
"If you can't win cheat". That is your motto. You have destroyed the media the justice depart our foreign relations, economices and you label me the bad guy. Much like Nizon had his share of public enemies (John Lennon, MLK). Were they the problem? Or where they pointing to the problem?
You win short term gop. Toast it up. Congradulate yourself. Real americans and real patriots should be crying at what has befallen us. Not laughin, not making a mockery of the public conversation.
so peace. One last time remember what I told you people. It's for real this time. The hope I had for this nation, given by the 06 elections, has been crushed by the republicans succesfully choosin gthe oppositions party for them. Sad day. goo dluck all. I wasn't lying to you. Watch for the book. Watch for the new party.
ALL POWER BACKK TO THE PEOPLE.
Peace. You will hear from me again. Not on this blog though. You wasted the time we had. You used your time unwisely.
Posted by: RUFUS | September 24, 2007 11:02 AM
Peace. god Bless all ."Don't believe the hype". Remember what I told you. Ignore the peanut gallery. Ingnore the fascist cry babies. They are not cry babies. They are crying and complaining their way to fascism. Don't let them win.
Posted by: LAst one. fascists pop your corks | September 24, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Chris Cillizza is the author of The Fix, a blog on national politics. Cillizza provides daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
| 427.35 | 0.825 | 1.375 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400128.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400128.html
|
U.N. Chief Calls for 'Real Breakthrough' On Climate Change
|
2007092419
|
Ban organized Monday's meeting to build political momentum for negotiations set for December in Bali, Indonesia, on a new treaty, which is expected to impose deep cuts on emissions of heat-trapping gases by industrial powers.
Ban stressed the urgency of reaching agreement on a plan of action that would replace the world's principal climate accord, the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement, which the Bush administration opposes, expires at the end of 2012.
"Our goal must be nothing short of a real breakthrough," Ban said. "Inaction now will prove the costliest action of all in the long term."
Ban called on industrialized powers to show greater leadership in cutting emissions and said that poor countries will require incentives to lower emission levels "without sacrificing economic growth or poverty reduction." Although Ban did not outline a specific proposal for emission caps, a senior U.N. adviser said Ban believes a legally binding limit on industrial emissions is essential.
Monday's event brought together Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other representatives of the world's largest industrial polluters, along with envoys from some of the poorest and most vulnerable states, including small island nations that demanded financial relief from the United States and other countries.
President Bush, a fierce opponent of industrial emissions caps, agreed to discuss climate change at a dinner hosted by Ban on Monday. Bush has scheduled a meeting on Thursday and Friday in Washington with the world's 16 "major emitters," including China and India, to try to coordinate a common response to global warming. U.N. diplomats and environmental experts think Bush will use the event to press for a voluntary approach to global warming.
Rice told the delegates Monday that the U.S. meetings will "support and help advance" the U.N. discussions. "We believe the U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change," she said.
But Bush's position appeared out of step with the spirit of an event that featured calls by Japanese and European political leaders for deep cuts in emissions.
"Let us together set objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy, noting that the European Union is committed to a 50 percent reduction in global greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2050. "Failure to act would mean going beyond the point of no return."
Schwarzenegger said his state is following Europeans' example. "California is moving the United States beyond debate and doubt to action," he said. "It is time we came together in a new international agreement that can be embraced by rich and poor nations alike."
The appearance of so many world leaders at the event demonstrated that the international community intends to "proceed with the U.N.'s binding treaty negotiations almost regardless of what the administration does," said Philip Clapp, head of the National Environmental Trust. "The president is not only rapidly becoming a lame duck domestically but internationally as well."
|
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 24 -- U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Monday that a 15-year international effort to stem global warming has not halted the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions and that governments must take "unprecedented action" to reverse the trend.
| 12.06383 | 0.659574 | 0.87234 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401470.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401470.html
|
'Superbugs' Could Benefit Humans
|
2007092419
|
¿ A high school student gains superpowers after being bitten by a radioactive spider.
¿ An electron beam meant to clean up a bioterrorism site transforms a mild-mannered microbe into a life form able to withstand radiation doses hundreds of times stronger than would kill a person.
¿ Altered by the absence of gravity, an everyday bacterium aboard a spacecraft mutates into a highly lethal bug that poses a surprise threat to astronauts.
Okay, Spider-Man is still fiction. But a pair of independent studies has brought the other two scenarios to life.
The twin tales of menacing mutants are stark reminders of the microbial kingdom's immense versatility -- and of the inadvertent biological transformations that can be wrought by human activities.
But they also point to potential new therapies for cancer and infectious diseases that otherwise might never have been identified.
"When we push the frontier and push biological systems to their limits to see what they can do, that's often when we get the breakthrough insights," said Cheryl Nickerson, a microbiologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, whose experiment led to the creation of lethal bacteria on a recent space shuttle mission -- in fully sealed containers, she emphasized.
That experiment, flown aboard the shuttle Atlantis last fall, was the first to test in true weightlessness a curious observation: In conditions mimicking microgravity on Earth, bacteria undergo changes that make them more deadly.
|
Science news from The Washington Post. Read about the latest breakthroughs in technology,medicine and communications.
| 13.6 | 0.35 | 0.35 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400181.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400181.html
|
Suicide Attack Kills 21 at Gathering Intended to Reconcile Iraqi Factions
|
2007092419
|
BAGHDAD, Sept. 24 -- A suicide bomber attacked a reconciliation gathering of Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders, provincial officials and security commanders in Baqubah on Monday, killing at least 21 people, including the city's police chief.
Witnesses said the bomber rushed into a Shiite mosque in the city, the capital of Diyala province, where those gathered had just completed their iftar feast, the meal that breaks their day-long fast during the current holy month of Ramadan.
"We had just finished and were heading to the places to wash our hands, and then a big explosion took place," said Uday al-Nidawi, a leader of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, a Sunni insurgent group that has recently cooperated with U.S. forces. "A suicide bomber rushed inside. The police were running after him and they were shooting at him, but he managed to get really near the area where everybody was sitting."
The bombing apparently was intended to disrupt U.S. efforts to foster reconciliation between tribal groups and turn them against al-Qaeda in Iraq, a predominantly Iraqi insurgent group that the Bush administration and U.S. generals view as their primary foe. While no group had asserted responsibility for the attack by Monday night, it mirrored attacks previously conducted by al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The dead included Brig. Gen. Ali Delyian al-Jorani, the commander of Baqubah police, as well as other senior commanders and sheiks. The governor of the province, Raad Rashid Mulla Jawad, was among dozens injured, security officials said.
Thousands of U.S. troops were funneled into Baqubah, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, this summer to tackle insurgents, many of whom fled a security offensive unfolding in the capital. Senior U.S. commanders have described their efforts as a success, but Monday's bombing illustrated the challenges still facing U.S. troops as they attempt to bring stability to Iraq.
In a separate attack Monday in the northern city of Tall Afar, a suicide truck bomb detonated at a joint Iraqi police and military checkpoint at around 2 p.m., killing six and wounding 17, said police Brig. Gen. Ibrahim al-Jubory.
Also on Monday, the U.S. military reported that a U.S. soldier had died of wounds from "enemy fire" in Salahuddin province, in northern Iraq.
Meanwhile, Iran closed major border crossings with Iraq's northern semiautonomous Kurdish region on Monday, apparently to protest the detention of an Iranian official by U.S. military authorities, according to news agency reports. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the Associated Press in an interview that the intent was to protect pilgrims.
The border closings come four days after U.S. forces took Mahmudi Farhadi into custody in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah. U.S. officials alleged that Farhadi is a member of the elite al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which U.S. commanders say is playing a role in fomenting violence in Iraq against U.S. troops. But Iranian and Iraqi officials insist that Farhadi was here at the invitation of the Iraqi government.
Last week, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, demanded Farhadi's release in a letter to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. He warned that Iran had threatened to close its border with Iraq's Kurdish region, an action that would disrupt the Kurdish economy, which thrives on cross-border trading.
Special correspondents Saad al-Izzi and Dalya Hassan in Baghdad, Dlovan Brwari in Mosul and a special correspondent in Diyala contributed to this report.
|
BAGHDAD, Sept. 24 -- A suicide bomber attacked a reconciliation gathering of Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders, provincial officials and security commanders in Baqubah on Monday, killing at least 21 people, including the city's police chief.
| 16 | 1 | 42 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301471.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301471.html
|
Contractor Blamed in DHS Data Breaches
|
2007092419
|
On Friday, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) called on DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner to launch his own investigation.
As part of the contract, Unisys, based in Blue Bell, Pa., was to install network-intrusion detection devices on the unclassified computer systems for the TSA and DHS headquarters and monitor the networks. But according to evidence gathered by the House Homeland Security Committee, Unisys's failure to properly install and monitor the devices meant that DHS was not aware for at least three months of cyber-intrusions that began in June 2006. Through October of that year, Thompson said, 150 DHS computers -- including one in the Office of Procurement Operations, which handles contract data -- were compromised by hackers, who sent an unknown quantity of information to a Chinese-language Web site that appeared to host hacking tools.
The contractor also allegedly falsely certified that the network had been protected to cover up its lax oversight, according to the committee.
"For the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on building this system within Homeland, we should demand accountability by the contractor," Thompson said in an interview. "If, in fact, fraud can be proven, those individuals guilty of it should be prosecuted."
A Unisys spokeswoman, Lisa Meyer, said that "no investigative body has notified us formally or informally of a criminal investigation" on the matter and added that she could not comment on specific security incidents.
She said that Unisys has provided DHS "with government-certified and accredited security programs and systems, which were in place throughout 2006 and remain so today."
The DHS intrusions are especially disturbing in light of a rash of attacks on government computer systems linked to Chinese servers, Thompson said. Since last year, hackers have penetrated e-mail and other systems at the Defense, State and Commerce departments. Unisys was not providing information-security services in those cases.
National security and cyber-security experts say the U.S. government and its contractors are the target of a growing cyber-warfare effort that they suspect is being conducted by the Chinese government and its proxies with the aim of stealing military secrets and accessing the computer networks of the world's only military superpower. The trend, they say, reflects the convergence of cyber-crime and espionage, abetted by the availability of hacker tools on the Internet and lax information-technology security.
"This is a warning that our networks are porous and vulnerable to the new breed of hackers," said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
DHS, which oversees agencies critical to domestic security, including the TSA and Customs and Border Protection, has insufficiently secured its networks, Thompson said. He said he is "troubled" by what he sees as DHS officials' indifference to the problem.
|
The FBI is investigating a major information technology firm with a $1.7 billion Department of Homeland Security contract after it allegedly failed to detect cyber break-ins traced to a Chinese-language Web site and then tried to cover up its deficiencies, according to congressional investigators.
| 10.882353 | 0.627451 | 1.843137 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300738.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300738.html
|
Moreno's Goal Gives United Tie on Road
|
2007092419
|
CHICAGO, Sept. 23 -- The goal that saved an afternoon of largely sluggish play for D.C. United wasn't supposed to be a goal. The ball that left the foot of forward Jaime Moreno in the 84th minute wasn't even supposed to be a shot. It was meant as a cross and ended up earning United a point in the MLS standings.
"We looked like a team that had some time off," United Coach Tom Soehn said. "It wasn't our normal effort, but to get a point on the road on a day when you're missing some is important."
Sunday's match was United's first in 11 days. The team also played without three key contributors -- midfielders Christian Gomez, Ben Olsen and Fred each served a yellow card suspension.
Though admittedly outplayed, United preserved a tie thanks to Moreno's errant cross. After stealing the ball just outside the Chicago box, Moreno faked a pass once and then again as he moved down the right side.
When Moreno finally sent the ball on its way, he hoped one of his teammates would finish the job. Instead, the ball hooked over Fire goalkeeper Matt Pickens and into the net.
"It was supposed to be a cross," Moreno said. "It's too bad for their keeper. He thought it was going to stay outside. It didn't loop nice, but at the end of the day, we'll take it."
The same could be said for Sunday's outcome in general.
Time after time in the first half, the Fire pressed toward the United goal, sprinting just a little faster, fighting for position just a little harder. Chicago's play was emblematic of a team clinging to the eighth and final MLS playoff spot, of a team desperate by necessity.
Likewise, United roamed the pitch like a team with a secured playoff berth vying for the league's best record.
"They needed the points," United goalkeeper Troy Perkins said. "We knew they were going to push and give everything they had. In the first 15 minutes we let them dictate the way the game would go."
For the most part, the action seemed to follow one man -- Fire forward Cuauht¿moc Blanco -- as he moved from one side of the field to the other, orchestrating the attack.
In the 13th minute, Blanco moved the ball down the middle before feeding it to forward Chad Barrett on the right side of the box. A sliding block from United defender Greg Vanney was all that kept Barrett from a clean shot at the goal.
Blanco left his most noticeable mark on the match in the 18th minute when he lofted the ball to Barrett down the middle of the field.
As he neared the box, Barrett fought for position with United defender Bryan Namoff as they ran side-by-side. Barrett won that matchup, then slid the ball past Perkins to the far post from 15 yards.
After claiming a 2-1 win Sept. 12 over Salt Lake, United became the first team to clinch a berth in the MLS playoffs. That match also was the last game United had played before Sunday.
With five weeks remaining in the season, United finds itself concerned with less vital matters such as claiming the Supporters' Shield -- given to the team with the best regular season record -- than they are about making the playoffs. Chicago does not have that luxury.
The Fire almost was able to capitalize on its sense of desperation, and may have provided a jolt to the United in the process.
"We're not pleased with the whole performance, but we know we're going to have games like that where we just have to fight," Moreno said. "We want to maintain the level we have played at the last 16-18 games. I don't think today we played a good game of soccer, but we got a point on the road. We'll take it."
|
Playing without three suspended players, playoff-bound D.C. United gets a late goal from Jaime Moreno to manage a 1-1 tie with the Fire on Sunday.
| 24.967742 | 0.774194 | 1.16129 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300112.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300112.html
|
Party Elder To Be Japan's New Premier
|
2007092419
|
He will take over from Shinzo Abe, 53, the relatively youthful but corrosively unpopular prime minister who left his party in perhaps its worst political mess since World War II, when he abruptly announced his desire to quit 11 days ago and checked into a hospital for stress-related stomach trouble.
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has monopolized postwar political power in Japan, badly lost its way during Abe's one year in power, as financial scandals and failure to address a fiasco involving 50 million misfiled pension records led to a crushing defeat in midsummer elections for the upper house of parliament.
"It has become clear that we have not won the trust of the Japanese people," Fukuda said after his selection as party leader. The LDP still controls the lower house, which selects the prime minister.
"There will be no sudden improvement" in the ruling party's popularity, he added. "In order to win back trust, one can only build one block at a time."
To that end, Fukuda is promising to tone down the nationalist rhetoric of his two most recent predecessors, strengthen ties with China, negotiate with North Korea and carefully cultivate Japan's strong relationship with the United States.
He has promised not to visit the Yasukuni war shrine in Tokyo, where Japanese war criminals are honored among the country's 2 million war dead.
After much-publicized visits by Junichiro Koizumi, the prime minister whom Fukuda served as cabinet chief, the shrine has become a potent symbol across Asia of Japan's seeming ambivalence about its wartime atrocities.
Abe exacerbated those concerns by backing away from his nation's previous apologies for its wartime policy of forcing women to become sex slaves for Japanese soldiers. Abe said there was no documentation proving that the military coerced women into sexual slavery, a statement contradicted by documents found by Japanese government researchers.
"The LDP can't afford to cause any more blunders," said Harumi Arima, a political analyst. "They want to wipe out the inexperienced, childish image of Abe, and they desperately want to win back trust from the Japanese people."
Fukuda conceded last week that he lacks charisma but argued that his party's problems -- a perception of incompetence and of being politically tone-deaf -- cannot be solved merely by a strong personality.
|
TOKYO, Sept. 23 -- Japan's troubled ruling party on Sunday chose as its leader an admittedly uncharismatic party elder known for his dovish foreign policy and quiet political know-how.
| 13.264706 | 0.529412 | 0.705882 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400809.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400809.html
|
Bayh Endorses Clinton for President
|
2007092419
|
"I believe she will run a campaign that is both tough and smart when it comes to protecting our nation's security," Bayh said at a news conference with Clinton.
Bayh, a former governor of a Republican-leaning state, is in his second term in the Senate. He won re-election with 62 percent of the vote in 2004 and is considered a possible Democratic vice presidential choice in 2008.
A colleague of Clinton's on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Bayh pursued a possible presidential bid until late last year when he dropped out of the race amid evidence that Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois were building formidable campaign organizations.
Clinton said she agreed with Bayh, a centrist, that "Democrats should campaign everywhere in America." He was named a national co-chair of her campaign.
Clinton and Bayh traveled together to Iraq in January, just before Clinton announced she would seek the Democratic nomination. Bayh is one of several potential presidential contenders who have abandoned their own bids to endorse her.
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack dropped his bid last winter to become the New York senator's campaign chairman. Last week, retired Gen. Wesley Clark also announced he was backing Clinton.
"Hillary Clinton is a seasoned, experienced leader who will be ready to lead this country on Day One," Bayh said.
Earlier this year, Obama suggested that only former President Clinton would be ready from Day One, slighting Sen. Clinton.
Separately, Obama picked up the endorsement of Gordon Fischer, a former Iowa Democratic Party chairman. Fischer, who can provide organizational help, said he will spend the next 100 days traveling the state on Obama's behalf.
|
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who once aspired to the Democratic presidential nomination, on Monday endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the White House.
| 10.9 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301294.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301294.html
|
A Journey Worth Taking
|
2007092419
|
Count yourself among the fortunate if you've scored tickets to "My Trip to Al-Qaeda," Lawrence Wright's exquisitely observed travelogue into the dark, twisted heart of Middle East extremism.
Like that cool professor whose courses always fill up first, Wright is the kind of conveyer of wisdom who doesn't so much lecture as seduce. On the stage of the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater, he exudes the qualities of a lyrical cultural detective -- and just as important, a decent human being.
The matter of this elegantly produced 75-minute discourse comes from the material that Wright, a New Yorker writer, collected in researching his book "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11," which won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction this year. What he seeks to explore here is something that has remained frustratingly elusive, and something our government has done little to help us with, despite the depth and terrible cost of our involvement: understand the mind-set that fuels fanatical Muslims' hatred of America.
Mainstream journalism has been taking it pretty hard on the chin lately. As a longtime member of this particular tribe, I have to say that watching Wright reminded me how vital journalism's finer practitioners truly are -- how a smart, gutsy guy armed with pen, curiosity and compassion can still be an extraordinarily useful go-between with the people and places that threaten us.
Wright does not by any means pretend to be Ian McKellen; the production, as directed by Gregory Mosher, grew out of a talk the writer gave at a symposium sponsored by his magazine. (He does have a link to show business, by virtue of the screenplay he co-wrote for "The Siege," a 1998 box office underachiever about, of all things, massive terrorist attacks in New York.) Despite slack acting muscles, though, there's something undeniably magnetic about him. Is it the serene authority that his deep engagement with the Middle East has conferred on him? Or is it simply the soothing way he talks? Speaking in a gentle Oklahoma drawl, he can verge at times on monotone.
On this occasion, however, a lack of conservatory polish does no harm at all. It is the quality of Wright's thought that counts.
The set is a reporter's office, with flat-screen computer, Persian rug and filing cabinets. The milieu is a reporter's notebook. (The show is like "Frontline" in 3-D.) Intermittently, photographs and film and video clips are projected onto a screen to illustrate and embroider: old footage of Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, denouncing his police torture from an Egyptian jail cell; a panoramic view of countless faithful on the pilgrimage to Mecca, which Wright tells us is "the largest human gathering on the planet."
The characteristic scale of "My Trip to Al-Qaeda," however, is the personal, and in some of his insights you get a bit of the vinegar of Mark Twain. (His comparing Saudi Arabia to a hypnotized chicken is just one folksy example.) As a photo flashes on the screen of two women in a Saudi shopping mall covered by their black abayas, Wright relates a funny anecdote about being in a mall during the time he spent in 2003 as mentor to reporters at a Saudi newspaper, the Gazette. (It was the only way he could get a visa.) The story is about how the religious laws of the country separate men and women to such a wrenching degree that the merest glimpse of the opposite sex induces intense longing.
Strolling in the mall with his male charges, he and they catch sight of the covered women, whom the local men cheekily nickname BMOs (Black Moving Objects). Without an iota of irony, Wright says, one of the Saudi men leeringly exclaims: "Check 'em out!"
Indeed, what Wright conveys about the incongruities of Saudi society -- the prevalence of depression brought on by severe boredom ("nothing between the government and the mosque except shopping"); the penchant of ex-cons who have memorized the Koran in jail to become on the outside enforcers of religious law -- may give you a clearer, more visceral sense of that kingdom than any other encounter with it from afar.
This, of course, is Wright's intention. As he paints for us pictures of the people he met, the things he reported on, in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan, he folds in aspects of history and even psychology to give some context to what the appeal of al-Qaeda might be. Although he clearly believes American policy has been a tragic bungle, and that like the Americans, the actions of Arab governments have served al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts, "My Trip to Al-Qaeda" is not a screed. No attempt is made to minimize the terrorists' depravity; his thesis is that we've given a repugnant cult of hatred and death-worship all the justification it needs.
In "My Trip," it should be noted, Wright allows the mask of the outsider to fall away occasionally -- and goes in powerfully for the gut. In the story of some little girls in an Iraqi family terrified at a search of their home by American forces, Wright wants us to feel for an instant what they felt. And so suddenly, he drops to his knees, his arms raised in utterly defenseless surrender. His monologue brings us all to a more intimate kinship with futility.
My Trip to Al-Qaeda, written and performed by Lawrence Wright. Directed by Gregory Mosher. Lighting, Duane Schuler; production stage manager, Geoffrey Lake. About 75 minutes. Tonight, Wednesday and Thursday at the Kennedy Center Terrace Theater. Call 202-467-4600 or visit http://www.kennedy-center.org.
|
Search Washington, DC area theater/dance events and venues from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for theater, dance, opera, musicals, and childrens theater.
| 30.540541 | 0.486486 | 0.702703 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/09/synaplex.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/09/synaplex.html
|
High Holiday Times at the Syna-Plex
|
2007092319
|
One of my favorite Jewish jokes -- and I grew up in New Jersey hearing a lot of them -- involves the old Jewish man who was shipwrecked on a desert island and is finally rescued after being stranded for years. Before leaving the island, he offers his rescuer a tour.
On this end of the island, he says (and the audio version of this joke might be better than the written variety) there is one shul. And here, on the other end of the island, is the other.
His rescuer is confused: "How can this be? You've been living alone on this island for 20 years. Why in the world do you have two synagogues?"
"To that one, I wouldn't go," the man replies.
I think of this joke often at this time of year, because my own family has turned into a something of a living example of to-that-one-I-wouldn't-go-ism. As it happens, my two younger brothers and I all live in the Washington area, and it didn't take too long after the grandchildren arrived for my parents to decamp from the Garden State to move here too.
Among the four families, we belong to four different synagogues: My parents attend a conservative synagogue in Bethesda; my family a conservative synagogue in the District. One brother and his family attend a conservative synagogue in Olney; the other has been bouncing between a Reconstructionist synagogue in Bethesda and a Reform congregation.
This is, of course, completely ridiculous but not, as the joke suggests, unique. At the Yom Kippur break-fast we attend every year at our friends Ron and Monica's house, we are four families that go to three different synagogues (one Conservative, two Reform) -- and it has become something of a ritual to spend part of the evening complaining about our own.
We Jews are, I think it's fair to say, a kvetchy people. If Goldilocks were Jewish, she'd still be trying out chairs. So when we look at synagogues, we think: this one is too fancy-schmancy, this one too touchy-feely. This one is too hard-core for me; this one has bad parking. (Not making that one up: it's one of the chief reasons my parents won't switch from theirs to ours.)
Even within synagogues, there is often a buffet of choices these days. In my own, I find myself wandering from service to service, like the children of Israel in search of the Promised Land. Musical Musaf? Family Service? Traditional Minyan? My friend and fellow congregant Ben has the best line about our shul: "It's not a synagogue, it's syna-plex."
And while I suppose I appreciate the choice -- to that sermon I wouldn't go -- I miss the traditional, take-it-or-leave-it shul of my childhood. For the High Holidays, there was an adult service and a children's service, and children below a certain age couldn't get past the ushers and into the adult one unless they were bleeding. Profusely.
Even though there were not assigned seats, every family had its place, and woe unto anyone who blundered into another's chosen row. Near the front, on the right hand side, the Marcuses sat behind the Dormans, next to the Nusims, and all was right with the world. At least, that is, if we children turned up before the hour when my father would stand, pivot to face the entrance, and put his hand to his eyes, like Ahab in search of the whale, until we arrived, late and in trouble.
I went to my parents' synagogue for the second day of Rosh HaShanah, and I have to say: it was comforting to know just where to find them: up toward the front, on the right-hand side. Also, the parking was not a problem.
Ruth Marcus is an editorial writer for The Post, specializing in American politics, campaign finance, the federal budget and taxes, and other domestic issues. She writes a weekly column that appears on Wednesdays.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 58.642857 | 0.357143 | 0.357143 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mj_akbar/2007/09/no_easy_way_out_for_military_d.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mj_akbar/2007/09/no_easy_way_out_for_military_d.html
|
No Easy Way Out for Military Dictators
|
2007092319
|
The question needs to be reversed: only a strong state can build a strong military, and not the other way around. Wherever the military has taken over the state, or made itself synonymous with the stateâs preservation, both the military and the state have weakened. Protected by the thin veneer of false patriotism, a military regime with civilian authority destroys the very principles that make an armed force viable â accountability being at the top of the list.
Pakistan, like so many other nations that have been victims of dictatorship, has a familiar problem. Its policy has enough loopholes to permit dictators to get into power, but no one has discovered an efficient, or even untidy, exit route. It requires either a domestic calamity (the bungled wars of 1965 and 1971) or divine intervention (as in the case of General Zia ul Haq) to remove Pakistan's generals from office. President Pervez Musharraf has been intelligent enough to avoid the first, and lucky enough to survive the second. One wonders if Pakistan's luck is as good as his.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
|
PostGlobal features David Ignatius and Fareed Zakaria and other international figures in debates on global news and politics. Stay on top of international news and join the conversation at PostGlobal.
| 7.151515 | 0.424242 | 0.484848 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/vivian_salama/2007/09/military_hegemony_does_not_a_d.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/vivian_salama/2007/09/military_hegemony_does_not_a_d.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007092319
|
There are numerous countries with strong militaries that are a far cry from democracies. One factor to consider is the order in which the two develop: in other words, if democracy comes first and military strength develops later, perhaps the two can develop and coexist more harmoniously than if the opposite were true.
Let's look back at a vintage example. When Gamal Abdel-Nasser and his Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) overthrew the Egyptian monarchy in 1952, it was, for many, a rebirth of a nation free from imperialism and on a path to self-determination and democracy. However, RCC insiders including Abdel-Nasser believed that the post-revolutionary regime was too fragile to be contested right away. Martial law was implemented and the military maintained a firm grip on the country's internal operations. Crackdowns against dissidents â most of all the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood â grew harsh. Hundreds were sentenced to death and thousands more were imprisoned.
Fast forward more than 50 years. The country's current President Hosni Mubarak has ruled for 26 years and many believe the elderly president, whose health has been the subject of debate in recent weeks, is prepping his elder son to take over. When Mubarak's predecessor Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981, the Emergency Law was implemented and remained in effect until a recent referendum changed the law to a so-called Anti-Terrorism Law. The new law essentially puts a muzzle on most political activity and grants the military the right to flex its muscles when it sees fit. Amnesty International called the new law the "greatest erosion of human rights in 26 years." Opponents called the referendum a "constitutional coup" by the Mubarak regime and say it has only made Egyptâs old Martial Law permanent.
Granted, a strong military is usually required to deter conquest. But it can also increase the chances of a military coup if the leader abuses authority, and thus requires a delicate balancing act. Mubarak need not worry as he is a top US ally and any threat to his regime is taken very seriously in Washington. (It is worth noting that Egypt is the number two recipient of U.S. economic and military aid, second only to Israel.) The Muslim Brotherhood is extremely powerful and has an enormous following in Egypt, which is why the Egyptian National Guard can now be spotted on the streets in growing numbers. Many Egyptian leaders argue that the military must be mobilized to prevent a descent into chaos. Be that as it may, military hegemony does not a democracy make.
A strong military and democracy are not codependent. There are democracies around the world which function despite having less than impressive militaries. There are countries with strong militaries that exercise undemocratic practices, such as China. The United States is probably the best example of a democracy with a strong military, but democracy came long before military strength (and I would argue that when America's military strength is put to the test, the noose tightens on democratic liberties).
Turkey is another interesting case. The military plays a dominant role in Turkish society, which has seen three coups over a span of 20 years. But the Muslim nation is certainly a democracy. Given the recent developments in Turkish politics, it would appear that the military is trying to play the role of silent actor â at least during the country's campaign for EU integration.
The problem with governments like that of Gamal Abdel-Nasser, Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf, and even that of the late Saddam Hussein, is that when military power is justified as necessary for the survival of the regime, it often comes at the expense of democracy. Loss of liberty at the hand of a strong military is usually a recipe for disaster.
It reminds me of a quote by Benjamin Franklin: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." If only Ben Franklin could see the world now.
|
Vivian Salama at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/vivian_salama/
| 41.555556 | 0.444444 | 0.444444 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201347.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201347.html
|
Obama's Challenge: Gain Lead in Polls
|
2007092319
|
While the candidates for the White House will spend the next week furiously raising money in advance of their next financial reporting deadline, the man who has raised the most is facing a different challenge: turning that money into a lead in the polls.
Like his fellow contenders, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who led all candidates in both parties by pulling in $58.5 million over the first six months of the year, will be holding a string of fundraisers this week, before the latest quarterly fundraising deadline of Sept. 30.
Even before the totals are announced, however, some of the donors who have helped raise millions for Obama are beginning to ask when the gap in polls between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) will finally begin to narrow. The first votes in the primary season will be cast in less than four months, and the nomination could be wrapped up in a matter of weeks after that.
"People ask me all the time when I'm raising money: 'What is going on with the polling?' " one member of Obama's national finance committee said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the campaign's restriction on committee members speaking to the news media. "He drives out great crowds wherever he goes, but everyone still wonders a little bit if that's going to turn into votes."
Clinton, despite becoming the subject of frequent sniping from her rivals, has shown no signs of faltering. Riding a consistent double-digit lead over Obama in national polls, she will make a media blitz this morning, appearing on five of the top network and cable talk shows. She is also ahead in most surveys in the early-voting states, except in Iowa where the race is tight.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe contended that the race should be viewed through the early crucible of Iowa, which remains almost certain to have the first say in the nomination contest despite a shifting campaign calendar.
"I think Iowa is in a different level of engagement than any other state in the country, and what you see there is a very tight three-way contest" among Obama, Clinton and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), Plouffe said in an interview. "It's the only place we've advertised in and the place Senator Obama has spent most of his time."
Some Obama supporters are pushing him to make a change in strategy: a full, no-holds-barred attack on Clinton and aspects of her husband's legacy. For now, sources said, others inside the campaign -- most important, the candidate himself -- favor a more nuanced approach, seeking contrast with Clinton on issues that emphasize Obama's strengths, particularly the notion that he can unite Americans while arguing that the Clintons are more polarizing figures.
"Are we going to distort quotes and votes from 15 or 20 years ago? No," Plouffe said. "That's not the kind of campaign Barack wants to run. But when we do have significant differences . . . those are issues we're going to engage on."
Obama is making some changes to his campaign. In Iowa last week, the campaign launched its first television ads that featured Obama speaking directly to the camera. Valerie Jarrett, a longtime family friend who vacations with the Obamas at Martha's Vineyard, will begin spending more time in the headquarters and possibly on the road with Obama. Aides characterized the move not as a major reshuffling but rather an attempt to add depth to the campaign's staff.
Steve Hildebrand, a veteran Democratic operative who has been overseeing the early-states strategy of Obama, is broadening his portfolio to include states such as California and New York that will vote on what could amount to a national mega-primary on Feb. 5. He is taking this tack as Obama aides are preparing for a protracted nomination battle, betting that balloting in Iowa and New Hampshire alone will not determine the final outcome of the contest.
As Obama wrestles with the enviable problem of translating a slew of cash into upward movement in the polls, the other candidates are simply hoping to wring out enough contributions in the next week to meet the high expectations established in the first half of the year. Aides to many are warning that the pockets of the nation's political donors may not be bottomless.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com Politics Information on Democrats,Republicans,political cartoons,opinions,government policies,political analysis and reports." elections,campaigns,Democrats,Republicans,political cartoons,opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy,government tech,political analysis and reports.
| 14.842105 | 0.45614 | 0.491228 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201130.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201130.html
|
U.S. Attorney in Minnesota Faces Probe
|
2007092319
|
The effort did not go well. Paulose openly clashed with career prosecutors in the office over issues big and small, leading to open revolt last spring by senior managers who refused to work with her. Her connections to senior Justice Department aides suddenly became a liability instead of an asset after those aides became embroiled in the controversy over the firings of nine other U.S. attorneys.
Now, the 34-year-old Yale University Law School graduate is the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel into allegations that she mishandled classified information, retaliated against those who crossed her, and made racist remarks about a support staff employee, said multiple sources in Minnesota and Washington, who declined to be identified because the probe is still under way.
In addition, an internal Justice Department audit completed last month said her employees gave her very low marks, alleging that she treats subordinates harshly and lacks the requisite experience for the job, said several sources familiar with the audit. Her performance review was so poor that Kenneth E. Melson, head of the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, took the unusual step of meeting with her in Minnesota several weeks ago, two sources said.
The Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility are also examining the Minnesota office as part of a broader investigation into personnel issues at Justice, although that inquiry does not specifically deal with Paulose's performance, sources said.
The case provides a key example of the unresolved challenges that will face former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey if he is confirmed to succeed Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned as attorney general this month. Temporary appointees fill a quarter of the U.S. attorney offices and most of the department's senior jobs in Washington, while internal and congressional investigations into the problems at Justice are likely to continue well into next year.
"It's just one thing after another," said one Minneapolis lawyer and former federal prosecutor, who did not want to be identified because of regular dealings with Paulose's office. "I think a lot of people in the office were hoping for some oversight to change things. But right now people are just hunkering down and hoping they can survive another year or so and salvage their careers."
In a statement issued by her office in response to disclosure of the special counsel investigation, Paulose said: "I am confident the truth will be brought to light. I am focused on doing the work of the people, which is what I have been appointed to do." A spokeswoman for Paulose declined to comment on the Justice Department audit.
Paulose was one of more than a dozen Bush administration insiders who were appointed to U.S. attorney posts under Gonzales. Her predecessor, veteran prosecutor Thomas B. Heffelfinger, had been identified as a potential firing candidate by senior Justice aides, but he resigned on his own in early 2006 and said he never knew he had been targeted.
Born in India and raised primarily in the Minneapolis suburb of Eagan, Paulose was previously an aide in the deputy attorney general's office. She became Minnesota's first Asian American U.S. attorney upon Senate confirmation last December.
Former Gonzales aide Monica M. Goodling testified at the House Judiciary Committee in May that Paulose's conservative credentials were one reason that she was appointed as interim U.S. attorney in early 2006 instead of another candidate. Goodling also testified that Paulose and she had become personal friends during the hiring process.
Paulose's troubles burst into public view in April -- a month after she was formally sworn into office -- when her first assistant U.S. attorney, John Marti, and two other senior attorneys resigned their management positions, saying they did not want to work for her.
|
Immediately upon arriving in Minneapolis last year as the nation's youngest U.S. attorney, Rachel K. Paulose made little secret of her political views or her desire to focus on key Bush administration initiatives, such as pushing for "righteous sentences" in child pornography cases, according to...
| 13.557692 | 0.576923 | 0.730769 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300196.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300196.html
|
Ahmadinejad: Iran, US Not Headed for War
|
2007092319
|
NEW YORK -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York to protests Sunday and said in a television interview that Iran was neither building a nuclear bomb nor headed to war with the United States.
The president's motorcade pulled up to the midtown hotel where he will be staying while he appears at a series of events including the U.N. General Assembly and a forum at Columbia University, where about 40 elected officials and civic leaders decried his visit.
Ahmadinejad's public-relations push appears aimed at presenting his views directly to a U.S. audience amid rising strains and talk of war between the two nations.
Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran over U.S. accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, as well as helping Shiite militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops _ claims Iran denies.
"Well, you have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What need do we have for a bomb?" Ahmadinejad said in the "60 Minutes" interview taped in Iran on Thursday. "In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union."
He also said that: "It's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking toward war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? There is no war in the offing."
Before leaving Iran, Ahmadinejad said the American people have been denied "correct information," and his visit will give them a chance to hear a different voice, the official IRNA news agency reported.
Washington has said it is addressing the Iran situation diplomatically, rather than militarily, but U.S. officials also say that all options are open. The commander of the U.S. military forces in the Middle East said he did not believe tensions will lead to war.
"This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.
Ahmadinejad's scheduled address to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday will be his third time attending the New York meeting in three years.
But his request to lay a wreath at ground zero was denied by city officials and condemned by politicians who said a visit to the site of the 2001 terror attacks would violate sacred ground.
Police cited construction and security concerns in denying Ahmadinejad's request. Ahmadinejad told 60 Minutes he would not press the issue but expressed disbelief that the visit would offend Americans.
|
NEW YORK -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York to protests Sunday and said in a television interview that Iran was neither building a nuclear bomb nor headed to war with the United States.
| 13.702703 | 1 | 37 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201105.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201105.html
|
Campbell's Passing Grade
|
2007092319
|
No one has published a how-to manual for inexperienced NFL quarterbacks seeking good timing with wide receivers. And you won't find textbooks explaining the nuances of passing while facing bull-rushing defensive linemen and blitzing linebackers. So Washington Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell and his wide receivers will figure it out together.
The Redskins are pleased with Campbell's developing relationship with the receiving corps, coaches said, citing that progress as among the reasons for the 2-0 start. The Redskins face the New York Giants today at FedEx Field.
Despite only nine career starts, Campbell has often appeared in sync with starting wide receivers Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El, combining on big plays in victories over Miami and Philadelphia. There also have been bumps, with unfamiliarity between Campbell and the receivers contributing to some incomplete passes and squandered scoring opportunities.
But considering Campbell's limited time with the receivers, coaches said they are pleased.
"Jason's relationship with those guys is at a high level and it'll continue to get better," associate head coach Al Saunders said. "He's still young in his growth with those guys, and every day is another day to work on their consistency and their timing together. I'm excited about where we're going."
Moss and Randle El shared the spotlight in the first two games.
In the season-opening 16-13 overtime victory over the Dolphins, Randle El caught five passes for a career-best 162 yards. He teamed with Campbell on 49- and 54-yard receptions.
Against the Eagles on Monday night, Moss had a game-high 89 yards on six catches -- including a 48-yard reception -- in a 20-12 victory. Randle El was slowed because of cramps (he said he missed several plays while receiving fluids intravenously in the locker room), but had four catches for 44 yards.
Tight end Chris Cooley caught Campbell's only touchdown pass this season. The role of wide receiver Brandon Lloyd continues to shrink each week. Lloyd was held without a catch in the first two games and has yet to score a touchdown in 17 games, including 12 starts, with the Redskins.
Randle El, who replaced Lloyd as a starter late last season, has shown signs of becoming the complementary receiver the Redskins have sought for Moss. Moreover, the team recently signed wide receiver Reche Caldwell, who started for the New England Patriots last season.
Randle El credits Campbell for his fast start this season.
"The relationship . . . it's good. You knew it was going to be good because of how hard we worked in the offseason," he said. "If you look from the first game to the second game, you can see there's progress, and that's the biggest thing you look for. But you're still working on it, so you're still going to miss. You don't want to miss, so you just have to keep going back at it again and again."
|
Info on Washington Redskins including the 2005 NFL Preview. Get the latest game schedule and statistics for the Redskins. Follow the Washington Redskins under the direction of Coach Joe Gibbs.
| 16.571429 | 0.628571 | 0.857143 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/09/21/ST2007092101358.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/09/21/ST2007092101358.html
|
'The War': Young Soldiers Die, They Don't Just Fade Away
|
2007092319
|
Forty seconds is a long time to look at a corpse, and that is precisely the point in "The War," which airs tonight and for the next six nights on PBS stations. The dead share top billing with the living, and often upstage them. By the end of the first episode, we have viewed hundreds of bodies; by the time the credits roll after Episode 7, we have seen many thousands.
Burns spent six years making "The War," an undertaking equal in duration to the war itself, and the venture has left him unsentimental about the greatest self-inflicted catastrophe in human history. He rejects the "Good War" balderdash and has said that World War II "was in reality the worst war." This sensibility helps sustain a compelling, flawed gem of a documentary, which enriches our emotional comprehension of an event second only to the Civil War in its enduring resonance in the national character.
If any occurrence in the 20th century deserves epic treatment, surely it is World War II. Fought on six continents for 2,174 days, it would claim an average of 27,000 lives on each of those days, 60 million in all. But to Burns it is the solitary Marine sprawled on a Pacific island that gives the tale its power: He recognizes the miracle of singularity in each death as in each life; how, like snowflakes and fingerprints, no two are alike.
Watch for the images, not for the history. There is little substantive analysis, about the war or its many subplots. The story of Midway, among the signal battles of modern times, is dispatched in 2 minutes 13 seconds; available footage, or the lack thereof, presumably determines this summary treatment. Scholars will find occasional annoyances: The assertion that Maj. Gen. John P. Lucas, the American commander at Anzio, was ordered to move inland from the beaches in January 1944 to cut German supply lines south of Rome is simply wrong. The truth is more nuanced, and far more intriguing.
Moreover, the largest figures of the war remain rather inconsequential, as though no one above the rank of captain had much to do with events. "Generals make plans, plans go wrong and young men die," the narrator, Keith David, informs us gravely. Just so, but plans also go right and young men still die. And it is the making of those plans that gives war its intellectual coherence, that lifts it above simply chaps biffing about.
These are more than quibbles. But "The War" achieves a cumulative power derived from those thousands of images -- many of them unseen by even the most devoted History Channel viewers -- and by those survivors chosen to bear witness. There is no on-camera presence comparable to Shelby Foote, the late novelist turned historian, whose avuncular irony played brilliantly in Burns's 1990 Civil War documentary. (In an apt admonition to every historian, Foote once warned, "A fact is not a truth until you love it.") Yet a half-dozen voices in "The War" conspire to form a chorus, individually eloquent and collectively compelling. Among the veterans to appear in several episodes is Samuel Hynes, a wry, incisive Marine fighter pilot who subsequently became a professor of literature at Princeton. His lyrical book "The Soldier's Tale: Bearing Witness to Modern War" avers that "if we would understand humankind's most violent episodes, we must understand them humanly, in the lives of individuals."
Burns clearly subscribes to this approach in using the microcosms of four American towns to carry his story: Sacramento; Mobile, Ala.; Luverne, Minn.; and Waterbury, Conn. And so we meet Katherine Phillips, whose lilting Alabama drawl extrudes "war" into a three-syllable noun, and her brother Sid, who sees such abominations at Cape Gloucester that he vows to become a physician, and does. Or Ray Leopold, a veteran of the 28th Division, who muses, "Home is the ultimate value that humans venerate." And Quentin Aanenson, a fighter pilot from Minnesota, who says, "We all changed. We went out as a bunch of kids . . . and we came back, looked maybe the same, but inside we were so different."
Paul Fussell, once a 22-year-old infantry lieutenant in France's Vosges Mountains in 1945, is tart, incisive and emotional, as he has been throughout his distinguished postwar career as scholar and author. Close combat "gives you attitudes about life and death that are unobtainable anywhere else," Fussell observes. When first thrown into battle, "you have a reservoir of courage when you arrive, and each time you get badly frightened, a little of it diminishes until you don't have any left. And that is the worst moment." As if speaking to every GI in every hellhole on Earth, he adds, "You can't be careful, you can only be lucky."
Oral history, of course, carries peril as well as power. We hear a received version of events, rehearsed through decades of repetition, potentially fraught with self-aggrandizement and self-delusion. Words sometimes fail those asked to articulate their experiences. "It's hard to describe what it's really like," a veteran of the Italian campaign says. "To see somebody leaving this world is not a lot of fun." A Marine who fought on Saipan also concedes that "it's really hard for me to describe really how I felt," while a survivor of Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands advises, "War is not a pleasant activity. It's kind of like a bad dream." Dead tankers at the Battle of the Bulge, another adds, were "not a pretty sight."
That simply does not advance the ball. We may sympathize with an inadequacy everyone has felt, but surely history and documentary should have a higher purpose than inelegance. There can be a banality of goodness as well as of evil.
Perhaps "The War" is best viewed as one views an art exhibition, focusing on the pictures and not on the captions or the curator's exegesis. The narrative is just scaffolding for the images, many of which linger long after an episode ends: the vivid color footage of flamethrowers on Saipan; the photo of pedestrians strolling past a smoking body next to a burning city bus; the group portrait of butchered soldiers in the dead of winter, their frozen eyes open and lightly dusted with snow, like macabre Jack Frosts.
|
Toward the end of Ken Burns's seven-part, 15-hour extravaganza about World War II, the camera lingers for a full 40 seconds on the image of a dead U.S. Marine on Iwo Jima. Face up, arms splayed, teeth bared, he is as grotesque as a man forever young can be.
| 21.491525 | 0.627119 | 1.067797 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/07/DI2007090702377.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/07/DI2007090702377.html
|
'The War' - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092319
|
Acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns, whose landmark series The War begins airing on PBS this week, will be on line Monday, Sept. 24, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the project.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Burns spent several years exploring the stories of World War II, talking with those who survived both in battle and on the homefront. With his co-producer Lynn Novick, Burns has crafted a vivid look at the Second World War and its effects on the United States and the world.
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.
|
Acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns, whose landmark production, "The War," begins this week, discusses the seven-part PBS series.
| 5.692308 | 0.769231 | 2.692308 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100495.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092100495.html
|
Roads and Rails - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092319
|
Do you think Metro has grown unreliable and become downright unpleasant? Or are you happy with your commutes on rail and bus? Does the thought of the intercounty connector (ICC) keep you up at night or does it seem like it's long overdue? And what of the moves by Maryland and Virginia to encourage the private sector to build road projects, such as widening the Capital Beltway?
Washington Post staff writers Eric Weiss and Lena H. Sun will be online Monday, Sept. 24 at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, feel your pain and share the drama of getting from Point A to Point B.
Submit your questions or comments before or during the discussion.
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 staff writers Eric Weiss and Lena H. Sun will be online to answer your transportation questions, feel your pain and share the drama of getting from Point A to Point B.
| 5.242424 | 0.969697 | 13.393939 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092000717.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/20/DI2007092000717.html
|
Post Politics Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2007092319
|
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 chief political reporter Dan Balz will be online Monday, Sept. 24 at 11 a.m. ET.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
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 chief political reporter Dan Balz discusses the latest buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
| 7.909091 | 0.954545 | 8.954545 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092101131.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092101131.html
|
Post Magazine: Wired to Do It Herself
|
2007092319
|
Compared to her renter friends in New York City, Marcela Valdes thought of herself as a handywoman. But as she relates in her story in this week's issue of Washington Post Magazine, when she became a homeowner in the Maryland suburbs, her confidence went out the window with the electrical wiring. Her will, however, proved as strong as ever.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Marcela Valdes is a freelance writer who is working on a book about Chile.
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.
|
A first-time homeowner shares her trials and tribulations in taking on the scariest of home renovation projects: electrical wiring.
| 6.130435 | 0.521739 | 0.782609 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092101678.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/21/DI2007092101678.html
|
Science: Sea Lampreys
|
2007092319
|
Washington Post staff writer Kari Lydersen will be online Monday, Sept. 24 at Noon to discuss methods for controlling the sea lamprey population in the Great Lakes.
Sea Lampreys have a slimy snak-like, muscular body capped by a suction-cup mouth ringed in teeth - along with a sharp probing tongue. They are one of nine non-mammalian organisms chosen for genetic sequencing - along with slime mold and round worms - by the National Human Genome Research Institute to idnety benchmarks on the evolutionary timeline.
Submit a question or comment now or during the discussion.
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 Kari Lydersen will be online to discuss controlling the sea lamprey population in the Great Lakes.
| 7.238095 | 1 | 8.809524 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200414.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200414.html
|
Actress Alice Ghostley Dies at 81
|
2007092319
|
LOS ANGELES -- Alice Ghostley, the Tony Award-winning actress best known on television for playing Esmeralda on "Bewitched" and Bernice on "Designing Women," has died. She was 81.
Ghostley died Friday at her home in Studio City after a long battle with colon cancer and a series of strokes, longtime friend Jim Pinkston said.
Ghostley made her Broadway debut in "Leonard Sillman's New Faces of 1952." She received critical acclaim for singing "The Boston Beguine," which became her signature song.
Miles Kreuger, president of the Los Angeles-based Institute of the American Musical, said part of Ghostley's charm was that she was not glamorous.
"She was rather plain and had a splendid singing voice, and the combination of the well-trained, splendid singing voice and this kind of dowdy homemaker character was so incongruous and so charming," Kreuger said.
In the 1960s, Ghostley received a Tony nomination for various characterizations in the Broadway comedy "The Beauty Part" and eventually won for best featured actress in "The Sign in Sidney Brustein's Window."
From 1969 to 1972, she played the good witch and ditzy housekeeper Esmeralda on TV's "Bewitched." She played Bernice Clifton on "Designing Women" from 1987 to 1993, for which she earned an Emmy nomination in 1992.
Ghostley's film credits include "To Kill a Mockingbird," "The Graduate," "Gator" and "Grease."
She was born on Aug. 14, 1926, in Eve, Mo., where her father worked as a telegraph operator. She grew up in Henryetta, Okla.
After graduating from high school, Ghostley attended the University of Oklahoma but dropped out and moved to New York with her sister to pursue theater.
"The best job I had then was as a theater usher," she said in a 1990 Boston Globe interview. "I saw the plays for free. What I saw before me was a visualization of what I wanted to do and what I wanted to be."
She was well aware of the types of roles she should pursue.
"I knew I didn't look like an ingenue," she told The Globe. "My nose was too long. I had crooked teeth. I wasn't blond. I knew I looked like a character actress.
"But I also knew I'd find a way," she added.
Ghostley, whose actor husband, Felice Orlandi, died in 2003, is survived by her sister, Gladys.
|
LOS ANGELES -- Alice Ghostley, the Tony Award-winning actress best known on television for playing Esmeralda on "Bewitched" and Bernice on "Designing Women," has died. She was 81.
| 13.052632 | 1 | 38 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201202.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201202.html
|
Clark Happy to Be Back to Grind
|
2007092319
|
Clark's ride, though, is about to come to an end. The Capitals' captain has been asked to return to his roots and play right wing on the third line, meaning his primary responsibility will be preventing goals, not scoring them.
Clark's reaction? If it's good for the Capitals, then it's good for him. He learned of Coach Glen Hanlon's decision earlier this month.
"Glen called and told me that he was putting line combinations together and figuring out where guys were going to play," he said. "I think it's great because it means our team is going in the right direction."
Clark is expected to start the season skating with center Boyd Gordon and left wing Matt Pettinger. Although their primary responsibility will be to shut down the opposing team's best offensive players, Hanlon hopes the trio also will chip in with 50 or more goals, which would put them among the league's elite checking units.
Clark scored 30 goals last season and Pettinger is a year removed from tallying 20. Gordon, meantime, thinks defense first, which should allow Clark and Pettinger to take more risks.
"Just because Ovechkin can score 50 goals, that doesn't mean he's any more important than Clark, Pettinger and Gordon eliminating 50 goals," Hanlon said. "We need Clark's 30 goals. We can't improve by 50 goals if we lose 20 goals from him."
Being asked to change lines capped what had already been a busy offseason for Clark. The 31-year-old captained Team USA in the world championships in May. Then in July, he signed a three-year, $7.9 million contract extension that locks him up through the 2010-11 season. Later that month, his wife, Kim, gave birth to the couple's third child, Rylan.
Then came the call from Hanlon, who said he was appreciative, but not surprised, by Clark's attitude.
"That's why he's our captain," Hanlon said. "I wouldn't have even tried it if I didn't know I would have his 100 percent participation."
Hanlon said he doesn't expect Clark's ice time to decrease from the 18 minutes 25 seconds per game he averaged last season because he plans to continue to give him significant minutes on the power-play and penalty-kill units.
Clark's versatility also could serve the Capitals well later on. Prospects Tomas Fleischmann and Nicklas Backstrom appear to have locked up spots on the first and second lines, but should one of them falter, Hanlon could easily put Clark back with Ovechkin.
"I really don't think about it too much," Clark said. "If the team is winning, guys don't care where they are playing."
Capitals Note: Alexander Semin's goal early in the second period gave visiting Washington a 2-1 preseason victory over the Tampa Bay Lightning.
Semin redirected a pass from Backstrom past goalie Johan Holmqvist 1:41 into the period.
Washington left wing David Steckel opened the scoring 7:46 into the game, deflecting John Erskine's slap shot past Holmqvist.
Lightning defenseman Dan Boyle was injured after the game. Distracted while he was hanging up his skate, it slipped off of the hook and cut a tendon in his left wrist. He was to have surgery today and will be out several weeks.
|
Chris Clark lived a grinder's dream his first two seasons with the Washington Capitals. He skated on a line with all-star Alex Ovechkin, and as a result enjoyed consecutive career seasons.
| 17.837838 | 0.567568 | 0.621622 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201511.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201511.html
|
Fla. Democrats Set to Stick to Jan. 29 Vote
|
2007092319
|
TALLAHASSEE, Sept. 22 -- The Florida Democratic Party will stick with a Jan. 29 presidential primary even if it means losing all its nominating convention delegates, a party source said Saturday.
The Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip Florida of its 210 delegates if the state party held a primary before Feb. 5, but it gave state officials until next Saturday to come up with an alternative delegate selection plan, such as caucuses or a vote-by-mail primary, to stay within DNC rules.
But state party leadership has rejected that course, the source said, after a poll of executive committee members found at least 75 percent support for the early primary. The source spoke on the condition of anonymity because executive committee members were still being notified of the state party's stance.
State party Chairman Karen L. Thurman, members of the congressional delegation and state legislative leaders scheduled a news conference for Sunday to announce their position.
"On Jan. 29, 2.5 million Floridians are going to go to the polls, and that's more telling than any caucus in Iowa," said Miami-Dade County Democratic Party Chairman Joe Garcia. "We'll be damned for it by some, but I think we're doing the right thing."
Broward County state committeewoman Diane Glasser, who also serves as state party first chair, said that she is fine with the decision, as long as delegates are selected in case they are permitted to attend the convention in Denver next summer.
"I'm not concerned with the DNC," she said.
Democratic Party rules say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
Phone calls and e-mails to the DNC were not immediately returned.
|
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.
| 8.47619 | 0.452381 | 0.452381 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201131.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201131.html
|
Bush, Democrats Duel On Children's Insurance
|
2007092319
|
"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said in his weekly radio address, repeating an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."
In the Democrats' response, also broadcast yesterday, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell (D) turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush does not sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month, and thousands of children will lose their health-care coverage.
"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," Rendell said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health-care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program, which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."
At issue is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private coverage. Federal funding expires Sept. 30.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress's majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support, as well.
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it is children who will suffer if they do not.
"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.
The bill's backers say their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.
|
President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" yesterday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.
| 20.913043 | 0.73913 | 1.608696 |
medium
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101545.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101545.html
|
Africa's Sudden Splash of Good News
|
2007092219
|
As someone who has worked in Africa's worst war zones for the past quarter-century, I usually write about atrocities, tyranny and famine. That's what Americans are used to in articles with Africa datelines: grim tales of a hopeless and devastated continent. But after years of dealing with the likes of Somali gunmen, the Janjaweed militia in Sudan's Darfur region and abducted child soldiers in northern Uganda, I am far more optimistic about Africa's future than I was when I started.
The election of a 53-year-old former insurance executive as president of Sierra Leone last week was the latest sign of progress coming out of the continent. Though there were some isolated incidents of unrest, the democratic swearing-in of Ernest Bai Koroma was contrary to what much of the world has come to expect from Africa.
Far fewer people heard about the transfer of power in Sierra Leone than saw the 2006 movie "Blood Diamond," which depicted the country as overrun with drug-crazed child soldiers linked to diamond-dealing mafias. Years ago, the world heard horrific news reports about a rebel group there that hacked the limbs off civilians to punish them for voting, or stories that al-Qaeda laundered money through local diamond-industry operatives. But when I observed the first round of elections in eastern Sierra Leone last month, it was clear that the country was turning a corner. Through something as wonderfully ordinary as a nonviolent election, I saw a country willing itself a brighter future.
Sierra Leone's turnaround is a grand affirmation of the future of the continent. It's fitting that this country -- and other nations such as Liberia, South Africa, Mozambique and Burundi, which have also made strides toward democracy and peace -- are beginning to tell a story of Africa that is radically different from the conventional wisdom. They are defying both history and outsiders' low expectations for the continent.
Scratch beneath the surface, and you will find hope and self-transformation -- and inspiration.
During the 18th century, Sierra Leone was a major hub in the transatlantic slave trade, and many of the Africans who passed through it ended up in the plantations of South Carolina and Georgia. The British colonized the country before it won its independence in 1961. Just half a decade ago, the nation was embroiled in a brutal civil war.
Last month, I observed the election in the eastern diamond zone of Tongo Fields, an area crawling with political operatives and former child soldiers. Whoever wins at Sierra Leone's polls also wins access to the country's biggest natural resource and prize: diamonds. So before the electoral process unfolded, every conflict indicator was flashing "red alert." The so-called Africa experts of the world were predicting a bloodbath.
Instead, the country got an election run by some of the most conscientious, earnest polling officials I have ever met. We received only one report of a gunshot during the process -- a celebratory shot through our hotel window. The army stayed in its barracks, and the police helped with security. During the elections I observed in August and the runoff earlier this month, a few incidents of unrest were countered by a tidal wave of efforts by Sierra Leone's civil society groups, churches, mosques and government officials to ensure a peaceful outcome.
"It's a brand new day for Sierra Leone," a former child soldier named Elijah told me. All of the ex-combatants whom I met in Tongo Fields and Freetown, the war-scarred capital, insisted that they would never be lured back to a life of war in the bush.
"We fought for nothing," another former child soldier told me. "We are so tired of war. We don't want to be used for fighting and end up with nothing." A third former combatant, speaking to me in the middle of a diamond mine, divulged that he had committed "terrible atrocities" in the bush. "This vote signals the end of jungle justice," he said.
Sierra Leone's renaissance is strikingly similar to that of Liberia, another country written off earlier this decade by the "experts." In "Lord of War," a 2005 movie starring Nicolas Cage, Liberia is shown as "that country which God seemed to have forsaken." Cage's character describes the outskirts of Monrovia, the capital, as "the edge of hell."
But in late 2005, Liberians marched to the polls and elected Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first female head of state in Africa. More than 100,000 soldiers have been demobilized as the country works to erase the legacy of more than a quarter-century of violent political upheaval.
|
As someone who has worked in Africa's worst war zones for the past quarter-century, I usually write about atrocities, tyranny and famine. That's what Americans are used to in articles with Africa datelines: grim tales of a hopeless and devastated continent. But after years of dealing with the likes...
| 15.389831 | 0.983051 | 57.016949 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102271.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102271.html
|
Iraq Probe of U.S. Security Firm Grows
|
2007092219
|
BAGHDAD, Sept. 21 -- Iraq's probe into a deadly shooting by Blackwater USA in Baghdad last weekend has expanded to include allegations about the security firm's involvement in six other violent episodes this year that left at least 10 Iraqis dead.
The incidents include the killing of three guards at a state-run media complex and the shooting death of an Iraqi journalist outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, chief spokesman for the Interior Ministry.
Iraqi officials say these violent encounters have made them increasingly frustrated with Blackwater's conduct in Iraq, but the government backed away Friday from its attempt to expel the company. Blackwater has said its guards acted appropriately in the weekend incident, but it did not respond to requests for comment Friday on the other episodes cited by Khalaf.
"These acts, this is what made the Ministry of Interior stop trusting them," Khalaf said in an interview. He said the ministry's findings would be referred to court for possible criminal prosecution.
On Friday, Blackwater-protected convoys resumed leaving the Green Zone, three days after the U.S. Embassy froze such travel amid Iraqi declarations that the company would be expelled. Mirembe Nantongo, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, said the convoys had resumed "on a limited basis" after "consultation with Iraqi authorities." She said it was "likely that Blackwater will be supporting with some of the movements."
The North Carolina-based company, with an estimated 1,000 employees in Iraq, protects virtually every senior American diplomat and civilian official here.
Bassam Ridha, a senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, conceded that the Iraqi government, at least for now, cannot follow through on a ban on Blackwater, even though the firm has been operating without a license for more than a year. "The reality of the matter is we can't do that," Ridha said.
The ministry said Blackwater guards fired without provocation at a Baghdad square on Sunday, killing 11 people and wounding 12. The shootings sparked outrage across the country and spurred the strongest effort yet by Iraq's government to assert control over the tens of thousands of security contractors who operate without regulation and sometimes with impunity in the country. They have been shielded for years from Iraqi laws by a regulation written by U.S. occupation authorities before the nation's post-invasion government was formed.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she had ordered a "full and complete" review of the department's handling of security contractors in Iraq. "We will review how we carry out our security," she told reporters in Washington. "We take seriously what happened in Iraq."
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said allegations of misconduct by Blackwater will be investigated by a joint U.S.-Iraqi committee. "We are committed to working with the Iraqi government to address both any individual incidents that may have occurred as well as the broader questions of security and safety related to the operation of personal security details," he said.
Matthew Degn, who until recently served as senior adviser to the Interior Ministry's intelligence directorate, which oversees private security, said the new allegations should be viewed with caution. He said Iraqi authorities frequently made charges against private security firms, including Blackwater, that were not supported by evidence. Degn said the inflated accounts heightened the powerlessness Iraqi officials felt over their inability to control Blackwater.
To bolster their case against Blackwater, Interior Ministry officials included six other incidents in their preliminary report, Khalaf said. The government had videotapes of some attacks, license plate numbers of Blackwater vehicles involved and eyewitness accounts implicating Blackwater, he said.
|
Washington Post coverage of the American occupation of Iraq, the country's path to democracy and tensions between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
| 28.24 | 0.68 | 0.92 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html
|
War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says
|
2007092219
|
The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.
The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.
"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.
The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.
But some supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq say that even if the war is costly, that fact is essentially immaterial.
"Either you think the war in Iraq supports America's national security, or not," said Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "If you think national security won't be harmed by withdrawing from Iraq, of course you would want to see that money spent elsewhere. I myself think that belief, on a certain level, is absurd, so the question of focusing on how much money we are spending there is irrelevant."
The war's unpaid long-term costs do not include "macro-economic consequences" described by Bilmes and Stiglitz, including higher oil prices, loss of trade because of anti-American sentiments and lost productivity of killed or injured U.S. soldiers.
In 2006, Bilmes, who was an assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, and Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, placed the total cost of the Iraq war at more than $2.2 trillion, not counting interest. The American Friends group used cost breakdowns and interest projections from the Congressional Budget Office to calculate the daily cost of war emblazoned on the banners flown in Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities.
The banners show what this could buy in terms of health care, Head Start programs, new elementary schools, free school lunches, renewable energy and hiring new teachers. Protest organizers say they hope to turn more people against the war by laying out its true financial impact.
"I think people are becoming more aware of these guns or butter questions," said Gary Gillespie, director of the group's Baltimore Urban Peace Program, which displayed the banners in the Baltimore suburb of Bel Air on Friday. "But when you talk about $720 million a day, even people who work on this issue are shocked by the number and shocked by what could have been done with that money. War has no return -- you're not producing a product."
|
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.
| 12.717391 | 0.5 | 0.586957 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102151.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102151.html
|
After the War, A Struggle For Equality
|
2007092219
|
Latinos came home from World War II to a different struggle. A Medal of Honor for bravery didn't guarantee service in certain restaurants. A soldier's body in a coffin and an American flag for his widow didn't merit admission to some funeral homes.
Fast-forward to 2007. One of the nation's premier documentarians is ready to unveil his opus on World War II. It's mainly the stories of non-Hispanic whites, but Ken Burns made sure to include the experience of African Americans and Japanese Americans. Missing in action: half a million or so Latinos who served, out of the 16 million total.
"You mean he couldn't think of a Latino or Native American to include in the movie?" says Roque "Rocky" Riojas of Kansas City, Kan., who fought his way through Italy, hill by bloody hill. "I may not be smart, but I'm not that dumb. . . . We should lick his boot because he added a piece at the end of a chapter?"
But the rhetoric flying over "The War" on PBS has obscured a richer story about the Latino experience in World War II, and the battlefield courage of those men is but the beginning chapter. In a sense, you can't fully understand phenomena like C¿sar Ch¿vez, Chicano power, Latino civil rights activism, those big immigrant-rights marches of last year, Daddy Yankee and the recent Democratic presidential candidates' debate in Spanish on Univision without a feel for World War II -- and the bittersweet homecoming.
"I always think of World War II as being the moment in history when the Latino American became acceptable as a full-fledged American," Bill Lansford of Los Angeles, one of the two Latino Marines finally included as a compromise in "The War," says in the telephone interview.
"It's very hard to look at the guy in the foxhole and say, 'Oh, he's a Mexican,' " continues Lansford, 85, who raided behind enemy lines at Guadalcanal and landed at Iwo Jima. "That was the watershed, that was the turning point for Latinos. When we came out of the war, we knew that we were Americans."
Latinos weren't segregated in the service, as African Americans were. One of the few virtually all-Latino outfits, the 65th Infantry Regiment, owed its makeup to its origins in Puerto Rico. Several units drawing recruits from the Southwest also had a large Hispanic presence.
But Latinos did face discrimination.
"Our sergeant was killed and I was next in line," recalls Riojas, 85, a former infantryman who fought in North Africa before invading Italy. "I had the most experience in combat. The second lieutenant in charge of our platoon was from North Carolina. He chose a young guy from Georgia to be sergeant. I went in a PFC and came out a PFC."
"I think it was 'little Texas' in the Marine Corps, and as you know, Texans and Mexicans weren't exactly bosom buddies in those days," Lansford says in the episode airing tomorrow night. His mother was from Mexico, and she raised him as a single parent in a Latino neighborhood of Los Angeles until he was a teenager. His father was a gringo who himself was raised speaking Spanish. Lansford lied about his age so he could join the Marines at 17.
When the nation went to war, Latinos wanted to "show that they are as patriotic as anybody, as some blue-eyed, blond guy," the former Marine continues in the documentary. War was a great equalizer. "These Texan guys began seeing that we weren't what they thought we were, and we began seeing they weren't what we thought they were."
What was not equal was the welcome home. Oh, sure, there was dancing in the streets, kisses for everyone, V-E Day, V-J Day, blizzards of ticker tape, President Truman pinning medals on lads who looked as stunned at that moment of the camera flash as during a bombardment.
|
Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales.
| 15.686275 | 0.333333 | 0.372549 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200513.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200513.html
|
U.S. Has a Meeting, Then Delivers a Beating
|
2007092219
|
TIANJIN, China, Sept. 22 -- On the eve of their Women's World Cup quarterfinal against England, at precisely 5 p.m. in the Sheraton Hotel in a southern district of this sprawling industrial city, the U.S. players gathered in a room shared by Abby Wambach and Kristine Lilly to discuss why their quest for a third soccer championship was malfunctioning.
The Americans had won their first-round group, but hardly resembled a team that had gone nearly three years without a loss. Before they embarked on their 3-0 victory over England on Saturday night, a result that sent them to the semifinals for the fifth consecutive time, some things needed to be said.
"It was just an open forum for us just to say, 'This is what I think is working, this is what I think isn't working,' and I think it really helped us," said veteran defender Cat Whitehill, who was involved in two goals. Coach Greg Ryan "is setting up an incredible game plan for us, but we have to get it done. And we weren't. And we got it done tonight."
The messages did not seem to sink in until late in the first half when, after another laborious performance, the Americans began to hit their stride. Although they did not score before halftime, there was a sense the match had turned in their favor.
Three minutes into the second half, Wambach nodded in her fourth goal of the tournament and 81st in 100 international appearances. Nine minutes later, Shannon Boxx whistled a 20-yarder into the net. And in the 60th minute, when Lilly took advantage of England goalkeeper Rachel Brown's mistake before an announced crowd of 29,586 at Tianjin Olympic Center Stadium, the Americans were on their way to a 51st consecutive game without a loss and a matchup with Brazil or Australia on Thursday in Hangzhou.
"The last 15 minutes of the first half we really settled down and started playing soccer, so it was really just encouraging them to continue doing what they were doing," Ryan said. "It was just going after it and saying, 'All right, it's going to be us going forward, not them.' "
It still was somewhat of a surprise, for the Americans had labored in their first three matches and were confronted with an England team beaming with confidence after going 1-0-2 in group play in only its second World Cup appearance. The first half was played at a numbingly deliberate pace, with neither side generating much of anything, until those final moments when the Americans provided a preview of what was to come after the break.
On the last of three corner kicks to start the second half, Lilly seemed intent to play it short to Lori Chalupny. But when she saw the 5-foot-11 Wambach shifting into position, she served the ball toward the far post. With a powerful four-yard header, Wambach gave her team the lead for the third time in four games.
"She looks up, I look at her, I make eye contact," Wambach said of her bond with Lilly, who is playing in her record fifth World Cup. "No matter how far apart we can be distance-wise on the field, we are always connected."
For a team that scored just five goals in group play and had meandered through much of the first half, "we needed that goal and we needed it early," Boxx said. "We got the one -- and then two and three came."
Before England could counter, Whitehill won the ball just outside the penalty area, allowing Boxx to beat Jill Scott and tag a low shot into the right corner. Later, Whitehill's long ball toward Lilly took a big bounce over Brown, allowing Lilly to guide it into an open net.
"It was an even contest at times," England Coach Hope Powell said of the first half. "I just think in the end we perhaps didn't show enough composure in front of the goal."
Besides the goal scorers, the U.S. team turned its postgame attention to Leslie Osborne, whose defensive midfield work quieted England star Kelly Smith. Osborne has started only twice, but both were in games in which she shadowed world-class attacking players (the first was Sweden's Victoria Svensson during a 2-0 U.S. victory last week).
By limiting Smith's space and time on the ball, Osborne relieved pressure on the U.S. back line and helped goalkeeper Hope Solo register her third consecutive shutout.
The defense has been quite good throughout this tournament, "but now we started to see the offensive side," Boxx said.
"We've just been due," Wambach added. "We feel like this team hasn't shown its best."
World Cup Note: England captain Faye White suffered a broken nose -- the fifth of her career -- after being elbowed by Wambach during a first-half challenge. After receiving treatment, she returned to play the remainder of the match. Wambach insisted it was not intentional, but White, with gauze packed into her nostril, said that "I've been told perhaps it was."
|
The United States awakens with a fury after halftime Saturday, scoring three goals in the first 15 minutes to blast England, 3-0, and earn a fifth consecutive trip to the Women's World Cup semifinals.
| 24.560976 | 0.804878 | 1.585366 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200508.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200508.html
|
Bush: Kids' Health Care Will Get Vetoed
|
2007092219
|
WASHINGTON -- President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.
"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."
In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.
At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.
"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage _ not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.
The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.
Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.
Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.
"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."
|
WASHINGTON -- President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.
| 22.423077 | 1 | 26 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102002.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102002.html
|
Giuliani's Speech at NRA Doesn't Reassure Skeptics
|
2007092219
|
Giuliani shared the forum with several rivals for the Republican presidential nomination who have long been outspoken in their support for gun owners' rights. But attention focused on the former New York City mayor, who has emerged as the GOP front-runner despite being out of step with party orthodoxy on issues such as guns, abortion and gay rights.
His tenuous hold on a lead in national polling has been built largely on a get-tough approach to terrorism, but he was met with a skeptical response by the crowd at the annual NRA conference yesterday.
While never expressly repudiating his stance on gun control, he sought repeatedly to assure the audience that he would not seek to place new limits on gun ownership, saying that "law enforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books as opposed to passing new extensions of laws."
Giuliani acknowledged that his record put him at odds with the NRA -- whose members he once likened to "extremists" -- but pledged that he would uphold the Second Amendment, which he said clearly supports the right to bear arms. He said his clampdown on guns in New York was needed to reduce crime and was focused only on criminals, and he added that he would carry the same philosophy into the White House.
He urged NRA members to recognize their points in common with him and support him as a candidate who could beat the Democrats next fall.
"You have to figure out who is electable and who can win, because if we make a mistake about that, the discussion will go very much in a direction that you and I disagree with," he said. "I would love to have your support, but mostly, I'd like us to respect each other, because I think we have very, very legitimate and similar views."
Giuliani has made similar "agree to disagree" overtures in this campaign on other issues where he runs counter to the Republican mainstream, but he went a step further yesterday by implying that the fervor of his past advocacy for gun control has dulled in recent years.
At one point, he came close to disavowing a lawsuit against gunmakers that he initiated while mayor of New York.
The 2000 lawsuit sought to hold gunmakers liable for shootings with illegal guns (the case, by chance, was heard this week in a federal appeals court). At the time, Giuliani called it an "aggressive step towards restoring accountability to an industry that profits from the suffering of others."
Yesterday, Giuliani backed away from the lawsuit, saying he might not uphold it if he were a judge.
|
Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday sought to persuade members of the National Rifle Association to look past his lengthy record of pushing for tougher gun control by saying that his views on this issue had been changed by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
| 10.956522 | 0.630435 | 0.804348 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102351.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102351.html
|
$8 Billion Buyout of D.C. Firm Collapses
|
2007092219
|
If Harman chooses to fight, the battle would almost certainly end up in the courts, pitting Sidney Harman, an 88-year-old philanthropist who is married to Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), against two of the most powerful titans on Wall Street.
The disintegration of the deal, rumored for much of the day before it became public, helped send Harman shares plunging 24 percent in regular trading. After hours, the stock dropped another 3 percent.
It also left analysts and others wondering what effect the collapse would have on buyout king Henry Kravis and on Goldman Sachs, the world's largest investment bank. Any time a company reneges on an agreement, it puts its reputation at risk. It may find companies reluctant to do deals in the future, said several analysts who follow mergers and acquisitions.
The breakup could set a precedent for other private-equity firms to get out of acquisitions that have become less profitable because of the rising cost of financing big buyouts, the analysts said.
Harman built his company over the last half-century into a multibillion-dollar manufacturer of high-end audio nameplates like JBL, Harman Kardon and Infinity. He negotiated a deal that allowed Harman shareholders to roll over their stakes into a KKR private-equity fund; usually, such investors are bought out.
In an interview in May, shortly after the deal was negotiated, Harman said he was looking for "a secure harbor" for his "beautiful company." He believed he had found it by agreeing to a private takeover.
Since then, private equity has been looking less safe as a haven.
Private-equity firms typically use vast pools of investor money to buy struggling companies, turn them around and sell them at a profit. They make even more off the fees they charge for their services. Business was so good for so many years that private-equity firms started paying ever higher premiums to buy companies. Even the rumor of a private takeover would send a firm's stock soaring.
The Harman deal was negotiated in April, when the credit markets were booming and financing big deals was easy. But a credit crunch in August shook confidence in the financial system, making money far more expensive to borrow.
That has left many private buyers feeling remorse for agreeing to pay high prices for companies. Several private-equity firms are fighting to get out of major deals or renegotiate the price. Carlyle Group of the District and two other private-equity firms, for instance, recently got the struggling retailer Home Depot to reduce the price of its wholesale business by $1.8 billion.
Harman's business, too, has had its troubles in recent months. In August, the company reported a lackluster quarter, posting revenue of $911.1 million. That was about $30 million less than the consensus analyst expectation.
To get out of their deal, KKR and Goldman Sachs are citing a "material adverse change" clause, which is included in virtually every buyout agreement but is rarely invoked. It defines what changes would significantly alter the value of a company that would allow its buyers to back out.
Such provisions often are written with very specific language and greatly limit a buyer's options. In Harman's case, KKR and Goldman cannot walk away for events "generally affecting the consumer, or professional audio, automotive audio, information, entertainment or infotainment industries, or the economy or the financial, credit or securities markets."
"These clauses are very tightly written," said Colin Blaydon, director of the Center for Private Equity and Entrepreneurship at Dartmouth College. "Something just short of fraud is the only way [KKR and Goldman] could walk away."
Invoking this clause is often used as a negotiating tactic by buyers seeking a lower price. Since 2003, no deal has been canceled because of a material adverse change clause, according to the research firm FactSet MergerMetrics.
KKR and Goldman told Harman that the turmoil in the credit markets was not the reason why they are walking away, said a source close to the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly about the deal.
A legal battle over the Harman deal could effect other buyouts, such as the $25 billion acquisition of student loan giant Sallie Mae. Its private-equity buyer, J.C. Flowers, has talked about using the material change clause to force the company to consider a lower price. On Thursday, Sallie Mae released a statement saying it disagreed with J.C. Flowers on the matter.
|
The $8 billion buyout of audio-equipment maker Harman International Industries collapsed yesterday, the first major private-equity deal to unravel since the current credit turmoil began and a sobering sign for other big takeovers in the works.
| 20.511628 | 0.674419 | 1 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102334.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102334.html
|
Blog Comments Become Fodder For Attack Ads
|
2007092219
|
The ad by Del. Timothy D. Hugo points to a new form of negative campaigning in which information for an attack ad is sourced to comments posted on the Internet instead of more authoritative sources such as news reports or public records.
Hugo's ad highlights critical comments about his Democratic opponent, Rex Simmons, that someone with the screen name "Pitin" posted on the Democratic blog Raising Kaine.
Ads that quote from blogs, on which it is often difficult to identify the author, represent a benchmark in increasingly negative political campaigns, several political analysts said.
"This is one of the places where the old way of doing politics and the new way is coming into conflict," said David Weinberger, a research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. "We have developed a blogosphere that is full of lively debate . . . but at the same time we have political marketers who will use anything they can to advance their own cause."
In Hugo's ad, a narrator recounts what "others are saying" about Simmons. As quotes flash across the screen, the narrator says Simmons is "running the most cowardly campaign I have ever seen" and "has been lying to voters the entire campaign."
"We just can't trust Rex Simmons," the ad concludes.
The ad, which also says Simmons supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, cites Raising Kaine as the source of the quotes about Simmons.
Raising Kaine, named after Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) but not connected to him, is a site where Democratic activists talk about Virginia politics. The site allows anyone to post an entry or comment on one, even anonymously, after registering.
Lowell Feld, one of the founders of Raising Kaine, is calling on television stations to pull Hugo's ad, saying it misleads voters into thinking that Raising Kaine opposes Simmons.
Feld added that Hugo's ad signals "a dangerous precedent" that could affect all organizations that allow people to contribute anonymously to their Web sites.
"If someone is allowed to post on a blog, does that mean the organization is responsible and a political candidate can then source an ad to them?" Feld asked.
|
RICHMOND, Sept. 21 -- A Republican state legislator from Fairfax County has launched an attack ad on cable TV against his Democratic opponent that features unidentified, unverified quotes from a blog.
| 12.705882 | 0.529412 | 0.941176 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102003.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102003.html
|
Auction to Name Fish Species Nets $2 Million for Conservation
|
2007092219
|
MONTE CARLO, Monaco, Sept. 20 -- An auction of rights to name 10 newly discovered species of fish raised more than $2 million for conservation efforts in eastern Indonesia on Thursday night, setting a record for an event of its type.
The idea of selling new species' naming rights has gained popularity among environmentalists. Two years ago, the Wildlife Conservation Society raised $650,000 in a one-week Internet auction of a newly identified Bolivian monkey, but the Blue Auction's $2,015,000 take was the most for a single event.
The proceeds will fund initiatives such as a floating ranger station in the partially protected Bird's Head Seascape and educational trips for the region's children.
"Two million dollars is an enormous shot in the arm for the community that lives in Raja Ampat," said Peter Seligmann, Conservation International's chairman and chief executive. "It's going to provide them with the opportunity for education, for patrolling, for the training of scientists."
Christie's International auctioneer Hugh Edmeades ran the bidding in Monaco's Oceanographic Museum, a 97-year-old edifice perched hundreds of feet above the sea. As he called out the opening bid to name a Corythoichthys pipefish, Edmeades approached one bidder in a silky, floor-length gown and prodded her to up the ante.
"Now, you promised me you would go to 60 [thousand]," he told her. When she finally assented, Edmeades cried out, "Sixty thousand dollars! Well, you won't regret it. Not tonight."
Prince Albert, whose foundation also benefited from Thursday's auction, said the event underscored that the ocean contains new possibilities even as it is under threat.
"It gets people focused on the fact that species are still being discovered, yet there are some disappearing that we will never be able to name," he said in an interview.
Bidders had to pledge that they would name the species after people rather than corporate entities. Cherie Nursalim, who, along with her husband, Enki Tan, helped organize the auction and successfully bid on several species for themselves and a few friends, said she and Tan intended to name a fish after their parents.
Apu Suharsono, who directs the research center for oceanography at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, said his government was trying to protect the Bird's Head Seascape from overexploitation because it has such a variety of habitat and marine species.
"It's very rich in diversity," he said of the region, which features nearly 1,300 identified species. "Everything is there."
|
MONTE CARLO, Monaco, Sept. 20 -- An auction of rights to name 10 newly discovered species of fish raised more than $2 million for conservation efforts in eastern Indonesia on Thursday night, setting a record for an event of its type.
| 10.847826 | 1 | 46 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101421.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101421.html
|
Musharraf Names Loyalist as New Intelligence Chief
|
2007092219
|
The announcements came just days after Musharraf's attorney announced that the general would step down from the army if he is elected to a new term as president. The national and provincial assemblies are set to vote Oct. 6.
Opponents argue that Musharraf's army job disqualifies him from running, and the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to his eligibility. But if the court rules that he can run, he is believed to have the votes he needs to win.
Musharraf's appointments are being watched closely in Pakistan, where the military has ruled for more than half the nation's 60-year history.
Amid a flurry of appointments Friday, Musharraf named Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj to lead the Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Taj is considered a moderate and is known to be close to Musharraf, having once served as Musharraf's military secretary. He was also head of a separate intelligence service in December 2003, when Musharraf was twice targeted by suicide attacks later linked to al-Qaeda.
Taj will now be at the forefront of efforts to combat the terrorist organization at a time when insurgents are stepping up attacks and the military is taking heavy losses.
He will replace Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani at the agency. Kiyani is now said to be one of two finalists to succeed Musharraf as army chief. The other top contender is Lt. Gen. Tariq Majeed, who has been the corps commander in Rawalpindi, the garrison city that houses the military's headquarters. Like Kiyani, Majeed was replaced Friday; his next job was not announced.
The selection of a successor will be a critical decision for Musharraf. Analysts say that if he wins a new term and gives up his uniform, he will likely have more of a voice in military matters than most civilian leaders but will still lose much of the power he wields today.
"To say that Musharraf will continue to enjoy the same influence over the army is not true," said retired Lt. Gen. Moinuddin Hyder. "The army chief in Pakistan doesn't like to take orders on professional matters."
Witte reported from Islamabad, Pakistan.
|
KARACHI, Pakistan, Sept. 21 -- With his retirement from the army looming, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Friday named a known loyalist to head the nation's hugely influential military-led intelligence service. Musharraf also cleared the way for the intelligence chief he replaced to possibly...
| 7.846154 | 0.692308 | 1 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102152.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102152.html
|
Online CD Seller Fights Suit
|
2007092219
|
An eBay seller and Universal Music Group are battling in a legal case that could have wider implications for a consumer's right to resell purchased music.
Los Angeles area resident Troy Augusto makes a living by scooping up collectible albums at used-record stores, then selling them for a profit on the eBay online auction site. Many of those compact discs, marked "for promotional use only," were originally given away by record companies to radio stations and music publications as a means of promoting the music.
In the case in question, Universal claims that it owns the promotional CDs and that Augusto's practices infringe on its copyright. Augusto "has illegally sold promotional CDs belonging to major record companies" Universal says in the suit filed in May in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization in San Francisco that specializes in digital-rights issues, took up Augusto's cause and last month filed a counterclaim in the same court against the record label.
Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the foundation, said the case was not just about whether someone may buy or sell albums online. If record labels are able to control their legal rights or how their products are sold by simply affixing a label, other industries would quickly follow suit, limiting consumers' ability to resell their items.
He said, for example, that book publishers could print labels keeping publications out of libraries, or movie studios could make it illegal for movie-rental stores to carry their products.
"If Universal is able to strip your first-sales rights by putting a label on these CDs, then there's nothing to stop other copyright owners from trying the same thing," he said.
Augusto was not available for comment yesterday. Von Lohmann said that reselling CDs online is Augusto's primary source of income.
The legal issue is the first-sale doctrine, a century-old tenet that holds that the buyer of a copyrighted work can sell or give away that work without the permission of the copyright owner.
In response to the EFF filing, Universal said in a statement that because the CDs were given away by the company, and not sold, the doctrine does not apply.
Von Lohmann called Universal's interpretation of the doctrine "flatly wrong," citing legal precedent that does not differentiate between a product that was originally sold and one that was given away.
This is not the first time Augusto has been sued by a record label. Three years ago, Capitol Records and Virgin Records sued him over his eBay auctions and consented to a permanent injunction.
Under the name Roast Beast Music Collectables, Augusto has sold more than 20,000 albums, according to Universal's legal filings. Augusto confirmed that figure in his counterclaim.
|
An eBay seller and Universal Music Group are battling in a legal case that could have wider implications for a consumer's right to resell purchased music.
| 19.25 | 1 | 28 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200105.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092200105.html
|
Neo-Nazi Web Site Probed In Jena Case
|
2007092219
|
The Thursday posting on the site that lists the information also encourages readers to "get in touch, and let them know justice is coming."
The FBI is investigating to see whether the posting violates federal laws, special agent Sheila Thorne said from New Orleans.
Deputies had already stepped up patrols around the six families' homes "to keep reporters away," LaSalle Parish Sheriff Carl Smith said last night. Smith added that he did not think the posting was "any kind of viable threat," but that his officers would remain vigilant.
Parish officials have not encouraged the families to leave their homes, the sheriff said, "because we don't want to make people feel like they're living under siege."
Also yesterday, a judge denied a request to release Mychal Bell, the only teenager still jailed.
LaSalle Parish District Judge J.P. Mauffray declined a defense motion for a writ of habeas corpus that sought to have Bell, 17, released, family members and court sources told the Chicago Tribune. A second judge also turned down a defense motion seeking to remove Mauffray from the case.
Bell is the only one to have been tried so far in the December altercation. He was convicted as an adult of aggravated second-degree battery, which could have led to 15 years in prison. But his conviction was dismissed by a state appeals court, which said he could not be tried as an adult because he was 16 at the time of the beating.
And in nearby Alexandria, La., a man was charged with inciting a riot and driving while intoxicated after police allegedly found hangman's nooses dangling from the rear of his pickup truck.
Jeremiah Munsen, 18, who is white, had driven the truck near a bus station past a crowd of people who had attended a civil rights march earlier in the day in Jena, Alexandria Police Chief Daren Coutee said. A 16-year-old passenger in the truck was also arrested; officers are not releasing his name because of his age, Coutee said.
Research director Alice Crites contributed to this report.
|
FBI agents are looking into a neo-Nazi Web site, which has listed the home addresses and phone numbers of the six black teenagers charged in the beating of a white schoolmate in Jena, La., a bureau spokeswoman said last night.
| 8.76087 | 0.630435 | 1.282609 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102163.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102163.html
|
A Ritual of Repentance in A Parking Lot
|
2007092219
|
For an instant, the question hung in air rank with the smell of animal pens, dirty feathers and blood.
The young boy with looping sidelocks looked up at his mother. She maneuvered a baby stroller through a gaggle of teenage American tourists gathered at the gate of a downtown parking lot, which on this day was among the most dangerous places in the world to be a chicken.
"They killed it," she said, as sweetly as possible.
In a city where the rituals of the Information Age and Biblical times exist in surreal close quarters, the chicken slaughter that precedes Yom Kippur, the high holy day when Jews ask forgiveness for their misdeeds, is something to behold for the religiously devout and the strong of stomach. It brings poultry and sinner together in a gesture of absolution -- a hopeful, sanguinary, cacophonous event witnessed over an afternoon hour on the eve of the most solemn day in Judaism.
The ritual, among the more awesome features of the Days of Awe -- the period of reflection between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur -- works like this: A person buys a chicken for about $7, then waves it in clucking circles above his head or enlists an on-site rabbi to do so. A prayer is said, symbolically transferring the person's sins to the chicken, whose throat is then slit. The meat goes to the poor.
The ancient practice is not a hit with modern animal rights groups, which condemn it. Some rabbis have also characterized the ceremony, which transpires over a few slapdash seconds, as a pagan relic. One senior Sephardi rabbi recently hinted that a monetary donation to charity might wash away sins equally well. That secular alternative is one that a growing number of Jews have embraced, though tens of thousands here still prefer the poultry.
At 3 p.m., a thick crowd eddied around the covered stalls of the Mahane Yehuda market, a frenzy of last-minute shopping before Yom Kippur shut the city down. Tucked behind stone walls, the sacrificial site could be smelled long before seen. Shoppers hurried past, leaving a group of tourists standing outside the entrance.
The group filed into the transformed parking lot. Yellow crates of live chickens -- 2,500 in all -- lined the sides. Set among them were several low metal tables, each with a half-dozen large funnels poking from the top. Thousands of white chickens -- raised for slaughter, ritual or otherwise -- would end up head-down inside them before the twilight start of Yom Kippur.
"Okay," one of the teen tourists said breathlessly into a Nokia. "Guess what I am doing right now?"
Among the brave was Rebecca Greenberg, an 18-year-old from Philadelphia. A burly man with short sidelocks and a black skullcap handed her a chicken, instructing her to clutch the wings before raising it above her head. Her friends clicked photos with cellphones. Greenberg shrieked and stamped her feet.
"I'm never eating chicken again," she shouted, handing the fluttering bird back to the handler.
|
JERUSALEM "Mommy, what happened to the chicken?" For an instant, the question hung in air rank with the smell of animal pens, dirty feathers and blood. The young boy with looping sidelocks looked up at his mother. She maneuvered a baby stroller through a gaggle of teenage American tourists gather...
| 10.033898 | 0.915254 | 18.237288 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102146.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102146.html
|
AIDS Vaccine Fails, So Merck Is Ending Study
|
2007092219
|
TRENTON, N.J., Sept. 21 -- A promising experimental AIDS vaccine failed to work in a large international test, leading the developer to halt the study.
Merck & Co. said Friday that it is ending the enrollment and vaccination of volunteers in the study, which was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.
It was a high-profile failure in the daunting quest to develop a vaccine against AIDS. Merck's vaccine was the furthest along and was closely watched by experts in the field.
Officials at the company said 24 of 741 volunteers who got the vaccine in one segment of the experiment later became infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In a comparison group of volunteers who got dummy shots, 21 of 762 participants also became infected.
Michael Zwick, an HIV researcher at Scripps Research Institute, said it is too soon to know whether other vaccines using the same strategy would also fail. "It's par for the course in the HIV field," he said of the Merck result.
The participants were all free of HIV at the start and at high risk for contracting the virus: Most were homosexual men or female sex-workers. Merck said all were repeatedly counseled about how to reduce their risk of HIV infections, including condom use.
In a statement, the NIH said a data safety monitoring board, reviewing interim results, found that the vaccine did not prevent infection or limit the severity of the disease "in those who become infected with HIV as a result of their own behaviors that exposed them to the virus" -- another goal of the study.
|
TRENTON, N.J., Sept. 21 -- A promising experimental AIDS vaccine failed to work in a large international test, leading the developer to halt the study.
| 10.724138 | 1 | 29 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102145.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102145.html
|
Grant to Help Va. Tech Upgrade Counseling
|
2007092219
|
University officials sought the funding in the wake of the April 16 mass shooting on campus. Student Seung Hui Cho, who was found to be mentally ill but never received counseling that had been ordered by a court, fatally shot 32 people before killing himself.
A panel appointed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) to investigate the rampage -- the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history -- found gaps in the mental health system, confusion over student privacy laws and breakdowns in communications.
Virginia Tech will use the federal grant to identify, treat and monitor students, faculty and staff with mental health issues who may be a danger to themselves or others. The money also will be used to improve coordination of mental health services.
Mark Owczarski, a university spokesman, said the school has been working since the shooting to improve its mental health services and respond to problems identified by the governor's panel and in other reviews. He said the grant funding, which will be used to hire case managers and increase training, will help refine and strengthen the system.
Owczarski said the university also will develop a model for assessing and helping troubled students and staff that will be shared with other schools across the country.
"We will share the information with other universities so as many universities as possible can benefit from what we learn," Owczarski said.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a statement that the grant will help ensure that people at the university have the "continued support they need to recover, rebuild and prevent future acts of violence."
The shooting sparked efforts in schools nationwide to tighten security, improve mental health services and create systems to alert students of any danger.
According to the governor's report, professors, police and officials at Tech all had indications of Cho's mental instability, but the university did not "intervene effectively." In some cases there were privacy concerns about sharing information.
Cho, a quiet loner who did not like to be touched as a toddler, was in middle school when he was found to have a severe anxiety disorder. At Westfield High School in Chantilly, he was in a special education program and allowances were made for his inability to communicate and lack of social skills.
At Virginia Tech, Cho grew more isolated, and frightened teachers and classmates with violent writings.
In 2005, a judge ordered Cho to receive outpatient care after female students complained that Cho was stalking them, according to the governor's report. A judge ordered Cho to go to the university's Cook Counseling Center, but he was not treated by health-care professionals there, the report said.
|
The U.S. Department of Education announced yesterday that it has awarded Virginia Tech a $960,685 grant to help the university improve its efforts to identify and help troubled students and staff.
| 15.484848 | 0.787879 | 1.454545 |
low
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102085.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007092219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102085.html
|
Anglican Leader Plays Down Schism
|
2007092219
|
A response was requested by Sept. 30. That has been viewed by many, particularly conservatives, as a major deadline in a years-long standoff in the Episcopal Church over what the Bible says about sexuality and how to view Jesus.
"Despite what has been claimed, there is no ultimatum involved," Williams said at a news conference yesterday afternoon, the Associated Press reported. "It has been represented sadly as a set of demands and deadlines. It was not that way. We are inevitably in a position of compromise."
Williams left the United States, but the bishops will meet again Monday and Tuesday, at which point they are likely to release a response.
The apparent contradiction between Williams and other Anglican leaders highlights the lack of central authority in the communion, a loose family of 77 million members. Even as debate rages within the communion over scripture and sexuality, there is no governing figure or voting body with the power to force a clear conclusion.
Some say the 38 Anglican leaders, called primates, who head branches that include the large Nigerian and English churches, have no authority under Anglicanism to enforce sanctions against the U.S. church. Others say Williams's authority is limited, including his characterization that the Americans don't face a deadline.
"This is part of the messiness of Anglicanism: Do the primates have the power to vote the American church off Anglican island? We maintain they do not," said the Rev. Susan Russell, a California priest who heads Integrity, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Episcopalians.
Russell said she was encouraged by Williams's comments at the news conference, where several conservative-leaning bishops also sounded conciliatory.
"My take is there are some who are invested in pulling off this schism. And they have nothing to gain by us being in conversation," Russell said. Williams "just took the wind out of their sails."
The head of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East characterized things differently.
"My friends, if you really believe that the truth revealed to you is different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity," Bishop Mouneer Anis told the other bishops, according to an official transcript released by the communion.
He continued: "If you think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing homosexuals and that you should bless same-sex partnerships or even marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the consequences. . . . It would be extremely difficult to sit around one table when you have already decided the outcome of the discussion and when you ignore the many voices, warnings and appeals from around the Communion."
|
The head of the Anglican Communion offered words of encouragement yesterday to U.S. Episcopal bishops under fire for their support of gay men and lesbians, saying they aren't facing an "ultimatum," even as other leaders of the worldwide church insisted the Americans are teetering on being forced ...
| 10.207547 | 0.716981 | 1.132075 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002066.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007091719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002066.html
|
'Six Months' Without End
|
2007091719
|
The next six months in Iraq are crucial -- and always will be. That noise you heard yesterday on Capitol Hill was the can being kicked further down the road leading to January 2009, when George W. Bush gets to hand off his Iraq fiasco to somebody else.
It's clear by now that playing for time is the real White House strategy for Iraq. Everything else is tactical maneuver and rhetorical legerdemain -- nothing up my sleeve -- with which the administration is buying time, roughly in six-month increments. Appearing before a joint hearing called by the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, Gen. David H. Petraeus probably won the respite Bush wanted when he said that U.S. military objectives "are in large measure being met."
Never mind whether those objectives make sense. Oh, and if anyone mentions that Congress is supposed to decide what wars this nation fights, not generals or diplomats? Attack them for impugning our nation's finest -- and give that can another kick.
Remember when the Decider asked for his troop escalation -- calling it a "surge" -- and explained what he was trying to achieve? The idea, back in March when the "surge" troops began to arrive, was that 21,500 additional pairs of boots on the ground would so dramatically improve the security situation, especially in Baghdad, that the "unity" government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could take dramatic steps toward political reconciliation. That was the key -- a political settlement that would mark the beginning of the end of a de facto sectarian civil war.
Just give us until September and you'll see, Bush promised. Six months.
Well, for the record, the number of extra troops ended up being more like 30,000. And it turned out that the Shiite-dominated government had neither the wherewithal nor the inclination to fashion an equitable deal with the Sunni minority on issues such as how to share oil revenue. Various Sunni and Shiite factions made clear that they had no faith in Maliki as a leader or an honest broker. Far from improving, the political situation in Iraq deteriorated markedly.
U.S. officials say that sectarian killings in Baghdad have declined, but journalists point out that many neighborhoods have already been subjected to ethnic cleansing. Petraeus showed Congress a chart yesterday demonstrating that civilian deaths nationwide had fallen -- but he didn't mention that most of the decline came before the "surge" troops arrived. Meanwhile, according to the United Nations, an estimated 60,000 refugees are fleeing the country each month.
But Petraeus, Bush's handpicked commander, intelligently recognized that something interesting was happening in Anbar province, once a deadly haven for Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists. Sunni tribal sheiks were getting fed up with the al-Qaeda foreigners and seemed ready to kick them out.
Petraeus did everything he could to encourage this trend, pouring largess into Anbar to forge new relationships with warlords who used to be bitter enemies. Once the local Sunni leaders decided -- for now -- that they would rather work with the Americans than shoot at them, attacks on U.S. forces in the province fell sharply.
However, this works directly against the "strategy" of counting on the central government in Baghdad to work everything out. Maliki initially reacted with alarm at seeing the Americans strengthen the hand of the Sunnis in Anbar. Unable to do anything about it, he changed tactics and tried to take credit for the drop in violence.
One funny thing about the improved security situation that Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker described: Iraqis don't seem to have noticed.
In a poll of Iraqis commissioned by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese network NHK -- released yesterday before Petraeus's testimony -- 31 percent of Iraqis said security in their local areas had worsened over the past six months, as opposed to just 24 percent who said it had improved. A full 61 percent said security had worsened in the country overall, against only 11 percent who said it had gotten better. Only 22 percent said things in general were going well in Iraq (down from 44 percent in November 2005), and just 23 percent thought things would get better over the coming year (as opposed to 69 percent in 2005).
Some 63 percent of Iraqis polled said the U.S. invasion was wrong, 47 percent said that coalition forces "should leave now" and 57 percent said attacks on U.S. forces were "acceptable."
Never mind what the Iraqis think. On with the new new strategy, which is to bypass the national government and work from the bottom up, making deals with local power brokers. That should be good for, what, another six months?
The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. today athttp://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address iseugenerobinson@washpost.com.
|
It's clear by now that playing for time is the real White House strategy for Iraq.
| 51 | 1 | 18 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/irwin_kula/2007/09/lamentations_911.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007091719id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/irwin_kula/2007/09/lamentations_911.html
|
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2007091719
|
I live in New York City. Two friends, including someone at whose wedding I had recently been the rabbi died in the World Trade Center. The acrid smell came through my apartment windows for days and sacred ashes, which I wiped away with tears, fell on my window sills for weeks.
My children who were 13 and 10 at the time were cut off from me and my wife as they could not get home from school on 9/11 because the subways were closed. The father of one of my daughterâs playmates from the time she was a toddler was killed on 9/11. The fear we felt was unforgettable and the innocence our kids lost forever so very sad.
So what message would I like to send to religious extremists? No words at all. Simply the following chant (using an ancient melody used to chant the Biblical book of Lamentations which describes the destruction of Jerusalem) of actual final cell phone conversations of people, who in the face of terror and the dearness of the vanishing moment, showed no anger or any desire for revenge but simply and heroically witnessed a yearning to love and the faith that love ultimately swallows up death.
Click here to listen to Rabbi Kula chanting.
Please e-mail OnFaith if you'd like to receive an email notification when OnFaith sends out a new question.
|
Irwin Kula on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/irwin_kula/
| 31.75 | 0.375 | 0.375 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/09/no_message_reaches_lunatics.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007091719id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/09/no_message_reaches_lunatics.html
|
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2007091719
|
I assume that the definition of "religious extremist" is someone willing to kill anyone seen as an opponent of the extremist's faith or political goals. The idea that there is any point in sending a "message" to fanatics is a fantasy beloved by many good, naive people of all faiths or no faith. What is one to say to Osama bin Laden, whose idea for world peace is that everyone else convert to Islam?
It has come to our attention that you have some very incorrect and destructive ideas about Jews and that you may even be murdering large numbers of Jewish people.
It is not only morally wrong to single out innocent men, women, and children for destruction but you are actually hurting your own people--good Germans--by doing so. We urge you to reconsider the irrationality and cruelty of your policies. If you don't, we will just have to hunt you down and kill you.
Unlike Bin Laden and his many followers, Hitler was the head of a government and a nation-state, and it was possible to defeat him by defeating his armies. Talking to the Bin Ladens of the world is pointless and military containment, not military defeat, is the only option. The problem is that one cannot contain religious fanatics who are also living ostensibly conventional lives in countries around the world while secretly disdaining the democratic traditions that allow them to flourish.
Lest anyone think I am singling out Islamic extremists (the question was, after all, about 9/11), there is no significant difference--apart from the number of his followers--between a Bin Laden and, say, a Christian anti-abortion extremist who thinks he has the right to kill doctors who perform abortions.
There is no point in trying to talk to any of these people. They are utterly delusional (crazy, in lay terms) as well as evil. Unfortunately, they are not so delusional that they are unable to plan murder on an individual and a mass scale.
|
Susan Jacoby on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/
| 48.375 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.