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/2007/01/30/AR2007013000809.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000809.html
|
A Key Padilla Charge Is Reinstated
|
2007020319
|
MIAMI, Jan. 30 -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated a key terrorism charge, the only one carrying a potential sentence of life in prison, against suspected al-Qaeda operative Jose Padilla.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed with federal prosecutors that the charge that Padilla and his two co-defendants conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas did not duplicate other counts in the indictment.
The Atlanta-based court reversed a decision last summer by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who said the three charges in the indictment contained nearly identical elements and could subject the defendants to extra punishment for the same act, violating protections against double jeopardy.
Padilla was arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, and the government alleged that he was plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a major U.S. city. President Bush declared Padilla an enemy combatant, and he was held without criminal charges for 3 1/2 years until he was indicted in late 2005 in Miami. The "dirty bomb" allegations are not part of the Miami case.
Although defense attorneys may file a challenge, Tuesday's ruling brings the case a step closer to trial as scheduled April 16. The appeals court had agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis after Cooke said she would not begin jury selection until the issue was settled.
"We are gratified by the 11th Circuit's swift decision and look forward to presenting the evidence at trial," U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta said in Miami.
Defense lawyers have 21 days to ask the panel to rehear the case or request that the full appeals court take it up. Attorneys for Padilla and his co-defendants did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
The two other main terrorism-support charges against Padilla and his co-defendants each carry maximum prison terms of 15 years.
Padilla, 36, is charged with being part of a North American terrorism support cell that provided personnel, materiel and money to extremist Islamic causes. He and his co-defendants -- Adham Amin Hassoun, 44, and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, 45 -- have pleaded not guilty.
|
MIAMI, Jan. 30 -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated a key terrorism charge, the only one carrying a potential sentence of life in prison, against suspected al-Qaeda operative Jose Padilla.
| 11.105263 | 1 | 38 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001705.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001705.html
|
Democrats Move Leftover Spending Measure
|
2007020319
|
House and Senate Democratic leaders agreed yesterday to a $463 billion spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would freeze many federal agencies at 2006 levels but include more money for veterans' health, education, scientific research, HIV programs and public parks, among other things.
In an unusual move, the congressional leaders stripped the spending bill of all earmarks, or narrow, special-interest provisions. The measure had to be cobbled together now because Congress did not finish its work last year and failed to pass nine of 11 spending bills.
Four months into the current fiscal year, the federal government has been running on a temporary budget that is set to expire Feb. 15. The House is scheduled to vote on the spending package today, while the Senate will take it up in the coming weeks.
A spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee said enough additional money will be provided to the Social Security Administration and other agencies that none will have to furlough employees, close offices or take other such measures as a result of a budget crunch. She also said that federal employees will see a 2.2 percent pay increase set by President Bush.
Among the priorities for the District that are preserved in the plan is a $20 million upgrade to the Navy Yard Metro station near the new Nationals baseball stadium, officials said.
Republicans grumbled about the fact that Democrats in the House will not allow amendments to the budget and said the party in power plans to ram through a spending bill without committee hearings or meaningful debate. Democrats said that they have no choice, because the previous Congress left the budget process in such disarray that they are under great pressure to quickly pass a spending bill for the remaining eight months.
"I don't expect people to love this proposal. I don't love this proposal and we probably have made some wrong choices," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). "But in contrast to last year's Congress, which decided to duck these choices, at least we have made them in order to bring last year's issues to a conclusion so we can turn the page and deal with next year's priorities."
Both Republican and Democratic budget analysts said that the bill is not the ideal way to fund the federal government but that it is pragmatic. "If your strategy is to get it out of here and move it on, fine, this works," said Jim Dyer, a former Republican staff director for the Appropriations Committee.
By declaring a one-time moratorium on earmarks, the Democratic leaders are granting the Bush administration more leeway in spending. The Army Corps of Engineers construction budget, for instance, typically outlines funding for specific projects. But under the no-earmarks pledge, Obey and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) decided that Congress cannot spell out spending, so they opted to give a lump sum of $2.3 billion to the Army Corps -- about $38 million less than it received in 2006 -- and to allow the agency to decide which projects deserve the money.
"They really delivered on their promise to wipe out earmarks," said Richard Kogan, a federal budget expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Among the winners in the bill are veterans' health, which will get $23.3 billion, or $3.6 billion more than it got last year. The Defense Department will receive $21.2 billion -- an increase of $1.2 billion -- to treat U.S. troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FBI will get $6 billion, an increase of $216.6 million to fully fund 31,359 positions, including those of 12,213 agents and 2,577 intelligence analysts.
Other programs that will see a boost include those that Democrats complained were underfunded when Republicans ran Congress.
Pell grants, the federal stipends for low- and middle-income college students, will be increased by $615.4 million, to a total of $13.6 billion. That will allow the maximum Pell grant to rise $260 to $4,310, the first increase in four years.
Head Start, the early childhood program for low-income students, will get $6.9 billion, an increase of $103.7 million. Democrats say that Head Start funding has been cut by 11 percent since 2002 and that centers nationwide have reduced hours, transportation and instruction as a result.
The National Institutes of Health will receive $28.9 billion, an increase of $619.5 million, which Democrats say will pay for an additional 500 research grants. The National Science Foundation will get $4.7 billion, an increase of $335 million for research.
When it comes to housing, the Democrats' bill would allot $15.9 billion, an increase of $502 million, to renew 70,000 housing vouchers under the Section 8 program, which provides federal housing subsidies to low-income families and individuals. It would provide $5.9 billion, an increase of $939 million, to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to renew subsidies for 157,000 housing units.
Before adjourning last year, Congress ratified money for defense and homeland security but left the rest of the federal budget -- including Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, education and transportation -- in limbo. Most of the government has been operating at 2006 levels through a series of stopgap measures.
Staff writer Mary Beth Sheridan contributed to this report.
|
Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2006 elections,campaigns,Democrats,Republicans,political cartoons,opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy,government tech,political analysis and reports.
| 26.74359 | 0.461538 | 0.461538 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001651.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001651.html
|
House Members' Pay Increase Is Postponed
|
2007020319
|
When Democrats blasted Republicans last fall for taking annual congressional pay raises while blocking numerous attempts to raise the minimum wage, it was an effective campaign tactic. Democrats vowed not to accept the annual cost-of-living adjustment until Congress increases the minimum wage.
But Republicans angered over the political attacks are unwilling to allow Democrats to reinstate the members' COLA, forcing Democratic leaders to scuttle the 1.7 percent pay increase for the entire year.
"There will be no COLA adjustment," a disappointed House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said yesterday.
Lawmakers' pay will be frozen at $165,200 for this year in the dispute, in which Democrats violated a years-long understanding that the competing parties would not use the pay-raise issue in campaign ads.
Under the annual COLA, lawmakers automatically get a pay raise unless Congress votes to block it. The issue is ripe because a GOP-drafted stopgap spending bill carrying language delaying the pay increase expires Feb. 15 -- and lawmakers would automatically start receiving their raises the next day.
A huge spending bill for the current budget year is moving through the House today, and Democrats tried in recent days to reach agreement with Republicans on language to delay the pay raise a few more weeks or months to provide more time for the minimum-wage bill to advance into law.
"The DCCC ran their own ads attacking [GOP] members on this," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
Members were originally to begin receiving an annual increase of 1.7 percent, or $2,800, on Jan. 1. They had already lost about $320 with the delay to Feb. 16.
|
Latest news on the US federal government. Information and analysis of federal legislation, government contracts and regulations. Search for government job openings, career information and federal employee benefits news.
| 9.277778 | 0.333333 | 0.333333 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001585.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001585.html
|
Democrats Give Bush The Business on Trade
|
2007020319
|
As President Bush was out in Peoria touting the virtues of foreign trade and asking for fresh authority to promote it, newly ascendant Democrats on Capitol Hill signaled just how tough it's going to be for the president to get what he wants.
In a hearing, Democrats repeated earlier warnings that they are unlikely to approve pending trade pacts with Peru, Colombia and Panama unless the administration agrees to provisions tightening labor and environmental protections in those countries. They pledged to demand similar labor rules before extending the president's authority to negotiate new trade deals.
"We have had trade policies in this administration that assume that trade is an end in itself, that market forces will work themselves out, that there isn't really an active role for government," said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs a House subcommittee on trade. "We've had a tremendous loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs."
The new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), presided over a wide-ranging discussion that touched on how to prevent companies from shifting production to exploitative factories in poor countries, how to confront China over allegedly unfair trade practices and how to help Americans who lose jobs.
The hearing took place as President Bush visited the Illinois headquarters of Caterpillar, the construction-equipment giant and a highly successful exporter. There, the president asked Congress to extend his so-called trade promotion authority -- his legal right to negotiate trade pacts that he can submit to lawmakers for a simple up-or-down vote. It expires at the end of June, and without it, trade deals stand little chance of getting through Congress as individual legislators pick them apart to protect jobs in their districts.
The administration is intent on gaining an extension in hopes of restarting talks aimed at lowering tariffs around the world. Those talks, known as the Doha round of trade negotiations, have been stalled for months over American and European unwillingness to pare farm subsidies and over claims from India and other poor countries that they will not benefit enough from opening their markets further to foreign goods.
In recent days, trade ministers have been meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to try to jump-start the talks. Though most analysts assume the prospect of a breakthrough remains dim, U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab offered tempered optimism yesterday.
"This was the first time we had a large group of trade ministers gathering in one venue where there was clear agreement on the need to move forward with the Doha round and a sense of urgency that if at all possible we need to identify a means of achieving a breakthrough," Schwab said at a news conference in Geneva.
During the House hearing, and in a flurry of written statements, Democrats said they would not readily give the president the extension he seeks, expressing skepticism about the administration's willingness to ensure that trade deals benefit American workers.
"It requires a great deal of trust," Rangel said in a statement. "Congress must have some key assurances before it is willing to extend this leverage."
But as the chairman acknowledged during the hearing, turning Bush down would carry political risks. The Doha talks have been aimed at extending the benefits of globalization to poor countries. If Democrats refuse to extend the president's authority, that could convince the Europeans that concessions would be futile, since any agreement could die in a quagmire of congressional amendment-making.
"If we don't give trade promotion authority, we have to have a good reason for not giving it," Rangel said.
Yesterday's House hearing, which ran for more than three hours, revealed the competing views on trade that now divide the nation.
Several Republican lawmakers from districts where companies enjoy strong exports called for congressional approval of the Colombia and Peru trade deals to extend the good times.
"We're not at the mercy of globalization; we control our own destiny," said Grant D. Aldonas, a former Bush administration undersecretary of commerce for international trade. He noted that Wal-Mart had become emblematic of the threats seen by foes of cheap imports, but those same imports help people living on limited paychecks. "Every day Sam Walton's store is open for business, it's delivering globalization to the American doorstep," Aldonas said.
Democratic lawmakers and some panelists kept the focus on the costs of expanded trade -- the steady move of manufacturing jobs to lower-cost countries.
Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a research group critical of globalization, said the United States needed expanded benefits for laid-off workers and health care coverage to address the gap between rich and poor before embracing further trade.
"How are people going to accept further liberalization when they are anxious in their daily life?" he asked. "Let's get things right in the United States before we press further down this road."
|
As President Bush was out in Peoria touting the virtues of foreign trade and asking for fresh authority to promote it, newly ascendant Democrats on Capitol Hill signaled just how tough it's going to be for the president to get what he wants.
| 20.913043 | 1 | 46 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001607.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001607.html
|
Cafeteria Inspections Lag, Study Finds
|
2007020319
|
High school cafeterias in the District, Virginia and Montgomery County routinely fail to meet federal food safety standards that require them to be inspected twice a year, according to a study released yesterday.
D.C. school cafeterias had the worst inspection rate, an average of 0.56 times a year, among the 20 jurisdictions nationwide included in the report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group. The study said Montgomery schools were examined 1.41 times a year and Virginia schools 1.76 times a year.
The report also criticized Montgomery County for having "the worst, most out-dated food code" of any system in the study. It said Montgomery's cafeteria standards are based on a 1976 federal code instead of the most recent one issued in 2005, that sets nonbinding standards for food safety inspections.
Kathy Lazor, director of food and nutrition services for Montgomery schools, disputed the report's statistics and said all high school cafeterias in the county are inspected twice a year. She also said the school system's food code is not based on 1976 standards.
"I don't know where they're getting their data from, but it's not accurate," Lazor said.
The D.C. public school system acknowledged that inspections of its cafeteria do not meet federal requirements. John White, a school system spokesman, said the District's 142 public schools were inspected 116 times in 2006, or 0.82 times a year.
Like school officials in Virginia and Montgomery, White noted that local health department employees -- not school system staff -- are responsible for inspections of school cafeterias.
Health department officials said they could not immediately comment on the study, which was based on a sample of 20 high schools in each jurisdiction, because they had not had time to review it.
|
High school cafeterias in the District, Virginia and Montgomery County routinely fail to meet federal food safety standards that require them to be inspected twice a year, according to a study released yesterday.
| 9.555556 | 1 | 36 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600613.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600613.html
|
In Indonesia - washingtonpost.com
|
2007020319
|
"There are a hundred ways you can die on this boat," the captain told us. The South African surfers squeezed their beer cans, and I recalled Samuel Johnson's judgment that being on a boat is like being in jail with a chance of being drowned.
When I'd met Chris McCarthy at the bar of the Hotel Batang Arau in the West Sumatran capital of Padang, he'd told me about his Laut India, a big wild boat modeled on a vessel sailed by the old Bugi pirates. (It is from them that we get our word "boogeyman.") The American expat said that in two days he was taking world-class surfers out to the Mentawai Islands west of Sumatra, to the best barrel waves in the world. He spoke of animist tribes and of old men with ferocious full-facial tattoos. He said that if I came along, I would eat fish that did not have names.
At the outset I wish to state that aside from McCarthy's advice not to fall into the sea at midnight, I felt no vibration of fear or any threat anywhere during my month-long stay in the largest Muslim country in the world. I was welcomed wherever I went. Although the first thing I learned to say in Indonesian was "Saya orang Amerika" ("I am an American"), when people asked my nationality, I sometimes made them guess. Only one man guessed right, perhaps because American travelers are now rare in Indonesia. The morning I made my way to McCarthy's boat, the schoolchildren (many Indonesians speak English, and children generally try) who surrounded me were thrilled to meet someone from the United States. When they asked if I knew "Little Bush" or his father, "Big Bush," I shook my head. They shot me tender, pitying smiles, slumped their shoulders in terrible disappointment, waved and walked away.
During a summer month when very bad news kept coming out of the Middle East, I was hit by an anti-American slur only once. Yes, it was only possibly a slur, but it really hurt. Standing at a busy Yogyakarta intersection, I was wearing a rock-and-roll T-shirt and super-cool baggy shorts from a local vendor. I had just put on reading glasses to check the map, and a salesman was on me. We chatted in English about nothing, and then the topic changed to batiks. Once he started, he wouldn't let up, and he kept at it until I made it clear I was not going to buy anything.
I was way too tough -- five weeks earlier, an earthquake had shattered his city. He looked me over one last time, gave up and turned away. "Oh, do what you like," he said. Then he stopped, turned back and delivered his heartless and pitiless attack: "Yes, do what you wish," he hissed, "Mister David Letterman!"
Bali is the Indonesian island most people know, but there are more than 17,500 other islands in the 3,000-mile archipelago of the fourth-largest country in the world, which has a population of about 250 million. A city boy myself, I mostly wanted to see Yogyakarta, on densely populated Java. Indonesia's intellectual and artistic center, the city -- pronounced Joe-Jakarta, often called just Jogja -- is the home of world-class ancient monuments, theaters, dance, museums, music, many universities, and hip-hop bars. But since I recognized that a visit to Indonesia needed at least a stab at nature, I decided to start my trip on wild Sumatra, where in the local language, "orang" means "person" and "utan" means "jungle."
I did not get far with the nature plan. I regret that. At my hotel in Padang, a businessman from London summed up his month-long trek (with a great guide) in the Sumatran rain forests: "I was bitten on the bum -- twice -- by everything that can bite you on your bum. But I saw astounding things and it was the time of my life."
A Henry James scholar in my day job, I had not planned for anything like a surfing trip with eight sunburned South African men and a stunning South African woman named Charmaine. That first night, I was odd man out as everyone downed beers and stroked their surfboards. McCarthy, a generous, charismatic American who could manage to put heart into just passing the salt, noticed me sitting apart (I was reading and had just learned that 19th-century sailors used pieces of rope as napkins, and when the ropes got thick with grease, they lit them as candles). He glanced down at my book and said he was really going to have to find me a boogie board.
That first night and then each night, after the fish were grilled and the dinner was done, after McCarthy's Indonesian crew had cleaned the kitchen and had tossed the stray bones into the sea, they had a few hours to themselves. While the surfers hunkered down over beer and talked about pig-dog barrels and 20-meter-high roof-riding floaters, the Mentawai Islands crewmen emerged on deck. A few of them had ancient animist tattoos traced on their backs. As the Laut India sliced through the Indian Ocean, they reclined on the cabin roof or climbed the masts, and they talked and laughed, and then sang almost forgotten island songs to the moon. The sea was infinite, the sky black, the stars amazing and the songs haunting. They all said they wanted to marry, and they all said, "But not yet."
The nine South Africans, and even McCarthy and his crew on their 39th voyage, knew such idyllic nights were precious, as did I. But when I got back to port in Padang, I was corrected on a couple of points. A travel agent there turned out to be the fiancee of McCarthy's Indonesian navigator, and she told me that not one of the crew was a Mentawai islander, and none of them knew any ancient songs. They were, Sheree said, probably singing lazy Indonesian pop. All of them, she said, were Minangkabaus from the Sumatran mainland, and all of them were Muslim. Since tattoos are forbidden by the Koran, the tattooed ones, the ones with the long floral ribbons burned into their backs, had sinned against Allah. They do it, she said, because surfers have them. They want to be cool, like them.
Sheree recommended that I leave the steamy coast and visit Bukittinggi, a hill town famous for the unique Minangkabau expression of Islam. Two hours by car from Padang, its main streets are lined with restaurants, jazz bars and fast-food joints. There were constant calls to prayer from the great mosque, and behind them persistent tunes from ice cream trucks. Otherwise, since the 2002 bombings more than a thousand miles away in Bali, this once-thriving and still-fascinating tourist center has been far too quiet.
Yusmarni Djalius, a professor at Padang's Andalas University, had spoken to me of Bukittinggi as the heart of the world's largest matrilineal society, the Minangkabau. "High property" among the Minangkabau -- the land and the long, buffalo-horned houses that best establish cultural identity and authority -- is always inherited by women. And Djalius said Minangkabau husbands are in fact considered invited guests in their wives' homes. They can earn money and buy "low property" for themselves, but they understand it will rarely approach the pedigree, or the bulk, of what their wives have inherited and will pass down to their daughters.
|
For a month, he explored its islands, met its people -- and glimpsed its soul.
| 83.5 | 0.833333 | 0.944444 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600606.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007020319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600606.html
|
In Paris, It's the Real Savoir Fair
|
2007020319
|
This may shock you, but most French people don't sit around talking about the relationship between Monet and Manet; they couldn't care less what Karl Lagerfeld is up to; and these days it seems that even critiquing America isn't the fun it used to be.
So what gets the Gallic cultural juices going? Basque or Southwestern swine, Limousine or Charolais cattle, or just about any of France's 60 breeds of sheep, for starters. France, like no other place on Earth, exalts, codifies and rates its regional agricultural products, from wine and cheese to ham, olives and even lentils -- a fact that once led Charles de Gaulle to ask, "How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 types of cheese?"
France's reverence for agriculture is fueled by tradition, nostalgia and subsidy-heavy farm policy. France may be a bit smaller than Texas, but it is (after the United States) the world's second-biggest agricultural exporter. Farming may represent a pittance (about 3 percent) of France's economy, but -- more than in any other industrialized nation -- it remains the spiritual core.
Which is precisely why a pilgrimage to Paris in the dead of winter is essential for Francophiles or anyone with an interest in animal husbandry, gastronomy, wine or farming.
During eight days, Paris's sprawling Porte de Versailles exhibition center turns itself into what is billed as the "world's biggest farm." To imagine the Salon International de l'Agriculture, think of a big American state fair with a few thousand horses, cows, goats, sheep, donkeys and rabbits and show arenas in every direction. (Because of fears of avian flu, the 2006 edition was absent all chickens and live birds.) Get rid of the midway rides, corn dogs and Bud, and replace them with meticulously organized region-by-region exhibitions, including acres of sausages, hams, foie gras, oysters and, of course, cheeses, along with rivers of wine -- all competing for gold, silver and bronze medals.
Add to the stew a parade of France's top politicians, who come to pose for the nightly news while admiring cattle, stroking cuddly sheep or biting into specialties from politically important regions, and you begin to get an idea of the grandeur of it all.
Agricultural fairs have been going on in Paris since 1843 as a way of bringing city folk in touch with the French countryside. The current version, a product of the 20th century, is attended by more than half a million people. It's laid out in French, but there's little language barrier because it's visual more than anything. I mean, unless you're seriously addicted to Sunday morning talk shows, how much explanation do you need to understand a chain-saw competition?
As Far as the Eye Can See
My wife and son and I arrived in Paris on the second Saturday morning of the salon's 2006 edition with the idea that the better part of a day would be plenty of time to see everything there was to see and sample France's bounty from Normandy to the Pyrenees to Alsace.
Nothing -- not even years of attending the State Fair of Texas -- could quite prepare us for the scale of the French fair. In six hours, we covered about half the event and made it to none of the exhibitions put on by Italy and other countries from Europe, South America and Asia.
We'd begun the morning late, setting out from our hotel in Saint-Germain-des-Pres, which is about as far as you can get from the farm. We strolled up the Boulevard Saint-Germain, where shop windows displayed lots of cool-looking, nonutilitarian stuff, including handmade shoes for $1,400. We then packed sardine-like into a subway car headed to the Porte de Versailles. At noon, we were released into a throng of humans, backpacks and baby strollers, all headed in one direction.
Just after the ticket entrance, an outdoor timber sports demonstration set the decidedly rural tone: A group of lumberjack types were showing off their wood-cutting skills with axes and roaring chain saws.
|
So what gets the French cultural juices going? Basque or Southwestern swine, Limousine or Charolais cattle, or just about any of France's 60 breeds of sheep, for starters.
| 23.794118 | 1 | 25.235294 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/12/DI2007011201368.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/12/DI2007011201368.html
|
Post Magazine: Mind Control
|
2007012319
|
New on the Internet: a community of people who believe the government is beaming voices into their minds. They may be crazy, but the Pentagon has pursued a weapon that can do just that.
In this week's issue of Washington Post Magazine, Sharon Weinberger tells the story of this emerging group of activists who are convinced they are targets of a government mind-control plot .
Sharon Weinberger is a Washington writer and author of "Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld."
Sharon Weinberger: Hi, thanks for joining me here to talk about my article on mind control. It's clear from reading some of the comments that people have a variety of reactions to the story, and I think that's a good thing.
Just a note on abbreviations-many of the people who claim they are targeted call themselves TIs, short for Targeted Individuals. There are a lot of great questions and comments, and I'll try to get to as many as I can.
Washington, D.C.: In deciding how best to characterize most TIs, isn't the choice between viewing them as psychotics or as authentic victims too limiting? Wouldn't it make more sense to see them largely as normal people who, due to a minor brain condition, happen to hear voices?
After all, hearing (and seeing and other sensory experience) is in the brain, not the sense organs. And perfectly normal people have experienced "phantom pain" for some time after suffering loss of a limb. Indeed, we probably all experience phantom pains every now and again. And we dream, which in effect involves "phantom sight" and "phantom sound." So might not many or most TIs, as well as those claiming religious experiences and UFO abductions, simply be people with a predisposition for non-psychotic phantom experiences?
Sharon Weinberger: Yes, I absolutely, 100 percent agree with you. I think you get to the heart of the problem. The TIs want to characterize themselves as mind control victims, and others want to view them as mentally ill.
Susan Clancy says that people who believe they are kidnapped by aliens are odd people, but very sane. Okay, but what differentiates them from mind control victims? Hearing voices? So, does hearing voices automatically make you insane? I'm not so sure.
Your point raises an issue that is deserving of its own article. Human experience is not clear-cut, and phantom pains, voices, and feelings of being watched or followed are all a part of this experience. Many, many people will experience fleeting auditory hallucinations in their lives. Who hasn't had the feeling of "being watched?"
I think that what we are seeing is a continuum of human experience that ranges from the common to uncommon: Common might be: "I think my neighbor is watching me"; to what some regard as kooky but not psychotic: "I was kidnapped by aliens"; and finally to what many regard as psychotic ("The government is controlling my mind")
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge what's "psychotic." I do think dismissing everyone who believes in mind control as schizophrenic is a mistake-not because I believe they are victims of mind control-but because I feel that's too simplistic.
Maryland : A friend of mine from Virginia for several years has been experiencing events or symptoms like the ones portrayed in your article-- voices, surveillance, genital attacks. My friend believes that these experiences are real and perhaps government induced.
I have heretofore assumed that my friend's experiences are psychiatric in nature. Your article raises the possibility that something else is going on, or perhaps describes a constellation of psychiatric symptoms that should be studied, diagnosed and treated. I had no idea that this phenomenon was so widespread.
Your article did not go into depth on what psychiatry has to say about the constellation of symptoms that includes auditory hallucinations, the belief that one is being surveilled and genital attacks. What is the current thinking and course of treatment, and how effective are existing treatments?
Sharon Weinberger: You mention that I don't go into depth on what psychiatry has to say about the "constellation of symptoms" and that's a good point. Experts in auditory hallucinations-or at least the ones I spoke with--are very focused on understanding the organic causes, and don't seem to look at the broader context of how people attribute the hallucinations. Those I spoke with had no idea there was an organization for people who believe they are mind control victims. That surprised me. I mean-here is an entire organization-many or most of whom hear voices-and the doctors don't know about it. For some reason, that strikes me as odd.
I think I'm inclined to agree that whatever the cause, yes, the psychiatric community should look at this issue in some greater depth. I don't think there's enough attention given to how people suffering from these problems attribute their symptoms.
Washington, DC: I was friends with artists at the University of Maryland in the 1980s. One guy I know dropped out of school. He virtually barricaded himself in his house, covering the walls of his room with tinfoil. When we finally talked to him he said that the soviets were beaming voices into his head, voices trying to control his mind, voices telling him to do things. I knew a girl a few years later. She became instantly very religious and tried to convert all of us. We panicked that she was in a cult. She admitted that demons were insider her head, trying to control her mind, telling her to do things. I never saw her after her parents went to get her, but I ran into the first guy again, he was functional after years of lithium and had a job as a graphic designer. Both, I'm convinced, were plain vanilla schizophrenic. By not giving seriously ill people the information they need to stop the voices, you're doing a disservice. They should not be humored or mocked, they should be helped.
Sharon Weinberger: I wanted to make sure I answered your question first, because I think it's terribly important. First, many of the TIs agree with your point-that those who hear voices should immediately seek medical treatment to determine if there is a medical cause. But this also leads to an important point: there are cases where medical treatment is not successful at stopping the voices.
I absolutely agree that the TIs do not deserve to be mocked. But to your point, even if you assume that all of these people are deluded, they are likely not all schizophrenic. First, not all of them hear voices or have hallucinations. Some of them just say they are being followed. Also, there's a large body of scientific literature that suggests that people can have auditory hallucinations in the absence of mental illness. And some of the TIs I spoke with had sought psychiatric treatment, which they claimed didn't help them. Even among psychiatrists and psychologists, there's a diversity of views. Some academics have suggested we should look at "hearing voices" as a natural part of the human experience. I'm not sure what I think of that personally.
Have you ever wondered why your friends were convinced it was the demon or government? Rather than judging the TIs, I want to understand their experiences for what they are, and try to understand why they attribute the experience to external forces.
Los Angeles, Calif: Why do you think all other major media have been unwilling to touch this subject and why did your editors decide to let you go where no other major media reporter has gone before? Do knowledgeable editors and reporters think that we are a bunch of loonies who aren't worth their attention? Or do they know that we are telling truth which they have been afraid to expose? Does your investigation and the response to your article lead you to believe that we are telling the truth and that our statements deserve further investigation? Bob S.
Sharon Weinberger: I think many newspapers don't write about this because there is a lack of evidence that the government is currently targeting innocent people with mind control weapons.
I think many writers personally avoid this subject because you can quickly become overwhelmed in e-mails from people in desperate need of help. It is very hard to start your day, as I have done for several months now, with e-mails from people who say, "I'm hearing voices in my head and my life is falling apart."
Silver Spring, Md: Really, other than being non-violent, how are these
people different than paranoid schizophrenic Russell
Weston, who shot his way into the Capitol in 1998
because he thought the government was spying on him
through his Illinois neighbor's satellite dish?
How can one believe these people are rational when they
cannot explain why THEY are being targetted and not
many more likely people (e. g. liberal Democratic
Suppose the issue was whether the government had or is
developing such technology, but simply whether they were
being followed? Wouldn't it be clearer then that these
Sharon Weinberger: You raise an excellent point but I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I think I read that one in five Americans believes their phones are tapped by the NSA. Are they mentally ill? Why not? Many of them are undoubtedly wrong.
I have friends who are absolutely convinced that if they write the words "dirty bomb" in an e-mail that they will be monitored by U.S. intelligence, and they are pretty sane, even if they're wrong.
You say, "other than being nonviolent " as if that were a minor thing. Yes, there are people who hear voices and are violent, but there are also people who hear voices and are not violent. There's also plenty of people who don't hear voices and do very bad things.
Paranoia, Can Annoy Ya: Suppose the government were beaming into these people's heads the impulse to submit their story to the Post?
Sharon Weinberger: An interesting thought, thanks.
McLean, Va: Did you even contact noted intelligence and political reporters like Walter Pincus--at the Post--or Bill Gertz or Bob Woodward or Jerry Seper and ask them for help in contacting actual military and intelligence officials who would tell you that these people are sick, and there are no such devices on the planet Earth? For God's sake, it all almost reads like a Weekly World News article. There are no government agencies sending conversations to people's brains in the real world! In science fiction, yes--lots of it! In fiction, you can find that this is a common theme. And that's where it stays--in fiction.
Sharon Weinberger: It's important to note that I don't personally assert that government is sending voices into people's heads. Rather, I'm trying to portray the experience of a large group of people sharing a common experience and a common explanation.
I did speak with a number of current and former military officials for the article, and as the article states, the irony is that indeed, the Pentagon has done work in areas related to "mind control" and "beaming voices into people's heads."
That doesn't mean, of course, that self-described victims are being targeted, since we know that auditory hallucinations is another possible explanation for what people are experiencing. You mention the names of several fine national security reporters-but they are not experts in auditory hallucinations.
Davis, Calif: Dear Sharon, Thank you for writing and exploring a serious topic, mind control, when most of mainstream press avoids it. I know this was an introductory article and I hope you will be able to write follow up articles as the issue is complex. Recently Jonathan D. Moreno wrote Mind Wars, a book reviewed by Nature magazine and he wrote of the thousands of alleged mind control victims that contacted him as a result of his 1999 book on secret state experiments. In this heightened national security era, I thank you again for raising an issue that is rarely discussed but should be, Sincerely, Cheryl Welsh, law student, also an "alleged victim" and director of Mind Justice.org
Sharon Weinberger: Thank you Cheryl.
Falls Church, Va.: It's hard to see your article as anything other than irresponsible and cruel. It's plain to see that these people are paranoid schizophrenics, and indulging their delusions by speculating about the existence of exotic weapons (or UFOS, or fairies, or demons) only hinders their ability to get a real treatment.
You could have spent a few sentences debunking the myths that you promulgated. For instance: Contrary to claims made in your article, you CAN develop schizophrenia in late adulthood; you CAN be a high-functioning schizophrenic and still dress and bathe properly; there IS more than one option for medication if one drug does not work.
You could have explored the central paradox of schizophrenia: Many (perhaps even most) of these people could be cured if they took medication, but they can't be convinced to take medication because their sickness prevents them from understanding that they're sick. Should personal freedom include the freedom to be unhappily mentally ill, or should forcible treatment of schizophrenics be permitted?
You're an expert in weapons systems. You know perfectly well that there is no weapon in existence or under development that would explain these people's symptoms. Your article thus amounts to little more than mockery of the mentally ill. It's a throwback to the 19th century, when it was socially acceptable for people to tour asylums for entertainment, laughing at the nonsensical behavior of those confined. Shame on you, and shame on the Post.
Sharon Weinberger: I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about the article, but your view is not unexpected, and also very important.
First, there is no doubt in my mind that some number of people who are TIs are likely very mentally ill and in need of medical help. But not everyone who believes in strange things is mentally ill.
There are number of people in the government, and some in the Pentagon, who believe in UFOs. Some of them believe that UFOs have visited the Earth and kidnapped people. Some of them believe they may have been kidnapped. I personally think they are wrong. But are they psychotic? Probably not.
John Alexander, the former military official I interviewed in the article, believes in psychic abilities. He believes that during the Cold War psychics were able to "see" advanced technology developments and or locations of installations. I don't agree with John because I doubt psychic abilities, but I don't think John, who has held a number of national security positions, is crazy.
Ronald Reagan believes in astrology. My husband believes in stockpiling water in case of natural disaster. I believe that drinking colored water with vitamins makes me feel better. We all believe in strange things, and we're not all "crazy."
McLean, Va: Sharon: There are so many obvious flaws in the TI's theories: If they're on to what the gov't. is doing, why doesn't it stop and target someone else? Why does the gov't. send random messages instead of useful ones like "kill terrorists"? Why doesn't it beam the mind control signal over the mountains of Pakistan and tell bin Laden to give himself up? Why aren't the experiments conducted on soldiers, who could be prevented from talking to the media? Why doesn't the gov't. use mind control to prevent them from talking to reporters? Results of experiments need to be tracked and evaluated; how is that happening? Why would the gov't. hire 20 people to spy on you by driving by your house when tapping the phone and bugging the house would be easier, cheaper and yield more information? Why would the gov't. hire only Jewish people to drive by?
Did you ask any of the TI's these or similar questions to explore the logical gaps in their thinking?
Sharon Weinberger: I think there are a number of logical flaws that I point out in the article, starting with technology and ending with common sense. The question that I would like to pose is: given these logical flaws, why do they believe what they do? I think calling them "crazy" is not a very good answer. I'm trying to answer the "why?"
Philadelphia Politician's Office: Your article struck me on a personal level, and let me please take your time and explain why. I worked (and still do) for a Philadelphia politician in the 1980s and twice we have had people come into our office during the 1980s with the exact same story as Harlan Girard mentioned in your article. We presumed the people were suffering from some psychological disorder. Both had maintained they had been government critics (one had published several articles in socialist publications), both had a connection with the University of Pennsylvania, and both claimed that the government and Penn were beaming thoughts into their brains. One woman (whose identity I do recall and I see she still has a listed phone number in West Philadelphia) used to call daily and would talk nonstop for an hour every day. We later learned she must have spent most of her day calling people begging for help, but we had no idea how to help. Suddenly, she stopped calling. Years later I was comparing tales with a friend who worked for a private organization (perhaps they do not wish to be identified) and she mentioned how this same woman would call them everyday for an hour at a time. She claims she was taking so much of their time that they had a Board meeting to discuss the ethics of an idea they had and they decided, while perhaps it wasn't totally ethical, they needed to do something to resolve this, so they told her they had contacted the FBI and that the government had agreed to shut off the beams. The woman stopped calling.
The second gentleman came to our office one day, told a similar tale, wouldn't leave but sat in our office all day, then stated if he ever called our office to not take the call because it would not be him calling but "them" calling pretend to be him. He then left, and we never heard from him again, nor did he or "them" ever call. I do not, unfortunately, remember his name, although it may be buried in some archives somewhere.
I have no idea if any of the above is of interest. I just send it along that I find it interesting there is now at least a third person who in the 1980s claims to be a government critic with a connection to Penn who claims the government beams thoughts into his brain. Nor do I know what this means. I just send you my observations. If for any reason you wish me to contact you with any further recollections, just let me know.
Sharon Weinberger: Thank you. I'll just post your comment.
Hi! I read your article with great enthusiasim.
The targeted community waited anxiously to see the end result of this article. They wanted to see just how the article would describe their everyday torture and how would your article portray our community.
Sharon, we have the right to our freedom. We are working with dedicated energies to find a solution to continue to educate the general public. Your article was one of the first to help expose the seriousness of the daily experiences of targets.
Now here we are with an article. What can we expect next from you to continue to expose what the target community is living with daily? What can you do, Sharon, to offer a continuing support of telling the true story of a target?
As for the future, well, my area of writing is defense technology and national security, so I guess I'll just keep writing about those issues as they evolve.
Bethesda, Md: Your article led me to read up on auditory hallucinations on the Internet. It was interesting to learn that some of the more recent studies link auditory hallucinations to connective defects in brain tissue and that some of the most promising experimental treatments are those that stimulate areas of the brain electronically. It was also interesting to read that the electronic stimulation treatments have been helpful to some patients whose symptoms have not been alleviated by drugs.
My reading leads to a number of questions:
--Has anyone been studying any of the subjects of your article to determine whether they are experiencing abnormal connective patterns in the brain or other psychiatric symptoms?
--Have auditory hallucinations been observed in otherwise healthy people (those without mood disorders, schizphrenia or seizure disorders like epilepsy)?
--If electrical disturbances in the brain can help to treat auditory hallucinations, could they also be caused by electrical stimulation from outside agents, as contended by the subjects of your article?
Your article describes a group of people who share common experiences/symptoms. If these experiences/symptoms are caused by a brain abnormality, I hope that there are places for them to get treatment without stigma.
Sharon Weinberger: As I've said in one of the previous questions, I think the entire area of auditory hallucinations is absolutely fascinating. One of the key things to note is that scientists still don't really understand, or agree on, what causes these hallucinations. That's why I'm critical of those who want to dismiss everyone who "hears voices" as mentally ill. From what I've read in the scientific literature-it's possible for people to hear voices and not have a brain abnormality. Again, perhaps "hearing voices" is not as uncommon a human experience as might popularly be believes.
Okay that said, there are people who are schizophrenic or who have intense auditory hallucinations. They are clearly ill and in need of help. Ralph Hoffman, a psychiatrist at Yale who is quoted in the article, is studying the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat voices. He has had some success, but not everyone is responsive. But his work is fascinating.
Arlington, Va: Sharon, Overall what did most TIs think about your article. I have a co-worker that has experienced very similar "symptoms" to those you described. I want to pass on your article, but am a little hesistant - I don't want him to feel misunderstood or mocked.
Also, do you have an idea of how many TIs eventually stop hearing voices?
Sharon Weinberger: Most TIs felt it was a fair portrayal of their issues, although some were disappointed that I didn't expose what they believe is massive mind control plot. I hope no one thinks I'm mocking them, because that was never my intention.
I think the hardest thing about this article- and perhaps what is difficult to express-is that I promised the TIs I would give a fair hearing to their claims, and I believe I have. Writing an article that dismisses all their claims as the rantings of the mentally ill would not be fair or honest to what I promised them.
But there's also a concern-expressed in some comments on this forum-that giving a fair hearing to TIs might wrongly reinforce the beliefs among some people that they are targets of government mind control, when they may not be.
I don't know how to resolve this, and hope that objectivity and balance serves the greater good.
Fairfax, Va: Hmm. I find the angry responses to your article fascinating, because what intrigued me about your article was the profoundly social nature of the TI's you described: the demonstrations, the Internet community, the desire to spread the word and get help. I'm not an expert on mental illness, but regardless of what we determine "normal" and "abnormal" behavior and beliefs, once something takes this external social form (rather than something internalized and antisocial) I think it can tell us something about our society and ourselves-- and we can perhaps learn equally from the number of angry responses you get. Regardless of the source of the TI's feelings/thoughts, they are grounded historically and socially in the present moment, and to decry them purely as "mental illness" is to forget-- well, to forget who we are and why we believe the world is the way it is.
Why do their claims frighten/anger some people so much?
Sharon Weinberger: That's a wonderful comment, and better perhaps, then I've been able to express my own thoughts on this issue. Thank you very much.
I think TIs frighten people for the same reason that some people will mock them and "tinfoil hats." It's a frightening phenomenon, and more frightening to think "what if it happened to me?"
When I was researching this article, I asked a friend of mine what she would do if she woke up one morning and heard voices: absolutely completely real voices. Would she see declare herself crazy, and run to the doctor and take medications, or call a conference call of people who have symptoms like hers and would be sympathetic to her. Think how incredibly isolating it is to have this experience.
For better or worse, she said she'd take the TI conference call. Admitting that you are "crazy" is not an easy thing.
I do think there is a need to de-stigmatize the phenomenon of "hearing voices." Calling these people "crazy" does not help them one bit. If anything, it makes them less likely to seek medical attention that they may need.
North Carolina: Ive been reading the comments, and i have to ask why you are posting all the comments that are calling targets "crazy"? it appears to me to be very discrediting and one sided. I am not now of ever been mentally ill, my life was perfectly happy until 3 years ago when this "electronic harassment" started. if the skeptics spent ten minutes of their time realistically researching you would see that there's something more to this than just a mental disorder. although i do agree that there are some that are in need of medical help, there are many that are in desperate need of real protection. this is really happening, the more that these crimes don't make any sense, the more effective they are. wouldn't you agree with that? it's plausible denial. R.
Sharon Weinberger: I'm going to post this, so people can see your point of view.
Philadelphia, Pa: Sharon: Your article did not mention the fact that there is an organization, International Committee on Offensive Microwave Weapons, which maintains an easy to navigate website at www.icomw.org. Persons interested in something more than an Internet community they've never heard of before might find the website interesting.
Before Abu Ghraib and The secret prisons and rendition to torture and Guantanamo Bay I can imagine some of the smug assertions made above might have been warranted, particularly the complaint from McLean, VA. However, knowing what we now do about our government, including it's aimless war in Iraq with its 600,000 civilian, Iraqi civilian casualties, I will say that any one who disputes the claims of victims of the government's ongoing program of murder by mind control out of hand is severely mentally disturbed and should seek psychiatric attention immediately.
Sharon Weinberger: Sorry the full name didn't make it in. In either case. Please everyone note the organization and website. Harlan's website is easy to navigate and has many fascinating documents. I found it useful for referencing some of the technology the Pentagon has worked on. And as I would like to note is that, yes, some of this technology really has been researched.
Washington, DC: I have to say that the most disturbing part of the article for me was the government consultant who sees no reason why weapons of mind control won't or shouldn't be added to our arsenal. While I don't believe for a second the folks you spoke to are suffering from anything of the sort, the idea that this could one day really be a possibility is terrifying to me. It's bad enough we can poision the water, the air, and the food supply in the name of war. To think we could invade the minds of other human beings as a form of attack makes my blood run cold.
Sharon Weinberger: I agree 100 percent. While some comments on this forum would like to dismiss all TIs as crazy (a word I personally find unsatisfying), there is a second issue here that I tried to highlight in the article: the government really is/has been working on some of the technologies they describe. Also, let's not forget that the CIA really did, in the 1950s, conduct some nefarious "mind control" experiments.
So here's the question: should we singularly dismiss every single "mind control" claim that comes our way. I'm not so sure.
The ACLU recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see if any detainees from the war on terror have been subjected to nonconsensual lie detection using fMRI. In a sense, that is "mind reading." So, some of these issues are real. We just have to make sure we distinguish fact from fantasy.
Fayetteville, N.C.: Why did you ignore the testimonies of the victims at the rally in Washington, D.C. Even a man that had worked for the Department of Defense that was working on mind control and is now working on sheilding for the victims.
Sharon Weinberger: Actually, I spoke with many of the people at the rally. There was simply a limit to the number of people I could speak about in one article.
Seattle, Wash: Ms. Weinberger. I note you do not mention the override of Ms. Naylor's computer screen described in "1996" to ward the end of novel. Is that because you see dthis as her invention, or because you were "encouraged to consider this "classified"?
Sharon Weinberger: Thank you. I guess I would ask why you believe computer problems are evidence of government mind control? My computer has problems every day.
Arlington, Va: During my childhood here in DC (during the 60's) I remember a "regular" outside the White House - that ragtag group constantly in Lafayette Square - who thought the government had planted a transistor (the technology of the time) in her head.
So maybe this is not a new phenomenon?
Sharon Weinberger: You are correct, the belief is not new, but I think it's interesting that the Internet has allowed them to form a community. Many of the TIs told me that for years, they thought they were alone. Now, they can meet hundreds of people online in minutes with similar beliefs. I don't know whether that's good or bad, but it is "new."
Sylva NC: Thanks Sharon, this story is awesome.
Perpetrators tried to kill me again over the Christmas holidays with this pulsed microwave radiation.
I am the author of the Petition to Cease and Ban Direct Energy programs and electronic surveillance. The petition brought many of us ti's together.
Over 600 people signed, 50% are torture victims.
Nearly all of us are innocent of any wrong.
Many ti's believe the amish girl killings and other high school kid killings were the result of the implants being set off in the killers.
It is time to end electronic human tracking and mind control programs, and I might add, put those in jail who are responsible for the murders and torture.
Anyone associated with remote neural monitoring, remote sensing, and human tracking should be suspect.
Sharon Weinberger: I'll post this with no comment. Thank you for writing.
Falls Church, Va.: We who see this phenomenon as mental illness are not "dismissing" these people; we want them to get treatment and live normal lives. It's the people who indulge them, who encourage them to think of themselves as persecuted victims, who are doing them a huge disservice.
Sharon Weinberger: I understand your point of view, but given that these people firmly believe in mind control, how would you propose to convince them otherwise? How would you like to convince them they need help?
Washington, DC: I was wondering if you came across anything on "Trance-Formation" or the "New World Order" in your research for this article?
Sharon Weinberger: Nope, didn't see anything about that.
Raleigh, N.C.: I read recently an article that the Navy has a federal mind control human research program. Having that knowledge and the knowledge that the United States and other countries have been doing human research experiments non-consenually for years. They were doing mind control experiments early on and had to be stopped in the 1970's by the church hearings. There is no doubt in my mind that mind control and voice programs have been hidden for years. American citizens must be knowledgable about government abuse.
Sharon Weinberger: Let me clarify one thing. The Navy recently put out a document saying -if- they do mind control experiments on humans, it needs to be approved by a senior leader. The Navy denies doing any mind control experiments at present. Let's just be clear on that.
On the other hand, one has to wonder what experiments they are thinking of doing.
Anonymous: Evidence for microwave /directed energy attacks.
Thank you for your important article! In Germany there is strong evidence for microwave attacks and research in a village in Bavaria, near Nuremberg: 9O562 Kalchreuth. There are written statements about the attacks by an engineer and expert in measurement of radio frequency. There is a report of this engineer titled: Citizens attacked with microwave weapons. There are wittnesses and even inside information. These crimes are not done by Americans but by organized criminals in connection with a big German technology company!
Sharon Weinberger: Thanks for you comment. I'm posting this because I do think it's interesting the number of people in foreign countries who regard themselves as TIs.
many thanks for raising this issue.
In your conversations with the officials you talk about in your article, has it ever been mentioned that the development of these technologies are being outsourced to private research institutions?
If yes, how do we know that the use and development of these technologies is controlled 100% and there are no possibilities for abuse by these private institutions?
Sharon Weinberger: I'm not sure what you mean by "these technologies." There are number of things that people call "mind control" weapons. That are companies working on "microwave weapons."
However, the references in the story to weapons that beam voices into people's head look like very basic lab level research in government. I found no evidence such weapons are being used.
Detroit, Mich: I'd like to thank you for dedicating your time to writing this article, Sharon. The input on this open forum comes as no surprise.
I have a rhetorical question for you. Why do you think we are experiencing a global pandemic of "schizophrenia," with everyone affected claiming to hear clearly distinct human voices, distinguishable by gender, speech characteristics, regional and foreign accents, and other speech mannerisms? (That is not a classic form of schizophrenia, I might add.)
Also, why are we experiencing a global pandemic of "lupus," which curiously afflicts those very same persons suffering from "schizophrenia?"
Why are those same afflicted persons on a global scale also experiencing massive, recurrent migraines; pains in the heart; and non-stop stimulation of the genitals?
In sum, why do we have a global pandemic of combined forms of schizophrenia, lupus, recurrent migraines, heart problems and genital stimulation? Should we just chalk it up to a bird flu? Or should we compare those symptoms with the effects KNOWN to be produced by electronic weapons (as noted on a variety of DoD websites)?
For those not familiar with the effects produced by lupus, the information is available on the Internet. The diagnosis by no means captures all of the symptoms produced by electronic weapons.
One last comment regarding the phenomenon of organized stalking. From what I've read so far, it is treated as some sort of ephemeral phenomenon, easily dismissed as a figment of someone's imagination or mental imbalance. Why haven't you factored in the fact that overt vandalism invariably accompanies these spooky imaginings? I'm referring to repeatedly slashed tires, smashed car windows, oil drained out of vehicles, entries into homes where clothes are slashed, papers are stolen, and strange liquids are dumped onto carpets, or liquid detergents are dumped into bottled water. Add to that, piles of human excrement "excreted" repeatedly beneath bedroom windows 4 inches from the wall. I could add to that, but you get the idea. Would you consider those spooky imaginings? And in answer to your undoubted response, no, the police do not investigate these events because there are no known "suspects."
Thank you again for your time.
Sharon Weinberger: I'm not sure is global pandemic. Perhaps what is changing, as I've mentioned several times before, is that people experiencing these symptoms are able to connect via phone, e-mail, Internet. That's what is different now, perhaps.
I'm afraid that even in a magazine length article; I couldn't discuss everything that people associate with mind control and "gang stalking" that you mention below. However, some of the things you mention (tire slashings) are an unfortunate part of daily life for all of us. It's hard to make a connection to a plot.
Rockville, Md: A bit of a reality check, which could have been made more clear by more interviews with actual scientists, academic professors, intelligence experts, military experts, government officials and other intelligence and counter-terrorism professionals: There is no such scientific device to implant "voices" into people's heads. It's just absolutely ridiculous. IF there was such a device, does any sane person believe that the government and military and intelligence agencies would waste time ruining the lives of otherwise productive and innocent citizeens? No, they wouldn't--the officials would spend the time, money, resources and sweat on ruining the lives of terrorists, traitors, spies, thugs, criminals, organized crime thugs, rebels, revolutionaries, etc., etc., etc., etc.--low-lifes who pose a real threat. Ask anyone with any experience in intelligence and covert and cover and classified operations and they will tell you the same thing. They will also tell you--honestly, by the way--that no one is wasting time sending signals to innocent people's minds for the hell of it. The people noted in the story suffer from mental illness--and they need medication, counseling and professional help. The story is a non-story.
Sharon Weinberger: I understand your perspective and you make some important points, but look at this way: most people already regard these claims as ridiculous. That's why "tinfoil hat," as the article mentions, is synonymous with conspiracy. I'm aiming with this article to make sense of why people believe the things they do.
As I mentioned before, we all believe things that are silly or weird, and the trouble with believing in mind control is that it clearly overlaps in some places with mental illness. But that shouldn't stop us from exploring people's beliefs. Take for example Susan Clancy's book, Abducted. She takes it as a given that people are not abducted by aliens, and tries to understand why they believe they have been.
I also disagree with your suggestion about how to approach the issue: If I were writing about why people believe in religion, I'm not sure I'd spend most of time calling scientists to disprove the world was created in a week (though I'm sure plenty would provide me with proof that it wasn't).
Falls Church, Va.: You're the one using the term "crazy," and I have to think you're doing it deliberately to encourage TIs to think that the world is out to get them.
Mental illness is illness just like physical illness, and the solution is to de-stigmatize by getting people to treatment. If a person wakes up with pneumonia, it's not going to do him any good to set up a conference call with a group of pneumonia sufferers.
By the way, for your article, did you not find any TIs who have been successfully treated with medication, or did you not look?
Sharon Weinberger: No, I don't personally call TIs "crazy" though the article uses that word because that's how much of society would regard their claims. Again, I think your point is important so I'm making sure to post it. But what I'm arguing is there is a continuum of strange beliefs. Is believing in the afterlife crazy? Is believing in perpetual motion machines crazy? Psychics?
Okay, so mind control? Are they crazy because many of them hear voices? Then again, I raise the issue that not everyone who hears voices would be diagnosed as mentally ill, according to a large body of scientific literature. I don't think it's useful to paint a broad brush.
That said, even Gloria Naylor, one of the TIs I interviewed, suggested that anyone who hears voices should immediately seek medical help. That seems to me to be a good suggestion.
Philadelphia, Pa: Sharon: I understand that the International Committee on Offensive Microwave Weapons was not mentioned in your article, nor the fact that we have an easy to use website at www.icomw.org, where the results of nearly 20 years of research have been posted. I will appreciate your posting this info somewhere for responders to the online chat. Harlan Girard
Sharon Weinberger: I think I posted that before, but I'll post it again.
Anonymous: All the discussion thus far assumes that TI's are a community of people who hear voices in our heads. This is an experience of less than 10% of the group. We experience a variety of other symptoms that can only be explained as the result of attacks by directed energy weapons. For instance, I and other targets find that the skin all over our bodies is covered with lesions which itch intensely. We find that dermatologist have no explanation and no effective treatment for these lesions. Skin without the lesions often appears reddish, looking like a sunburn although it has not been exposed to sunlight. Other victims of these experiments experience other forms of visible physical harm. We don't assume that we are subjects of government attack merely because we have unexplained skin conditions. We know that we are being subjected to covert government attacks because of a combination of facts, which I have discussed in posted comments. Bob S.
Sharon Weinberger: I'm not sure if it's 10 percent. Some TIs have attempted to do study the issue, but I've never seen good data. However, since this touches upon the issue of "voices" as mental illness, I want to post your comment. Thank you.
San Carlos, Calif: Re: Mind Games:
Article is a significant step toward raising public awareness of covert harassment and the existance of its victims!
Question: Was any consideration given to interviewing David Lawson, a private investigator and eye witness to the inner workings of gang stalking who infiltrated the gang stalking network for some 10 years and wrote a book about his experiences entitled "Terrorist Stalking in America" (Scrambling News, 2001)?
Sharon Weinberger: I interviewed a lot of people and my focus was more on technology than gang stalking.
Sharon Weinberger: Okay folks. I'm already out of time and I need to get back to work, so I'm just going to post a few of the final comments, with no response. It's fascinating to see what a diversity of views there on this subject.
Fairlington, Va: Thanks for such a fascinating, frightening, and frustrating article. I say frustrating because I'm sure you were edited for space, but this left me a few nagging questions, among them:
- Did you consult any neuroscientists for this story? I kept hoping you'd mention that, e.g., the human brain is designed to seek out meaningful audio/visual patterns - WHETHER THEY ARE ACTUALLY PRESENT OR NOT.
- In a similar vein, did your article ever include a discussion of the brain malfunction that causes a person to hear their own thoughts as if they are spoken words coming from somebody else?
- How did you manage to confirm all of Alexander's claims & gov't work?
- And finally, had Girard or Naylor ever read (at least, admittedly) Waugh's book?
Thanks again for a gripping read!
Winchester, Va.: Sharon..Thank you so much for your WONDERFUL and much needed to be brought-to-light article "Thought War."
I have a close friend who has been and still is, experiencing this problem for over five years. He has had a "WARNING" posted on his website www.zorel.com for many years about this very subject. He ended up moving from Montgomery County, MD, to Miami, Fla. hoping it would end...it hasn't!! I experienced this horrible invasion of privacy while living in California (next to the Bohemien Grove) for 7 years. Thank God there are others bringing it to the publics attention. You are a lifesaver! Gary W
Sharon Weinberger: Thanks for your comment.
Anonymous: I gathered from the article that these weapons were supported by Mr. Girard. The V2K is certainly documented by patents and even NASA and the AF have documentation that can be found. What I didn't see was that many of the victims or TI's are subjected first to Cointelpro operations that make them appear to have mental illnesses such as paronoia and psychosis. Most of the victims have simular stories that all point to the same people as the targets. It is not unheard of that the CIA NSA FBI all use these tactics to discredit people. First they use the technology to put you in an electromagnetic field where you are unable to think clearly then they use some tactic either a scare tactic or trick you into doing something that calls attention in an unfavorable light to yourself. If you want to ask why TI's do what they tell you then think of the field that they are in. Since the increase in the secret surveillance without a warrant there has been more TI's come forward with horror stories. This article only mentioned a couple of interviews and barely touched the surface of what is happening to the TI's. As for the tin hats, when you are targeted with direct energy weapons you will try anything that someone mentions to relieve the burning, porn visions, dreams and stings along with the voices. The people that operate this technology have no conscience. They are not friends of the citizens in this country. If this technology could prevent terrorist then why didn't it stop 9-11? It was being used before that time. If the public and the media wish to remain skeptical there is nothing that we can do. Remember that Senator Mondale of the Church committee that investigated MKultra and Cointelpro stated that the senate was not interested in following up the information that it received. It took the media and the people in this country to MAKE them do the right thing. MKultra did not stop it just was redesigned under another secret government name. The FBI and the CIA can only blame themselves for the mess this country is now in. When fear makes you violate the law as they are doing with non-consensual non-lethal weapons then they have only themselves to blame as leaders in this country how others see us.
Sharon Weinberger: A lot here, but an interesting comment, thanks.
As you worked background on this piece, did you come across anything that could indicate the US employs "Manchurian Candidate" -type "re-progamming" at Guantanamo or other military prisons?
Sharon Weinberger: I didn't really look at that issue.
Las Vegas, Nev.: Mind Control
While the article was somewhat long, it was also inconclusive on any point with the exception of Mr. John Alexander's input. Some time ago I came across a Patent application that had been filed in the early sixties on the subject of electronic projection of sound which could be used to allow one to hear without any actual sound waves. Apparently they had working proto-types at the time, however, the Patent Application was taken dark for national security reasons citing it could potentially be used for Mind Control applications.
According to the author of this Patent application, he didn't understand why it worked, he just knew that it did. Scientists like me have since discovered that small signal stimulation to certain areas of the brain will be interpreted as an audio signal even if the physical human hearing apparatus is totally dysfunctional. It has also been discovered that sound can be interpreted if only the Cochlea of the human inner ear remain with everything else being disfunctional. Unfortunately, most hearing loss involves destruction of the Cochlea due to infection.
So if the question is, "can it be done?" The answer is yes and from my perspective has already been done. Therefore, I don't agree with the inconclusive stance of the article as even Mr. Girard appears to be on a search for the reason, "why are they picking on me?", versus proving whether something exists or doesn't exist. The reason why such research would be done is simple, as it could be a useful thing, or someone else might develop it and use it on us. So we better understand it's capabilities first.
Since we're talking 1960's technology I have to view this concept as obsolete compared to what can really be done. There is a big difference between hearing voices in your head versus having a "thought" or "knowing something is". It seems to me that Mind Control would be projecting into another the perception that something just is, exactly what your projecting. I would have to say this is possible also. Not out of some form of paranoia or fear but from a practical engineering standpoint. Compared to this, Voices in the Head is just a form of rote brainwashing, mental terrorism. Obviously I don't agree with unknowing innocents being part of any test, of such technology. Our job should be to protect the people, not exploit them!
That's not to say that Voices couldn't be a natural thing in some cases, that are simply misunderstood by many. Take for example the ability to predict an event as though one were watching a movie before it was made. Then the abstract event occurs at a later date just as it was envisioned. Or the ability without apparatus, to affect anothers immediate behavior simply by "knowing" it is something they should do. Abilities such as these would have to appear to be God-like. If you could package such an invention, the God Machine, then behavior could be easily modified as needed. The problem becomes, who do you give that ability to? As "knowing" just one wrong thought could have disastrous consequences.
Sharon Weinberger: An interesting perspective, thanks.
Columbia, Md: Could this be a auditory form of Bonnet's syndrome, where people with damaged visual systems see complex visual hallucinations? The explanation in the case of Bonnet's is that damage eyesight isn't providing enough signal to the visual cortex, and the visual cortex is picking up neurological interference from nearby areas of the brain and interpreting that errant signal as visual input. Could some lack of input or oversensitivity on the auditory system in that brain be causing the voices? Perhaps what they're experiencing is not unlike the phantom pains that amputees feel due to lack of stimulation in the brain when the connected body part is no longer providing input. I hope they find an answer and a cure. I can't image anyone in the government funding a program to torture people year after year for no rational reason, let alone someone not speaking out against it. The New York Times enjoys leaking secrets right and left about programs that have real national security justification, if this were occurring, some humanitarian/civil libertarian would spill the beans.
Sharon Weinberger: A good point, thanks.
Helena, Mont: Partly as a consequence of having lived with someone who believed they were a mind control victim, I've read a great deal about mind control programs. While it's easy to dismiss these people as crazy, I'm convinced that many of them are trauma survivors. In some cases, I believe that the trauma was past sexual abuse, either organized and ritualistic or simply in the context of a disordered family with poor boundaries. In these cases the relentless focus on invisible tormentors is, I believe, a mechanism for never confronting their betrayal at the hands of those whose ultimate responsibility it was to protect them.
Sharon Weinberger: Another interesting view. Thanks.
Prague, Czechoslovakia: I came as a human rights imigrant to the USA in 1981 from communist Czechoslovakia. In 1984 my parents came for a visit and later they send me a testimony that they have been shadowed in the streets by a couple living next door. They also testified they watched installation of some equipment in the appartment of the couple next door. They thought it was a surveillance equipment. When they left I started hearing voices. In 1988 I returned to Czechoslovakia because of that and I informed the Czechoslovak state police that I am being targeted by U.S. secret services. After the anticommunist revolution in Czechoslovakia the files of secret communist service were supposed to be published. Half a year before the vote on the publication of those files my mother warned me that the U.S. secret services will attempt to kill me using a poisened needle.
She recommended me to wear leather clothes and watch out in the means of public transportation. She gave me written testimony about that. Did she pass me a warning of Czech secret service who believed that the U.S. services were afraid that their National Security Information might get published? What do you think?
Sharon Weinberger: Not sure, but thanks for writing.
I'm really out of time now. Thanks again to everyone who wrote.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online 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.
|
Sharon Weinberger fields questions and comments about a group of emerging activists convinced they are targets of a government mind-control plot.
| 446.583333 | 0.958333 | 7.041667 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401026.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401026.html
|
Despite Lessons on King, Some Unaware of His Dream
|
2007012319
|
In a recent survey of college students on U.S. civic literacy, more than 81 percent knew that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was expressing hope for "racial justice and brotherhood" in his historic "I Have a Dream" speech.
Most of the rest surveyed thought King was advocating the abolition of slavery.
The findings indicate that years of efforts by primary and secondary schools to steep young people in the basics of the civil rights leader's life and activities have resulted in a mixed bag. Most college students know who he is -- even if they're not quite clear on what he worked to achieve.
Students and teachers say today's federal holiday marking King's birthday is the one that receives the most attention in schools, in part because the events surrounding the man it commemorates are the most recent.
"I think if there is one holiday on the calendar that is really reflective and thoughtful and has historical content, it is the King holiday," said Cynthia Mosteller, a history teacher at Deal Junior High School in the District. "It is a topic about which literally every student knows something."
How long students will continue to learn it, however, is open to question, students and educators say.
The recent survey of college students, conducted by the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy for the nonprofit Intercollegiate Studies Institute, suggests that schools are not doing as much as they could to go beyond a cursory history lesson. More than 14,000 college freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities earned an average score of 53.2 percent in the survey.
Many of the 10 federal holidays have become little more than days off school or work, even if they are dedicated to significant Americans, such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Many people have no idea what Labor Day commemorates, educators say.
"Honestly, I never knew what Veterans Day was until last year," said Taneisha Rodney, 14, a ninth-grader at William E. Doar Jr. Public Charter School for the Performing Arts in Northeast Washington.
In many schools across the country, teachers say social studies has taken a back seat under the federal No Child Left Behind law, which stresses math and reading. Squeezing history into the curriculum can be difficult, educators say, and taking time out of a scheduled lesson to use a federal holiday -- even King's -- as a teaching moment can be tough.
"It depends on the teacher and how much they want to deviate from what they are doing," said Adam Zemel, 17, a senior at Yorktown High School in Arlington.
|
In a recent survey of college students on U.S. civic literacy, more than 81 percent knew that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was expressing hope for "racial justice and brotherhood" in his historic "I Have a Dream" speech.
| 11.177778 | 1 | 45 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400892.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400892.html
|
The Lives on the Line
|
2007012319
|
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee pummeling of Rice at a hearing Thursday, Boxer lectured, "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families. And I just want to bring us back to that fact."
The White House, which looks more desperate every time it tries to manufacture another outrage, pounced on Boxer for what spokesman Tony Snow called"a great leap backward for feminism." In an interview with the New York Times, Rice chimed in: "I thought it was okay to be single."
But Boxer wasn't attacking Rice for being single or childless. After all, she began by saying, "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young."
Boxer, in other words, was repackaging the familiar chicken-hawk attack. At its most elemental, this is the charge that President Bush and his associates were too cowardly to fight in Vietnam and now, while their own children choose not to serve, are cavalier in risking the lives of others.
It's a line of attack that can lead to fair and troubling questions. As the professional military becomes more isolated from the nation's governing elite -- or the other way around -- do our leaders have sufficient appreciation of the horror and unpredictability of war? What role should empathy for the individual soldier play in the gut-wrenching decisions of a wartime leader?
But the chicken-hawk attack can lead in unfair and dangerous directions, too. Surely childlessness does not keep Rice from feeling the burden of American losses in Iraq. And surely war opponents do not want to live in a country where decisions about war and peace must be left exclusively to those who have experienced war -- to generals and veterans and their families.
The truth is, every side in the war debate uses the troops for political gain. When Bush tearfully presents the Medal of Honor to the family of a slain war hero the morning after announcing his latest strategy for Iraq, then flies off to Fort Benning, he is using the troops as props. Democrats didn't make the absence of body armor a key campaign issue until they had done a lot of poll-testing.
The further truth is, we wouldn't have it any other way. The troops, their welfare, their views, their morale, the casualty count -- all that must be part of the war debate. As to the germaneness of the president's tears or Barbara Boxer's outrage, Americans can form their own judgments.
It matters, though, that we not allow the troops to serve only as props and political fodder -- that we keep in our minds the real people in Iraq and Afghanistan who, while we argue, are without interruption fighting, sweating, building, patrolling, dying. What matters is to remember that the White House ceremony Thursday morning wasn't just part of a campaign but was also a tribute to a real person: Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, who, on April 14, 2004, at the age of 22, in a dusty town near the Syrian border, threw his helmet over a live grenade, and then his body over the helmet, and thus absorbed a blow that three nearby comrades therefore survived.
You can read about Cpl. Dunham, and about a lot of other heroes, in a National Journal cover story this week titled " The Other Three Thousand" ( http://www.nationaljournal.com). The article, by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., points out that the media, and even the military, have devoted more attention in this war to the 3,000-plus who have died than to the 3,000-plus who have been awarded medals for valor.
The lists overlap, as in Dunham's case, but most of the awardees are still alive. They are people such as Army Staff Sgt. Thomas Stone, who on Feb. 21, 2005, curled himself around a wounded comrade to protect him from an expected insurgent's blast. "If it goes off, you're going to be okay," Stone told him. "Hug your wife and kids, and don't ever forget me."
It didn't, and both were rescued. Stone remains in uniform today.
|
Who's using the troops for political purposes? Who isn't might be your first reaction if you followed last week's teapot tempest featuring Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
| 20.02381 | 0.642857 | 0.880952 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/01/xxxxxxxxxxx.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/01/xxxxxxxxxxx.html
|
Fulfilling King's Dream Needs 'Great Spiritual Awakening'
|
2007012319
|
Dave Brock, it is not that easy...not gay. I am divorced, with two gifts from God, a 24 year-old daughter, and a 22 year-old son.
However, I do not join in the opinion that gay lifestyle is simply a choice of a sinful lifestyle and therein was the battle.
Black Americans are often offended by gay community comparisons of the gay communityâs struggles to the struggles of the civil rights movement.
In part, I think this is because black Americans feel that the civil rights struggle is still in jeopardy, and gay comparisons to it do black Americans no favors.
Admittedly, there are factors of fear and hate as well as there are in any other American community.
My home church in College Park Maryland was very diverse with a woman priest, and several gay couples as regular members of the congregation. I was never offended to worship with them, though my children had long since gone their own ways as far as churches go.
My point was that we are not fit to judge others, and that we most certainly should not exclude others from worship because in doing so we would be damning them, in our own minds at least, to hell.
References to Sodom and Gomorrah were immediately brought, to which I replied that the sexual preferences of the sinners in that lesson may have been incidental to the lesson itself. Additional references to Romans were brought forth, to which I stated I would have to review, but that I did not believe translations of scripture were necessarily accurate and free of errors.
I pointed out a lesson I had learned in my College studies of biology, that of the Hermaphrodite. I stated that to be an example of Godâs full array of gender identification and assignment.
I further stressed that there were no Commandments stating that thou shall not be gay.
Things started to really heat up at this point. This was a New Testament Church, in which there are two basic Commandments, 1. Thou shall love thy God with all thy soul, heart and mind. Optionally all thy strength can be added. 2. Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets. The ten commandments were then brought forward, and I was challenged to recite them all. To my dismay, and fear, I stumbled, but I reiterated that there was no sanction against homosexuality in either list to my knowledge and that I refused to believe that all scripture lessons were meant to be commandments. Damage to my credibility had been done, however, and comforted were my adversaries until one of their own members, a silent participant in the discussion group spoke up as a Hermaphrodite. This soul played the devilâs advocate citing that gays should not be allowed to worship in church, and that he had endured great hardship for the privilege of worshipping with these good folks. My eyes locked with this soul and there was a flash of white light that could not have been a retinal reflection. A moment I shall always remember. I thanked this soul for the courage under fire throughout a life that must have endured great trials. I clearly stated that I doubted that I would have fared as well.
After their own member demonstrated their intolerance, there was some general consensus that exclusion was not Godâs Way, however, the Ten Commandments somehow made their way into the youth announcements during the service, and the message was clear. Their fear was for their youth.
I wrote a check in the amount of $77.77 for the collection plate, and once it had passed, I quietly and respectfully acknowledged the alter and left the building. Of all souls, we must demonstrate consistency to the souls of our youth, for in their explorations they put what we say to the test of their observations of what we do. We must strive to never mislead them in thought, word, nor deed. We must strive to be worthy of their trust. More than anything else, that will protect their morals. More than anything else that will ensure that the lines of open communication stay open. More than anything else as adults, that is what we have most of our difficulties in doing. Simply telling our children the truth. This I know from my own experience.
Posted January 18, 2007 5:53 AM
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 59.928571 | 0.357143 | 0.357143 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202054.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202054.html
|
Trapped by Hubris, Again
|
2007012319
|
After nearly four years of ineffectual war-fighting, after the collapse of domestic support for President Bush and his policies, after the expenditure of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, it no longer seems possible to avoid the grim conclusion: For the United States, Iraq has become another Vietnam.
Fortunately, the overall death toll in Iraq so far, while high, is still smaller than it was in Vietnam. But tragically, the most important difference between the two conflicts may be that defeat in Iraq is likely to produce catastrophic consequences for that nation, its neighbors and the United States, too.
For a gray-haired journalist whose career included 18 months covering the Vietnam War for The Washington Post, it is a source of amazement to realize that my country has done this again. We twice took a huge risk in the hope that we could predict and dominate events in a nation whose history we did not know, whose language few of us spoke, whose rivalries we didn't understand, whose expectations for life, politics and economics were all foreign to many Americans.
Both times, we put our fate in the hands of local politicians who would not follow U.S. orders, who did not see their country's fate the way we did, and who could not muster the support of enough of their countrymen to produce the outcome Washington wanted. In Vietnam as in Iraq, U.S. military power alone proved unable to achieve the desired political objectives.
How did this happen again? After all, we're Americans -- practical, common-sense people who know how to get things done. Or so we'd like to think. In truth, we are ethnocentric to a fault, certain of our own superiority, convinced that others see us as we do, blithely indifferent to cultural, religious, political and historical realities far different from our own. These failings -- more than any tactical or strategic errors -- help explain the U.S. catastrophes in Vietnam and Iraq.
Future historians trying to understand how the U.S. adventure in Iraq went so badly off track will be grateful for the memorandum that national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley wrote to Bush on Nov. 8, 2006, after a visit to Iraq. The "secret" memo was leaked to the New York Times three weeks later.
Hadley began with a candid evaluation of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: "The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
Having been frank about the problem, Hadley then entered a dream world to discuss ways in which it might be solved. He offered his boss an elaborate set of initiatives that should be urged on the hapless Maliki. The first one gives a good flavor of the Hadley plan for success: "Maliki should compel his ministers to take small steps -- such as providing health services and opening bank branches in Sunni neighborhoods -- to demonstrate that his government serves all ethnic communities." Others included compelling Maliki to overhaul his personal staff to make it ethnically diverse, shake up his cabinet and bring in competent technocrats, and insist that all ministers renounce violence in all forms.
How would Bush carry out Hadley's correctives? "We can help [him] in a variety of ways," Hadley wrote. If Maliki thinks he isn't in a position to follow all of the Americans' good advice, "we will need to work with him to augment his capabilities." Among the steps Hadley proposed:
"Actively support Maliki in helping him develop an alternative political base. We would likely need to use our own political capital to press moderates to align themselves with Maliki's new political bloc. . . . Consider monetary support to moderate groups that have been seeking to break with larger, more sectarian parties, as well as to support Maliki himself. . . . Provide Maliki with more resources to help build a nonsectarian national movement."
In other words, the national security adviser told the president 42 months after this disastrous war began that we can still fix it. A few well-placed bribes plus Yankee ingenuity -- pulling this lever, pushing that button -- can make things turn out the way we want them to. There you see the peculiar strain of hubris that led the United States astray four years ago in Iraq, and four decades ago in Vietnam.
Indeed, Hadley's memo is squarely in the tradition of the sublimely arrogant know-it-alls whom journalist David Halberstam memorably dubbed "The Best and the Brightest." These were the men around John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson who, along with Kennedy and Johnson, gave us the Vietnam War: Robert S. McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk, Walt W. Rostow and the rest. They, too, allowed themselves to believe that the shrewd application of U.S. power -- pulling a lever here, pushing a button there -- could create and prop up an independent, democratic South Vietnam. This was something that had never existed previously -- in that sense, something sadly akin to a multiethnic, democratic Iraq.
|
Iraq has become another Vietnam -- except that defeat there is likely to produce catastrophic consequences for Iraq, its neighbors and the U.S.
| 41.541667 | 0.958333 | 4.208333 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/12/multimedia_journalists_take_re.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/12/multimedia_journalists_take_re.html
|
Multimedia Journalists Take Readers Behind the Lens
|
2007012319
|
For nearly a decade, our team of videojournalists and multimedia editors have been creating and experimenting with visual journalism. Today, we want to invite you to not only view the work they have done but also to join us in a conversation about that work specifically and Web-based visual journalism in general in our newest blog, Behind the Lens.
We'll start with a simple premise: We will share some of the pieces we have worked on, along with some insight into the news gathering and editing process. We'll also respond to feedback we've received or heard about, as in the case of Bill Cosby's remarks about the video "What Does It Mean to Be a Black Man?"
We encourage you to tell us what you think of the pieces we include as well as other visual journalism on our site and elsewhere on the Web. So welcome, we're looking forward to talking to you.
You can start by reading the introduction by Tom Kennedy, managing editor of multimedia, or by viewing all entries.
Ju-Don Marshall Roberts, Managing Editor
By Ju-Don Roberts | December 15, 2006; 10:36 AM ET | Category: Content , Journalism , Video Previous: New 'Global Power Barometer' | Next: Redesigned Politics Section With New Features
Evil as Saddam Hussein was, there is something wrong with blanketing the internet with videos of his hanging. One wants to say: NO, NO, NO! THIS IS NOT WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS ABOUT! WE HAVE NOT DESCENDED TO THIS!
Posted by: Doug McMillan, Malone, FL USA | December 31, 2006 09:12 AM
when is the black man series going to be over?
i assume a series on white man will be next!
i believe we are equal so why are you segregating our two races like this?
Posted by: robberson | December 31, 2006 05:24 PM
I thought the video of Saddam's execution the most horrific thing to come on a news story for some time. I am disappointed with the USA. The US handed this evil dictator over in the first place so the American administration is just as responsible.,Has George Bush forgotten that only 18 months ago subsets of Iraqis were on TV decapitating american hostages and videoing it for internet viewing?? Does he really thing IRAQ will ever be a sovereign state? Is a sovereign state>? WHo is this guy kidding? Saddams trial was broadcast 30mins behind schedule to the world, edited so that some evidence could be filtered. The very fact that Iraq was an ALLIE of the US in the 1990s is Ironic as the US feared that there was going to be a surge in Islam from Iran.Saddams Chemical weapons came from France and germany.Are these Countries not guilty in crime too? The saddest of all is the loss of over 3000 US soldiers to date, remember Bush and Co invaded IRAQ totally ignoring the UN and without resolution or approval. who is to blame in the end? The american people. They voted the Bush administration into power a costly mistake Lets hope 2007 is better than 2006.
Posted by: Pete Burke | January 3, 2007 08:04 AM
When is Dan Froomkin's column coming back? Why won't the post.com put a notice at the top of his column stating he is on vacation and will be back on X date?
Posted by: Bob in NY | January 3, 2007 10:57 AM
Regarding the Churchill High School principal's remark about recent violence being "black on black," I think I read carefully, but I didn't see the actual races of the students involved mentioned anywhere. If the students were not all black, then certainly it is an offensive mischaracterization of the incident, but if they were all black, for what does this woman have to apologize for? I would have to know the races of all the students before becoming offended by a potentially factual statement made by the principal. Again, if she mischaracterized the incident, she should certainly apologize at the least, but if this is people being offended by fact, then it weakens the sometimes overused (and therefore diluted) charge of racial insensitivity.
Posted by: Wayne in NY | January 5, 2007 12:32 PM
AT CHURCHILL HIGH SCHOOL, 6.7 PER CENT OF STUDENTS ARE AFRO-AMERICAN BLACK AND 100 PER CENT OF THE DISORDERS WERE "BLACK ON BLACK."
THAT WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE A PROCLIVITY TOWARD VIOLENCE BY AFRICAN-AMERICAN TEENAGERS.
IN OTHER SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES, WHEN BLACK TEENAGER VIOLENCE BECAME FREQUENT, THERE WAS WHITE FLIGHT. MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS PARENTS (WHITE, BLACK,ASIAN, LATINO) CAN NOT DEAL WITH VIOLENCE.
Posted by: SCRIPTO | January 5, 2007 05:35 PM
Can someone explain why we are sending a Muslam to be our ambassador to the UN. The whole world seems to be at war with Islam anywhere it borders a non-Islamic state. The UN cannot get even a simple resolution condeming the genocide in Darfur through because the Islamic countries block it unless the wording is so watered down it sounds like a childs timeout. Why would we turn our one vote over to someone whos religion condones and supports such a disgrace? Wake up world. We may not be at war with Islam but it looks like they are a war with us.
Posted by: Alvin | January 10, 2007 01:15 AM
Who were those behind the masks at Saddam's hanging? Who was the chubby one that put the noose over Saddam's head? Did Saddam recognize him? Why did those at the hanging yell "Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada? Did they recognize the hangman as Moqtada al Sadr?
Posted by: Bob | January 11, 2007 12:22 AM
Check out my videos plz
Posted by: ROCKY | January 14, 2007 05:56 PM
Shame on you, Georgetown University! By Ethiopian Americans against Tyranny January 15, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. Azeb Mesfin, the wife of Mr. Meles Zenawi, the ruthless tyrant in control of state power in Ethiopia, has been awarded by Georgetown University for her purported role in HIV/AIDS control. For that matter, Azeb is not the ordinary first lady that does ceremonial duties, oversees humanitarian works or runs charitable organizations that many first ladies commonly do.
Former head of Mega Enterprise, one of the ruling Tigray People's Liberation Front's multi-billion illegal businesses, Mrs. Azeb Mesfin, who is rightly dubbed "Queen of Mega" for her prominent role in illegal trades, is a member of the Central Committee of the TPLF, the hard core of the ruling party the TPLF/EPRDF, and one of a handful of people that control almost everything in Ethiopia.
She is also a member of an illegitimate parliament who secured her election through intimidation like all other TPLF/ EPRDF parliamentarians who were rejected by the people but made their way through the daylight robbery of votes in the election of May 2005. The robbery of the votes and widespread rigging of the election by Mrs. Zenawi's party is well documented by the testimony of Observers of the European Union and the Carter Center.
This corrupt lady also runs numerous multimillion dollar business conglomerates that are directly controlled by the ruling party TPLF with little government oversight and accountability. Mrs. Azeb Mesfin is not only a wife of tyrant but also a member of the leadership of a government that has killed hundreds of unarmed protestors in June and November 2005, confirmed to be a massacre by none other than the Inquiry Commission, whose members were hand picked by her husband.
The Chairman of the Inquiry Commission and two other colleagues had to flee the country with the documents to tell the truth to the world including the United States Congress. Mrs. Zenawi was watching from her palace as tens of thousands of young people were arrested and sent to malaria infested concentration camps in the lowlands of Ethiopia where many died of hunger and disease.
Like her husband, this lady's hands are soaked in the blood of the Ethiopian people. What makes this award even more disgraceful is the great dreams of Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who stood up against the kind of discrimination and oppression that Azeb and her husband have mastered in the last fifteen years.
The award is too ironic for a woman, whose ruling party TPLF has used one razor blade to dry shave multiple political prisoners in a country where the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is one of the highest in the world.
How blind are the officials of Georgetown University to these crimes against humanity? Couldn't they have, at least, talked to one Ethiopian on the streets of Washington DC or any of the Ethiopian students studying at the University? We wonder.
Georgetown University is putting a huge black spot on its good name and reputation This Award is a disgrace and a shame on the part of those who made the decision on behalf of the University.
Ethiopians and Ethiopian-Americans Against Tyranny in Ethiopia
Posted by: Girma | January 15, 2007 04:15 PM
With all the corruption in American government, do we want to make it a lot worse by injecting Chicago politics into the mix by electing Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton? The Chicago Tribune is filled with stories of corruption at every level of Illinois government, and as a Chicago resident I'm disgusted.
Mayor Daley even wants to ruin the 2016 Olympics with Chicago corruption....is nothing sacred anymore?
Posted by: Henry Mionskowski | January 16, 2007 06:12 PM
The transfer of the object of hatred from a genie like figure such as Osama to a country was necessary for all of the pre arranged military objectives - it was to give them a justification they desperately needed at the time. The military goons would have advised to choose a country - it had to be Iraq -a geopolitical entity, which could become the manifestation of the National bete noir. And all this time the aircraft were being geared up on the runways. Then the announcement of the ''shock and awe ''strategy - the bombing of Baghdad (as barbarous an act as the bombing of Dresden in WW2) - then the justification, and the black rabbit was pulled from the masked conjurers hat - No WMDs - so what he's a despot and he killed his own people - the Kurds mind you - so by this time it was all down to the visuals The bombing made great TV. There was no point in filming the bombing of the Torah Bora Mountains. Then the president dressed in a bomber jacket is flown 3 miles off shore to an aircraft carrier to announce - Mission accomplished. But there was more to come - when they finally captured Saddam - another great TV moment - Ladies and gentlemen - we got him. But you saw it all on TV and like in the film 'wag the dog ' if you see it on TV- its for real. As for Osama . A diabetic with renal failure holding out in the Tora Bora Mountains; unlikely. If indeed he is alive at all. - But you've seen the ethereal images he created on TV also- so he's for real. All he ever need to conjure up was to recreate something from the Arabian nights - a genie like creature - ephemeral elusive; maybe an illusion. But what was not an illusion was the superb logistical precision which went in to levelling the two icons of Western decadence; Militarily this was an unbelievable stroke of terrorist genius; it left the US calling for Superman. But all they got was a befuddled, bumbling, cowardly President. And a new hero rose up from the ashes of the glowing towers - a New York Jew - who is now running for the next presidency. And the hanging of the despot ensured forever his place beside Salladin .
Posted by: donmacnamara | January 19, 2007 07:21 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
The latest news about washingtonpost.com's policies, design and organization from the editors of the site. Visit www.washingtonpost.com.
| 114.05 | 0.65 | 0.85 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401027.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401027.html
|
Bush: 'We're Going Forward'
|
2007012319
|
Faced with substantial opposition both in Congress and among the American public to their Iraq plans, President Bush and Vice President Cheney vowed yesterday to forge ahead with the deployment of more than 21,000 additional troops.
In an interview broadcast last night on CBS's "60 Minutes," Bush said he has the authority as commander in chief to move ahead with the deployment, regardless of what the Democratic-controlled Congress does in opposition.
"In this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said. "I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward."
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said yesterday that the money is already in place to begin moving additional troops to Iraq.
"We have authority in the -- we have money in the '07 budget, which has been appropriated by the Congress, to move these troops to Iraq, and the president will be doing that," he said on ABC's "This Week."
The addition of troops in Iraq, announced by Bush last week in a nationally televised speech, is part of an administration strategy aimed at quelling the sectarian violence there and at salvaging an unpopular war effort that the president himself has said is not succeeding.
Bush said on "60 Minutes" that the only option besides boosting troop levels would be to withdraw -- a move supported by some Democrats but one he called tantamount to defeat.
"I began to think, well, if failure is not an option and we've got to succeed, how best to do so? And that's how I came up with the plan I did," Bush said.
That plan has run into fierce opposition among Democrats and a growing number of Republicans, and a clear majority of the public now advocates a withdrawal of U.S. troops. Some congressional critics are advocating the idea of a nonbinding resolution to reflect their conviction that more troops will not provide the answer in Iraq.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition" that such a resolution, drawing bipartisan support, "would be a strong message to the president to put pressure on the Iraqis to reach a political solution."
Earlier yesterday, Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday" that a resolution would not influence how the administration executes its policy.
"Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse, so they have got a role to play and we certainly recognize that," Cheney said. "But also, you cannot run a war by committee."
|
Faced with substantial opposition both in Congress and among the American public to their Iraq plans, President Bush and Vice President Cheney vowed yesterday to forge ahead with the deployment of more than 21,000 additional troops.
| 13.736842 | 1 | 38 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401141.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401141.html
|
Officers Look Back For Clues To Future
|
2007012319
|
BAGHDAD, Jan. 14 -- When U.S. and Iraqi forces tried to secure his neighborhood of Dora in August, Ibrahim Abbas's 16-year-old son was kidnapped. In October, several months into the ambitious security plan, Sunni insurgents drove him and his family out of their house. Today, his son is still missing. And his house sits empty -- or so he thinks. Abbas, a teacher who now lives in another part of Baghdad, has yet to return to Dora.
"The problem is the American policy of protection. It's very wrong," he said, his face curling in frustration. "They should have engaged the people, to help protect their neighborhood. Nobody wants to leave his house empty."
As the Bush administration embarks on a major tactical shift, adding 21,500 U.S. troops in the hopes of calming sectarian tensions, the failure of the ongoing Baghdad security plan, Operation Together Forward, provides valuable lessons for the future. Yet it also raises questions about whether a temporary increase in U.S. troops can be effective in a war that is becoming more complex and unpredictable.
"This is a totally different kind of fight. It's not World War II, it's not Vietnam, it's not any of those," the former second-highest commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, said last month.
Since August, when a second phase of Operation Together Forward began, sectarian divisions have hardened. Militias have fragmented into smaller, deadlier gangs. Extremists are using hit-and-run tactics, snipers and sophisticated roadside bombs to kill U.S. troops at record levels. Baghdad has balkanized further into Shiite and Sunni Muslim enclaves, making the population more reliant on militias and insurgents for protection.
Meanwhile, the fragile Shiite-led unity government of Nouri al-Maliki is on shaky ground as it prepares to take control of military operations in Baghdad. Alienated Sunnis accuse Maliki of fortifying his Shiite brethren and of lacking the will or the capacity to build a nation that can accommodate all its religious and ethnic groups.
U.S. officials wonder whether Maliki can meet one of their key demands: that his Shiite-dominated security forces combat Shiite militias as vigorously as they battle Sunni insurgents. Maliki's political benefactor Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who heads the Mahdi Army, the largest and most violent militia, is stronger and more popular than ever. And increasingly, Maliki is acting more independently of his U.S. backers, demanding more command and control over Iraq's security.
Across Baghdad, Iraqis are asking questions whose answers will shape Iraq's fate this year. Will Maliki and U.S. forces confront Sadr? Is the United States training an Iraqi force that will take sides in the war? Can Maliki survive as Iraq's leader?
U.S. military commanders no longer speak of a military solution. In a climate where the enemy is harder to define, they speak of creating jobs and improving basic services to win over a disenchanted population and stop Iraqis from backing extremists. In interviews, U.S. commanders are now uttering a different mantra -- "counterinsurgency" -- a strategy that relies less on military force than on cultivating popular support.
"What we have to be able to do is protect the population," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who replaced Chiarelli as the number two U.S. commander in Iraq last month. "We have not yet been able to do that."
Protection has also been an objective of Operation Together Forward. The plan was to clear some of the capital's deadliest neighborhoods, virtually all of them majority-Sunni areas, through raids and house-to-house searches, with Iraqi troops taking the lead. Then Iraqi police would hold those areas, followed by efforts to rebuild the neighborhoods and restore basic services.
An additional 7,000 U.S. troops were funneled into Baghdad, bringing the total in the capital to 15,000. The Iraqi government promised to contribute six battalions, but sent only two, adding about 9,000 troops.
|
Washington Post coverage of the American occupation of Iraq, the country's path to democracy and tensions between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
| 30.92 | 0.6 | 0.76 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011500286.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011500286.html
|
Rice Announces 3-Way Talks on Palestinian State
|
2007012319
|
LUXOR, Egypt, Jan. 15 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would meet with her for a three-way informal discussion of issues that must be cleared away to establish a Palestinian state.
No date or location has been set for the gathering, but it would signal deepening involvement by the Bush administration in stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at a time when Rice is seeking greater support from Arab leaders in helping to stabilize Iraq.
Rice made her statement after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at this ancient city on the Nile. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, addressing reporters with Rice, said Egypt supported President Bush's new plan for Iraq.
Rice said she was going "to try to help the parties come together, to look at how they can move through the road map," referring to the U.S.-backed peace plan that was launched, without success, in 2003. In order to establish a Palestinian state, she said, "there are a number of issues -- some old, some new -- that will ultimately need to be resolved."
The road map set out detailed sequential steps that would lead first to an interim state and then a permanent one. But the Israelis and the Palestinians have never managed to get past the first phase, which among other things required the Palestinian government to crack down on anti-Israeli radical groups and Israel to freeze expansion of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.
The road map envisioned fulfilling the first stage before addressing such vexing issues as the precise borders of a future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, and the claim of Palestinian refugees and their descendants of a right to return to homes in Israel that were abandoned in 1948.
The process was further frozen when the radical Islamic group Hamas, which is devoted to the destruction of Israel, last year won legislative elections in the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, Israel has not met its obligations. On the same day the meeting was announced, Israel's Housing Ministry solicited bids to build 44 housing units in the West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim, which Olmert has declared would be part of Israel under any final deal.
Now, in a shift for the Bush administration, Rice is calculating that dialogue on the end result -- what she calls the "political horizon" -- might loosen the logjam, aides said.
Bush took office in 2001 critical of the intense engagement in the peace process by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, including sketching the final borders of a Palestinian state. Bush's aides suggested that the collapse of Clinton's involvement led to the outbreak of violence known as the second intifada.
"The parties haven't talked about these issues for a long time. It's been at least six years since they talked about these issues," Rice said, referring to Clinton's efforts. "It seems wise to begin this, as what President Abbas has called an informal discussion, to just really sit and talk about the issues."
Bush is already on record on two key issues. To the fury of Arabs, he gave a letter in 2004 to Ariel Sharon, then Israeli prime minister, saying that Palestinian refugees could not expect to return to Israel and that Israel would be expected to retain major settlement blocks in the West Bank.
Israeli and Palestinian officials confirmed the planned meeting, which officials said is likely to be held next month. The deal came about after Rice shuttled between Jerusalem, the Jordanian capital of Amman and Abbas's West Bank headquarters in Ramallah on Sunday and then secured Olmert's agreement Monday morning for the meeting. After talks with Egyptian officials here, she flew to Riyadh for dinner with Saudi King Abdullah.
|
LUXOR, Egypt, Jan. 15 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would meet with her for a three-way informal discussion of issues that must be cleared away to establish a Palestinian state.
| 14.46 | 1 | 50 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401139.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401139.html
|
At Libby Trial, Power Players Face Uncomfortable Spotlight
|
2007012319
|
When Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff goes on trial Tuesday on charges of lying about the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity, members of Washington's government and media elite will be answering some embarrassing questions as well.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's case will put on display the secret strategizing of an administration that cherry-picked information to justify war in Iraq and reporters who traded freely in gossip and protected their own interests as they worked on one of the big Washington stories of 2003.
The estimated six-week trial will pit current and former Bush administration officials against one another and, if Cheney is called as expected, will mark the first time that a sitting vice president has testified in a criminal case. It also will force the media into painful territory, with as many as 10 journalists called to testify for or against an official who was, for some of them, a confidential source.
Besides Cheney, the trial is likely to feature government and media luminaries including NBC's Tim Russert, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, columnist Robert D. Novak and Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward.
Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity became a popular spectator sport in Washington in the summer of 2004, when reporters were first ordered under threat of jail to reveal their anonymous sources in the administration. In October 2005, Libby was indicted on charges of perjuring himself before a grand jury, making false statements to investigators and obstruction of justice (though he was not one of the leakers to Novak, who first disclosed Plame's identity).
U.S. v. Libby boils down to two drastically different versions of the same events in the spring and summer of 2003. The government alleges that Libby was involved in a concerted White House effort to discredit Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting information he provided on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Wilson led a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger a year earlier and found no grounds for claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium there.
Eight days after Wilson went public with his claims, Plame's identity as a CIA officer appeared in Novak's column.
The defense says that neither Libby nor the White House sought to retaliate against Wilson and that Libby misspoke to investigators looking into the disclosure because he was overwhelmed by a crush of national security and other matters. He has said he had no motive to lie about the details or timing of conversations he had with reporters.
The case has largely played out in below-the-radar court hearings as prosecutors and defense lawyers have mapped the boundaries of the trial. Despite speculation at cocktail parties and in law-firm lunchrooms that Bush would pardon Libby to avoid the spectacle of a trial, the date has arrived.
Presiding U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton and lawyers for both sides will begin selecting 12 jurors along with alternates Tuesday. It is not expected to be an easy task, given the heavy publicity and the involvement of two institutions -- the government and the news media -- low in the public's esteem. Preparing for strong feelings from some D.C. residents, Walton has assembled 100 prospective jurors and has a pool of 100 more standing by.
Walton has also girded for intense media coverage, last week issuing unusually strict orders that bar attorneys from commenting publicly during the trial.
Fitzgerald's probe focused on a tense time in Washington, starting in May 2003, when the administration sought to defend its invasion of Iraq even as U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction, which the administration had cited as one of the main reasons for deposing Saddam Hussein. That month, reporters began writing about anonymous accusations from Wilson that Bush had sold the war to the American public using intelligence Wilson had found to be groundless. Wilson went public with his accusations during the first week of July.
|
When Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff goes on trial Tuesday on charges of lying about the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity, members of Washington's government and media elite will be answering some embarrassing questions as well.
| 17.227273 | 1 | 44 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400760.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400760.html
|
Freedom of Information, the Wiki Way
|
2007012319
|
You're a government worker in China, and you've just gotten a memo showing the true face of the regime. Without any independent media around, how do you share what you have without landing in jail or worse?
Wikileaks.org is a Web-based way for people with damning, potentially helpful or just plain embarrassing government documents to make them public without leaving fingerprints. Modeled on the participatory, online encyclopedia Wikipedia, the site is expected to go live within the next two months.
Organizer James Chen said that while its creators tried to keep the site under wraps until its launch, Google references to it have soared in recent days from about eight to more than 20,000.
"Wikileaks is becoming, as planned, although unexpectedly early, an international movement of people who facilitate ethical leaking and open government," he said.
The site, whose FAQs are written in flowery dissident-ese -- "What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, Wikileaks can broadcast to the world" -- targets regimes in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but not exclusively. It was founded and partially funded, organizers say, by dissidents, mathematicians and technologists from China, the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. The site relies on a worldwide web of volunteers and contributors to post and vet the information, and dodge any efforts to shut it down. To protect document donors and the site itself, Wikileaks uses its own coded software combined with, for the techies out there, modified versions of Freenet and PGP.
"I think it's an intriguing effort," said Steven Aftergood, an open-government advocate who runs the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News blog.
"It's significant that their emphasis seems to be on relatively closed societies rather than the U.S. or Europe, that have a rather robust media sector.
"They have the potential to make a difference," he said.
But for now, Aftergood has declined Wikileaks' invitation to serve on its advisory board.
"I want to see how they launch and what direction they go in," he said. "Indiscriminate disclosure can be as problematic as indiscriminate secrecy."
The thought that a nation's defense plans could turn up as "you've got mail" across the globe is a chilling one. So, too, is the potential for a miscreant to sow mayhem by "leaking" documents, real or fake.
"Unless there are some kinds of editorial safeguards built into the process, it can be easily sabotaged. That was the concern I was trying to raise," Aftergood said. "We'll have to see."
Wikileaks organizers say the site is self-policing. "Wikileaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability," they wrote in response to e-mailed questions. "If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document is leaked from Somalia, the entire Somali refugee community can analyze it and put it in context. And so on."
Because organizers are scattered around the globe, "In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions."
For a review of Wikileaks' first document, a weirdly worded memo titled "Secret Decision" said to be issued by the Somalia Islamic court system's Office of the Chief of the Imams, go to http://www.wikileaks.org/inside_somalia_v9.html.
|
Latest news on the US federal government. Information and analysis of federal legislation, government contracts and regulations. Search for government job openings, career information and federal employee benefits news.
| 19.583333 | 0.527778 | 0.583333 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401186.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401186.html
|
In the Playoffs, Facing New England Is Never Pretty
|
2007012319
|
Even when Tom Brady and the New England Patriots trailed by 11, they acted as though they didn't quite trust the pretty colors of the San Diego Chargers' uniforms. Could a team that wears canary yellow and gentle shades of blue, in a stadium that serves merlot at the concessions, really beat them in the playoffs?
Brady and the Patriots will make you prove it, every time. All during the regular season and for much of the game, the Chargers played like the best team in the NFL. They had that glittering 14-2 record. They had the league's most valuable player, LaDainian Tomlinson, in the backfield. And they had the home-field advantage and were unbeaten in Qualcomm Stadium. When the Patriots forced them to ratify all of those exquisite assets and numbers, however, they couldn't do it.
What happened here, after all of the bedlam, the combined seven turnovers and the long strikes and the big stops, was that the better-looking team lost, 24-21. Which tends to happen to those spangled, elegant organizations that have the ill luck to be favored over the Patriots in the postseason. Throughout the afternoon, aided by a steady roar from a record crowd of 68,810 that sounded like something that came from the back of a jet plane, the Chargers seemed to be irrefutably superior. They moved the ball more easily on offense, as Tomlinson gained 123 yards and scored twice, and they all but stuffed the Patriots on defense, holding them to just 51 yards rushing while forcing three interceptions from Brady.
The problem was that the Chargers were only the best team of the regular season -- and this was the playoffs. And the Patriots are surely the greatest team of their era at winning the games that count. Brady and Patriots Coach Bill Belichick, the constants in their remarkable franchise, are 12-1 in the postseason. Beating them in January is like trying to kill Rasputin. You better poison them, shoot them, stab them and then wrap them in chains and throw them in a river. Even then, you better take their pulse and make sure that they're really, really dead.
"It doesn't really matter in our eyes. We come in and we know we are the ones who are going to do it," said Patriots running back Kevin Faulk.
The Chargers are merely the latest team to learn this lesson the hard way. The very worst thing you can do is to taunt the Patriots with a point spread and an MVP. They'll break the heart of the best player in the league every time with their combination of dull toughness, substance and belief. Tomlinson has everything in the world he could want, except a game to play next week. He's the league's scoring leader, rushing leader, total yardage leader, most valuable player and offensive player of the year. And he's out. It's the same thing the Patriots did to Kurt Warner in the 2001 Super Bowl, and to Steve McNair and Peyton Manning in the postseason in 2003.
"They buckled down in certain situations and stopped us," Tomlinson said, sounding just sort of baffled. "It was like they had a mindset that they were just going to stop us in certain situations."
The Patriots were down 21-13 with eight minutes left, and that was exactly when you began to sense that they might do it again. They kept chipping away at the situation, charging around the field trying to make something happen. When some of the Chargers began to limp ever so slightly, you knew the momentum was swinging.
The Chargers were just too profligate, too wasteful with their many opportunities to put the game away. Of their 14 drives, 10 were in New England territory. And yet they gave up four turnovers of their own, they dropped balls and committed six momentum-killing penalties. With 6 minutes 25 seconds left in the game, Marlon McCree had another Brady interception and a probable victory in his hands -- and fumbled it, stripped by Troy Brown. Instead, the Patriots had a first and 10 at the San Diego 32, and four plays later, Brady hit Reche Caldwell with a 4-yard scoring pass, and Faulk made the two-point conversion to tie it.
"I think the most important thing is, we have a bunch of mentally tough guys in here who don't give up, regardless of the situation," New England defensive back Ray Mickens said. "I think that shows today, that we didn't get down on ourselves just because we were down by 11 points, but just kept hammering away and being mentally tough."
The last thing you want to give Brady in the final minutes of a playoff game is hope. All game long he had struggled. His range was off, he underthrew and overthrew, he was hurried and sacked. But after each failed drive or turnover, he would return to his sideline and study his charts, imperturbable.
"You know it's just not letting anything get to you," Brady said. "It's staying focused no matter what's swirling around you. Just continuing to mentally fight through whatever obstacles there might be."
The final drive was the sort we've seen before: Brady in the pocket, lanky and calm, that half growth of beard barely visible inside his helmet, finding receivers all over the field when they hadn't been open all game. Brady's passes, so wobbly and directionless earlier in the game, suddenly had zing. The game-breaker was the 49-yarder to Caldwell down the sideline for a first down at the San Diego 17 with 2:31 to play. The ball flew through the air like it was on a rope between the two men, and Caldwell skittered out of bounds at the Chargers 17. Four plays later, Stephen Gostkowski kicked the game-winning field goal.
Afterward, San Diego Coach Marty Schottenheimer wore a vaguely uncomprehending expression. He didn't quite understand what had happened. He thought the Chargers just came up a little short. "We ran out of time, is what happened," Schottenheimer said. "We ran out of time."
No. They ran into the Patriots.
|
Tom Brady and the Patriots were not as glamorous as the Chargers heading into Sunday's playoff game, but as usual, New England did enough to beat a better-looking team.
| 34.685714 | 0.857143 | 1.828571 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401124.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401124.html
|
Bill O'Reilly And NBC, Shouting to Make Themselves Seen?
|
2007012319
|
A war of words between Bill O'Reilly and NBC has erupted into a shouting match that is overheated, mean-spirited and incredibly entertaining.
"NBC News has gone sharply to the left," the Fox News star said on his radio show in early January. "They are an activist network now. They hate Bush across the board."
Such comments prompted MSNBC's Joe Scarborough to break with his fellow conservative. "Why does Bill O'Reilly hate NBC so much?" Scarborough declared on his show.
Beyond the name-calling -- which nearly matches the mud-fight quality of the Donald Trump-and-Rosie O'Donnell smackdown -- is a serious debate about the Iraq war and the nature of media bias. But the cantankerous talking heads are also showmen who know that a bench-clearing brawl can be good for ratings.
O'Reilly, who has hosted the top-rated cable news show for five years, has long berated the mainstream media for lurching to the left, while casting Rupert Murdoch's network as one of the few balanced outlets around. O'Reilly is frequently on the offensive against liberal judges, professors and others -- he recently told an antiwar activist who appeared as a guest that she was a "lunatic" -- but his assault on NBC seems particularly personal.
"I'll admit it. I don't like you guys," O'Reilly told NBC's Andrea Mitchell during an interview 10 days agoin which he grilled her about alleged bias among her colleagues.
Scarborough, a former Republican congressman who has been trying to demonstrate his independence from the GOP, says in an interview that O'Reilly "really does toe the party line more than I ever have."
"I certainly took offense when he said there were no conservatives at the network, we were all liberal stooges and Marxist sympathizers," Scarborough says. The "final straw," he says, was when O'Reilly criticized Richard Engel, NBC's Middle East bureau chief, for "suggesting the obvious" -- that the rushed hanging of Saddam Hussein had been "a PR disaster." (President Bush told NBC's Brian Williams last week that the execution video ranked just below Abu Ghraib in terms of the war's mistakes.)
O'Reilly declined to be interviewed for this column, but Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti says he "has exposed media bias for the last 10 years. This is nothing new. We don't know why NBC finds the label 'liberal' so insulting."
Scarborough says O'Reilly is being driven by animosity toward Keith Olbermann, whose MSNBC show "Countdown" has been gaining in the ratings. "He's allowed his anger toward Keith Olbermann to damage his credibility," Scarborough says.
Olbermann, who faces off with O'Reilly at 8 p.m., has been denouncing his rival for years. He positions his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to the "O'Reilly Factor" and frequently bestows on "Bill-O" his "Worst Person in the World" award. "Countdown" was up 60 percent in the fourth quarter over a year earlier, to 656,000 viewers. But "Factor," despite a 21 percent decline during the same period, still dwarfs the competition with 2.049 million viewers.
Several times over the last year, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because they were describing private conversations, O'Reilly's agent called Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC's television group, urging him to tell his MSNBC commentators to back off. O'Reilly also posted an online petition demanding that NBC dump Olbermann.
|
A war of words between Bill O'Reilly and NBC has erupted into a shouting match that is overheated, mean-spirited and incredibly entertaining.
| 26.269231 | 1 | 26 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401289.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401289.html
|
All the World's His Stage
|
2007012319
|
The Globe Theatre, the site of so many of Shakespeare's theatrical triumphs, is a fetish object.
It is the Valhalla of Bardolotry, a place every decently educated schoolkid can picture in detail even if, as scholars readily admit, much of what it looked like is simply unknown. As a piece of architecture, it has been dust and compost for more than four centuries, but the Globe keeps recurring, being rebuilt and re-imagined, as if only there (or in some facsimile) can Shakespeare really come alive.
At first glance, the National Building Museum might seem an odd choice to be brought into the big tent of the Kennedy Center's Shakespeare in Washington festival. But, of course, there's always the Globe, and so the museum is doing its part, with an exhibition devoted to the old Elizabethan polygon, open to the air, on the south bank of the Thames.
The surprise is that "Reinventing the Globe: A Shakespearean Theater for the 21st Century," which opened Saturday, is smart, fresh and idiosyncratic. Perhaps because architecture is an art with real money at stake, or perhaps because architects are by nature intellectually lively people, the highlight of the Kennedy Center's rather diffuse Shakespeare festival may turn out to be this small but lively survey devoted to the larger idea of "Globe-ness."
The show is divided into two parts. The first is a historical look at Elizabethan theaters, and at the persistent fascination with re-creating the Globe over the ages. The second half shows the work of five different architects or architectural teams who were given the challenge of rethinking the Globe for a new era. Their contributions amount to a fascinating overview of the strengths and pathologies of contemporary architecture, including the strange obsession for getting people "engaged" with friendly or open buildings (as if cold and serene buildings, like the Taj Mahal, or dour, overbearing ones, like the Pantheon, weren't "engaging" enough). So the exhibition moves from the old Globe, seen in drawings and paintings and described in old documents, to the globe itself, suggested by one theatrical plan that would use Internet technology to link multiple performances of "Macbeth," around the world, together into a seamless, virtual show.
The basics are covered in schoolbook fashion: The Globe was an outdoor theater with a thrust stage, an open court for the "groundlings" and covered galleries for those willing to pay a little extra. It was not quite circular, but rather a polygon with perhaps 16, 18 or 20 sides. It was located on the margins of London, amid other various and disreputable forms of entertainment.
Rather like William Shakespeare himself, whom we know through tantalizingly minimal documentary evidence such as the infamous will and testament that bequeaths "my second best bed" to his wife, Anne, we often know the Globe only secondhand. A construction contract for another theater, the Fortune, makes reference to the Globe and gives us some description. Wenceslaus Hollar's famous engraving of London, which appears so often on the cover of collected editions of Shakespeare's works, shows us the Globe and its location -- except that the artist has confused the theater with a bear-baiting arena.
Given the sketchiness of what is known, much of the historical part of the exhibition is devoted to efforts at reconstruction, including a lavishly detailed model finished in 1950 by John Cranford Adams that, alas, represents the theater as an octagon, which it almost assuredly was not. The allure of the Globe -- in many ways a perverse desire given all the inconveniences of performing in the open air, in daylight and only during the clement months -- is such that conjecture on paper has often given way to full-scale conjecture with beams and mortar.
And this is where it gets interesting. The passion for rebuilding the Globe emerges as a rather obnoxious default thinking for cultural leaders who have run out of ideas. When in doubt, build a Globe. So we see the sad and absurd plans for a huge Globe theater reconstruction in Detroit, a 1979 project that was never built, but surely meant as some kind of second chance for a city that was descending into full-scale urban collapse. Racism, poverty and the grand lack of strategic thinking by the local auto barons in the face of a gas crisis and Japanese competition was turning Detroit into a dead zone. Maybe Shakespeare's Globe could pull the city out of it death spiral.
Or maybe not. A churl might point out that the revivified National Endowment for the Arts is a success story in part because it has reverted to safe projects, such as touring Shakespeare, and that the entire concept of a six-month Shakespeare festival -- in a town already awash in Shakespeare -- is yet another reflexive response to artistic programming. Detroit isn't the only place where Shakespeare is the easy answer.
Another oddity is the obsession with the Globe during the great technology and international exhibitions of the 1930s. Curator Martin Moeller makes the argument that despite the central focus of many of these exhibitions on futuristic ideas and the great new utopias being engineered in the laboratories of the world -- utopias that were already showing a dystopian side in Germany and the Soviet Union -- there was a repeated return to reconstructions of the Globe. Perhaps, says Moeller, the Globe represented a "wholesome" entertainment among the fleshpot novelties of the midway, a balancing mechanism for a world that was moving too fast.
But lest it seem that the Globe is inherently a conservative or even reactionary fantasy, it seems that it is primarily so mostly for the English-speaking world. Outside the orbit of Shakespeare's native tongue, the Globe is treated more playfully, as seen in the "ice Globe," carved out of ice and used for winter performances in Sweden, or the Haller Globe, a quickly built provisional-looking theater that has a genuine architectural edginess to it, built on an island in Germany in 2000.
|
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.
| 22.764706 | 0.431373 | 0.54902 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011200927.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011200927.html
|
Begging: The Question
|
2007012319
|
When Lauren Ratner spent three months in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, she was overwhelmed by the poverty and the number of people, including children, begging for money in the streets.
"Guilty" is how the 31-year-old D.C. resident describes her feelings at the time. Now working in maternal and child health policy, Ratner was in the country in 2003 for an internship with an international family planning organization. As a foreigner, she attracted plenty of beggars.
"I got so tired and bitter of always being such a target," she says. But on the other hand, "I was incredibly rich in comparison, so why shouldn't I be a target?"
Her response to these mixed emotions was to wake up every morning with a new rule for herself. " 'Today I'm only going to give money to moms with babies,' " she recalls thinking. "Or 'Today I'm only going to give money to disabled people.' Or 'Today I'm only going to give money to kids if they're selling something.' So it varied completely."
Whether to give money -- and how best to give it -- is a dilemma for many travelers who visit developing lands and confront levels of poverty they are unaccustomed to. It can be particularly difficult to watch young street children asking for coins or selling trinkets and photos of themselves to tourists.
Travel didn't create this problem: UNICEF cites some estimates of 100 million street children worldwide, not just in popular destinations. But it is clear that Western tourists, prime targets of cute, poor children, are expected to respond. Should foreigners give them money -- or even food? How can they turn away from a child in need?
Several nonprofit organizations that work with street kids tell travelers to just say no. They point out that giving money can keep a child in a dangerous situation. But they also acknowledge that such advice is impossible to follow in every circumstance.
"Ideally, you should try to find an organization that is working with these kids, so that the money goes further and supports as many kids as it can," says Paul Dimmick, spokesman for EveryChild, a London-based organization that works with vulnerable children in 17 countries. "But sometimes when you're there and you're staring at someone face to face, it's incredibly difficult to just walk away."
Lexie Armao and her husband, Jon, have taken many international vacations, including a recent trip to Southeast Asia. The Armaos are 60-something technical writers from Reston, and they have a policy of not giving money to street children because, Lexie Armao says, "you don't know for sure what the situation is."
They once saw a woman in Turkey using a beautiful little girl as a front, Armao adds, saying she'd rather give to an organization.
But she will buy things from children, a well-meaning act that landed her in an uncomfortable situation in Cambodia. When she bought bracelets from a young girl, a second child got angry. "Another girl followed me and was harassing me that I wouldn't buy from her," she says.
"It's basically like the hard sell," Dimmick says of the aggressive behavior some children exhibit. And it sometimes works. But "you still can't tell where their desperation comes from."
|
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
| 15.302326 | 0.395349 | 0.488372 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399.html
|
Mind Games - washingtonpost.com
|
2007012319
|
IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. He is standing just where he said he would be, below the Philadelphia train station's World War II memorial -- a soaring statue of a winged angel embracing a fallen combatant, as if lifting him to heaven. Girard is wearing pressed khaki pants, expensive-looking leather loafers and a crisp blue button-down. He looks like a local businessman dressed for a casual Friday -- a local businessman with a wickedly dark sense of humor, which had become apparent when he said to look for him beneath "the angel sodomizing a dead soldier." At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.
Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. "Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen," he says.
The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.
"It's undeniable that the technology exists," Girard says, "but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation."
The thing that's missing from his bag -- the lack of which makes it hard to prove he isn't crazy -- is even a single document that would buttress the implausible notion that the government is currently targeting a large group of American citizens with mind-control technology. The only direct evidence for that, Girard admits, lies with alleged victims such as himself.
And of those, there are many.
IT'S 9:01 P.M. WHEN THE FIRST PERSON SPEAKS during the Saturday conference call.
Unsure whether anyone else is on the line yet, the female caller throws out the first question: "You got gang stalking or V2K?" she asks no one in particular.
There's a short, uncomfortable pause.
"V2K, really bad. 24-7," a man replies.
"Gang stalking," another woman says.
"Oh, yeah, join the club," yet another man replies.
|
New on the Internet: a community of people who believe the government is beaming voices into their minds. They may be crazy, but the Pentagon has pursued a weapon that can do just that.
| 14.184211 | 0.657895 | 0.973684 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/10/DI2007011001471.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/10/DI2007011001471.html
|
Golden Globes Live
|
2007012319
|
Don't just watch the Golden Globes. Watch and discuss them online in real time.
As always, washingtonpost.com's resident awards junkie, Jen Chaney, will be seated in front of the television to comment on the telecast. As she's done during the Academy and Emmy Awards, she'll respond to questions about the winners, catty comments about Globe fashions and idle speculation about which celebrity has consumed the most champagne.
Jen Chaney: Welcome to our exciting evening of Golden Globes coverage. If you've been watching the red carpet coverage on E! or the TV Guide Channel, then I'm sure you're already nauseated ... I mean, incredibly excited by all the celebrity glamour.
A few thoughts and observations before I start taking questions:
--Michael Urie, who plays Mark on "Ugly Betty," is the new Sean Hayes.
--I think the crawl of reader comments on E! is adding a level of nuance previously absent from these red carpet shows. Without that crawl, for example, I would have no idea that Rachel from Ma. thinks that "Leo should win. He's hot in 'Blood Diamond!'"
--For a brief moment, when I first saw E! fashion commentator Jay Manuel, I thought I had fast-forwarded in time to Prince's halftime show at the Super Bowl.
Some of you have already started asking great questions and making insightful comments, so I'll get right to those. If you have any predictions about winners before the ceremony starts, please share those, too. And now ... Globes Chat '07!
New York, N.Y.: Wow, look at what Jennifer Hudson is wearing, how sharp is that?
(Please note this question was sent in hours ahead of the program with absolutely no knowledge of what Jennifer Hudson is wearing.)
Jen Chaney: It's verrrry sharp.
(Please note this answer was given before I had seen what Jennifer Hudson was actually wearing.)
Los Angeles: Take it from people in the business: In the real world, aside from the hype and p.r. crap, barely anyone takes the Golden Globes seriously. In fact, most people know that the Globes -- the organization, the members, the awards, the show -- are a joke. The organization itself is questionable, the members are questionable, the rules idiotic, and the awards completely out of line with reality. Professionally speaking, the Globes are a joke.
Jen Chaney: Are you the same L.A. person from our Globes nomination chat? Welcome back.
I think anyone who tracks awards shows even casually knows that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is a small group and has been questioned for its practices in the past. Not to mention that awards shows aren't exactly something to take terribly seriously in the wide scheme of the world.
Having said that, it's fun to track these things if you have any taste for film, TV, fashion or celebrity gossip. I would also say that in recent years, the films and TV shows honored at the Globes have risen in quality. It's rare to see a Pia Zadora moment anymore. Although I disagree with some choices from time to time, most of the nominees are worthy.
Oakland, Calif.: I've been following all the red carpet arrivals -- I think white has just become the new black in Hollywood. What do you think?
Jen Chaney: There is quite a bit of white, as Kate Winslet just demonstrated. I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of it. It's extremely hard to pull off, and I just think color of some kind tends to pop more on television.
I did think Ali Larter from "Heroes" looks pretty nice in her cream-colored dress, though...
Kings Park, N.Y.: When did the Golden Globe start?
How do we hear the interview discussion at 7:30 p.m. Monday, tonight?
Jen Chaney: Hi there -- The ceremony starts at 8 (just 15 minutes away). And you're already in the discussion, my friend. No audio, just lots of typing -- questions, answers, comments, that sort of thing.
If you want audio, you can try to imagine how I would sound if I gushed over Angelina Jolie's dress out loud. She seriously looked smokin'.
Washington, D.C.: A few of the red carpet shows have questioned guests about whether there is a big TV/film actor divide at the Globes. They all say no. But is it just me or have all the 6-7 p.m. arrivals been TV stars, and now we're beginning to see the film stars come in?
Jen Chaney: There's may be no divide for those who have a foot in both worlds, though there are few people who do. If you started watching before 6, you definitely didn't see many movie people.
The big stars -- the Brads, Angelinas, Beyonces -- generally show up a little later in the party. It would be gauche for them to show up too early, you know.
Elizabeth, Fredericksburg, Va.: How likely is Hugh Laurie to win the Best Actor award for his incredible week-after-week performance in "House, M.D."? I don't think any other actor comes close to his brilliance.
Jen Chaney: Laurie is a great actor, no question. But I'm not sure if he'll win; I think Kiefer Sutherland or even Michael C. Hall could win. I say Hall because "Dexter" is an edgy show, and the Foreign Press loves edgy new shows.
College Park, Md.: Jen -- Speaking of fashion ... do you think most of the women under 40 on the red carpet have a Brazilian wax?
Jen Chaney: I'm going to say ... 75 percent of women under 40 do. This is an arbitrary guess based on absolutely nothing associated with knowledge or science.
Angelina:... she may have looked great in her dress -- but man was she rude during the Ryan Seacrest interview -- she made it her mission not to say anything and it's not like he was even asking her obnoxious questions. If she doesn't like red carpet interviews -- get off the carpet and stay home -- geesh!
Jen Chaney: Agreed, that was very strange. She seemed to have no patience for it, like she was put-out by being there. Granted, the red carpet is pretty absurd, but she knows the drill by now.
Washington, D.C.: Did Renee Zellweger forget to wear makeup? The dress is a lovely shade, but she looks completely washed out. If it weren't for the (subtle) fake 'n bake, she'd look corpsey.
Jen Chaney: Imagine if she had worn white.
Instead of corpsey, the polite term is alabaster. Just keep that in your backpocket.
The show is starting now, folks. A few quick winner predictions: Sacha Baron Cohen, Jennifer Hudson, America Ferrara, Helen Mirren and "Babel" for Best Drama.
Washington, D.C.: Wah. I'm stuck at work. What's the first award up for the night?
Jen Chaney: Best Supporting Actress ... and Jennifer Hudson just won it. I like that they get right to business on this show.
Washington, D.C.: Not in high-def??? LAME!
Jen Chaney: I was just thinking the same thing. This is not cool. Can't they afford HD cameras for this joint?
We're on to original song from a film. "Listen" from "Dreamgirls" has to win this one.
Salt Lake City, Utah: Waaah. Boo to NBC, they are tape-delaying out here in Mountain (and Pacific) time zones. How lame is that?? I can't believe I have to wait an extra hour ...
Jen Chaney: I'm very sorry. Feel free to let us spoil it for you. Actually, just read the chat, then impress the friends you're watching with in a couple of hours as you predict every winner with uncanny accuracy.
Okay, totally wrong about the song award -- it went to Prince for "Song of the Heart" from "Happy Feet." The dude from E! did not accept on his behalf, but presenter Justin Timberlake did and made a bit of a joke about Prince's small stature. Way to go, JT, now you're on the Purple One's s*** list.
He's not that short! Wait, is he?: Oh my god Justin Timberlake did not just do that!!!
Is this the next celebrity feud in the making, Prince vs. JT?
Jen Chaney: Prince is really short.
I hope there's a feud. I hereby dub it SexyBack vs. LoveSexy.
Niles, Mich.: Will anyone have political comments to make (director nominees in particular)? I remember Pedro Almodovar at the Oscars did make some anti-war comments in the past. . .
Jen Chaney: I think Scorsese will win, in which case he probably won't say anything political. Inarritu might if he wins for "Babel."
Okay, what is Jeremy Irons wearing? Is that the puffy shirt from "Seinfeld"?
Arlington, Va.: Is it me or are these awards all over the place in the order that they are being presented?
P.S. Never would have predicted Jeremy Irons.
Jen Chaney: A little bit, yeah.
Kyra Sedgwick just won for best actress in a TV drama for "The Closer." She seems shocked even though several people predicted she would win.
Oy, she just thanked her lawyer.
Washington, D.C.: Will someone please kill those Chips Ahoy cookies?
Jen Chaney: Really. What right do they have to sing the Human League?
Washington, D.C.: Go, Prince! Kick JT's a--! He can do it at the Super Bowl. Wouldn't that be fitting?
Jen Chaney: That would be sweet. They could have a funk-off.
Prince wins that hands down, no question.
Arlington, Va.: The thing I love about the Golden Globes is seeing TV and film pals intermingling. Oh and I love that there's no host.
By the way, how could they leave Justin hanging like that?? Don't they know who is/isn't there? Weird.
Jen Chaney: The no-host thing does have its benefits. Keeps things humming along, that's for sure.
And I agree, it was weird that Timberlake didn't seem to know whether Prince was there. Unless he had said he would be there and failed to show up at the last minute. Which would be a somewhat Prince-like thing to do.
Curious in Arlington, Va.: Hey Jen, What do those blue pins (that look like a puzzle piece) stand for? I saw one on that guy from "Heroes" and Tina Fey. Thanks!
Jen Chaney: Those pins are associated with an organization that raises awareness about autism. At least that's what I heard earlier.
Re:Angelina: Seemed to me that she was just deferring to her SO -- who was nominated, and she wasn't. She was there as arm candy. If she'd jumped into the fray, she would have been slammed as the limelight-seeking gilrlfriend. Give the girl a rest. She's exquisitely beautiful -- and she's trying to make a difference to children globally.
Jen Chaney: I hear that. But I think there was a way she could have answered briefly and politely so as not to steal Brad's spotlight without seeming rude.
Washington, D.C.: Is Sacha Baron Cohen at the ceremony, is he in "Borat" persona? That would make my night.
Jen Chaney: I was wondering that myself. I haven't seem him yet. I think he's going to win for Actor in a Musical or Comedy so I'm hoping he stays in character. Even better, I hope he does it at the Oscars to lighten things up a bit.
Now we're on to supporting actress, TV ... the winner is Emily Blunt for "Gideon's Daughter." (They lump series, mini-series and TV movie into one category for the supporting roles.)
Washington, D.C.: Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick win my award for the best healthy partnership in Hollywood.
Jen Chaney: They've certainly stayed together for quite some time. So they're obviously doing something right.
JT v Prince feud: Okay, now I am picturing Justin Timberlake and Prince feuding by re-enacting the SNL skit where Timberlake is wearing the omlette suit, singing, "Bring it in to Omletteville" or something like that.
I think Prince should wear a hot-dog suit, you know, to make him look taller, and sing "You want a frankfurter today" to the tune of "Raspberry Beret."
Jen Chaney: Hugh Laurie just won for "House," and he's making a great, funny speech.
Wasn't that JT sketch, "Give it on up for Homelessville"? I definitely don't think omelettes were involved, though he did wear a ridiculous costume.
I just want a funk-off of some kind. Possibly in a large arena, perhaps involving Jello.
Nashville, Tenn.: Who was Jennifer Hudson's boyfriend that she acknowledged onstage and why isn't it me?
Jen Chaney: Was that a boyfriend, or a friend, or an agent? I wasn't sure what the relationship there was exactly, so maybe there's a chance for you yet.
Is it me, or does that Drew Barrymore/Hugh Grant movie look pretty bad based on the commercials? Now if you put those Chips Ahoy cookies in that flick, then you'd have something.
Sunnyvale, Calif.: This person in "The Business" certainly spends a lot of time in online Golden Globes discussions for someone who thinks they're a joke. Get a life, geek.
Jen Chaney: Now, now. We're all upset enough about Justin and Prince. Let's not start another feud.
Silver Spring, Md.: If Keifer wins, anyone think he'll chide us for not watching the "24" premiere instead of the awards?
Jen Chaney: Yes, and also for not watching "The Lost Boys," which surely is on cable somewhere right now.
Maybe someone who's watching "24" can give us an update as to what's happening over on Fox. Wait, let me guess ... Jack is yelling into a cell phone and saying, "Damn it, Chloe, just enter the code. There's no time!"
Bowie, Md.: So, Hugh Laurie just won, right? Somewhere, Lisa DeMoraes is swooning.
Jen Chaney: In many places, I think many women are swooning.
Arlington, Va.: I adore Hugh Laurie. He never lets you down in the speech department.
Jen Chaney: Can't argue with you there. That was a brilliant speech. I especially appreciated the part where he pointed out that not everyone could possibly have a wonderful crew and that someone out there must be working with "a bunch of drunks and thieves."
Germantown, Md.: What happened to "Inland Empire"? I saw it last night, and was transfixed! Surely this tour de force deserves SOME recognition, even if only for Laura Dern's performance.
Jen Chaney: I wonder if enough people saw that in time to nominate it. I personally haven't caught it yet either, but from what I have heard, it's ultra-weird even within the context of David Lynch. So that could be part of it, too.
Still want to see it, though.
Bethesda, Md.: Did Jennifer Hudson thank Beyonce or did she leave her out? If she did leave her out, purposeful or not?
Jen Chaney: She did not thank her, but she did not thank anyone in the cast. I think it was an accidental oversight, personally.
If not, one word: Funk-Off.
Award update: Meryl Streep just won for best actress in a comedy for "Devil Wears Prada." No surprise there.
Drew Barrymore/Hugh Grant: Was JUST thinking the same thing on the awfulness of the movie. Their constant cutesy movie personas are really getting old.
Jen Chaney: I like Hugh Grant when he plays the jerk. He was so great in "About a Boy." Unfortunately his movies -- and romantic comedies in general -- are rarely that good.
Arlington, Va.: Joaquin is looking good! Much more healthy than awards season last year. I noticed that Jack Nicholson clapped especially hard for him. I'm trying to think of what they've worked on together?
Jen Chaney: I don't think they have worked together. At least not that I recall.
Maybe Nicholson dug "Walk the Line."
Berlin, Germany: They played "Vogue" when Meryl Streep got her (well-deserved) award. Somewhere a sound editor is sitting going. "D'ya get it? D'YA GET IT?" Nice.
Jen Chaney: Maybe not the most subtle choice, but it worked.
She gave quite the long speech, but I liked what she said. Also, she's Meryl Streep, so she has carte blanche to say pretty much whatever she wants.
Washington, D.C.: Am I the only one who finds Steve Carell, um, hot?
Jen Chaney: Interesting. He is, empirically speaking, a handsome guy. But because of his roles, it's hard for me to think of him as hot.
I like him immensely, though.
Washington, D.C.: Jen - I am late to paying attention to this award season. I'm curious, why has "Children of Men" received so few nominations (and no Golden Globe noms)? I have seen most nominated movies, and this strikes me as bizarre. I'm surprised there is no Best Picture nomination, and completely shocked that it wasn't nominated for Best Director.
Jen Chaney: You know, I was just having this conversation with someone.
(Aside: wow, can people sit down and shut-up while Ben Stiller presents "Borat"? And Sacha Baron Cohen -- not in character. Dang!)
It was a very well-done film, but I wonder if it got pigeonholed as a genre piece. It's a thriller, albeit a thought-provoking and intelligent one. Maybe that hurt it somehow? Also seems like the ball got dropped on pushing it for consideration, which may be an even more important factor.
About Salma: What do you think.....boob job???? Looks unnatural.
Jen Chaney: I actually just rewound my DVR upon reading this question. No, I'm not proud.
I acually think they're real. She's always been pretty chesty from what I recall.
Hang on ... I just spotted Prince behind Eddie Murphy. What is the deal??
Berlin, Germany: Apparently, everyone who has ever had anything to do with Helen Mirren is going to get an award tonight.
Jen Chaney: Eddie Murphy just won for supporting actor ... I thought for sure Nicholson would win because the Foreign Press loves him. But good for Eddie.
I also understand his good buddy Buckwheat is in tight with Helen Mirren.
Fairfax, Va.: I just saw Prince in the audience -- behind Eddie Murphy! I wonder what happened...bathroom?
Jen Chaney: Possibly, or his purple limo was late.
Maybe the funk-off could happen tonight!
Baltimore: Does this show have any musical performances?
Jen Chaney: I don't think so. The longest digression from the main awards is usually the Cecil B. DeMille Award. This year, it's going to Warren Beatty. Pray that "Ishtar" gets included in the clip-show salute.
Washington, D.C.: Yes, I have to say "Children of Men" is one of my favorite films of the year. Brilliant filmmaking by Cuaron. I think it will get some Oscar notice. At least for cinematography. If it doesn't, I'll be very upset.
Jen Chaney: I don't know, I think it might get ignored completely. We'll see.
To Wash, D.C. re: Children of Men: I hated the movie. I can't see why it would get nominated for anything. Jen, did you like it? If so, why?
Jen Chaney: I liked it a lot. (Aside: Sarah Jessica Parker looks kinda blah, a rarity). I thought the premise was fascinating and that Cuaron did an outstanding job. Some of those continuous shots were stunning. I also appreciated that a number of the jolts (explosions) were genuinely unexpected.
Now tell me why you hated it.
Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.: Why all the washed-out or skin-colored dresses on the actresses? I thought Jada Pinkett-Smith (in a peach-colored gown) and Reese (in a yellow gown with beautiful shoulder-length hair) looked gorgeous. Now even SJP? I always thought she took risks but that dress was so safe! Why not more color in general? Rachel Weisz saved her gown by dressing simply but in red!
Jen Chaney: Helen Mirren just won her first Globe, for "Elizabeth I" on HBO. And unless my eyes deceive me, there is a hole or a split in the lower back of her dress. Did anyone else see that?
And I agree about the color. Nude/mauve/blah doesn't do much for me. I liked the color Mirren was wearing, and agree that Weisz looked lovely in red.
SJ Parker is my idol: Love the dress!! Can I be her when I grow up?
Jen Chaney: Another opinion on the Parker couture ... you can be her when you grow up, sure. Hope you have a high metabolism, though -- she's a thin one that SJP.
Washington, D.C.: Yes, I think Helen Mirren's dress caught on her husband's chair. I noticed the cameraman quickly turned away from a behind shot. I'm sure it will be quickly stitched backstage.
Jen Chaney: I hope so. Such a shame since she looks great otherwise.
And from the department of not looking great, I present: Cameron Diaz. Not digging that dress at all.
Queen Helen: I have to say, all of Helen Mirren's wins are well deserved. I've loved her ever since I saw her in the first "Prime Suspect." She looks gorgeous and real tonight in that dress.
Jen Chaney: That seems to be the consensus, as you'll see from the following comments.
Brookland, Washington, D.C.: Helen Mirren is, without a doubt, my best dressed of the evening. I hope I look an ounce of that when I'm her age!
Jake Gyllenhaal in a tuxedo ... see, this is what we need more of.
He and Hilary Swank are presenting Best Screenplay, which went to ... "The Queen." This Helen Mirren theory is really proving itself.
Charlotte, N.C.: Did Reese W. have a little work done? She always looks great but tonight she looks a little different.
Jen Chaney: Elaborate -- I didn't notice a difference, but I've also been typing a lot.
Are you thinking facial work?
Ancient Greece: The look of the year isn't "white" or "washed-out." It's "toga chic."
Jen Chaney: Nice term. I like it.
We're onto TV actor in a comedy ... and Alec Baldwin just won for "30 Rock." Hottie Steve Carell ... just watching.
Quantico, Va.: SJP has been looking dowdier since the end of SATC. She's getting on in years, after all...I don't think she's going to age as well as Helen Mirren.
Jen Chaney: She's aging, as we all are. But it's not like she's elderly.
I just think that wasn't one of her best dress choices, that's all.
Yay Alec!: So glad he won, especially since Tim Allen called it "3rd Rock" instead of "30 Rock." And he was snubbed from the 'impressive actor' line-up on "The Departed."
Also liked the "Galaxy Quest" plug, I think I'm the only person who actually LOVES that movie. Seriously, I watch it on a weekly basis.
However, I did expect more humor from Alec's speech. Ho-hum.
Jen Chaney: Tim Allen ... why is he even presenting? I kind of figured Baldwin would win, so again, not a big surprise.
Wonder if that will help "30 Rock" in any way. It's not doing that well in the ratings.
Re: Reese: I don't think she's had work, it looks like she lost weight since the split with Ryan.
Jen Chaney: Well, that's understandable.
We're on to Best Comedy. I'm thinking "Ugly Betty."
Washington, D.C.: Vanessa Williams is right out of Whitney Houston's "I Wanna Dance With Somebody" video.
Jen Chaney: Nice reference. Totally agree about the hair.
Minneapolis: Since we know she's probably about to be on camera, did anyone notice that E! barely showed America Ferrara in that pretty dress? She may not be as thin as Cameron Diaz, but she looked exponentially prettier and classier...
Jen Chaney: They did, but yes, briefly. She's adorable. And she's not fat, people. She's normal-looking.
Speaking of, "Ugly Betty" just won. (Good call, Minneapolis.)
Re: Charlotte, N.C.: I don't think Reese had work done. I think she has that "newly single and fabulous" look. On the other spectrum, Cameron Diaz has the "I just broke up with SexyBack and I don't know how to get back to sexy."
Jen Chaney: A big me-ow! She didn't look bad per se, she (like SJP) just chose a less than attractive dress, in my estimation.
Wow, the "Ugly Betty" crew is super-excited. Vanessa Williams's hair just grew two more inches.
SJ Parker outfit lover: By the comments I clearly need to update my wardrobe. I thought she looked great but I shall be at the mall tomorrow!!!!!
Jen Chaney: Don't be silly. Stick by what you like.
I'm sitting here making fashion comments and I'm wearing a maternity shirt with cornbread crumbs on it. (But I'm wearing diamonds by Cartier.)
So "Letters From Iwo Jima" just won for foreign language film. I thought it was a fine movie, but I really don't think it should have won just because it was all in Japanese. This category should be an opportunity to honor filmmakers from outside Hollywood because they so rarely have the chance to be honored otherwise. That's the way the Oscars handles it, and you would think the Hollywood FOREIGN Press, of all groups, would have similar reverence for international filmmakers.
Okay, end of rant. For now.
Boston: Why is "Dreamgirls" playing in so relatively few theaters, since it has been in the top five in revenue for the past five weeks?
Jen Chaney: They've done a slow roll-out on it, I think to mirror the buzz building throughout awards season.
re: Children of Men: It started out with an interesting premise, a sterile future society. Then it fell apart. The radical group had no weight, no bearing in society (or the failed society). Their inter-group violence made their purpose unsympathetic. Clive's character seemed to be out of character with the rest of society and given too much access to too many people who could help. And all of the themes of the movie the resonated with today's issues were just too much for me (terrorists, radical groups, racism, refugees/immigrants, haves vs have nots, middle eastern conflict, palestinian conflict, the war in iraq). And let's not forget the older theme, Jesus, Mary and Joseph. The violence was too graphic and leans toward uselessness as a technique in the movie. And what the heack is the Human Project, where did they come from, who are they, why are they on a boat, are they just the saviors of the world? I was less happy after seeing the movie and almost as angry as when I saw "Memento" (and yes I realize that most other people liked it). There are movies that I do not like/do not enjoy and then there are movies that make me angry for having wasted my time. CofM is the latter.
Jen Chaney: I think this might be a discussion better held offline.
I certainly respect your criticisms. I'll just say that I didn't mind that the terrorists weren't very sympathetic even if their motives may have been in the right place. I would argue that made the movie more interesting.
I also liked that not every detail was explained, that some things (like the Human Project) were left open to interpretation. But I also understand why you, and others, might find that frustrating.
Back to the awards ... Hugh Grant just asked Prince to stand up and take a bow, said he was stuck in traffic earlier when he won the Best Song award. The look on Prince's face said to me, "I was so not stuck in traffic," but perhaps that was just my interpretation. The mystery continues...
And now here come Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts and John Stamos...
Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your rant about the Foreign Film category. I completely agree. Did you happen to see the terrific Charlie Rose round table discussion with Alfonso Cuaron, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Guillermo del Toro. (It can be found on Google video.) Really excellent insight into their filmmaking and friendship.
Oh my! Jennifer Love Hewitt alert.
Jen Chaney: I missed that round table. But I would love to see it, thanks for the head's up.
Yay, America Ferrara just won for "Ugly Betty." She's crying, Salma Hayek is crying, Annette Bening is crying, even Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts are crying...
Central Missouri: What happened to Drew Barrymore? Her face looks too skinny...
Jen Chaney: I thought she looked pretty good, actually.
Okay, totally awkward post-award interview with America Ferrara.
Arlington, Va.: WHAT was going on with that post-award interview with Ferrera?
"What do you say to the people who didn't want you to have this part?"
"Who did you forget? Really, tell us, it's okay."
That was the most obnoxious line of questioning I've seen in awhile.
Jen Chaney: Yes, the "what do you say to everyone who didn't want you to be Ugly Betty?" question was bizarre. As if there's some anti-America Ferrara movement sweeping the nation.
Why do: Ugly B. and Meryl Streep get unlimited time to blab but witty Brit gets "wrap it up"?
Gah, I don't like "Ugly Betty." What a waste of interesting people/characters!
What happened to lipstick? Even Felicity is lipstick-free.
Jen Chaney: You mean the guy from "The Queen"? Yes, he started to get vaguely political and suddenly it was "wrap it up."
Philadelphia: America Ferrara did look lovely in that dress... However, while she may be 'normal' weight, she very likely is overweight with respect to current health standards (body mass index/BMI). Just something to keep in mind.
Jen Chaney: Maybe her BMI is high, I have no way of knowing.
But I think she looks healthy and comfortable in her skin, which is refreshing given how terribly anorexic some young Hollywood women are looking these days. And I think we can fill in the blanks as to which women I'm talking about.
Arlington, Va.: To the "in the biz" person earlier, if the Globes are no big deal, what's with all the crying? Sure, it's not the Oscars, but the winners and networks sure tout the winners when it's over. Seems like kind of a big deal to me...
Jen Chaney: The networks and the studios definitely tout it. Whether it actually has an impact on ratings or box office revenue, I don't know. But I don't think there's any nominee there tonight who doesn't want to win. My guess is there's not as much emotion about receiving a People's Choice Award.
Minneapolis: Actually, when they asked Prince to stand up and take a bow, all I could think of was the skit on the Dave Chappelle show where he plays basketball with Charlie Murphy. Perhaps his limo was stuck in the waters of Lake Minnetonka...
In addition to the funk-off, I also propose a game of Horse. Prince and the Revolution vs. N Sync. Again, give the edge to Prince.
The Warren Beatty tribute is now in full-swing, by the way.
Falls Church, Va.: Oh, Prince and Justin Timberlake are already kind of feuding. Prince made some comment a while ago saying he doesn't understand why some people are saying they're bringing sexy back when according to him, sexy never left. Then recently Justin came out with a song with Timbaland that includes the following lyrics: "Now if sexy never left then why is everybody on my s---/ Don't hate on me just because you didn't come up with it."
It's all pretty silly, but I don't know who Justin Timberlake thinks he is trying to go toe-to-toe with a legend like Prince. He'll forever be known as a PAB (can't say what that stands for, since the Post is a family newspaper).
Jen Chaney: I missed all of this early feud business. This puts everything in context now.
I think Timberlake is a talented guy, though I've never understood why anyone thought he was hot. Nevertheless, I agree that he has no biz busting on Prince. Made him look kinda classless tonight.
And "SexyBack" is a good song. But it's got nothing on "Sexy MF."
Silver Spring, Md.: Anyone think it's odd in the clip from "Reds" Beatty says "God d***ed" and they bleep out the God but not the other word, and then Tom Hanks says over and over that Beatty "has balls?" Interesting what passes the censors and what doesn't -- none of that would offend me were I to hear it coming out of my TV.
Jen Chaney: I don't get the censors either, my friend. Didn't think you could say the, uh, b-word that many times. Maybe because it's after 10? It's technically not a bad word.
Reston, Va.: Just a few impressions.
I love love Jennifer Lopez's dress and Jada Pinkett's necklace. Angelina Jolie looks so thin. Teri Hatcher looks so tired and ummm, bad. Reese Witherspoon looks awesome. SJP never did anything to me and the same holds true today. Loved Meryl Streep's speech and man, Helen Mirren looks so elegant.
Jack Nicholson seems to be thoroughly enjoying the whole thing. Agree that foreign movie award should've gone to someone else.
Jen Chaney: Lopez's dress is very flowy, which made me wonder if she might be preggers. She doesn't necessarily look it, but it made me wonder.
Thanks for your many comments, Reston. Keep 'em coming.
Arlington, Va.: Hey, I haven't seen Johnny Depp. Is he not in the house?
Jen Chaney: I haven't seen him either. I think he might be filming overseas. Or he's stuck in the bathroom like Prince.
People, taking a very brief beverage break. Will be right back after no messages whatsoever.
Takoma Park, Md.: Am I the only one disappointed that "Ugly Betty" won Best Comedy? It's cute enough, but the episodes all seem so same-y. Although, admittedly, I'm a huge "Office" fan.
Jen Chaney: I like "Ugly Betty." Not sure how long it can sustain over time, which remains to be seen, but I think it's a fun show. I like "The Office," too, just wish they weren't on at the same time.
Spielberg's announcing Best Director ... the winner is Martin Scorsese.
Kevin, Washington, D.C.: Here is something I have been wondering for a while. How does "The Wire" manage to not get any award nominations when almost every critic out there swoons over it? Is it just too depressing?
Jen Chaney: This came up many times in the chat right after the Globe noms were announced. I watched the entire fourth season over the holidays, and I completely agree it was robbed. Simply a fantastic show. No idea why it gets no awards attention.
Sacha Baron Cohen just won the Globe for "Borat." Here comes the speech...
Falls Church, VA: By the way, Ryan Seacrest is a total embarassment to watch (on the E! pre-show coverage). Can't they get a guy who's cordial rather than a "Boy, Jessica Biel, you've got a really hot body!" guy?
Jen Chaney: Oh, man. I can't even repeat what Cohen is saying right now. Let's just say he's discussing the nude wrestling scene in fairly graphic detail. And people are in hysterics.
Oh, man they're playing him off. Come on, people.
To your points about Ryan Seacrest. I hear what you're saying. But compared to the interviews Starr Jones used to do, Seacrest looks like a genius. Most of the red carpet stuff is excruciating, but at least Seacrest and his producers are asking a few tough questions (Penelope Cruz seemed surprised, for example, when asked about her relationship with Orlando Bloom).
re: Sacha Baron Cohen: Best. Awards Speech. Ever.
Jen Chaney: Not sure if it was the best. But it was pretty freaking funny.
Tulsa, Okla.: Reese is smokin' hot in that dress. Finally, a little color in the fashion.
Jen Chaney: She does look great. And I agree with the earlier observation that she looks particularly teeny.
Jen Garner: What award did Jennifer Garner present? I love her and missed it - unless she hasn't gone yet?
Jen Chaney: She has not presented yet, and I'm not sure if she will or if she's just there to accompany nominee and hubby Ben Affleck.
Quien es mas hotter?: Sacha Baron Cohen or Steve Carell? My vote goes to Borat, but I feel weird that I've seen him naked...
Jen Chaney: We all feel weird that we've seen him naked.
Cohen and Carell are both oddly hot.
Uh-oh, on to Best Musical or Comedy ... "Dreamgirls" is about to win. And ... it just did.
Old School: Let's face it. The old actors simply blow away most of the young guys out there. I mean, who's cooler than Jack, Clint or Warren? Jake Gyllen-what's his name? I think not.
Jen Chaney: Jake's pretty cute, but not sure he's Clint-cool, though.
I would say Johnny Depp is pretty cool. Anyone have other names to throw in the ring on behalf of the younger generation?
Jump the Shark: The Golden Globes just jumped the shark by awarding "Dreamgirls" the best comedy/musical flick statue over "Little Miss Sunshine."
I have to go cry now.
Jen Chaney: I knew "Dreamgirls" was going to win. In your heart of hearts, you did, too.
But I love "Little Miss Sunshine." Was my favorite movie of last year. Really hoping it gets some Oscar nods next week.
Chicago: Who started the tradition of the entire TV cast going up there when a show wins?
Notice it doesn't happen when a movie wins -- i.e. "Dreamgirls"...
I think it makes the TV people look kinda silly, personally.
Jen Chaney: In fairness, the whole cast and crew of a film often goes up during the Oscars (witness everyone from "Crash" last year). So it's not always just a TV thing. The "Ugly Betty" people were just particularly crazed when they did it, which made it seem more chaotic.
Thanks: Thanks, Jen, for making this a fun night. i never watch more than a 1/2 hour of these shows but tonight I've been watching it and your chat just makes it that much better. Love all the comments. Do we have to go to work tomorrow???
Jen Chaney: So glad the chat is enhancing your experience. Too bad it can't make this show come in in HD.
Is it me, or is everything ridiculously rushed all of a sudden? The Arquettes just flew through those best drama nominations ("Grey's Anatomy" just won, by the way).
Elizabeth, Fredericksburg, VA: Represent!!! My man, Hugh Laurie, won! Not only is his acting brilliant, but so are his eyes (whoooo...!) and his acceptance speeches.
Jen Chaney: Consider yourself represented. I knew you'd be happy.
Washington, D.C.: Re: young actors. I would argue that there are a lot of talented actors. Clive Owen, Daniel Craig, Christian Bale, Matt Damon, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Ryan Gosling are at the top of my list.
Jen Chaney: Good calls, all.
Clive Owen seems to be on everyone's list, as you'll see momentarily.
Helen Mirren just won Best Actress, very deservedly. And her dress has indeed been repaired.
What about Clooney??: Is Clooney old school or new??? I vote for him either way.
Jen Chaney: Clooney's not the Eastwood school, so it's fair to call him new. And totally agree -- he's suave in a way that few contemporary actors are.
Also incredibly engaging in person. I interviewed him once and it made me like him even more.
Okay, they're rushing everyone through these awards. Yet they keep stopping for more commercials for this dang Drew Barrymore movie.
Current cool...: I think most of the younger actors are part of the "Frat Pack", so they have a different level of cool.
I'm gonna have to say Clive Owen though...
Jen Chaney: Another vote for Clive.
Silver Spring RE Younger Generation: I don't know if anyone has a lock on Clint-cool yet, but I'd throw Ryan Gosling and Tobey Maguire into the mix... maybe also Heath Ledger if he hadn't mumbled so much in Brokeback Mountain.
Jen Chaney: Like all of those actors, though I'm not sure Tobey has the "cool" thing going on. He's a pretty fab Spider-Man, though.
D.C. In re "New" School:: I don't know if they qulaify as "new" school (perhaps just another British Invasion), but I submit Clive Owen and Daniel Craig as HOT and cooler than cool.
Jen Chaney: Once again, Clive Owen, who definitely reminds me of Daniel Craig, and vice-versa. There's an ultra-cool ruggedness about both of them that's very appealing.
re: good young actors: Let's not forget double-nominee Leo!
Jen Chaney: He's a tremendous actor. It's weird, I don't find him that attractive when he's just being interviewed. But when he's in a movie, I think he's incredibly sexy. Maybe it's because he usually plays his roles with such intensity.
We're on to Lead Actor, speaking of Leo. Globe goes to Forest Whitaker. A good call. He's been around for so long, doing great work without receiving awards like this.
Useless information time: I'm not only catching your chat while watching, but also checking out imdb.com for stuff like this: did you know that Helen Mirren's birth name is Ilyena Vasilievna Mironov? How about that at no extra charge?
Jen Chaney: This is a wonderful little bit of trivia. With info like this, maybe we should start charging.
Man, Forest Whitaker is falling apart up there. He really seems overcome, although surely he must have known he had a good shot at winning.
One award left, people: Best Motion Picture, Drama. I think it will be either "Babel" or "The Departed."
Minneapolis: Wow - who'd've thunk it? All the Leo hype and they went with Forest! (Not upset, just surprised!)
Jen Chaney: Gotta say, I wasn't surprised. I suspected Leo's double noms would cancel each other out. Plus, Whitaker has been winning most of the critics and other association awards. Right now, he seems pretty poised to get the Oscar, unless Peter O'Toole sneaks in there.
Tilden Junior High: I agree that Forest deserves this. I mean this guy is a working man's actor from "Fast Times at Ridgmont High" to bad "Species" sequels... here's an award to acting, not star machinery.
Jen Chaney: Okay, which of my friends from Tilden is writing in under this pseudonym?
I suspect "Fast Times" didn't win him the award, but this certainly shows how long he's been working hard in the business.
Did anyone see that shot of Alec Baldwin just now? Totally drunk.
"Babel" just won Best Drama. At least I think that's what Schwarzanegger said. It was either that or "Bbbbblllg."
They'd better get the heck up there before they get the hook.
Grey's Anatomy:: Did anyone else notice that Isaiah Washington was noticably absent tonight? There was another male actor on stage who looks very familiar, but hasn't appeared on the show (yet). Is it a sign of things to come? Or is he on some type of probation?
Jen Chaney: I didn't notice that he wasn't on stage when they won. He was definitely there tonight because I saw him on the red carpet.
I don't think he's on a probation. Again, he had to be stuck in the bathroom. Apparently there's a vortex in there that sucks people into it and won't let them go until after their award has been announced. Prince, Isaiah Washington ... you could be next!
After-show: are you chatting during the post-show on E?
Jen Chaney: Technically no. I'm going to take a few more questions, then I have to do a little more work and try to go to bed at a reasonable hour.
I'll go for another few minutes, then wrap it up.
Slingerlands, N.Y.: Just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate this. The power's been out here in upstate NY, and reading this makes me less sad that I missed the show.
Jen Chaney: Awww, I'm glad to hear that. You must have good batteries on your computer.
Thanks for being with us ... and come back on Oscar night.
Angelina: Is that a tattoo of a barcode on her back?
Jen Chaney: You know, I don't know what that is. Perhaps it is a barcode. It allows her to purchase whatever she wants without getting out her Visa Rewards card.
Arlington, Va: Why is the governor of California giving out an award?? I mean - doesn't that undermine the dignity of the office or something??
Jen Chaney: I'm not sure the office still has much dignity. I mean, the governor was in "Jingle All the Way." What's left to lose?
NW, D.C.: Alec Baldwin is putting some hard moves on the interviewer on the post show.
Jen Chaney: I saw that. At the end there, did he point to Giuliana DiPandi's engagement ring and say her fiance is a f---ing genius? I might have been hallucinating.
Chloe Sevigny was just on and she is definitely a little tipsy.
To summarize: The Golden Globes may not be as important or legit, but they're a lot more fun than the other shows. The vibe is better and the speeches are great. I think it's the booze.
Jen Chaney: Agreed. The booze and the attitude helps.
At the Oscars, people take things much more seriously.
RE: love the chat: This really improves watching the awards. In lieu of having a flaming male friend over, this does quite nicely for commentary.
Jen Chaney: That's very kind of you to say. Forget what I said earlier about the guy from "Ugly Betty." I am the new Sean Hayes.
All right, I really do have to sign off. As always, this has been a pleasure.
Barring unforeseen circumstances (e.g. being in labor at the hospital), I fully expect to join you for another chat on Oscar night. Thanks for your comments, and don't forget to chat further with Liz Kelly tomorrow at noon.
My final word for the evening: Funk-off. Together, we can make it happen.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online 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.
| 244.097561 | 0.560976 | 0.658537 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/11/DI2007011101275.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/11/DI2007011101275.html
|
Dr. Gridlock
|
2007012319
|
He was online Tuesday, Jan. 16, at 1 p.m. ET to address all your traffic and transit issues.
The Dr. Gridlock column receives hundreds of letters each month from motorists and transit riders throughout the Washington region. They ask questions and make complaints about getting around a region plagued with some of the worst traffic in the nation. The doctor diagnoses problems and tries to bring relief.
Dr. Gridlock appears in The Post's Metro section on Sunday and in the Extra section on Thursday. His comments also appear on the Web site's Get There blog. You can send e-mails for the newspaper column to drgridlock@washpost.com or write to Dr. Gridlock at 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.
Dr. Gridlock: Hello, travelers, let's get to your questions about getting around this region.
Metro Web site lies re: Train Times, D.C.: Why doesn't the Metro Web site sync with actual train schedules? I'm often leaving my office at Metro Center late and night, and I hate waiting 15 minutes for a train! So I figured I could look up when the next train was coming and be there to meet it. Except there is no relation to the Metro Web site and actual train schedules! Why???
Dr. Gridlock: I can tell you how it's supposed to work. Here's what Metro says about using its Web site, www.metroopensdoors.com, to get real time information on trains: From the home page, go to the "Maps and Stations" page and click on "Find a Stop/Station." You'll see a list of stations. Click on the on yours. Then click to "Next Train Arrival" to get the arrival times of the next three trains headed in each direction. What you'll see looks like the electronic display boards on the platforms. The page refreshes every 30 seconds.
Arlington, Va.: A big thank you to the Arlington County Police Officer who was pulling over people driving in the breakdown lane on 66-West this morning. This is a chronic problem in the a.m. between Lee Highway and Glebe Road, so it was nice to see someone take some action against it.
Dr. Gridlock: It's a frustrating thing to drive I-66, especially at rush periods and especially inside the Beltway, where it's only two lanes. The state is looking at some improvements in the westbound direction that don't involve expanding the right of way. Driving in the breakdown lane is no solution. It's a dangerous thing for those who do it and for other motorists.
Fairfax, Va.: This may be more of a Metro question but...
Recently the overflow parking lot at the Vienna station closed down. Although Metro offered options of where else to park your car (then take a bus to the station) none are very convenient for me. Several times now I have arrived at the station at around 8, only to find there is no parking (except for all the empty "reserved" spaces). Metro claims that a new parking deck is being built in 2007, but what do they plan to do about all the new traffic this will cause, and all the back-up this will cause on the trains?
Dr. Gridlock: Metro and local governments are planning to add more parking across the region, but construction is not keeping pace with demand. My letter-writers are particularly vexed about the closings of parking areas in some places to make way for construction around Metro stations. Vienna is a case in point. I talked to a group of retired federal workers in the Vienna-Oakton area last week who said they don't even think about taking the train. They like to do their traveling outside of rush hour, and of course, you can't get a parking space at the Vienna Station. Meanwhile, Metro wants to add more reserved parking and overbook it, like airlines overbook seats because they know some people won't show up. I hear from some people frustrated because they've been on the waiting list for reserved parking forever, but I also hear from others who see empty reserved spaces they can't use when everything else is full.
Chesapeake Beach, Md.: Why isn't there a bullet train between Baltimore and Washington? Fifteen minutes station to station -- something really revolutionary and modern.
Dr. Gridlock: If you go to http://www.bwmaglev.com/, you can read more about the proposal to build a maglev train line between Baltimore and Washington. But the thing is, this would cost about $4 billion to build (and I think the estimate would prove to be low). So what would a one-way ticket cost? Maybe $40? Maybe tourists would use it, or people in a desperate hurry on one particular day. But it's not a solution for commuters. We'd be better off extending Metro's Green Line up that way, building a new light rail line, or enhancing commuter bus service.
Can you please let us know the rules regarding bicycles on the escalators when the elevators are down?
I am always seeing strollers on the escalators and no one bats an eye...
Dr. Gridlock: Here's Metro's rule: "Cyclists shall be required to use elevators to access mezzanines and platforms. Escalators and stairs shall not be used except when special requests (for emergency reasons) have been granted by Metro Station Managers, Metro Transit Police, or city/county police or fire officials. Cyclists shall allow other passengers to exit before placing bicycles in or taking bicycles out of the elevators." Metro doesn't want to take a chance on a bike slipping from the riders hands and tumbling down the steps. It's crazy for people to take a chance with a stroller, too. Metro's Web site has a list of stations where the elevators are out of service, so surprises should be rare.
Jacksonville, Fla. (but recently D.C.): What do you mean by saying that Porcari "knows" that Maryland doesn't have enough money to build any new stuff? If they can afford the ICC, why can't they afford other stuff?
Dr. Gridlock: What I said on my "Get There" blog this morning was that incoming Maryland transportation secretary John Porcari Porcari "knows that Maryland doesn't have the money or the room to build a lot of big new stuff in the densely populated Washington-Baltimore corridor." I also quoted Porcari saying that his top priority is to make sure that projects under construction or near construction actually get done. That would include the intercounty connector highway, for example. Probably would not include a $4 billion maglev link between Washington and Baltimore.
Back on metro after 20 years!: I hope I am not beating a dead horse, but I have noticed some particularly foul odors in Metro stations recently. The odors smell part dead animal, or part burning brakes or some other mechanical piece burning. I notice the smells waiting in stations, but not on trains themselves. Sometimes the smell is enhanced when a train enters the station. Has anyone else noticed or commented on these odors?
Dr. Gridlock: If you experienced what a lot of other riders have experienced in the past couple months, Metro says you're smelling the new brake pads. Metro knows the odor is a problem and is working with the manufacturer to fix this.
Fairfax, Va.: Can you ask your readers how busy Chain Bridge Road from McLean through Tysons into Vienna is during rush hour? Is it busy throughout the day, or can I get across town better before a certain time in the early morning and early evening? As bad as it may be, is it better than taking the beltway to I66W to get to Vienna instead of Chain Bridge Road?
Fairfax, Va.: When the funding finally gets finished for Metro to Tysons/Dulles, do you think we'll finally see movement on rail to Centreville down the median of I-66?
Dr. Gridlock: I hope we don't have to wait that long for some way of pushing transit farther out the I-66 corridor. The $4 billion rail to Dulles project won't be finished till 2015, which might be optimistic.
Burke, Va.: Why do states constantly think that throwing money at a problem will solve it???
Spending billions of dollars on transportation is NEVER going to solve the source or the problem: That people cannot afford to live where they work. Until the government figures out a way to create affordable housing near work centers, all of the money in the world is not going to solve the traffic problem!
Dr. Gridlock: I agree with what you said. More money is not going to solve the problem. But I do believe that all across this region, we've got to spend a lot more money to help solve it. The problem is so big, it requires a big, complex solution. Make our transportation planning and construction problems more rational, more transparent, more efficient. Coordinate transportation planning and land use planning (like you said, more affordable housing near work centers). But if you just plan better for land use, you haven't solved the problem either. We still have to build roads and transit and sidewalks and bike paths to match up with a smarter design for our communities.
Arlington, Va.: Is there any information about how the closing of the Arlington Cemetery station this weekend went? I live in Rosslyn and I do know that the shuttle buses were there, but I decided not to bother to head to Pentagon City because of the business of going in and out of the Pentagon Station both ways, although I suppose riding down to L'Enfant Plaza and switching might have worked.
Dr. Gridlock: I haven't heard any complaints -- yet -- about the changes Metrorail imposed this weekend because of the major track work around Arlington Cemetery Station. What say you all? This was a fairly large-scale reorganization. Because of the weekend work, the Yellow Line was extended and the Blue Line was diverted away from the Rosslyn tunnel.
Capitol Hill, D.C.: The Montgomery County Planning Board recently approved recommendations to build a bikeway along the entire 18 mile ICC. Right now, the state is only going to build along 7.7 miles (non-contiguous). Did Porcari say anything about the bikeway (since he believes that "a proper transportation network offers people choices -- drive, ride transit, bike, walk.")
Dr. Gridlock: Capitol Hill refers to my interview with incoming MD transportation secretary John Porcari. I didn't ask Porcari specifically about the unfunded portion of the ICC bikeway, but I've got to believe that if he can find a way to extend it along the entire route, he'll do that. During the interview, Porcari frequently mentioned his enthusiasm for the region's bike trails and the need to use every opportunity to expand them. He noted with some pride -- because he was involved in the planning -- that the new Wilson Bridge will be accessible to bikers.
Chain Bridge into Vienna: Is a mess. Beltway is by far the better option.
Or, take the backroads from McLean to Rt 7 and hop on 66 there.
Dr. Gridlock: A response to the traveler's question above.
Rockville, Md.: "Spending billions of dollars on transportation is NEVER going to solve the source or the problem: That people cannot afford to live where they work."
How much is this versus choose not to live near where they work? I work in downtown D.C. I have some coworkers who live in West Virginia. It's not cost of living (per se). They want to have acres upon acres on which to play on the weekends. They can't buy that here (since it doesn't exist) but they could (if they wanted) buy a nice house with a decent yard close in but, it wouldn't be what they wanted.
Dr. Gridlock: That's the problem with Americans. They're never going to do exactly what you tell them. They're going to decide for themselves what's best for them and their families. I do believe in good planning as a partial solution to our transportation problems, but it's unrealistic to think we're going to eliminate the solo driver and get everyone living in areas dense enough to support transit.
What is the absolute latest I could leave the D.C. area to get to NYC relatively hassle-free? Is 1:00 pushing it?
Dr. Gridlock: Questions about long-distance travel times always vex me, because there's no way to account for what's going to happen to you between here and there. Will the weather change? Will there be a lane-closing accident on I-95 in Delaware? How long will the backup be at Delaware's toll plaza? Also, when you're making a long-distance trip during daylight, you're likely to wander into somebody else's rush period in the congested Northeast corridor. A Delaware highway official pointed out to me that the stretch of I-95 through his state may seem like long-distance pavement to us in Washington, but it's Main Street for New Castle County. (You think I'm obsessing on Delaware?)
Washington, D.C.: Re: trains to BWI. Why build a new train? Why extend Metro? There actually is a train that goes there from D.C. and New Carrollton already. The train is called MARC. Granted, the service is awful unless you are going southbound in the a.m. or northbound in the p.m. Oh, and forget about weekends and holidays. But expanding existing service of trains that go from Metro stops to BWI and Baltimore seems to be a lot cheaper than building new tracks or inventing mag-lev trains.
The various governments (I'm lumping all transit authorities, state, city, feds together here) should recognize the existing commuter rail networks such as MARC and VRE as reasonable ways to transport large numbers of people around the area, not just a way to get people into D.C. for work. The model should be more along the lines of Long Island RR or NJ Transit, with frequent service even on the weekends, rather than simply 9-5 commuters.
Dr. Gridlock: I think improved weekday service on MARC and VRE should be a very high transportation priority. But it's not going to do everything we need -- at least not soon. MARC has to operate on tracks owned by CSX and Amtrak. There are only so many trains that can run on those lines. At a town hall meeting in Montgomery County last week, Porcari was asked if MARC service could run on weekends. Porcari noted that it would require renegotiation of agreements with the rail owners, plus a significant increase in the operating subsidy for MARC. Better equipment and more reliable service would be a good place to start improving MARC.
Alexandria, Va.: Is there a resource online that displays what time the Metro stations with parking become full in the morning? Personally, I am interested in the Virginia stations. Thanks!
Dr. Gridlock: There's no source I know of. Definitely not anything official from Metro that would help you on a given day. Maybe readers have some suggestions, though?
Reston, Va.: Re:Chain Bridge Road
From McLean into and through Tyson's it's "not that bad", assuming that everything is going smoothly. (No accidents, mistimed lights, random cop on the corner, etc.) But 123 into Vienna (after Old Courthouse) is usually a bear, primarily due to volume of both cars and traffic lights.
Dr. Gridlock: That's another response to reader question above on best route.
Washington, D.C.: Any idea on what the ICC will be signed as when it's complete? Will it be an extension of I-370 or will it have a number at all?
Dr. Gridlock: David Buck, spokesman for the Maryland State Highway Administration, tells me that the intercounty connector will be designated as MD 200.
Washington, D.C.: I used to work in McLean. I'd suggest that the reader seeking to go to Vienna consider taking the Toll Road west to Spring Hill, go left after the tollbooth, then right on Westpark Drive (the light at the top of the hill after passing the apartments), and follow that until you hit 123 next to the "Toilet Bowl Building." Then go right onto 123. This avoids the mall traffic. In my experience 123 was worst during the evening rush hour but was okay during midday, but that was a few years ago.
Dr. Gridlock: Another response to the travel question above. (What I've found is that our readers are an army of researchers and they're very willing to help fellow sufferers on the roads and rails. This is a very powerful force.)
Arlington, Va.: re: travel between D.C. and NYC -- I've tried, and there is no way to travel during the day and miss rush hour everywhere. If you are actually going to NYC (vs. the suburbs), you stand a chance if you leave D.C. around 9:30 a.m. If you're passing through D.C. to Long Island or Westchester, you'll hit rush hour on the other side of the city.
Really your best best is to wait after the p.m. rush ends in D.C., and the later you leave, the better -- you'd be amazed how much traffic is still on the NJ Turnpike at midnight. I usually wait until 9 p.m. before I head out.
Dr. Gridlock: Another example of the research army. This was in response to the question about how late you can leave for New York and still avoid a big hassle. By the way, in doing some columns of holiday travel advice, I came to the conclusion that the time you leave outweighs the importance of the route you take in most cases. If you're traveling in the Northeast corridor of during holiday periods, you'll get more benefit from a very early or very late departure than you will from a "shortcut."
Delaware: I think you are so right to obsess about the backups in Delaware. They really need to stop considering their stretch of I-95 as part of a local Main Street, and start thinking of it as a piece of a vital commercial corridor that connects the entire eastern seaboard. A corridor that is consistently brought to a crashing halt in Delaware. Why don't they have high speed EZ-Pass lanes, similar to the N.J. turnpike, where you can drive through at 55 mph? That facility added to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and to the absurd little toll plaza they use to extort payment from all travelers would help immeasurably.
Dr. Gridlock: And I should ask the Del. folks why they can't go for a one-way toll, like so many other turnpike and bridge authorities do. Must be a revenue reason. Probably something about the ease of getting around that toll plaza near the Maryland border.
To earlier post (I-66, police officer..)
There is a public workshop concerning the westbound I-66. Washington Lee HS, next Tuesday Jan. 23, 7-8:30.
Dr. Gridlock: Thanks, Arlington, and I'll mention that in my Road Watch column as well. That meeting is about several ways the state has come up with to ease westbound travel without expanding the right of way on I-66 inside the Beltway.
Washington, D.C.: Dr. Gridlock, I'm sure you've heard these comparisons before. I visited NYC a couple of weeks ago and couldn't help but marvel at how much more efficient the subway system is there. My sister was able to go online and figure out the best way for me to get from the city to Queens so that I could be picked up by my in-laws. Not only did it work, but it was a lot quicker than I expected -- on a Saturday!
While the trains are not as luxurious as Metro's, they are relatively clean and seemingly run like clockwork and quite frequently -- for a Saturday. I also noticed there is a flat rate and no turnstiles when exiting the station.
When will Metro get with the program? Also, do we trade off more luxurious trains and cleaner stations for trains that don't run frequently on weekends, evenings and holidays?
Dr. Gridlock: In terms of transit in the U.S., there's New York and then there's everything else. Though it's a century old, the NYC system has lots of natural advantages. The region is so densely populated it can support an enormous transit system. Also, it was built with express tracks, that not only speed travel but also allow the subway managers to work the trains around problems. Still, our Metro system is one of the finest I've seen in my travels. We all want to see it get better, but that shouldn't blind us to this great resource. By the way, the "Trip Planner" on Metro's Web site is pretty good at helping you get around the region by transit. I use it a lot.
Reston, Va.: Anyone want to do an actual headcount of Delaware tags on 95 IN Delaware? I worked there for several years and most folks avoid it like the combination of the plague and Ebola.
Dr. Gridlock: Maybe it's like Yogi said: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." Around here, we say "never again" after a bad drive on the Beltway or a crushing experience on the Orange Line. But the next day, we're back in the rut because we haven't found a better way.
Tysons Corner, Va.: I have written with this question but have never seen it in your column. I commute to Herndon from Tysons on the Toll Road. Frequently, a Fairfax County bus exits the Dulles Access Road doing 65 or 70, then has to careen over four lanes of traffic in time to get off at its Toll Road exit. I see the same thing the other direction, as buses get onto the Toll Road then swoop to the left to get on the Access Road. This seems like an accident looking for a time to happen.
Why are buses allowed to use the Dulles Access Road? And why are they routed so as require such challenging lane changes?
Dr. Gridlock: That's not a good maneuver for anybody, let alone a bus. That set up must have been designed for an era with far fewer cars trying to jam through. It is pretty common, though, to give buses access to the fastest possible route. They have access to the carpool lanes, they'll have access to the tolled intercounty connector in Maryland and to the High Occupancy/Toll lanes when they're built from Springfield to American Legion Bridge.
Northern Virginia: Dear Dr. Gridlock,
Recently I moved to the Ashburn area and commute to Reston. When I travel on Loudoun County Parkway to Waxpool (this is a really big intersection), two things I see every day:
1. People run the red light...not just by a smidgen, but blowing right through it
2. People turning right onto Waxpool from Loudoun County Parkway do so on red from the middle turn lane, even though there is a sign saying "No Turn on Red from This Lane". But really it's so small that people miss it, or people honk if someone actually stops on red in this lane.
Just needed to vent, that is all.
Dr. Gridlock: Thought I'd share that vent with the group. "Northern Virginia's" frustrations are pretty common across the region.
Waldorf, Md.: Commuter buses are only as good as the roads they travel. There are plenty of commuter buses coming up to D.C. from Southern Maryland each day, but they sit in the same horrific traffic on 5/301 and into D.C. that I do in my car. I would take the bus if there were dedicated lanes and a consistent schedule. Any talk from Porcari about those types of improvements (or any improvements for that matter) for the fast-growing Southern Maryland region?
Dr. Gridlock: First, give the man a chance. He isn't even in Annapolis yet. But I can tell you this: When we were talking about improvements in Maryland's transportation system, Porcari talked specifically about the addition of commuter buses to serve Southern Maryland. We also talked a bit about the need for a Route 301 bypass around Waldorf. I think you've got a guy coming into this job who brings experience from his first round under Gov. Glendening and an awareness of what Maryland travelers are looking for in terms of improvements.
Dr. Gridlock: Travelers, I need to head off to a briefing on a transportation project many of you will be interested in. Once again, I've got far more good questions and comments on my screen than I could get to today. I'll make a printout and try to address some of them on the "Get There" blog or in upcoming Dr. Gridlock columns.
|
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.
| 118.658537 | 0.634146 | 0.731707 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/12/DI2007011201640.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/12/DI2007011201640.html
|
"Scooter" Libby Trial Begins
|
2007012319
|
Criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt was online Tuesday, Jan. 16, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the beginning of the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial, the defense team's potential strategy and who key witnesses likely will be.
At Libby Trial, Power Players Face Uncomfortable Spotlight (Post, Jan. 15)
Merritt was one of the principal defense attorneys in the Timothy McVeigh trail and has been a frequent legal analyst for MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, NBC News, Court TV and CNBC since 1996.
Jeralyn Merritt: Hi everyone. Jeralyn Merritt here, ready to answer your questions about the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. It will be a fascinating one, involving those at the highest levels of our government and prominent members of the media. Let's get started.
Washington: Just curious -- where is the trial taking place? Is this considered a federal trial?
Jeralyn Merritt: The trial is taking place at the Prettyman courthouse in the Disctrict of Columbia. Yes, it is a federal trial. The charges are felony violations of the United States Code. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks. Jury selection should occupy today through Thursday. There will be no trial on Fridays.
Opening arguments are scheduled to begin Monday, January 22.
Washington: I can think of scores of people who are ideologically so anti-President Bush it is frightening, and who have the means (i.e. no job, student, or able to take a leave) who would covet a chance to sit on this jury with one intention. How do you really separate those from the impartial jury. I am reasonably certain I could lie my way convicingly onto a jury -- how do we know people are not licking their chops and faking it? How many OJ juror's were really that impartial and objective before the trial?
Jeralyn Merritt: There is always the chance a stealth juror will lie their way onto a high-profile trial, either to get their 15 minutes of fame or to capitalize on the experience by writing a book afterwards. There were serious intimations of this occurring during the Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials. Lawyers use trial consultants and the process known as "voir dire", questioning of jurors, to try and weed them out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Philadelphia: Obviously Karl Rove did not get indicted for his role in the Plame leak investigation. Many people have speculated that he provided relevant information to Fitzgerald against Libby and, in turn, was not indicted. Do you think this is plausible and, if so, any guesses on what he could have said?
Jeralyn Merritt: Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has publicly and adamantly denied that Karl Rove had any kind of deal to provide information in exchange for not being charged in the case. However, he has also said that Rove has fully cooperated with the investigation. Rove testified before the grand jury on four occasions, after which, Fitzgerald made the decision not to charge Rove with a crime. If there was some sort of deal, it would have to be disclosed to Libby's lawyers and I think it would come out at trial, as Karl Rove is expected to be a witness. It remains to be seen whether Rove's testimony is harmful to Libby. I would guess Rove's information would relate to his conversations with reporters, Libby and others in the White House about Joseph Wilson, Valerie Wilson and any efforts -- or lack of efforts -- to use his wife's employment with the CIA to discredit him and his public statements about weapons of mass destruction and the Administration's claims regarding them during events leading up to the Iraq War.
Buffalo, N.Y.: Do you think that President Bush and VP Cheney could be in trouble if it's shown that they started the Iraq war based on knowingly false information and intel? Will Scooter roll over on his pals if the heat gets turned up to high?
Jeralyn Merritt: President Bush and Vice President Cheney were both interviewed by federal prosecutors during the course of this investigation. Their reasons for going to war would not lead to criminal charges in this case. However, if either lied during their interviews and knowingly answered questions falsely, they could face legal liability. Yes, Libby could "roll over" on his pals. He could do so at any time, with the agreement of the Government, even after his trial and sentencing, if he is convicted. The Government can move for a sentence reduction for post-trial cooperation up to one year after sentence is imposed.
San Bruno, Calif.: How will the prosecutor show that Libby intended to lie to the grand jury when in fact he personally did not disclose the name of Valerie Plame?
Jeralyn Merritt: Libby is not charged with disclosing the name of Valerie Plame Wilson. He is charged with lying about where he learned of her employment with the CIA and to whom he disclosed it. He told federal investigators he first learned of her name from NBC reporter Tim Russert during a conversation on July 10, 2003. Russert adamantly denies this and says he didn't know her name until Robert Novak's column was published, the week following his conversation with Libby. The Government charges that Libby first learned of Valerie Plame Wilson from Vice President Dick Cheney in June, 2003. Also, the Government charges that Libby discussed "Joe Wilson" and his wife "Valerie Wilson," with his C.I.A. briefer in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger to check on a matter related to weapons of mass destruction -- as well as with then New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Libby is also charged with lying to the grand jury on both March 5, 2004 and March 24, 200 about his conversations with reporters, including Matthew Cooper. Finally, he is charged with obstruction of justice. Libby maintains he forgot he learned the information from Vice President Cheney because he was preoccupied with other serious national issues.
Washington: If Judith Miller's piece wasn't printed, how did the authorities know anyone talked to her or what they said?
Jeralyn Merritt: Judith Miller testified to the grand jury. Her version about her conversations with Mr. Libby differ from his. The Government has notes that she took of her conversations. The jury will decide whether to believe Mr. Libby or Ms. Miller's versions of the conversations.
Vienna, Va.: Would it not be a fair summation of this case to say that Libby is being accused of lying to cover up a non-crime? Had he done -- as Richard Armitage apparently did -- simply say "yes, I mentioned her, I didn't know she was under cover" this whole affair would have been over a couple years ago.
Jeralyn Merritt: Yes, Libby is being charged with a cover-up, not with the crime of disclosing classfied information. If he had accurately disclosed his converations with reporters and government officials to prosecutors and investigators, he wouldn't be in this mess. Now that he is, his defense is that he forgot and didn't knowingly lie on any issue material to the investigation.
Seattle: Will there be any cameras in the courtroom during this trial shooting live or taped footage to be used on news shows?
Jeralyn Merritt: No, federal rules preclude cameras in the courtroom. There will be no taped trial footage on tv. But, the court is allowing wi-fi in an auxillary courtroom so you can get a blow-by-blow. During the day, newspapers and tv will update with live reports from those in the courtroom. A few sketch artists are being allowed in the courtroom.
Lost Creek, W.Va.: Thanks for your time in answering questions here. With the legitimate need for secrecy due to national security and other reasons, how likely is it that sealed indictments or testimony exists? If the public would not have a specific need to know about those charges, is it possible others have been charged or indicted and the public never would be aware?
Jeralyn Merritt: It is possible there is one or more sealed indictments in the case. How long that would stay secret is anyone's guess. However, if someone agreed to plead guilty in exchange for testifying against Mr. Libby, that would have to be made known to Libby's lawyers. They would be able to disclose the fact that a witness got a deal during their cross-examination of the witness. I am still wondering who got immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony against Mr. Libby. There has been a dearth of reporting on this subject.
Fairfax Station: To convict on Perjury charges, is it establishing a lie or untruth was told, or must the prosecution prove that Libby intentionally and knowingly did so? Given the law of unintended consequences, I can also see the trial ending up with the ethics of "journalism" perhaps on trial. Your take? Thanks
Jeralyn Merritt: To convict on perjury, the Government must prove Mr. Libby knowingly made a false and material statement to the grand jury. The parties will be battling mightily over the issue of whether Mr. Libby's statements, if false, were "material" to the investigation.
Ava, Ill.: There has been much speculation that this trial will shed some light on the VP's efforts to massage the intelligence into a form that would support his drive to war. Is this likely? Or do you think this is just wishful thinking?
Jeralyn Merritt: I do think it will shed light on whether the Administration, particularly Vice-President Cheney, tried to manipulate the pre-war intelligence -- focusing on attempts to discredit Joseph Wilson. One key here I believe will be the July 12th plane ride to Norfolk undertaken by Cheney, Libby and Cathie Martin. It was on this trip that witnesses will testify Cheney and others discussed discrediting Joseph Wilson.
Oakland, Calif.: You mentioned that any deal with Karl Rove would have to be disclosed to Libby and his attorneys. I believe recent filings have indicated that there will be "at least one immunized witness." Do we know who any such witnesses are yet?
Jeralyn Merritt: There is no confirmation, but I believe one likely candidate who has been mentioned is former Cheney press aide Cathie Martin. Other possibilities from my vantage point include Marc Grossman, Ari Fleischer and John Hannah. Of course, it may be that all of them testified without asking for immunity.
Gaithersburg, Md.: One question that I have been confused all this time -- why did Libby try so hard and risk jail to cover up the leak if he did not directly provide the leak to Bob Novak? Thanks.
Jeralyn Merritt: One line of reasoning is any cover-up on Mr. Libby's part was to protect his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney -- taking one for the team, so to speak. Of course, Mr. Libby maintains there was no cover-up and his faulty memory is the culprit.
Springfield, Mass.: I've heard that Scooter Libby has a fantastic memory for details -- do you think any witnesses will be called to corroborate this, or perhaps memory experts to disqualify his "I was very busy and forgot" defense?
Jeralyn Merritt: Mr. Libby tried hard to have a memory expert testify on his behalf. The Judge denied the request.
Rockville, Md.: This seems like an example of someone going on a "bear hunt" and having grass soup for supper, but it may cost Mr. Libby in legal fees. Who would ever want to work for the President after this or the Clinton trials? I suspect it would have to either be a rich person or someone with ties to money that promise to pay the tab.
Jeralyn Merritt: In Mr. Libby's case, his supporters and friends established a defense fund which reportedly has raised over $3 million so far. The Clintons also raised money from supporters and wrote books earning them millions to pay off their legal fees.
Annandale, Va.: Good Afternoon. A quick question on defense lawyers ... as Timothy McVeigh's attorney, you were tasked with attempting to free one of our nation's worst mass-murderers. If Scooter Libby's lawyer found out that Libby was indeed guilty as charged, should he continue to represent him? As a side note, did you believe McVeigh to be innocent, were you just doing your job, or does guilt/innocence not even matter, as long as the hired-for result is achieved? Many thanks!
Jeralyn Merritt: First of all, lawyers do not decide whether clients are guilty, that is determined by the jury. Lawyers do not judge their clients. The test at trial is whether the government can prove each and every element of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Crimes consist of acts accompanied by a specified mental state. Guilt is a lot more complicated than whether someone committed a particular act.
Boston: As a defense lawyer, would you say that men are more likely than women to be "loyal" and lie to protect associates or superiors? If so, do you think this results from social expectations toward men like courage and chivalry? Thanks.
Jeralyn Merritt: I certainly don't believe that. I don't think you can equate loyalty and propensity to lie or cover-up by gender.
Washington: I saw that Fitzpatrick was asking to have background checks conducted for all the prospective jurors and looking for those with "police records," according to the Associated Press. The Constitution disallows felons from voting so they usually aren't included on the voter rolls where jurors are drawn, but is it impermissible to serve on a federal jury if a person has been arrested for a misdemeanor at some point in life? Seems a bit biased to believe that anyone who has ever been arrested is unfit for jury duty.
Jeralyn Merritt: Being arrested for a misdemeanor does not disqualify a person for jury service. A felony conviction does. The reason for probing these matters is to test the person's attitudes and beliefs towards the criminal justice system. Do they believe they were treated fairly, would they use anything from that experience against one side or the other.
New York: One of Libby's lawyers (Jeffress, I believe) also worked with Mary Matalin regarding the Libby investigation. I've wondered if a lawyer in that position can use information learned in defending one client for the defense of a second in the same case?
Jeralyn Merritt: I don't know whether Jeffress also represented Mary Matalin, who during some of the time period relevant to the investigation, worked for Vice President Dick Cheney and was called to testify before the grand jury. She is also listed as a potential trial witness. She is a strong supporter of Mr. Libby. It would be conflict for a lawyer to disclose information gathered in confidence for one client on behalf of another. However, a client can waive his or her right to the attorney-client privilege. Also, the federal rules permit clients to waive their right to conflict-free representation upon motion to the court. It may be that Matalin has agreed to allow Jeffress to use information told to him during his representation of her -- particularly if she believes that information will assist Mr. Libby.
Lost Creek, W.Va.: Has it been asked here yet if VP Cheney will be in the courtroom or via videotape? If taped, how is cross-examination handled? Could the grant of immunity for testimony be granted in other ways? Can the VP claim an executive privilege or national security privilege to avoid testimony selectively?
Jeralyn Merritt: It has been asked, but we don't know the answer. The defense must be allowed the opportunity to cross-examine every witness, including Vice President Cheney. If I were a lawyer on either side, I would want his testimony live in the courtroom, so the jury could fully assess his body language as well as his answers.
Jeralyn Merritt: Thanks, everyone for participating. This is only day one. Once the opening arguments and testimony get going, I expect this to be a riveting trial. Stay tuned!
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online 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.
|
Legal Analyst Jeralyn Merrit discusses the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial, which opens on Tuesday with jury selection.
| 144.363636 | 0.863636 | 4.318182 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401098.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401098.html
|
Proposed Growth Moratorium Sets Up Clash in Montgomery
|
2007012319
|
In the past three years, the Central Union Mission has spent more than $200,000 trying to navigate Montgomery County's labyrinth of land-use policies to sell 80 acres of farmland in Olney. The mission, which runs a homeless shelter in the District and a summer camp in the suburbs for at-risk children, is counting on millions from the sale to sustain its programs.
Those plans would be put on hold if the County Council approves a proposal to temporarily freeze dozens of residential and commercial projects while it revisits Montgomery's approach to managing growth. Strengthening the county's checks on development is a top initiative for the new majority elected to the council in November.
On one side of the debate are developers and business representatives who say putting the brakes on such projects would cause financial uncertainty, unfairly change the rules for projects long in the works and send a hostile message to potential investors. They question the rationale for a moratorium when they say growth is relatively slow in Maryland's largest jurisdiction.
The moratorium would put the 120-year-old mission's plan in limbo and further strain its finances.
"We were sitting on the crux of approval, and now everything is in jeopardy," said the mission's executive director, David O. Treadwell. "Our assumption was that this was a two-year process, and now it's entering its fourth year."
Treadwell is among the development interests expected to weigh in at a public hearing tomorrow in opposition to a plan by council President Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County) that would delay 72 projects for eight months as the council considers rewriting Montgomery's growth policy.
On the other side are council members and civic activists who want to tighten Montgomery's land-use standards to do a better job evaluating the capacity of the county's roads and schools before signing off on new construction.
"I didn't get elected to continue this policy of piling kids into schools that have no room and cars on roads that have no capacity," said newly elected council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large), a co-sponsor of the initiative. "Why should we go another eight months with a policy that doesn't prevent that?"
The debate that will be on display tomorrow night was at the heart of the contest for county executive, in which Isiah Leggett (D) was elected in November, largely on his motto of slowing development to catch up on infrastructure.
Treadwell's case got a boost last week when the chairman of the county's Planning Board issued a stinging critique of the moratorium. Chairman Royce Hanson called it "extremely troubling" and "fundamentally a symbolic action" that would not affect the rate of construction in the county.
Hanson also said he didn't think it was worth the effort. "There is not an emergency," he said.
The five-member Planning Board, which regulates the development industry and advises the council, then took the unusual step of declining to take a definitive position on the proposal. Instead, the board intends to outline its concerns and suggest changes in a letter to the council.
|
In the past three years, the Central Union Mission has spent more than $200,000 trying to navigate Montgomery County's labyrinth of land-use policies to sell 80 acres of farmland in Olney. The mission, which runs a homeless shelter in the District and a summer camp in the suburbs for at-risk...
| 10.116667 | 0.983333 | 58.016667 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400724.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400724.html
|
For Local News Site, Model Just Didn't Click
|
2007012319
|
When it launched its first Web sites a year and a half ago, Backfence held the promise of creating a collection of virtual town squares. By letting residents post news about their communities, it joined the emerging citizen journalism movement and was the first such start-up to land a sizable amount of money from private investors who shared its vision.
Now Vienna-based Backfence has lost three executives, including its co-founder, and is struggling to reinvent its business model to stay afloat.
Most community news sites like Backfence, which rely on reader-generated content to draw advertising dollars, are still trying to make a profit off "hyperlocal" Internet publishing. Strings of neighborhood sites haven't been able to attract enough users to persuade advertisers to bank on such targeted media outlets, analysts said.
Backfence created its first two community sites in McLean and Reston in May 2005, shortly before receiving $3 million in funding from several local investors and national firms, including Manhattan-based SAS Investors and the Omidyar Network, an investment firm created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Backfence went on to launch 11 more sites in the suburbs of Washington, Chicago and San Francisco.
The company had planned to roll out at least three more sites by the end of 2006, but the management team reached an impasse with investors regarding the best way to enter new markets. Susan DeFife, who co-founded the venture with Mark Potts, resigned last week after a "difference of opinion about the strategic direction of the company," she said. DeFife said she and former Backfence vice presidents Amanda Graham and Bob Kelly are starting a consulting firm to help local firms reach potential customers through the Internet. Mark Potts, a former Washington Post staffer who left Backfence in October, has returned to temporarily run the company.
"It always ends up being so much different than the way you imagine it to be," Potts said. Over the next three months, he said, Backfence will add more features, such as social networking, online video and mapping. "We haven't rolled out as quickly as we'd wanted to. But we think the basic concept we went after is absolutely still the right place to be."
Media analysts agree that many readers are looking for hyperlocal content, but they say most citizen-journalism sites aren't mature enough to tap into the lucrative local advertising markets.
"Realistically, it's going to take close to 10 years for the business models to be there and for there to be enough advertisers willing to give money to hyperlocal start-ups," said Vin Crosbie, managing partner of Digital Deliverance, a Connecticut media consulting firm. "Backfence's problem is that it was too early."
Internet advertising revenues reached $4.2 billion last summer, a 33 percent increase over the revenues earned during the same period a year earlier, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau.
DeFife said Backfence sites had sold 550 ads to local businesses since April and got 2 percent of community members to register. "We were making significant strides," she said.
Others say the company has a long way to go to make a dent in its targeted local markets.
"They haven't really been able to capture the genuine interest of local residents on passionate issues like crime," said Peter Krasilovsky, a consultant who has been following Backfence's development. Community news sites have to invest in the quality of the content before advertisers will take notice, he added.
Josh Grotstein of SAS Investors said Backfence is still trying to find the most efficient way to bring new sites to more communities. "We remain very upbeat on the whole face of citizen journalism," he said.
Some investors, however, aren't as confident. Frank Bonsal, one of Backfence's local angel investors, said arguments between backers and founders has "destroyed the company."
"It's downsized to a modest team of people and they're out of money," he said. "At this point, I don't look for any return or any prospect of recovery."
|
When it launched its first Web sites a year and a half ago, Backfence held the promise of creating a collection of virtual town squares. By letting residents post news about their communities, it joined the emerging citizen journalism movement and was the first such start-up to land a sizable amount...
| 13.964912 | 0.982456 | 55.017544 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400792.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400792.html
|
In S. Africa, Cash Machines Prove a Big Hit With Bombers
|
2007012319
|
The blast that followed was so strong it jolted people awake in nearby homes, witnesses said. But before anyone could alert the police, the hooded men rushed back and pulled from the smoldering remains a box the size of a small file cabinet. Together they hoisted it into the van and sped off.
And so ended the 53rd and final cash machine bombing of 2006, the year a toxic stew of joblessness, criminal ingenuity and readily available mine explosives gave rise to a startling new trend in crime-weary South Africa.
"Eeesh," said T.P.T. Supermarket's night guard, Alpheus Nevhundogwa, 49, as he recalled the attack. "These people, dangerous."
With their allure of easy cash, ATMs have long been a target for criminals worldwide, industry officials say. One popular tactic is to ram a truck into a cash machine so it can be dislodged, loaded onto the truck and driven away. Criminals in Europe have destroyed machines by injecting compressed gas into them until they explode. A Japanese gang once used a backhoe to steal an ATM from a railroad station. When the machine's remains were found nearly 30 miles away, $400,000 was gone.
But blowing up cash machines, especially as often as it has been done here in recent months, is a peculiarly South African crime, say industry officials and security experts, who attribute it to the unusual juxtaposition of First World banking conveniences and the kind of desperate poverty rarely found in developed countries. In few places in the world, global analyses show, is income distributed so unequally.
The attacks on ATMs in South Africa have grown in tandem with a politically driven push to install more machines in downtrodden areas where, under apartheid, modern banking was almost unknown. There are now 15,000 ATMs in the country, and the free-standing, steel-shed variety, such as the one blown up in Olievenhoutbosch on Dec. 31, are both increasingly common and especially vulnerable to explosives. No injuries or deaths have resulted, police say.
Blowing up an ATM is relatively easy in a country where a vast mining industry offers an endless supply of powerful explosives to steal. Both putty and sticks of dynamite have been used in attacks, though getting the amount and positioning right has proved elusive; most ATM bombings, police and security experts say, fail because the blast is either too weak to break loose the safe inside or so strong that the bills are ripped to shreds.
"They relatively seldom get their hands on the money," said Ian Janse van Vuuren of the South African Banking Risk Information Center, a nonprofit group that advises the industry on security issues. "They're still in the experimental phase."
Here in Olievenhoutbosch -- despite its bucolic name, meaning "olive tree grove," it is little more than a trading post amid the grassy sprawl of shantytowns and suburbs between Johannesburg and Pretoria -- the attackers were either luckier or more skilled than most.
Police are reluctant to discuss details of the bombings, or how much gets stolen, for fear of encouraging copycats. But the box the men here took almost certainly contained large stacks of cash. As is often the case in ATM explosions, the machine was loaded just the day before, witnesses said.
The cash machine also looks as if it was the victim of precision attack: The screen and keypad are dusty and damaged but intact. The card slot, a favorite place for bombers to deposit explosives, is broken open but hardly gaping. But the machine's innards, visible from a door in the back of the shed, are a jumbled mess of paper, twisted metal and charred plastic. An acrid stench lingers.
|
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.
| 15.478261 | 0.478261 | 0.521739 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400817.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400817.html
|
African Union Team Arrives In Mogadishu
|
2007012319
|
MOGADISHU, Somalia, Jan. 14 -- An African Union delegation has arrived in Somalia's capital to discuss the deployment of international peacekeepers, and government troops expanded a house-to-house search for weapons in one of the world's most heavily armed cities, officials said Sunday.
Mohamed Foum, the A.U.'s special representative for Somalia, said nine delegates arrived in Mogadishu on Saturday for meetings with leaders of the U.N.-supported transitional government in this chaotic Horn of Africa nation.
If Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf is able to establish relative calm, foreign peacekeepers could deploy to protect his government until it can form a police force and army.
Troops loyal to the interim government, backed by Ethiopia's military, last month routed an Islamic movement that had controlled much of southern Somalia since the summer. But lack of security remains a problem in a country that has not had a central government since 1991.
The United States and the European Union have pledged financial help for an African peacekeeping force. But no African government has responded to the push to form an 8,000-member mission, although Uganda has said it is willing to send as many as 1,500 soldiers as part of a wider mission.
Somali government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari said the weapons search was taking place in several neighborhoods but did not disclose the number of weapons seized, saying it was a military secret.
|
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.
| 5.673913 | 0.391304 | 0.391304 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202012.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007012319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202012.html
|
A Mission of Understanding
|
2007012319
|
Danny Leydorf's world was about to be turned upside down, and he couldn't wait.
The extroverted teenager had shined at the mostly evangelical Annapolis Area Christian School since kindergarten, but now he wanted to test his faith in a more diverse world. With hopes of becoming a lawyer or politician, he badly wanted to understand people who didn't think like him.
"I feel like I exist to be interacting," the lanky, towheaded 19-year-old said eagerly one day last summer, shortly after his graduation, "and part of that is just getting out there."
So he'd deliberately picked a large, secular college: the University of Maryland. But the week before he was to leave, the wider world dealt him a blow.
"I hate evangelical Christians," read the Facebook.com profile of his roommate-to-be, who had seemed so perfect on the phone. He loved politics and "The Simpsons," like Leydorf, and they even had the same views about how to set up the room. Could it still work?
That was to be just the first of many challenges and unexpected twists Leydorf has faced this school year as he plunged into the mainstream. He's gone from student body president back home to outsider. He struggles with when to talk about God and when to keep his mouth shut. He wrestles with how Jesus would define tolerance.
As atypical as he sometimes feels, Leydorf is traveling an increasingly common path for graduates of private evangelical schools, institutions that sprung up in the 1970s specifically to shelter students from the broader culture. In decades past, graduates of the fast-growing movement often went on to religious schools or overseas mission work.
But today's young evangelicals live in a less tidy world, where Capitol Hill and Wall Street are considered mission fields and evangelical leaders are taking more diverse positions on issues including global warming and homosexuality.
Since last spring, The Washington Post has visited with Leydorf as he has sought a toehold in the new, more diverse landscape.
So there he was at 2 a.m. one November night, hashing out the blurred lines about abortion and gay marriage with his two roommates, in the dark, in their bunk beds.
|
This is an extended version of a story printed Jan. 15 in The Washington Post.
| 27.125 | 0.625 | 0.875 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801417.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801417.html
|
The Least Immoral Choice
|
2007011219
|
I am an Army brat. I have seen the effects of war firsthand. My father fought in World War II and in the Korean War. I lived on Army posts and saw or heard about the human devastation of war each day.
During the Korean War my father served on the front lines, leaving us behind in Tokyo. Every day I read in the newspaper Stars and Stripes about soldiers being killed. I fell ill because of the emotional stress of having him at war, and at age 10 I ended up in Tokyo General Hospital.
The hospital was filled with severely wounded soldiers who had been airlifted from Korea. It was decided that having parents visit their sick children would be too disruptive, so my mother wasn't allowed to see me for months at a time.
Finally, after nearly nine months, I was transferred to Brooke General Hospital in San Antonio. My mother, younger brother, younger sister and I were placed on an Army hospital plane with the most seriously wounded soldiers, who were to fly back with us. There were no seats on the plane, only three rows of litters, five high, all filled with badly wounded and dying soldiers, most of them still kids themselves. I was strapped to my litter, as they were, but my mother, brother and sister were ambulatory.
The thing I remember most vividly is the soldiers screaming in pain and crying out for their mothers. My mother went up and down the aisles holding their hands, stroking their brows, giving them sips of water. My sister helped light their cigarettes. Many of them were amputees. Some had no stomachs, some had no faces.
The soldiers in the litters above and below me both died, blood dripping from their wounds. Many other soldiers died while we were in the air. We had to stop in Hawaii overnight to refuel and to leave the bodies.
I hope that when President Bush discusses sending more troops to Iraq, knowing that we will have to pull out sooner rather than later, that the conversation comes around to the human suffering. Does anyone at the table ask about the personal anguish, the long-term effects, emotional, psychological and financial, on the families of those killed, wounded or permanently disabled?
When I hear about the surge, all I can think of is those young soldiers on the plane to Texas. We have already lost more than 3,000 soldiers, and many more have been wounded and disabled.
We have three choices here. All three are immoral. We can keep the status quo and gradually pull out; we can surge; or we can pull out now. When I think about those young soldiers on that plane coming back from Japan years ago, I believe pulling out now is the least immoral choice.
The writer is a co-moderator of On Faith, an online conversation on religion athttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith.
|
I hope that when President Bush discusses sending more troops to Iraq, knowing that we will have to pull out sooner rather than later, that the conversation comes around to the human suffering.
| 15.638889 | 1 | 36 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/faithfacts/2007/01/religious_affiliation_on_capit.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/faithfacts/2007/01/religious_affiliation_on_capit.html
|
Religious Affiliation on Capitol Hill
|
2007011219
|
Religion...........House....Senate........% Congress...% Population AME (v) ............... 2 ...... 0 ..... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... (u) Anglican .............. 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (w) Assembly of God ...4 ...... 0...... 4 ..... 0.7 ......... 0.5 Baptist ................60 ...... 7..... 67 .... 12.5 ........ 16.3 Buddhist .............. 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.5 Christian (x) .........16 ...... 2..... 18 ..... 3.4 ......... 6.8 Christian Reformed .... 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... (y) Christian Scientist ... 5 ...... 0...... 5 ..... 0.9 ......... 0.1 Church of Christ ...... 1 ...... 1...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 1.2 Church of God ......... 0 ...... 1...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.5 Congregationalist ..... 0 ...... 1...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (z) Congregation.-Baptist . 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u) Disciples of Christ ... 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.2 Eastern Orthodox ...... 4 ...... 1...... 5 ..... 0.9 ......... 0.3 Episcopalian ......... 27 ..... 10..... 37 ..... 6.9 ......... 1.7 Evangelical ........... 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.5 Evangelical Lutheran .. 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u) Evangelical Methodist . 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u) Hindu ................. 0 ...... 0...... 0 ..... 0.0 ......... 0.4 Jewish ............... 30 ..... 13..... 43 ..... 8.0 ......... 1.3 LDS (Mormon) ......... 10 ...... 5..... 15 ..... 2.8 ......... 1.3 Reorganized LDS ....... 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u) Lutheran ............. 14 ...... 3..... 17 ..... 3.2 ......... 4.6 Methodist ............ 48 ..... 13..... 61 .... 11.4 ......... 6.8 Muslim ................ 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.5 (Church of) Nazarene .. 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.3 Presbyterian ......... 35 ...... 9..... 44 ..... 8.2 ......... 2.7 Protestant (x) ....... 22 ...... 4..... 26 ..... 4.9 ......... 2.2 Quaker ................ 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.1 Roman Catholic ...... 130 ..... 25.... 155 .... 29.0 ........ 24.5 Seventh-day Adventist . 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.3 Unitarian ............. 1 ...... 1...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.3 United Church of Christ 2 ...... 4...... 6 ..... 1.1 ......... 0.7 unaffiliated .......... 6 ...... 0...... 6 ..... 1.1 ........ 14.1 X X X (u) no discrete category exists in the American Religious Identification Survey (v) African Methodist Episcopal (w) included with Episcopalians (x) no denomination stated (y) less than 0.05 percent (z) included with United Church of Christ Sources: Count of religious affiliations of members of Congress compiled from self-identification in Congressional Quarterly profiles of each member. Percent of population by religion comes from American Religious Identification Survey, Self-Described Religious Identification of U.S.Adult Population, 2001.
Religion in the Senate, by state and by faith ALABAMA Richard Shelby (R) Presbyterian Jeff Sessions (R) Methodist
ALASKA Ted Stevens (R) Episcopalian Lisa Murkowski (R) Roman Catholic
ARIZONA John McCain (R) Episcopalian Jon Kyl (R) Presbyterian
ARKANSAS Mark Pryor (D) Christian Blanche Lincoln (D) Episcopalian
CALIFORNIA Dianne Feinstein (D) Jewish Barbara Boxer (D) Jewish
COLORADO Wayne Allard (R) Protestant Ken Salazar (D) Roman Catholic
CONNECTICUT Christopher Dodd (D) Roman Catholic Joseph Lieberman (D) Jewish
DELAWARE Joseph Biden (D) Roman Catholic Thomas Carper (D) Presbyterian
FLORIDA Bill Nelson (D) Episcopalian Mel Martinez (R) Roman Catholic
GEORGIA Saxby Chambliss (R) Episcopalian Johnny Isakson (R) Methodist
HAWAII Daniel Inouye (D) Methodist Daniel Akaka (D) United Church of Christ
IDAHO Larry Craig (R) Methodist Michael Crapo (R) Mormon
ILLINOIS Richard Durbin (D) Roman Catholic Barack Obama (D) United Church of Christ
INDIANA Richard Lugar (R) Methodist Evan Bayh (D) Episcopalian
IOWA Charles Grassley (R) Baptist Tom Harkin (D) Roman Catholic
KANSAS Sam Brownback (R) Roman Catholic Pat Roberts (R) Methodist
KENTUCKY Mitch McConnell (R) Baptist Jim Bunning (R) Roman Catholic
LOUISIANA Mary Landrieu (D) Roman Catholic David Vitter (R) Roman Catholic
MAINE Olympia Snowe (R) Eastern Orthodox Susan Collins (R) Roman Catholic
MARYLAND Barbara Mikulski (D) Roman Catholic Benjamin Cardin (D) Jewish (n)
MASSACHUSETTS Edward Kennedy (D) Roman Catholic John Kerry (D) Roman Catholic
MICHIGAN Carl Levin (D) Jewish Debbie Stabenow (D) Methodist
MINNESOTA Norm Coleman, (R) Jewish Amy Klobuchar (D) Congregationalist (n)
MISSISSIPPI Thad Cochran (R) Baptist Trent Lott (R) Baptist
MISSOURI Christopher Bond (R) Presbyterian Claire McCaskill (D) Roman Catholic (n)
MONTANA Max Baucus (D) United Church of Christ Jon Tester (D) Church of God (n)
NEBRASKA Chuck Hagel (R) Episcopalian Ben Nelson (D) Methodist
NEVADA Harry Reid (D) Mormon John Ensign (R) Christian
NEW HAMPSHIRE Judd Gregg (R) United Church of Christ John Sununu (R) Roman Catholic
NEW JERSEY Frank Lautenberg (D) Jewish Robert Menendez (D) Roman Catholic
NEW MEXICO Pete Domenici (R) Roman Catholic Jeff Bingaman (R) Methodist
NEW YORK Charles Schumer (D) Jewish Hillary Clinton (D) Methodist
NORTH CAROLINA Elizabeth Dole (R) Methodist Richard Burr (R) Methodist
NORTH DAKOTA Kent Conrad (D) Unitarian Byron Dorgan (D) Lutheran
OHIO George Voinovich (R) Roman Catholic Sherrod Brown (D) Lutheran (n)
OKLAHOMA James Inhofe (R) Presbyterian Tom Coburn (R) Baptist
OREGON Ron Wyden (D) Jewish Gordon Smith (R) Mormon
PENNSYLVANIA Arlen Specter (R) Jewish Bob Casey (D) Roman Catholic
RHODE ISLAND Jack Reed (D) Roman Catholic Sheldon Whitehouse (D) Episcopalian (n)
SOUTH CAROLINA Lindsey Graham (R) Baptist Jim DeMint (R) Presbyterian
SOUTH DAKOTA Tim Johnson (D) Lutheran John Thune (R) Protestant
TENNESSEE Lamar Alexander (R) Presbyterian Bob Corker (R) Protestant (n)
TEXAS Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) Episcopalian John Cornyn (R) Church of Christ
UTAH Orrin Hatch (R) Mormon Robert Bennett (R) Mormon
VERMONT Patrick Leahy (D) Roman Catholic Bernard Sanders (I) Jewish (n)
VIRGINIA John Warner (R) Episcopalian Jim Webb (D) Protestant (n)
WASHINGTON Patty Murray (D) Roman Catholic Maria Cantwell (D) Roman Catholic
WEST VIRGINIA Robert Byrd (D) Baptist Jay Rockefeller (D) Presbyterian
WISCONSIN Herbert Kohl (D) Jewish Russ Feingold (D) Jewish
WYOMING Craig Thomas (R) Methodist Michael Enzi (R) Presbyterian
BAPTIST (1 D, 6 R) Robert Byrd, D-WV Charles Grassley, R-IA Mitch McConnell, R-KY Thad Cochran, R-MS Trent Lott, R-MS Tom Coburn, R-OK Lindsey Graham, R-SC
CHRISTIAN (no denom.) (1 D, 1 R) Mark Pryor, D-AR John Ensign, R-NV
CHURCH OF CHRIST (1 R) John Cornyn, R-TX
CHURCH OF GOD (1 D) Jon Tester, D-MT
CONGREGATIONALIST (1 D) Amy Klobuchar, D-MN
EASTERN ORTHODOX (1 R) Olympia Snowe, R-ME
EPISCOPALIAN (4 D, 6 R) Blanche Lincoln, D-AR Bill Nelson, D-FL Evan Bayh, D-IN Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI Ted Stevens, R-AK John McCain, R-AZ Saxby Chambliss, R-GA Chuck Hagel, R-NE Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX John Warner, R-VA
JEWISH (10 D, 1 I, 2 R) Dianne Feinstein, D-CA Barbara Boxer, D-CA Joseph Lieberman, D-CT Benjamin Cardin, D-MD Carl Levin, D-MI Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ Charles Schumer, D-NY Ron Wyden, D-OR Herbert Kohl, D-WI Russ Feingold, D-WI Bernard Sanders, I-VT Norm Coleman, R-MN Arlen Specter, R-PA
MORMON (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (1 D, 4 R) Harry Reid, D-NV Michael Crapo, R-ID Gordon Smith, R-OR Orrin Hatch, R-UT Robert Bennett, R-UT
LUTHERAN (3 D) Byron Dorgan, D-ND Sherrod Brown, D-OH Tim Johnson, D-SD
METHODIST (5 D, 8 R) Daniel Inouye D-HI Debbie Stabenow, D-MI Ben Nelson, D-NE Jeff Bingaman, D-NM Hillary Clinton, D-NY Jeff Sessions, R-AL Johnny Isakson, R-GA Larry Craig, R-ID Richard Lugar, R-IN Pat Roberts, R-KS Elizabeth Dole, R-NC Richard Burr, R-NC Craig Thomas, R-WY
PRESBYTERIAN (2 D, 7 R) Thomas Carper, D-DE Jay Rockefeller, D-WV Richard Shelby, R-AL Jon Kyl, R-AZ Christopher Bond, R-MO James Inhofe, R-OK Jim DeMint, R-SC Lamar Alexander, R-TN Michael Enzi, R-WY
PROTESTANT (no denom.) (1 D, 3 R) Jim Webb, D-VA Wayne Allard, R-CO John Thune, R-SD Bob Corker, R-TN
ROMAN CATHOLIC (16 D, 9 R) Ken Salazar, D-CO Christopher Dodd, D-CT Joseph Biden, D-DE Richard Durbin, D-IL Mary Landrieu, D-LA Barbara Mikulski, D-MD Edward Kennedy, D-MA John Kerry, D-MA Claire McCaskill, D-MO Robert Menendez, D-NJ Bob Casey, D-PA Jack Reed, D-RI Patrick Leahy, D-VT Patty Murray, D-WA Maria Cantwell, D-WA Tom Harkin, D-IA Lisa Murkowski, R-AK Mel Martinez, R-FL Sam Brownback, R-KS Jim Bunning, R-KY David Vitter, R-LA Susan Collins, R-ME John Sununu, R-NH Pete Domenici, R-NM George Voinovich, R-OH
UNITARIAN (1 D) Kent Conrad, D-ND
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST (3 D, 1 R) Daniel Akaka, D-HI Barack Obama, D-IL Max Baucus, D-MT Judd Gregg, R-NH
Sources: Albert Menendez "109th Congress: Religious Affiliations" and Congressional Quarterly profiles of new members of the 110th Congress
Religion in the House, by state and faith
Alabama (5-2 Republican) 1: Jo Bonner (R) Episcopalian 2: Terry Everett (R) Baptist 3: Mike D. Rogers (R) Baptist 4: Robert Aderholt (R) Congregationalist-Baptist 5: Bud Cramer (D) Methodist 6: Spencer Bachus (R) Baptist 7: Artur Davis (D) Lutheran
Alaska (1 Republican) At large: Don Young (R) Episcopalian
Arizona (4-4 split) 1: Rick Renzi (R) Roman Catholic 2: Trent Franks (R) Baptist 3: John Shadegg (R) Episcopalian 4: Ed Pastor (D) Roman Catholic 5: Harry Mitchell (D) Roman Catholic (n) 6: Jeff Flake (R) Mormon 7: Raul M. Grijalva (D) Roman Catholic 8: Gabrielle Giffords (D) Jewish (n)
Arkansas (3-1 Democratic) 1: Marion Berry (D) Methodist 2: Vic Snyder (D) Presbyterian 3: John Boozman (R) Baptist 4: Mike Ross (D) Methodist
California (34-19 Democratic) 1: Mike Thompson (D) Roman Catholic 2: Wally Herger (R) Mormon 3: Dan Lungren (R) Roman Catholic 4: John Doolittle (R) Mormon 5: Doris Matsui (D) Methodist 6: Lynn Woolsey (D) Presbyterian 7: George Miller (D) Roman Catholic 8: Nancy Pelosi (D) Roman Catholic 9: Barbara Lee (D) Baptist 10: Ellen Tauscher (D) Roman Catholic 11: Jerry McNerney (D) Roman Catholic (n) 12: Tom Lantos (D) Jewish 13: Pete Stark (D) Unitarian 14: Anna Eshoo (D) Roman Catholic 15: Mike Honda (D) Protestant 16: Zoe Lofgren (D) Christian 17: Sam Farr (D) Episcopalian 18: Dennis Cardoza (D) Roman Catholic 19: George Radanovich (R) Roman Catholic 20: Jim Costa (D) Roman Catholic 21: Devin Nunes (R) Roman Catholic 22: Kevin McCarthy (R) Baptist (n) 23: Lois Capps (D) Lutheran 24: Elton Gallegly (R) Protestant 25: Howard McKeon (R) Mormon 26: David Dreier (R) Christian Scientist 27: Brad Sherman (D) Jewish 28: Howard Berman (D) Jewish 29: Adam Schiff (D) Jewish 30: Henry Waxman (D) Jewish 31: Xavier Becerra (D) Roman Catholic 32: Hilda Solis (D) Roman Catholic 33: Diane Watson (D) Roman Catholic 34: Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) Roman Catholic 35: Maxine Waters (D) Christian 36: Jane Harman (D) Jewish 37: Juanita Millender-McDonald (D) Baptist 38: Grace Napolitano (D) Roman Catholic 39: Linda Sanchez (D) Roman Catholic 40: Edward R. Royce (R) Roman Catholic 41: Jerry Lewis (R) Presbyterian 42: Gary Miller (R) Protestant 43: Joe Baca (D) Roman Catholic 44: Ken Calvert (R) Protestant 45: Mary Bono (R) Protestant 46: Dana Rohrabacher (R) Baptist 47: Loretta Sanchez (D) Roman Catholic 48: John Campbell (R) Presbyterian 49: Darrell Issa (R) Protestant 50: Brian Bilbray (R) Roman Catholic 51: Bob Filner (D) Jewish 52: Duncan Hunter (R) Baptist 53: Susan Davis (D) Jewish
Colorado (4-3 Democratic) 1: Diana DeGette (D) Presbyterian 2: Mark Udall (D) unaffiliated 3: John Salazar (D) Roman Catholic 4: Marilyn Musgrave (R) Assembly of God 5: Doug Lamborn (R) Christian (n) 6: Thomas G. Tancredo (R) Presbyterian 7: Ed Perlmutter (D) Protestant (n)
Connecticut (4-1 Democratic) 1: John Larson (D) Roman Catholic 2: Joe Courtney (D) Roman Catholic (n) 3: Rosa DeLauro (D) Roman Catholic 4: Christopher Shays (R) Christian Scientist 5: Chris Murphy (D) Protestant (n)
Delaware (1 Republican) At large: Michael N. Castle (R) Roman Catholic
Florida (16-9 Republican) 1: Jeff Miller (R) Methodist 2: Allen Boyd (D) Methodist 3: Corrine Brown (D) Baptist 4: Ander Crenshaw (R) Episcopalian 5: Ginny Brown-Waite (R) Roman Catholic 6: Cliff Stearns (R) Presbyterian 7: John Mica (R) Episcopalian 8: Ric Keller (R) Methodist 9: Gus Bilirakis (R) Eastern Orthodox (n) 10: Bill Young (R) Methodist 11: Kathy Castor (D) Presbyterian(n) 12: Adam Putnam (R) Episcopalian 13: Vern Buchanan (R) Baptist (n) 14: Connie Mack IV (R) Roman Catholic 15: Dave Weldon (R) Christian 16: Tim Mahoney (D) Methodist (n) 17: Kendrick Meek (D) Baptist 18: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) Roman Catholic 19: Robert Wexler (D) Jewish 20: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D) Jewish 21: Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) Roman Catholic 22: Ron Klein (D) Jewish (n) 23: Alcee Hastings (D) African Methodist Episcopal 24: Tom Feeney (R) Presbyterian 25: Mario Diaz-Balart (R) Roman Catholic
Georgia (7-6 Republican) 1: Jack Kingston (R) Episcopalian 2: Sanford Bishop (D) Baptist 3: Jim Marshall (D) Roman Catholic 4: Hank Johnson (D) Buddhist (n) 5: John Lewis (D) Baptist 6: Tom Price (R) Presbyterian 7: John Linder (R) Presbyterian 8: Lynn Westmoreland (R) Baptist 9: Charlie Norwood (R) Methodist 10: Nathan Deal (R) Baptist 11: Phil Gingrey (R) Roman Catholic 12: John Barrow (D) Baptist 13: David Scott (D) Baptist
Hawaii (2 Democrats) 1: Neil Abercrombie (D) unaffiliated 2: Mazie Hirono (D) Buddhist (n)
Idaho (2 Republicans) 1: Bill Sali (R) Evangelical (n) 2: Mike Simpson (R) Mormon
Illinois (10-9 Democratic) 1: Bobby Rush (D) Protestant 2: Jesse Jackson Jr. (D) Baptist 3: Dan Lipinski (D) Roman Catholic 4: Luis Gutierrez (D) Roman Catholic 5: Rahm Emanuel (D) Jewish 6: Peter Roskam (R) Anglican (n) 7: Danny Davis (D) Baptist 8: Melissa Bean (D) Eastern Orthodox 9: Janice D. Schakowsky (D) Jewish 10: Mark Kirk (R) United Church of Christ 11: Jerry Weller (R) Christian 12: Jerry Costello (D) Roman Catholic 13: Judy Biggert (R) Episcopalian 14: Dennis Hastert (R) Protestant 15: Timothy V. Johnson (R) Assembly of God 16: Donald Manzullo (R) Baptist 17: Philip Hare (D) Roman Catholic (n) 18: Ray LaHood (R) Roman Catholic 19: John Shimkus (R) Lutheran
Indiana (5-4 Democratic) 1: Peter Visclosky (D) Roman Catholic 2: Joe Donnelly (D) Roman Catholic (n) 3: Mark Souder (R) Evangelical 4: Steve Buyer (R) Methodist 5: Dan Burton (R) Christian 6: Mike Pence (R) Christian 7: Julia Carson (D) Baptist 8: Brad Ellsworth (D) Roman Catholic (n) 9: Baron Hill (D) Methodist (n)
Iowa (3-2 Democratic) 1: Bruce Braley (D) Presbyterian (n) 2: David Loebsack (D) Methodist (n) 3: Leonard Boswell (D) Reorganized Latter-day Saints 4: Tom Latham (R) Lutheran 5: Steve King (R) Roman Catholic
Kansas (2-2 split) 1: Jerry Moran (R) Methodist 2: Nancy Boyda (D) Methodist (n) 3: Dennis Moore (D) Protestant 4: Todd Tiahrt (R) Assembly of God
Kentucky (4-2 Republican) 1: Ed Whitfield (R) Methodist 2: Ron Lewis (R) Baptist 3: John Yarmuth (D) Jewish (n) 4: Geoff Davis (R) Baptist 5: Harold Rogers (R) Baptist 6: Ben Chandler (D) Presbyterian
Louisiana (5-2 Republican) 1: Bobby Jindal (R) Roman Catholic 2: William Jefferson (D) Baptist 3: Charlie Melancon (D) Roman Catholic 4: Jim McCrery (R) Methodist 5: Rodney Alexander (R) Baptist 6: Richard H. Baker (R) Methodist 7: Charles Boustany Jr. (R) Episcopalian
Maine (2 Democrats) 1: Tom Allen (D) Protestant 2: Mike Michaud (D) Roman Catholic
Maryland (6-2 Democratic) 1: Wayne Gilchrest (R) Methodist 2: Dutch Ruppersberger (D) Methodist 3: John Sarbanes (D) Eastern Orthodox (n) 4: Albert Wynn (D) Baptist 5: Steny Hoyer (D) Baptist 6: Roscoe Bartlett (R) Seventh-day Adventist 7: Elijah Cummings (D) Baptist 8: Chris Van Hollen (D) Episcopalian
Massachusetts (10 Democrats) 1: John Olver (D) unaffiliated 2: Richard Neal (D) Roman Catholic 3: James McGovern (D) Roman Catholic 4: Barney Frank (D) Jewish 5: Marty Meehan (D) Roman Catholic 6: John Tierney (D) unaffiliated 7: Ed Markey (D) Roman Catholic 8: Michael Capuano (D) Roman Catholic 9: Stephen Lynch (D) Roman Catholic 10: Bill Delahunt (D) Roman Catholic
Michigan (9-6 Republican) 1: Bart Stupak (D) Roman Catholic 2: Peter Hoekstra (R) Christian Reformed 3: Vern Ehlers (R) Christian Reformed 4: Dave Camp (R) Roman Catholic 5: Dale Kildee (D) Roman Catholic 6: Fred Upton (R) Protestant 7: Tim Walberg (R) Protestant (n) 8: Mike Rogers (R) Methodist 9: Joe Knollenberg (R) Roman Catholic 10: Candice Miller (R) Presbyterian 11: Thaddeus McCotter (R) Roman Catholic 12: Sander Levin (D) Jewish 13: Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D) Baptist 14: John Conyers (D) Baptist 15: John Dingell (D) Roman Catholic
Minnesota (5-3 Democratic) 1: Tim Walz (D) Lutheran (n) 2: John Kline (R) Methodist 3: Jim Ramstad (R) Protestant 4: Betty McCollum (D) Roman Catholic 5: Keith Ellison (D) Muslim (n) 6: Michele Bachmann (R) Evangelical Lutheran (n) 7: Collin Peterson (D) Lutheran 8: James Oberstar (D) Roman Catholic
Mississippi (2-2 split) 1: Roger Wicker (R) Baptist 2: Bennie Thompson (D) Methodist 3: Chip Pickering (R) Baptist 4: Gene Taylor (D) Roman Catholic
Missouri (5-4 Republican) 1: William Lacy Clay Jr. (D) Roman Catholic 2: Todd Akin (R) Christian 3: Russ Carnahan (D) Methodist 4: Ike Skelton (D) Disciples of Christ 5: Emanuel Cleaver II (D) Methodist 6: Sam Graves (R) Baptist 7: Roy Blunt (R) Baptist 8: Jo Ann Emerson (R) Presbyterian 9: Kenny Hulshof (R) Roman Catholic
Montana (1 Republican) At large: Denny Rehberg (R) Episcopalian
Nebraska (3 Republicans) 1: Jeff Fortenberry (R) Roman Catholic 2: Lee Terry (R) Methodist 3: Adrian Smith (R) Christian (n)
Nevada (2-1 Republican) 1: Shelley Berkley (D) Jewish 2: Dean Heller (R) Mormon (n) 3: Jon Porter (R) Roman Catholic
New Hampshire (2 Democrats) 1: Carol Shea-Porter (D) Roman Catholic (n) 2: Paul Hodes (D) Jewish (n)
New Jersey (7-6 Democratic) 1: Rob Andrews (D) Episcopalian 2: Frank LoBiondo (R) Roman Catholic 3: Jim Saxton (R) Methodist 4: Chris Smith (R) Roman Catholic 5: Scott Garrett (R) Protestant 6: Frank Pallone (D) Roman Catholic 7: Mike Ferguson (R) Roman Catholic 8: Bill Pascrell Jr. (D) Roman Catholic 9: Steve Rothman (D) Jewish 10: Donald Payne (D) Baptist 11: Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) Episcopalian 12: Rush Holt Jr. (D) Quaker 13: Albio Sires (D) Roman Catholic (n)
New Mexico (2-1 Republican) 1: Heather Wilson (R) Methodist 2: Steve Pearce (R) Baptist 3: Tom Udall (D) Mormon
New York (23-6 Democratic) 1: Tim Bishop (D) Roman Catholic 2: Steve Israel (D) Jewish 3: Peter T. King (R) Roman Catholic 4: Carolyn McCarthy (D) Roman Catholic 5: Gary Ackerman (D) Jewish 6: Gregory Meeks (D) Baptist 7: Joseph Crowley (D) Roman Catholic 8: Jerrold Nadler (D) Jewish 9: Anthony D. Weiner (D) Jewish 10: Edolphus Towns (D) Baptist 11: Yvette D. Clarke (D) Christian (n) 12: Nydia Velazquez (D) Roman Catholic 13: Vito Fossella (R) Roman Catholic 14: Carolyn Maloney (D) Presbyterian 15: Charles Rangel (D) Roman Catholic 16: Jose Serrano (D) Roman Catholic 17: Eliot Engel (D) Jewish 18: Nita Lowey (D) Jewish 19: John Hall (D) Christian (n) 20: Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Roman Catholic (n) 21: Michael McNulty (D Roman Catholic 22: Maurice Hinchey (D) Roman Catholic 23: John M. McHugh (R) Roman Catholic 24: Michael Arcuri (D) Roman Catholic (n) 25: Jim Walsh (R) Roman Catholic 26: Tom Reynolds (R) Presbyterian 27: Brian Higgins (D) Roman Catholic 28: Louise Slaughter (D) Episcopalian 29: Randy Kuhl (R) Episcopalian
North Carolina (7-6 Democratic) 1: G.K. Butterfield (D) Baptist 2: Bob Etheridge (D) Presbyterian 3: Walter Jones (R) Roman Catholic 4: David Price (D) Baptist 5: Virginia Foxx (R) Roman Catholic 6: Howard Coble (R) Presbyterian 7: Mike McIntyre (D) Presbyterian 8: Robin Hayes (R) Presbyterian 9: Sue Myrick (R) Evangelical Methodist 10: Patrick McHenry (R) Roman Catholic 11: Heath Shuler (D) Baptist (n) 12: Mel Watt (D) Presbyterian 13: Brad Miller (D) Episcopalian
North Dakota (1 Democrat) At large: Earl Pomeroy (D) Presbyterian
Ohio (11-7 Republican) 1: Steve Chabot (R) Roman Catholic 2: Jean Schmidt (R) Roman Catholic 3: Michael Turner (R) Protestant 4: Jim Jordan (R) Christian (n) 5: Paul Gillmor (R) Methodist 6: Charlie Wilson (D) Roman Catholic (n) 7: David Hobson (R) Methodist 8: John Boehner (R) Roman Catholic 9: Marcy Kaptur (D) Roman Catholic 10: Dennis Kucinich (D) Roman Catholic 11: Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D) Baptist 12: Patrick Tiberi (R) Roman Catholic 13: Betty Sutton (D) Methodist (n) 14: Steve LaTourette (R) Methodist 15: Deborah Pryce (R) Presbyterian 16: Ralph Regula (R) Episcopalian 17: Tim Ryan (D) Roman Catholic 18: Zack Space (D) Eastern Orthodox (n)
Oklahoma (4-1 Republican) 1: John Sullivan (R) Roman Catholic 2: Dan Boren (D) Methodist 3: Frank Lucas (R) Baptist 4: Tom Cole (R) Methodist 5: Mary Fallin (R) Christian (n)
Oregon (4-1 Democratic) 1: David Wu (D) Presbyterian 2: Greg Walden (R) Episcopalian 3: Earl Blumenauer (D) unaffiliated 4: Peter DeFazio (D) Roman Catholic 5: Darlene Hooley (D) Lutheran
Pennsylvania (11-8 Democratic) 1: Robert Brady (D) Roman Catholic 2: Chaka Fattah (D) Baptist 3: Phil English (R) Roman Catholic 4: Jason Altmire (D) Roman Catholic (n) 5: John Peterson (R) Methodist 6: Jim Gerlach (R) Protestant 7: Joe Sestak (D) Roman Catholic (n) 8: Patrick Murphy (D) Roman Catholic (n) 9: Bill Shuster (R) Lutheran 10: Chris Carney (D) Roman Catholic (n) 11: Paul Kanjorski (D) Roman Catholic 12: John Murtha (D) Roman Catholic 13: Allyson Schwartz (D) Jewish 14: Michael Doyle (D) Roman Catholic 15: Charles Dent (R) Presbyterian 16: Joseph Pitts (R) Protestant 17: Tim Holden (D) Roman Catholic 18: Tim Murphy (R) Roman Catholic 19: Todd Platts (R) Episcopalian
Rhode Island (2 Democrats) 1: Patrick Kennedy (D) Roman Catholic 2: James Langevin (D) Roman Catholic
South Carolina (4-2 Republican) 1: Henry Brown Jr. (R) Baptist 2: Joe Wilson (R) Presbyterian 3: J. Gresham Barrett (R) Baptist 4: Bob Inglis (R) Presbyterian 5: John Spratt (D) Presbyterian 6: Jim Clyburn (D) African Methodist Episcopal
South Dakota (1 Democrat) At large: Stephanie Herseth (D) Lutheran
Tennessee (5-4 Democratic) 1: David Davis (R) Baptist (n) 2: John J. Duncan Jr. (R) Presbyterian 3: Zach Wamp (R) Baptist 4: Lincoln Davis (D) Baptist 5: Jim Cooper (D) Episcopalian 6: Bart Gordon (D) Methodist 7: Marsha Blackburn (R) Presbyterian 8: John S. Tanner (D) Disciples of Christ 9: Steve Cohen (D) Jewish (n)
Texas (19-13 Republican) 1: Louie Gohmert (R) Baptist 2: Ted Poe (R) Church of Christ 3: Sam Johnson (R) Methodist 4: Ralph Hall (R) Methodist 5: Jeb Hensarling (R) Episcopalian 6: Joe Barton (R) Methodist 7: John Culberson (R) Methodist 8: Kevin Brady (R) Roman Catholic 9: Al Green (D) Christian 10: Michael McCaul (R) Roman Catholic 11: Mike Conaway (R) Baptist 12: Kay Granger (R) Methodist 13: Mac Thornberry (R) Presbyterian 14: Ron Paul (R) Protestant 15: Ruben Hinojosa (D) Roman Catholic 16: Silvestre Reyes (D) Roman Catholic 17: Chet Edwards (D) Methodist 18: Sheila Jackson Lee (D) Seventh-day Adventist 19: Randy Neugebauer (R) Baptist 20: Charlie Gonzalez (D) Roman Catholic 21: Lamar Smith (R) Christian Scientist 22: Nick Lampson (D) Roman Catholic (n) 23: Ciro Rodriguez (D) Roman Catholic (n) 24: Kenny Marchant (R) Nazarene 25: Lloyd Doggett (D) Methodist 26: Michael Burgess (R) Episcopalian 27: Solomon Ortiz (D) Methodist 28: Henry Cuellar (D) Roman Catholic 29: Gene Green (D) Methodist 30: Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) Baptist 31: John Carter (R) Lutheran 32: Pete Sessions (R) Methodist
Utah (2-1 Republican) 1: Rob Bishop (R) Mormon 2: Jim Matheson (D) Mormon 3: Chris Cannon (R) Mormon
Vermont (1 Democrat) At large: Peter Welch (D) Roman Catholic (n)
Virginia (8-3 Republican) 1: Jo Ann Davis (R) Assembly of God 2: Thelma Drake (R) United Church of Christ 3: Robert Scott (D) Episcopalian 4: Randy Forbes (R) Baptist 5: Virgil Goode (R) Baptist 6: Bob Goodlatte (R) Christian Scientist 7: Eric Cantor (R) Jewish 8: Jim Moran (D) Roman Catholic 9: Rick Boucher (D) Methodist 10: Frank Wolf (R) Presbyterian 11: Thomas M. Davis (R) Christian Scientist
Washington (6-3 Democratic) 1: Jay Inslee (D) Protestant 2: Rick Larsen (D) Methodist 3: Brian Baird (D) Protestant 4: Doc Hastings (R) Roman Catholic 5: Cathy McMorris (R) Christian 6: Norm Dicks (D) Lutheran 7: Jim McDermott (D) Episcopalian 8: Dave Reichert (R) Lutheran 9: Adam Smith (D) Christian
West Virginia (2-1 Democratic) 1: Alan Mollohan (D) Baptist 2: Shelley Moore Capito (R) Presbyterian 3: Nick Rahall (D) Presbyterian
Wisconsin (5-3 Democratic) 1: Paul Ryan (R) Roman Catholic 2: Tammy Baldwin (D) unaffiliated 3: Ron Kind (D) Lutheran 4: Gwen Moore (D) Baptist 5: F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Episcopalian 6: Tom Petri (R) Lutheran 7: Dave Obey (D) Roman Catholic 8: Steve Kagen (D) Jewish (n)
Wyoming (1 Republican) At large: Barbara Cubin (R) Episcopalian
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL -- 2 2 D, 0 R Alcee Hastings, D-FL James Clyburn, D-SC
ANGLICAN -- 1 0 D, 1 R Peter Roskam, R-IL
ASSEMBLY OF GOD -- 4 0 D, 4 R Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO Timothy Johnson, R-IL Todd Tiahrt, R-KS Jo Ann Davis, R-VA
BAPTIST -- 60 29 D, 31 R Barbara Lee, D-CA Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-CA Corrine Brown, D-FL Kendrick Meek, D-FL Sanford Bishop, D-GA John Lews, D-GA John Barrow, D-GA David Scott, D-GA Jesse Jackson Jr., D-IL Danny Davis, D-IL Julia Carson, D-IN William Jefferson, D-LA Albert Wynn, D-MD Steny Hoyer, D-MD Elijah Cummings, D-MD Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-MI John Conyers, D-MI Donald Payne, D-NJ Gregory W. Meeks, D-NY Edolphus Towns, D-NY G.K. Butterfield, D-NC David Price, D-NC Heath Shuler, D-NC Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-OH Chaka Fattah, D-PA Lincoln Davis, D-TN Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-TX Alan Mollohan, D-WV Gwen Moore, D-WI Terry Everett, R-AL Mike Rogers, R-AL Spencer Bachus, R-AL Trent Franks, R-AZ John Boozman, R-AR Kevin McCarthy, R-CA Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA Duncan Hunter, R-CA Vern Buchanan, R-FL Lynn Westmoreland, R-GA Nathan Deal, R-GA Donald Manzullo, R-IL Ron Lewis, R-KY Geoff Davis, R-KY Harold Rogers, R-KY Rodney Alexander, R-LA Roger Wicker, R-MS Chip Pickering, R-MS Sam Graves, R-MO Roy Blunt, R-MO Steve Pearce, R-NM Frank Lucas, R-OK Henry Brown Jr., R-SC J. Gresham Barrett, R-SC David Davis, R-TN Zach Wamp, R-TN Louie Gohmert, R-TX Mike Conaway, R-TX Randy Neugebauer, R-TX Randy Forbes, R-VA Virgil Goode Jr., R-VA
BUDDHIST -- 2 2 D, 0 R Hank Johnson, D-GA Mazie Hirono, D-Hi
CHRISTIAN 16 6 D, 10 R Zoe Lofgren, D-CA Maxine Waters, D-CA Yvette D. Clarke, D-NY John Hall, D-NY Al Green, D-TX Adam Smith, D-WA Doug Lamborn, R-CO Dave Weldon, R-FL Jerry Weller, R-IL Dan Burton, R-IN Mike Pence, R-IN Todd Akin, R-MO Adrian Smith, R-NE Jim Jordan, R-OH Mary Fallin, R-OK Cathy McMorris, R-WA
CHRISTIAN REFORMED -- 2 0 D, 2 R Peter Hoekstra, R-MI Vernon Ehlers, R-MI
CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST -- 5 0 D, 5 R David Dreier, R-CA Christopher Shays, R-CT Lamar Smith, R-TX Robert Goodlatte, R-VA Thomas Davis, R-VA
CHURCH OF CHRIST -- 1 0 D, 1 R Ted Poe, R-TX
CONGREGATIONALIST-BAPTIST -- 1 0 D, 1 R Robert Aderholt, R-AL
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST -- 2 2 D, 0 R Ike Skelton, D-MO John Tanner, D-TN
EASTERN ORTHODOX -- 4 3 D, 1 R Melissa Bean, D-IL John Sarbanes, D-MD Zack Space, D-OH Gus Bilirakis, R-FL
EPISCOPALIAN -- 27 8 D, 19 R Sam Farr, D-CA Chris Van Hollen, D-MD Rob Andrews, D-NJ Louise Slaughter, D-NY Brad Miller, D-NC Jim Cooper, D-TN Robert Scott, D-VA Jim McDermott, D-WA Jo Bonner, R-AL Don Young, R-AK John Shadegg, R-AZ Ander Crenshaw, R-FL John Mica, R-FL Adam Putnam, R-FL Jack Kingston, R-GA Judy Biggert, R-IL Charles Boustany Jr., R-LA Denny Rehberg, R-MT Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ Randy Kuhl, R-NY Ralph Regula, R-OH Greg Walden, R-OR Todd Platts, R-PA Jeb Hensarling, R-TX Michael Burgess, R-TX F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-WI Barbara Cubin, R-WY
EVANGELICAL -- 2 0 D, 2 R Bill Salli, R-ID Mark Souder, R-IN
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN -- 1 0 D, 1 R Michele Bachmann, R-MN
EVANGELICAL METHODIST -- 1 0 D, 1 R Sue Myrick, R-NC
JEWISH -- 30 29 D, 1 R Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ Tom Lantos, D-CA Brad Sherman, D-CA Howard Berman, D-CA Adam Schiff, D-CA Henry Waxman, D-CA Jane Harman, D-CA Bob Filner, D-CA Susan Davis, D-CA Robert Wexler, D-FL Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL Ron Klein, D-FL Rahm Emanuel, D-IL Janice D. Schakowsky, D-IL John Yarmuth, D-KY Barney Frank, D-MA Sander Levin, D-MI Shelley Berkley, D-NV Paul Hodes, D-NH Steven Rothman, D-NJ Steve Israel, D-NY Gary Ackerman, D-NY Jerrold Nadler, D-NY Anthony D. Weiner, D-NY Eliot Engel, D-NY Nita Lowey, D-NY Allyson Schwartz, D-PA Steve Cohen, D-TN Steve Kagen, D-WI Eric Cantor, R-VA
MORMON -- 10 2 D, 8 R Tom Udall, D-NM Jim Matheson, D-UT Jeff Flake, R-AZ Wally Herger R-CA John Doolittle, R-CA Howard McKeon, R-CA Mike Simpson, R-ID Dean Heller, R-NV Rob Bishop, R-UT Christopher Cannon, R-UT
REORGANIZED LATTER-DAY SAINTS -- 1 1 D, 0 R Leonard Boswell, D-IA
LUTHERAN -- 14 8 D, 6 R Artur Davis, D-AL Lois Capps, D-CA Tim Walz, D-MN Collin Peterson, D-MN Darlene Hooley, D-OR Stephanie Herseth, D-SD Norm Dicks, D-WA Ron Kind, D-WI John Shimkus, R-IL Tom Latham, R-IA Bill Shuster, R-PA John Carter, R-TX Dave Reichert, R-WA Tom Petri, R-WI
METHODIST -- 48 22 D, 26 R Bud Cramer, D-AL Marion Berry, D-AR Mike Ross, D-AR Doris Matsui, D-CA Allen Boyd, D-CA Tim Mahoney, D-FL Baron Hill, D-IN David Loebsack, D-IA Nancy Boyda, D-KS Dutch Ruppersberger, D-MD Bennie Thompson, D-MS Russ Carnahan, D-MO Emanuel Cleaver II, D-MO Betty Sutton, D-OH Dan Boren, D-OK Bart Gordon, D-TN Chet Edwards, D-TX Lloyd Doggett, D-TX Solomon Ortiz, D-TX Gene Green, D-TX Rick Boucher, D-VA Rick Larsen, D-WA Jeff Miller, R-FL Ric Keller, R-FL Bill Young, R-FL Charles Norwood, R-GA Steve Buyer, R-IN Jerry Moran, R-KS Ed Whitfield, R-KY Jim McCrery, R-LA Richard Baker, R-LA Wayne Gilchrest, R-MD Mike Rogers, R-MI John Kline, R-MN Lee Terry, R-NE Jim Saxton, R-NJ Heather Wilson, R-NM Paul Gillmor, R-OH David Hobson, R-OH Steve LaTourette, R-OH Tom Cole, R-OK John Peterson, R-PA Sam Johnson, R-TX Ralph Hall, R-TX Joe Barton, R-TX John Culberson, R-TX Kay Granger, R-TX Pete Sessions, R-TX
MUSLIM -- 1 1 D, 0 R Keith Ellison, D-MN
NAZARENE -- 1 0 D, 1 R Kenny Marchant, R-TX
PRESBYTERIAN -- 35 14 D, 21 R Vic Snyder, D-AR Lynn Woolsey, D-CA Diana DeGette. D-CO Kathy Castor, D-FL Bruce Braley, D-IA Ben Chandler, D-KY Carolyn Maloney, D-NY Bob Etheridge, D-NC Mike McIntyre, D-NC Mel Watt, D-NC Earl Pomeroy, D-ND David Wu, D-OH John Spratt, D-SC Nick Rahall, D-WV Jerry Lewis, R-CA John Campbell, R-CA Thomas G. Tancredo, R-CO Cliff Stearns, R-FL Tom Feeney, R-FL Tom Price, R-GA John Linder, R-GA Candice Miller, R-MI Jo Ann Emerson, R-MO Tom Reynolds, R-NY Howard Coble, R-NC Robin Hayes, R-NC Deborah Pryce, R-OH Charlie Dent, R-PA Joe Wilson, R-SC Bob Inglis, R-SC Jimmy Duncan, R-TN Marsha Blackburn, R-TN Mac Thornberry, R-TX Frank Wolf, R-VA Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
PROTESTANT (no denomination) -- 22 8 D, 14 R Mike Honda, D-CA Ed Perlmutter, D-CO Chris Murphy, D-CT Bobby Rush, D-IL Dennis Moore, D-KS Tom Allen, D-ME Jay Inslee, D-WA Brian Baird, D-WA Elton Gallegly, R-CA Gary Miller, R-CA Ken Calvert, R-CA Mary Bono, R-CA Darrell Issa, R-CA Dennis Hastert, R-IL Fred Upton, R-MI Tim Walberg, R-MI Jim Ramstad, R-MN Scott Garrett, R-NJ Michael Turner, R-OH Jim Gerlach, R-PA Joseph Pitts, R-PA Ron Paul, R-TX
QUAKER -- 1 1 D, 0 R Rush Holt, D-NJ
ROMAN CATHOLIC -- 130 87 D, 43 R Raul Grijalva D-AZ Harry E. Mitchell, D-AZ Ed Pastor, D-AZ Mike Thompson, D-CA George Miller, D-CA Nancy Pelosi, D-CA Ellen Tauscher, D-CA Jerry McNerney, D-CA Anna Eshoo, D-CA Dennis Cardoza, D-CA Jim Costa, D-CA Xavier Becerra, D-CA Hilda Solis, D-CA Diane Watson, D-CA Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-CA Grace Napolitano, D-CA Linda Sanchez, D-CA Joe Baca, D-CA Loretta Sanchez, D-CA John Salazar, D-CO John Larson, D-CT Joe Courtney, D-CT Rose DeLauro, D-CT Jim Marshall, D-GA Dan Lipinski, D-IL Luis Gutierrez, D-IL Jerry Costello, D-IL Philip Hare, D-IL Peter Visclosky, D-IN Joe Donnelly, D-IN Brad Ellsworth, D-IN Charlie Melancon, D-LA Mike Michaud, D-ME Richard Neal, D-MA James McGovern, D-MA Martin Meehan, D-MA Edward Markey, D-MA Michael Capuano, D-MA Stephen Lynch, D-MA Bill Delahunt, D-MA Bart Stupak, D-MI Dale Kildee, D-MI John Dingell, D-MI Betty McCollum, D-MN James Oberstar, D-MN Gene Taylor, D-MS William Lacy Clay Jr., D-MO Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH Frank Pallone, D-NJ Bill Pascrell, D-NJ Albio Sires, D-NJ Tim Bishop, D-NY Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY Joseph Crowley, D-NY Nydia Velazquez, D-NY Charles Rangel, D-NY Jose Serrano, D-NY Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY Michael R. McNulty, D-NY Maurice Hinchey, D-NY Michael Arcuri, D-NY Brian Higgins, D-NY Charlie Wilson, D-OH Marcy Kaptur, D-OH Dennis Kucinich, D-OH Timothy Ryan, D-OH Peter DeFazio, D-OR Robert Brady, D-PA Patrick Murphy, D-PA Chris Carney, D-PA Paul Kanjorski, D-PA John Murtha, D-PA Michael Doyle, D-PA Tim Holden, D-PA Jason Altmire, D-PA Joe Sestak, D-PA Patrick Kennedy, D-RI Jim Langevin, D-RI Ruben Hinojosa, D-TX Silvestre Reyes, D-TX Charlie Gonzalez, D-TX Nick Lampson, D-TX Henry Cuellar, D-TX Ciro Rodriguez, D-TX Peter Welch, D-VT James Moran, D-VA David Obey, D-WI Rick Renzi, R-AZ Dan Lungren, R-CA George Radanovich, R-CA Devin Nunes, R-CA Edward Royce, R-CA Brian Bilbray, R-CA Michael Castle, R-DE Ginny Brown-Waite, R-FL Connie Mack IV, R-FL Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-FL Mario, Diaz-Balart, R-FL Phil Gingrey, R-GA Ray LaHood, R-IL Steve King, R-IA Bobby Jindal, R-LA Dave Camp, R-MI Joe Knollenberg, R-MI Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI Kenny Hulshof, R-MO Jeff Fortenberry, R-NE Jon Porter, R-NV Frank LoBiondo, R-NJ Chris Smith, R-NJ Michael Ferguson, R-NJ Peter King, R-NY Vito Fossella, R-NY John McHugh, R-NY Jim Walsh, R-NY Walter Jones, R-NC Virginia Foxx, R-NC Patrick McHenry, R-NC Steve Chabot, R-OH Jean Schmidt, R-OH John Boehner, R-OH Patrick Tiberi, R-OH John Sullivan, R-OK Phil English, R-PA Tim Murphy, R-PA Kevin Brady, R-TX Michael McCaul, R-TX Doc Hastings, R-WA Paul Ryan, R-WI
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST -- 2 1 D, 1 R Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD Sheila Jackson Lee, D-TX
UNITARIAN -- 1 1 D, 0 R Pete Stark, D-CA
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST -- 2 0 D, 2 R Mark Kirk, R-IL Thelma Drake, R-VA
UNAFFILIATED -- 6 6 D, 0 R Mark Udall, D-CO Neil Abercrombie, D-HI John Olver, D-MA John Tierney, D-MA Earl Blumenauer, D-OR Tammy Baldwin, D-WI Sources: Albert Menendez "109th Congress: Religious Affiliations" and Congressional Quarterly profiles of new members of the 110th Congress.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/faithfacts/
| 668.571429 | 0.357143 | 0.357143 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010900475.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010900475.html
|
U.S. Is Not Saying Who, or What, Was Hit in Somalia Raid
|
2007011219
|
Two days after the United States launched an airstrike against alleged al-Qaeda terrorists in southern Somalia, U.S. officials declined yesterday to provide details of who, or what, was hit.
In Mogadishu, the Somali capital, reports circulated that as many as 50 people, many of them civilians, were killed in the attack by a U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship. U.S. officials said they are fairly certain that at least one targeted individual was hit; they said they had no information about civilian deaths in the strike along the Kenyan border.
Several officials suggested that stories reaching Mogadishu of many deaths and continuing U.S. attacks had confused the airstrike with ongoing operations in the area by Ethiopia's military, including helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. But it was impossible to confirm independently any of the widely differing accounts in Mogadishu or in Washington. The officials agreed to discuss the attack only on the condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed yesterday that a single airstrike occurred on Sunday, targeting "what we believe to be principal al-Qaeda leadership." Officials said that no further information would be released until U.S. personnel could assess directly the results of the strike and identify any dead.
"Let me draw a parallel with a domestic crime scene," one official said. "Imagine that complicated by 100, and that gives you an idea of what we're having to deal with."
Direct U.S. access to the area, where fleeing Islamic fundamentalist forces are being pursued on the ground and from the air by the Ethiopians, is viewed as problematic but necessary.
A principal target of the airstrike was Abu Talha al-Sudani, a Sudanese who U.S. officials have said is a longtime associate of Osama bin Laden and a key figure in an East African al-Qaeda cell based in Somalia.
Officials cautioned against reports that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, two other al-Qaeda operatives said to be responsible for the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, may have been killed in the attack.
Also on the U.S. and Ethiopian target list, officials said, are Somali fundamentalist leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the former head of a militant group accused of links to al-Qaeda in the 1990s, and several other Somali Islamic leaders described as terrorists.
"I don't think anybody has packed up and gone home," another official said of U.S. operations in the area.
The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower was moved into the Indian Ocean near the Somali coast to provide assistance, if needed, to the AC-130 on Sunday, and to use its aircraft to pinpoint the location of targets on land or sea. Four other U.S. naval vessels from the Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet are in the area.
In the chaos of Mogadishu, where invading Ethiopian troops routed the Islamic fundamentalists last month and installed an internationally backed transitional government, word of the U.S. attack provoked rage and anti-Americanism.
|
Two days after the United States launched an airstrike against alleged al-Qaeda terrorists in southern Somalia, U.S. officials declined yesterday to provide details of who, or what, was hit.
| 16.4 | 1 | 35 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801623.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801623.html
|
House Bill Backs Additional Reforms From 9/11 Report
|
2007011219
|
House Democrats announced legislation yesterday aimed at implementing many of the remaining reforms suggested by the Sept. 11 commission, including calls for more thorough cargo screening, better emergency communications and more money for cities at the highest risk of terrorist attack.
Democratic leaders plan to push through votes this week on a long list of Sept. 11-related changes that were rejected by the previous Republican-controlled Congress. The proposals signal an early willingness on the part of House Democrats to pressure their colleagues in the Senate, where lawmakers from both parties are cooler to some of the ideas and where no similar package of legislation has been proposed.
Democrats say that the House proposals would implement nearly all the remaining reforms recommended in 2004 by the bipartisan commission on the 2001 attacks, including ways to beef up funding and training for first responders as well as calls to rewrite many U.S. policies for controlling weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation.
Former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), who served as vice chairman of the panel, estimated that the previous Congress had enacted half the commission's recommendations, including creating a director to oversee the federal government's intelligence agencies. He said the "American people will be safer" if the remaining proposals become law.
"It carries out the recommendations that we have made," Hamilton said at a news conference yesterday with House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other Democrats. "And if this bill is enacted, then almost all of the recommendations of the commission will have been put into law."
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the changes would, among other things, result in "100 percent" screening of air cargo and baggage and major ports' cargo within four years.
The legislation calls for the establishment of a presidential office to coordinate prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Supporters of the measure described it as necessary to direct activities and budgets on an issue that is now spread among numerous departments and agencies. The bill also would create an outside commission to monitor government nonproliferation initiatives.
The Sept. 11 commission gave the administration a grade of D in following up on its general recommendations for preventing the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Democratic legislation proposes a wide range of initiatives to expand the scope of international cooperation and sanctions for countries that do not cooperate.
Noting that the commission called for a significant expansion of resources for international broadcasting and promotion of democracy, the bill calls for a "surge capacity" of additional funding "to support United States foreign policy objectives during a crisis abroad."
Congress's ability to push for change in these areas is limited.
"When you start on the domestic side, Congress has a lot more room to act," said Andrew Grotto, a nonproliferation expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "On public diplomacy and the proliferation elements, Congress's role starts to shift from direct action to more oversight and to funding."
Republicans on the Homeland Security committee offered immediate criticism of the package, arguing that Democrats had not followed through on promises to enact all of the remaining commission recommendations. They complained that Democrats were limiting debate and that many Democrats previously opposed the changes that they are now advocating.
|
House Democrats announced legislation yesterday aimed at implementing many of the remaining reforms suggested by the Sept. 11 commission, including calls for more thorough cargo screening, better emergency communications and more money for cities at the highest risk of terrorist attack.
| 14.613636 | 1 | 44 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010900719.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010900719.html
|
United Airlines Wins Right To Fly to China From Dulles
|
2007011219
|
A fierce five-month lobbying and public relations fight loaded with economic impact studies and political symbolism ended yesterday with a victory for Washington area air travelers yearning for a direct link to China.
Starting in March, United Airlines will be allowed to operate daily nonstop, round-trip flights between Washington Dulles International Airport and Beijing. Supporters and analysts say the daily flights will pump millions of dollars into the local economy, create several thousand jobs and perhaps lead to the construction of new office parks near Dulles. It will also link the capitals with nonstop flights in plenty of time for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
"China represents a huge opportunity for local companies," said Gerald L. Gordon, president and chief executive of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority. "If you have to change planes in an inconvenient place rather than take a direct flight, it's amazing how many people just won't bother. . . . Every time a new market opens up, it results in business going both ways."
United beat Northwest, Continental and American airlines, which campaigned for the daily flight between China and other U.S. cities, including Dallas and Newark. The contest drew more than 4,000 letters, motions and other documents from the airlines, legislators, mayors and frequent fliers supporting their carrier's bid.
The flight is expected to provide an economic boon for the Washington area of at least $275 million and add 3,400 jobs, according to a study prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. James C. Dinegar, president and chief executive of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, said: "We'll see some interesting office parks and satellite business offices open up around the airport over the next several months and years. When people get off the planes, they're not going to want to drive for another three hours."
China restricts the number of flights from the United States, so the opening of a new route attracted intense interest from the four airlines. China's economy is booming, passenger traffic between the two countries is growing, and Beijing is hosting the Olympics next year.
With a limited number of flights -- U.S. and Chinese carriers operate an average of 11 daily nonstops between the two countries -- airlines are able to charge higher fares than on other international routes.
Analysts predict that United could earn $20 million to $50 million a year on the route. The company's chief executive, Glenn F. Tilton, declined to be specific but said he expected the route to be profitable.
"It's as big a day for you guys in Washington as it is for United Airlines," Tilton said, adding that the flight would bolster United's position at Dulles, where the carrier has been expanding its domestic and international service. "This makes Dulles a legitimate gateway to international destinations for us."
To get to China today from the Washington area on a U.S. airline, passengers must connect through Newark, Chicago or San Francisco. A flight to China from Detroit connects through Tokyo.
American had hoped to fly between its hub in Dallas to Beijing; Continental sought to link Newark and Shanghai; and Northwest wanted to fly between its hub in Detroit and Shanghai. Each airline, backed by an assortment of business and civic groups, stressed in its bid to the Transportation Department the economic benefits the flights would bring to local and regional economies.
Early in the process, several analysts said it appeared that American had the strongest application because of its big hub in Dallas and support from 32 senators and nearly 100 House members. American has only seven flights a week to China through Chicago, and transportation officials had previously seemed interested in spreading out competition. United and Northwest operate at least 21 such flights. Continental operates seven flights a week to China out of Newark.
|
A fierce five-month lobbying and public relations fight loaded with economic impact studies and political symbolism ended yesterday with a victory for Washington area air travelers yearning for a direct link to China.
| 20.361111 | 1 | 36 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801716.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801716.html
|
Arch Campbell, Part II: Critic Joins WJLA
|
2007011219
|
During his three-decade tenure as WRC's movie critic, Arch Campbell saw plenty of sequels. Now, less than a month after the NBC station let him go, he's about to star in his own.
Campbell will join ABC affiliate WJLA (Channel 7) this week as a part-time reporter. He'll appear at least twice a week to review movies and will report on other entertainment-related stories.
"I'm hoping this sequel is 'Godfather II,' which is much better than the first one," Campbell said yesterday.
Campbell will appear regularly on the station's 5 p.m. newscast Mondays and Thursdays, said Bill Lord, WJLA's vice president of news, and also will report on some special events, such as next month's Academy Awards.
"We are open to the types of stories he wants to do," Lord said.
Campbell is the latest veteran news personality to sign with WJLA after leaving a competing station. Maureen Bunyan and Gordon Peterson, who now anchor the station's 6 p.m. news, meteorologist Doug Hill and reporter Mike Buchanan all joined WJLA after leaving WUSA (Channel 9).
"You have to look at each one of these individuals," Lord said about the veteran hires. "Each one of these individuals really are people that we want on our team. Which one would you turn down? Would you say no to a Gordon Peterson or an Arch Campbell or a Mike Buchanan?"
Campbell, 60, accepted a buyout last month from WRC, which is cutting budgets and jobs as part of parent company NBC Universal's broader belt-tightening.
"They couldn't have been nicer," Campbell said about WJLA. "They called up and said, 'If you want a home, we'll give you a home.' "
Campbell said he will start at the station Thursday and his first on-air appearance probably will be next week. "It's a good fit because they are the station that carries the Oscars," he said of the ABC affiliate. "This is the time that the drumbeat starts for the Oscar contenders, so I feel like I'm at the perfect place at the perfect time."
Although WRC remains the town's top-rated news station, Campbell said there's at least one advantage to no longer working at the NBC station. "Let's just say I'm breathing a sigh of relief that I never have to watch 'The Apprentice' again."
|
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.
| 9.588235 | 0.392157 | 0.431373 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801666.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801666.html
|
United's New Lead Investor Receives Favorable Reactions
|
2007011219
|
MLS Commissioner Don Garber was in a hospitality tent outside Berlin's Olympic Stadium last July, awaiting the start of the World Cup championship game between Italy and France, when D.C. United President Kevin Payne introduced him to San Francisco real estate executive Victor MacFarlane.
Garber was aware of MacFarlane's interest in purchasing United's operating rights and investing in MLS, and was eager to finally speak to him. The 11-year-old league had spent years trying to find new backers for its most successful team and had been embarrassed by the collapse of a supposed deal involving other principals last year.
"My first words to him were, 'Victor, I want to know you care about this team and this sport,' " Garber recalled yesterday following a news conference introducing MacFarlane as the lead investor in D.C. United Holdings, which purchased the team from Anschutz Entertainment Group for $33 million.
"He said, 'Commissioner, I do a lot of different deals, and the only one I care about right now is this one right here,' " Garber said. "That is what I needed to hear."
MacFarlane, 55, has been joined by former Duke basketball player Brian Davis, a District native whose partners in his North Carolina real estate firm include former Washington Wizard Christian Laettner; and William Chang, a principal partner with the San Francisco Giants who has worked with MacFarlane on Bay Area projects.
The group is also in discussions with Discovery Communications founder John Hendricks, a pioneer in women's pro soccer who financed the Maryland SoccerPlex in Montgomery County; Allen Warren, president of a Sacramento-based real estate company; and Carlos Watson, who created a educational counseling company and now works for Black Entertainment Television and CNN.
"It was a short conversation, but they hit if off," Payne said of the meeting between MacFarlane and Garber in Berlin. "You could tell Don was impressed and that this had a good chance of happening."
Payne, who oversaw the formation of the group and will have a financial stake in the team, will remain in charge of the club's front office. He said he first met MacFarlane last March at councilman Marion Barry's birthday party. Soon thereafter, they met to discuss the United investment.
"He's an impressive guy and a smart businessman," Payne said. "He takes a broad view and is a strategic thinker."
D.C. United Holdings will not own the team -- the league owns all 13 teams and awards operating rights to investors -- but will play a major role in whether the club is able to build a 27,000-seat stadium at Poplar Point in Anacostia in time for the 2009 season. City officials have publicly backed the project, but many hurdles, including financing, remain unresolved.
"Obviously, the team needs a new stadium and a new place to play," MacFarlane said. "We're going to be kicked out of RFK sooner or later, so that's one of the things we will be focused on immediately."
MacFarlane's arrival in MLS also strengthens the league's investor base. He joins, among others, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, whose sports and entertainment company, AEG, runs teams in Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles, and had been in charge of United for five years.
|
D.C. United's new lead investor Victor MacFarlane is viewed as an impressive guy and a smart businessman by those involved with the team and MLS.
| 24 | 0.888889 | 2.814815 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801352.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801352.html
|
For Windows Vista Security, Microsoft Called in Pros
|
2007011219
|
When Microsoft introduces its long-awaited Windows Vista operating system this month, it will have an unlikely partner to thank for making its flagship product safe and secure for millions of computer users across the world: the National Security Agency.
For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the help of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on foreign officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the Bush administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it has helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new operating system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from worms, Trojan horses and other insidious computer attackers.
"Our intention is to help everyone with security," Tony W. Sager, the NSA's chief of vulnerability analysis and operations group, said yesterday.
The NSA's impact may be felt widely. Windows commands more than 90 percent of the worldwide market share in desktop operating systems, and Vista, which is set to be released to consumers Jan. 30, is expected to be used by more than 600 million computer users by 2010, according to Al Gillen, an analyst at market research firm International Data.
Microsoft has not promoted the NSA's contributions, mentioning on its Web site the agency's role only at the end of its "Windows Vista Security Guide," which states that the "guide is not intended for home users" but for information and security specialists.
The Redmond, Wash., software maker declined to be specific about the contributions the NSA made to secure the Windows operating system.
The NSA also declined to be specific but said it used two groups -- a "red team" and a "blue team" -- to test Vista's security. The red team, for instance, posed as "the determined, technically competent adversary" to disrupt, corrupt or steal information. "They pretend to be bad guys," Sager said. The blue team helped Defense Department system administrators with Vista's configuration .
Microsoft said this is not the first time it has sought help from the NSA. For about four years, Microsoft has tapped the spy agency for security expertise in reviewing its operating systems, including the Windows XP consumer version and the Windows Server 2003 for corporate customers.
With hundreds of thousands of Defense Department employees using Microsoft's software, the NSA realizes that it's in its own interest to make the product as secure as possible. "It's partly a recognition that this is a commercial world," Sager said. "Our customers have spoken."
Microsoft also has sought the security expertise of other U.S. government and international entities, including NATO. "I cannot mention any of the other international agencies," said Donald R. Armstrong, senior program manager of Microsoft's government security program, citing the wishes of those agencies to remain anonymous.
Microsoft's concerns extend beyond the welfare of its software when it seeks the security expertise of government agencies. "When you get into an environment where a Microsoft product is used in a battlefield situation or a government situation where if a system is compromised, identities could be found out," and it could be a matter of life and death, Armstrong said.
Other software makers have turned to government agencies for security advice, including Apple, which makes the Mac OS X operating system. "We work with a number of U.S. government agencies on Mac OS X security and collaborated with the NSA on the Mac OS X security configuration guide," said Apple spokesman Anuj Nayar in an e-mail.
|
When Microsoft introduces its long-awaited Windows Vista operating system this month, it will have an unlikely partner to thank for making its flagship product safe and secure for millions of computer users across the world: the National Security Agency.
| 15.659091 | 1 | 44 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801003.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801003.html
|
Bush Picks Reagan White House Counsel Fielding to Succeed Miers
|
2007011219
|
President Bush has selected Fred F. Fielding to be his White House counsel, recruiting a seasoned Washington veteran to represent the president with Democratic congressional investigators and reprise the job he held under Ronald Reagan, sources close to the process said yesterday.
The White House plans to announce the appointment today, just days after longtime Bush loyalist Harriet Miers was eased out as the president's top lawyer in preparation for the anticipated struggle with a new Democratic Congress eager to investigate the administration. A White House official confirmed the appointment but insisted on anonymity because it has not been announced.
Fielding, 67, brings the experience and political heft that White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten has been seeking to counter any aggressive moves to probe the most controversial decisions of the Bush presidency. Smooth and soft-spoken yet battle-hardened, Fielding is considered a Republican "wise man" who Bush aides believe will be able to negotiate compromise without surrendering on the most important priorities.
"It sends the perfect signal that we are serious about the president's position and the principles he has articulated but we're also going to be reasonable and work together to get some of these issues resolved," said Helgi C. Walker, a former Bush White House associate counsel who works with Fielding at his firm, Wiley Rein & Fielding. "He brings stature and gravitas, and he also brings a very healthy perspective, the ability to prioritize in crafting a settlement."
Fielding served as deputy to White House counsel John W. Dean III under President Richard M. Nixon and was the first to tell Dean about the Watergate break-in. Yet Fielding was one of the few to emerge untainted by Watergate. In fact, he was suspected, wrongly, of being "Deep Throat," the inside source who helped Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncover the scandal.
Fielding served as White House counsel for Reagan from 1981 to 1986, handling a spate of conflict-of-interest situations and telling Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig he was wrong to assert that he had command authority when the president was shot. Fielding was Bush's transition counsel after the 2000 election, vetting the backgrounds of new administration officials. And he served as a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Fred will be a formidable person to deal with," said Democrat Richard Ben-Veniste, a Watergate prosecutor who served with Fielding on the Sept. 11 commission. "This change reflects the understanding by the president and his advisers in the administration that they will be in for a much more robust period of congressional oversight."
Ben-Veniste said Fielding sometimes played intermediary with the White House in conflicts over the release of information to the commission. "At times, Fred was somewhat dismayed by the positions taken by White House counsel and other agencies," Ben-Veniste said. "But by the same token, he was someone with whom the White House was in frequent contact."
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he does not know Fielding but understands that "he has a very distinguished record." Waxman, who plans to begin hearings on Feb. 6 into waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq contracting, said, "I hope he advises the president on ways to work with Congress."
The move to bring back a White House counsel from another era is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton's decision in the midst of the Whitewater investigation in 1994 to hire Lloyd N. Cutler as his chief lawyer, many years after Cutler served in the same position under President Jimmy Carter. Like Clinton, Bush is reaching out to a pillar of the Washington establishment in hopes of tamping down political troubles.
In Bush's case, he faces congressional demands for information on politically sensitive topics such as whether officials authorized the abuse of U.S.-held detainees, whether the administration turned a blind eye to profiteering by politically connected contractors in the Iraq war, how the White House responded to Hurricane Katrina and whether senior officials complied with the law in ordering heightened domestic surveillance. The White House counsel also monitors staff ethics issues and screens judicial nominations, including potential Supreme Court justices.
"Fred Fielding's been in the White House before and he understands how the place works, which is very important," said Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, who informally advises the White House on legal matters. "He understands how the Hill works, which is important. And he has widespread respect from all points on the spectrum."
|
President Bush has selected Fred F. Fielding to be his White House counsel, recruiting a seasoned Washington veteran to represent the president with Democratic congressional investigators and reprise the job he held under Ronald Reagan, sources close to the process said yesterday.
| 19.844444 | 1 | 45 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801486.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801486.html
|
House Votes To Tighten Rules on Tariff Breaks
|
2007011219
|
The House voted last week to shine a spotlight into the murky world of import-tariff suspensions, a little-known form of special-interest legislation that has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.
The House overwhelmingly approved a bill that, for the first time, officially equates tariff suspensions with a better-known variety of legislative pork, the congressional earmark. The new rules require public disclosure of each measure's sponsor, purpose and cost whenever lawmakers slip one into legislation.
The rules also require that congressional sponsors identify each person or corporation "reasonably anticipated to benefit" from the breaks on import taxes.
The rules direct sponsoring lawmakers to certify that they and their spouses have no financial stake in the tax breaks, and they ban the practice of trading provisions for members' votes.
In one of the first official acts of the new Democratic majority, the House approved the rule changes 280 to 152. Some analysts predicted the changes would encourage increased scrutiny of a practice that, a Washington Post study found, often benefits large foreign-based corporations.
The Senate is expected to take up similar legislation this week.
In recent months, the number of congressionally approved tariff suspensions has soared. It rose from 440 at the end of 2004 to more than 800 in the just-concluded 109th Congress, including provisions covering such products as shoes, camcorders and boiled oysters.
Lawmakers rolled 520 of the suspensions into just one must-pass bill that was approved in December, in the final hours of the last Congress.
Such suspensions often apply to one product imported by one company, according to The Post's analysis in September. The provisions rarely, if ever, identify the company that initiated the legislation. Some provisions do not identify the product, either, referring instead to strings of numbers keyed to massive volumes of tariff tables.
Individual tariff suspensions are supposed to cost the Treasury no more than $500,000 a year in lost revenue. But in recent years the authors of a number of the provisions managed to file multiple measures aimed at a single product.
Supporters of the suspensions say they create jobs and lower consumer prices by reducing costs for U.S. manufacturers. The proponents say that proposed suspensions are reviewed by the Commerce Department, customs officials and the U.S. International Trade Commission. Congressional committees also seek industry comment on the proposed suspensions and recently began posting any objections on their Web sites. Lawmakers say they generally drop a measure if a domestic producer objects.
Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), who is expected to chair the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade, hailed the changes as "a useful step forward."
"The more transparency the better," Levin said. "It will be easier for people to verify the basic rules are being followed; outside groups will be able to more readily check."
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said the changes will help root out what he described as "old-fashioned pork."
"This should be one more lesson to my party: We were fired with cause. We got lazy, we got too cozy with K Street, and this is an example where flipping the majority cleans out the closet. I very reluctantly give kudos to the majority."
The House bill applies only to tariff suspensions that benefit 10 or fewer companies. Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, hailed the legislation as a "good start" but said it should apply to suspensions that benefit as many as 100 companies.
"Ten doesn't really pass the smell test," Alexander said.
|
Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2006 elections,campaigns,Democrats,Republicans,political cartoons,opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy,government tech,political analysis and reports.
| 18.051282 | 0.461538 | 0.564103 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801631.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801631.html
|
U.S. Submarine, Japanese Ship Collide
|
2007011219
|
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- A U.S. nuclear-powered submarine and Japanese merchant ship collided near the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz, the U.S. Navy and Japanese government said Tuesday. No one was seriously injured.
Damage to the fast-attack USS Newport News submarine and the tanker was light and there was no resulting spill of oil or leakage of nuclear fuel, officials from U.S. Navy, Japanese and Emirates government said.
Both ships remained able to navigate, said a Navy official in Japan who requested anonymity because the details of the incident had not yet been released. Japan's Kyodo News agency first reported the collision.
The bow of the nuclear-powered Newport News hit the stern of the oil tanker Mogamigawa as the vessels were passing just outside the Straits Monday night, causing minor damage to the Japanese vessel, Japan's Foreign Ministry said. The Japanese government said it was informed of the crash by the Navy and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.
The tanker, operated by Japanese shipping company Kawasaki Kisen Ltd., was able to continue to a nearby port in the United Arab Emirates, the statement said. Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency described the ship as a supertanker.
Commander Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain confirmed there had been a crash and that there were no injuries. Aandahl said the sub had surfaced and its crew was evaluating damage.
There was no leakage of radioactive material in the collision, Kyodo reported, citing Japan's Foreign Ministry.
The Newport News is based in Norfolk, Va., and was launched in 1986. It has a crew of 127.
The Mogamigawa was traveling from the Persian Gulf to Singapore and was carrying a crew of eight Japanese and 16 Filipinos, Kyodo said. Officials from the shipping company were not immediately available for comment.
The Japanese government has asked the U.S. side to investigate. Aandahl said a Navy investigation would begin shortly.
In February 2001, a U.S. Navy submarine rammed into a Japanese fishing vessel in waters off Hawaii, killing nine people. The American captain's delay in apologizing for the crash triggered protests by the victims' families.
The 34-mile wide Straits of Hormuz forms the entrance to the Gulf, through which about two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass. Cargo vessels headed for Dubai, the world's largest manmade port, also pass through the straits, bordered by Iran and Oman.
U.S. naval vessels have been involved in previous collisions with commercial ships in the busy shipping lanes around the Persian Gulf. In September 2005, the U.S. nuclear submarine Philadelphia collided with a Turkish cargo ship in the Gulf, causing no injuries.
In July 2004, the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy collided with a dhow in the Gulf, leaving no survivors on the traditional Arab sailing boat. The Navy relieved the Kennedy's commander, Capt. Stephen B. Squires, after the incident.
Fleets of U.S. and allied navy vessels conduct "maritime security operations" in the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and western Indian Ocean, attempting to block smuggling of weapons to Iraq and Somalia, nuclear components to Iran, as well as the movement of drug shipments and terrorists.
Associated Press writers Hans Greimel in Tokyo and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.
|
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- A U.S. nuclear-powered submarine and Japanese merchant ship collided near the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz, the U.S. Navy and Japanese government said Tuesday. No one was seriously injured.
| 14.790698 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010701359.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010701359.html
|
War's Toll on Iraqis Put at 22,950 in '06
|
2007011219
|
BAGHDAD, Jan. 7 -- More than 17,000 Iraqi civilians and police officers died violently in the latter half of 2006, according to Iraqi Health Ministry statistics, a sharp increase that coincided with rising sectarian strife since the February bombing of a landmark Shiite shrine.
In the first six months of last year, 5,640 Iraqi civilians and police officers were killed, but that number more than tripled to 17,310 in the latter half of the year, according to data provided by a Health Ministry official with direct knowledge of the statistics. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, said those numbers remained incomplete, suggesting the final tally of violent deaths could be higher.
Much of last year's politically motivated bloodshed unfolded in Baghdad. The Bush administration is considering sending more U.S. troops there, as the newly ascendant Democrats in Congress press for a military withdrawal. Bringing stability and rule of law to the capital is a cornerstone of the administration's strategy to exit Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced over the weekend his own security push to tame Baghdad's sectarian strife.
Last year's spike in casualties occurred despite an ambitious U.S. military operation in the capital, Together Forward, that involved thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops cordoning off some of the deadliest neighborhoods and conducting house-to-house searches.
"We have been in a reaction mode in many ways to the events that occurred because of the [February] bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, and that began a cycle of sectarian violence that we've been working very, very, very hard to keep under control," Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the former second-ranking commander in Iraq, told reporters last month.
"Now, I'm not in any way happy with what I see in Baghdad. The level of violence is way too high," he added.
The Health Ministry's full-year death toll of 22,950, although incomplete, is higher than the 13,896 violent deaths of civilians, police officers and soldiers reported Jan. 1 by Iraq's ministries of defense, health and interior. The United Nations, in a November report, estimated that more than 28,000 Iraqi civilians had died violently in the first 10 months of 2006, but that count was disputed by the government. The differences in the numbers could not be reconciled.
Iraq's death toll from violence is controversial because it provides a vivid report card on the difficulty of U.S. and Iraqi efforts to bring order to the country. Neither the U.S. government nor the military provides death totals for Iraqis.
"It is often very difficult to gain consensus on the numbers of casualties in Iraq. It really is a government of Iraq issue," said Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, a U.S. military spokesman. U.S. and Iraqi officials have discouraged Baghdad's medical officials from releasing morgue counts.
The Iraqi government does not provide a single official death toll, leaving it up to individual ministries to release data, which are often conflicting.
The Health Ministry compiles data from morgues across the nation and from government hospitals. Those figures include Iraqis killed in bombings, terrorist acts, militia attacks, roadside explosions, drive-by shootings, kidnappings and other acts of violence. They also include the numerous unidentified corpses that turn up virtually every day, often handcuffed and showing signs of torture.
The Health Ministry data are believed to be more reliable than those issued by other sources because they are based solely on death certificates. But the Health Ministry, as a policy, does not publicly release these statistics. The ministry is under the control of the Shiite religious party of Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is behind much of the sectarian killing.
|
BAGHDAD, Jan. 7 -- More than 17,000 Iraqi civilians and police officers died violently in the latter half of 2006, according to Iraqi Health Ministry statistics, a sharp increase that coincided with rising sectarian strife since the February bombing of a landmark Shiite shrine.
| 15.104167 | 1 | 48 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700688.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700688.html
|
President Bush on Former President Ford
|
2007010119
|
BUSH: All of us are saddened by the news that former President Gerald R. Ford passed away last night.
I spoke with Betty Ford. On behalf of all Americans, Laura and I extend to Mrs. Ford and all President Ford's family our prayers and our condolences.
President Ford was a great man who devoted the best years of his life in serving the United States. He was a true gentleman who reflected the best in America's character.
Before the world knew his name, he served with distinction in the United States Navy and in the United States Congress. As a congressman from Michigan, and then as vice president, he commanded the respect and earned the goodwill of all who had the privilege of knowing him.
On August 9, 1974, he stepped into the presidency without ever having sought the office. He assumed power in a period of great division and turmoil. For a nation that needed healing and for an office that needed a calm and steady hand, Gerald Ford came along when we needed him most.
During his time in office, the American people came to know President Ford as a man of complete integrity who led our country with common sense and kind instincts.
Americans will always admire Gerald Ford's unflinching performance of duty and the honorable conduct of his administration, and the great rectitude of the man himself.
We mourn the loss of such a leader. And our 38th president will always have a special place in our nation's memory.
President Ford lived 93 years, and his life was a blessing to America. And now this fine man will be taken to his rest by a family that will love him always and by a nation that will be grateful to him forever.
May God bless Gerald Ford.
|
BUSH: All of us are saddened by the news that former President Gerald R. Ford passed away last night.
| 16.285714 | 1 | 21 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700576.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700576.html
|
Statement From Vice President Cheney Regarding Death of Gerald R. Ford
|
2007010119
|
I am deeply saddened by the death of former President Gerald R. Ford.
President Ford led an honorable life that brought great credit to the United States of America. Throughout his career, as a Naval officer, Congressman, Vice President and President, Gerald Ford embodied the best values of a great generation: decency, integrity, and devotion to duty. Thirty-two years ago, he assumed the nation's highest office during the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. In that troubled era, America needed strength, wisdom, and good judgment, and those qualities came to us in the person of Gerald R. Ford. When he left office, he had restored public trust in the presidency, and the nation once again looked to the future with confidence and faith.
I was proud to know President Ford, and to have served in the White House as his chief of staff. He was a dear friend and mentor to me until this very day. I feel a great sense of loss at his passing, and Lynne and our daughters join me in offering heartfelt sympathy to Betty Ford and her entire family.
|
I am deeply saddened by the death of former President Gerald R. Ford.
| 15.357143 | 1 | 14 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701153.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701153.html
|
Gerald R. Ford: A Healer of Wounds
|
2007010119
|
Gerald R. Ford was the most accidental of American presidents, but when he unexpectedly appeared at the crossroads of history, he seemed to have been placed there by a deliberate act of providence.
In one important respect, Ford was different from most of his predecessors and all of his successors: He did not seek the presidency. He was a product of a small Midwest city and the House of Representatives. His political ambition--seemingly hopeless in a time of Democratic domination of Congress--was to become the first Republican speaker in a generation.
Ford became the 38th president because of the shortcomings of others and because he had earned the trust of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. When the corrupt Spiro T. Agnew was forced to resign as vice president, it was Ford's congressional colleagues who virtually forced President Richard M. Nixon to accept him as Agnew's successor.
And when the embattled Nixon was finally engulfed by the Watergate scandal and forced to resign himself, it was the unimposing "gentleman from Michigan" who inherited the leadership of a deeply troubled nation.
"More than any other president of this century, Ford was chosen for his integrity and trustworthiness: his peers in Congress put him in the White House because he told the truth and kept his word," wrote James Cannon, a White House aide to Ford, in an essay recalling that tumultuous time.
In many ways, Ford seemed ill equipped to be president. He had never held an executive position in government, he had limited experience in foreign policy and national security affairs, and he was an uninspiring, sometimes awkward public speaker.
But offsetting those weaknesses was Ford's one great strength: He was not Nixon.
He was, in fact, the anti-Nixon, so different from his darkly brooding predecessor that the country seemed to heave a collective sigh of relief when he took office. It was news that, on the first full day of his presidency, the new chief executive toasted English muffins in the kitchen of his Alexandria home.
Nothing better exemplified the change in tone that Ford brought to the White House and the country as a whole than the relationship that developed between him and the White House press corps. The Nixon White House had been at war with the press for months, even years, and the constant sniping had already begun to sour national politics.
Ford was different. Behind his back, the reporters made fun of him for his sometimes fractured language and the occasional slip while descending the stairs from Air Force One. But especially during the grueling 1976 presidential campaign, when Ford closed a 30-point gap in the polls and almost overtook his Democratic challenger, Jimmy Carter, they developed an abiding respect and affection for the man.
One day late in that campaign, Ford appeared at a rally in San Diego. Among those in the audience was a young man who was just starting out in a role that would make him semi-famous as "the San Diego chicken," the unofficial mascot for that city's professional sports team.
Ford spotted the man dressed as a chicken and had a typically human response. "And the chicken," he bellowed in a voice grown hoarse from the campaign, "I love it."
|
Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2006 elections,campaigns,Democrats,Republicans,political cartoons,opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy,government tech,political analysis and reports.
| 16.051282 | 0.589744 | 0.641026 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/27/DI2006122700663.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/27/DI2006122700663.html
|
Gerald R. Ford: His Political Life
|
2007010119
|
Audio: Broder on Ford's Life and Career (Washington Post Radio, Dec. 27)
Silver Spring, Md.: Hello and thank you for doing this discussion on such short notice. One of the captions for the photos of President Ford on the Post's Web site notes that Ford was not Nixon's first choice to fill the vice president's position upon Agnew's resignation. Who was his first choice? Given Ford's position as minority leader and how well regarded he was, I was surprised to learn he had not been Nixon's first choice. Thank you.
David S. Broder: The historians have said that Nixon's first choice was former Texas Governor John B. Connolly who had served as Treasury Secretary. But Nixon was told that Connolly would have difficulty being confirmed as vice president by the Senate and House because Democrats were still resentful of Connolly's having switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party.
New York. N.Y.: As a leader who was never elected to national or even statewide office, should Gerald Ford be given all the honors and respect traditionally given to presidents?
David S. Broder: In my view, President Ford is fully deserving of the traditional honors. He served the nation in its highest office at a difficult time and with great distinction.
Ocala, Fla.: Thanks for joining us today Mr. Broder. If you could speculate, what would the consequences of President Ford NOT pardoning President Nixon have been?
David S. Broder: What an interesting question. My guess is that there would have been strong public pressure for prosecution of Richard Nixon, since several of his White House associates were already facing criminal charges. A lengthy trial would have been a difficult ordeal for the country, something President Ford wanted to spare Americans. I cannot, of course, guess what the verdict might have been.
New York, N.Y.: Thank you for doing this chat. What role, if any, did Pres. Ford play in subsequent administrations? Did Clinton/Bush ever call on him for advice or anything like that?
David S. Broder: I think there were occasions where the first President Bush consulted with President Ford. But I do not know how often that happened.
Salt Lake City, Utah: Hi David,
Thanks for taking questions. In the last ten years we've had an interesting national lesson in how two very different presidential administrations respond to criticism of government corruption, misjudgments, and ethical lapses. Ford assumed office during a period in history characterized by rampant criticism of the government and politicians. How did he and his advisors handle this? Are there lessons modern presidents could learn from Ford's example?
David S. Broder: Thank you for the question. I think President Ford's response the scandals of the Nixon era was based on his belief in openness of government. He and his associates made themselves easily available to reporters and ordinary citizens to explain what they were doing and why. Whenever there were questions about ethics, Ford responded directly, and on one famous occasion, even went before a committee of Congress to explain what was happening. He set a model of candor that could be instructive for our current political officials.
Washington, D.C.: As a young man with no memory of the Ford administration, I must rely on the teachings of my elders. I know Ford's decision to pardon Nixon was wildly unpopular at the time, yet my American history textbooks and teachers and generally agreed with Ford that the decision was necessary and unavoidable. Still, I can't help feeling that the nation missed an important opportunity to expressly define what is, and is not, acceptable exercise of presidential power. With the further lessons from the Clinton impeachment and the resurrection of the imperial presidency under Bush, do you believe history still supports Ford's choice to end the "nightmare" rather than seek a full accounting?
David S. Broder: That is a difficult question. History is likely to make a divided judgment on President Ford's decision. For myself, I thought and wrote at the time that he was well justified to spare the country further struggling with the Nixon legacy, but I can certainly acknowledge the point you make about the lost opportunity to set a clear legal standard for future presidents.
Beaumont, Tex.: Presidential send-ups on "Saturday Night Live" began with Chevy Chase as a very clumsy Gerald Ford. Do you know how Ford took these sketches?
David S. Broder: Yes, I do. He found Chevy Chase very amusing and appeared with him several times, but he always told us reporters that he wanted us to remember that it was a parody, and he was in fact a pretty graceful athlete.
Oklahoma City, Okla.: At the time of pardon, many in the press and public cried foul, alleging that a deal had been struck (i.e., Nixon's resignation in exchange for a pardon). Did you feel that way at the time, and have your feelings changed?
David S. Broder: No, I felt and wrote at the time that President Ford made the right decision, but you are correct that there was widespread criticism of his action. In retrospect, I would still defend what he did.
Washington, D.C.: I read in the obituaries today that President Reagan never once invited President Ford to the White House during the former's time in office. What was the nature of their relationship, particularly following their battle for the '76 nomination?
David S. Broder: It was never a cordial relationship. President Ford believed that President Reagan's challenge in the Republican primaries of 1976 cost him dearly in his effort at election. He was also dissatisfied with the degree of support that Reagan gave to him after the convention in Kansas City. When Reagan was nominated in 1980, Ford made it clear that he would not have been his choice for the Republican nomination.
Philadelphia, Pa.: How will history judge Mr. Ford's work on the Warren Commission? Did his part in that cover up have anything to do with his choice as VEEP?
David S. Broder: All right, so we are into Warren Commission conspiracy. I do not think seriously anybody believes that the two periods of President Ford's life are in any way connected.
Chatsworth, Calif.: What do you regard as Ford's single greatest accomplishment as president?
David S. Broder: Unquestionably, his restoration of public trust in the presidency and in the conduct of that high office. The breach of trust under Richard Nixon had been terribly damaging to the country and Ford did a great public service in rebuilding the structure of public confidence in our government.
Alexandria, Va.: Do you have any sense of how Nixon regarded Ford? Did he like him, respect him? I always thought Nixon did not care for the man, and choose him as VP because Ford was a popular figure in Congress and could be easily confirmed.
David S. Broder: There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support your view. Nixon spoke despairingly of Ford in White House conversations, some of them captured on tape. Undoubtedly Ford's popularity in Congress was a major reason, perhaps the principal reason, that Nixon chose him to fill the vacancy for vice president when Spiro Agnew was forced to resign.
Arlington, Va.: President Ford had closely observed the Vietnam War and difficult consequences for our Nation. Did he ever make any comparisons to the War in Iraq? If not what to you speculate his comparison may be? Thanks.
David S. Broder: I am not aware of any comments from President Ford about the war in Iraq and I cannot speculate about his attitude.
Rockville, Md.: You note that President Nixon wanted John Connolly to replace Agnew. Didn't Nelson Rockefeller come into the mix, but Nixon decided he didn't want someone who was "more presidential" to be no. 2?
Subsequently, comment if you would about the selection of Rockefeller to be VP and how Ford wrestled with the decision to dump Rockefeller from the ticket in 1976.
David S. Broder: I am unaware of any serious consideration that Nixon gave to Rockefeller. They had been rivals and I doubt that Nixon wanted Rockefeller as his possible successor. When Ford had to decide about keeping Rockefeller on the ticket, he was under heavy political pressure to appease the conservative wing of his party. He was persuaded that dumping Rockefeller might dissuade Ronald Reagan from challenging him in the primaries. It did not. And later Ford said publicly that he thought dropping Rockefeller was the biggest he had made as president. He reached out to Rockefeller and Rockefeller's family in his retirement years.
Alexandria, Va.: One of the most fascinating TV events I remember is the 1980 GOP convention when there was talk of a Reagan - Ford co-presidency. Was this really considered seriously? And do you think Ford really wanted to run in 1980 but was dissuaded by other factors, including his family? Thanks.
David S. Broder: That was an amazing day at the Detroit convention. For a few hours that day, I think both Reagan and Ford were seriously considering Ford going on to the ticket, the idea was being pushed by a number of people with ambitions of their own, including Henry Kissinger. But when it came time to make a decision, both men realized the folly of that scheme and they dropped the plan quickly, setting the stage for Reagan to pick George H. W. Bush as his running mate.
Laurel, Md.: For some years after he left office, people criticized some of Ford's post-presidential acts for seeming a bit tacky. (A big contract to be a commentator on NBC for instance.) OTOH, Ford was not an independently wealthy man like most modern presidents except Clinton have been.
Did Ford's financial state play a role in the kind of ex-President he was?
David S. Broder: I don't know the answer to that question. You are correct about Ford's personal finances, but he had many wealthy friends who saw to it that he had many money-making opportunities as soon as he left the presidency, so I don't think he ever felt financially pressed.
Edmond, Okla.: Do you have any sense of how President Ford coped with the enormous pressures heaped upon him in assuming office the way he did. It would've destroyed lesser men (and it nearly did destroy Mrs. Ford -- though this is not to disparage the great contributions she would later make as a result). Was he a man of faith? Was he naturally cool under pressure? What sense do you have?
David S. Broder: President Ford was a man of faith, though he never advertised his religious beliefs. I am sure that he found strength in his religion and he also had a wonderfully supportive wife in Betty Ford, and a host of friends in both parties from his years of service in the House of Representatives. He had a gift of friendship and engendered extraordinary loyalty among the men and women who served with him in the White House, and I am sure all of that helped him cope with the pressure of the job.
Ramsey, N.J.: Why did President Ford say that Russia did not dominate Eastern Europe in his debate with Jimmy Carter? Did he really believe that, did the pressure of the situation force him to misspeak? Seems astounding that a President would make such a comment.
David S. Broder: I think he simply misspoke. He said afterward that what he meant to imply was that the U.S. would not accept the notion of permanent Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, but obviously he knew that Soviet forces were in Poland and other countries at the time that he spoke. Put it down to nervousness or just a bad moment but it was costly to his campaign.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Today's story mentioned that President Ford received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Is that true or is it being confused with another honor not related to heroism in battle?
David S. Broder: I think it is another medal to the best of my knowledge he did not receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for anything with his service in World War II.
Bowie, Md.: Ford was the only Republican presidential candidate since 1964 to do badly in the South. How well would he have fit in today's Republican party?
David S. Broder: A good question. He might have difficulty being nominated for president in today's Republican party because he and his wife were outspoken advocates of the pro-choice position on abortion. Republicans have not nominated a candidate of that stripe since President Ford.
McLean, Va.: Some have said that Ford was too much under the sway of Kissinger. At the time was there any serious consideration of getting a new secretary of state?
David S. Broder: Not that I can recall. In the 1976 primaries, Ronald Reagan was highly critical of Kissinger and the policy of detente. But Ford never considered abandoning Kissinger as far as I know.
Arlington, Va.: Is it possible that because Ford did not have to raise any funds to campaign for his presidency, he had more flexibility to be open and honest in office?
David S. Broder: It is possible. He came to office with far fewer obligations than most of those who have gone through the normal process of a lengthy campaign and all the fundraising that is required for it. I think he valued that freedom of operation during the time he was in office.
Lincoln, Mass.: What was Ford's relationship like with Tip O'Neill, both as Congressmen and after Ford became president?
David S. Broder: Ford and O'Neill were great friends in Congress and the friendship continued after Ford moved to the White House. The very first trip that Ford took as president was to Tip O'Neill's annual golf tournament in Massachusetts and the two old friends played around together as cozily as they ever had in the past.
Eagle River, Ark.: President Ford inherited a nation not only weakened by the Presidency but also an economy ravaged by war and spending and a demoralized military fresh from our defeat in Vietnam. How well did President Ford address these issues and in context weren't these concerns sufficient to justify the pardon and get on with their solutions? Who was giving economic advice during his presidency?
David S. Broder: You are correct that President Ford was dealing with a difficult domestic and international set of challenges. I think the record on the domestic side was mixed. His economic team, led by Alan Greenspan, first thought the challenge was inflation, but suddenly found themselves coping with a severe recession. They struggled to keep policy abreast of changing economic conditions. Abroad, Ford had to deal with the remnants of the Vietnam War and an aggressive Soviet Union. He did his best but I doubt that anyone would claim brilliant success for him on that front. Certainly, the challenges facing the country were large enough to justify his decision to tempt to put the Nixon controversies behind him by issuing the pardon.
Bridgewater, Mass.: What kind of a relationship did Ford develop with Carter after they were both ex-presidents? It seemed quite a novelty at the time to see the two former rivals appearing together, promoting the same cause.
David S. Broder: They developed a warm relationship. I think that is a tribute to President Ford's friendliness. He managed to forgive Carter for the barbs during the campaign and they worked together very effectively on several humanitarian causes.
Rockville, Md.: We know that the Nixon library is built near subterranean sliding plates that may one day cause an earthquake ... So, is there any truth to the rumor that Ford may be buried in California, on a hill overlooking Nixon's faults?
David S. Broder: The answer is no.
Ex-Washingtonian: When High Sidey died, Gerald Ford wrote a lovely tribute in which he mentioned the irony that he had designated Sidey to eulogize him at his own funeral. Any idea whom Ford chose to replace Sidey? Did Ford plan all the details of his own funeral well in advance? If so, why the delay in announcing them now?
David S. Broder: I recall that letter about Hugh Sidey very well and it was typical of President Ford's generosity of spirit. I don't know if he chose a substitute for Hugh, nor do I know how much of his own funeral he had planned.
Rockville, Md.: I recall that President Ford was the target of at least two assassination attempts. Did he ever speak about those incidents? How would you say it affected him?
David S. Broder: He spoke about them quite often and quite openly and said that he never feared for his own life despite those assassination attempts. Knowing him, I can believe that his personal safety was not a matter of real concern for him. He had been through the war and like others of his generation had a fatalistic attitude about death.
David S. Broder: I'd like thank everybody for participating in this conversation and for sharing your memories of a man for whom I have great admiration.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online 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.
| 82.02439 | 0.609756 | 0.756098 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701142.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701142.html
|
Court: Investigators Can Keep Positive Test Results
|
2007010119
|
Federal investigators can keep the positive drug test results for more than 100 Major League Baseball players -- who have not been publicly identified -- that they seized during raids of baseball's testing laboratories two years ago, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled yesterday, overturning in part a lower court ruling.
The decision means additional major league players could get swept up in the probe into sports doping that began in 2003 when a raid of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) in Burlingame, Calif., yielded information that tied dozens of elite and professional athletes to steroids and other drugs.
San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds is already the subject of a perjury investigation in connection with the investigation, and the home of former Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Jason Grimsley was searched for drugs by BALCO investigators last summer after Grimsley admitted using human growth hormone and other drugs.
Lower courts had sided with the Major League Baseball Players Association, which cited privacy concerns in arguing that investigators were entitled only to the drug test results for 10 players with ties to the BALCO lab and should return the others.
The positive test results came during the 2003 season, when a program of confidential testing was undertaken jointly by Major League Baseball and the MLBPA to determine whether the sport had a problem with steroid abuse. No players who tested positive were identified, and none received penalties.
In a 100-plus page opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ruled investigators did not necessarily have to return information about other major league players that was found intermingled with computer data on the 10 players who were the subject of the search, and it also ruled that a subpoena for all of the positive drug test results from 2003 should not have been quashed by a lower court judge.
The opinion from Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Sidney R. Thomas, and Richard C. Tallman included a partial dissent from Thomas.
Elliot R. Peters, a San Francisco-based attorney for the players' association, could not immediately be reached for comment. A spokesman in the players' association's New York office said the agency would have no comment until today.
|
SAN FRANCISCO -- The names and urine samples of about 100 Major League Baseball players who tested positive three years ago can be used by federal investigators, a court ruled Wednesday _ a decision that could have implications for Barry Bonds.
| 9.511628 | 0.813953 | 1.651163 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600776.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600776.html
|
Bush's New Look on Iraq: Weary
|
2007010119
|
Watching President Bush in recent weeks has become a grim kind of reality TV show. In almost every news conference, speech and photo opportunity, the topic is the same: what to do about the grinding war in Iraq. Bush has let the facade crack open -- admitting that his strategy for victory isn't working -- but then he struggles to rebuild it with new words of confidence.
The stress of the job -- so well hidden for much of the past six years -- has begun to show on Bush's face. He often looks burdened, distracted, haunted by a question that has no good answer. When a photographer captures him at ease, as in a sweet Texas-romance picture of Bush and his wife, Laura, that appeared in People magazine last week, it's as if he has escaped the Iraq sweatbox.
I grew up in a Washington that was struggling with the nightmare of a failing war in Vietnam. The government officials of that time were people who behaved as if they'd never known failure in their lives. They had the rosy confidence of the chosen -- "the best and the brightest," as David Halberstam put it. But then the war began to grind them down. I see that same meat grinder at work now. Bush and his officials are strong characters; they work hard not to let you see them sweat. But the anguish and exhaustion are there.
Bush is not a man for introspection. That's part of his flinty personality -- the tight, clipped answers and the forced jocularity of the nicknames he gives to reporters and White House aides. That's why this version of reality TV is so poignant: This very private man has begun to talk out loud about the emotional turmoil inside. He is letting it bleed.
Bush opened the emotional curtain at a news conference last week. A reporter noted that Lyndon Johnson hadn't been able to sleep well during the Vietnam War and asked Bush if this was a "painful time" for him. He gave an unexpectedly personal answer: "Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I read about it every night. And my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband or wife or son and daughter. It just does. And so when you ask about pain, that's pain."
Bush's "state of denial," as Bob Woodward rightly called it, has officially ended. He actually spoke the words "We're not winning" last week in an interview with The Post, coupling it with the reverse: "We're not losing." But in truth, he cannot abide the possibility that Iraq will not end in victory. So a day after his "not winning" comment, he half took it back, saying: "I believe that we're going to win," and then adding oddly, as if to reassure himself: "I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you've got to know. We're going to succeed."
Policy debates in this White House are often described as battles between competing advisers -- Dick Cheney wants this; the Joint Chiefs favor that; Condi Rice favors a third outcome. This kind of analysis implies that Bush isn't really master of his own house, but I think it's a big mistake. The truth is that with this president, the only opinion that finally matters is his own. And he's a stubborn man. Military leaders can tell him it's a mistake to surge troops into Baghdad, but that doesn't mean he will listen.
Bush says he doesn't care what happens now to his poll numbers, and I believe him. He broke through the political barriers a while ago. I sense that, as he anguishes about Iraq, he has in mind the judgment of future historians. He said it plainly in an interview in October with conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly: "Look, history is interesting. I read three books on George Washington last year. And my opinion is that if they're still analyzing the first president, the 43rd president ought to be doing what he thinks is right. And eventually, historians will come and realize whether . . . the decisions I made made sense."
What makes reality TV gripping is that it's all happening live -- the contestants make their choices under pressure, win or lose. So too with Bush. He is making a vast wager -- of American lives, treasure and the nation's security -- that his judgments about Iraq were right. The Baker-Hamilton report gave him a chance to take some chips off the table, but Bush doesn't seem interested. He is still playing to win. The audience is shouting out advice, but the man under the spotlight knows he will have to make this decision alone.
The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues athttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
|
The stress of the job -- so well hidden for much of the past six years -- has begun to show on President Bush's face..
| 36.740741 | 0.962963 | 18.222222 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600774.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600774.html
|
Hope For New Orleans
|
2007010119
|
Nearly 16 months after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans remains devastated. In the Lower Ninth Ward (primarily black and poor), mid-city (mixed-race and middle class) and Lakeside (richer and whiter), houses are boarded up and ruined; shattered windows reveal rooms full of debris; perhaps one in 10 places has a FEMA trailer parked outside, as a few returning residents desperately try to reclaim what they have lost. Thousands of small businesses have disappeared. Even in the French Quarter, which was left largely intact after Katrina, shopkeepers despair of being able to survive given the decline in tourism. Repeatedly, people declare: "I have not received a single dollar of federal aid."
Yet in this season that celebrates the birth of a child in what today would be called a homeless shelter, a remarkable resiliency of spirit remains in New Orleans. Yes, only half the population there in August 2005 has returned. The suicide rate has increased 300 percent, and less than half of the schools and hospitals that existed 16 months ago are functioning.
But energy, engagement and love persist, creating tiny ripples of hope, from thousands of individual acts of courage -- ripples that can, in words Robert Kennedy uttered 40 years ago in South Africa, "build a current" able to topple the mightiest walls of oppression.
In the Lower Ninth Ward, more than a hundred volunteers gather in a Catholic school (St. Mary of the Angels) to help secure -- with the community -- a foothold toward starting anew. Some are college students, others grandparents and hippies. All have come to live and work with local residents. Most spend their days gutting houses so that returning residents can be eligible for federal rebuilding funds. Tearing down sheetrock infested with toxic mold is dangerous work. Others toil in the kitchen, helping members of the "Rainbow Tribe" -- a commune -- prepare Brunswick stew, macaroni and cheese, and fried chicken for 150.
No one sees this as a lark. The unpaid staff briefs workers on the hazards they will face, insisting that respirators fit snugly so that no toxins are inhaled. The kitchen crew tests every dish to be sure it has reached a temperature high enough to eliminate any chance of food poisoning. Everyone is deadly serious -- and also clearly moved by the importance of the mission. They are white and black, male and female. They respect the integrity and autonomy of the neighbors they are there to help, committed not to fall into old hierarchies of white and black, male and female.
In the civil rights movement, such people called themselves a "beloved community" -- people transformed by an ethos of love and justice into becoming soldiers for justice. If redemption can follow tragedy in New Orleans, these volunteers -- in partnership with community residents -- will be the ones to make it happen.
But the signs of hope are not just in the courage of people in the Ninth Ward. They are there as well in the celebration of community among those less afflicted by poverty, people who have come back to New Orleans out of love for their city in order to make it the kind of place they want their children to grow up in. They have their own rituals.
On a Sunday, in a small bar, 30 neighborhood residents gather for a weekly get-together. White and black, gay and straight, old and young, they listen to their favorite jazz quartet and vocalist. They hug, laugh, cheer. They welcome strangers in their midst, anxious to talk about what they've been through. A father dances with his young daughter. The cook mingles with those eating from the buffet she's prepared, embracing her friends. In its own way this, too, is a "beloved community" -- people sustained by a history of caring about each other and about something in New Orleans that has made their spirits fresh and engaged.
From one perspective, the future of New Orleans is bleak. Surely no governmental body, least of all FEMA, has given anyone reason for confidence. But this is no ordinary place, and these are no ordinary people. Rooted in their history is a vision -- admittedly utopian -- that affirms the possibilities of living in biracial peace; prizes grace, hospitality and humor; and fights like hell against bureaucrats who refuse to acknowledge the human potential for rising above self-interest and cynicism. Maybe -- just maybe -- there is reason to hope.
William H. Chafe, a history professor at Duke University, writes about race and gender. He recently returned from a weekend as a volunteer in New Orleans.
|
Post-Katrina, the city remains devastated. But the spirit among residents and volunteers is helping a new 'beloved community' take root.
| 33.111111 | 0.814815 | 1.259259 |
medium
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773.html
|
The Right Type of 'Surge'
|
2007010119
|
Reports on the Bush administration's efforts to craft a new strategy in Iraq often use the term "surge" but rarely define it. Estimates of the number of troops to be added in Baghdad range from fewer than 10,000 to more than 30,000. Some "surges" would last a few months, others a few years.
We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.
The key to the success is to change the military mission -- instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control.
Any military strategy must of course be accompanied by a range of diplomatic, political, economic and reconciliation initiatives, but those alone will not contain the violence either. Success in Iraq today requires a well-thought-out military operation aimed at bringing security to the people of Baghdad as quickly as possible -- a traditional counterinsurgency mission.
Of all the "surge" options out there, short ones are the most dangerous. Increasing troop levels in Baghdad for three or six months would virtually ensure defeat. It takes that long for newly arrived soldiers to begin to understand the areas where they operate. Short surges would redeploy them just as they began to be effective.
In addition, a short surge would play into the enemy's hands. Both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias expect the U.S. presence to fade away over the course of 2007, and they expect any surge to be brief. They will naturally go to ground in the face of a short surge and wait until we have left. They will then attack the civilian population and whatever Iraqi security forces remain, knowing them to be easier targets than U.S. soldiers and Marines. They will work hard to raise the level of sectarian violence in order to prove that our efforts have failed.
We have seen this pattern so many times before that we can be virtually certain the enemy will follow it in the face of a short surge. The only cure is to maintain our presence long enough either to root out the hiding enemy or to defeat him when he becomes impatient. A surge that lasted at least 18 months would achieve that aim. It would also provide time to bring Iraqi forces up to the level needed to fight whatever enemy remains.
The size of the surge matters as much as the length. Baghdad is a large city. Any sound military plan will break the problem of bringing security to the Iraqi capital into manageable parts. But there remains a minimum level of force necessary to make adequate progress in a reasonable time.
U.S. forces working with Iraqi troops can clear neighborhoods fairly quickly. Unfortunately, past endeavors such as Operation Together Forward relied too much on that ability. We sent forces into the city that were large enough to clear a few neighborhoods at a time but not large enough to maintain the security they had established. Any plan for bringing security to Baghdad must include forces for the "hold" phase as well as the "clear" phase.
Clearing and holding the Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in the center of Baghdad, which are the keys to getting the overall levels of violence down, will require around nine American combat brigades (27 battalions, in partnership with Iraqi forces, divided among some 23 districts). Since there are about five brigades in Baghdad now, achieving this level would require a surge of at least four additional combat brigades -- some 20,000 combat troops. Moreover, it would be foolhardy to send precisely as many troops as we think we need. Sound planning requires a reserve of at least one brigade (5,000 soldiers) to respond to unexpected developments. The insurgents have bases beyond Baghdad, especially in Anbar province. Securing Baghdad requires addressing these bases -- a task that would necessitate at least two more Marine regiments (around 7,000 Marines). It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.
It is tempting to imagine that greater use of Iraqi forces could reduce the number of U.S. troops needed for this operation. The temptation must be resisted. We should of course work with the Iraqi government to get as many trained and reliable Iraqi troops as possible into Baghdad, and we should pair our soldiers and Marines with Iraqis as much as we can. But reducing the violence in the Sunni and mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world. We cannot allow that mission to fail simply because some Iraqi units don't show up, aren't at full strength or are less reliable than we had hoped.
The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.
Jack Keane is a retired Army general. Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
|
Success in Iraq is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.
| 36.724138 | 1 | 23.62069 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bashir_goth/2006/12/middle_easts_misery_poetry.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bashir_goth/2006/12/middle_easts_misery_poetry.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007010119
|
Somalia/UAE - Looking at the situation of the Middle East from Palestine and Lebanon to Iraq, and further afield to Sudan's Darfur, Somalia and Afghanistan, the only wisdom that rushes to my memory is the classic children's nursery rhyme:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again.
It is however by delving into the Arab literary wisdom that one stumbles on the prophetic manner in which Arab and Muslim poets and philosophers through history have predicted the present situation with precision. One feels as if time has been frozen. I just let these wise men speak:
Singing in Baghdad, the satirical Iraqi poet Al Hassan Ibn Han Abu Nawas, 8th C, said:
Death is ever near us, never far removed. Everyday brings death's call and the wailing of keening Women... How long will you frolic and jest in delusion When every day death glows to the flint of your life?
The Lebanese poet Khalil Hawi (20th C) gives us even grimmer picture:
Deepen the hole, gravedigger, Deepen it to a depth with no limits Ranging beyond the orbit of the sun...
The blind poet-philosopher Abu Ala Al Marri, 11th C, captures the current situation of Iraq with surprising precision:
My clothing is my shroud, my grave is my home; my life is my fate, And for me death is resurrection.
But amid the stench of death and gloom, the Iraqi poet and pioneer of modern Arabic poetry Badr Shakir Al Sayyab, 20thC, breathes hope into his people
In every raindrop A red or yellow flower-bud. Each tear of hungry and naked people, Each drop spilled from the blood of slaves, Each is a smile awaiting new lips, A teat rosy on a babe's mouth In tomorrow's youthful world, giver of life, Rain, rain, rain Iraq will blossom with rain.
On Lebanon it is non other than the writer of the Prophet, Gibran Kahlil Gibran, 20th C, who gives us the real picture of his country's eternal problem:
"...Your Lebanon is a political dilemma That the days are trying to resolve, But my Lebanon is hills, rising with Reverence and majesty towards The blueness of the sky."
In Palestine, the distinguished woman poet Fadwa Touqan, who died in 2003, expressed her people's perpetual fear of the long journey but also of the unknown tomorrow:
I'm afraid of tomorrow I'm afraid of the unknowable resources of fate O God, don't let me be a burden, shunned by young and old I wait to arrive where the land is silent, I'm waiting for death Long has been my journey O God Make the path short and the journey end.
It is, however, Palestine's most celebrated poet Mahmud Darwish, who reminds us of the Palestinian's people's defiance and pride in their Arab identity and their love for life:
Write it down! I'm Arab, And my card number is fifty thousand; I have eight children And the ninth...is due late summer. Does that annoy you?
To talk about the poetry of misery in the Middle East and leave out Israel's celebrated poet would be like drawing an incomplete circle. In the following lines Yehuda Amichai, 20th C, envisions death everywhere:
Is all of this sorrow? I don't know. I stood in the cemetery dressed in the camouflage clothes of a living man: brown pants and a shirt yellow as the sun. Cemeteries are cheap; they don't ask for much. Even the wastebaskets are small, made for holding tissue paper that wrapped flowers from the store.
One cannot find a darker picture in today's Darfur than that portrayed by the Africanist poet of Sudan Mohammed Al Fayturi:
When darkness erects Over city streets Barriers of black stone, People extend their hands To the morrow's balconies... Their days are ancient memories Of an ancient land, Their faces, like their hands, gloomy... You might think they are submissive, But actually they are on fire!
In Somalia, I will borrow one a few old anonymous lines from the land of Bards:
"The grief cry bursts from every lip Fear sits on every brow, There's blood upon the courser's flank! Blood on the saddle bow!
My favorite Proverb: Amid this apocalyptic scenario, following is my favorite Arab proverb for the American Administration: "Whoever gets between the onion and its skin will only be rewarded by its stink."
|
Bashir Goth at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bashir_goth/
| 49.666667 | 0.444444 | 0.444444 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600772.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600772.html
|
Myths And the Middle Class
|
2007010119
|
Almost all Americans see themselves as "middle class." To declare yourself middle class is to say you've succeeded without openly bragging that you're superior -- a no-no in a democratic culture. You're like everyone else, only a little more or less so.
Not surprisingly, a recent poll done for the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, finds that only 2 percent of Americans put themselves in the "upper class" and a mere 8 percent consider themselves "lower class." The large majority classify themselves as "upper-middle class" (17 percent) or "middle class" (45 percent). The rest (27 percent) see themselves as "working class," a stepping stone to the middle class.
Because the "middle class" isn't really the middle -- it's a huge blob -- describing how "it" feels and thinks is usually an act of simplification, exaggeration or invention. Yet that's routine because politicians and commentators want to show that they grasp the hopes and fears of everyday Americans.
The middle class today is said to be angry and anxious. It's worried about jobs, health insurance and retirement income. The EPI poll explores these discontents. Up to a point, it confirms conventional wisdom. One question asked respondents to agree with one of the following statements:
Most people today face increasing uncertainty about employment, with stagnant incomes, paying more for health care, taxes, and retirement, while those at the top have booming incomes and lower taxes.
Our economy faces ups and downs, but most people can expect to better themselves, see rising incomes, find good jobs and provide economic security for their families.
By an overwhelming 61 to 34 percent, respondents preferred the first statement. They didn't like oil companies (66 to 13 percent), drug companies (49 to 25 percent) and corporate CEOs (35 to 18 percent). One interesting exception to the anti-big-business sentiment was Wal-Mart, whose favorable rating (45 to 29 percent) almost equaled Social Security's (48 to 24 percent). Globalization wasn't especially popular either; by 59 to 32 percent, respondents favored more limits on imports.
So the middle class is furious, as portrayed. Well, not exactly. What's striking is the huge gap between people's views about "the economy" -- an abstraction -- and their own personal situations:
· Although only 32 percent rate the overall economy as "excellent" or "good," 52 percent judge their personal situation as excellent or good (35 percent said "fair" and 13 percent "poor").
|
Americans' optimism and perfectionism are constantly mugged by reality. Consider why this will continue.
| 30.647059 | 0.352941 | 0.352941 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600749.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600749.html
|
War in Somalia - washingtonpost.com
|
2007010119
|
IN THE PAST week a dangerous round of warfare has erupted in Somalia, a failed state in the Horn of Africa that the United States tried in vain to rebuild in the early 1990s. Troops from neighboring Ethiopia who were defending a U.N.-backed transitional government were attacked by forces of the Islamic Courts movement, which for the past six months has controlled much of the southern part of the country. Ethiopia responded by launching a full-scale offensive against the Islamists; by yesterday its forces had captured several towns and were said to be advancing toward Mogadishu, the capital.
For the Bush administration there was both good and bad news in these developments. The Islamic Courts movement poses a potentially serious security threat to the United States: Its leadership includes a U.S.-designated terrorist, and it is known to be harboring al-Qaeda militants, including several who helped carry out the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In recent months it has been inviting radical Muslims to Somalia, and thousands have reportedly arrived from such countries as Syria, Yemen and Libya. In short, the Courts-controlled portion of Somalia has begun to look a lot like Afghanistan under the Taliban before Sept. 11, 2001.
Ethiopia's actions, however, are problematic. The country's autocratic government and a slight majority of its population are Christian; this has fueled resistance to its intervention from Somalis and Muslim governments that might not otherwise support the fundamentalist Courts. According to U.S. and U.N. reports, millions of dollars in funding and arms have flowed to the Islamists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab states, while neighboring Eritrea, a bitter adversary of Ethiopia, has deployed its own troops. Some experts warn that the fighting could morph into a regional war; others say Ethiopia could get bogged down in a prolonged guerrilla war with local and foreign Muslim insurgents.
Having floundered through a series of failed Somalia strategies, the administration appears to have a somewhat confused view of the latest fighting. Earlier this month it pushed for a U.N. Security Council resolution that called for an end to foreign intervention, the deployment of a peacekeeping force and negotiations between the rival Somali governments. President Bush spoke yesterday with the president of Uganda, which had offered peacekeepers. Yet even while reiterating its call for negotiations, the administration also appears to be supporting the Ethiopian offensive: The State Department said that Ethiopia had a right to defend itself against the Islamists and that its troops were there at the invitation of a legitimate authority, the transitional government.
Maybe the Ethiopian forces will crush the Islamists and their al-Qaeda allies and thereby rescue the United States from its predicament. More likely, the administration will have to prepare for much more active U.S. engagement in what is emerging as a hot new front in the war on terrorism.
|
IN THE PAST week a dangerous round of warfare has erupted in Somalia, a failed state in the Horn of Africa that the United States tried in vain to rebuild in the early 1990s. Troops from neighboring Ethiopia who were defending a U.N.-backed transitional government were attacked by forces of the Islamic Courts movement, which for the past six months has controlled much of the southern part of the country. Ethiopia responded by launching a full-scale offensive against the Islamists; by yesterday its forces had captured several towns and were said to be advancing toward Mogadishu, the capital....
| 4.837838 | 0.972973 | 51.531532 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701826.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701826.html
|
The Many Facets of 'Diamond'
|
2007010119
|
I loved "Blood Diamond," until I didn't.
This gripping, sophisticated thriller, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou and Jennifer Connelly, is an extraordinary achievement in American cinema, one that combines visceral thrills, high production values and morally serious ideas. In this swiftly moving tale of geopolitical suspense set in Sierra Leone during the 1999 civil war, DiCaprio plays a diamond smuggler named Danny Archer, who routinely buys gems from bloodthirsty rebels to sell them to middlemen for European dealers. Hounsou plays Solomon Vandy, a man kidnapped by the rebels, who loses his family and is forced to work in one of the guerrillas' mines. When he finds a huge pink diamond, he manages to hide it just before the camp is broken up by government troops. Archer and Vandy eventually join forces to find the diamond, each for his own reasons.
Director Edward Zwick ("Glory," "The Last Samurai") packs an incredible amount of information into the first two hours of "Blood Diamond," which was filmed in South Africa and captures with vivid, kinetic energy the beauty of the African countryside, the cultural mash-ups of its cities and the rank horror of its myriad bloody wars, here put firmly in the context of 300 years of colonization and exploitation. ("Let's hope they don't discover oil here," one villager says. "Then we'd have real problems.")
As Archer and Vandy make their way out of the lawless powder keg of Freetown -- with the assistance of an idealistic journalist played by Connelly -- Zwick strikes a terrific balance between Indiana Jones-style adventure and an ongoing dialogue about the uneasy and largely opaque politics of globalization. How many women would want that diamond engagement ring, Connelly's character asks at one point, if they knew someone had lost a hand getting it?
A good question, among many raised in "Blood Diamond," which features impressive performances from its three stars, especially DiCaprio. Between this movie and "The Departed," the 32-year-old actor seems to have enjoyed a growth spurt this year; his baby face has given way to a new fullness and gravitas, and he wears the new heft well.
As engaging as the three leads are, what's most impressive about the movie is a subplot having to do with Vandy's son Dia, who is kidnapped in the same raid as his father, but is turned into a child soldier by a rapacious rebel leader. Of all the scenes of war, mayhem and suffering in "Blood Diamond" (and there are many), the sequences of children being turned into psychopathic killers are the most disquieting, haunting and potent.
Indeed, "Blood Diamond" has so much to recommend it that one hesitates to bring up quibbles. But problems do arise, all in the last half-hour, and all having to do with Hollywood conventions, whether it's a final overlong, explosive battle scene, a hero's send-off or the vaguely offensive conclusion in which Vandy is portrayed as the voiceless moral conscience of the film (yet again, our tour guides of Africa have been white, with the black character reduced to noble but passive symbol).
That "Blood Diamond" has hitherto so adroitly blended genuine action, suspense and moral complexity only makes disappointment the greater when the film falters. Still, it gets far more right than it does wrong, and its most indelible images -- of the chaotic human landscape of war, of Africa in its enduring verdant beauty, of those tragic children so obscenely manipulated -- will burn in the viewer's consciousness long after the less edifying moments have faded.
Blood Diamond (135 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for strong violence and profanity.
|
Search movie listings, reviews and locations from the Washington Post. Features national listings for movies and movie guide. Visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/movies today.
| 29.16 | 0.48 | 0.48 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700524.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700524.html
|
Big Quake Cuts Communications in Taiwan
|
2007010119
|
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Undersea fiber-optic cables were damaged by a powerful earthquake off the southern tip of Taiwan, causing the largest outage of telephone and Internet service in years and demonstrating the vulnerability of the global telecommunications network.
Two residents were killed and more than 40 injured in the magnitude-6.7 tremor that hit offshore, near the southern Taiwanese town of Hengchun late Tuesday.
Up to a dozen fiber-optic cables cross the ocean floor south of Taiwan, carrying traffic between China, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia, the U.S. and the island itself. Chunghwa Telecom Co., Taiwan's largest phone company, said the quake damaged several of them, and repairs could take two to three weeks.
A Taiwanese telecommunications official said Thursday that 95 percent of Asia's earthquake-disrupted data transmission service and 80 percent of its phone service will be restored by 11 p.m. EST.
Lin Jen-lung, vice-general manager of Chunghwa, also said that four ships with crews to repair the two undersea data transmission cables ruptured in Taiwan's powerful earthquake will arrive in the affected area on Jan. 2.
Taiwan lost almost all of its telephone capacity to Japan and mainland China. Service to the United States also was hard hit, with 60 percent of capacity lost.
Later, Chunghwa said connections to the U.S., China and Canada were mostly restored, but 70 percent of the capacity to Japan was still down, along with 90 percent of the capacity to Southeast Asia.
Stephan Beckert, an analyst with the Washington-based research firm TeleGeography, said it was the largest telecommunications failure in years.
"The magnitude of the break is surprising because Taiwan is otherwise a very well connected system," Beckert said. He noted that cables get cut and disrupted all the time, but there's usually enough backup capacity on other lines to keep traffic flowing without customers noticing an interruption.
But with multiple cables broken in one blow, Internet traffic around the Pacific was disrupted. Hong Kong telephone company PCCW Ltd., which also provides Internet service, said the quake cut its data capacity in half. Internet access was cut or severely slowed in Beijing, said an official from China Netcom, China's No. 2 phone company.
The official, who would not give his name, said the cause was thought to be the earthquake, but he had no further details.
A Hong Kong telecommunications official said Thursday that six of the seven major cables serving the Chinese territory were damaged in Taiwan's earthquake.
|
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Undersea fiber-optic cables were damaged by a powerful earthquake off the southern tip of Taiwan, causing the largest outage of telephone and Internet service in years and demonstrating the vulnerability of the global telecommunications network.
| 11.255814 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122601009.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122601009.html
|
'Scandal': A Lesson Not Soon Forgotten
|
2007010119
|
The joke goes something like this: "Authorities today indicted eighth-grade teacher Melissa J. Smith, 34, of Bethesda on two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for allegedly having sexual relations with a male student. In a related development, the eighth-grade boys elected the blond instructor Teacher of the Year."
All right, it isn't funny -- but it gets at how confounding a train wreck this particular configuration of human folly represents. The older woman, a teacher no less; the young man, unformed of face and fuzzy of cheek. What the heck? Nobody knows what to make of it. Parents are apoplectic, the school board is shamefaced, the principal is destroyed, the other kids think it is so cool, the woman's husband is probably unmanned for life and talk shows and journos make laffs and millions of bucks in its wake. As for the love criminals? Well, no one can really know; they did what they did because that's what they did.
Now "Notes on a Scandal" offers what is possibly the only intelligent account of such a disaster ever constructed, with a point of view that is somewhat gimlet-eyed and offered with absolutely no sentimentality whatsoever.
That point of view, from the mind of a bitter woman named Covett, observes the behavior not as crime or tragedy but as opportunity. Ms. Covett -- the great actress Judi Dench in a knotted, embittered rage almost throughout -- is a salty old pro teaching at an English school, and she noted poor Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett), the new art teacher, back when she came to the young teacher's rescue as misbehavior threatened to turn her class into anarchy. Covett and Hart? Is that touch perhaps a little precious? In any event, Ms. Covett, iron of spirit as well as of petticoat, stops that outbreak with a few steely words, then takes the younger teacher under her wing.
We watch what we think will unspool as a touching story of human weakness as told from a sympathetic viewpoint, but we soon realize that cheesy uplift is not on the menu. No, indeed. All life, the film argues, is political, in that it progresses from each according to his desires to that same each according to his power. And Ms. Covett has an agenda; she's not even honest with herself, much less us, about that truth, but she wants something from the young, somewhat disorganized beauty. In the narrative sense, Ms. Covett turns out to be that favorite of old-fashioned mystery-dame specialties, the unreliable witness, who is hiding as much as she is revealing.
So the movie is in one sense the story not merely of a scandal -- Mrs. Hart's weakness for young Steven, however misplaced, is the least of the sins it documents -- but of a scandal's utility, for it is Ms. Covett who turns her knowledge of who's doing what to whom into leverage and attempts to get Mrs. Hart out of the frying pan and into an especially hot fire. You have games within games, intrigues within intrigues. It's like the Kremlin in the '30s.
One thing that marks the dark brilliance of "Notes on a Scandal" is the level of the acting, but that is just part of a larger issue: its vision. I can't remember a film that sees the here and now more precisely, one that offers total believability in the tone and motive of its characters and then goes further, showing us a whole and completely recognizable world.
Director Richard Eyre (his last film was "Stage Beauty") and writer Patrick Marber (his last film was the screenplay adaptation of his play, the acerbic sex rondelet "Closer"), working from a novel by Zoe Heller, have extraordinary powers of observation.
As much as anything, "Notes on a Scandal" is a study in the anthropology of British liberal-left middle-class life. The film shows them living in sloppy houses full of artistic disorder and giving full vent to their oh-so-important feelings, which they confuse with reality. They nurse their illusions (several others have comically dangerous illusions, too) and try to hurt nobody's emotions. Cosseted in the bosom of a nanny state, they've lost the power to defend themselves and are free lunch to predators.
Surely Dench will get an Oscar nomination for her performance; she makes you feel the absolute will to power, the Stalinesque shrewdness for weakness and the utter ruthlessness to use it. As the somewhat ditsy Sheba, Blanchett has exactly the appropriate inability to meet anybody's gaze, fear of shouting and disappointment, hunger to help all, addiction to the high of compassion that designates a mark . Bill Nighy is magnificent as an intellectual, boho king who thinks irony will protect him in a world where the bullets are real. As the young bounder Steven, Andrew Simpson has the same hunger for victory that distinguishes Ms. Covett; he is really just her in slightly more glam guise. This is a movie about sharks and little fishes.
Notes on a Scandal (110 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for sexual content and profanity.
|
The joke goes something like this: "Authorities today indicted eighth-grade teacher Melissa J. Smith, 34, of Bethesda on two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for allegedly having sexual relations with a male student. In a related development, the eighth-grade boys elected the...
| 17.754386 | 0.982456 | 55.017544 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600994.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600994.html
|
Ghost-Riding: Brake-Dancing With Zip Under the Hood
|
2007010119
|
It might be the youth trend that most clearly epitomizes an age of exhibitionism. All the elements are there: Cars, music, dancing and the potential to make parents very angry -- plus, it's a spectacle tailor-made for taping and posting on the Web.
"Ghost-riding the whip," as it's known, has swept from its origins in San Francisco's East Bay to much of the rest of the country, propelled by a pair of hip-hop songs that celebrate this exceptionally dangerous regional tradition.
To ghost-ride, the driver climbs out of the car while it's moving at low speed. The ghost-rider then busts a move around and on top of the vehicle, usually accompanied by a thumping soundtrack from the car (or "whip," in urban slang). What they're attempting is to make the dance steps as gaudy and elaborate as possible and to stay outside the car as long as possible. It's all about self-expression. Or possibly cheap thrills. Or maybe the ever-popular youthful flirtation with bone-breaking, brain-damaging injury. A young man in Stockton, Calif., for example, died this month when he hit his head on a parked car while attempting what police said was a ghost-riding maneuver, according to news reports.
Spokesmen for the District of Columbia police and several Virginia and Maryland police jurisdictions say they have seen little or no ghost-riding in their jurisdictions.
Ghost-riding videos are all over the Web, displaying a vast array of dance styles and vehicles. On YouTube, the most popular video-sharing site, clips abound of young people climbing out of cars, trucks and minivans, dancing frantically on hoods, trunks and even roofs.
"It's a fantastic waste of time, and it's really funny," says Andy Shields, a college student from the Chicago area who tried ghost-riding with some classmates this month. The stunt was in an empty school parking lot in Casey, Ill., during a recent road trip. As a buddy rolled tape, Shields car-surfed at about 3 mph atop a friend's Chevy Suburban.
Shields enjoyed the ride so much he's hoping to repeat it -- on a combine or a cement mixer.
Although such antics probably began with the invention of the automobile, ghost-riding seems to have sprung from Oakland's "hyphy" movement, a hip-hop style with its own slang, fashion and car culture. Dating back to at least the 1980s, young people on Oakland's tough east side have been staging impromptu car rallies, or "sideshows." During these meetings, drivers show off by ghost-riding, cutting figure-eights or performing other driving tricks, such as "gas-brake dipping" -- lurching along by alternately mashing the gas and brake pedals.
Hyphy (derived from "hyperactive") is also bass-heavy hip-hop music that celebrates things such as "thizz" (the drug Ecstasy); "scrapers," which are large, late-'80s domestic makes like Buick LeSabres and Oldsmobile Cutlasses; and oversize sunglasses, called "stunner shades."
All of that is referenced in the hyphy anthem, "Tell Me When to Go," by the Oakland rapper E-40 (sample printable lyric: "Ghost-ride the whip / Now . . . Scrape / Put your stunna shades on / Now . . . Gas, brake, dip, dip"). The song was on the album "My Ghetto Report Card," which topped Billboard's R&B and hip-hop chart this year.
Another variation on the theme is "Ghost Ride It," released last summer by Mistah F.A.B. The song samples bits of Ray Parker Jr.'s "Ghostbusters" while F.A.B. raps, "Ghost ride, ghost ride / Get out the way and let Casper drive / Ghost ride, go crazy / Who that drivin'? Patrick Swayze!" (Casper, of course, is the friendly ghost, while Swayze starred in the 1990 movie "Ghost.")
F.A.B. (real name: Stanley Cox) says in an interview that he first saw people ghost-riding about 10 years ago in Oakland's "Ghosttown" section ( where he thinks the name might have originated). "It's something that's popular in the streets," the 24-year-old says. "Rappers are like news reporters. We just talk about what's going on in the streets." However, ghost-riding is illegal and potentially lethal. "It's about the stupidest and most dangerous thing you can do with a car, other than driving drunk," says John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic. "It's just suicidal." Since an unattended moving vehicle can become an unguided missile, Townsend says, ghost-riding jeopardizes not just the car's driver but also the lives of other drivers and pedestrians.
Things can get out of control. Just ask the guy in one YouTube video who ghost-rode his red pickup truck down a suburban street -- and right into a telephone pole. Or ask Mistah F.A.B., who, while shooting the soon-to-be-released video for "Ghost Ride It," tumbled off his car and rolled on the pavement. He suffered only minor injuries.
"It's fun, it's an adrenaline rush," he says, "but I won't lie to you or sugarcoat it. It's dangerous. I've seen a lot of bad stuff happen. Definitely, do not try this at home."
Staff writers Maria Glod, Nelson Hernandez and Allison Klein contributed to this report.
|
It might be the youth trend that most clearly epitomizes an age of exhibitionism. All the elements are there: Cars, music, dancing and the potential to make parents very angry -- plus, it's a spectacle tailor-made for taping and posting on the Web.
| 20.943396 | 0.981132 | 43.773585 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600799.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600799.html
|
A Record-Breaking Season, at Bottom
|
2007010119
|
With one game left in their season and another offseason of scrutiny ahead, the Washington Redskins hope to avoid setting several records Saturday against the New York Giants. The Redskins, 5-10 and without consecutive victories since Oct. 1, are on the verge of setting franchise and league marks -- for all of the wrong things.
A loss would put the Redskins at 5-11, matching their lowest win total in any season since 1994, and would be the worst season of Coach Joe Gibbs's career (he won six games in 2004, his first year back with Washington). Gibbs already is assured of having more losing seasons (two) in his return than he had in his first stint, from 1981 to '92. With a loss Saturday, the Redskins would finish 1-5 against the NFC East for the second time in three years; the team has not finished that low in such a short period since placing last in 1993-94.
"We don't want New York to sweep us," Gibbs said. "That's a big deal for us. We want to finish the right way."
Gibbs is 21-26 in the regular season since his return; Washington's record over the previous three seasons was 20-28.
Washington has just 12 take-aways this season, and will need to force three turnovers Saturday just to tie the all-time low for a 16-game season. St. Louis and Green Bay each caused 15 take-aways in the 2004 season; the Redskins have just six in the last 10 games.
"That kind of blows my mind, how we wound up in that situation," Gibbs said of the take-away drought. "We start the game off two of the last three weeks, first play of the game we've got the ball in our hands. How [could you] wind up doing that? I think it's kind of got us all baffled. I don't think there's an answer to that."
The team has just 18 sacks for the season and will need a huge reversal not to set a franchise low in that department (the 2001 Redskins had 25 sacks). The Redskins also have six interceptions as a team; the franchise low is 11 (set in 1982, when teams played just nine games). Those six interceptions have been returned for 25 yards; the franchise low for interception return yardage is 85, also set in the strike-shortened 1982 season.
The team record for most yards allowed in a season is 5,723, set in 1996. They enter this game having allowed 5,333 yards, including 579 on Sunday in St. Louis. They are allowing an average of 356 yards per game, and New York produced 411 yards of offense in the clubs' first meeting this season.
Overall, the defense ranks 30th in yards allowed per game, 32nd in yards allowed per pass, 22nd in rushing defense, 29th in passing defense, 32nd in interceptions per pass play and 32nd in sacks per pass play. It is tied for 24th in points allowed and has a scoring differential of minus-63, also 24th in the league. Opposing quarterbacks have thrown 29 touchdown passes against Washington and just six interceptions -- the worst ratio in the NFL -- and have a 99.4 passer rating, a mark that also puts the Redskins last in the league.
"Certainly, it's been disappointing for us," Gibbs said. "I wouldn't imagine we'd go through something like this."
Offensively, the Redskins have their troubles as well. The running game is reborn, and tailback Ladell Betts tied a franchise mark with five straight 100-yard games, but the team has struggled to score. They have just 28 offensive touchdowns through 15 games, putting them in the lowest third in the NFL, and have scored more than two touchdowns in a game just three times.
The team remains devoid of an impact secondary receiver, with big offseason acquisitions Brandon Lloyd and Antwaan Randle El both held without a catch in Sunday's 37-31 overtime loss. Even combining their season statistics would fail to equate to a decent season for most No. 2 wide receivers: Lloyd has 23 catches for 365 yards and no touchdowns, and Randle El has 29 receptions for 298 yards and three touchdowns.
Redskins Notes: Gibbs said the Redskins expect to lose their third-round pick in the 2007 draft in the three-team deal to acquire tailback T.J. Duckett in August. That would leave the Redskins with just first-, fifth-, sixth- and seventh-round picks. The Redskins could lose their 2008 fourth-round pick in that deal, which will not be set until the final draft order is complete. That will occur when the NFL finalizes its draft value chart. . . . Cornerback Shawn Springs (broken scapula) will be placed on injured reserve today, with a replacement likely signed from the practice squad.
|
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.
| 27.285714 | 0.685714 | 1.314286 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600922.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600922.html
|
Cybercrooks Deliver Trouble
|
2007010119
|
It was the year of computing dangerously, and next year could be worse.
That is the assessment of computer security experts, who said 2006 was marked by an unprecedented spike in junk e-mail and more sophisticated Internet attacks by cybercrooks.
Few believe 2007 will be any brighter for consumers, who already are struggling to avoid the clever scams they encounter while banking, shopping or just surfing online. Experts say online criminals are growing smarter about hiding personal data they have stolen on the Internet and are using new methods for attacking computers that are harder to detect.
"Criminals have gone from trying to hit as many machines as possible to focusing on techniques that allow them to remain undetected on infected machines longer," said Vincent Weafer, director of security response at Symantec, an Internet security firm in Cuptertino, Calif.
One of the best measures of the rise in cybercrime is junk e-mail, or spam, because much of it is relayed by computers controlled by Internet criminals, experts said. More than 90 percent of all e-mail sent online in October was unsolicited junk mail, according to Postini, an e-mail security firm in San Carlos, Calif. Spam volumes monitored by Postini rose 73 percent in the past two months as spammers began embedding their messages in images to evade junk e-mail filters that search for particular words and phrases. In November, Postini's spam filters, used by many large companies, blocked 22 billion junk-mail messages, up from about 12 billion in September.
The result is putting pressure on network administrators and corporate technology departments, because junk mail laden with images typically requires three times as much storage space and Internet bandwidth as a text message, said Daniel Druker, Postini's vice president for marketing.
"We're getting an unprecedented amount of calls from people whose e-mail systems are melting down under this onslaught," Druker said.
Spam volumes are often viewed as a barometer for the relative security of the Internet community, in part because most spam is relayed via "bots," a term used to describe personal computers that online criminals have taken control of surreptitiously with computer viruses or worms. The more computers the bad guys control and link together in networks, or botnets, the greater volume of spam they can blast onto the Internet.
At any given time, between 3 million and 4 million compromised computers are active on the Internet, according to Gadi Evron, who managed Internet security for the Israeli government before joining Beyond Security, an Israeli security firm. And that estimate only counts spam bots. Evron said millions of other hijacked computers are used to launch "distributed denial-of-service" attacks -- online shakedowns in which attackers overwhelm Web sites with useless data and demand payment to stop.
"Botnets have become the moving force behind organized crime online, with a low-risk, high-profit calculation," Evron said.
He estimated that organized criminals would earn about $2 billion this year through "phishing" scams, which involve the use of spam and fake Web sites to trick computer users into disclosing their financial and other personal data.
Another trend experts cite is the steady shift of Internet criminal activity from nights and weekends to weekdays, suggesting that online crime is evolving into a full-time profession for many.
|
It was the year of computing dangerously, and next year could be worse.
| 42.8 | 1 | 15 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600752.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600752.html
|
Minn. Ethanol Plant Taps Thirst for Vodka
|
2007010119
|
BENSON, Minn. -- As distilleries for premium vodka go, the behemoth in Benson is surely one of the most unlikely.
Sprouting towers and tanks, the cavernous compound rises from the plains of western Minnesota. Industrial trucks come and go as heat from giant boilers puffs into the winter sky. The largest letters on the sign say not Grey Goose or Stolichnaya, but Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company.
The machinery here hums around the clock to churn out 45 million gallons of ethanol a year, part of the heartland's replacement-fuel boom. But the Chippewa Valley folks do ethanol with a twist, or perhaps an olive: On the side, they produce premium vodka.
The name is Shakers, and it comes from Minnesota wheat and rye, grown nearby. Packaged in an art deco bottle and marketed as an American original, the brand routinely collects accolades from aficionados. A company executive reports sales in the past 12 months of 15,000 cases at $33 a bottle.
To the local farmers and the Benson collective that stands behind Shakers, the sales contribute profits and pride, not to mention an occasional buzz of an earthier sort.
"Oh, yes, we drink a lot of it," affirmed Chuck Willis, 67, as he finished breakfast at the Whistle Stop Diner. "Sitting up on the lake, having a glass with ice cubes is all." Until Shakers came along in 2003, Willis was a whiskey man.
The story of vodka in Minnesota starts with another form of alcohol, the potent fuel-grade stuff that Chippewa Valley Ethanol began making 10 years ago, an early entrant in the alternative-fuel push. The cooperative raised capital from local farmers and small investors and soon began converting local corn to liquid energy.
It was not hard to see there is a certain similarity between ethanol and potable spirits. Bill Lee, recruited from Williamsburg, Va., to manage the plant, recalls dreamily placing on his office wall an advertisement for Grey Goose, the popular French vodka.
But that's all it was, a notion, until Lee received a call in 2002 from one of the brewmasters and marketers behind Pete's Wicked Ale. They had made money, and some good beer, in the early stages of the American microbrewery phenomenon. They had sold their stake in Pete's and were looking around for the next bibulous score.
"We all kind of went our separate ways for a few years and did different things, kept in touch, and started noodling how we could get the band back together," said Pat Couteaux, Minneapolis-based master distiller for Shakers. "We started looking at the vodka market.
"All the vodkas were imported. It was the same thing in the beer market in the late '80s and early '90s, when all the better beers were imported. We said: 'Well, hey, we can do that. We can do that better. We have the greatest grain in the world here.' "
Couteaux, who imbibed many a valuable lesson while earning a degree in fermentation science at the University of Munich, figured it would be a cinch. He and his friends reasoned that the right ethanol plant with the right new equipment would be just right for reasons of capacity and marketing.
|
BENSON, Minn. -- As distilleries for premium vodka go, the behemoth in Benson is surely one of the most unlikely.
| 27.652174 | 1 | 23 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600822.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600822.html
|
Biden to Fight Iraq Troop Buildup
|
2007010119
|
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he would oppose any plan by President Bush to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"I totally oppose the surging of additional troops into Baghdad, and I think it is contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both people inside the administration and outside the administration," Biden told reporters yesterday. He said he plans to hold hearings for his panel next month in a bid to influence the president's decision.
Bush is said to be studying a plan to send as many as 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, possibly to help stabilize Baghdad, as part of a new strategy to improve security and stem the escalating sectarian violence. Biden contended that such a move "will not have any positive effect, except extremely temporarily."
The remarks from Biden, who said yesterday that he will announce next month his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, came as Bush headed to his Crawford, Tex., ranch for a review of the U.S. strategy in Iraq. The president is scheduled to host a meeting of the National Security Council at the ranch tomorrow, to be attended by Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. But he is not expected to immediately release a final decision on a new strategy.
Biden said that one problem with the present discussion of a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq is that no one can specify exactly what the president may be studying. He and others have asked for specifics on the troops' mission, the number involved and how long they would be in Iraq.
Bush said at a Dec. 20 news conference that "there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that strategy."
Some key Republicans, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), have come out in favor of increasing troop levels. McCain said earlier this month, during a trip to Iraq, that he believes "there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control" and to "allow the political process to proceed."
On Sunday, Graham, who had just returned from Iraq, said security in Baghdad has deteriorated to the point that a troop increase is necessary, though it should be "co-joined with political reform." During an appearance on ABC News's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Graham said that "more troops in Anbar would help stop the insurgency flow from Syria into Baghdad" and that "more troops in Baghdad would give the politicians some breathing room."
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said recently that if U.S. military commanders support a buildup, "just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that." But a period of 18 months to 24 months would be too long, he said.
Biden noted yesterday that retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, helped produce an American Enterprise Institute study that called for 20,000 additional U.S. troops in Baghdad to clear and hold neighborhoods for about 18 months.
Biden said he does not think that even that would work. He stressed that "if the president does make this surge, I hope he levels with the American people and makes it clear the minimum that they're going to be there for 18 months."
Biden said that his committee will begin hearings on Iraq on Jan. 9 and that if Bush has not released his plan by then, he might start with experts and "those proposing alternatives" to what the president may do.
He is planning three days of hearings each week for three weeks and will include past and present administration officials.
Rice has agreed to appear, but not until after Bush has presented his new strategy to the nation. Gates will be asked to appear. Biden said he does not plan to call former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but he added: "That's not something that's totally off the table."
Biden said that he hopes to generate "some bipartisan consensus in the Senate" but that he does not expect to do more than try to influence Republican senators who could then affect Bush's decisions. He said that, at his last meeting with Bush, after the November elections, he told the president, "all we can do is try to . . . cooperate with you, and when we disagree with you, try to influence your decision by making the case to the public at large that we should change course."
|
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he would oppose any plan by President Bush to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
| 22.285714 | 1 | 42 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200269.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007010119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200269.html
|
Fit for Man and Beast
|
2007010119
|
It was pitch-black and pushing past midnight on a desolate beach when I more or less gave up on spotting a sea turtle. My two brothers and I had braved a bumpy hour crammed in the back of an old Jeep as it rumbled across gravel and muck to La Flor, a wildlife sanctuary on Nicaragua's Pacific coast. The week before, we were told, more than 10,000 of the suitcase-size reptiles had landed in the darkness to lay eggs, the turtle equivalent of the Normandy invasion.
But for two futile hours, we had crisscrossed the shore in sweltering heat, flashlights drawn, with nothing to show for it. Even so, we had few complaints. It was 30 degrees warmer than the brisk New England fall we'd left behind two days earlier. Not a single structure was visible anywhere along the pristine, mile-long crescent of sand. And on a moonless night, flashes of lightning on the horizon shone bright enough for us to make out boulders jutting from the sea, washed by the gently breaking waves.
Then some of the boulders began to move.
"Is that one?" my brother Ben asked our guide, a young woman from the nearby town of San Juan del Sur. What else could it be? At the plodding pace one might expect after a journey from as far away as Alaska, the turtle ambled toward the palms that lined the beach, then stopped to dig its nest. As about a dozen other turtles made landfall all around us, the first one unloaded more than 100 eggs into the pit, buried its treasure with frenzied feet and returned to the sea, as slowly as it had come.
It was the rare sort of scene for which travelers have long ventured to better-known destinations in Mexico or, more recently, Costa Rica, Nicaragua's southern neighbor. For centuries, most foreign visitors to Nicaragua came to meddle in its politics, including the American military advisers who worked with contra guerrillas during the 1980s civil war. But in recent years, waves of tourists have discovered that the beautiful country has treasures to offer and is working to bury its troubled past.
The Western Hemisphere's second-poorest nation, Nicaragua is at something of a crossroads. In a pivotal presidential election last month, its voters backed Daniel Ortega, leader of the Sandinista Front, which controlled the government during the civil war. U.S. officials, along with foreign investors in Nicaragua, whose numbers have surged in recent years, are concerned that Ortega, who was backed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War and remains close to Cuba's Fidel Castro, will impose market-unfriendly policies.
"Tourism and foreign investment are what is driving this part of the country," said Jon Thompson, who moved to Nicaragua from California in 1998 and last year founded a bilingual magazine called El Puente (The Bridge) that closely covers the country's burgeoning new industries. "There are a lot of people worried that Ortega will undo all of this, and there is no Plan B."
Those worries were dismissed in San Juan del Sur, about 15 miles up the coast from La Flor, where I spent a week this fall. The charming, Sandinista-run village has long been a point of entry for those exploring Nicaragua. Of arriving in San Juan del Sur by sea in 1886, Mark Twain wrote that "bright green hills never looked so welcome, so enchanting, so altogether lovely." Simple homes now sprawl up those hillsides, and the exquisitely manicured grounds of the Piedras y Olas (Stones and Waves), the town's first luxury hotel, overlook dozens of fishing boats that bob on its half-moon bay.
San Juan del Sur has undergone a dramatic transformation since surfers began arriving in the mid-1990s. Initially the surfing scene was dominated by transplanted Californians and Hawaiians who relied on local kids to help them find beaches with the best-breaking waves. But after a while, many of those kids picked up surfing themselves, and now more than half of the dozen or so surf shops in town are run entirely by locals. Slowly, the town has been reborn as the country's hottest travel destination, popular with Nicaraguan vacationers during Easter and home to growing numbers of foreign tourists year-round.
"When I was a kid, there was basically nothing here," said Gaspar Guadamuz, 23, who works at the local branch office of American real estate company Century 21, one of several U.S. firms with a presence in town. "Land values have gone up 20 to 40 percent just in the last year, and 500 percent in five years. It started with the surfers. I remember them coming to town and wondering what were the long things they were carrying."
My brothers, an artist and a college student, and I wanted to give surfing a try, though we knew it wouldn't be easy. Born and raised in Vermont, the closest we'd gotten to water sports was the frozen kind: skiing and ice hockey.
A company called Arena Caliente (Hot Sand) offered lessons, board rentals and transportation to and from a renowned nearby beach called Madera for $35. We heard the busted muffler on its dilapidated white van coming about a minute before it arrived, just after 10 o'clock one morning. We piled into the back and went barreling through town with the windows down and the radio blaring reggaeton, a Latin American fusion of rap, rock and reggae. The driver, a 19-year-old with flowing bleach-blond locks, initially introduced himself only as Don Bigote, "Sir Mustache." (We later learned his name was Kelvim).
|
The Western Hemisphere's second-poorest nation, Nicaragua is at something of a crossroads as tourism and foreign investment begin to develop some breathtaking areas.
| 39.178571 | 0.857143 | 9.857143 |
high
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/jim_wallis/2006/12/christs_incarnation_should_ins.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122719id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/jim_wallis/2006/12/christs_incarnation_should_ins.html
|
Christ Should Inspire Humility, Not Arrogance
|
2006122719
|
SMAFDY said: "There were no stories of Jesus until decades, maybe hundreds of years, after he allegedly lived."
Here is my response from a similar statement in a different thread: "Actually, the four gospels were written by Matthew (one of the 12 apostles of Christ), Mark (writer and interpreter for the Apostle Peter), Luke (close friend of the Apostle Paul), and John (one of the 12 apostles of Christ). All were written within 30-35 years of Jesus' earthly ministry except for the Gospel of John, which was written about 50 years after Jesus' earthly ministry." All were alive during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.
Regarding your comment "Show some evidence that the "person" Jesus is not a fictional character," again, please consider a response I made in a different thread:
If enough time passes after an event takes place, you will begin to find people who will deny it ever happened. Case in point: there are those who now question if the Holocaust ever happened, even with the pictures of the devastation and the living witnesses. As more of the living witnesses die, more and more skeptics will deny that it ever occurred. Take another example: the life of President Abraham Lincoln. Now, I wasn't alive when he "supposedly" was alive. I have never touched him, never heard him speak, and never seen him. Portraits of him could just be a hoax. His gravestone could be a hoax. You could dig up his body, and I could still say that the body wasn't Abraham Lincoln. So, why do I believe he lived? Because someone told me that he did, and I have faith in that testimony. How do we even know that there was even a Civil War? Because of a testimony. However, if someone wants to believe that something did not happen, it is likely that no amount of evidence will change their minds. With that disclaimer, I wish to attempt to show why Christians believe what we believe about Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.
We have numerous eyewitness accounts who saw Jesus after his resurrection. Jesus appeared to the Eleven Apostles, he appeared to Mary Magdalene, he appeared to his own half-brother, James, and in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, we are told that he appeared to 500 people at one time. Paul states this in his letter that most of those 500 were still alive at the time of the writing of the letter and he basically says "go talk with them...examine their accounts, examine the evidence." Surely 500 people could not be hallucinating at one time.
Plus, if the disciples had stolen the body as some claimed and buried it, why would they risk their lives to steal the body? (Recall that they ran and scattered during Jesus' persecution and crucifixion). Also, why would they begin preaching in the very city where he was executed instead of moving 500 miles away and begin preaching there? And why would they die for what they consciously knew was nothing but a lie? It just doesn't make sense, but that's what happened.
But, after enough time passed, people have denied that the crucifixion and resurrection ever took place just as they are beginning to deny the Holocaust and after enough time passes people will even deny the attacks on September 11th. Therefore, that's why we have the written accounts of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection: the Bible, particularly the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) of the New Testament. The Bible is the evidence. You can easily deny it if you wish and claim it is a hoax just as folks are now claiming the Holocaust as a hoax. But, just because you weren't there and just because you may deny that it ever happened does not mean that it isn't true. So, Christians put their "faith" in the evidence that we have, a written testimony, the Bible.
So, ultimately, a person's faith in Christ must first require faith in the Bible. Regarding the authenticity of the Bible, consider the following evidence. We have found approximately 6000 New Testament manuscripts, the earliest copy dating back to 30 years after the life of Jesus (as I referenced earlier in this post). The second-most manuscripts that we have is about 100 manuscripts of Homer (Iliad, etc.), but the first is dated about 500 years after he lived. Then, after Homer, you have Plato and Socrates with even less copies. So, the evidence is there that the Bible is not just a fictional story; it's only a question as to whether or not you are willing to accept the evidence.
Posted December 26, 2006 3:53 PM
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham, Sally Quinn and Jim Wallis. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/jim_wallis/
| 55.294118 | 0.352941 | 0.352941 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/12/somalia_islamists_should_be_st.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122719id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/12/somalia_islamists_should_be_st.html
|
PostGlobal: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2006122719
|
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- War or no war with Somalia, Mulunesh Abebayhu wants out. Out of her teaching job, where Ethiopian security forces constantly harass her because of her political views. Out of this city, where hundreds of protesters were killed by police bullets after disputed elections last year. And, if she can manage, out of this country that she believes has plunged into the abyss of dictatorship at the hands of its prime minister, Meles Zenawi, a staunch ally of the United States in the vulnerable Horn of Africa.
"He confuses the Westerners so that he can keep ruling," said Abebayhu, 54, an opposition member arrested along with an estimated 30,000 others in the sweeping post-election crackdown last year. "Our party does not believe in this war. Our priority is to eradicate poverty, not go to war. Meles knows this war is a way for his system to survive."
In particular, opponents of war say he is playing up the claim that there are al-Qaeda operatives within the Islamic Courts in order to maintain the support of the U.S. government, which relies on a steady flow of Ethiopian intelligence that some regional analysts say is of dubious value.
A recent attempt by Congress to sanction the Ethiopian government for widespread human rights violations failed after former Republican House leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), lobbying on behalf of the Ethiopian government, argued that the United States needs Ethiopia in order to fight terrorism.
"We don't know why the Americans let them get away with it," said Abebayhu, who was denied her request for a U.S. visa and who said she receives death threats regularly.
Meanwhile, Meles has become so disliked in the city that people compare him unfavorably to the former dictator known as "the Butcher of Addis Ababa," Mengistu Haile Mariam, who was convicted last week of genocide after a trial lasting 12 years.
Around Victory Square, one of many roundabouts in this city of a thousand cafes and tin-patch markets, passersby offered opinions similar to that of Nemera Bersisa, 35, a record-keeper on his way home from work.
"I believe the Dergue regime is better than this one, even if they killed people," he said, referring to Mengistu's rule. "This regime is democratic only in words. They kill people without any law, and they arrest people without a reason. This government is trying to stay in power by using different mechanisms, like claiming the Somalis are invading. But this is not the case. Meles is trying to externalize his problems."
And those problems are vast.
After 12 years in power, Meles presides over a nation that still does not produce enough food to feed its own people, relying on the U.N. World Food Program to supplement struggling farmers. The number of people infected with HIV is rising every year: At least 500,000 Ethiopians are living with the virus now, according to government figures. At least half of the population lives on less than $1 a day, which is not enough to buy a single meal.
A smattering of new skyscrapers have gone up in Addis Ababa lately, and in recent years, the gaudy Sheraton Hotel was built, a fortified palace of marble and brass and $100 Scotch set amid a rusting neighborhood of leaning, one-room shacks. Locals call it Paradise in Hell.
Last year's elections began with high hopes and degenerated into a bloodbath. Opposition groups, who made significant gains but did not win a majority according to the national election board, accused the government of rigging the tally and flooded the streets to challenge the results. During the rallies in May and November last year, unarmed protesters were sprayed with bullets while others were hunted down, killed inside their homes and in their gardens, in front of children and neighbors.
Though the official government report released in October listed 197 demonstrators killed, some members of the government's own commission and human rights groups have estimated that the number could be as high as 600. Seven police officers were killed
|
Need to Know - PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/
| 41.631579 | 0.421053 | 0.421053 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500929.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500929.html
|
Calcium Adds to Health, Not Weight
|
2006122619
|
If you're looking for some ways to hold the line on extra pounds this holiday season, consider adding mineral water, skim milk or other calcium-rich food and drink to your diet.
Calcium is good for your bones and your blood pressure, and there is growing evidence that it could help a little with weight control, especially for women.
Some of the latest evidence comes from a retrospective study of nearly 11,000 middle-aged men and women conducted at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Women who got 500 milligrams or more of calcium daily--equal to drinking about two cups of skim milk --gained about 10 pounds over a decade. Compare that to the more than 15 pounds gained by women who consumed less calcium daily.
While calories consumed, exercise and metabolism account for 97 percent of the fluctuations in body weight, calcium "explains about a three percent variability of body weight in U.S. adults," says Robert P. Heaney, who studies the effects of calcium at Creighton University in Nebraska. "Three percent isn't bad."
With that knowledge, welcome to the final week of the 2006 Lean Plate Club Holiday Challenge. This week's food goal is to boost calcium intake and to keep active by walking 10 minutes three times daily. The Holiday Challenge isn't a diet. It's simply designed help you maintain your weight during the holidays. Holding your weight steady puts you a step ahead of the curve when 2007 arrives since research suggests that overweight and obese adults add an average of five pounds during the holidays. And they don't take it off in the spring. (See the successes--and the struggles--of three Lean Plate Club members taking the challenge in their video blogs at http://www.leanplateclub.com)
Whether calcium will help men with their waistlines is less certain. Neither the Hutchinson Center study nor another recent report by a team of scientists at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health found any weight benefits of boosting calcium in men.
But both men and women can reap other health benefits, namely better blood pressure and stronger bones. Besides, most U.S. adults fall short of the recommended calcium consumption, according to the latest federal health surveys. The Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board advises consuming 1,000 milligrams of calcium daily for men and women 50 and younger; 1,200 milligrams for those 51 and older. But the federal government's 1999 to 2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that 73 percent of adults 20 and older get less than the adequate intake.
Dairy products are a prime source of calcium. For that reason, the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommends drinking three cups daily of skim or low-fat milk or eating equivalent amounts of non-fat or low-fat cheese (about three ounces) or yogurt (about three cups).
But there are plenty of other ways to boost calcium, particularly for those who may not be able to eat or drink dairy products because of lactose intolerance. Other options include drinking calcium-fortified soy milk and juice, which rival the calcium content of milk. There also are plenty of calcium-fortified cereals, snack bars and bread.
Or you can sip bottled mineral water. Creighton's Heaney reported earlier this year that mineral water contains up to 108 milligrams of calcium per cup. He found that the calcium in mineral water is just as well absorbed by the body as that from other food and drink. An added benefit: no calories. Heaney studied Contrex, Sanfaustino, Ferrarelle and San Gemini mineral water. Most are imported, but check the nutrition facts labels of bottled waters to see if your favorite also contains calcium.
Other foods rich in calcium include tofu, canned salmon (which has small, soft bones) and sesame seeds. Just an ounce of sesame seeds contains nearly the amount of calcium in a cup of skim milk--although it also has about twice the calories.
Finally, to enjoy the food that you eat this holiday more while still eating fewer calories, slow down. Popular opinion has long held that savoring food instead of gobbling it could help cut the calories consumed. But there's been little scientific evidence to back up that claim.
In November, scientists at the University of Rhode Island reported that women who paused briefly between bites and chewed well ate about 80 fewer calories per meal than those who ate fast. They also felt greater satiety after eating--a feeling that lasted an hour after the meal.
No Web chat or e-mail newsletter this week. They will return on Jan. 2. In the meantime, view and comment on the updated video blogs from Lean Plate Club members at www.leanplateclub.com. E-mail me anytime at leanplateclub@washpost.com
|
If you're looking for some ways to hold the line on extra pounds this holiday season, consider adding mineral water, skim milk or other calcium-rich food and drink to your diet.
| 24.621622 | 1 | 37 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500468.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500468.html
|
Recovering From Tragedy
|
2006122619
|
Today marks two years since the 2004 tsunami unleashed untold suffering and devastation upon Indian Ocean coastal communities. The tragic toll still resonates: more than 200,000 dead; 2 million people displaced; 370,000 homes destroyed or damaged; some 5,000 miles of coastline devastated; and 2,000 miles of roads ruined.
The tsunami was also unprecedented in the magnitude of the response by donors, the affected governments and their everyday citizens. The homeless received shelter, the hungry were fed, disease was prevented and substantial recovery has been achieved over the past 22 months. Nearly 150,000 homes have been rebuilt or repaired and 80,000 more are being reconstructed. More than 1,600 schools and health centers have been rebuilt or are under construction, tourists are returning to the region in large numbers, and economic growth rates have improved substantially.
At the same time, the tasks ahead are significant in scope and cost. Some 200,000 homes must still be rebuilt or repaired, and in Aceh in particular the challenges of rehabilitating infrastructure and promoting economic development remain daunting. In light of the work to be done, it is encouraging that so many donors have sustained their focus, thus far translating some $13 billion in pledges into roughly $11 billion in firm commitments to critical projects.
I have just completed my third and final trip to the affected region as the U.N. secretary general's special envoy for tsunami recovery. In India, Thailand and Indonesia, I saw once again the resilience of the human spirit and the determination to build a better tomorrow.
At year's end, the mandate entrusted to me by the secretary general will conclude and my responsibilities will be transferred to the United Nations, the World Bank and other established institutions. As this important work continues, I believe four key lessons learned from the tsunami reconstruction effort will contribute to further and faster progress, as well as to dealing with future natural disasters.
First, we must get better at managing risk. Climate change and patterns of human behavior ensure that more devastating natural disasters will occur in the future. The good news is that officials in the countries affected by the tsunami have made progress on a regional early-warning system, natural disaster prevention legislation, training of rapid-response personnel and public education. However, funding for prevention is much harder to come by than funding for relief after a disaster. Donors and governments of at-risk nations must invest much more money to ensure that early-warning systems reach coastal communities, that safe building codes are developed and enforced, and that evacuations are practiced.
Second, we should pursue recovery practices that promote equity and help break patterns of underdevelopment. In the Cuddalore District of India, for example, officials have worked with nongovernmental organizations to expand their post-tsunami housing program to include new homes for Dalits and members of other disadvantaged communities. Many of these people did not lose assets in the tsunami but had been living in substandard conditions. Authorities in Aceh are considering similar solutions for former squatters and renters who did not own the housing they lost in the tsunami. Such efforts should be strongly encouraged.
Third, we must recognize that peace is critical to any recovery process. In Aceh, long-conflicted groups put aside entrenched differences and created an environment conducive to reconstruction. Tragically, the tsunami has not had a similar impact on reconciliation in Sri Lanka, where the recovery will be continue to be hampered until the parties resume a serious dialogue and reestablish the cease-fire. I hope they will choose to work for peace; all of Sri Lanka, especially the tsunami victims, will continue to suffer until they do.
Finally, we must do more to harness the talents of local entrepreneurs and established businesses, domestic and foreign, in relaunching economies. Corporations in the United States and around the world contributed generously to the tsunami response, but we need to do more to turn philanthropists into investors, and providers of access to new markets.
Two years ago, millions around the world responded generously to a tragedy of historic proportions. The challenge that remains is to sustain the recovery effort, use the lessons we are learning to continually improve our response, and apply those lessons to mitigate and respond to future disasters. This will be the most fitting way to honor the memory of the hundreds of thousands who died in the tsunami and to support the millions who survived and are rebuilding their lives.
The writer, the 42nd president, is president of the William J. Clinton Foundation.
|
Two years after the southeast Asian tsunami, we can honor its victims by applying lessons we've learned in the recovery to future natural disasters.
| 31.777778 | 0.777778 | 1.37037 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500465.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500465.html
|
A Bipartisan Fix for Retirees
|
2006122619
|
In the aftermath of their November election victory, Democratic leaders have pledged to work on a bipartisan basis to solve the problems facing our nation. In that spirit, I suggest that Democrats and Republicans can successfully work together to create personal savings accounts for all Americans outside the Social Security system, an idea that politicians from both political parties have supported for years and that The Post's editorial page recently endorsed ["Up From the Depths," editorial, Nov. 27].
For the first time since the Great Depression, our country's savings rate has fallen into negative territory, with more than half of all American workers having less than $25,000 in savings excluding their primary residence. More troubling, almost half of the 152.7 million Americans who worked in 2004 worked for an employer that did not sponsor any retirement plan, and an additional 17.3 million did not participate in the plans their employers did have. Furthermore, the average American worker has held nine jobs by age 35, meaning that he often leaves his job before his retirement benefits become vested and that he will probably cash out whatever limited employer-sponsored retirement savings he has when he changes jobs.
The solution for this problem is to create a national system of personal savings accounts modeled on the successful Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for federal employees. Federal employees pay Social Security taxes and receive the same Social Security benefits as everyone else. But the TSP program allows them to invest a portion of each paycheck -- along with a government match for part of these contributions -- in one of six investment accounts (or some combination of these accounts), including a government securities fund and a common stock fund. Over the past two decades, this system has been an unqualified success, as federal employees have received large returns on the money they invested.
Under legislation I will be introducing in the next Congress, an individual personal retirement account -- called a PLUS Account (for Portable, Lifelong Universal Savings Accounts) -- would be established for every American at birth and would be endowed with a $1,000 contribution from the federal government. This money could be placed in a limited number of investment funds similar to those offered by the TSP program, with the parents of each newborn choosing their preferred funds. Parents and grandparents also would be allowed to contribute up to $5,000 annually to these accounts. Without any additional contributions, and given a reasonable rate of return, the initial $1,000 endowment would be worth $50,000 to $100,000 when each individual reached age 65.
But the real impact of PLUS accounts would be that, beginning in 2009, 1 percent of every worker's paycheck would be automatically deposited into his own account for the first $100,000 earned annually, with his employer required to match this 1 percent contribution. Worker contributions would be made pretax while employer contributions would be tax-deductible. Both workers and their employers would have the option of contributing more.
Funds contributed to PLUS accounts would be the legal property of each account holder, but they could not be touched until age 65. Any funds remaining when an individual died could be passed on to a spouse, children, grandchildren or anyone of the holder's choosing (including a favorite charity). Account assets would be protected from creditors and would not be considered in determining eligibility for any federally funded benefits or in calculating estate tax liability. Finally, my plan would simply serve as a supplement to the Social Security system, not altering the program in any way.
If we begin PLUS accounts at birth and require a portion of every paycheck to be invested, the average American citizen could retire with a rather sizable nest egg. For instance, given a 6.59 percent rate of return (the same rate as the TSP's most conservative fund since 1987), someone who makes $46,000 a year -- the median household income in 2005 -- and contributes 1 percent of each paycheck would retire with almost $300,000. If that same individual were to contribute 3 percent over the course of his working life, he could expect to retire with over a half-million dollars (even if his employer never contributed more than 1 percent).
The continued success of the U.S. economy depends on increasing savings for every citizen to provide the investment capital we need to ensure long-term economic growth. More important, without increased savings, most Americans will not have sufficient money upon retirement to live the comfortable life they deserve after 40-plus years of work. As all honest policymakers in Washington are aware, Social Security alone cannot sustain the lifestyle retirees want and can have, especially as 78 million baby boomers begin to retire.
Our nation's saving rate is a big problem. It requires a big solution. We cannot tinker with the federal tax code and expect personal savings to increase dramatically. By harnessing the power of compound interest through individual savings accounts and small paycheck deductions, we can ensure that almost every American will retire a half-millionaire.
The writer is a Republican senator from Alabama and a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
|
In the aftermath of their November election victory, Democratic leaders have pledged to work on a bipartisan basis to solve the problems facing our nation. In that spirit, I suggest that Democrats and Republicans can successfully work together to create personal savings accounts for all Americans outside the Social Security system, an idea that politicians from both political parties have supported for years and that The Post's editorial page recently endorsed ["Up From the Depths," editorial, Nov. 27]....
| 10.619565 | 0.967391 | 54.467391 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500548.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500548.html
|
Troop Push Is Personal For McCain
|
2006122619
|
As the Iraq Study Group issued its long-awaited report on the war, declaring that the United States should not dispatch more troops, Sen. John McCain reacted with his long-held and contrary view: It will take more boots on the ground, or the nation faces "sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq."
Then the Arizona Republican discreetly flew to San Diego, where the next day, Dec. 8, he sat under a hot sun to watch a skinny 18-year-old in military-issue glasses graduate from boot camp and become a Marine. His son Jimmy.
John McCain's public certainty about Iraq masks a more private and potentially wrenching connection. If more troops go there, as McCain hopes they will, his youngest son could be one of them, taking his place in a line of family warriors that is one of the longest in U.S. history.
Sen.-elect James Webb (D-Va.) also has a son in the Marine Corps named Jimmy. On the campaign trail, Webb declined to talk about his son, who is in Iraq, but he wore Jimmy's boots as he called for American forces to come home.
McCain has not drawn any attention to his son and declined to be interviewed for this article.
A leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination, McCain has been one of the few and among the most vocal politicians pressing for more troops in Iraq. "We left Vietnam, it was over, we just had to heal the wounds of war. We leave this place . . . and they'll follow us home," he said on a news show recently. "So there's a great deal more at stake."
McCain's own father faced the anguish of sending a son to war. Adm. John McCain Jr., who commanded Pacific forces during the Vietnam War, ordered airstrikes on Hanoi even while his son, a Navy pilot, was imprisoned there after being shot down.
McCain was held captive for more than five years, repeatedly beaten and tortured. On more than one occasion, the North Vietnamese offered to release him as a propaganda move to shame his father. McCain, citing a prisoners' code of conduct requiring that POWs be released in order of capture, refused.
During McCain's imprisonment, his father, while privately collecting every scrap of information about his son that he could, "made an ironclad rule that no one would talk about his son around him," said Torie Clark, who was a staffer for the younger McCain and a Pentagon spokeswoman. "He wanted to make sure he made decisions based on what was right for U.S. forces . . . not what would be good or bad for his son.
"I'm not surprised that the current John McCain separates the private from the public."
In "Faith of My Fathers," the family memoir McCain wrote in 1999 with Mark Salter, his chief of staff, he recalls the prisoners' jubilation at the 1972 bombing of Hanoi, ordered by his father, that helped end the war. His thoughts foreshadowed his position on Iraq:
"The misery we had endured . . . was made all the worse by our fear that the United States was unprepared to do what was necessary to bring the war to a reasonably swift conclusion," the authors wrote.
|
As the Iraq Study Group issued its long-awaited report on the war, declaring that the United States should not dispatch more troops, Sen. John McCain reacted with his long-held and contrary view: It will take more boots on the ground, or the nation faces "sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq."
| 10.269841 | 1 | 63 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500513.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500513.html
|
Old Iraq Strategy Lives On In Weekly Progress Reports
|
2006122619
|
But never mind what the politicians are doing. The bureaucracy churns on.
The State Department continues every Wednesday to issue a 30-page public report that details exactly how the U.S. government is meeting the goals set forth in the president's now-abandoned plan. The report frames the data around Bush's storied eight pillars, which include such goals as "Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgents" (Pillar 1) and "Increase International Support for Iraq" (Pillar 7).
In many ways, the report is a microcosm of the administration's lost year in Iraq. The reams of details aimed at touting success belie the fact that few of the goals are being met.
The report is often upbeat as it presents some of the most minuscule factoids of the situation in Iraq. The Dec. 13 report noted that on Dec. 7, 40 sheikhs from across Diyala province met "to discuss ways to maintain peace and stability" and that on Dec. 9, U.S. soldiers discovered a factory for making improvised explosive devices in a house in Baqubah.
But the bottom-line graphs tell a story of failure. Under Pillar 5 ("Help Iraq Strengthen Its Economy") the reports show that week after week, the Iraqis cannot meet their goals for crude oil production. Another chart shows that efforts to build a 15-day supply of all refined products, such as diesel and gasoline, are woefully behind schedule, reaching a peak of a four-day supply.
Under Pillar 7, increasing international support, the trends are on the decline. The first report of the year showed that 28 countries, in addition to the United States, contributed 23,000 troops to coalition forces. By last week's report, the number of countries had fallen to 25 -- and the number of troops was down to 16,860, a decrease of more than 25 percent. Italy recently dropped off the list when the last of its troops departed.
One figure has not really budged: the $20 billion apportioned for rebuilding Iraq (under Pillar 4, "Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services"). That is because the administration ran out of money for rebuilding Iraq, in part because about 25 percent was diverted to security. The latest report says that all but $4 billion has been disbursed.
A State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to reporters about the report, said it still plays an important role because it provides the administration with a single set of numbers about the situation in Iraq. Previously, State and Defense department officials might have arrived at meetings armed with different data, but "now everyone is talking off the same sheet on music," he said.
There is also a classified version of the report, which includes details on counterterrorism operations, given to top policymakers on Fridays.
The report is prepared not by State Department officials but by a team of about 10 people hired by a management consulting firm. The firm, BearingPoint, has a $2 million contract to produce the report and to manage the process of running Iraq policy in the administration, the State Department official said.
Below the level of the top policymakers, working groups from across the government implement Iraq policy day by day. The BearingPoint employees, who work out of offices in the State Department, arrange the meetings, set the agendas, take notes and provide summaries of the discussions, the official said. They also maintain the Web site of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
The twists and turns of American policy are imperfectly reflected in the report. "Operation Together Forward," the effort this summer to bolster security in Baghdad, which was later deemed a disappointment, was the subject of several upbeat reports but then seemed to fade in importance. During the spike in violence in October, the report noted that the Iraqi Ministry of Interior had recalled a police brigade for more training after "possible complicity with sectarian violence," though it brightly added that the training "will improve the professionalism and confidence within the national police."
The report seemed uncertain how to treat the release of a report by the Iraq Study Group, the independent bipartisan panel that criticized the administration's policy and spurred the White House to come up with a new plan. The earliest mention of the study group's report, in the Dec. 13 edition, came under Pillar 3, "Help Iraqis to Forge a National Compact for Democratic Government."
The headline said it all: "Iraqi Leaders Blast Iraq Study Group's Report." The State Department, perhaps in an effort to demonstrate the unity of Iraqi leaders, then devoted a whole page to negative quotes about the panel's recommendations.
The Dec. 20 report featured one curious item. Under the rubric of increasing international support, the report highlighted a visit to Damascus, Syria, by Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). The senators "arrived in Syria December 19 to discuss how Damascus could help bring stability and security in Iraq," the report said, noting that another senator, Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in early December.
The State Department had strongly discouraged the trips, saying Syria is a key source of problems in Iraq.
|
Washington Post coverage of the American occupation of Iraq, the country's path to democracy and tensions between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
| 41.36 | 0.52 | 0.68 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500670.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500670.html
|
Eternal Soul
|
2006122619
|
This time James Brown is gone. No more faux faints to the floor, no more hasty cape-covering or furious cool-down fanning by concerned band members trying to get the inevitably, and dramatically, exhausted Godfather of Soul to leave the stage. Death chose Christmas Day to declare that 73 years was enough for one rhythm revolutionary who danced and sang America through cultural changes in the '60s and '70s.
Last Christmas, Brown and Washington's Chuck Brown, the Godfather of Go-Go, shared a bill at the 9:30 club -- a Godfather Summit, as it were -- marking James Brown's return to the stage following a short retirement after prostate cancer in 2004. Just a few days earlier, he had called from Augusta, Ga., and asked me to "tell Chocolate City I'm on my way! And I'm ready! We're goin' to take care of business. I feel great."
While that gig clearly wasn't the Apollo or the Howard Theater in the '60s, the fact that James Brown could still command a stage in his 70s was astonishing.
The first time we'd talked was in 1986, when Brown was a charter inductee into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and was also enjoying an increasingly rare visit to the pop charts with "Living in America" from "Rocky IV."
"It seems like I've been around a long time," Brown conceded then. "Hey, I'm here and I thank God I'm here. Thank God the people still want me. Thank you for having me in your life so long."
He said it personally but meant it universally.
Awaiting the ceremony, the Godfather seemed larger than life: stocky, sweaty in his form-fitting suit and silk shirt, sturdy in the manner of someone who knows what he's done and what it's meant. Almost 20 years later, Augusta's city fathers unveiled a 6-foot, 600-pound bronze likeness of Brown on James Brown Boulevard near the park he once danced in for spare change. Even with a cape and microphone, the statue was nowhere near as imposing as its inspiration, and even a million watts could not have matched his natural smile.
At the 9:30 a year ago, Brown understandably was not up to the pure, relentless physicality of past performances. He let the band carry much of the show, but he still projected more raw power than performers a third his age as he tapped into his sometimes-overlooked roots as a soul singer and balladeer extraordinaire on "Please, Please, Please" and "It's a Man's Man's Man's World."
But Brown understood that folks were there to experience firsthand the funk he pretty much invented in the same way Ray Charles invented soul. "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag," "The Payback," "I Got You (I Feel Good)," "Get Up (I Feel Like Being a) Sex Machine," "Cold Sweat" -- there were lyrics, but Brown's guttural growl was mostly given to a symphony of shouts, grunts and slogans. As usual, he kicked off the show with a jubilant invitation to "Get Up Offa That Thing," but, really, was there a choice? As for Brown's frequent query, "Do you wanna get funky?" -- it ranks as one of the most rhetorical questions of our time.
Only James Brown could turn a simple Huh ! into something with multiple meanings -- all of them thoroughly convincing.
Thankfully, whether 40 years ago or 40 years from now, you never just hear James Brown. Whether on the radio or whatever big playback machine you choose, you'll feel his sweat as any of several dozen songs conjure images as timeless as the music: J.B. gliding on a cushion of air, moonwalking decades before Michael Jackson or Neil Armstrong; J.B. slamming to the floor in seemingly painful acrobatic splits, yet popping up immediately in full spin; J.B. falling to a knee, microphone in hand, a beggar man for love or attention. There will still be nonstop flash in the feet, fire in his soul.
Generations of musicians listened to James Brown, looked at him and took what they could, regardless of the kind of music they played. Much imitated, he was ultimately inimitable. Someone once suggested Brown was to rhythm what Bob Dylan was to lyrics, and there's no arguing that when it comes to foundations of American popular music, Brown is right there with Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Jimmie Rodgers, Hank Williams, Elvis Presley and Dylan -- creators whose innovations changed everything around them.
|
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.
| 17.72549 | 0.392157 | 0.392157 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500638.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500638.html
|
On a Resilient Southern Spirit, Prison Could Place No Bars
|
2006122619
|
The South constantly sways with its own Gothic story lines. To roam it can be seductive and fascinating. Go to Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and you find souls, people who want to talk, who have things to say. People who have been down to the river.
James Brown would have made a great and tragic figure in a Southern novel.
It was in 1989 when I was dispatched to South Carolina to write about him. Brown was in prison, four months into a six-year sentence on assault and weapons charges. (He would be released in 1991.) I met his lawyer, a bony man in a too-big gray suit, at a bar in Augusta, Ga., Brown's home town. The lawyer, George Hill, regaled me with stories of Brown, his life. I'd never get to the singer, of course, because he was in prison, so my aim was to find those who knew him, band members, the deejays across South Carolina and Georgia.
But as sometimes happens, a quick and easy rapport was established between the lawyer and me. Before long we were just two cats talking about James Brown. There was much laughter, and we sang -- awful and high-pitched -- the intros to "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" and "Georgia on My Mind."
"Tell you what," Hill said, just after midnight, as we were strolling toward the parking lot, "meet me in front of your hotel tomorrow morning at 7."
Next morning I stood outside of the hotel, leaning on tall white columns. The air smelled fresh, like the country. A white stretch limo pulled up, the window rolled down, and inside was Hill, peering at me from the back seat.
Soon we were heading down an interstate. The driver jammed in a cassette, turned the volume up loud, and James Brown's voice started bouncing around the limo. "Sex Machine" as I remember.
"Today is Sunday. It's family visitation day," Hill said. "Just follow me when I walk through and don't say a word and don't look any of the guards in the eye."
I felt a rush of adrenaline; I felt giddy. The driver looked at me in the rearview mirror and grinned. The music was thumping. Cornfields whizzed by.
As we got closer, I couldn't help but think of Southern movie dramas: "Cool Hand Luke," "In the Heat of the Night." It is easy enough to be afraid of prisons. Southern prisons -- at least the imagery -- might still one's blood.
We reached State Park, S.C., site of the incongruously named State Park Health Center, a minimum-security facility that would close in 2001. It was plain and drab, low-set. Old prisoners were moving shovels around in dirt in the front of the place. As we entered, the guards all smiled at the lawyer; I heeded his instructions and acted as if I were stamping the dirt from my shoes.
|
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.
| 11.901961 | 0.372549 | 0.411765 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500695.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500695.html
|
Spotlighting Immigration, With No Fuss
|
2006122619
|
Can it be? Is it possible? A one-hour documentary in prime time -- and on NBC, of all networks? Yes, unless fate fickly intervenes, "Tom Brokaw Reports," a solid and absorbing report on the immigration crisis as it affects one microcosmic American town, will air tonight at 8 (on Channel 4).
This is relatively valuable airtime that could have gone to a dunce-driven game show or a brain-draining tango contest. Instead, NBC is playing Santa and giving the hour over to something of actual value.
Of course there are those pesky mitigating circumstances: The week after Christmas is traditionally one of TV's least-watched of the year, so NBC has little to lose by sacrificing an hour that Nielsen probably would award to the other networks anyway. Also, the documentary was shot in a neck of the woods where Brokaw has a huge ranch and would likely have been visiting regardless.
But as Murray Slaughter once said on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," after an uncharacteristically noble, though minor, gesture by Ted Baxter: "When a donkey flies, you don't criticize him for not staying up that long."
So although this edition of "Tom Brokaw Reports" is not getting a big push from NBC -- as of yesterday, it wasn't even described on the network's Web site (despite a continuing NBC project on immigration) -- at least it's there, and represents a conscientious effort to deal with a monumentally vexing issue. Most of it concentrates on the Roaring Fork Valley in Colorado, a link between those rich-folk and ski-bum playpens of Vail and Aspen, where, as in countless other American cities, a relatively sudden inundation by Hispanics has caused controversy and consternation.
Brokaw notes the "passionate debate" engendered by "the waves of illegal immigrants, the undocumented workers who are pouring across the border from Mexico, Central and South America." Undocumented or not, many are extremely hard workers, indeed, or so local businessmen say. "These people work their butts off," marvels a construction company boss. He says they eagerly accept jobs that "Americans don't want," even at a fairly respectable $14 an hour or more.
It's considered "unskilled labor," and though that's really a misnomer in many cases, young people who could formerly be counted on to fill these jobs don't want them anymore. They want money and status. The economy is "booming" as new buildings go up, and illegals are "thriving" because of all the employment available, Brokaw says, and yet the population explosion has an unhappy side familiar in many an American town: 18 people crammed into a four-bedroom home, for instance, or basements that are wall-to-wall with mattresses on the floor.
Meanwhile, area schools now have student populations that are 80 percent Hispanic, with local property owners paying for them through heavy taxes.
In some cities, the "debate" has become an ugly battle -- jingoistic groups with names like Domestic Workers United marching around with banners that say bluntly, and crudely, "Go back to Mexico where you belong." It's an old, old story in the history of this immigrant nation: The last to arrive, from wherever, want The Golden Door closed behind them.
Brokaw interviews Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a hard-liner demanding stricter controls on immigration and more "assimilation" by those already here. How far does he expect them to go? Learning English would seem a reasonable request, but extremists begrudge Hispanics the preservation of culture and traditions precious to them -- as precious as St. Patrick's Day parades to the Irish or Oktoberfest to Germans. President Bush, who likes to call himself a "compassionate person," certainly doesn't sound compassionate in an excerpt from a surly speech on immigration that he gave earlier this year.
Meanwhile, Brokaw notes, 300 of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's "war on terror" in Iraq were of Hispanic origin.
The version of the program submitted for preview was not quite complete, but it did include Brokaw's assessment that "this latest massive wave of immigration may now be irreversible." That sounds like a safe bet. Absent is any discussion or description of conditions in Mexico -- it's obvious why immigrants want to come here, but less clear why they're so anxious to leave there -- but within its limitations, the program compellingly addresses the big problem and many an attendant predicament.
As good as Brokaw's hour is, it doesn't represent nearly as impressive an undertaking as a recent full-length documentary on another network -- "North Korea: Inside the Shadows," Diane Sawyer's impressive, eye-opening visit to a (nuclear) nation about which Americans know maddeningly little. Though Sawyer and her crew spent a good deal of their time being shooed away from this site and that by intransigent officials, Sawyer did come home with plenty of utterly fascinating material.
One can't help wondering how things might have been different if Sawyer, rather than Katie Couric, had been the first woman to be solo anchor of a network evening newscast. It may be pointless wondering, but it's still hard to resist.
What the Brokaw and Sawyer documentaries have in common on the negative side is a longstanding bugaboo of broadcast journalism: a reluctance to rely on the visual, even though they're working in a visual medium, and a tendency to flood the soundtrack with too much talk. Considering the scarcity of serious documentaries in network prime time, however, it does seem churlish to complain.
When a donkey flies -- well, you know. The best course may be to give it a cheer and hope for another flight in ye olde foreseeable future.
|
Can it be? Is it possible? A one-hour documentary in prime time -- and on NBC, of all networks? Yes, unless fate fickly intervenes, "Tom Brokaw Reports," a solid and absorbing report on the immigration crisis as it affects one microcosmic American town, will air tonight at 8 (on Channel 4).
| 17.257576 | 1 | 66 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500559.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500559.html
|
Frank Stanton; Pioneer and Longtime President of CBS
|
2006122619
|
Frank Stanton, a broadcasting pioneer and CBS president for 26 years who helped turn its TV operation into the "Tiffany network" and built CBS News into a respected information source, died Dec. 24 at his home in Boston. He was 98.
No precise cause of death was reported. "He took an afternoon nap and never woke up," said a longtime friend, Elisabeth Allison.
Mr. Stanton once summarized his duties as "keeping the company going." But during his long association with CBS founder William S. Paley, the psychologist helped build the company from a modest chain of radio affiliates into a communications empire whose centerpiece became the nation's preeminent TV network.
As the head of CBS beginning in 1946, Mr. Stanton oversaw varied enterprises that included Columbia Records, CBS Laboratories, a book publisher, a toymaker and, for a brief time, the New York Yankees.
Paley, a radio man, didn't initially grasp the potential of television.
"He thought it would hurt radio," said Mr. Stanton, who took a chance on the new medium by signing a comic with untested appeal named Jackie Gleason, then nailing down a new sitcom, "I Love Lucy," which might otherwise have gone to NBC.
"Who else had the opportunity to take a new medium, television, and plot its future?" Mr. Stanton once said. He called the job so interesting "I would have almost paid them to do it."
While he shepherded CBS to leadership status among the skyrocketing number of television viewers, Mr. Stanton also made CBS News a priority.
His belief in the First Amendment was genuine. In 1971, subpoenaed by Congress to produce unaired footage from a controversial CBS News documentary, Mr. Stanton risked jail by refusing. A contempt motion failed, but only narrowly.
A less admirable chapter of Mr. Stanton's career found him overseeing CBS's blacklisting policies in the 1950s and '60s. These included the creation in 1951 of a security office to investigate political leanings of CBS employees.
When Federal Communications Commission chief Newton N. Minow declared in 1961 that network television was a "vast wasteland," Mr. Stanton countered that Minow had taken a "sensationalized and oversimplified approach."
Mr. Stanton's interests and expertise were far-flung. He once explained that his success came from knowing more than anybody else about every problem and from "staying ahead of everybody."
|
Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia obituaries, appreciations and death notices.
| 36.076923 | 0.461538 | 0.461538 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600451.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600451.html
|
Bad Guess on U.S. Future
|
2006122619
|
The two words most likely to make education reporters sigh wearily are "national" and "commission." Those of us who have been doing this for awhile know that many government, business and non-profit groups cannot resist the urge to gather great men and women together frequently to plan our schools' future. The result is almost always a great waste of time and paper.
So when "Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce" arrived in the mail, I was pretty sure I was not going to like it. These reports come in two varieties: those that belabor the obvious and those that ignore reality. "Tough Choices or Tough Times" falls into the second category, which means it has no more staying power than the chocolate pie I whipped up for yesterday's family Christmas dinner.
This is sad, in a way. The commission includes some of the giants of American education. Panel members such as former U.S. education secretaries Richard W. Riley and Rod Paige and former Boston school superintendent Thomas W. Payzant have helped make our schools significantly better. But like hundreds of powerful and brilliant people who have participated in well-intentioned commissions before them, they let themselves be talked into wandering through dreamland, rather than the real world.
Almost all the ideas in the report are worthy of support. Teachers salaries should be raised substantially to attract better recruits. Standardized tests should be rewritten to encourage creative thought. Independently operated public schools should be encouraged. Spending on low-income students should be increased.
The problem is the report's fanciful notion that it would be possible -- indeed, they say it is absolutely necessary -- to do all these things at once. The report's authors propose a grand scheme to save our schools and keep India and China from turning the United States into a low-wage economic backwater. They ignore the progress made by some of their own panel members and instead assert that none of the education innovations of the past 40 years have had much effect. "The reason that nothing has made much difference is that every time we tried to change something, we did not change much of anything else," they conclude.
Huh? Our schools need to be better, but it is also clear that they are providing the finest training in the world in just about every specialty you could name, and are giving the majority of Americans enough skills to support a middle-class lifestyle. We have gotten as far as we have by muddling along, attacking problems haphazardly, rejecting master plans, and using the liberties inherent in our political, economic and social systems to create new approaches that keep us moving forward. That is the way free enterprise democracies work.
The staff of the new (their italics) commission (hmm -- why do you suppose we don't remember much about the OLD commission's 1990 report) did splendid work studying school reform in other developed and developing countries. Then they went too far. They decided the best course was for the United States to copy methods they thought worked well overseas. They justified this with the usual scare treatment -- threats that the rise of the Indian and Chinese economies will ruin us if we don't do something quick.
I am not an international economist, to say the least. I had to struggle to get through Ec 1 my sophomore year of college. But I am a careful reader of the business and economic reporting of my newspaper, so I think I am qualified to ask two questions -- neither of which are answered in this report -- about those scary folk in south and east Asia.
Question one: Isn't the freedom and flexibility of American culture and politics, not the quality of our educational system, what has given us such power in the world? India appears to have adopted many of those freedoms and its people have a chance to be just as creative as we are. But I have spent much of my life studying China and I don't see any way that country is going to set its great culture free any time soon. The China brain drain will be in our favor until Beijing adopts democracy and human rights, and that will take a long time.
Question two: Even if both India and China do attain that potent blend of liberty and creativity, how exactly is that going to hurt Americans? Their economies are thriving because world commerce is losing its dependence on borders and tariffs, and the old way of thinking (accepted without question in this report) that if some poor countries get rich, then some rich countries, like us, are going to become poor. The experts on these issues that I find most persuasive point out that only countries cut off from the world economy, like North Korea, are declining, and that is because they are not globalized. Everyone else is discovering that the better off India and China and El Salvador and Tanzania become, the better off we all are. The more middle-class people overseas, the more customers there will be for the newest gizmos that our large and innovative middle-class country keeps coming up with.
So read the new report for its parts, not its whole. Rather than try to promote its report's grand scheme, the commission should let its panel members go back to doing what they are doing, making progress on some of the report's recommendations, like better teacher career paths and more independent public schools.
The only part of the report that should be rejected out of hand is its suggestion -- deeply influenced by practices abroad -- that we create two classes of high school students at age 16. Depending on their scores on standardized tests, one group would stay in high school and prepare for entry into selective colleges and the other group would go off to community college or trade schools.
The report's authors present this as a golden opportunity for high schools, community colleges and trade schools to improve, since they would compete for these students, and even the lower-scoring students would have a chance to go to four year colleges, if not the most selective ones, someday. That is an approach that would almost certainly blow up in our faces.
Forcing 16-year-olds and their families to make this major life decision, and basing it on a test, would be a return to the bad old days when we shoved minority kids into shop and home ec classes. Just when many high schools are finding ways to junk those stereotypes, and let all students develop the skills that would prepare them to make an intelligent decision about college, the commission runs the risk of aggravating the ugly class differences at the root of our education problems.
The report notes, correctly, that most of our public schools are not doing better because their students know there is not much penalty for mediocre effort. Most of them will still get into some college, or some job. Our economy gives them several chances to make up for youthful sloth.
If the report's authors' fears prove true, and American living standards begin to decline because of competition abroad and poor schooling, the U.S. education system will change very quickly. But we education reporters learned long ago that most national commissions are wrong. It is better to wait and let actual events, rather than well-staffed guesses, determine our next move.
|
The two words most likely to make education reporters sigh wearily are "national" and "commission." Those of us who have been doing this for awhile know that many government, business and non-profit groups cannot resist the urge to gather great men and women together frequently to plan our schools'...
| 23.75 | 0.983333 | 58.016667 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800561.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800561.html
|
On DVD, a Burst of 'Sunshine'
|
2006122619
|
"Little Miss Sunshine" (Rated R; List price: $29.99)Release Date: Dec. 19
As the end of 2006 approaches and critics compile their annual "best and worst movies" lists, expect to hear the name "Little Miss Sunshine" a lot.
Easily the most charming film of the year, "Sunshine" deserves every heaping of happy praise it gets. Perfectly acted by its superb ensemble cast -- including Toni Collette, Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Paul Dano, Abigail Breslin and the great Alan Arkin -- this hilarious portrait of one family's disastrous trip to a youth beauty pageant accomplishes something most contemporary comedies don't dare attempt: It surprises you. Unlike the broken-down VW bus in which the dysfunctional crew travels, "Sunshine" easily switches gears, sometimes in mere seconds, from heart-wrenching poignancy to outrageous humor. That always-swinging pendulum of emotions makes this a rich, memorable experience, one many will be eager to revisit again and again.
That's the primary reason to purchase "Little Miss Sunshine" on DVD. Not only does the movie hold up to multiple viewings, its intimate, character-study approach translates beautifully to at-home viewing. (The DVD, released in a single disc, includes both fullscreen and widescreen formats.) The release loses some luster, however, when it comes to the special features.
The mininal extras include four alternate endings ccompanied by commentary from directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, a feature-length commentary by Dayton and Faris and a second commentary track by the directors and screenwriter Michael Arndt. And that's pretty much it. While the features provide a solid sense of how much time and care went into the six years spent developing this movie, it's hard to escape the feeling that some notable elements are missing.
For example, Dayton and Faris talk extensively about the key role each actor played in the process, yet we don't hear a peep from any of the stars. After listening to the pair of commentaries, it's also clear that some significant footage was cut from the film. Yet the DVD comes with zero deleted scenes. Given that the film recently earned two Golden Globe nominations and will likely earn a nod or two at Oscar time, I have to wonder whether Fox is saving some of its goodies for a post-awards season re-release.
With that in mind, some cautious consumers may opt to postpone purchasing this DVD. But those who just want little Olive and her misfit family at home in time for the holidays will undoubtedly be pleased to let this version of "Sunshine" in.
Most Enlightening Bonus Point: If you have the time and some patience, the commentary tracks are worth a listen, particularly for film students eager to learn how much a movie can change from screenplay to the big screen. Interesting tidbits -- like the fact that the film's journey originally extended from Maryland to Florida instead of New Mexico to California -- abound amidst the filmmakers' affable, decidedly low-key chatter.
Also on DVD This Week: "Lady in the Water," "A Scanner Darkly" and more.
For more on new DVDs, visit washingtonpost.com's DVD section.
|
"Little Miss Sunshine" (Rated R; List price: $29.99)
| 41.533333 | 0.933333 | 11.333333 |
high
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500455.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500455.html
|
Jackson Sues Former Accountants
|
2006122619
|
LOS ANGELES -- Michael Jackson is suing his former accountants, claiming they withdrew $2.5 million a year from his bank accounts but did not properly pay his bills.
The lawsuit by Jackson and MJJ Productions Inc. was filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court against Bernstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman & Sloan, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
The lawsuit asks for unspecified damages and for an accounting of money the defendants received for services.
Jackson hired the Los Angeles-based firm in 2003 for bookkeeping, opening bank accounts and filing personal, corporate and real estate taxes, the lawsuit stated.
However, Jackson alleges the accountants hired people and entered into contracts on his behalf without getting his permission.
The accountants also did not communicate directly with Jackson or keep him apprised of his financial affairs, according to the lawsuit.
|
LOS ANGELES -- Michael Jackson is suing his former accountants, claiming they withdrew $2.5 million a year from his bank accounts but did not properly pay his bills.
| 5.225806 | 1 | 31 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500603.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500603.html
|
All Thumbed
|
2006122619
|
Way, way down, deep in the bowels of a long, strange story in Harper's magazine, I stumbled upon the sentence -- actually the half- sentence -- that sort of, kind of, almost made sense of all the bizarre stuff printed in American magazines in 2006.
The story was called "The Blind Man and the Elephant." It was about the Super Bowl, but there were lengthy digressions about the Rolling Stones and Pizza Hut and Wonder Bread and Stevie Wonder and the history of the Moog synthesizer. And on the ninth page of the piece, just as I was beginning to wonder why the hell I was still reading, the author, David Samuels, wrote a sentence that started out about Stevie Wonder's oeuvre but ended up with this:
" . . . the free-floating weirdness of American life will always escape any attempts to make us seem like a normal country rather than a furious human-wave assault on the farthest shores of reality."
Wow! Dude nailed it, didn't he?
Contemporary American life, God love it, really does seem like a "furious human-wave assault on the farthest shores of reality." So let's keep that in mind as we chronicle the "free-floating weirdness" that washed up in American magazines in 2006.
In 2006, Bicycling magazine published a story called "The Secret Life of Asphalt." Philadelphia magazine ran a story called "Soccer Moms Who Shoot Up." Marie Claire published an article titled "I Surfed Naked for a Pair of Manolos." And More, a magazine for over-40 women, ran a story called "Moms in Menopause, Daughters in Puberty, Dads in Hell."
In 2006, Details published a photo gallery of hip luggage tags. Rolling Stone published a cover photo of rapper Kanye West with a bloody face and a crown of thorns. And Esquire announced that "hipbones are the new cleavage."
"Fake Is the New Real!" Blender, the pop music magazine, proclaimed on its April cover, which featured a fake photo of comedian Dave Chappelle setting fire to a check for $50 million.
In April, New York magazine's cover seemed to show Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with a baby. The cover line read: "Exclusive: Baby Brangelina! First Photos" and then in teeny tiny type: "Requisite disclaimer: This is a fake picture. Brad is an impostor; Angelina is a computer clone. The baby has not yet been born . . . "
About a month later, after the baby was born, People magazine published pictures that it bought for a reputed $4 million. The kid in the fake pictures was actually cuter.
In 2006, Runner's World magazine surveyed its readers, asking them whether they'd rather go for a run or have sex. In the United States, sex beat running 59 percent to 41 percent. But in Australia and New Zealand, running beat sex 54-46. Which raises the question: Is the running better in Australia, or is the sex better in America?
In 2006, B.B. King, the 80-year-old blues guitarist, told Esquire: "I have an excellent medical team. There's Dr. Viagra, Dr. Cialis and nurse Levitra." Actress Rosario Dawson told Esquire, "My brother and I got my mom her chest pierced for Mother's Day." And actor Tony Curtis told Esquire about his 1949 affair with Marilyn Monroe: "I never felt her figure was so proper; I thought it was a little lumpy in places." Curtis also recited a poem he'd composed:
|
Columnist Peter Carlson flips back through the bizarre items printed in American magazines in 2006.
| 44.0625 | 0.5625 | 3.3125 |
high
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500699.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500699.html
|
'Black Christmas' Butchers the Slasher Genre
|
2006122619
|
Surely some deep lesson arises from watching "Black Christmas," some life-changing revelation for having sloshed through the Christmas rain and into the warm dankness of a movie theater to watch this exploitation horror flick. Or did we -- to paraphrase the late Gene Siskel -- just lose two hours of our life that we can never get back again?
Can something mystically significant be made of the freak occurrence in which your faithful reviewer, right after watching the film, closed an umbrella on his hand and caused a small geyser of blood to jet from one finger -- on the very hand that would soon be panning this disappointing bloodfest? Was this profound irony? Or can we concoct a heartwarming, Christmasy anecdote about the Indian cashier at the CVS who was nice enough to lead us to the Band-Aids, which we referred to as "plasters," knowing she'd understand the British reference?
Sadly, no silk purse can be made of this sow's ear. The fact is, we sat through a drab, unimaginative remake of the 1974 film of the same name, and there's your verdict. Incidentally, the Canadian original, directed by Bob Clark, is credited as the first scare-flick to use such now-cliched devices as the heavy breather on the phone who threatens his victims with sadistic humor ("I've come to bury the hatchet" -- pause -- "in your head"). It was the first to employ a ski mask way before Jason Voorhees slapped on his "Friday 13th" death mask, and to turn the season of Christmas into an exploitation fest. It starred Olivia Hussey, she of 1968's "Romeo and Juliet," as the girl being pursued by a killer, and featured Margot Kidder as drunken comic relief. And it also triggered the mass outpouring of teenage slasher flicks for a generation.
But the remake neither pays perceptive tribute to the original nor updates it in anything but hackneyed form. Writer-director Glen Morgan, a producer and writer of the "X-Files" TV show and creator of the "Final Destination" horror films, tries and fails at both.
Thus, we learn in cheesy 1970s and 1980s flashbacks how psychotic killer William Edward Lenz, or "Billy," came to be his evil self. Confined to the attic by his evil mother (Karin Konoval), the angry child eventually made Christmas angel "cookies" out of -- her. These little golden moments from Billy's past are intercut with the contemporary story in which Billy (Robert Mann) escapes from a prison for the criminally insane and stalks a half-dozen or so sorority sisters. Their house is located on the same site where Billy and his family used to live. It's Christmas Eve -- Billy's favorite killin' time -- and this boy can't wait to get home again.
Horror movie audiences, their sensibilities sharpened by such box office hits as "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer," in which horror and postmodern irony are equal partners, will be roundly disappointed by this movie's conventional tactics. The flashbacks are hokey -- the kind with grainy footage and overacting. And the characters are dull even by the pass-fail standards of cheap horror flicks.
The performers, including Michelle Trachtenberg, Katie Cassidy and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, aren't spirited enough to give their one-dimensional personas any oomph to whet the appetite for a gruesome killing. And Morgan's ideas for killing his victims -- about the only thing that passes for creativity in this genre -- is to think of new weapons, not new ways. The victims (almost all of them, naturally, are women) die by ice skate, garden trowel and seasonal weaponry (Christmas ornaments, icicles, candy canes sucked down to a dagger point). But they all die in the same manner: Billy sneaks up on them, covers them in a trash bag and -- wham! -- applies weapon of choice. Talk about hack work.
Can we mention one last groaner? Morgan does not seem to have noticed that filmmakers like Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson have exhausted all possible ways to use a cellphone for murder, suspense and humor. His one use of the ubiquitous communicator -- the killer likes to make calls from his dead victims' phones -- is almost insulting to watch. And he sets himself and his movie up for the ultimate irony: an entire audience so bored with "Black Christmas," they're checking their own phones.
Black Christmas (84 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for violence, nudity and profanity.
|
Search movie listings, reviews and locations from the Washington Post. Features national listings for movies and movie guide. Visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/movies today.
| 35.68 | 0.44 | 0.44 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500491.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500491.html
|
A Red Flag for Jet Lag
|
2006122619
|
It's the caged-mouse syndrome of air travel -- you feel crammed into your seat on a long-distance flight with little to munch on except a bag of pretzels.
But you better hope you beat jet lag better than a mouse.
A study at the University of Virginia released during the height of Thanksgiving and Christmas travel seasons showed that a majority of elderly mice died while being subjected to the equivalent of a Washington-to-Paris flight once a week for eight weeks. More intense forms of jet lag sped up the death rate in the elderly rodents, the study found.
For decades, flyers have stoically battled the modern-age problem of jet lag, viewing its accompanying grogginess, burning eyes, headaches, insomnia and fatigue as more of a nuisance than a potential health issue.
The study has focused new attention on the problem and raised questions about whether severe jet lag can be harmful to health. It also has drawn attention to work by other researchers looking into ways to help vacationing families and business travelers avoid jet lag. The study is one of the first hard scientific looks into the health effects of jet lag, experts said.
The condition has become such a common scourge of the jet age that an entire industry has emerged on the Internet, offering such solutions as acupressure kits, homeopathic pills and light-enhancing visors. Many travelers have invented their own treatments: slurping down gallons of coffee, dunking heads in ice-cold water, taking naps, jogging and popping sleeping pills and homeopathic remedies. But researchers say few of those remedies are backed by science.
In the study, younger mice seemed to rebound more quickly and were not immediately harmed by the jet lag. Simulated jet lag conditions were created by advancing and delaying the rodent's exposure to light.
Researchers aren't sure what conclusions to draw from the results.
Gene Block, the report's co-author, said older mice might be more susceptible to sudden light changes than younger mice. Or, he said, jet lag might be a health problem that builds up in younger subjects, causing future maladies.
To further explore the issue, his researchers have launched another set of tests to determine whether jet lag causes long-term health consequences in younger and middle-age rodents, Block said minutes before boarding a 14-hour flight to Japan from Washington.
"I feel like a subject in the experiment," said the 58-year-old, who recently returned from a conference in Italy. "Like many people, I am finding it more difficult to cope with jet lag as I get older. . . . I would like to know whether it's a phenomenon of old age or whether it is something I really have to worry about."
Block's study also hinted at what flyers have been saying for years: It is more difficult to adjust to time zone changes when flying east. The researchers found that 53 percent of elderly mice died when they were subjected to a simulated weekly flight from Washington to Paris over the eight-week study. The death rate dropped to 32 percent of elderly mice on a simulated Paris-to-Washington route, according to the study, which was published last month in the journal Current Biology. Seventeen percent of the mice in a control group died in the eight-week study.
|
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.
| 14.681818 | 0.431818 | 0.431818 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500489.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500489.html
|
A Season of Triumph and Trial
|
2006122619
|
Each sound elicits more of a response from the baby's father. As Reed Doughty holds his son, cupping the baby's head in his right hand, he savors every coo and utterance.
The four months of Micah's life have been a struggle. Born nearly six weeks prematurely, the baby is battling chronic kidney failure and for the Washington Redskins' rookie safety, an afternoon spent bonding with his son after practice is particularly special. Doughty's wife, Katie, his high school sweetheart whom he married five years ago, sits beside him on the couch and the tall Christmas tree glitters behind them. The attractive couple and their baby make a perfect Hallmark moment, yet Micah's troubles are not entirely behind him.
He is gaining weight but will need a kidney transplant at some point, and could begin dialysis next month. Katie, a nurse, administers three injections each week, and doses of medicine are a daily requisite. Micah undergoes lab tests every two weeks, with frequent trips from Ashburn to consult specialists at Children's Hospital in Northwest Washington.
In addition to care and love, the Doughtys offer all the security they can. As a sixth-round pick from Northern Colorado, Doughty, 24, knows there are no assurances about his playing future beyond this season -- and that he defied the odds by even reaching this point. Being a part of an NFL team, even when he was inactive, marked a significant accomplishment, one tempered by Micah's struggles.
"My son still needs a kidney transplant and he'll probably start dialysis pretty soon, so it's serious," Doughty said. "His life isn't in balance right now so that sucks and I feel bad for him, but sometimes that's the way things go and he's doing fine and he'll be great. He's gaining weight and all that stuff. We just trust God. Whatever happens to my son is for the best, and he's doing great."
Still, life has been a whirlwind for Doughty since he moved to the area this summer.
Micah was born Aug. 30 in Colorado, right as Doughty was fighting to make the team. Doughty missed the Aug. 31 preseason game against the Baltimore Ravens to be with his wife and child for a short visit. Several weeks passed before Katie and Micah could join him in this area, and when Doughty returned to Redskins Park, he was informed he had been fined $14,000 for coming into contact with an official during a preseason game.
His career was in jeopardy, fears about his son, his wife and the mounting medical bills were inescapable, and suddenly a large portion of his $80,000 signing bonus had vanished. Doughty was lonely in a strange city, overwhelmed at times by the NFL, and, more than anything else, fretful about his son's condition. He returned to a sparsely furnished townhouse a few miles from Redskins Park hoping everything was going as well as could be expected, trying to remain optimistic that he would stick with the Redskins and earn his non-guaranteed base salary this season of $275,000.
"My son was born and he was sick and the next day when I got back there was something in my locker from the third preseason game saying I had been fined," said Doughty, who appealed the suspension but has not heard whether any of the fine will be repealed. "I just know I didn't get paid for a few weeks, and that wasn't cool."
When Katie and Micah were able to travel to the area, Doughty began feeling whole again, but watching his child suffer is painful.
Micah visits the doctor every two weeks, and takes seven medications in an attempt to keep his kidneys functioning (they were working at about 20 percent at birth). Three to four times a day he takes one substance or another -- iron, sodium, potassium, electrolytes. Given his condition, he is susceptible to illness. Watching Katie administer shots -- and the infant's inevitable reaction -- tears at Doughty's heart, and the battery of medicine, much of it sprayed into the nipples of Micah's bottles, can be daunting.
"The meds get old, it does," Doughty said recently at their home, with Ansel Adams prints that remind him and his wife of their rural Colorado roots hanging behind them in their living room. "He's sleeping great now and my wife will wake me up at six because he needs to have his meds and he's sleeping and why would we want to get him up when he's sleeping? But we have to do it and he's not a big fan of a lot of the stuff. His throat will be sore and he'll have to take salt water. I mean the iron tastes like metal and the sodium he just hates. So obviously, it's hard, but my wife has been awesome. She takes care of so much stuff."
|
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.
| 27.457143 | 0.571429 | 0.857143 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500483.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500483.html
|
Justice Dept. Database Stirs Privacy Fears
|
2006122619
|
The Justice Department is building a massive database that allows state and local police officers around the country to search millions of case files from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies, according to Justice officials.
The system, known as "OneDOJ," already holds approximately 1 million case records and is projected to triple in size over the next three years, Justice officials said. The files include investigative reports, criminal-history information, details of offenses, and the names, addresses and other information of criminal suspects or targets, officials said.
The database is billed by its supporters as a much-needed step toward better information-sharing with local law enforcement agencies, which have long complained about a lack of cooperation from the federal government.
But civil-liberties and privacy advocates say the scale and contents of such a database raise immediate privacy and civil rights concerns, in part because tens of thousands of local police officers could gain access to personal details about people who have not been arrested or charged with crimes.
The little-noticed program has been coming together over the past year and a half. It already is in use in pilot projects with local police in Seattle, San Diego and a handful of other areas, officials said. About 150 separate police agencies have access, officials said.
But in a memorandum sent last week to the FBI, U.S. attorneys and other senior Justice officials, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty announced that the program will be expanded immediately to 15 additional regions and that federal authorities will "accelerate . . . efforts to share information from both open and closed cases."
Eventually, the department hopes, the database will be a central mechanism for sharing federal law enforcement information with local and state investigators, who now run checks individually, and often manually, with Justice's five main law enforcement agencies: the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Within three years, officials said, about 750 law enforcement agencies nationwide will have access.
In an interview last week, McNulty said the goal is to broaden the pool of data available to local and state investigators beyond systems such as the National Crime Information Center, the FBI-run repository of basic criminal records used by police and sheriff's deputies around the country.
By tapping into the details available in incident reports, interrogation summaries and other documents, investigators will dramatically improve their chances of closing cases, he said.
"The goal is that all of U.S. law enforcement will be able to look at each other's records to solve cases and protect U.S. citizens," McNulty said. "With OneDOJ, we will essentially hook them up to a pipe that will take them into its records."
McNulty and other Justice officials emphasize that the information available in the database already is held individually by the FBI and other federal agencies. Much information will be kept out of the system, including data about public corruption cases, classified or sensitive topics, confidential informants, administrative cases and civil rights probes involving allegations of wrongdoing by police, officials said.
|
The Justice Department is building a massive database that allows state and local police officers around the country to search millions of case files from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies, according to Justice officials.
| 14.232558 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500492.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500492.html
|
Science Stops for No Holiday
|
2006122619
|
Tuberculosis did not take the day off to mark Christmas. Neither did cancer. Or arthritis. And so neither did Rama Raghunandan, a scientist in Rockville.
Yesterday morning, as millions of people around the world were unwrapping gifts, Raghunandan was alone in her lab at CytImmune Sciences, feeding cells that may one day help produce new drugs. Her white Honda minivan was the only vehicle in the parking lot. Her family and gifts were at home waiting for her.
"You can think of them as babies," Raghunandan said, not about her family but about her cells. "They need to be fed and cleaned. That's something we can't stop doing."
Rank-and-file scientists like Raghunandan make up the backbone of Montgomery County's thriving biotech sector, home to more than half of the state's 360 bioscience firms. Despite all the high-tech gadgetry that hums and buzzes in a modern biotech company's laboratory, projects depend on a human being to be there to administer solutions, measure reactions or just plain wait. This is the painstaking, sometimes monotonous, early stage work that one day -- perhaps a decade away -- will produce a drug.
"You feel the pressure of people dying, so it's not something you can just put away for the holiday," said Carol Nacy, founder and chief executive of Sequella, another Rockville biotech company that is working on TB treatments and diagnostics. "Christmas is a very special holiday, but it doesn't mean that the world stops."
At Sequella's facility, just down the street from CytImmune, chemist Elena Bogatcheva worked at a laboratory bench with an experimental drug compound. In a nearby secure lab, a microbiologist in a biohazard suit carefully handled experiments containing TB bacteria.
For these scientists, working on a holiday gave them a chance to do what they love almost completely on their own -- without a boss asking about a grant application or co-workers talking about their weekends. This appealed particularly to Bogatcheva.
"Sometimes it is even better to work on a holiday because nobody will bother you," she said. "No conversations. No small talk. I can devote my full time to what I came here to do."
In Bogatcheva's case, it was to scale up the volume on a possible new TB drug to collaborate with the National Institutes of Health on more testing. Sequella has received grants over the years from NIH and worked closely with its scientists to develop TB treatments. The company, founded in 1997, has about 20 employees.
Nacy, Bogatcheva's boss, said the continual allure of science -- that the answer to one question reveals another question -- keeps everyone moving ahead despite what the calendar says.
"Scientists are very special people," Nacy said. "They are fascinated by mystery. They can get so immersed in figuring out a solution that they put the rest of their lives on hold. But that's okay with them. They are doing what they love."
And so there was Raghunandan, in a white lab coat and sterile latex gloves, removing her cells from an incubator and setting them up on a lab table covered with a glass hood. She got their food -- a liquid resembling cough syrup --mixed it with stimulants, then injected it into a dish containing the cells. It had been a few days since the last feeding, and the cells couldn't go much longer without a meal.
Officials at CytImmune, founded in 1988, hope that in a few months the cells will produce antibodies that might be effective in treating cancer or autoimmune diseases. Tests in animals would follow. If those produced promising results, human testing would occur. And if all that worked out -- the ifs are many in the high-risk world of drug development -- a product could be commercialized. The whole process could take several years and many millions of dollars.
And, of course, working on holidays. Lawrence Tamarkin, chief executive and co-founder of CytImmune, said scientists working on Christmas is "akin to a century ago when the American farmer and farm families had those chores they needed to get done before celebrating a holiday."
Raghunandan's chore was getting the cells fed, then looking at them under a high-powered microscope to see whether they were essentially talking to each other and clumping up in groups. They were. Raghunandan was pleased. "They look nice," she said.
Raghunandan, who is from India, does not celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday but rather as a festive occasion with her family. The idea yesterday was to come in to the lab, do what had to be done for a couple of hours, then go home, open gifts and enjoy a holiday meal. She did not mind dropping by the lab and, in fact, took pride in it.
"This gives me great satisfaction," she said. "On a day like this to come in," and then she paused. "You get involved in research to the point that it just catches on to you."
The lab, for many scientists, is a second home. And some things about working in a lab on Christmas are similar to being at their actual homes. When Raghunandan finished feeding the cells, she thoroughly cleaned the work area by wiping it down with alcohol.
"It's just like home," she said. "After we cook, we clean."
|
Tuberculosis did not take the day off to mark Christmas. Neither did cancer. Or arthritis. And so neither did Rama Raghunandan, a scientist in Rockville.
| 35.533333 | 1 | 30 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500458.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500458.html
|
Forget Polls, Long Shots Say It's About the Message
|
2006122619
|
For two people from opposing sides of the ideological spectrum, Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) have quite a bit in common.
Both have announced they are running for president. Both believe that their views on the Iraq war will be crucial to their campaigns. And both are given virtually no chance to succeed.
Government gurus and IT experts needed to fill positions in the D.C. area.
Every election brings candidates such as Kucinich, a liberal Democrat, and Hunter, a conservative Republican, long-shot hopefuls who announce they will seek the White House despite barely registering in the polls or with political activists and the news media.
Some calculate that their efforts may yield a vice presidential nomination. But those such as Kucinich and Hunter may be driven by something -- ego? passion? something else? -- that leads them to believe they have a chance of winning the White House despite what the typical measures of political viability suggest.
The next presidential election may be the most difficult in history for a long-shot candidate, given the number of primaries early on the calendar and the financial demands of the race, according to primary expert Andrew E. Smith of the University of New Hampshire.
In the past 50 years, few long-shot candidates have come close to winning. But some have forced other contenders to address certain topics, whether it was Jesse Jackson and race in the 1988 Democratic primary or Patrick J. Buchanan and cultural issues in the 1996 Republican primary, Smith says.
Why, then, do they run?
Fred I. Greenstein, a professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University and one of the major scholars of political psychology, says politicians -- including some accomplished ones -- have trouble knowing their limitations. He said candidates exhibit a tendency "where faith triumphs over reason and empirical reality-testing falls by the wayside, and a lot of what drives people is some combination of vanity and lack of self-perspective."
David G. Winter, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan who has devised ways to classify the motivations of presidential candidates, says the long shots might well be subject to what he calls the affiliation motive: They surround themselves with people who exhort their campaigns and praise their ideas.
"It puts them in a bubble such that they aren't able to look honestly at the whole picture," he said. He added that the candidates also are likely to be influenced by what he calls the power motive. "They would like to be president, but they may not be in it to win; they're in it to make a point," Winter said.
Stanley A. Renshon, a specialist in political psychology at the City University of New York, said: "When I think of Kucinich, I think of windmill optimists. They feel that they have a point that is so important to them and so underrepresented in public life that they've got to be out there on the stage."
One candidate who has lived those feelings is Gary Bauer, the family values activist, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 against then-governor George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and several other contenders. At times, he says, candidates convince themselves they can win, even when the chance is remote.
"I think anybody who gets into this is competitive by nature," he said. "Things happen that make you think, 'Maybe this thing could fall into place.' "
Kucinich and Duncan say they are running to win. Kucinich even scoffs at the notion that he is not one of the leading contenders in the Democratic contest. Told that Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) appear to be the front-runners, he asked, "Says who?" (The answer, for now, is political polling.)
Kucinich and Hunter say it is their long experience that makes them worthy contenders. With almost 40 years in public life, Kucinich ran for president for the first time in 2004 on an antiwar platform -- he did not come close to winning any primaries -- and has agitated against the Iraq war in Congress. "I was right in everything I said about Iraq, which is the issue in 2008," he said.
Meanwhile, Hunter, who begins his 14th term in Congress next month, stresses his stewardship of congressional oversight of defense during the past four years, when he was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "This is an era when national security is very high on our list of issues," he said.
Hunter and Kucinich feel strengthened by their own political histories. When he first ran for Congress in 1980, Hunter says, nobody knew who he was and he had virtually no campaign money. But he won.
"I learned from my own experience that if you have the right message -- my message was defense and economic growth -- it can overcome the other things," he said.
Kucinich says the political weather can change at any time. "I think it's not unusual . . . to find moments in the careers of people who have been president when people said they were finished," he said. "There was a time when Reagan couldn't be elected. After Bill Clinton gave a speech at one convention, they said, 'This guy's going nowhere.' "
|
For two people from opposing sides of the ideological spectrum, Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) have quite a bit in common.
| 28.702703 | 1 | 37 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500486.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500486.html
|
Iran Oil Revenue Quickly Drying Up, Analysis Says
|
2006122619
|
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published yesterday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable, with its oil industry crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said in the report and in an interview.
Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years, exports could be halved, and they could disappear by 2015, Stern predicted.
Stern's analysis, which appears in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports U.S. and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of international understandings. But, Stern says, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes.
He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.
Iran produces about 3.7 million barrels a day, about 300,000 barrels below the quota set for Iran by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The shortfall represents a loss of about $5.5 billion a year, Stern said. In 2004, Iran's oil profits were 65 percent of the government's revenue.
If the United States can "hold its breath" for a few years, it may find Iran a much more conciliatory country, he said. And that, Stern said, is good reason to delay any instinct to take on Iran militarily.
"What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.
|
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published yesterday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
| 8.585366 | 1 | 41 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500457.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500457.html
|
In Chile, Precious Lands Often Go for a Pittance
|
2006122619
|
SANTIAGO, Chile -- The mountainous terrain of northern Chile is studded with precious metals, a natural cache that for years has had investors angling for land rights.
So when the world's largest gold mining company targeted about 20,000 acres owned by Rodolfo Villar, a mineral speculator, he signed a contract. Only later, he said, did he realize how much the company had agreed to pay him:
Villar, who regularly grabs local land rights if he thinks they might be worth something, said he thought the deal was worth $1 million, not an amount that proved to be less than the cost of a bus ticket from Santiago back to his house. Additionally, the finer points of the contract stipulated that he would be fined $95,000 if he tried to obtain rights to any other parcels in the surrounding area.
Villar sued the company, Canada's Barrick Gold Corp., arguing that he had been deceived. This year, a Chilean judge ruled in his favor, saying that the company had essentially swindled Villar, and ordered the lands returned to him.
Barrick officials say the ruling, which they have appealed, is unlikely to derail the mining project. But the case has angered some Chileans and others who complain that foreign mining companies are exploiting local landholders.
Much of Latin America has experienced a mineral boom in recent years, with metal prices climbing and governments eager to generate tax revenue and other income from large-scale mining projects. The region is home to more mineral exploration than anywhere else in the world, but a corresponding increase in scrutiny from nongovernmental organizations and public interest groups has heightened tensions. And although many companies have developed "social responsibility" policies to smooth relations with local landowners, such efforts rarely eliminate the problems.
"Disputes like this between mining companies and landholders are quite common," said Keith Slack, senior policy adviser for Oxfam America and director of its "No Dirty Gold" campaign, which opposes mining policies that harm the environment or displace locals. "What happens is a mining company will negotiate with a local landowner, and the landowner will later say he didn't get a fair deal. The company will say it paid a fair market price, but in those remote Andean mountain areas, there's no real land market and it's difficult to say exactly what a fair price would be."
The Andean region has been the site of several high-profile disputes. In Peru, two Canadian mining companies faced a protracted battle in recent years for rights to land at the Antamina copper mine. Peasants who had initially signed their lands over to the mining companies later refused to relocate, forcing evictions.
Marco Arana, a Catholic priest who leads an environmental nongovernmental organization in Cajamarca, Peru, has worked on behalf of local farmers with land and environmental claims against mining companies. Throughout isolated rural communities, he said, more landowners have become aware that they don't have to sign away their lands just because lawyers for mining companies tell them it's prudent.
"There's more consciousness in the communities, and for that reason there are more conflicts, too," Arana said.
The land claimed by Villar sits on the perimeter of Barrick's Pascua-Lama mining project, which straddles the Chile-Argentina border and is expected to yield as much as $18 billion.
|
SANTIAGO, Chile -- The mountainous terrain of northern Chile is studded with precious metals, a natural cache that for years has had investors angling for land rights.
| 21.5 | 1 | 30 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/21/DI2006122100992.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/21/DI2006122100992.html
|
Marines Charged in Deaths of Iraqi Civilians
|
2006122319
|
4 Marines Charged In Haditha Killings ( Post, Dec. 22)
Josh White: Hello, and welcome. I'm very much looking forward to your questions about the Haditha case.
Hereford, UK: I am puzzled that lawful combat and unlawful killing should be described by Duigan as "a grey area". An action is either lawful or unlawful and there is more than a fine line between the two.
Josh White: This question embodies essentially what the Haditha case is all about. In war, and especially in active combat, there can be a very, very fine line between what is lawful and what is unlawful. One must remember that it is one part of a US servicemember's job to go out and kill people during war, something that obviously separates killing on the battlefield from what we understand about killing in civilian society. This case likely will come down to what the Marines thought they were encountering that day, and whether or not they properly responded to what they perceived as a threat. The evidence could show that the Marines acted appropriately but with unfortunate results; it could also show that they committed crimes.
Arlington, Va.: How did they originally find out about this? Was there a videotape, or a whistleblower, or inconsistent reports that were red-flagged?
Josh White: Originally, what happened in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, was known to many people within the Marine battalion that worked in that area. The incident lasted almost an entire day and was one of several attacks in Haditha at that time. It is clear from what we have seen so far that the battalion commander was aware of what happened fairly quickly, but that he believed the civilian deaths were an unfortunate result of combat. But what the officers are charged with is not appropriately investigating the case and alerting higher headquarters. That would indicate that people higher up the chain of command didn't have a clear picture of what happened in its immediate aftermath. An initial press release was largely incorrect -- it stated that 15 people had been killed by the roadside bomb -- and it's unclear why the press release was incorrect. There was a videotape made the following day, by a local resident who also did some human rights work. That videotape led Time magazine to ask questions about the case last Spring, and the magazine's article brought the case to the public eye and also spurred the military investigations that have now led to charges.
Chicago, Ill.: Are there charges against officers who may have covered up the killings? Is that a separate part of this investigation? I know I should just read your article!
Josh White: I agree, if you read the article you'll have a pretty clear answer to your question. But it does bring up a good point. The four enlisted Marines who are charged with crimes in this case all face murder charges, which carry potential life sentences in prison. The four officers who are charged with failing to thoroughly investigate and accurately report the incident are largely facing much lesser charges, such as violation of an order and dereliction. One lieutenant is facing additional charges for allegedly giving false statements and for obstructing justice. But the charges against the officers are almost entirely unrelated to the shootings that day; instead they are related to their lack of getting to the bottom of what happened. This could suggest a few things, but among them is that they could have believed these deaths were unfortunate but unavoidable and part of combat, or that they didn't want higher-ups to find out about it. I imagine that the military legal process and the evidence that will be presented will help us get to the bottom of that.
Tucson, Ariz.: Nobody mentioned in the media, where Haditha exactly in Iraq lies, how great its population is, or if there were any witnesses to the event. Witnesses might be needed to a court procedure, locals and foreigners. Can you give me any additional information related?
Josh White: Haditha is a relatively small city in northwestern Iraq, along the Euphrates River about two thirds of the way from Baghdad to the Syrian border. I'm not exactly sure of the population, though a colleague tells me it's probably right around 100,000. There were some witnesses to the event, and we have quoted them in previous stories and summed up their viewpoints in today's story. It is true that some of these witnesses could be very important to any potential courts-martial, and that could be a difficult issue to deal with, as it's unclear if lawyers could get those witnesses to the United States, if they would be able to testify by telephone, or if they would be allowed to give written statements. It is obviously dangerous work to find those witnesses, but it is my understanding that NCIS has done that work.
Azad, Calif.: Will they get the death penalty?
Josh White: As of right now, the death penalty is not an option that is on the table. The Marine Corps has charged the four Marines with unpremeditated murder, which carries with it a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Alexandria, Va,: Can you elaborate on Rep. John Murtha's role in spurring the investigation?
Josh White: I don't know how much Rep. John Murtha actually spurred the investigation, but it is clear that his public comments earlier this year about the case after he received briefings gave it a boost in the public consciousness. Whether these Marines are guilty of crimes (and everyone should remember they are presumed innocent), this case has opened what could be an important discussion about the US military carries out the war in Iraq. This case, and others that have come up recently, caused US commanders in Iraq to reevaluate the military's stance on operating in urban areas. Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli asked his commanders to investigate all such cases carefully because they can certainly serve to push the Iraqi public into animosity against the United States, and the public trust in Iraq is vital to US operations and future security.
Washington, D.C.: When will the case go to trial, and when it does will each of these eight men be tried separately? What kind of timeline is there until conviction or acquittal in the case? It seems like the kind of case that could go on for several years.
Josh White: We don't know when the case will go to courts-martial, if it does go to courts-martial, and it could take some time before it does. This is just the first stage of a comprehensive military justice process. Now that the Marines have been charged, they will get military legal representation, will get access to discoverable evidence in the case, and will be able to begin their own defense investigations. The next stage is what is known as an Article 32 hearing, where an investigating officer will hear evidence from both sides and will make recommendations to commanders about how the charges should proceed. Then, it will be up to commanders to decide if the cases then go to courts-martial, the equivalent of a civilian trial. The eight men could be tried separately, or there could be arrangements made for them to be tried together, if there are overlapping charges. As for how long this could all take? To give one example, there is still a lieutenant colonel from the Abu Ghraib abuse case (which happened in January 2004) who is charged with crimes but has yet to go to court-martial nearly three years later.
Exeter, Pa.: Is there any member of the unit involved that day that has come forward and 'admitted' wrong doing or inappropriate use of force?
Josh White: At this point, I don't know. There is no one that I know of that has done so, and the defense lawyers I've been able to talk to have said their clients believe they used appropriate force for the threat they were facing. There is always the possibility that a Marine or Marines have come forward to suggest wrongdoing, and it's possible that plea deals could arise as the case moves forward, though I have no solid indication of any in the works right now.
Washington, D.C.: So you are suggesting that there is a very real chance these Marines won't be convicted? I shudder to think what that message tells the Iraqis about how we value them. Is it true we pay the families $2500 for a "wrongful death?"
Josh White: You don't need me to suggest that there's a chance these Marines won't be convicted; it's simply how the military criminal justice and US criminal justice systems work. These Marines are innocent until proven guilty, and the fact that they are charged with crimes does not in any way indicate that they will be convicted of them. The defense attorneys in this case believe they have strong arguments that the Marines were doing their job that day; I'm sure investigators have built a case they believe indicates crimes were committed. Not to be flip, but this is why we have trials. It's a terribly unfortunate fact that in war, innocent civilians die. Estimates in Iraq go into the tens of thousands. It's something we shouldn't ignore, but it's also something that will happen in any conflict. There have been 64 US servicemembers charged in cases relating to the death of innocent civilians in Iraq since the beginning of the war; 18 of those servicemembers have served any jail time. Before a recent plea deal in the Mahmudiyah rape/murder case that got one soldier 90 years, the most serious sentence was 20 years for murder.
Josh White: Our excellent researcher, Julie Tate, tells me that there have been 21 total convictions out of the 64 charges against US servicemembers, 18 of whom have served some jail time.
New York, N.Y.: Hi, do you agree with people as John Murtha and John Batiste that 'our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them'?
Josh White: Again, this is a central question of the case. The Marines have told their lawyers that they didn't overreact to anything and instead responded to the bomb and rifle fire they were facing. The defense lawyers said yesterday that the charges of unpremeditated murder suggest there is no indication of a "rampage," just that the Marines should have used more care in identifying targets before shooting. These young men have to make very difficult decisions in very short amounts of time, and the battlefield environment is constantly changing, sometimes in very violent ways. Is it possible they overreacted? Yes. Is it possible they followed their rules? Yes. Hopefully this will become clearer in the months ahead.
Washington, D.C.: Just a comment, please. "The slayings of the civilians -- including women and children -- were an unfortunate result of the Marines' attack, they have argued."
Unfortunate result? Could they pick a more insensitive, brutally callous way of describing the murder of innocent civilians? I'm sure if someone came into the U.S. and killed your family in their sleepy little Fairfax homes, you might take some umbrage with calling that an "unfortunate result."
Between this and the vicious gang rape and murder of fourteen year old Abier Kassim Hamzah Rashid al Janabi (not to mention murdering her baby brother and parents to cover the crime) I simply have no words. Can you possibly blame Iraqis for hating us? I hate us too.
Josh White: The important thing to remember is that this is war, and as I've mentioned before, civilians will die when combat is taking place around them, almost without exception. Your example is one that I think people need to keep in mind, however. Certainly, if there were a foreign nation running extensive military operations around our hometowns, how would we feel if they either mistakenly or on purpose entered a suburban home and started killing people? The most difficult thing about the Iraqi battlefield, one I have seen with my own eyes, is that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the enemy and the innocent. Insurgents use this to their advantage. I would be careful, however, when trying to compare the rape and murder in Mahmudiyah with the case in Haditha. In the Mahmudiyah case, at least one soldier has admitted planning and carrying out a vicious attack on an unsuspecting girl and her family with no relation to combat. The Marines in Haditha were facing combat, and the question is whether they went into those houses seeking to mitigate an enemy threat with appropriate tactics, or if they just blindly shot at people they should have known were civilians. It's a much more difficult question to answer.
Josh White: Thank you for your thoughtful questions and for reading the Washington Post. Please look back for more coverage of this case as it moves forward.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online 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.
| 61.756098 | 0.536585 | 0.780488 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/17/DI2006121700225.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/17/DI2006121700225.html
|
Tell Me About It
|
2006122319
|
Appearing every Wednesday and Friday in The Washington Post Style section and in Sunday Source, Tell Me About It offers readers advice based on the experiences of someone who's been there -- really recently. Carolyn Hax is an ex-repatriated New Englander with a liberal arts degree and a lot of opinions and that's about it, really, when you get right down to it. Oh, and the shoes. A lot of shoes.
A month ago I met an amazing woman and since then we've been spending a lot of time together. Soon after we met, she got an offer for her "dream job" on the other side of the country. She leaves town in a month. Any advice on how to proceed and possibly make a bi-coastal relationship work?
Carolyn Hax: You're going to think I've taken one too many blows to the forehead, but my advice is: Don't try. The odds are overwhelming anyway that something so new won't survive the long-distance leap, but they'll become impossible if you try to force it based on a notion that you have to hang onto this or else. Let the amazingness drive it wherever it's going to go.
Is anyone actuually working?: I have ONE THING I need to accomplish, and then I can leave the office.
Instead, I am playing with the bendy monkeys that my assistant got me. They have tiny magnets in their paws, so they stick to my desk and each other.
I'm 32 and the director of a big team. Thank heaven most people are out today, or they would see me playing with my bendy monkeys and I'd never live it down.
Can I just go home?
Carolyn Hax: I think your assistant earned the rest of the day off, if s/he's still there with you.
Family Bed - Online Only Please: Hi Carolyn,
If anyone had told me while I was pregnant that I would want a "family bed" after my baby was born, I would have told them they were nuts. I furnished and decorated a wonderful nursery for my baby but can't seem to want to put him in there. It's been four months now and the family bed seems wonderful for me and baby. He is so excited to go to sleep each night and nursing (especially since I had a C-section and couldn't get up out of bed easily) has been so easy. He sleeps through the night and I have not had any sleep deprivation which so many new parents suffer from. My problem is that my husband wants the baby to stop sleeping with us. I know his reasons are valid but I just can't help feeling that I don't want this yet. He's still so little and I love having him with us. Is four months too long to have baby in bed with us? Our sex life has definitely suffered a little because of this. How long is too long to have baby in bed with us?
Carolyn Hax: When your sex life suffers for it.
I'm going to say outright that I'm not going to touch the debate over the family bed--to summarize, it's either Nature's Way or it's a grave risk to small babies, depending on whom you consult (our pediatrician advised strongly against it)--and address only the relationship question here, since I'm not qualified to take on any other aspects of it. To that end, please don't flood me with glowing opinions or horror stories about the practice, thanks.
So--either start your baby's transition to the crib, or start making other accommodations to keep your marriage happy through the family-bed stage. A strong marriage, and the happy home that comes with it, is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, gifts parents can give their kid(s), and I'm not sure how you can have one without both you and your husband showing each other that you're listening and taking each other's wellbeing into account with every decision. That means you hear him out regardless, and ask him to hear you out, and come to a compromise decision together.
May I put this out there? I am just curious. If a woman could choose between a handsome guy with lots of money but with a lousy personality who may not treat her kindly or a less-than-average looking guy who does not have much money but has a great personality and would treat her kindly, which would she choose?
You would think this would be a no-brainer but I asked recently on a list-serv and half the responses actually chose the rich guy! I was stunned!
Carolyn Hax: Which is why "you can't please everyone" is one of the top 5 cliches to live by. Roughly half the people you meet will probably horrify you on some level.
Not Trying: Actually, I think that advice applies to more than the bi-coastal relationship. Not to say you shouldn't put thought and caring and love into your relationship, but the idea of "trying" to make something work is antithetical, in some ways, to the growth of relationship. It smacks too much of control - necessary for driving a car, not so great when you end up trying to "drive" a relationship.
Okay, maybe I'm just in a Zen mood today.
Carolyn Hax: Blame the Bendy Monkeys.
Buck up: I could use a little buck up message. I'm not seeing anyone, although I've been going out on dates, but there is someone whom I am actually smitten with (you know it's the only word that fits). I've known her for two years, there has never been anything romantic between us, but more and more I find that I miss her before we even part. There are some possible reasons not to do this, age difference (don't worry we're both adults, well at least by age), no clear sign of reciprocity, but I'm feeling as though I've got to say that I'd like to date her, if only to finally know for sure that she's not interested. Still, it seems like such a loaded moment that I have to admit its daunting. It's much easier to flirt with someone you don't know or that you already know and are comfortable not being with. Ugh, and of course I wouldn't want to ruin her holidays by making her feel awkward. THere see, I'm rationalizing. Can you help me stop spinning.
Carolyn Hax: Most people are in a full spin then they ask- or get asked out, so why fight it? Try and, if you must, fail. If you;re gracious about it then chances are she'll be. That is, if you even need to be. Good luck. Report back.
The 'Burgh: After 2.5 painful years of divorce court hell, I receive the Decree today. At what point in tonight's celebration should I worry that I've gone over-the-top?
Carolyn Hax: When you're in Vegas saying "I do."
Bring a friend whom you trust to have good judgment, drink a glass of water after every drink-drink, and make fun plans for tomorrow morning so you have incentive not to ruin them tonight. Why celebrate pain relief with more pain?
Vacation for Two: (Online only please)
Thank you for your chats - Love them.
We're newlyweds and don't have much money to spend on vacations. Every year, once or twice, we go away with my inlaws and the whole family - and they pick up the tab. The places we travel to are wonderful, and I cannot complain because they are such generous people. But when is enough enough? How do I hint to my husband that I would like to save my vacation time for the two of us(we go on extended vacations with them that burn right through my total vacation/ personal time for the year)...I'm not saying we have to go to Paris, but something small and intimate would be nice just for the two of us. I feel that when I mention the topic he gets offended. I feel like I'm not grateful - please help.
Carolyn Hax: This has nothing to do with gratitude, and when he lays that on you, you need to say explicitly: "This has nothing to do with gratitude." It's about a married couple spending some vacation time alone, together.
If he won't or can't see this, then, sure, we can introduce the gratitude issue--in a form he might not appreciate. You are grateful for the money they lavish on you--it is indeed generous--but you are not grateful for the control this vacation precedent has come to exert on your time and your marriage. And I do mean control; if you don't want it and can't refuse it, it stops being a gift.
You want a modest vacation alone. He married you, not his family. Your marriage is about the happiness of both parties (you and he, not you and his family--in case there's a need to clarify). You have more than accommodated him.
If he throws it in your face that your going to Paris is hardly suffering on his behalf, then I think there's a sympathy breach large enough to warrant marriage counseling.
Of course, I'm presenting it to you this way, but you might not want your dukes up this high (unless it occurs naturally).
Re: "family bed": Might it be a risk that the husband starts resenting the baby (consciously or sub-) if the baby shares the bed much longer? Potential for messy psychological stuff here.
Carolyn Hax: yes. She could also start resenting him for taking her baby away. This is why it has to be a decision they both come to, and it has to be for the good of the marriage, not for the individual good of either of them.
Silver Spring, Md.: HI Carolyn:
What do you think? Going out west to ski for Christmas with Mom and Dad. Boyfriend subtly not-invited by mom. When she realizes that he's by himself for Christmas and feels bad and says he should have come with us... Do I call him and tell him to come join the fun (not an impossible thing for him to do given he's in the travel business) or just suck-it-up and shut-up about her change of heart (and have the decency to respect that he will not (nor should he) change his plans at the drop of her hat)?
Carolyn Hax: Please just talk to your mom. "[Boyfriend] could actually join us if that's what you really want--I'd love to have him along but not if you see him as an imposition. As long as it's honest, either answer, yea or nay, is okay." Good luck.
Re: vacation: Something is going on if she has to "hint" to her husband she'd like to go on a vacation with just the two of them. Why is this such a delicate matter? Does his family come first, before the marriage?
Carolyn Hax: That's what it sounds like to me. It's hard to see how parents who would take along their son and daughter-in-law on multiple vacations a year don't have some boundary blindness. Leave them room to breathe, no? And they're crossing that line with their son's permission. Danger, danger.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Bendy Monkeys!!!! Had I but known. I bought dog butt leash/coat hooks for everyone.
Carolyn Hax: There's always next year, as every Christmas-resenter knows.
Round Rock, Tex.: My friends and I are having an ongoing debate about blogging, specifically about writing very personal thoughts in our online journals. On one end of the spectrum, some of them use it to keep friends up to date on interesting day-to-day activities. On the other end are people who pour their hearts out, revealing very private issues about relationships, jobs, medical conditions, etc.
Do you believe that the latter group have issues with personal boundaries? Should a person feel free to write whatever they want in their personal journal? I think it's unhealthy to look for acceptance and validation through a journal, but for some people, it's the only way they feel comfortable expressing themselves. What do you think?
Carolyn Hax: I think they, and you, had best not write anything down that they don't want their future mates, grown children, prospective employers and background-checkers reading.
Family bed: Maybe the answer is, have both. Get the baby in the habit of being put down on a regular schedule in his/her own bed. Then when baby wakes in the middle of the night, bring him/her back to your bed. If you have the energy to return the baby back to its own bed, fine, if not, that;s fine too. Pretty soon the kid will sleep longer and it will become less & less of an issue.
Go for less money and great personality...: First husband: wealthier, my salary was play money, left because he didn't respect me or my contributions to anything. Second husband: solid living, comfortable if smaller house, and wonderfully supportive of me and my activities. But yes, when I commented to friends that I moved out at the tail end of $50,000 kitchen and bathroom renovation with first husband, some said I was nuts.
Carolyn Hax: To channel Weingarten here, there is only one right answer to that question, and everyone who picks wrong should be embarrassed.
Alexandria, Va.: Girlfriend asked for space a month before I was about to propose because she said she was confused with her life and did not know who she was or wanted. I gave her the space she asked for after a week of conversations that resulted in no answers. Since then there has been no contact. I told her that she would have to make the first move to reconnect.
I have done everything right according to everyone I speak with or read. I have made sure I took medication for the depression and anxiety as well as see a therapist. I did not allow myself to withdrawal from the world. Instead I have made new friends and stayed close to old ones. Lost 30 pounds though diet and exercise and let myself try new things that have been a lot of fun. I have even started dating someone new which has been much more enjoyable then I ever thought possible. (Don't worry I am taking things slow)
However as Christmas approaches I can't help but wish I had made the break up long and drawn out and as messy as possible. Cause then at least she might still be in my life.
Its not even as if I believe our relationship was perfect. She had a lot of serious issues that I pray she is working out for hr on good. Not mine. Even so I miss the space it filled.
It is almost as if I have a craving for food court Chinese food instead of good Chinese food.
I guess I just need affirmation that I have handled this correctly and that the life I am building now will be different but just as good if not better then the last one.
Carolyn Hax: You have handled this correctly and that the life you are building now will be different but just as good if not better then the last one.
Dragging anything out diminishes not only the people involved, but also the happiness of the memories. And those are rarely considered in a breakup, but they deserve to be handled with care. Even unhappy relationships that got sucked into a Cuisinart had some good moments, or there wouldn't have been a relationship.
And it's not only okay, but important to give them their due credit: "Yes, it ended badly and we're not in touch, but there were some good times that I feel lucky we were able to share." Not something you hear often, at least I don't, but it can really help when it comes time to make peace with things.
Happy Holidays: So my mother-in-law loves me. Loooooves me. To the extend that last holiday, she hugged me without letting go for about 5 minutes, kissed me repeatedly on the cheek, told me several times that I didn't understand how much she looooooved me (and to say she was close talking here would be an understatement) and then turned and walked out the door without saying goodbye to her -actual- daughter or sons. The general consensus in the room afterward that a firm "stop!" would've resulted in another lecture about how I don't understand what love is and how much she looooves me. And more sloppy hugs and kisses.
Given that we're spending Christmas weekend with the in-laws and she is likely to consume several bottles of wine over the course of the weekend, (the maulings pretty much only occur under the influence), what can I do?? It's lovely that she likes me. But I don't need any more face-licking.
Carolyn Hax: Actually, it sounds like she's beating her kids over the head, and you're the club. not to take anything away from your lovability or anything. If you can find a way to be somewhere else for the second and subsequent cork-poppings, please avail yourself of it.
Midwest: I don't know if you'll get to this - but my husband has been treated for clinical depression for a year, and it's getting worse. He's medicated and has started therapy again, but he's so mean and then sad and I just don't know how to deal with it. His counselor has now suggested he see a psychiatrist (rather than his family doctor medicating him). What's the difference?
And if you have any words of wisdom about dealing with a person whose moods are wildly fluctuating at Christmas time, I would appreciate.
Carolyn Hax: Please please take the advice and get him to a psychiatrist. Misdiagnosis is rampant in mental health care and can often lead to the prescribing of incorrect, and therefore ineffective or even harmful, medications. There can be a huge difference.
This can help you deal with the fluctuations, too--remind yourself his moods will fluctuate, but he hasn't come close to exhausting his medical options yet.
Bethesda, Md.: I am uncomfortable with being photographed. It's not because I look like a dork in photos (which I do), I'm not vain in the least and I don't care how the photo itself turns out. I find the act of being photographed very intrusive -- particularly if the person taking the photo fiddles with the camera endlessly, or comes up with a bunch of instructions (Move to your left! Put your arm around Bob!).
So, two questions, 1. Am I weird? 2. How do I get people to either photograph me quickly, or to not photograph me at all?
Carolyn Hax: Cooperate. Fighting only makes the pictures worse and the attempts more numerous to catch a good one.
Washington, D.C.: My husband is interviewing for a new job. He has a very good job right now and I was just accepted in a masters degree program that I have wanted for a while. We are both presented with great opportunities. The problem is, if he were to be offered a job, we would have to move. None of the jobs are in the area. I -could- transfer to a new school, but like the program I am in and want to stay. He once promised this would not be an issue. now he seems to think if he were offered a job and I suggested staying in the area to wrap up my schooling, I would be unfairly punishing him. In addition, we stand to have to sell our house at a loss, putting us in a horrible financial situation, especially due to the potential that I would not have a job in the new area. I'm very stressed about this and realize nothing has actually happened yet except for the interviews, but how do I prepare myself for a job being offered to my husband? It seems I will be dealt the short end of the stick if he gets an offer.
Carolyn Hax: It seems like you will be angry regardless, since you feel he reneged on his promise that remaining in your program would not be an issue. Please talk to him about it--squarely, firmly, nicely. He seems to have changed his position, and you feel scared about his job hunt, unhappy about the idea of leaving your program, and angry at being put in this position. Air it now before it festers.
Denver, Colo.: I am loveable and capable.
Carolyn Hax: Wait--you were schoolchild in the 70s? You're wearing your IALAC tag?
For Midwest: Somewhere under the fluctuating moods is your husband, the man you love and married. These moods are not him -- they are his illness. Tough to deal with, I know, but they are not -him.- He's in there somewhere, and eventually, with a good doctor and the right meds, will emerge, but in the meantime, it might help to keep in mind that the sadness and the meanness are NOT him but are his illness instead.
Carolyn Hax: not only on point, but also comprehensible to those born before and after the 1960s. Thanks.
I love your chats and columns, and often try to speak in your voice when giving advice. I have a problem that I keep trying to solve the way you might tell me to: I'm engaged, I love my boyfriend very much, and yet I have also grown close to a male friend and I think I might love him too. I think your advice would be to consider if there are fundamental problems in my relationship (there aren't) and then distance myself from my friend. But I am finding this very difficult. I haven't crossed any lines but I'm worried I will if things stay the same.
Carolyn Hax: Thank you--that's a nice compliment, even though I've failed you.
Try not framing it as "fundamental problems," but instead as not getting from your fiance something essential to you, maybe something you never really thought about before, that you get from the male friend.
It's not always so easy as, X relationship is broken, but Y relationship is great.
Sometimes X relationship seems okay but it's starving you slowly of something, and you don't realize it until you get it in some other form. (I don't necessarily mean in the form of another person, either--it can be in the form of anything people find fulfilling.)
Never thought I would be...: Is is okay to be a teensy bit jealous over a gorgeous diamond ring (not engagement) a friend just got for Christmas? I love jewelry to look at, don't wear what I have, let alone need anything new; and if my husband came home with the same ring for me I'd be thinking, "but, we really need to remodel the bathroom".
Yet, I'm a little jealous! What gives?
Carolyn Hax: Because you want your husband to surprise you with a fairy tale gift (that princess residue from little girlhood is tougher than calcium deposits), and still remodel the bathroom?
Midwest: What about also advising Midwest to get counseling herself? Might help.
Carolyn Hax: Sure! It's Chirstmas.
Carolyn Hax: A little-known holiday celebrated by atheists with poor typing skills.
Urbana, Ill.: I'm 27 years old and have been "talking" to this guy for about a month.
A few nights ago, we had our first minor argument. When I called the next day to apologize for my behavior, he told me that I got all "girled-out" on him and that he was ready to not see me anymore.
Do you think it's worth trying one more time with him or should I just move on?
Things were going fine up until this point and now I'm beating myself up over not behaving "appropriately"... but I don't think he handled it very well, either.
Carolyn Hax: You send me "all 'girled-out,'" and you still need an answer?
St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Carolyn,
My dad gave my mom divorce papers for Christmas. It's going to be messy, and he's still not admitted and apologized for his infidelity (which I had discovered and called him out on).
Mom and Sis aren't talking to my dad and have completely cut him out of their lives. Bro and I are trying to stay out of it for the sake of our own sanity, but get accused of siding with the "other" parent. It hasn't been easy.
I've exchanged gifts with Mom and Dad like always (through the mail this year), because I don't want to be spiteful to either parent. But how do I handle the inevitable fallout from giving and recieving a gift with my Dad? Am I completely out of line to do either one?
Carolyn Hax: No no no, you are not. At the risk of wading too deeply in to muck I don't understand:
1. You are trusting your conscience. There is no other way. You can revisit your conscience as new facts come in, and even chage course as a result, but you can't ignore your conscience and live with yourself. Even in response to wounded maternal pressure.
2. If your mother is punishing you for trusting your conscience, then she is out of line. The innocent don't send others on guilt trips.
3. If your mother in fact sees herself vs. your dad as Innocent vs. Guilty, and is trying to use it (and you and your brother) against your dad, then I can guarantee there is a more complicated story within their marriage than that. Not to condone his lying or adultery, just to acknowledge that there's usually a lot of right and wrong to go around in all battles, and even lying and adultery don't change that.
4. Recap: No one who deserves your loyalty will pressure you to take sides. Hang in there.
Maryland: Agg. Was just told by my mom that she does not want my fiance (who she and my dad both dislike for stupid reasons, like him being Jewish and not having a four-year degree) to be in the house my parents own and my aunt lives in for ANY amount of time tomorrow before a party (at most we'd be there an hour). Because I was guilted by the "you aren't considerate of our feelings" trip, I agreed. Fiance is wonderful and won't bat an eye if I ask him to just meet me at the house where the party is, but now I'm berating myself for caving to parental pressure (who, by the way, will not even be in town!).
Where can I get the bendy monkeys?
Carolyn Hax: Look down. You are one.
Call your mom back and say, no, you've changed your mind, your conscience won't allow you to treat your fiance this way. Come on.
Washington, D.C.: is it too late to find out where to get the bendy monkeys?
washingtonpost.com: Would a Pirate Bendy do?
Carolyn Hax: What wouldn't a Pirate Bendy do, that is the question.
Much demand for bendy Monkeys, no supply that I can see.
What was I thinking, sending the assistant home.
Anonymous: What gives with saying what gives?
Carolyn Hax: I don't know. What do you think gives?
Meatless, CE: My wife is a nominal Catholic who traditionally does not eat meat on Christmas eve. We're inviting friends to dine with us including one who thinks that salad is what food eats, and won't be happy without something red that used to moo, oink, etc. I suggested something like spaghetti and optional meatballs, but I was wondering if we should just skip the meat and put up with an unhappy guest.
Personally, I have no interest in the meat or the tradition.
Carolyn Hax: It's okay if the only thing that oinks at your dinner is your carnivorous guest. Spinach lasagne, cheese tortellini, stuffed shells, manicotti--I thought all of these had successfully reached the 1950s eater.
Personally, I have no interest in people who bully their hosts.
Vacation with In-Laws: From a mother who has taken my son and his family on some very nice vacations and hopes to do more: My son and I had "the talk" after a couple of trips. They would go with me sometimes, not others, I was not invited to go along on all their trips, to the beach with the kids, for example. "Sometimes our family just wants to spend vacation time alone." Made perfect sense to me, not a problem at all. If this son can't say that or his parents don't understand, THAT is the problem.
Re: Bethesda, Md.: So what happens when you are married and realize you're being starved of something in your relationship? And you meet the man that gives it to you? And you do act on it?
Banging my head on a brick wall seems like a fine option.
Carolyn Hax: You can ... try to see if your husband can in fact provide it if he's made aware of the need ... try to find another source of it outside the marriage that isn't illicit ... learn to live without it ... separate, if happiness isn't possible without it ... there are a lot of ways you can go, and the right one will depend on you and your husband, your family situation, the size of the need, your attitude, so many things.
Carolyn Hax: A connection, finally. Thanks.
Wedding Blues: Carolyn -- I am supposed to be planning my wedding and yet I can't get motivated. Even planning a small intimate affair gives me a headache! I really just want to elope, but my loved one insists that his parents be part of the ceremony, which means that my parents ought to be there, which means something in the way of a ceremony needs to happen. Any advice for motivating, when all I want to do is be done with this already, and possibly eat some cake?
Carolyn Hax: Ask your loved one to plan it, since he's the one who wants it.
Virginia: I found out that my sister who is married with four kids is now seeing a psychiatrist which we never knew because she is taking Prozac. On top of that she is also seeing a psychologist which we will knew about. Is this normal having two different "counselors"? There is no mental or physical abuse in the marriage.
Carolyn Hax: But whooeee there's some judging going on, isn't there? Does there need to be physical or mental abuse in the marriage for her counseling to receive your imprimatur?
It is not only "normal," but recommended, that people on such medication also receive talk therapy, and it's common for a psychiatrist to handle the meds while a psychologist or social worker handles the talk.
In other words, be glad anyone who needs care is getting it, particularly someone who is responsible for four other lives.
If I misread your tone, I do apologize.
Would you touch this with a 10 foot pole?: Online only please. Every time I've seen my BIL in the last few months (generally once or twice a month) he's been hungover. He's in his late 20s, he's not a college kid, if that matters. I am not a tee-totaler, and a couple beers wouldn't phase me but regularly drinking till you're ill seems like a drinking problem. And, quite frankly, he's more fun to be with when he's not feeling lousy.
Do I do anything about this, or just mind my own business?
Carolyn Hax: This is a BIL, so someone you're close to--sibling, spouse?--is closer to this person than you are. What does that person say?
I do think someone needs to do something; the question is whether you're the one to do it.
Darn European Monkeys: They only ship to the UK!!! Help!!!
Here you go, bendable monkeys and a LOT more.
Carolyn Hax: Whew. I was all abunch.
Bendy monkeys available in North America: Not as cute as the other ones, but these ones can be shipped to North American addresses.
Carolyn Hax: Okay. monkey thread complete. Thanks.
No meat christmas eve: what about a nice tuna or salmon steak? meaty but not meat...
Carolyn Hax: Well duh. I forgot about that. Thanks.
Speaking of "smitten": I've been enchanted by this woman for years. For a while I thought it was just one of those tormenting yourself by wanting what you can't have kind of things. But everything about her just amazes me and I do things just to be around her. She's been in a long relationship with a wonderful mand and now they are engaged. I thought I'd simply move on once they engagement happened (you just knew it would happen, sadly they are the so very right for each other and so obviously in love), but now I just feel very sad that it really will never happen. How do I cope?
Carolyn Hax: Enchanting and amazing may be rare qualities, but they aren't unique to her. Don't forget that. And if the only way for you to remember that is to stop having reminders of this enchanting, amazing woman in your face all the time, then it's okay to put some distance between you two.
Seattle: Most city hall/courthouse weddings allow a small number of guests-the only planning you'll need to do is make an appointment. (This is what I did). Both sets of parents can be present but there won't be any of that wedding stress. Then you can all go out for a nice dinner afterwords.
Washington, D.C.: I decided to relocate with or without a job because I am long over due for change. Amazingly, I ended up with an offer after I turned in my notice with my current employer before I moved. Now that things are falling into place I'm really scared about the move. I dont think it's second thoughts -- I just didn't expect these feelings. Are they normal?
Carolyn Hax: New things are scary. That's what excitement is, fear chemicals. Right? Anyway, if you hate it you can move back. "Due for a change" can mean a lot of things--including that you need something new, period, or that you need something new to remind you how good for you the old thing was.
I'm not sure if this will reassure you or scare you more, but since your worst case is more expensive than dire, I'm throwing it out there.
All Over the Map: Carolyn,
My boyfriend is a champion compartmentalizer. I am the exact opposite. When we get into squabbles, he seems to get over them relatively quickly, while I brood on and continue to work through in my head what went wrong and how to fix/avoid it next time. He doesn't understand how I can turn a small squabble into something bigger and more troubling about us in general; I can't understand how he can just turn on and off his feelings and emotions, as if the squabble never happened. Is there any middle ground for us? How do I find it?
Carolyn Hax: Maybe in the longevity of the issues? If you're fighting about the same things over and over again, you're probably smart to be mulling the long-term consequences.
But if you can't get past the smallest thing without 1. arguing about it 2. revisiting the viability of the relationship, then maybe it's time to mull your own need for perfection, or whatever it is you're trying to achieve between you.
If you try to think bigger and you still end up squabbling, then maybe you're just not right for each other.
I keep thinking about the story a reader sent in about her cast iron pan. I'm going to cut too many corners, but ... she was in a relationship with a guy who wouldn't listen when she explained how to care for the pan, and who kept wrecking it, and they kept fighting about it. They break up for other reasons, she gets into a new, much more harmonious relationship, and she can't give half a bleep about who cares how for the pan.
You probably have to have been there.
Re: smitten: Also, echanting and amazing sound pretty idealized. I'm sure this engaged girl is smart and cute and kind to kittens, but I bet she also hogs the covers and hates your taste in music.
Carolyn Hax: But he -digs- that.
I think you're right, by the way--it does sound like he's idealized her. Thanks.
Meat: I've never understood how someone can say that fish isn't meat if the effort is to eat something that didn't once have a pulse. Fish don't often oink or moo, but they are animals. Animal flesh=meat.
I eat 'em all, but if you eat fish you're eating meat.
Carolyn Hax: I think the meatlessness here was an effort to be a good Catholic, in which case the distinction is apt. (I hadn't ever heard of a meat prohibition on Xmas Eve, but what do I know.)
Denver, Colo.: I am also Enchanting and Amazing (IAAEAA).
Carolyn Hax: And Shut In, Apparently (ASIA).
Carolyn Hax: Thanks! And to the collective you, too.
This is it till after the New Year. Bye, have a great time, and thanks for all the great Fridays.
That was me!: With the pan! You made my week by mentioning that old comment I made!
That is still one of the most valuable lessons I've learned. Six years later I'm still happy with the guy who makes me not care about pans.
Carolyn Hax: I hope I did it justice--it really said it all, thank you.
Enchanting and amazing may be rare qualities, but they aren't unique to her.: It can still be hard not to feel as if you've been forced to settle, and difficult to get over the sense of failure.
Carolyn Hax: No no no. 1. You don't commit to anyone who feels less amazing or enchanting; and 2. it will feel more amazing and enchanting when someone right for you loves you back. Pat, sure, and there's no guarantee anyone will even find this, but it won't be because that one "got away." There was no one, just a maybe, an idea.
For the photo-phobic person: Please do cooperate and try to smile. My mother hates to be photographed, and in every picture, she has an angry scowl. That's how we'll remember her after she's gone.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online 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.
| 193.682927 | 0.585366 | 0.731707 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101535.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101535.html
|
Travelers Slowed, Stranded As Dense Fog Cloaks London
|
2006122319
|
LONDON, Dec. 21 -- London's worst fog in 15 years has forced the cancellation of hundreds of flights, stranded thousands of passengers and slowed this busy city to a misty, half-light crawl in the frantic days before Christmas.
Despite the city's storied reputation for fog, established by the novels of Charles Dickens and Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes mysteries, a blanket this thick and persistent hasn't hit the city since 1991, said Keith Fenwick, spokesman for the Met Office, Britain's national weather service.
The fog was caused by an unusual combination of high pressure over Britain, exceptionally wet ground, a sudden drop in temperature and the arrival of the shortest day of the year. The limited daylight hours and weak, indirect sunlight were not enough to burn away the woolly blanket of fog.
Even in daylight, cars slowly crawled through the streets Thursday with headlights on. Football matches were canceled because of concerns that the players wouldn't be able to see each other.
British Airways canceled all its domestic flights in and out of London's Heathrow Airport on Thursday, along with many European flights, and announced that the same flights would be canceled Friday. Officials at Heathrow, one of the world's busiest airports, said a total of 350 flights were canceled Thursday because of the fog, about a 40 percent cut in normal service.
Flights at Gatwick Airport were delayed and some were canceled Thursday as well, but Heathrow was the worst affected. About 200,000 people pass through the airport each day during the pre-holiday rush.
Stranded travelers were offered blankets, sleeping mats, towels, woolen hats and gloves. Airport officials said they had hired face painters and other entertainers to circulate among the crowds, and several men playing Santa Claus -- or Father Christmas, as he is often called in Britain -- were sent to cheer children.
"The fact that you can see Father Christmas is not always consolation for the fact that you're not seeing your family, but they're doing the best they can," said Dee Byrne of the Association of British Travel Agents.
Highways were choked with traffic, and train companies reported a rise in passenger numbers as people sought alternative ways to make their holiday trips.
England's reputation as the land of fog goes back centuries, during which coal fires and chimneys left the air dark and polluted. In recent decades, with strict air-pollution controls, it has not been like that at all, said Paul Lindon, a Royal Mail letter carrier pushing his red cart bulging with Christmas cards down a residential street in north London.
The stereotype is that "English people wear bowler hats and London has fog," he said, but the hats are definitely gone, and so is the fog -- except for this rare week.
Many people said they enjoyed the strange ambiance of the cloudy streets. Davide DeAngelis, 41, an online entrepreneur, said he and his wife got up early to take a walk on Hampstead Heath, an 800-acre park in north London, and take advantage of London "being so lovely and foggy."
Laurent Caroff, 29, who sells shallots, garlic and onions from his bicycle, said he loved the "mystical atmosphere" that the unusual weather had brought. But, he said, it was a bit dangerous to drive because it was hard to see too far in front of you.
The fog shows no sign of lifting, the weather service said.
|
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.
| 14.630435 | 0.434783 | 0.434783 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101274.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101274.html
|
Bloomberg's Brave Bet on Innovation
|
2006122319
|
In the new year, both Democrats and Republicans will have an interest in thinking about government in new ways. They will have to break the vicious cycle that blocks innovation. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a nominal Republican who doesn't care much about party labels, has some ideas about doing just that.
The vicious cycle works like this: Because there is such a deep mistrust of government in so many quarters, officials are wary of trying new approaches, which are by definition unproved. Daring to innovate means risking failure. Failure generates bad headlines, even charges of scandal -- and the strong possibility that the pioneering politician will lose the next election.
But the failure to innovate only deepens public skepticism about government. Voters ask why government looks so slow, clunky and old-fashioned and can't seem to change. Skepticism deepens, innovation becomes even more risky -- and the cycle goes on.
It's true that government succeeds more than we want to acknowledge. Ask any elderly person if he or she would prefer to live without Social Security and Medicare. Ask parents in a good school district if they would like to abolish the public schools.
But government failure is also a reality, and so is the aversion to risk-taking. What's the way out?
In New York this week, Bloomberg announced a new initiative to fight poverty, including a Center for Economic Opportunity and $150 million annually that would, among other things, provide incentives for the poor to stay in school, to build up their personal savings and to get preventive medical care.
The mayor would also create an Office of Financial Empowerment to "educate, empower and protect workers with low incomes so they can make the best use of their financial resources." The poor often get ripped off by the unscrupulous.
The fund includes $25 million raised privately -- a signature approach for Bloomberg, a billionaire and a major private philanthropist -- which will give the program more room to experiment.
"When you do things with public money, you really are required to do things that have some proven track record and to focus on more conventional approaches," Bloomberg told a news conference. "But conventional approaches, as we know, have kept us in this vicious cycle" -- that phrase again -- "of too many people not being able to work themselves out of poverty."
Those who think Bloomberg is too liberal to be an honest-to-goodness Republican might notice that he also promised to "carefully monitor these new programs and hold them accountable for producing results -- just as a business would. And if we find that a certain program isn't making the grade, we will terminate its funding."
There is no better way to win public support for government programs that work than to be serious about shutting down the ones that don't.
Bloomberg has not launched a Great Society experiment, and the importance of his initiative should not be exaggerated. While praising the program, Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, noted to the New York Times that it involved spending "only about $125 per person for the approximately 1.8 million New Yorkers living below the meager federal poverty line." In New York, $125 doesn't get anyone very far.
But both parties would do well to embrace the spirit of Bloomberg's initiative. Republicans desperately need to show that they take growing inequalities seriously and recognize that the new economy is leaving millions of Americans behind.
Innovative programs that focus on helping the poor to save, to stay in school and to join the work force are exactly what Republicans should want to embrace. If their only domestic policy is tax cuts for the wealthy, Republicans will, and should, keep losing. In the wake of the handling of Hurricane Katrina, Republicans will also have to convince voters they respect government enough to demand that it perform competently.
Democrats rightly believe that government has an obligation to help those left out. Providing health insurance coverage to all Americans, for example, will require a major government role. But Democrats need to show they are under no illusions that all government programs work splendidly. Believers in government have the greatest interest in proving that it can correct itself.
Bloomberg likes to talk about government pursuing "thoughtful, practical and evidence-based strategies." Buzzwords? Sure. But after six years in which clubhouse politics produced ideologically driven policies that were neither practical nor evidence-based, they are buzzwords that should have a future in Washington.
|
National politicians could take notes from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's innovative new plan to help New Yorkers work their way out of poverty.
| 33.807692 | 0.769231 | 2 |
medium
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/michael_otterson/2006/12/the_living_son_of_the_living_god.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/michael_otterson/2006/12/the_living_son_of_the_living_god.html
|
The Living Son of the Living God
|
2006122319
|
It is late, and I am sitting alone by the window, watching the snow fall on a midnight shift at the Children's Home. The kids are all in bed and sleeping. The other night I dreamed I taught one of them how to hold fire in his hand.
Winter and darkness bring solitude, strange thoughts. The psalmist writes that night with night shares its knowledge. Above the obscuring clouds and the drifting snow the stars might appear to turn in hand with wandering travelers of long ago. At night we still wonder, what can it mean? What signify, the half-heard music above the hillside? To what destination might the lights make their way in the sky?
Winter's darkness has fallen again. The earth on its axis is turned. In the fastness of night we remember the magi, imagine them murmuring to themselves while they poke about in their dens, kneeling at the hearth side, stirring the embers and smiling in memory of another time when, on a foreign plain and in the company of shepherds, expending much enchantment, they drew themselves together before the child. The obscurities of prophecy had been made plain then in the skies breathing auroras over them, the air beat with wings on fire. And the stillness of it, the unearthly calm that had given voice to the question, so that we said aloud to one another, what have we done? What are we that we should be taken notice of so?
Snow is falling, fluttering on the air, a bright nimbus falling through darkness and silence to layer down over trees, fields, houses and lawns, framing halos for street lights, the choir on the church porch singing holy, holy, holy, lifting up the night in a drifting veil of white.
I sit alone by the window, grateful for a moment's peace, listening for the sounds of those in my care. Some of the children have nowhere to go for the holidays. I wish I could tell them, in words they would understand, that we are their family, that we could not love them more and that, come what may, there is nothing of which they should be afraid.
But they are all in bed and sleeping and so we are free to go through night and the mind's darkness toward Bethlehem and the one who waits for us there, nearer than breath yet far from the centers of power as mankind understands power. We must weave a path within the reach of fearsome sentinels who stand watch within the forest of dreamsâunconscionable chimerae, they take no heed of us but gape at the air like bewildered things, compelled in their distraction by insubstantial images conjured for our benefit by the sorcerers in our midst.
Deep under cover of night we must go, following a beacon ablaze among the stars, a lantern carried there among the lesser lightsâa solitary gem set there so to pierce the soul. So intent a purity commands a great price, a gift for a brideâbut who is the bridegroom, and who is the bride?
The shepherds, that simple and garrulous people (though keeping their own ways, their sturdy wisdom) are oddly quiet tonight, shy of company, given over to contemplation. The curious thing, the remarkable thing: When one of their number fell to the ground, weeping and so disconsolate that the animals fell silent, the man crying aloud to his God for forgiveness, the others went to him and spoke in low tones of courage and faith to their fallen brother. When we asked them, what is the matter? they only smiled at us quizzically, nodding toward where the star led. They took us by the arm and would have had us incline our ears toward the arc of heaven, as if they could truly hear the music of which the old ones tell, the silent perpetual hymn of the circling spheres, ever present, ever silent.
Then, at journey's end, the childâwhat was the lesson, what were we to have known by the humility of his birth? No room for them in the city, and yet it seemed with so much affection that his eyes held ours, and compassion. Or do we only read there what we most love in one another? Mother and father, their newborn infant son... against all evil, the iniquity of men, doomed to corruption... this: In the very death of winter's night, in the midst of dark... the birth of light.
The magi nod to one another, comprehending. They ask to hold the child for a moment, no longer melancholy in their learning. They want no art to enchant now yet move the third heaven by their understanding. In time they turn to their respective provinces to go. We ask them to stay with us yet a while, to instruct us in the meaning of these eventsâthe birth of the child and the deaths of so many that are innocent. They say they must go: There is much to be considered, the king's minions to be deterred. They tell us after their mysterious fashion that the abyss calls forth to the abyss, that the light informs the darkness and is not comprehended, and much else that we do not understand. But here is the child. Listen to the child, they say, and are gone.
Dawn, and I am still by the window, wondering what I have done here. The morning shift will be here soon. Time for me to go home, to leave the little ones in others' care. Awake, they would only shrug off my concern, and yet it may be that, while dreaming, they grow strong under the burden of our concern. I think I'll make a cup of coffee and pass the time, watch the news, until they awaken when I can tell them good morning.
Posted December 22, 2006 10:48 AM
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham, Sally Quinn and Michael Otterson. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/michael_otterson/
| 66.705882 | 0.352941 | 0.352941 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101275.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101275.html
|
No Dancing in the End Zone
|
2006122319
|
ROUNDSMANSHIP: The art of distinguishing oneself from the gaggle with relentless displays of erudition.
The roundsman is the guy who, with the class huddled at the bed of a patient who has developed a rash after taking penicillin, raises his hand to ask the professor -- obnoxious ingratiation is best expressed in the form of a question -- whether this might not instead be a case of Schmendrick's Syndrome reported in the latest issue of the Journal of Ridiculously Obscure Tropical Diseases.
None of the rest of us gathered around the bed has ever heard of Schmendrick's. But that's the point. The point is for the prof to remember this hyper-motivated stiff who stays up nights reading journals in preparation for rounds. That's the upside. The downside, which the roundsman, let's call him Oswald, ignores at his peril, is that this apple polishing does not endear him to his colleagues, a slovenly lot, mostly hung over from a terrific night at the Blue Parrot.
The general feeling among the rest of us is that we should have Oswald killed. A physiology major suggests a simple potassium injection that would stop his heart and leave no trace. We agree this is a splendid idea and entirely just. But it would not solve the problem. Kill him, and another Oswald will arise in his place.
There's always an Oswald. There's always the husband who takes his wife to Paris for Valentine's Day. Valentine's Day? The rest of us schlubs can barely remember to come home with a single long-stem rose. What does he think he's doing? And love is no defense. We don't care how much you love her -- you don't do Paris. It's bad for the team.
Baseball has its own way of taking care of those who commit the capital offense of showing up another player. Drop your bat to admire the trajectory of your home run and, chances are, the next time up the unappreciative pitcher tries to take your head off with high cheese that whistles behind your skull.
Now, you might take this the wrong way and think that I am making the case for mediocrity -- what Australians call "the tall poppy syndrome" of unspoken bias against achievement, lest one presume to be elevated above one's mates. No. There is a distinction between show and substance. It is the ostentation that rankles, not the achievement. I'm talking about dancing in the end zone. Find a cure for cancer and you deserve whatever honors and riches come your way. But the check-writer who wears blinding bling to the cancer ball is quite another matter.
Americans abroad have long been accused of such blinging arrogance and display. I find the charge generally unfair. Arrogance is incorrectly ascribed to what is really the cultural clumsiness of an insular (if continental) people less exposed to foreign ways and languages than most other people on Earth.
True, America as a nation is not very good at humility. But it would be completely unnatural for the dominant military, cultural and technological power on the planet to adopt the demeanor of, say, Liechtenstein. The ensuing criticism is particularly grating when it comes from the likes of the French, British, Spanish, Dutch (there are many others) who just yesterday claimed dominion over every land and people their Captain Cooks ever stumbled upon.
My beef with American arrogance is not that we act like a traditional great power, occasionally knocking off foreign bad guys who richly deserve it. My problem is that we don't know where to stop -- the trivial victories we insist on having in arenas that are quite superfluous. Like that women's hockey game in the 2002 Winter Olympics. Did the U.S. team really have to beat China 12-1? Can't we get the coaches -- there's gotta be some provision in the Patriot Act authorizing the CIA to engineer this -- to throw a game or two, or at least make it close? We're trying to contain China. Why, then, gratuitously crush them in something Americans don't even care about? Why not throw them a bone?
I say we keep the big ones for ourselves -- laser-guided munitions, Google, Warren Buffett -- and let the rest of the world have ice hockey, ballroom dancing and every Nobel Peace Prize. And throw in the Ryder Cup. I always root for the Europeans in that one. They lost entire empires, for God's sake; let them have golf supremacy for one weekend. No one likes an Oswald.
|
The biggest problem with American arrogance lies in its gratutitous celebration of meaningless victories.
| 58.733333 | 0.666667 | 1.066667 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200591.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200591.html
|
Duke Lacrosse Case Takes Dramatic Turn
|
2006122319
|
DURHAM, N.C. -- Attorneys for three Duke lacrosse players charged with attacking a stripper say dismissing only the rape counts after their accuser again changed her story does not go far enough.
District Attorney Mike Nifong dropped rape charges Friday against Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann after the accuser told an investigator she no longer is certain she was penetrated vaginally with the men's penises, as she had claimed earlier.
But the three men still face charges of kidnapping and sexual offense, punishable by more than 30 years in prison.
"You could say this is a step in the right direction," defense attorney Wade Smith said of Nifong's decision. "He has done something. Do the rest of it.
"Do the honorable thing. End this case, because there isn't a case to bring."
Nifong had previously said he would rely on the woman's account of what happened because of a lack of DNA evidence against the players.
But on Friday, Nifong filed court papers saying that without "scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony" to corroborate that aspect of the case, "the state is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense."
The decision caught Smith and his fellow defense attorneys by surprise. They reacted by bitterly denouncing Nifong for hanging onto a case they insist never should have been brought.
"There is no scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony that would corroborate any physical assault of any kind _ sexual or otherwise _ occurring to this woman," said defense attorney Joseph Cheshire.
He added: "It is the duty of this prosecutor to dismiss these charges."
Nifong did not return several messages seeking comment Friday and a sign posted on his office door read, "No media, please!"
As he left his office for the day, he said, "All the documents have been filed and they speak for themselves."
But in an interview with The New York Times published late Friday night on the newspaper's Web site, Nifong said the "case will go away" if the accuser ever says one of the players she identified did not attack her.
"I've said I'm not interested in prosecuting somebody that's innocent," he told the newspaper. "But until she tells me that, until she tells me these are not the right guys, we're prosecuting this case."
The accuser, a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University, has said three men raped her _ vaginally, anally and orally _ while holding her against her will in a bathroom at a March team party where she was hired to perform as a stripper.
The indicted players all have said they are innocent, and their attorneys have consistently said no sex occurred at the party.
The men are still charged with kidnapping for allegedly holding the woman against her will and with sexual offense. Under state law, a rape charge requires vaginal intercourse, while sexual offense covers any sexual act.
In dropping the rape charges, Nifong did not specify what sex acts prosecutors now believe happened.
"It's hard to figure out what's going on down there," said Finnerty's father, Kevin, outside his home in Garden City, N.Y. "It's hard to figure out how this D.A. is playing this. It's pretty obvious to us that from the outset this man has been using this case for his own personal and political gain."
The defense has complained that the accuser has given authorities at least a dozen different versions of her story.
Among other things, she has given conflicting accounts of the number of attackers _ anywhere from three to 20 _ and the ways in which she was supposedly assaulted. At least one time after the party, she told police she had not been assaulted.
Last week, it was learned that a private DNA laboratory, in concert with Nifong, initially withheld from the defense test results that found genetic material from several men on the stripper's underwear and body, but that none of it came from the players.
Evans graduated in May, the day before he was indicted. Sophomores Finnerty and Seligmann were suspended following their April indictments.
"We still believe in the truth and we believe the other charges are false," said Duke lacrosse coach John Danowski.
|
DURHAM, N.C. -- Attorneys for three Duke lacrosse players charged with attacking a stripper say dismissing only the rape counts after their accuser again changed her story does not go far enough.
| 25.029412 | 1 | 34 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200455.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200455.html
|
Iran Held Liable In Khobar Attack
|
2006122319
|
Whether the families of the dead U.S. servicemen and women will ever receive that money remains in question. Iran has refused to participate in the case and insists it has no connection to the bombing. The families' law firm plans to try to track down Iranian government assets in countries around the world and claim them to collect the damages.
Nineteen people died in June 1996 when a truck bomb blew up the tower-style dormitory for U.S. Air Force pilots and staff. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth's ruling yesterday was the first time an American court found that Iranian government agencies and senior ministers financed and directed the bombing by a militant Saudi wing of the Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah.
"The totality of the evidence at trial . . . firmly establishes that the Khobar Towers bombing was planned, funded, and sponsored by senior leadership in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Lamberth wrote. "The defendants' conduct in facilitating, financing, and providing material support to bring about this attack was intentional, extreme, and outrageous."
Lamberth's decision in the lawsuit, which was filed in 2002 by the families of 17 victims, reverses a lower magistrate judge who said evidence linking the Iranian government to the bombing was not convincing.
Lamberth said the leading experts on Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group based in Lebanon, presented "overwhelming" evidence that the Iranian military worked with Saudi Hezbollah members to execute the attack, and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security provided money, plans and maps to help carry out the bombing. Six Hezbollah members captured after the attacks implicated Iranian officials.
Shale D. Stiller, a DLA Piper attorney for the families, said the ruling is important because it provides those who lost loved ones in a traumatic event -- a terrorist attack -- with some sense of vindication. Two couples involved in the case lost their only child, and one of those parents told the court: "We lost our only child. We'll never have grandchildren. It's like our whole lives are gone."
The timing of the ruling comes as the Bush administration resists recommendations that it engage in diplomatic talks with Iran. The Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel appointed by Congress, urged the administration to enlist Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq and the Middle East.
"There were a lot of rumors that the State Department did not want this case to proceed because they ultimately want to have a rapprochement with Iran," Stiller said. "I can't say that's an unreasonable view in overall foreign policy. But from the point of view of the 17 families victimized here, they needed some finding of retribution."
Lamberth applauded the families for helping discourage future terrorists.
"This Court takes note of plaintiffs' courage and steadfastness in pursuing this litigation and their efforts to take action to deter more tragic suffering of innocent Americans at the hands of terrorists," the judge wrote. "Their efforts are to be commended."
|
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Iran is responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing and ordered that the government pay $254 million to the families of 17 Americans who died in the attack in Saudi Arabia.
| 14.717949 | 0.769231 | 1.333333 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101842.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101842.html
|
Pleasure Cruz
|
2006122319
|
For her role in "Volver," Penelope Cruz strapped on a prosthetic derriere to enhance her Mediterranean assets. But as the beleaguered Madrid homemaker at the center of this warmly seductive movie, she gives us something finer to savor -- call it inner voluptuousness.
We know Cruz's external voluptuousness only too well. As soon as the respected Spanish actress arrived in Hollywood, it became her leading commodity -- first as Tom Cruise's arm candy, then as Hollywood's go-to sexy foreigner. Her brown eyes and lispy lilt were the only things worth noting about her so-so performances in "Vanilla Sky" and "Blow." She seemed to have hit the Euro-babe glass ceiling.
As "Volver" makes radiantly clear, Cruz, 32, can hold an audience's attention through her acting. All she apparently needed was a return to a Spanish-language role. Luckily, filmmaker Pedro Almodovar -- who never met a female character, real or in drag, he didn't love -- provides that opportunity. As Raimunda, an airport cleaner whose quiet heroics take place at home, she's a subtle revelation. And we remember what we loved about her in films such as 1992's "Belle Epoque" and 1997's "Abre los Ojos": not just God-given beauty but her canny animation of it.
Her face registers every heartbreak, irritation and disappointment. Her mascara-lined eyes seem perpetually shiny -- as if she were the Spanish equivalent of Roy Lichtenstein's teary, comic book women, though we learn she's no crybaby. We're drawn to this resolute problem solver, who recalls the stoic housewives of such 1950s Hollywood tearjerkers as "All That Heaven Allows" and "Imitation of Life." In those classics, the women's seemingly mundane, melodramatic ordeals were symbolic of deeper issues in society -- sexism, racism and classism -- and the characters' determination attained a sort of transcendental glory. In "Volver," Raimunda's courage is just as compelling as she contends with murder, adultery, incest and -- in Almodovar's anything-goes universe -- beyond-the-grave visits from her dearly departed mother (Carmen Maura).
First-time viewers of Almodovar's films may initially scratch their heads over a film that interweaves the farcical with the affecting, the comic with the disturbing, and ghostly elements with Hitchcockian melodrama. Aficionados of his peripatetic style, however, will note a maturation from his early films (so politically and sexually provocative, so flamboyant and cavalier) to this richer, more thoughtful amalgam of moods and textures. That deeper sensibility has marked more recent offerings such as "All About My Mother," "Talk to Her" and "Bad Education," in which the Spanish director treats controversial content with a new subtlety and restraint. Where audiences once left Almodóvar's movies giggling and shaking their heads in disbelief (a nun addicted to heroin?), they now emerge deeply moved.
There's another sea change in "Volver": Instead of the transvestite characters that were such familiar standbys in so many of Almodóvar's older movies, we get women. Lots of them. With the exception of Raimunda's shiftless husband, Paco (Antonio de la Torre), and a few minor characters, the cast of "Volver" is entirely female and, we'd like to emphasize, uniformly terrific. (The women collectively took the top acting prize at Cannes this year; Almodóvar's script was also a winner.)
And among them, he creates a charming, even profound intimacy -- what might have been dismissed as silly girl stuff attains enormous heft. Unspoken secrets between Raimunda and her sister Sole (Lola Dueñas) suddenly feel as foreboding as thunderheads, and the machine-gun kisses that neighborhood friend Agustina (Blanca Portillo) plants on everyone's cheeks are not only amusing, they're testament to her enormous capacity for love. Almodovar's recently discovered gentle touch continues, too: Look beneath the movie's playfully macabre surface and you'll find a paean to household togetherness, inner resilience and it-takes-a-village camaraderie, as Raimunda enlists everyone she knows to help her quickly rustle up a banquet for about two dozen hungry guests.
But before anyone mourns the demise of Madrid's resident provocateur, let it be said: Almodovar is still one naughty fella. Even in the most poignant scenes, his camera still seeks out gratuitous shots of ample cleavage and well-rounded cabooses.
This all makes for a deeply entertaining experience that engages our hearts as well as our funny bones. And it's gratifying to see Cruz (who had supporting roles in Almodovar's "Live Flesh" and "All About My Mother") finally get her due. Whether she's tearfully enduring her husband's unwanted advances in bed or breaking spontaneously into the title tune, a passionate flamenco-style number about unexpected encounters with the past, she's always in full song -- shattering not wineglasses but preconceptions.
Volver (121 minutes, in Spanish with subtitles, at area theaters) is rated R for profanity, sexual scenes, drug use and mature themes.
|
Search movie listings, reviews and locations from the Washington Post. Features national listings for movies and movie guide. Visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/movies today.
| 39.72 | 0.48 | 0.48 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101828.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101828.html
|
'Good Shepherd' Taps Into Blue-Blooded Vein of Secrecy
|
2006122319
|
Gentlemen do not read each other's mail, unless of course they don't want to be wiped off the face of the Earth. Thus was born the Office of Strategic Services in 1942 and then the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947, expressly to read other gentlemen's mail.
But once you enter that neck of the woods, the problems do not go away. They multiply. Who reads the mail of our fellows who read the other fellows' mail? And who reads their mail? And on and on it goes, a wilderness of penetrated missives called counterintelligence, and that is the subject proper of Robert De Niro's brilliant if uncompromising movie "The Good Shepherd."
The film is a roman a clef loosely linked to a CIA officer of some fame named James Jesus Angleton -- code name "Mother" -- who became head of the company's counterintelligence division, and thus was tasked with reading the mail of our mail-readers. He was brilliant and dedicated, but maybe he read a little too much mail by the end. His job was to find the goblins in the woodpile, and by the end he saw goblins under every log. The movie's impossible mission, which it decides to accept, is to explain this to us.
De Niro's film is a long and tricky thing to sit through, as are most movies about true espionage, as opposed to movies about blowing stuff up. It helps if you've read John le Carre and Charles McCarry, and it helps if you're a kind of Agency groupie (I am), who brings to the experience a nostalgia for the bad old days of the Berlin Tunnel and the coups of South America, when spies wore narrow-brim hats, Brooks Brothers suits (then patriotically made in America and never sold in outlet malls), Florsheims and horn-rims. Do you know who Dick Bissell was? What about William Harvey? Lacking that knowledge, you may find yourself lost in a hall of mirrors. But what helps best is seeing it twice.
As the film (from a screenplay by Eric Roth) has it, Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) is from one of those old families -- you know, the ones who knew everybody, got the best jobs and knew which wine went with which course. Ever notice their lapels? They never bunched up when they sat down, like yours or mine did. They had drape, and that's the giveaway right there.
Anyhow, one day Edward's father takes a gun and blows his brains to scrambled eggs and arterial spatter pattern right there in the big house by the sea. Edward found the suicide note (he was 8 at the time). He hid it and never told a soul. He was the boy who could keep secrets, and he became the man who could keep secrets.
The thrust of the film is his journey from that boy on that tragic day to the Agency player of the '60s, charged with discovering the name of a "visitor." The visitor would be the one who told the Cubans which beach the invaders would hit, so the forces could be massed there upfront. To do that, like George Smiley in the classic "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy," he has to go forward and backward through the records, sifting, weighing, interviewing, trying to read the clues and locate the enemy within his own house. The investigation is the "now" of the movie, but it stops to wander through history, tracking what may be Edward's growth or what may be his damnation, and it is a function of De Niro's classical reticence that he lets you determine which. It's not a tub-thumping, anti-CIA screed, I'm happy to report, but at the same time it's not a gung-ho patriotic extravaganza about the moral certainty of our side.
Damon is superbly disciplined in the role. He's not Burton's Lemas sweating bullets in "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold" but more like Guinness's Smiley in the BBC's "Tinker, Tailor," a quiet, repressed scholar, looking for contradictions and paradoxes.
Severely buttoned-down as well as connected, he was talent-spotted at Yale, where his gift for poetry got him noticed; he was quickly scooped up by OSS. (De Niro himself plays an avuncular version of OSS and CIA founder William Donovan.) Edward serves in England, where he learns how hard the trade can be. One of his friends is a charmer named Arch Cummings (Billy Crudup), who specializes in rubbing out homosexuals on general principle. If this bothers Edward, he never shows it. He never shows anything -- love, fear, pain, disappointment. His face is like the surface of a Chinese vase, aglow with luster, devoid of emotion.
For the movie, the secret life comes out of a culture of secrecy and privilege, not just a sense of duty. It makes the point that in some ways, the early agency was an extension of Yale's Skull and Bones Soc -- oops, all the janitors just left the building! -- Society, that druidically inspired boys club that seems to encourage its members to (a) rule the world and (b) urinate wherever they choose -- and come to think of it, maybe they are the same thing. In any event, "The Good Shepherd" makes a good case for the secrecy of the organization: It has to stay secret, because if we knew how stupid it all was, we'd laugh it out of existence.
As anthropology and archaeology, the film is first-class. If old WASP high Anglican haberdashery was the dullest, tweediest cavalcade of threads ever conceived, the movie certainly understands this. The suits fit beautifully and look like mud on asphalt, the shoes are both shiny and dull, nobody has the wit to wear a Burberry but only those sacklike London Fog single-breasted raincoats and the little '50s small-brimmed hat, usually with the tail feather of a Bavarian woodcock in the band. Color? These guys never heard of it!
The emotional argument is less persuasive: It is that keeping secrets grinds a man down. As a trajectory of feelings, the movie suggests that the higher Edward goes, the less he feels. If that sounds familiar, it should; "The Good Shepherd" most resembles "Godfather II," not only in its scope but in its density, the classic calm of its camera style, the gravity of its cinematography, and the character arc is similar. Like Michael Corleone, Edward Wilson has to destroy his family to save it. This happens in both the professional and the private worlds: His marriage to Clover (an underused Angelina Jolie) turns into a farce, though it produces a son so beautiful he could model underwear for Abercrombie & Fitch. Edward Jr. (Eddie Redmayne) wants to be a spy like dad, but he doesn't have dad's reticence or his cryogenically frozen heart. It is Ed Jr.'s failure as a robot that animates the thriller aspect of the story, while at the same time Edward rethinks his most puzzling case, which dominates the second half of the film.
And that was the case of the conflicting double agents. Traitor, traitor, who's got the traitor? As the real Angleton believed in a Russian defector named Golitsyn, so does the fictional Edward believe in the Russian defector named Valentin Mironov (John Sessions), even when, as happened in both cases, another defector arrived to convince other authorities that the first defector was a KGB plant. This whole mess was like playing chess underwater in sunglasses, and even now, nobody's sure who was telling the truth and who wasn't. The issue is said to have crippled the agency for years, and indeed the term "wilderness of mirrors," later the title of a book on the conundrum, was coined by Angleton himself to describe the situation, drawing the line from Eliot's "Gerontion."
"The Good Shepherd" -- the title reflects Edward's idealized view of his mission and may or may not be, as you decide yourself, ironic -- is serious adult moviemaking, a truly surprising effort from De Niro whose only other film ("A Bronx Tale") seemed more connected to him. But he's a man deeply interested in the art, craft and psychology of espionage. He seems to believe that we'd better be interested in it, because it's interested in us.
The Good Shepherd (135 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for violence, sexuality and language.
|
Search movie listings, reviews and locations from the Washington Post. Features national listings for movies and movie guide. Visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/movies today.
| 67.48 | 0.48 | 0.56 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100724.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100724.html
|
'Seinfeld' Spurs Festivus Pole Sales
|
2006122319
|
MILWAUKEE -- Kevin Campanella hates buying and receiving Christmas presents that he says inevitably disappoint. This year, no such worries. Campanella plans to seek "serenity now" by celebrating Festivus, a wacky holiday popularized in a 1997 "Seinfeld" episode.
Billed as "Festivus for the rest of us," the holiday celebrated by the Costanza clan on Dec. 23 features an airing of grievances and feats of strength in which a guest must pin the host before the party ends.
In protest of Christmas' commercialism, character Frank Costanza puts up an unadorned aluminum pole instead of a tree. The metal, he says admiringly, has a "very high strength-to-weight ratio."
"I just always loved that episode," said Campanella, 28, a landscaper from Warwick, R.I. "But it's not so much about the show _ I think the idea of Festivus is a good idea."
So does The Wagner Companies. The Milwaukee-based maker of hand-railing components is bringing back its line of Festivus poles for the holiday season. The company had plenty of metal rails on hand already and launched the product last year on a whim.
"We did it mainly as a lark. We never looked at it as a tremendous moneymaking scheme," said Tony Leto, the firm's executive vice president of sales and marketing. "But in many ways, Festivus is taking on a life of its own."
Wagner, which made $15 million last year from products including handrail brackets and pipe elbows, earned only a few thousand dollars from Festivus pole sales. Leto said the company received some media publicity upon launch of the poles but he credits bloggers with strong "Seinfeld" loyalties for spreading the news far and wide.
Wagner sold about 250 poles in 2005, with around 100 sales coming from the firm's 120 employees. This season, it sold about 300 poles by mid-December and was on pace to sell twice that number by Saturday, said Leto, whose claim to fame is that he shared a drama class with Jerry Seinfeld at Queens College in New York.
Wagner offers a 6-foot Festivus pole for $38 and a 2-foot-8-inch tabletop model for $30. The setup is simple: a hollow pipe, 1.9 inches in diameter, inserted into a collapsible aluminum base.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a "Seinfeld" fanatic who claims to have seen every episode eight times, proudly displayed one of the company's poles last year at the governor's mansion in Madison. But Doyle said he will donate the pole to the Wisconsin Historical Museum after reports that "Seinfeld" co-star Michael Richards used racial slurs during a standup comedy routine last month.
Leto said he hoped the Richards incident wouldn't affect his company's sales.
"Fans know it was a Costanza holiday, not a Kramer holiday," he said, referring to characters Frank Costanza, played by Jerry Stiller, and Cosmo Kramer, played by Richards. "Anyway, Kramer eventually rejects the holiday at the end of the episode."
|
MILWAUKEE -- Kevin Campanella hates buying and receiving Christmas presents that he says inevitably disappoint. This year, no such worries. Campanella plans to seek "serenity now" by celebrating Festivus, a wacky holiday popularized in a 1997 "Seinfeld" episode.
| 12.659574 | 1 | 47 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100740.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100740.html
|
Local Government Workers To Get 2.64% Raise in '07
|
2006122319
|
Washington-Baltimore federal employees will receive a 2.64 percent increase under a salary formula that gives higher adjustments to metropolitan areas where federal pay has lagged the furthest behind the private sector. The average civil service raise will be 2.2 percent under the order.
Members of the armed forces will also see their base pay rise next year by an average 2.2 percent, though some military personnel will receive higher increases because they are in hard-to-fill positions or have special skills.
Salaries for House members and senators will climb to $168,000, up from $165,200. Congress has put the raise on hold, however, because Democrats first want to approve an increase in the minimum wage, which they believe will prove popular with voters.
Cabinet secretaries will make $186,600 in 2007, up from $183,500 this year. The vice president's salary will be $215,700, rising from $212,100. (The president's salary has been fixed at $400,000 since 2001.)
The new pay tables show that a captain in the armed forces with four years of service will earn $52,704 in base pay next year and that a typical Foreign Service officer with five years of service will earn $62,935 in base pay.
Federal employees in the Washington area average 16 years of service and earn an average of $89,128, federal data show.
In most years, Congress has approved a federal employee raise by this time of the year and the presidential order merely ratifies that decision.
But Congress has not acted on a civil service raise for next year, in part because the Senate could not clear most of the fiscal 2007 spending bills. The government, except for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, is operating on an interim funding measure, known as a continuing resolution, that expires Feb. 15. The Defense and DHS bills were passed and signed into law by Bush.
With no congressional action on the federal raise, Bush signaled last month that he would issue his order and trigger the publication of new salary tables. Most of the raises will take effect Jan. 7, officials said.
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who will be the House majority leader next year, called the Bush announcement "disappointing" but not a surprise. If Congress had completed work on the transportation-Treasury spending bill, he said, federal employees would be receiving an average raise of 2.7 percent, slightly higher than what Bush has ordered.
"This illustrates once again that when the legislative branch fails to use the power of the purse strings as the Constitution provides, the executive branch fills the vacuum," Hoyer said.
The leader of a union that represents employees in 30 federal agencies suggested that Bush acted like a Grinch. "The reality is that about half the members of the federal workforce will receive a meager pay raise of only 1.8 percent in 2007 -- the lowest amount in 18 years," said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Federal pay is allocated according to geographic areas, and employees outside 31 specially designated metropolitan areas will receive the 1.8 percent raise. The highest-percentage raise goes to federal employees in the New York City area, 3.02 percent.
The NTEU and the American Federation of Government Employees said they will lobby Congress to increase the civil service and military pay raises when lawmakers return next month.
Congress also has not acted on judicial pay for 2007, and Bush's order keeps the judiciary at its 2006 rates. If Congress does not approve a pay measure for judges, the chief justice of the United States will continue at $212,100, with associate Supreme Court justices at $203,000 and federal district court judges at $165,200 annually.
Santa Claus has turned to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for a new digital navigation system to help Rudolph plot his sleigh route around the globe. It's called the NGA Toy Delivery System X-100, and tech-savvy kids will want to watch at http://www.nga.mil.
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and David M. Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office, will be the guests on "Inside Government" at 10 a.m. today on http://federalnewsradio.com and WFED radio (1050 AM).
Navy Capt. James J. Shannon, a program manager for future combat systems, will be the guest on "The IBM Business of Government Hour" at 9 a.m. Saturday on WJFK radio (106.7 FM).
|
P resident Bush offered some holiday cheer yesterday by issuing an executive order that provides pay raises next year for federal employees, military personnel, Cabinet officers and members of Congress.
| 25.939394 | 0.757576 | 1.060606 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101605.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101605.html
|
On the Street, Few Options and Many Perils
|
2006122319
|
David Feliz made no excuses for his life -- for his homelessness, for the drinking that left him incapable of pulling himself together. It was one of the reasons that people liked him.
"He accepted the life he'd chosen," said the Rev. Kathleen Kline Chesson, senior minister at First Christian Church in Falls Church, where Feliz was a regular at a twice-weekly day shelter over the past few winters.
Feliz's acceptance of his troubled life doesn't make it any easier for his friends and family to accept how he died. Feliz, 45, was found dead on the morning of Dec. 11 in the laundry room of an apartment building in the Culmore neighborhood, where he'd probably spent the night. Fairfax County police describe his injuries as "upper body trauma." His sister, Karen Shira, a former deputy sheriff in Fairfax, said investigators told her that he had been stabbed five times, one of the wounds piercing his aorta.
Police have made no arrests and said the investigation is continuing.
Feliz's death comes as Fairfax churches, aided by the county government and a nonprofit agency, are opening their doors to shelter the homeless during very cold weather this winter. Organizers said they hope to duplicate last year's result -- no known hypothermia deaths.
But the slaying is a reminder that freezing conditions are only one of the threats facing those who live outdoors.
Nearly 170 homeless people in the United States have been slain in the past six years, and nearly 500 others were violently attacked, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. There have been beatings with baseball bats, stabbings, stompings and kickings, and some have been set on fire.
Mortality rates for the homeless are three times as high as for the general population, according to research compiled by the coalition. The average life expectancy is 51. Afflictions such as alcoholism, heart disease and gastrointestinal disorders take on an added lethality.
Yesterday evening on McPherson Square in Northwest Washington, the coalition and the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, held a ceremony in observance of National Homeless Persons' Memorial Day. Organizers planned a candlelight vigil and a reading of the names of the homeless who died in the District in 2006.
The county keeps no statistics on the deaths of homeless people, but Feliz is the third known to have died recently in Fairfax. While police say no foul play is suspected in the two other cases, formal determination of the causes of death are awaiting the completion of toxicology tests.
On the morning of Nov. 6, the body of Gregory Lou Wireman, 52, was found in woods near Reston Town Center that are often used by the homeless as a campsite. Randy Blankinship, 58, was found dead Oct. 28 in a tent in woods about 200 yards from the intersection of Mount Vernon Drive and Arlington Terrace.
Last week's killing has jolted the homeless population of the Baileys Crossroads area, where Feliz, a short man with a thick moustache, was known as generous and friendly.
|
David Feliz made no excuses for his life -- for his homelessness, for the drinking that left him incapable of pulling himself together. It was one of the reasons that people liked him.
| 16.333333 | 1 | 36 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101549.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006122319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101549.html
|
Deep-Frying Feast By Airport Managers Stokes Union's Fire
|
2006122319
|
It sure can, according to the air traffic controller's union, especially if the sizzling goes on inside administrative offices at Dulles International Airport. The union is blasting its managers for deep-frying a turkey last week in offices adjacent to the Dulles terminal and just a few hundred feet from the control tower.
An airport fire marshal made managers turn off the cooker.
Kieron Heflin, a representative with the air traffic controller's union, complained in a letter to management: "It has . . . come to my attention that the Dulles Management decided it would be a nice idea to DEEP FRY A TURKEY in the Dulles administrative quarters, surrounded by carpet, linoleum, an airport, aircraft, a control tower, thousands if not millions of gallons of jet fuel and thousands of passengers and employees."
Union officials, who have been battling management over staffing levels and other work-place issues, said they were complaining not because they weren't invited to the party; they were welcome to attend. They were just worried about the safety of the airport, they said.
Turkey-fryers have become popular in recent years because they often result in succulent-tasting birds. But safety experts say that they can cause serious fires if not used properly. Scores of fires have been linked to the fryers.
A spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration said managers did nothing wrong. They were using an indoor electric fryer, not the more dangerous gas-fired devices.
"It was meant for indoor use," Diane Spitaliere said. "This is just another attempt by [union officials] to make management look bad because of discontent over their contract."
Outside safety experts said that even indoor fryers can be dangerous, especially in such environments as an office.
The National Fire Protection Association, which works to reduce the risk of fire, warns that electric fryers should be used only by trained professionals and not inside offices or homes. They can tip over and spill gallons of boiling oil, it said.
"In any setting other than a restaurant, generally, fryers pose a risk of both fire and burn injuries," said Lorraine Carli, a spokeswoman for the organization.
The airport fire marshal was summoned to the scene by an employee curious about how to dispose of the fryer's used peanut oil. After the fryer was turned off, the fire marshal waited 30 minutes for the oil to cool, airport spokeswoman Tara Hamilton said.
"He told them to cease because you can't do that in a building" or on airport grounds because it is a safety concern, Hamilton said. "Fortunately, this didn't end in any injuries or anything else."
The FAA disputes Hamilton's version of events. Spitaliere said the fire marshal allowed the managers to finish cooking the turkey before unplugging the device.
And was it lip-smacking tasty? "It turned out fine," Spitaliere said.
|
Can deep-frying a turkey ever be a bad idea, especially at a holiday party?
| 31.666667 | 0.888889 | 2.222222 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.