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/2006/11/26/AR2006112600720.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600720.html
|
Abandoned O.J. Project Shows Shame Still Packs a Punishing Punch
|
2006112719
|
The whole project was pure shamelessness. A controversial former football star, who many believe got off scot-free after killing two people, writes a book about how he might have committed the murders. It was an end zone dance in the worst possible taste. Everyone was outraged but had to concede that O.J. Simpson, once acquitted, was beyond the reach of the law.
But Simpson and his publisher, Judith Regan, were within reach of another powerful tool that is not much used in American society: shame. Facing growing outrage and scorn, News Corp. chief executive Rupert Murdoch canceled the book project last week.
For Stephanos Bibas, a law professor and former prosecutor, the saga was grounds for celebration, because it showed that shame remains a powerful tool in America.
For nearly two centuries, using shame as a weapon against wrongdoing has steadily fallen into disfavor in the United States, even as it continues to be an essential part of social discourse in more traditional societies. After the rise of penitentiaries around 1800, the idea of shaming wrongdoers was replaced by more impersonal forms of punishment such as incarceration.
But in the past decade or two, a number of scholars have become interested in the uses of shame, especially in the criminal justice system. Bibas and others think the steady erosion of shame in U.S. courts and society has proved financially costly to the country, deprived victims of a sense of vindication and kept wrongdoers from feeling remorseful.
"I was very pleasantly surprised to see shame, and the shaming of Rupert Murdoch, triumph over O.J.'s shamelessness," Bibas said. "There are, apparently, some things that still go too far."
Murdoch's withdrawal of Simpson's book and a Fox television special about it scheduled to run during the November sweeps was evidence that shame could be effective where the law was impotent, said Bibas, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. There was nothing illegal about the book, but the widespread media coverage of the project and the collective revulsion of the country shamed Murdoch into retreat.
Where shame was once integral to how wrongdoers were dealt with -- offenders publicly whipped, put in stockades and pilloried in Colonial America -- it faded out of the justice system based on the idea that offenders should not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And psychotherapists, including Sigmund Freud on down, showed how shame can damage people.
Bibas doesn't want a return to public floggings and other forms of cruelty, but he does want a way to reattach society's voice of moral outrage to offensive behavior. When someone commits a crime nowadays, society allows offenders never to have to speak directly to victims and their families. Bibas thinks this is why prison sentences are growing longer, but packing offenders off to jail does not give victims the public acknowledgment they seek that they were harmed. Societies that use shame to censure criminals often require such acknowledgment of the offense, along with reparative ceremonies involving the families of both offender and victim.
When those techniques work, as Cornell University law professor Stephen P. Garvey explored in an analysis of shaming punishments, society saves money because offenders do not have to be locked away for eons, victims have a sense of being made whole again and punishment becomes more than retribution -- social pressure from family and peers can shame wrongdoers into remorse in a way that locking them up and throwing away the key cannot.
The idea has many critics, who warn that shaming will lead to violations of dignity and to abuse and vigilante-style justice. Broadcasting the names of married men found guilty of visiting prostitutes through the mass media, as some police departments have done, can harm the men's families as much as the offenders. And sometimes, critics say, it is less important that offenders be remorseful than it is that they be locked away and kept from hurting their victims again.
Garvey and Bibas acknowledge these concerns and say shaming punishments have limitations when it comes to violent crime. But done right, they say, creative punishments have an element not just of justice but poetic justice. One program sent men found guilty of soliciting prostitutes to a "School for Johns," where they received lectures from former prostitutes. Neo-Nazis were made to watch the film "Schindler's List," listen to stories of Holocaust survivors and meet with a preacher they planned to kill. What about having auto thieves wash their victims' cars every weekend? Or have vandals beautify their city?
No one expects that shaming punishments will always lead to a change of heart. University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner pointed out that Murdoch owns tabloids that publish "grotesque" stories such as what meals people on death row are eating, meaning that his retraction of the Simpson book may be less about remorse than damage control.
But even superficial changes driven by shaming can lead to deeper effects. When a 3-year-old hits his brother and his parents make him apologize, the apology may be utterly insincere, but repeated apologies teach the child to internalize the idea that hitting other people is wrong.
"People may do things insincerely, but social psychology teaches us that we conform our beliefs to our actions," Bibas said. "If we have to act in a way that professes repentance and sorrow, we will eventually learn those as values."
|
The whole project was pure shamelessness. A controversial former football star, who many believe got off scot-free after killing two people, writes a book about how he might have committed the murders. It was an end zone dance in the worst possible taste. Everyone was outraged but had to concede...
| 17.758621 | 0.982759 | 56.017241 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601028.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601028.html
|
TBS's '10 Items' And 'My Boys': Save the Receipt
|
2006112719
|
What do years of exposure to insipid sitcoms do to the human brain? Maybe nothing, since they may bypass the brain altogether and register instead in some other internal organ -- say, the gallbladder. Shouldn't science be studying this? More to the point, shouldn't TV critics receive the equivalent of combat pay? Or at least free psychiatric counseling and hot chocolate for life at Starbucks?
Actually, "10 Items or Less" and "My Boys," two new sitcoms surfacing this week on the TBS cable channel, aren't entirely without merit, although "10 Items" comes close. The premiere episode, at 11 tonight, also makes a stab at being entirely without laughs -- never mind 10 or less. Things look up slightly in the second show, a week from tonight, when the image of Jesus seems to appear on one wall of Greens & Grains, the raggle-taggle grocery store where the series is set, and the manager tries to exploit it for profit.
Meanwhile "My Boys," premiering with two episodes back-to-back tomorrow night at 10, shows a little more promise and even a trace of charm. It's about a female sportswriter for the Chicago Sun-Times whose status as "one of the guys" proves a liability to her romantic life, such as it is. The series has auspicious credentials: Among the executive producers are Gavin Palone, who works on Larry David's "Curb Your Enthusiasm" at HBO, and Jamie Tarses, the youngest person ever to run ABC's entertainment division when she held that post in the 1990s.
But worse news first: "10 Items or Less" would deserve praise for experimenting with traditional sitcom structure if (a) other shows, like the aforementioned "Enthusiasm," hadn't already carried out the same experiments, and much more successfully, and (b) the people who made the show knew what the heck they were doing. No one is likely to call any of them geniuses who are squandering their talent; they're more like scavengers trying to assemble a comic Frankenstein's monster from bits and scraps of other shows.
The producers and writers attempt to combine a scripted show with improvisational comedy, the technique that David has perfected with "Enthusiasm." But you have to master the rules before you can run around breaking them, and you need actors who are capable of making up their own lines and even comic situations to supplement whatever the writers have concocted. Such actors are hard to find.
Bluntly put, neither the writers nor the actors are good enough at what they're trying to do to justify trying to do it. They'd all be better off making "10 Items" a traditional scripted show, because then it would stand a better chance of making sense. Characters and their motivations might even be clear and consistent from scene to scene. Instead, everyone gropes around for ideas that prove stubbornly elusive.
The obvious inspiration for the show is "The Office" -- the British original and NBC's adaptation. John Lehr inhabits the Ricky Gervais role of office manager, but he's the manager of a supermarket instead, one handed down to him by his father, who died of a heart attack at 72. This, incidentally, is made the subject of a joke. Lehr is explaining to an employee that they're standing at the very spot in the very aisle where his father was stricken: "The funny thing was . . ."
But there was no funny thing, and there rarely is where the death of a parent is concerned.
Jennifer Elise Cox possesses one of the few familiar faces in the cast. She was one of the kids in the "Brady Bunch" movies but is miscast here as the nasty and vindictive manager of Super Value Mart, Greens & Grains's high-powered competitor. She wants Lehr, who plays fatuous doofus Leslie Pool, to sell out so that her store can expand its parking lot.
Greg Davis Jr. and Christopher Liam Moore set off a spark or two as a battling bagger and checker; Roberta Valderrama tries to keep her character, Yolanda, from being a Hispanic caricature; and Kirsten Gronfield brings a sweet naivete to Ingrid, another inexplicably loyal employee. Even when the actors manage to get a scene going, the director cuts away abruptly to something happening in another part of the store and then back again. Any hope for even minimal momentum is clumsily cut short.
"My Boys" is a more assured and tolerable half-hour, although it would help if Jordana Spiro exerted more energy in the central role: PJ Franklin, who writes about sports and is most comfortable hanging out with guy friends, a gang that treats her apartment in much the way that the regulars treated the bar in "Cheers." There's also a real bar they all go to when PJ runs out of beer.
Some of the details of their lives are real groaners. They all love to play poker, the card game that has come back from the dead with a vengeance and fills up hours and hours of airtime on one cable channel or another. Did our oft-cited forebears ever imagine we'd be spending our evenings watching other people play cards? Aren't there a dozen things wrong with that picture? At least if we watched people play Twister, there'd be some physical movement going on.
|
What do years of exposure to insipid sitcoms do to the human brain? Maybe nothing, since they may bypass the brain altogether and register instead in some other internal organ -- say, the gallbladder. Shouldn't science be studying this? More to the point, shouldn't TV critics receive the...
| 17.711864 | 0.949153 | 26.20339 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112700247.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112700247.html
|
Book review: 'The Blind Side' by Michael Lewis
|
2006112719
|
"There ain't much to being a football player," wrote William "Pudge" Heffelfinger, a legendary lineman of the 1890s, "if you're a football player." Michael Oher, the subject of Michael Lewis's exhilarating "The Blind Side" and currently a sophomore at the University of Mississippi, is a football player. More precisely, Oher is an offensive left tackle and, as such, a highly prized commodity in modern college and professional football. The story of the process that made his skills so valuable -- and rescued him from a hellish life in the Memphis projects -- is so improbable that it wouldn't survive a meeting with a producer of made-for-TV movies.
For one thing, who would play Oher? Six feet 5 and 350 pounds as a teenager -- according to the Ole Miss roster, he has slimmed down to 322 -- Oher, in the words of one scout, "looked like a house walking into a bigger house. He walked in the door and he barely fit through the door." In addition to his almost preternatural size and strength, Oher was gifted with astonishing athletic talent (he is a superb schoolyard basketball player and was a record-setting high school discus hurler). The problem with getting him through high school was that, as one of his teachers put it, "for him English was almost like a second language."
Lewis stumbled on the amazing story of Oher and his odyssey from a broken home and near street-person existence to big-time college football, through his friendship with Oher's rescuer, Sean Tuohy, a grade school and high school classmate of Lewis's in New Orleans who became a Memphis businessman. Tuohy and his dynamic wife, Leigh Anne, who are evangelical Christians, came in contact with Oher by what almost seems, in retrospect, to have been divine intervention. At the time they met, according to Leigh Anne, Oher had no identification, driver's license or birth certificate. "There wasn't a shred of evidence he even existed," she noted.
The Tuohys became determined to set Oher on the right path, which in this case meant an education at Briarcrest Christian School (motto: "Decidedly Academic, Distinctly Christian"). Or at least they made an attempt to educate Oher, who, when he entered the school, was as prepared for a formal education as Leigh Anne was to play offensive linebacker in the National Football League. An essay Oher wrote in his senior year expressed his bewilderment with his environment: "I look and I see white everywhere: white walls, white floors, and a lot of white people. . . . The teachers are not aware that I have no idea of anything they are talking about. . . . I've never done homework in my life. I go to the bathroom, look in the mirror, and say, 'This is not Mike Oher. I want to get out of this place.' " But to where? The Tuohys' dogged persistence -- they eventually became his adoptive parents -- paved Oher's way to college and "the one role on the football field the boy was uniquely suited to play."
The book's title, "The Blind Side," refers specifically to a right-handed quarterback's left side, which is vulnerable to the current breed of monster pass-rushers like former New York Giants great Lawrence Taylor, who once said, "If I hit the guy right, I'll hit a nerve and he'll feel electrocuted; he'll forget for a few seconds that he's on a football field." Lewis's narrative, in fact, begins with Taylor's rise to stardom in the mid-1980s as a response to the new passing-dominated offenses created by San Francisco 49ers head coach Bill Walsh. The player best positioned to blindside pass-rushers is the offensive left tackle, and to be successful he must be not only remarkably strong but also agile. Oher was both, and thus hugely attractive to major college recruiters.
Michael Lewis is the author of "Moneyball," a groundbreaking study of the Oakland Athletics' general manager Billy Beane and his adroit use of baseball statistics to sign talent on a limited budget. Lewis is on less firm ground on football turf and makes some eye-catching errors: The 49ers quarterback Steve Young won one, not two, Super Bowls; the Buffalo Bills were not AFC champions in 1986; and NFL players won the right to limited free agency in 1989 and full free agency in 1993, not 1994. But Lewis's overview of the evolution of NFL strategy and Walsh's effect on the game is not only sound but shrewder than that of many so-called football insiders who can't see the forest for the trees.
"The Blind Side," perhaps the best book written about a college football player since Willie Morris's "The Courting of Marcus Dupree" (1983), grabs hold of you in several ways. On one hand, you'll be appalled by the tactics used to advance academically unqualified high school and college football players. At the same time, you'll be furiously turning the pages, rooting for Michael Oher to succeed. And the story isn't over: If Oher makes it into the NFL in three years, Lewis should have a dandy follow-up.
|
"The Blind Side," perhaps the best book written about a college football player since Willie Morris's "The Courting of Marcus Dupree" (1983),grabs hold of you in several ways.
| 28.805556 | 0.972222 | 23.138889 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101807.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101807.html
|
Goal Oriented - washingtonpost.com
|
2006112719
|
Alexander Ovechkin, the luminous young Russian-born hockey player, sat in a folding seat at RFK Stadium enjoying a great American ritual: ballpark hot dogs. Really enjoying it. He removed a hot dog from a bun with his fingers and fed it directly into the glossy mouth of his voluptuous blond girlfriend. In between bites, the couple giggled and smooched.
She wore a black knit dress cut so low that a tiny bright pink bow on the front of her black bra peeked out of her decollete. He wore ripped, $500 Dolce & Gabbana bluejeans and sported a green bruise under one eye. The bruise was a souvenir from a preseason hockey game the night before. The game was Alex's second without scoring a goal since reporting for training camp. It was an annoying little lull for the National Hockey League's reigning rookie of the year -- a rocket-wristed 21-year-old touted as the greatest offensive lineman in the game today, and, potentially, the greatest ever. But, at that moment, Alex didn't look as though he was suffering. "I just kiss him on his eye," reported his girlfriend, Veronika Dyvanskaya, who was visiting from Russia. "And I say, 'You are a great man, a strong man.'"
It was a mild evening in late September. Sitting high in an unpopulated corner of the mezzanine, Alex was waiting to go down to the field to throw out the ceremonial first pitch in the Nationals game against the Philadelphia Phillies. Until this VIP trip to the ballpark, Alex had never thrown a baseball or swung a bat. His only experience of the game was playing electronic baseball on his PlayStation as a boy growing up in Moscow. He had no idea whether he'd throw the ball over the plate. "I'm not nervous," he said in accented English. "There aren't lots of people here. If it falls no good, for me it is okay."
Some of his teammates were nervous for him. For hardy men who make their living in the only professional team sport where fighting is considered part of the game, looking like a geek is not an option. At game time, seven fellow Capitals accompanied Alex down through the stands and onto the field. They showed moral support for their team's only megawatt star the best way they knew how. They made fun of him. "A hundred bucks it bounces," Jamie Heward, the Capitals' 215-pound defenseman, said. "Hey, Ovie, you should have worn your Dolce & Gabbana sweat pants!"
Alex assumed the pitching stance. He looked oddly handsome with his broad face, unibrow and nose, broken four times, that lists left. He wound up and threw. A neat strike over the heart of the plate.
"Wow," Alex said as he came off the field, grinning like an excited kid. "Wow."
The instant the ball sailed over the plate, the crowd began to cheer. The ovation persisted as Alex made his way off the field and through the crowded lower stands. As he passed, fans lept up from their seats to offer high-fives. They lifted up cellphones to record his image. They screamed his name. One woman was so overcome by the sight of Alex that she forgot to swallow, and greeted him with a wide, gaping mouth full of popcorn.
Five days later, Alex stood on the fourth tee of the Springfield Golf and Country Club, hitting shots with borrowed clubs. Alex, the Capitals' most marketable player, was co-host of a charity tournament. He had never played a round of golf in his 21 years. So he didn't enter the tournament. He stood on the tee, greeting golfers, signing autographs and taking practice shots. On about his 100th shot, something happened that most golfers wait a lifetime to achieve: The ball soared 160 yards, bounced three times and dropped into the cup -- a hole-in-one.
Gleeful, the young hockey star hooted, stomped, pumped his fists. He picked up his borrowed 4-iron sideways and strummed it as if it were a guitar. He hollered to his hockey teammates nearby to come see what he had done. "I swear to God!" he called to them breathlessly. "I swear on my mom!"
Forty-nine years earlier -- long before Alex was destined to make the most improbable athletic feats look preordained -- his mother was walking home from school and was struck by a car. She was 7 years old. Her right leg was so mangled that doctors initially wanted to amputate. Instead, Tatiana Kabayeya spent a year in a Moscow hospital, her leg suspended in traction. When her shinbone failed to mend properly, doctors re-broke it three times.
Somehow, amid all that suffering, young Tatiana forged a determination to never again be weak -- to grow strong, to become, in fact, the strongest. That became the central organizing principle of her life. It drove her to become a professional basketball star in the Cold War-era Soviet Union who, at only 5 feet, 8 1/2 inches tall, twice led her teams to Olympic gold medals. When Alex was born, she passed on that determination .
"Da," she said recently. Yes: the key to everything. The Russian sports legend lifted the hem of her blue dirndl skirt to expose a right leg that even now, at age 56, is thinner than the left and gnarled with shiny scar tissue.
|
The luxurious mansion, gorgeous girlfriend, hot car and public adoration come right out of an American dream. But the iron will that made the Capitals' Alexander Ovechkin hockey's future came straight from Russia.
| 27.74359 | 0.74359 | 1.25641 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/22/DI2006112201509.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/22/DI2006112201509.html
|
Post Magazine: Goal Oriented
|
2006112719
|
The luxurious mansion, gorgeous girlfriend, hot car and public adoration come right out of an American dream.
But, as April Witt discovers in her story that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine, the iron will that made the Capitals' Alexander Ovechkin hockey's future came straight from Russia. Witt will be online fielding questions and comments today. Joining Witt is Slava Malamud, a sports writer for the Russian-language Sports-Express Daily.
April Witt is a Magazine staff writer.
Bowie, Md.: Slava - I would like to know how much the fans in Russia are following how Alex is doing here in the NHL, as well as folks like Alexander Semin and Evgeni Malkin.
Slava Malamud: I try my best to make sure they are riveted.
Ovie, Malkin and Kovalchuk are easily the three biggest names in Russian hockey right now. Virtually any interesting thing they do (like scoring a hat trick, for example, or getting hurt) is automatically front-page news in the Russian press.
I work for a national daily publication with about 700,000 readers in Russia alone, and we cover all sports, not just hockey, but I have written several Ovechkin-related front page stories this season already.
Ovechkin's Olympic success in particular made him one of the central sports figures in Russia. My publication named him Athlete of the Month twice since his NHL debut.
The same is true for Malkin, mostly because of the detective story which surrounded his coming to America. This one really got out of hand in the media. At one point I found myself taking part in a conference call that was broadcast all over Russia on a Jerry Springer-like talk show, arguing with Velichkin (if you followed the story, you know who he is).
Semin, thanks to his quiet personality and to the fact that he is a country boy from an unassuming team, is less of an attraction at this point.
April Witt: Hi. I'm glad so many of you enjoyed the piece. I certainly enjoyed reporting and writing it. One of the pleasures of working on that story was meeting Slava Malamud, who was kind enough to serve as my Russian-language interpreter for several interviews. Slava is a sports writer for Sport-Express, the largest Russian-language sports daily in Eastern Europe. Slava, who is based here, writes regularly about the NHL, the Caps and Alexander Ovechkin. I'm pleased he's joining us here today. Let's get started.
What a great article and look and one of the stars of the new NHL. I was wondering if there was any resentment from Russia with Alex coming over to the US? Are they supportive or his move or would they rather him star in his home country?
Slava Malamud: Russia is a complicated country, my friend. Just going to the NHL doesn't automatically mean you will be resented there. It all depends on things like:
- the circumstances in which you left
- how well you play for the national team at the World Championships and Olympics
- what kinds of things you say to the press
- whether you are generally a nice guy.
While Alex's manner of leaving Dynamo Moscow was not without controversy (OK, Dynamo fans did burn his effigy once... but that could happen to anyone), he passes all other conditions with flying colors.
Generally, he is very well liked in Russia right now. More so that Kovalchuk and Malkin, for example.
Charlottesville, Va: Thank you for such a lovely and inspiring article. But why not at least mention his teammates just a bit more?
April Witt: Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you found the story inspiring. You make an excellent point about mentioning other Caps more. Several Caps went out of their way to help me report this story. To say that I am not a sports writer is an understatement. I've been a reporter for more than 20 years and this is the first sports story I've ever written. I'd expected the Caps player to be at least somewhat disdainful of a reporter who didn't normally cover hockey. Instead, they were exceptionally polite and helpful. I wish I'd add space to include more of their comments. In the end, a decided to include much more of the parents and less of the players. I made that choice only because I wanted to focus on the forces that shaped Alex, which led me to his childhood stories.
Rockville, Md: I'd like to know how many pairs of skates Ovie goes thru in a season, why he still wears the same old pair of tattered pants each game, and what made him decide to change shoulder pads in the offseason. (I'd also like to tell Ovie that it's a pleasure to watch him play.)
Slava Malamud: I am sure only Ovie himself and the Caps equipment manager can answer the skate question for you. I can only offer my best guess.
I know that many players are a bit crazy about their equipment. It's not only superstition. In hockey a lot of little things, like having your pants fit just right, take huge importance. The same is with skates and the exact way they must be sharpened.
Ovie started last year wearing his old Dynamo Moscow pads with 32 (his Dynamo jersey number) scribbled in magic marker on them. They looked quite battered to me and there is little surprise in him changing them. He probably got a set to try from a sponsor company and liked how it felt.
Bowie, Md.: I hope everyone who read the article in the Washington area begins to spend some time to watch him on the ice every time the Capitals play a game here. If he played anywhere in Canada, he's get more time in the media than their Prime Minister. We have a major superstar here, and he could probably walk through the aisles at Giant Food and no one would know him from Chris Clark.
April Witt: Hi Chris. Thanks so much for taking time to write. You are definitely one of the players who went out of their way to help me on the story. So I'm glad to be able to give you public thanks. You are, unfortunately, correct to say Alex could walk through the aisles of Giant and not be mobbed. I've seen him mobbed by hockey fans outside practices and games. But those are places hockey fans seek him out. I went to the mall with Alex once and the general public didn't have a clue who he was. In Canada, I understand that he's mobbed like a rock star 24-7. I'm sure hockey fans elsewhere would be thrilled to have Alex play in their hometown regularly. They would no doubt be puzzled to see so many empty seats at the Verizon center on hockey nights.
Los Angeles via Potomac, MD: Thanks for the terrific insight into the best young talent in
the NHL. I've read plenty about his mother being a notable
basketball player in Russia, but it's interesting that his dad
played soccer competitively as well. Any thoughts as to how
Alex settled on hockey as his sport of choice?
April Witt: Alex was reportedly good at every sport he tried. His mother says he's a heck of a basketball player, and she should know. His father says Alex was also adept at soccer. I think Alex first became interesting in hockey watching games on TV as a small boy. He had wanted to start playing when he was very young, about six. But his parents could not work out a schedule to get him to practices. So he didn't start skating until about age eight.
Great Story! I am male, and have never really understood Hockey, as I grew up in the DC area and never played it. Your article breathed life into a sport I thought was dead. How did you ever learn enough about the game to write such a great story?
April Witt: Well, if you hadn't said you were male I'd suspect that my mom wrote that question. I am so please you think I breathed life into hockey for you. I didn't know anything about hockey when I started reporting this story. I did what I always do when I report: I watched, I asked questions. It's easy to write about people who are passionate and obsessive about what they do. They are just fare more interesting than people who live or work on autopilot.
Virginia: Is Alex learning English? What is the NHL doing to help foreign players learn English? MLB has a high percent of non-speaking English players.
April Witt: Alex has learned a lot of English very rapidly. He knew some basic English when he arrived. He roomed with a North American teammate (rather than a fellow Russian speaker) so he could continue to work on his English. I interviewed him at times in English. But his English wasn't quite good enough to answer abstract questions. So Slava translated in a long sit-down with Alex.
Arlington, Va: I enjoyed your article, but nearly laughed out loud when I read that Ovechkin lives in "downtown Arlington". I bet if you asked 5 Arlingtonians where downtown was you'd get 5 different answers. Where is your downtown Arlington?
April Witt: Busted. My personal downtown is in Bethesda where I live. You are the second person from Northern Virginia to point out to me that the concept of downtown Arlington is a disputed one. I guess I should cross the state line more often.
Ottawa, Ontario Canada: Congrats on a wonderful look into Alex's family and emotions about the game.
When does alex think he will win the Cup?
April Witt: Thanks. Alex, other players, and managers talk about a show building process. In the story, Alex talks about dreaming repeatedly that the Caps have won the Cup and he is holding it. Even in his dreams, I don't believe he's counting on that happening soon.
Arlington, Va: Thanks for the great article. One thing though: I thought Alex fired his agent and rehired his parents. Is the agent mentioned in your article a new agent, or the one that got fired?
April Witt: Ah, you have hit on one of the few downsides of working for The Washington Post magazine. My story was written weeks ago. It cleared the copy desk and was published about three weeks ago. Alex fired his agents AFTER my story was published, but before it landed on your doorstep. So that's why his old agent is mentioned in the story.
Washington, D.C.: While Ovechkin is arguably the biggest star today in the NHL, the Caps' average home attendance has consistently hovered near the bottom of the league ever since Alex began playing for Washington. While I am under the impression that he likes DC, do you think he might prefer to play in a City that actually appreciates hockey?
April Witt: I had that same question when I started working on this story. I have no way of knowing whether they are just being politic, but the entire Ovechkin family went out of their way to tell me repeatedly how thrilled they are that Alex is playing for the Caps. Alex's father told me that it's hard to say who is luckier in the deal -- Alex or the Caps. According to the dad, because Alex has been such a standout star on a team without a lot of stars he's gotten more exposure than he would have on a stronger team.
Slava Malamud: Alex and his family seem to genuinely enjoy being in Washington. His dad initially had some apprehension about DC because he thought that a capital of the United States must surely be a big city with lots of distractions. He actually would've preferred Alex to play in as unassuming circumstances as possible.
So, as you can see, the size of the market is not a big deal for them.
But Alex is so focused on hockey and hockey alone, he tends to defer other decisions to people who surround him. While currently he has absolutely no plans for switching teams, I could see him being persuaded to leave if the situation changes and whoever that represents him thinks he'd be a lot more marketable elsewhere.
But this is not something Caps fans should worry about just now.
Virginia: If you noticed in each past games, Alex was slammed or hit physically harder by other Russian players in the NHL this season. Jealousy?
Vienna, Va: As a Caps fan, I was excited to see Ovechkin and the team get some really nice exposure from your article. Do you think more people in the DC area are catching on to the fact that we have such an amazing talent playing for the home team? I'd like to see more coverage like this for him and the team. Potentially one of the greatest players ever to take the ice plays 40+ games a season in downtown DC...let's sell them all out!!!
April Witt: It isn't just the Caps who are struggling to fill seats. All of hockey has had a hard time coming back from the lockout. But given how rare a talent Alex is, you would think that more people would make an effort to watch his games.
Washington, D.C.: I find it odd that Alexander Ovechkin and the Russia mafia have nothing to do with each other. Were there money exchange for his protection? Why did he left Russia suddenly? Was his family threatened?
April Witt: Uh, I don't think it's any mystery why he left Russia suddenly. He's always wanted to play in the NHL and he finally had the opportunity. Coming here has also turned out to be a financial windfall. Although his Russian team was paying him a higher basic salary, he earned so many bonuses here last season that playing for the Caps turned out to be very lucrative for him.
Pensacola Fla:"He stood on the tee, greeting golfers, signing autographs and taking practice shots. On about his 100th shot, something happened that most golfers wait a lifetime to achieve: The ball soared 160 yards, bounced three times and dropped into the cup -- a hole-in-one."
That's not a hole-in-one......it's a hole-in-a-hundred. A "hole in one" can only be made during a score card keeping round...not in practice.
April Witt: I appreciate your point. The people I asked, however, considered that a hole-in-one with a caveat. Any golfers out there who want to weigh in on that point, feel free.
Flin Flon, Manitoba : Slava - Russia has an extraordinary array of game-breaking talent at forward, but there's a conspicuous dropp in talent on the blueline. Why? And will it change soon?
Slava Malamud: The traditional Russian (actually, I should say "Soviet") style of hockey tends to focuse fast-skating and highly skilled players. This is the way we were able to win all those world championships and Olympics in the past and nobody saw any reason to fix what wasn't broken. Developing crafty forwards was always a top priority.
Defensively, we were more than adequate on the world stage, without the NHLers present to prove otherwise. We did have huge, skilled and very tough blueliners such as Ragulin, Fetisov, Kasatonov and Konstantinov, just never in the same amounts as light, fast wingers.
Currently more and more people in Russia realize the deficincies of this single-minded approach, but change never comes quickly or easily in my country.
This could also be due to the fact that defensmen take a lot longer to develop. This position is less about raw talent and more about work ethic an experience. And Russian players tend to move to North America while still very young these days.
Still, our blueline problems are nothing compared to the deisaster that is Russian goalie development.
Burke, Va: Who had the idea for the piece? You or the editors of the Post? Hockey coverage in the Post leaves a lot to be desired, so I was wondering who took the initiative to for the cover story of the magazine.
It was a refreshing change and an outstanding piece.
We need more of that!
April Witt: Actually, I went to a Caps game on a date last season and my date suggested that I write about this hot new Russian player named Alexander Ovechkin. I didn't think I could write a sustained magazine piece on Alex at the time because he spoke so little English. Several months ago, I was lunching with a colleague who mentioned that Ovechkin would make a good cover story for the magazine. By then, Alex had learned enough English to make a magazine cover feasible. Frankly, I don't think he was all that thrilled about giving me the access I needed to write the piece. He's accustomed to sports writers asking questions in the locker room - not following him home! I was impressed by how gracious he was even when he clearly wanted to get rid of me.
Washington, DC: alex recently split w/ his agent to have his mother handle his affairs. do you have any insight as to why? this doesn't sound like a good move for any athlete. what do you think the impact will be on alex and his future in washington.
April Witt: I think the drive to replace his agents came from his mother. She made it clear in conversation that she wasn't happy with the representation, although she declined to say why. Obviously, it's been a difficult adjustment for his parents (who oversaw his career in Russia) to essentially turn him over to others here. Untimately, I don't think they could do that emotionally.
Annandale, Va: Slava, who is said to be the 'next' big thing from Russia? And do you have any comments on goaltender Semen Varlamov, who the Caps drafted this past June?
Slava Malamud: Since in Russia goalies are notoriously underdeveloped, it usually takes a tremendous natural talent to emerge from our system. Varlamov has plenty of it, but he is also very raw. Time will tell if he can adjust to the North American game.
The "next big thing" right now appears to be Nashville's Radulov, who lit up the Quebec junior league last year.
One guy you might not have heard about yet is 17-y.o. Alexei Cherepanov, who plays in Omsk and averages alsmot a point a game against adults.
He will be a hot commodity in next year's draft. If the Caps are lucky again... But he, reportedly, is a huge Avs fan.
Virginia: Slava, you mentioned Kovalchuk and Malkin. How are they viewed in Russia? Did Malkin's 'stealthy' move to the US turn a lot of people off?
Slava Malamud: Yes, it surely did. It was a very controvercial issue, with views ranging from accusations of treason to calling him a hero. More of the former, actually.
However, all it will take for him is to help Russia succeed in World Championships once or twice and all will be forgiven.
Kovalchuk has a history of underperforming on the international stage, however, so he is an even more polarizing figure right now. Most people seem to think that he only cares about American money.
In truth, his biggest problem is the playing time he gets on the national team. He told me this in an interview last season and the story developed into a nasty trans-Atlantic verbal fight with the national team coach, who (also in my paper) accused Kovy of alcoholism and told him to take a vacation in Hawaii and not bother to show up for the 2006 Worlds.
Right now, Ilya has some things to prove to Russian fans.
April Witt: To the person who asked above how many pairs of skates Alex goes through in a season, this just in from the Caps: Six.
Charlottesville, Va: Right, I thought so. Have you talked to Ovie since the article came out?
Oh, I love how the Washington Post provides another way for me to procrasinate on work...
April Witt: I am not sure what your "right" refers to. But I'm always happy to help provided distraction for a bored worker. I haven't spoken to Ovie since the story ran. I don't believe he's read the story yet. Someone with the Caps showed him the magazine after their last game. But given the outcome of the game, he wasn't in the mood to read it at that moment.
Russian hockey: Hi, is there any good websites or publications providing information about Russian (and other countries) hockey in English? Right now, all I get are tiny little blurbs in The Hockey News, but I'd love to read more about international players. For instance, that bit of gossip about Kovalchuk was priceless, and I have no idea what prospects are hot or former NHLers are doing over there.
Slava Malamud: Russianprospects.com is really top-notch.
Halifax, Nova Scotia : April, based on your experience with hockey players for this article, would you like to profile more of them? The Post could certanly use a regular columnist willing to consider writing about hockey.
April Witt: No. I like to mix it up, and constantly tackle new subjects. I think the Post hockey coverage is good, by the way.
Burke, Va:"April Witt: Actually, I went to a Caps game on a date last season and my date suggested that I write about this hot new Russian player named Alexander Ovechkin."
Was it your first hockey game live?
April Witt: It was my first professional hockey game. I attended a few games in college.
20008: Who doesn't like AO? He may be the most popular player in the NHL and Slava says in Russia too. Is there anyone (either of) you found who has an unkind word to say about him?
Slava Malamud: I am sure the Dynamo fans who burned his effigy on the streets last year have since repented.
He is really Russia's golden boy right now.
April Witt: I didn't find one person who had an unkind thing to say about him. His teammates made a point of saying nobody doesn't like him. He's a very likeable young man. One of his teammates told me a story about Alex showing up for training camp last year wearing tight, cut-off shorts. A fellow player teased him saying that in this country only girls where shorts like that. Alex took the razzing very well. He laughed at himself....and never wore the shorts again.
Washington, DC: I love hockey. I would love to see Ovie. But ticket prices are outrageous, especially if I want to take my kids. If seats are empty, why not lower ticket prices?
April Witt: Since you are one of several readers who mention that high ticket prices are a barrier to their attending, I'll post this as a comment for the Caps managers/owners to read and consider.
Clarksburg: Could you explain the differences in how Russian players are contracted to their Russian league teams with the way NHL players are.
Slava Malamud: Every pro team in Russia, unlike here, has its own youth development system.
Russian players go into professional teams' systems at a very young age, usually between 7 and 10.
The team signs a contract with the player's parents, assuring them that their kid will be trained for free and his equipment, travel expenses and per diems will be taken care of. Some "under the table" money, however, can also change hands, both ways.
Until the players are 16 or 17, they develop in the team's youth squads, where the level of competition can be quite demanding. Long-distance travel (a train ride from Siberia to the Volga River can take several days) is also very tough. High school hockey this is not, folks.
At the age of 16 or 17, when the player is ready to join the professional team, he signs a standard 5-year deal. Some contracts have an escape clause, letting the player jump to the NHL whenever he wants, some don't.
This, of course, is vastly different from the NHL, where players are never a team's property until drafted at the age of 18.
The NHL has a transfer agreement with European leagues, allowing North American teams to pluck any drafted player for an agreed-upon standard compensation. Russia, however, is not a part of this agreement. But since Russian labor laws allow players to break their countracts with a two-week notice, the NHL simply takes whomever it wants. Since Russian teams, who invest into players from elementary-school age, feel entitled to big money, this leads to problems. Big ones.
Washington, DC: Slava - did you have the opportunity to see the Capitals' new training facility, and if so, what were your impressions?
Slava Malamud: The best one I've ever seen.
Practice rinks, even in the NHL, are usually quite ho-hum. They are working places, not fan attractions. This one is both.
Poolesville, Md: Great article! Does Alex and his peers have a business plan to increase the interest and attendance of the Caps? The team needs to cultivate the sport of hockey among the inter-city youth and thus develop the interest of kids and their parents of all ethnic backgrounds This would promote interest, attendance and the financial stability of the franchise.
April Witt: Alex, the Caps and the NHL are keenly aware that they need to increase ticket sales and are working on it. Alex makes himself available to do promotions whenever asked. In fact, I've been told he has a problem saying no even when it might be in his best interest to do so. The NHL has Alex on a short list of players they want to try to promote in the general media to heighten interest in hockey. I didn't know that when I proposed doing a cover story on Alex.
Thunder Bay, Ontario: Slava - what was the general view of Pavel Bure's leadership of Russian international hockey, especially with respect to last year's Olympics?
Slava Malamud: Leadership? What leadership?
He is a GM of the National Team and since in Russia all national team roster moves are always made by the head coach, this position is nothing but a sinecure.
Pavel's leadership days are probably well ahead of him. He is a masterful politician, who has managed the art of being liked by all.
Eveleth, Minn: If you were going to redesign the Caps around Ovechkin, what would you change?
Slava Malamud: The Caps have lots of glaring weaknesses, defense and the lack of a good passing center being the biggest, but I am sure the management knows it all better than we do.
PR-wise, they are handling the Ovechkin case expertly, in my opinion.
Belle Cote, Nova Scotia : Slava, I have enjoyed terrifically your answers today. The Russian hockey system and culture I find fascinating. The Capitals have a weekly Internet broadcast program, and I wonder if you would concider being a guest on it in the future if they invited you?
Slava Malamud: Thanks, I'd like that.
Thanks for the great read!
As you know, Ovechkin fired his Agent and rumour has it, he's going to be managed by his mother. Like most capsfans I am rather nervous about this. As you pointed out, she doesn't know the language, doesn't know the culture, doesn't know the way things are handled in the US. Having been around his family and himself for quite some time how do you judge this? Wouldn't it be time for Tatiana to let go of her little boy a bit and let him live his own life?
April Witt: I think it's excruciatingly difficult for Tatiana to let go. She's an extremely forceful woman. She's a devoted mother. From her perspective, she and her husband - not any agent - are responsible for helping Alex get to the NHL. It will be fascinating to see how this drama plays out. While huge sums of money are at stake, I'd water that the decision to fire the agent was driven more by family dynamics.
April Witt: Thanks to everyone to wrote in. Thanks especially to Slava for joining us and bringing his expertise to this discussion. Goodbye.
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.
|
April Witt fields questions and comments about the Capitals'Â Alexander Ovechkin at noon.
| 379.4 | 0.733333 | 1.533333 |
high
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601170.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601170.html
|
Lanier To Focus On Crime Hot Spots
|
2006112719
|
Cathy L. Lanier, chosen last week to lead the D.C. police force, said she plans to use "precision patrol teams" to reduce crime in certain parts of the city, focusing on the places and times when criminals are most apt to strike.
The patrols are part of a broader community policing strategy that Lanier hopes to push as head of the 3,800-member department. In an interview, she said she intends to give more authority to commanders and beat officers to customize their own crime-fighting programs.
Targeted patrols have been used by police departments for years to combat spikes in crime. D.C. police have more than a dozen hot spots that get increased attention -- although not to the degree that Lanier is proposing. She created a model in 2002 when she was commander of the 4th Police District in upper Northwest and Northeast Washington. It reduced crime there, she said, and could have an impact citywide.
The precision patrol teams focus on crime hot spots and the "hot times" in which they occur, Lanier said. In the model Lanier used, officers blanketed areas in marked police cars with flashing lights to maximize visibility. The hot spots were relatively small -- about six square blocks each. But they were accounting for large shares of robberies, burglaries, vehicle thefts and other crimes. Crime dipped within 90 days, she said.
"What will make or break this is engaging the people who have to carry it out and engaging the people who have to live with it," Lanier said.
Lanier, 39, a 16-year force veteran, was selected by Mayor-elect Adrian M. Fenty (D) to replace Charles H. Ramsey in a job that is often a lightning rod for criticism and complaints. A protege of Ramsey's, she said she plans to build on his successes in reducing crime while making the department more responsive to residents. If confirmed by the D.C. Council, Lanier would become chief in January, soon after Fenty takes office.
"With community policing, there is not one template you can implement across the city," Lanier said in the interview last week. "Every neighborhood is different."
Lanier, who was offered the position by Fenty earlier this month, said she still is crafting her plans and provided few details about how the precision patrols will work. She has not yet assembled her command team.
She said that she wants to put more officers on the streets, but not necessarily by increasing the size of the force. First she wants to explore increasing efficiency. But in any event, she said, the police must do more: be more visible on the streets, address neighborhood concerns in all parts of the city and simply be more polite to the public.
"I want us to be innovative," she said. "I want us to change the way we do this to mirror a successful business."
Lanier most recently headed the force's homeland security division, a subject in which she holds a master's degree. But she has more than a decade of experience in patrol work, including stretches as an officer in the 6th District and as a commander in the 4th District.
She said she plans to rely on district commanders and officers to develop their own plans for dealing with disparate needs. Beat officers will get more freedom to work directly with residents and solve the problems they face -- a hallmark of community policing.
|
Cathy L. Lanier, chosen last week to lead the D.C. police force, said she plans to use "precision patrol teams" to reduce crime in certain parts of the city, focusing on the places and times when criminals are most apt to strike.
| 13.75 | 1 | 48 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601213.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601213.html
|
A GOP Maverick Prepares To Lead Anne Arundel
|
2006112719
|
While some candidates threw victory parties on election night and others gathered supporters for glum concession speeches, the man who would be county executive of Anne Arundel did neither. Instead, John R. Leopold spent the night sitting on his girlfriend's couch, watching the returns on TV with her and his cat.
Considered an outsider and loner -- even by some in his own Republican Party -- Leopold is poised to become the county's leader and the GOP's most prominent executive in Maryland. His election has caused many to wonder just who he is -- this man who has for decades campaigned on his own, this man who stood on road after road with a red wooden sign that reads simply, "Leopold," with no mention of party, position or even a first name.
"With the Republicans wiped out in the last election, he is suddenly the shining star," said Dan Nataf, a political scientist at Anne Arundel Community College. "But he's not closely linked to anyone, even in his own party. He's an enigma."
Leopold, 63, has served as a legislator -- first in Hawaii and now in Maryland -- for three decades. From his time in office, two opposing accounts have emerged.
Critics call him an opportunist, a lone wolf whose self-serving actions have turned colleagues against him.
The other view, held by many voters, portrays him as a master of constituent services. He is known for sending handwritten notes to residents after a death in the family, marriage or even promotion to Eagle Scout.
What's indisputable is the unending campaign that has consumed his life.
Year after year, election or not, he has knocked on doors across the county, accumulating votes with a handshake and a smile. He plants his own signs, answers his own phone and acts as his own campaign manager-spokesman.
There is almost no furniture in his blue-gray townhouse in Pasadena -- no signs of occupancy except for the big stacks of voter registration lists that cover every inch of surface space and decades of newspaper clippings piled high in the little office upstairs.
Leopold explains his spartan house this way: "Campaigning requires discipline. I don't have time to do much else."
Born and raised in a well-off Philadelphia family, he tried abstract painting before getting hooked on politics during a stint as research assistant for U.S. Sen. Hugh Scott (R-Pa.). At 24, interested in its Asian culture and determined to create a political career on his own, he flew to Hawaii.
His first year there, he won a state school board seat, a Republican in a state dominated by Democrats. Within 10 years, he would become the GOP's candidate for governor.
|
While some candidates threw victory parties on election night and others gathered supporters for glum concession speeches, the man who would be county executive of Anne Arundel did neither. Instead, John R. Leopold spent the night sitting on his girlfriend's couch, watching the returns on TV with...
| 10.132075 | 0.981132 | 51.018868 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600711.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600711.html
|
At USC, Title Game Is an Annual Rite
|
2006112719
|
The seniors who will leave Southern California after this season, whether they stayed four or five seasons, made certain on Saturday night that they never in their careers lost to Notre Dame. Their fifth straight victory over the Irish maintained another, more significant trend for those Trojans ending their careers after four years: They are now likely to complete their careers without knowing the feeling of not sharing, winning or playing for the national title.
Southern California took its biggest step yet in solidifying its spot in the Bowl Championship Series national championship by pounding Notre Dame, 44-24, on Saturday night, a victory that pushed the Trojans past Michigan for No. 2 in the BCS standings.
"I think we're a pretty good team right now," USC Coach Pete Carroll said. "We'll play anybody, anywhere."
While USC ended the majority of the mystery at the top, the fog cleared throughout the rest of the BCS, too. With a spate of conference championships and a handful of other games to be played next Saturday, the final weekend of the regular season, the five likely BCS matchups have already crystallized. Here is a probable preview of next Sunday's BCS selections:
· National Championship: Ohio State vs. Southern California. Ohio State's spot in this game is the only sure thing in the BCS right now. The Trojans are sturdy, too, but need to beat UCLA this week to stay at No. 2. Florida still has an outside chance of catching Michigan if it trounces Arkansas in the Southeastern Conference title game and USC trips up, but it seems unlikely.
What are the chances UCLA upsets USC? The Bruins are 6-5, and the Trojans have beaten them seven straight times.
· Rose Bowl: Michigan vs. LSU. Since the Rose Bowl will lose both its tie-in teams -- the Big Ten and Pacific-10 champions -- to the national title game, it will receive the first two picks. The Rose favors Big Ten teams, so Michigan, which would automatically qualify for the BCS as a top-four team, is a no-brainer. Bowls also tend not to like rematches, particularly of lopsided games, so it would likely pass on Notre Dame as an at-large choice.
The Tigers, No. 5 in the BCS, made themselves the most attractive choice by defeating Arkansas on Friday. If the scenario plays out, LSU will become the first SEC team to play in the Rose Bowl since Alabama beat USC, 34-14, in 1945.
· Sugar Bowl: SEC champion vs. Notre Dame (first at-large choice). The Sugar Bowl receives the SEC champion automatically, which means the winner of SEC West winner Arkansas versus SEC East champ Florida will play. Notre Dame, currently 10th in the BCS, needs to be No. 8 to automatically qualify for BCS selection, but its prestige will make it a certain pick regardless. Since the Sugar Bowl gets first choice this season, it likely will nab Notre Dame and the ratings bonanza the Irish bring.
|
After its win over Notre Dame, USC is No. 2 in the BCS and needs only a win on Saturday against UCLA to make a fourth straight championship game.
| 18.625 | 0.875 | 2.0625 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601118.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112601118.html
|
Separate Truths - washingtonpost.com
|
2006112719
|
For two women, so much comes down to this: a fragment of bone and the lick of a love letter.
Military scientists recently compared the bone recovered in a North Vietnamese jungle where an Air Force pilot's plane went down 40 years ago to saliva on letters he had sent his wife. It was a DNA match, they announced. At last, they said, the remains of Col. Charles J. Scharf had been found.
What they couldn't have known, however, was how differently that announcement would affect two women he left behind.
His widow, Patricia Scharf, 72, of Northern Virginia, has never remarried, has never had children and still considers the Vietnam War officer the love of her life. For her, the announcement was the gentle rub across the shoulder she had waited four decades to feel, one that let her know it was all right to let go.
For Barbara Scharf Lowerison, 72, his sister in California, the announcement was a slap. It meant she was losing -- if she had not already lost -- her fight to convince officials that her brother is alive, a prisoner of war.
The remains of more than 1,300 lost U.S. service members have been identified over the years, with 850 of those from the Vietnam War alone, according to military officials. Usually when remains are identified, relatives emotionally embrace the finding, said Larry Greer of the Department of Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office. And among the few who reject it, most eventually come around "because the science is so overwhelming," he said.
"One of the things it does do for all of us, and we hope for the families, is it helps write the closing chapters of this story that has been painfully open for 40 or 60 years," Greer said.
If that is true, then the story of Charles Scharf, it seems, has two endings.
Patricia Scharf wears the same shade of vibrant red lipstick as in the photos of her youth. After "Chuck" didn't come home with the rest of the POWs, she spent years fantasizing about how he might swoop back into her life.
"If he was to walk in that door right now, I could love him like when I was young," Scharf said. "And I'd say, 'What kept you so long?' "
But the proof that he is gone, really gone, lay across her Falls Church dining room table one recent night, separated into small plastic bags labeled with black marker.
There was the burnt, tattered wallet he was carrying the day his plane was shot down in October 1965. A singed identification card, with his name decipherable, was inside. There were his dog tags. His silver captain's bars. (He was promoted posthumously to colonel.) The torn, worn scapular, or cloth religious pendant, he received on their wedding day. Scharf has an identical one.
|
For two women, so much comes down to this: a fragment of bone and the lick of a love letter. Patricia Scharf wears the same shade of vibrant red lipstick as in the photos of her youth. After "Chuck" didn't come home with the rest of the POWs, she spent years fantasizing about how he might swoop......
| 8.727273 | 0.984848 | 34.742424 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600980.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600980.html
|
Lawmakers Criticize Training And Deployment of Iraqi Forces
|
2006112719
|
Two senior members of the House Armed Services Committee and several former Defense Department officials yesterday criticized poor U.S. training and deployment of the Iraqi army and police as a major reason the Baghdad government cannot provide security to its people.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the panel, said that 33 trained Iraqi army battalions, now serving in provinces that are relatively peaceful, should be moved into Baghdad or other areas where there is fighting. "Saddle those guys up, move them into the fight," Hunter said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He added, "Nothing trains a combat unit better than actually being in military operations."
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), who next year will take over as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, focused on the Army training of Iraqi units. He said that in many instances "the wrong types" of trainers were given the job.
"I would hope we could stand up their brigades, their battalions, and that they would be effective, and the way to do this is for us to train them better, to have advisers that understand them," Skelton said on NBC.
"What's really fallen down . . . has been the police," said retired Gen. Wayne A. Downing, who headed the Army's Special Operations Command and briefly served after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the Bush White House handling counterterrorism.
"We reconstituted the Iraqi police pretty much in their old image," he told NBC's Tim Russert. "They are corrupt, they are feared by the people, and we recognize this." Downing said that once a Baghdad neighborhood is cleaned up, "we turn it over to the Iraqi police, Tim, and within weeks it's right back to the way it was before."
"We've got to get the Iraqi army and police better equipped, better trained, and into the fight. And I think we've got 24 months," said retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, also on "Meet the Press." He said the Iraqis, now armed with light trucks and small arms, need armored vehicles and air force and support helicopters "to sustain a major internal battle."
Yesterday's criticisms were expanded upon in the latest study by Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A Pentagon official in the Reagan administration and a specialist in Middle East intelligence and military matters, Cordesman just returned from Iraq, where he received briefings from military and civilian officials.
One of Cordesman's central issues is that public statements by the Defense Department "severely distorted the true nature of Iraqi force development in ways that grossly exaggerate Iraqi readiness and capability to assume security tasks and replace U.S. forces." He also writes that "U.S. official reporting is so misleading that there is no way to determine just how serious the problem is and what resources will be required."
Cordesman says the Pentagon's Aug. 31 status report, which was sent to Congress, lists 312,400 men "trained and equipped" among the Iraqi army and national and regular police. But it adds that "no one knows how many . . . are actually still in service." At the same time, he writes, "all unclassified reporting on unit effectiveness has been cancelled."
Criticizing statements about how many Iraqi army units are "in the lead," Cordesman notes that the Iraqi army "lacks armor, heavy firepower, tactical mobility and an Iraqi Air Force capable of providing combat support" -- the same points McCaffrey made yesterday.
"No administration official has presented any plan to properly equip the Iraqi forces to stand on their own or give them the necessary funding to phase out U.S. combat and air support in 12 to 18 months," Cordesman says. He writes that the Iraqi army could need U.S. support through 2010.
The August Pentagon report says that the Iraqi Ministry of Interior (MOI), which controls the National Police, does not have "an effective management system" and therefore "it is unknown how many of the forces . . . are still employed by the MOI."
Cordesman says attrition is put at "at least 20 percent per year." The Pentagon report also notes problems with the police having ties to militias and warns about "unprofessional and at times criminal behavior" by some units.
Cordesman described the situation as "far worse" with the regular police, where "desertion rates are far higher than with the regular [Army] forces and National Police. He cites the Pentagon report as saying "there is currently no screening process to ascertain militia allegiance" and "no method exists to track the success rate of these or other police officers."
As with the army, Cordesman says he believes it will take three to five years to adequately train Iraqi police officers. He notes, though, that the Pentagon report "makes clear there is no meaningful database on where the maintained and equipped for the regular police actually are, or on the effectiveness of individual units."
|
Two senior members of the House Armed Services Committee and several former Defense Department officials yesterday criticized poor U.S. training and deployment of the Iraqi army and police as a major reason the Baghdad government cannot provide security to its people.
| 23.186047 | 1 | 43 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600867.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600867.html
|
'Nativity' Premieres At the Vatican
|
2006112719
|
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 26 -- A movie about the birth of Jesus Christ had its world premiere Sunday at the Vatican, the first time a feature film has debuted here.
Some 7,000 people showed up at the benefit screening of "The Nativity Story" in Paul VI Hall, the auditorium regularly used for audiences with pilgrims, although Pope Benedict XVI was not present.
"I think the pope is pretty busy," said the film's director, Catherine Hardwicke, referring to Benedict's upcoming trip to Turkey.
"The Nativity Story," which opens in the United States Friday, describes Mary's pregnancy and the trip she and Joseph undertake to Bethlehem, the town of Jesus's birth. It explores Mary's reaction -- of fear, doubt and ultimately faith -- to what is happening to her.
Mary is played by Australian-born Keisha Castle-Hughes, of "Whale Rider" fame, who was not present at the premiere. Shohreh Aghdashloo, who was nominated for an Oscar for best supporting actress in "House of Sand and Fog," stars as Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Oscar Isaac portrays Joseph.
The director's previous works include "Lords of Dogtown" and "Thirteen."
The 102-minute film was shot in Morocco and Matera, a town in southern Italy where Mel Gibson shot "The Passion of the Christ."
Some TV movies have had their premieres at the Vatican. Earlier this year, Benedict watched one of them, "Karol: A Pope Who Remained Man," which explored the life of his predecessor, John Paul II, who died in 2005.
Despite the Vatican's stamp of approval, Hardwicke said her movie sought to appeal not just to religious audiences.
"We hope that people might relate to the relationship in the film, Mary and Joseph, and how their love grows and gets stronger as each one of them has challenges," she said.
Producers said earlier this month that proceeds from the Vatican event would go toward the construction of a school in a village about 25 miles from Nazareth, the town of Jesus's childhood.
The village, Mughar, whose population includes Christians and Muslims, was one of the Israeli towns hit by rockets fired by Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerrillas over the summer.
"The Nativity Story" was produced by New Line Cinema, which financed the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
|
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 26 -- A movie about the birth of Jesus Christ had its world premiere Sunday at the Vatican, the first time a feature film has debuted here.
| 13.457143 | 0.942857 | 13.171429 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500779.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500779.html
|
Crime Money Makes Insurgency Self-Sufficient, U.S. Report Says
|
2006112619
|
NEW YORK, Nov. 25 -- The Iraq insurgency has become financially self-sustaining, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
According to a classified U.S. government report, a copy of which the newspaper said it obtained, groups responsible for many of the insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising an estimated $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities.
About $25 million to $100 million of the total comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry aided by "corrupt and complicit" Iraqi officials, the newspaper said, citing the report.
As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid over hundreds of kidnappings. Unnamed foreign governments -- identified in the past by senior U.S. officials as including France and Italy -- paid kidnappers $30 million in ransom last year alone, the report said.
The report, completed in June, was provided to the newspaper by U.S. officials in Iraq, who told the Times they had done so in hopes that the findings could improve U.S. understanding of the challenges faced in Iraq.
Some terrorism experts outside the government who were given an outline of the report by the Times criticized it for a lack of precision and a reliance on speculation, the newspaper said.
|
NEW YORK, Nov. 25 -- The Iraq insurgency has become financially self-sustaining, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
| 5.680851 | 1 | 47 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500736.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500736.html
|
Romney Leaving Mass. With Mixed Record
|
2006112619
|
BOSTON -- He has been a successful venture capitalist and management consultant, and he saved the tainted 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from scandal. But it is his single term as Massachusetts governor that is Mitt Romney's chief credential in his bid for the Republican nomination for president.
He began his term four years ago on a high note, rescuing the state from an inherited budget deficit. But now, as he prepares to leave office and focus full time on his White House aspirations, his tenure is being viewed in a more mixed fashion.
While he can point to a major policy success in health care, his relationship with the Democratic-controlled legislature that made it possible is in tatters. His efforts to challenge the Democrats and promote Republican candidates for the legislature failed. His partner in the statehouse, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, lost a bid to succeed him. And Romney is leaving office with the state GOP weaker than when he arrived.
Massachusetts is a liberal state and was the first in the nation to permit same-sex marriage. But Romney is a staunch conservative who finds himself running against all that his state symbolizes to national Republican voters -- he opposes single-sex marriage, stem cell research and abortion. That may help him with GOP conservatives who hold sway in the party's primaries. But if he wins the nomination, Romney could find himself in the same position as Al Gore in 2000 -- losing his home state in the general election.
In fact, Romney has commented that if he had known he was going to seek the presidency, he probably would have chosen to plant his flag not in Massachusetts but in Michigan, where his father, George Romney, served as governor and where the political culture is more compatible with his conservatism.
In a recent interview reflecting on his administration, Romney said he accomplished his main goals of balancing the budget, resisting any general tax increase and launching initiatives that can spur growth. He said he has shown he can surround himself with smart advisers and set high expectations.
"I am used to debating things back and forth," he said. Credited even by critics with having an agile mind, Romney said he has learned to manage by "hiring people smarter than I am and then arguing with them," adding: "I will by nature disagree when everybody has the same view; I want to hear an alternative."
Romney has run Massachusetts's government with a handful of close aides, many of them drawn from Bain & Co., the consulting firm whose venture capital arm he ran. It is top-down management, designed to keep control firmly in Romney's hands and to deliver a single, upbeat message to voters through a relentless public relations offensive.
Even before he was sworn in, Romney ordered a reorganization of the executive branch, designed to improve the coordination of government services. Warned by a predecessor, Gov. William F. Weld (R), that the departments of transportation and environment were perpetually at war, Romney ordered them to join the housing and energy agencies in a new Office for Commonwealth Development. To the surprise of many business supporters, he named Douglas Foy, a prominent environmentalist, to head the super-agency, which has worked to concentrate business development and housing close to transit lines and reduce sprawl.
Romney ordered a similar consolidation of the business, finance and economic agencies into another super-department and picked another Democrat, Robert Pozen, to run it. Foy and Pozen, along with then-Chief of Staff Beth Myers and a handful of others, formed an inner circle of decision-makers, working more or less smoothly with Romney's political team from the 2002 campaign.
Their initial challenge, a threatened state budget deficit of almost $3 billion, was created by the dot-com collapse. Having vowed in the campaign to oppose any general tax increase, Romney quickly won approval from the legislature for a variety of spending cuts.
But when those came far short of balancing the budget, Romney turned to closing what he called "loopholes" in the corporate tax code. That, along with higher local property taxes, produced millions in new revenue -- and allowed critics to challenge Romney's claim that he held the line on taxes.
|
BOSTON -- He has been a successful venture capitalist and management consultant, and he saved the tainted 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from scandal. But it is his single term as Massachusetts governor that is Mitt Romney's chief credential in his bid for the Republican nomination for president....
| 15.566038 | 0.981132 | 51.018868 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201801.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201801.html
|
Having It All
|
2006112619
|
Simon & Schuster. 239 pp. $24
SINGLE BY CHANCE, MOTHERS BY CHOICE
How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family By Rosanna Hertz
Oxford Univ. 273 pp. $26
You can't have it all, women have long been told. The price of female achievement, goes the centuries-old conventional wisdom, is loneliness. And modern commentators have taken up the refrain. "The more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child," argued economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett in 2002. Last year, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd claimed that America faces "an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids" because men remain unwilling to enter equal relationships with educated, high-powered women. And in the first two-thirds of the 20th century, as women gained greater access to higher education and professional work, such was indeed the case. Women who earned bachelor's degrees and PhDs were more likely to miss out on their "MRS" degrees than their less-educated sisters.
But for women born since 1960, there has been a revolutionary reversal of the historic pattern. As late as the 1980s, according to economist Elaina Rose, women with PhDs or the equivalent were less likely to marry than women with a high school degree. But the "marital penalty" for highly educated women has declined steadily since then, and by 2000 it had disappeared. Today, women with a college degree or higher are more likely to marry than women with less education and lower earnings potential.
Highly educated women are also now as likely to have children as their less-educated counterparts -- and much more likely to have children born in wedlock. At the same time, economically successful women are the fastest-growing segment of the minority of women who, if they do not marry, choose to have children anyway. The titles of two new books sum up the opportunities that women now have to mix and match their personal and professional lives: Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women, by Christine B. Whelan, and Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice, by Rosanna Hertz.
Whelan's book is aimed at the demographic group she calls SWANS -- Strong Women Achievers, No Spouse. Whelan commissioned a poll of 1,629 high-achieving men and women ages 25 to 40 and found that almost half the women reported fearing that their success in the world of work was a disadvantage in the world of love. Whelan reassures them that men increasingly do want to marry equals, that most men are not intimidated by educational and career success.
One poll, a series of interviews with a second sample of "high-achievers," and a handful of research studies are a rather flimsy peg on which to hang a book. What could have been a focused, attention-getting article is muddled by considerable padding. Whelan's book does not answer the question posed by her title -- why do smart men now marry smart women? -- nor does she explore the declining marital prospects for poorly educated women and men. Low-income, poorly educated men have the worst prospects of any group in today's marriage market, suggesting that it is a mistake to frame the revolution in marriage as a woman's issue. More men than women describe being married as their ideal state, and men who remain single fare far worse emotionally than do their female counterparts.
Still, this book contributes to the cultural conversation about marriage by countering outdated stereotypes about male-female relations. Whelan's polls confirm what authors Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers showed in more compelling detail in their 2004 book Same Difference-- that in the middle to upper levels of the education and income distribution, men and women are moving closer together, not farther apart, in what they want from relationships.
Whelan offers encouragement to everyone in her demographic. Career women who postpone marriage, she explains, still have a good chance to marry in their 30s or 40s, and she cites a study by three sociologists who find that, unlike in the past, wives' fulltime employment is now associated with a lowered risk of divorce. For women who marry too late to have children, her poll shows that many women believe they can have very satisfying lives anyway. For women who don't marry but want a child, she points out that this is now an option. Half her female respondents said that they'd consider having a child alone if they couldn't find a suitable partner.
Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice deals with women who made that decision. Based on in-depth interviews with 65 middle-class women, Hertz's book traces how women decide first to have children outside marriage and then whether to adopt, choose a known donor or become pregnant through an anonymous sperm donor. She explores how these women answer their children's questions about their biological fathers and how they integrate men into their children's lives.
Most of the heterosexual women Hertz interviews are "reluctant revolutionaries," women who would have preferred a male partner but who reached a point where they were willing to go it alone rather than miss out on motherhood. Her lesbian subjects, by contrast, consciously defied the idea that motherhood depends upon a heterosexual relationship. Neither group made these choices lightly. They enlisted the support of families and friends before embarking on this journey, and they have all had to grapple with their children's desire to picture their father and understand their kin connections. Contrary to some stereotypes, these women try mightily to include men in their children's lives. Hertz describes how they handle these thorny issues and gets the women to speak candidly about their trials, joys and dilemmas.
It's impossible to do justice here to the complexity of the portraits Hertz paints in this well-crafted book, including the different ways that women handle the often unexpected results of their decisions. Indeed, the details and variations in her stories are more compelling than her theoretical overview. Where Whelan fails to ground her data and advice in a coherent analysis, Hertz tries too hard to fit her material into an overarching feminist sociological framework. Concepts such as "compulsory motherhood" fail to capture the complex decision-making process her informants describe. Nor does the term patriarchy seem helpful in describing the messy mix of expanded options and continuing constraints these women confront. Certainly, male privilege still exists, but neither law nor popular opinion still enforces male dominance in most daily interactions. The freedom of single, economically secure women to raise children without the harsh economic penalties and social stigma of the past is a far cry from the patriarchy of yore.
I also question Hertz's claim that the "mother-child dyad" is the revolutionary family form of the future. Interviewed four years later, her subjects almost all reported that the two-person unit had been too intense. Some had added more children; others had added a partner.
Female-centered families are here to stay, and it is important to accept their legitimacy. But the same social changes that give women new options in their personal and professional lives also open new opportunities for paternal involvement in families, on far more egalitarian terms than in the past. That development is just as welcome -- and surely just as revolutionary -- as the new possibilities for lesbians and heterosexual women to rear children successfully without the involvement of fathers.
Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage," teaches at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.
|
Search Washington, DC area books events, reviews and bookstores from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for bookstores and books events. Visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/print/bookworld today.
| 42.852941 | 0.441176 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401286.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401286.html
|
Marijuana Multiplies Suspect's Problems
|
2006112619
|
Talk about having a lousy day in court.
As Devin K. Hoerauf's robbery trial in Rockville was wrapping up Tuesday afternoon, the 19-year-old accidentally dropped a bag of marijuana on the floor when he stood up at the defense table.
The judge's assistant noticed a plastic bag containing "a green, leafy substance" and pointed it out to a Montgomery County deputy sheriff, who picked it up and added two misdemeanor charges -- possession of a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia -- to Hoerauf's criminal history.
To make matters worse, his mother, a defense lawyer, was by his side at the time -- representing him.
"I don't even know what the word for it is," Circuit Court Judge David A. Boynton said, according to a recording of the hearing. "Inconceivable is not strong enough. For him to walk into a courtroom in the middle of a jury trial for a robbery case with marijuana in his pocket is just unbelievable."
Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Wennar asked Boynton for a high bond, noting that Hoerauf had tested positive for use of narcotics in recent weeks, a violation of the terms of his pretrial release supervision program.
"To come into a courthouse in the middle of trial and have a bag of marijuana on his person just seems to me to be a total disregard for the criminal justice system," Wennar said in court.
According to the recording, Gwyn Hoerauf, his mother, said jail was not the answer to her son's problems.
"I'm going to say it in a very crass way, and I hope he forgives me," she said.
"He is brain-damaged, your honor. I don't mean he's just a defendant who does dumb stuff. This is a boy with an IQ in triple digits. His brain is glued together with Silly Putty. He can't think his way out of a paper bag, but he can do physics."
Hoerauf first appeared before Boynton years ago on juvenile charges. He pleaded guilty this summer to second-degree assault after an incident in Silver Spring. He was charged with robbery in June after he and some friends were suspected of stealing bikes from a group of younger teenagers near the MARC train station in Germantown.
The jury, which was not in the courtroom for the marijuana bust, convicted Hoerauf on four counts of robbery and acquitted him on two counts of robbery and one charge of conspiracy.
Courthouse arrests for such things as disorderly conduct and showing up drunk are not unheard of, Montgomery Sheriff Raymond Kight said.
"But at the defense table?" the sheriff asked. "We've never had that happen."
|
Talk about having a lousy day in court. As Devin K. Hoerauf's robbery trial in Rockville was wrapping up Tuesday afternoon, the 19-year-old accidentally dropped a bag of marijuana on the floor when he stood up at the defense table. The judge's assistant noticed a plastic bag containing "a green, leafy substance" and pointed it out to a Montgomery County deputy sheriff, who picked it up and added two misdemeanor charges -- possession of a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia -- to Hoerauf's criminal history. ...
| 5.28 | 0.99 | 42.59 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401375.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401375.html
|
'Right Where We Wanted'
|
2006112619
|
The last time they were in Jacksonville, Fla., Josh Wilson and Sam Hollenbach walked off together after sitting at a table for hours. They were ready to answer questions from reporters, but after dealing with the Washington area media, Wilson and Hollenbach sat in interview room undisturbed and alone, all while watching a mob descend on players from Miami and Florida State.
For Wilson, the point had been made: Nobody expected anything from this bunch of Terrapins.
"We're looking at Florida State, we're looking at Miami and Clemson and everybody's talking to them," Wilson said. "We're like, 'Man, we've got to change this. This is ridiculous.' "
The seniors wanted to show that their team could be special.
Four months later -- after squeaking out one tight victory after another, making what Wilson called "the impossible, possible" -- the Terrapins stand on the brink of achieving that goal.
Maryland plays No. 20 Wake Forest at Byrd Stadium tonight for a trip to Jacksonville to face Georgia Tech in the ACC championship game.
After weeks of untangling complicated tiebreaking scenarios, tonight's game has been stripped down to its most simplest form: If the Terrapins win, they're in.
"Well, we're right where we wanted to be," Coach Ralph Friedgen said. "I hope our players are prepared because when the opportunity comes you need to be ready. Earlier in the week, I told them you don't want to count on this because the game is important for a lot of other reasons."
No team in the country should have been more grateful as it sat down for dinner on Thanksgiving day. Despite some early struggles, the Terrapins held an outside shot of advancing to the title game.
But after they were done eating, the Terrapins received yet another unlikely blessing: Boston College, needing a victory to eliminate Maryland from the division race, lost at Miami.
"For everybody that wasn't in this facility, we far exceeded expectations," Wilson said. "They didn't even think we were going to win six games. When we won the sixth game, they were like, 'Ah.' They were happy over that. I'm glad to see we've got some fans back on our boat."
Now, the Terrapins (8-3, 5-2 ACC) want much more.
With a victory, Maryland has a chance to finish undefeated at Byrd Stadium for the first time since 2003. A victory also would give Maryland a shot at a 10-win season, something the program has achieved just seven times in its 114 seasons.
For the team's seniors, which as a class enjoyed early success before enduring two losing seasons, a victory would allow them to leave their home field for the final time knowing that they helped put an end to that period of mediocrity.
"It's a great way for them to go out, especially if we end up doing what we're capable of doing," Maryland junior guard Donnie Woods said. "They've really led this team through the tough times."
After back-to-back losing seasons, excitement surrounds the Terrapins again.
During the Maryland men's basketball game yesterday, the Comcast Center crowd let out one of its loudest cheers after an announcement regarding the football team's game against Wake Forest. The football team came up again during basketball Coach Gary Williams's postgame news conference.
"This is from the players," Williams said. "We'd like to wish the football team good luck tomorrow night against Wake Forest in a big game for them. The guys wanted me to say that."
From the start of the season, Friedgen refused to let go of his team objective. Even as boos rained down in Byrd Stadium as the Terrapins struggled to beat a hapless Florida International team, Friedgen spoke of contending for an ACC title.
"My goal from the beginning was to win the conference championship," he said. "That wasn't just words. Here we are. We've got a chance."
But again, Maryland faces a tough challenge.
Wake Forest has proved its mettle throughout the season as well, stringing together a 9-2 mark that is just as unexpected as Maryland's success. The Demon Deacons, just like the Terrapins, have shown a knack for winning tough games.
"I think they're a little worn down right now, not only physically but mentally," Friedgen said of his team. "It's been a long season, but you know, to reach those goals, to reach that pinnacle, you've got to be able to deal with that, fight through that. That's what makes special teams special, and ordinary teams ordinary."
|
After squeaking out one tight victory after another, making "the impossible, possible" -- the Terrapins stand on the brink of playing for the ACC Championship.
| 31.4 | 0.966667 | 10.166667 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401316.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401316.html
|
Randle El's Potential Remains Untapped
|
2006112619
|
Every time Antwaan Randle El touches the football, there is the possibility of something big. Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs said he felt every punt return by Randle El is a potential touchdown. Associate head coach Al Saunders said he had one mission: to get Randle El the football in as many playmaking situations as possible.
While Randle El has provided flashes of sizzle on special teams -- his 87-yard punt return for a touchdown in Indianapolis on Oct. 22, for example -- his role as a wide receiver in Saunders's offense has resulted mostly in moments such as Sunday's 20-17 loss to Tampa Bay: with Randle-El a hair away from making a game-changing play.
At the beginning of one first-quarter sequence, the Buccaneers blitzed, leaving Randle El with one man to beat in the open field on an all-out blitz. But quarterback Jason Campbell was sacked before he could get him the ball. On that same series, Randle El was slotted as a fullback and quickly got open, but Campbell held on to the ball too long and forced a throw that got Randle El nothing but a hard hit from a defensive back.
In the second half, Randle El ran a crisp comeback route and gained 14 yards, but a few plays later, he was wide open deep across the middle but never received the ball.
Randle El is less than a year removed from winning the Super Bowl with the Pittsburgh Steelers, but this season has been one of frustration.
"I think it has a lot to do with the team," he said. "When the team is not progressing, it's hard to talk about what you're doing or not getting done from a personal or individual standpoint. Because when your team's not winning, forget everything else. Those individual things will come, if the team is improving."
Of the free agents the Redskins signed this past offseason, only Randle El can claim even partial success this season. Tight end Christian Fauria did not produce and now is on injured reserve because of an ankle injury. Defensive end Andre Carter has not been the impact player the team envisioned.
Wide receiver Brandon Lloyd, acquired in a March trade from San Francisco and signed to a $30 million deal, has been a major disappointment. Through 10 games, Lloyd has 17 catches for 261 yards, as many receptions as injured running back Clinton Portis and fewer than Ladell Betts, Chris Cooley, Randle El and Santana Moss. In the two games Moss missed because of a hamstring injury, Lloyd had a combined four catches for 50 yards. He does not have a touchdown this season.
Meantime, Randle El has 19 catches for 181 yards and a touchdown -- a darting, dodging 23-yard screen pass in a 31-15 win at Houston in Week 3 -- and 14 carries for 84 yards. But in his last three games, he has one catch, and five of his catches came against Minnesota in the season opener.
"We've never gotten on that steady incline. We just kept going up and going down," he said. "So individually, you can't get going consistently because the team isn't."
The Redskins raised eyebrows when they signed Randle El, who played behind Hines Ward and Plaxico Burress in Pittsburgh, to such a large contract. As a wide receiver, Randle El never has had more than 47 catches or 601 receiving yards in a season.
"He's a quarterback, really," Moss said. "You can tell the way he picked up this offense when he came in. He learned the offense as if he were a quarterback. He knew everybody's position. I used to ask him how did he know everything, and then I thought about it and I said it's because he's been a quarterback for so many years. I'm a different type of learner. I learn my position first, and then I see the guys around me, so I know my routes better."
While acknowledging his big-play potential, ESPN analyst Ron Jaworski calls Randle El a "gimmick and gadget guy." Randle El, however, sees himself as a receiver and not a specialist.
"For me, my first three years, it was learn, learn, learn. After a while, you begin the basics and then add your repertoire to it. That's what happened with me," he said. "I felt like I was a receiver in the middle of my second year. I had been working and working. When Plax or Hines went down, I knew I had to go out and play. I was able to make some plays, my confidence went up and that was it."
Saunders is confident that his plays, designed to showcase the full complement of Randle El's abilities, will bear fruit.
"It's an area where he's been developing as a pure wide receiver, and in that area he's made dramatic improvement," Saunders said. "He will be a high-quality receiver in the National Football League for a long time. He catches the ball extremely well. He has run-after-the-catch abilities. He has intangibles. He works very hard in practice. He's a starting receiver in the National Football League."
|
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.
| 29.628571 | 0.571429 | 0.8 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401236.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401236.html
|
Exorcising Demons and Saving Souls in a 14th Street Storefront
|
2006112619
|
The stores on 14th Street are the usual. There's a McDonald's and a Taco Bell, a post office and a Salvadoran restaurant between U and T. There's a shoe store, a dry cleaner and a thrift shop. And right in the middle is the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, a storefront Pentecostal church with a plastic marquee.
This is the place where 17 people are having their souls saved this night.
Soul-saving happens here for an hour every Thursday and Sunday.
The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is part of a Brazilian-originated faith that has 10 million members in more than 90 countries. It was the subject of controversy in Brazil in 1995 when a pastor approached a statue of the country's patron saint on national television and kicked it repeatedly. The "Kicking of the Saint," as it came to be known, earned the church the condemnation of Roman Catholic officials.
At the church on 14th Street, there is no saint-kicking, just an open room with white linoleum floors and rows of red chairs facing a platform. On the platform is a large cross and, inexplicably, a menorah. The pastor, Sergio Medina, wears a blue shirt with a white collar. His four assistants are dressed like caterers, in black pants and white shirts. One assistant passes out programs, which list various demonic curses that may afflict parishioners: hereditary, word of mouth and witchcraft. The hereditary curse, passed from generation to generation, is said to last 200 years, more or less.
Tonight, Pastor Medina invites the 17 people being saved to the front of the room to pray. One of his assistants hits "play" on a tape recorder, and reedy oboe music fills the room.
Parishioners put their hands over their hearts, close their eyes and repeat a Bible verse from the Book of Matthew. Medina asks them to raise their hands in the air, then to place them on their heads.
People start speaking in tongues.
In movies when people speak in tongues, the sound is guttural, lots of "Lllll" and "Gggg" sounds. But this has sharp S's and T's, like Harry Potter Parseltongue. It's also loud.
At one point, Medina, who holds a microphone and is singing with a tape-recorded hymn, asks the congregation to speak more softly so they can hear him better.
The church believes that health, relationship and monetary troubles are related to demonic possession, although it recognizes that "demons" can also refer to paralyzing feelings of guilt or inadequacy. A large part of the service is focused on exorcising demons through the laying of hands. Medina and his assistants are said to have the power to command out evil spirits in this way. Most people seem to be cleansed easily, with a few drops of oil.
But one woman appears to harbor a particularly troublesome demon. Medina clutches her head with his left hand while grasping the microphone with his right. "Come out, demon!" he shouts. "You will come out now!"
|
Get Washington DC,Maryland,Virginia news. Includes news headlines from The Washington Post. Get info/values for Washington DC,Maryland,Virginia homes. Features schools,crime,government,traffic,lottery,religion,obituaries.
| 13.130435 | 0.391304 | 0.434783 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101646.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101646.html
|
What a Deal
|
2006112619
|
When it comes to poker in Atlantic City, you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em and know when to stop the game and ask, "Excuse me, does a straight beat a flush?"
Today, everybody's a poker pro -- or wants to be. Online poker, televised high-stakes tournaments and A-to-D-list celebrity players are fueling the craze. To be sure, if Andy Dick can lord over a Texas Hold 'Em table, why can't a Crazy Eights player like me ante up?
Step 1: Learn how to play. Which meant a trip to Atlantic City.
Turns out, if you're ready to ride the poker mania, Atlantic City is happy to teach you -- for free. Several casinos offer scheduled poker instruction or provide walk-up lessons, gratis. And with multiple tournaments open to all levels of play day or night, you can go from rookie to marathon player in a single weekend.
On a recent Friday night, the small crescent-shaped poker room at Resorts Atlantic City was half-full and oddly hushed. (Unlike craps or roulette players, few poker folks scream in glee or wail like widows.) I was the only one at the 8 p.m. class, which was taught by a patient young man named Chris. I told him I wanted to enroll in a tournament by weekend's close; he asked me what I knew about poker.
"Aces are high," I said. "That's pretty much it."
"You don't need to be a pro to play a tournament," Chris said, "as long as you know the basics of the game."
On a scale of difficulty, Texas Hold 'Em is harder than pulling a slot machine arm but easier than besting the blackjack dealer. Chris walked me through the pecking order of winning hands, starting from the bottom: high card (ace, followed by king, queen, etc.), one pair, two pair, three of a kind, straight (consecutive numbers), flush (five of the same suit -- 1{club}, 5{club}, 7{club}, 8{club}, 10{club}), full house (three of the same number and a pair -- 9 {diam} , 9 {heart} , 9{spade}, 6{club}, 6 {diam} ), four of a kind, straight flush (consecutive and same suit -- 2 {heart} , 3 {heart} , 4 {heart} , 5 {heart} , 6 {heart} ) and royal flush (10, jack, queen, king and ace in the same suit -- the elusive snow leopard of the poker world).
"A lot of the younger people are playing Texas Hold 'Em," said Joe Luca, a jocular floor manager at the Borgata casino. "The game is quick, as opposed to stud. It's about chance and calculating your cards against the community cards and the amount that's in the pot."
For Step 2 of my poker education -- betting, blinds, buy-ins and how to achieve the perfect poker face -- I wandered into the unadorned poker room of the Trump Taj Mahal. Paula, a Taj employee, squeezed me in between her floor management duties.
Texas Hold 'Em is made for multi-taskers. Besides focusing on the cards in your hand and on the table, you must calculate bets and read the faces and body language of your fanged competitors. "It's a game of bluffing. You need to know who's honest and who's not," said Gene, a baby-faced tournament player who was dispensing tips. "People will raise to scare you."
It's hard to be frightened if you don't have a firm grasp of the game. For my first real outing, I took a seat at a regular game already in progress. The 10 gamblers, including myself, seemed genuinely shocked when I won a hand. Of course, every good poker player knows to walk away when you're up. So I cashed in my chips and strutted off $8 richer.
The real challenge of my card-shark weekend in Atlantic City was a bona fide Texas Hold 'Em tournament. An afternoon competition at the Vegas-chill Borgata cost $75, for which I received 2,000 "dollars" in chips. (You play for a tournament prize instead of an actual pot.)
The dealer threw out the first cards. And around we went, tossing in our colored chips and taking surreptitious peeks at our cards. I took note of my competitors' expressions and tics; the balding man who never raised his gaze above his nose looked like trouble.
The tourney took on an almost meditative pattern. Cards dealt, bets placed, cards discarded -- repeat. Players were slowly dropping out as they took the big gamble, betting all of their chips and then getting the boot. The game limped along until I saw my chance: I had 7{spade} and 8 {diam} in my hand, and the cards on the table showed a 6 {diam} , 9 {diam} , 10{spade}. I pushed all of my chips to the center, proclaimed "All in," then put on my poker face -- naked gloating. I won it all. I even had the honor of being called a hustler by the mustachioed man in the left corner.
If this hadn't been a tournament, I could have walked off with a couple of hundred dollars. Unfortunately, in tourneys, only the top players take home the cash -- the rest go broke. Ninety minutes into the game, we were three. I had only peanuts left and so I pulled another all-in, hoping that my king really did have a heart. I was trounced by a wan pair of sixes. "You got a bad beat," Jeffrey said conciliatorily as he pocketed $350.
Yes, lady was unlucky that day, but I did have that eight bucks burning a hole in my pocket.
|
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
| 27.697674 | 0.302326 | 0.348837 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2006/11/thank_goodness_on_thanksgiving.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2006/11/thank_goodness_on_thanksgiving.html
|
Thank Goodness Not God on Thanksgiving
|
2006112419
|
Dhiyaa: Your comment: "Even a novice of Islamic jurisprudence knows that apostasy which is punished by death penalty is one which accompanies treason against the Islamic state!" is really nonsense.
My comments on why Islamic law MURDERS people who convert from Islam to another religion (or non-religion) is not from Daniel Pipes or any "neocon", but from Islamic LAW is described in hadiths. An Islamic convert who only supports "Goodness" would be put to DEATH. Such Islamic law intolerance has NOTHING to do with "Goodness", and I am thankful that such Islamic law is not in any part of the USA. Why aren't Muslim posters like yourself thankful for such American religious freedoms?
Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidÄd or ridda) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.
All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others.
The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad and claimed eyewitnesses' accounts of Muhammad's life and deeds) includes statements that Muslim scholars such as Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid see as supporting the death penalty for apostasy. Only those from Sahih Bukhari, which are considered reliable by most Muslims generally are given below:
* "Allah's Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." 9:83:17
* Narrated 'Ikrima: 'Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" 4:52:260
* The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn 'Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent. Allah said: â 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the Apostle (Muhammad) was true, and that Clear Signs had come unto them? And Allah does not guide the wrong-doing people. As for such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, the Angels, and of all mankind. They will abide there-in (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened nor it will be postponed (for a while). Except for those that repent after that and make amends. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surely those who disbelieved after their belief, and go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted, and they are those who have gone astray.' (Sura 3:86-90) Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, p. 42-43.
* 57. Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" 9:84:57
* 58. Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" 9:84:58
* 271. Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle." 9:89:271
References to additional hadith, that have been labeled Sahih by Sunni, from other Imams on the punishment of death for apostasy are:
* Sahih Muslim: Kitab Al-Qasama Chapter DCLXXIII When it is permissible to take the life of a Muslim
4152-4155, 898-900; Kitab Al-Imara Chapter DCCLVI, Number 4490, p. 1015 from Muslim, Imam, Sahih Muslim: Being Traditions of the Sayings and Doings of the Prophet Muhammad as Narrated by His Companions and compiled under the Title Al-Jami'-Us-Sahih, Translated by 'Abdul H. Siddiqi, Vol. III.
* Sunan Abu Dawud: 4337 through 4341 from Dawud, Imam Abu, Sunan Abu Dawud: English Translations with Explanatory Notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan, Sh. Muhamad Ashraf Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, First Edition 1984 (Reprinted 1996), Vol. III, Book XXXIII, Chapter 1605, p. 1212-1214
* Sunan Ibn-I-Majah: # 2533,2534,2535 in Chapter No. 1 of Book of prescribed punishments. Ibn-I-Maja Al-Qazwini, Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad B. Yazid, Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Translated by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Kazi Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, 1993, vol. IV.
More recently, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a noted controversial 20th century Islamic Scholar, argued that verses 9:11-12 of the Qur'an sanction death for apostasy. The argument given by Mawdudi[8] for these verses is:
"The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword." In this connection it was said: "If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" (9:11-12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy."
Mawdudi's interpretation is supported by other Muslim writers. For example, Afzal ur-Rahman in Muhammad, Blessing for Mankind, Seerah Foundation, London, Revised Second Edition, 1988, p. 218 under "Apostasy" states:
"People who turn away from Islam and do not repent but wage war and create mischief in the land are also considered as murderers. "But if they break their oaths after making compacts and taunt you for your faith, you should fight with these ringleaders of disbelief because their oaths are not trustworthy: it may be that the sword alone will restrain them" (9:12). And in Surah Al-Nahl, "But whosoever accepts disbelief willingly, he incurs God's Wrath, and there is severe torment for all such people"(16:106)
Posted November 23, 2006 9:38 AM
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham, Sally Quinn and Daniel C. Dennett. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/
| 108.333333 | 0.444444 | 0.444444 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/11/uganda_no_peace_without_justic.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/11/uganda_no_peace_without_justic.html
|
PostGlobal: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2006112419
|
Katherine Southwick - Joseph Kony, the rebel leader in Uganda who rapes, murders, and abducts children has been indicted by the International Criminal Court. He says he'll help restore peace if charges against him are dropped. Should justice be sacrificed for peace?
To characterize the northern Ugandan dilemma simply as a peace versus justice debate, however, could prolong the plight of two million people and impair the potential of the ICC. More sensibly, our discussion should be about bringing peace with justice.
The twenty-year old war in northern Uganda is one of the world's longest-running conflicts. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) is a splinter group of a rebellion that sought to defend northern interests after a southerner, current President Museveni, came to power in 1986. Although a peace agreement was signed in 1988, LRA leader Joseph Kony continued attacks against the government, initially seeking to create a regime based on the Ten Commandments. Civilians were caught in the middle: the LRA punished those who didn't support it by burning villages, murdering, and abducting thousands of children to train as fighters. Meanwhile, the Ugandan Army committed rape, torture, and murder. As many as 1.6 million people subsist in displacement camps, where nearly 1,000 people die per week from disease or violence. After commencing an investigation in July 2004, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first indictments for five LRA leaders in October 2005. Then in July 2006, peace talks in Juba, Southern Sudan, began. They are widely seen as the best opportunity for peace ever. The new Government of Southern Sudan is acting as mediator. Now the LRA demands that the ICC indictments against them be dropped.
Anyone who has been to northern Uganda can grasp that peace is the overwhelming priority for the people there, who have suffered the brunt of the conflict and face enormous challenges ahead. But the imperative of accountability has not been lost on anyone, including the LRA leadership. ICC indictees Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti have publicly expressed interest in finding ways to atone for their crimes. I met the LRA delegation in Juba last July as the talks began. We spent hours discussing accountability mechanisms, such as truth and reconciliation commissions, public apologies, and victim compensation. These concepts are rooted in Ugandan culture and the transitional justice experiences of several other countries, including South Africa. In collaboration with Ugandans such as traditional leaders and Parliament, the Liu Institute at the University of British Columbia is doing important work exploring these mechanisms. The fact remains that ICC prosecution is not obviously among the accountability options in the event a peace agreement is reached. LRA indictees will not voluntarily surrender to the ICC. They could only be brought by force, if not shot on the spot. And in the process, as history demonstrates, efforts to capture the leaders would result in killing child captives and renew attacks on civilians, worsening security in Uganda, Congo, and Sudan, where the LRA is present. To avoid more violence, exile, or some form of accountability apart from ICC prosecution appears to be the only option for the indictees under a peace agreement.
Either the United Nations Security Council or the ICC Prosecutor can legally defer prosecution under Articles 16 or 53 of the Rome Statute, the document constituting the Court, "based on new facts or information" or in the interests of peace, victims, or justice (such as local justice). These provisions convey that under certain conditions, arguably at play in the northern Uganda case, deferral would neither "sacrifice" justice for peace, nor reflect the triumph of realpolitik over rule of law. Indeed, the ICC indictments, while partially blamed for scuttling a previous peace effort led by Betty Bigombe in 2004, have no doubt helped pressure the LRA to come to the table this time. ICC pressure has also strengthened commitment on all sides to acknowledging the need for justice. But these "contributions" cannot be realized unless the ICC credibly holds out deferral as a carrot. The LRA leaders will not strive to meet the conditions implicit in the Rome Statute if there is no real possibility of deferring the indictments or otherwise ensuring the indictees' security.
That peace cannot last without some form of justice is a plausible assumption. Yet equally true is that peace is unsustainable without some deference to local priorities and approaches, including those that bear on factors, such as international indictments, that will ultimately be a major issue in making peace. To insist on international prosecution when peace is at hand (a determination to be made largely by the parties) and when an alternative vision for accountability is emerging on the ground is to allow one idea of the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Having long failed to help resolve this brutal war, the international community, including the ICC, now has an opportunity to help Uganda achieve -- through peaceful means -- lasting peace with justice. This would be a result that is democratically based, refuses to condone impunity, and in the end, is not a bad deal.
Formerly of the Refugee Law Project in Uganda, Katherine Southwick is a lawyer in New York and lived in Uganda in the 1990s. She has worked for human rights organizations in India and Thailand, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague, and the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. State Department. She has commented on the northern Ugandan crisis in the International Herald Tribune, YaleGlobal, NPR, and Voice of America.
In December, negotiator Betty Bigombe will contribute a piece as well to our ongoing discussion of Uganda. If you would like an email notification about that, or PostGlobal updates in general, click here and press send. . If you'd like to submit your own piece for consideration, please do so here
|
Need to Know - PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/
| 58.736842 | 0.578947 | 0.578947 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201544.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201544.html
|
Need Turkey-Cooking Advice? USDA Has 'Moms' Standing By
|
2006112419
|
The eight people sitting on the basement level of a Beltsville complex are talking turkey all day long. Sometimes, they are called the moms of the federal government.
On Monday, Maribel Alonso, a food expert at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was on the phone with a woman fretting that her one-day-old turkey would spoil before Thanksgiving. Turkeys stay fresh for only a day or two, Alonso warned. The woman, lamenting having bought the bird so early, asked, "Why did I do this?"
"I'm sorry," Alonso said sympathetically. Then she offered advice: Cook the turkey today and refrigerate it with the juices, keep it covered in ice in the refrigerator, or put it in the freezer for a few hours every day until the day before cooking it.
The Agriculture Department runs a meat hotline -- 888-674-6854 -- to call with questions about food safety, and it is Alonso and several other information specialists who answer those calls. This Thanksgiving season, they have fielded thousands of questions about how to prepare turkey and other holiday foods. The exchanges are often practical, sometimes humorous and occasionally moving.
People can call at any time to hear automated answers to common questions, and they can reach specialists from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Today, representatives are available from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. People can also visit the department's Web site, called Ask Karen, at http://www.askkaren.gov.
The specialists will respond to about 400 questions a day this week, and half that number the rest of the year.
There are questions about deep-fried turkeys, electric-roasted turkeys, oven-cooked turkeys. Callers want to know how long a turkey can safely be kept in a freezer, the safest way to defrost a turkey, whether it's safe to stuff the bird the day before, how long leftovers can be kept in the refrigerator and other Thanksgiving-related ponderables.
Several specialists have worked for the hotline for more than a decade. They undergo a two-week training program and receive a 150-page turkey manual, but their experience comes from their backgrounds as dieticians, food technologists and home economists.
Diane Van has been a specialist at the hotline for 20 of its 21 years and now oversees the project. She said the Thanksgiving meal is about more than cooking meat -- it is about bringing together families, and that is one of the reasons she enjoys the job. "So often people don't get to talk one on one with someone in the federal government," Van said. "We give them as much time as they need to answer their questions."
A few years ago, a man from Hawaii called before Thanksgiving asking for help in cooking a meal for his wife, who was in the hospital with cancer. She had always done the cooking, but he wanted to bring her home, possibly for the last time. A few weeks later, he wrote the staff a letter. "As it turned out, she passed away," Van said. "He wanted us to know how much he appreciated the help we gave him and how it was one of the most memorable days of their life."
Often, the callers are widows or widowers who lost the spouse who would prepare the Thanksgiving meal.
But aside from these emotional moments, the specialists can't avoid chuckling on occasion. Once, a woman called to say that she had wrapped her turkey and stuffing in a plastic sheet before cooking it instead of putting them in an oven bag. The plastic fused with the turkey, and the woman wanted to know if it was safe to eat. Needless to say (or, in this case, apparently imperative to say), it was not.
On Monday, Alonso cautioned against a caller eating a turkey that had been frozen for several decades.
Cici Williamson, another specialist, said she can guess what the questions will be depending on the day of the week this month -- whether it's traveling with the turkey, defrosting it or packing the leftovers. "People don't cook that much anymore," said Williamson, the author of recipe books. "People say we're their mothers."
|
The eight people sitting on the basement level of a Beltsville complex are talking turkey all day long. Sometimes, they are called the moms of the federal government.
| 25.625 | 0.96875 | 23.28125 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201950.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201950.html
|
Cheering New Custom, If Not the Stuffing
|
2006112419
|
Corey Meyers, a teacher at Gunston Middle School in Arlington, began the Thanksgiving lunch for 30 foreign-born students with a reasonable command. She wanted to make a toast.
"Can everyone please grab their cup," she yelled.
Sitting at a long table in the school's family and consumer sciences room Monday, the group raised cups brimming with apple cider. The students were about to eat their first Thanksgiving meal, courtesy of Gunston's parents and staff members. Many of the children had arrived in the United States only in the past year from such places as Mexico, Eritrea, Algeria, Russia and Turkey. They were just beginning to learn the customs of the holiday.
But Aldo Montoya-Saravia, 13, from El Salvador, knew instinctively what to say. "Salud, compadres! Aplauso!" Cheers, friends! Applause!
Then they got to work. Plates were passed as teachers wearing aprons carried platters of turkey, cranberry sauce, green bean casserole and rolls.
"Aldo, you like corn bread?" teaching aide Roxana Alfara asked.
Aldo, normally a rambunctious character, knew this was a moment that required perfect manners. "Yes, please," he said.
Others seemed more wary of the food, especially when teachers circulated a platter filled with a crusty concoction of brownness.
"You just have to try it," geography teacher Cheryl MacPherson told Mohamed Boualam, 11, an Arabic-speaking sixth-grader from Morocco.
"You don't want to try it?" MacPherson said again.
He gave his final verdict on the stuffing: "I don't want. It's bread and onions. No. No."
|
Corey Meyers, a teacher at Gunston Middle School in Arlington, began the Thanksgiving lunch for 30 foreign-born students with a reasonable command. She wanted to make a toast.
| 9.794118 | 1 | 34 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201480.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201480.html
|
Hinckley's Mother To Be His Sole Escort
|
2006112419
|
Presidential assailant John W. Hinckley Jr. can continue to leave a psychiatric hospital for visits at his family's home as long as his mother closely supervises him, a federal judge ruled this week.
The decision came amid prosecutors' concerns that Hinckley's 81-year-old father, Jack Hinckley, has grown infirm and incapable of helping to monitor his son during his four-day-long stays at the family's home in the Williamsburg area.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman agreed that the father is no longer up to the task of chaperoning. But in a ruling issued Tuesday, he said that John Hinckley's mental health is reported to be improving on these visits and that he poses no danger to the community.
Prosecutors had asked the judge to permit visits only if Hinckley's brother and sister, who live in other states, helped to supervise him.
Hinckley, 51, who shot President Ronald Reagan and three others in March 1981, gradually has gained more freedoms from St. Elizabeths Hospital, the Southeast Washington psychiatric facility where he has been held since a jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity 24 years ago. His parents have long pushed for the outings, which they view as an important step toward his eventual release from the hospital.
The judge also ruled that much of a government psychiatrist's report that explains the illness of Jack Hinckley should be made public, despite privacy objections from the Hinckley family. Sources close to the case say that Hinckley's father is exhibiting memory loss and confusion. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Friedman said that psychiatrist Robert Phillips's discussion of Hinckley's father's infirmity undoubtedly will be discussed in public court hearings as prosecutors and the family spar over appropriate conditions for Hinckley's ventures away from the hospital.
The trips to the parents' home -- the most freedom Hinckley has had since his arrest in 1981 -- began after a ruling from Friedman last December. After psychiatric experts on both sides agreed that Hinckley's depression and psychotic disorder were in full remission, Friedman agreed that Hinckley would visit his family for three- and then four-day stays without the supervision of hospital personnel.
In his most recent decision, Friedman said there was little reason to change the conditions for those visits, other than to remove the father from the job of helping to monitor his son. He said he would propose that the two sides next prepare for hearings in March on Hinckley's anticipated proposal to increase the length of his visits.
Friedman noted that Phillips and hospital personnel agree that Hinckley's mother, Jo Ann, 80, "is perfectly adequate as the sole responsible party for her son."
Channing Phillips, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, declined to comment on the decision yesterday. Barry Wm. Levine, Hinckley's attorney, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
|
Get Washington DC,Virginia,Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news,featuring national security,science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 13.214286 | 0.452381 | 0.547619 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112202047.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112202047.html
|
Recount Is Likely in House Contest
|
2006112419
|
He is a conservative state delegate who is leading an effort to ban same-sex marriage in Maryland. She is a veteran lawmaker who straddles a moderate line, opposing some gun control measures while supporting the anti-sprawl "smart growth" program.
Yet Republican Donald H. Dwyer Jr. and Democrat Joan Cadden, a state delegate, were separated by just 28 votes in the District 31 House of Delegates contest, a result that is likely to prompt a recount and a political recalibration in a county where Democrats hold a lead in registered voters.
Dwyer was one of three Anne Arundel County Republicans to make election comebacks after the absentee ballots were counted, claiming legislative seats that were tentatively in Democratic hands the morning after Election Day.
Republicans say the results are a sign that the county is tilting to the right, but others say that it's just Anne Arundel politics: Republicans vote Democratic, Democrats vote Republican, and candidates who don't court crossover voters are endangered.
"It shows in our area it's evenly spread," said retiring state Sen. Philip C. Jimeno (D), who said he would not have survived without crossover voters.
Dwyer said he believes that Democrats in Anne Arundel "will cross party lines and vote for the person they truly believe has their best interests at heart," even if they can't bring themselves to switch their voter registration.
"There is a loyalty to party among the Democrats that cannot really be explained," Dwyer said.
Officials are expecting a request for a recount in Dwyer's contest in northern Anne Arundel, where Cadden initially led by 719 votes. "I'm pretty sure we're going to ask for one," Cadden said yesterday.
Officials are also eyeing a possible recount in House District 30, in the Annapolis area, where Republican Ronald A. George won the third available seat by 53 votes over Barbara Samorajczyk (D), who led by 559 votes after Election Day.
The duration of a recount would be determined by the method requested by challengers -- anything from recounting absentee and provisional ballots to manually counting printouts from electronic voting machines.
"We will prepare for the worst-case scenario, which would be a manual recount," said Barbara L. Fisher, director of Anne Arundel's Board of Elections.
The county last performed a recount in 1998 in House District 30, Fisher said, before voting was done electronically. If the petitioner did not want to challenge the accuracy of the machines, the focus could be put on the absentee and provisional ballots.
|
He is a conservative state delegate who is leading an effort to ban same-sex marriage in Maryland. She is a veteran lawmaker who straddles a moderate line, opposing some gun control measures while supporting the anti-sprawl "smart growth" program.
| 10.291667 | 1 | 48 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112202182.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112202182.html
|
Fight Breaks Out, and Caps Lose
|
2006112419
|
Anger and frustration had been building all game for the struggling Washington Capitals. And with about a minute remaining in their 4-2 loss to the Atlanta Thrashers last night, those simmering feelings spilled onto the ice at Verizon Center.
A combined 10 fighting majors were handed out between the Southeast Division rivals, who totaled 176 minutes in penalties. The game ended with the penalty boxes overflowing and only a handful of players left on the benches.
The NHL is expected to make a final determination on possible suspensions and fines today.
Both coaches -- Washington's Glen Hanlon and Atlanta's Bob Hartley -- are likely facing thousands of dollars in fines, and at least one player from each team -- probably Donald Brashear of the Capitals and Thrashers captain Scott Mellanby -- will be suspended for one game.
Brashear and Mellanby each received penalties for instigating, fighting major and a game misconduct. Capitals veteran Brian Sutherby also received instigating and fighting penalties, as well as a game misconduct, opening the possibility of a suspension for him.
"It was a 4-2 hockey game and someone, a 21-year-old kid with a cut mouth, gets his head knocked off with a high hit and one of their players is grabbing our captain, grabbing his cage and shaking it," Hanlon said. "What the heck are they supposed to do?"
Hanlon was referring to an attempted hit by Atlanta defenseman Andy Sutton, who lined up but missed Capitals rookie Mike Green in front of the Atlanta bench with about 2 1/2 minutes remaining.
Frustrated by blowing a 2-0 second-period lead, the Capitals apparently decided enough was enough.
The animosity continued in the hallway between the teams' locker rooms afterward, with Hanlon reportedly screaming at Hartley. In the game's waning seconds, Hanlon, on the Capitals' bench, gestured toward Hartley, flapping his arms like a chicken. Hartley responded by mouthing the words, "Next time."
Four more games remain in the season series; the teams will meet in Atlanta on Dec. 15.
"It was a frustrating game. We didn't like the way things were going and some things happened and things boiled over," said Capitals winger Ben Clymer, who came to Green's defense after Sutton's attempted cheap shot. "We weren't happy with how things were going with us and that's what happens."
Atlanta scored four consecutive goals, the clincher coming from Kovalchuk at 13 minutes 53 seconds of the third period, snaping the Thrashers' four-game losing streak.
The fisticuffs began with 1:02 remaining, when three separate fights broke out, highlighted by Brashear pounding Atlanta defenseman Vitaly Vishnevski, who was left bleeding from the top of his head. Even the goaltenders Olie Kolzig (28 saves) and Johan Hedberg (24) were penalized for leaving the crease, though neither threw any punches.
After a sloppy start, the Capitals settled down behind Kolzig's steady play and eventually grabbed a 1-0 lead on Matt Pettinger's power-play goal at 10:01 of the first period.
Jakub Klepis set up the play with a splendid backhanded pass to Pettinger in the slot. Pettinger then beat Hedberg under the blocker for his fourth goal in six games.
Klepis wasn't done. He parlayed a misplayed puck by Hedberg into a 2-0 lead at 5:03 of the second period.
But moments later, a goal by the unlikeliest of players -- Thrashers defenseman Shane Hnidy -- got the Thrashers back into it, 2-1. Hnidy launched a long shot from the boards past a moving Kolzig at 6:15.
Bobby Holik scored a power-play goal at 12:05 to tie the score at 2.
Fifty-six seconds later, Glen Metropolit, a former Capital, fired what looked like a harmless shot over Kolzig. But the puck hit the glass and bounced back over the goal, right to Metropolit, who whacked it out of midair and into the goal for a 3-2 Thrashers' lead.
Kovalchuk completed the scoring when he picked off a poor pass by Klepis, skated in alone on Kolzig and beat the Capitals' netminder with a low snap shot.
Even mild-mannered Capitals defenseman Jamie Heward fought in the final seconds, tangling -- and holding his own -- with Mellanby.
"I don't think there was any need for this," Hartley said. "We were all warned at the beginning of the season that any activities when the season was over with, the league will look into it."
|
The Thrashers get one goal from a player who hasn't scored in four years and another thanks to a bizarre bounce in a 4-2 victory over the Capitals.
| 27.5 | 0.75 | 1.3125 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201978.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201978.html
|
Mom-and-Pops, All Grown Up
|
2006112419
|
Susan Gearing's home office in Columbia looks like a fun factory -- embroidery machines hum, and shelves are lined with 350 rolls of fabric, including some emblazoned with Elvis, Betty Boop and shirtless cowboys.
But behind the colorful facade lies a grueling, complex Internet retail operation. Every day, Gearing cuts, folds and mails 30 yards of fabric to customers around the world who buy from her online. And each year, her business, SusieCraft, grows bigger and more demanding.
The same is true for Jennifer Canty, a Sterling entrepreneur who started refurbishing iPods and other gadgets and selling them on eBay three years ago, primarily so she could work from home and care for her infant son. Today, the company she founded, Dyscern, employs 12 people, occupies a 10,000-square-foot warehouse and is projecting $6 million in annual revenue.
As Internet shopping matures and enters its 12th holiday season, veteran eBay sellers are discovering what it takes to make a long-term career out of selling online. Internet sales have become as competitive as traditional retail but compounded by the furious pace of change on the Web.
"You have to have a big range of skills that have to come together," Gearing said.
Gearing, 60, and Canty, 35, are among the 1.3 million sellers who make all or some of their living on eBay, the global bazaar where $12.6 billion worth of merchandise changed hands in the most recent quarter. Both have recruited their husbands to help, but both say it's a fantasy that self-employment is stress-free.
"We joke that it was easier when we worked for other people," Canty said, adding that the initial joy of working for herself morphed into another challenge: "Don't let the business take over your life."
Gearing, who learned to sew at age 12, spends much of her time doing the usual spadework of any retailer, scouting quilt shows and magazines to stay on top of trends. She personally answers more than 100 customer e-mails a day and writes ad copy for each of 500 simultaneous listings -- "This lovely set of Moda fabrics is the perfect complement to any winter-themed project." With help from special software and her husband, Bill Gearing, she also tracks packaging and postage for 50 daily outgoing shipments, all while striving to master the latest tricks of Internet marketing.
"We're talking about a blog, and we're looking at [selling] on Amazon," she said. "And gosh, should we be on YouTube?"
At the same time, Gearing faces a learning curve in deciding whether and how to market her fabric through Google and other search engines. If she decides to buy ads tied to search phrases, which words will customers most likely use when hunting for threads?
After eight years of selling on eBay, Gearing still operates out of her home, with no outside staff. She said her business rings up $15,000 in monthly sales during the busy winter period, generating enough income to match her previous salary as a museum director and to augment her husband's retirement income. But like many eBay sellers who don't want to grow too big, Gearing has resisted hiring the people required to take her sales to the next level.
Many businesses stumble as they grow beyond a part-time hobby and start to require hiring, accounting, financing and office space, said Jonathan Garriss, executive director of the Professional eBay Sellers Alliance, a 1,000-member group.
|
Susan Gearing's home office in Columbia looks like a fun factory -- embroidery machines hum, and shelves are lined with 350 rolls of fabric, including some emblazoned with Elvis, Betty Boop and shirtless cowboys.
| 17.538462 | 1 | 39 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201786.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201786.html
|
R.I. Court Torn Over Whether It Can Divorce Lesbian Couple
|
2006112419
|
PROVIDENCE, R.I., Nov. 22 -- Two lesbians married in Massachusetts have filed for divorce in Rhode Island, setting up a legal conundrum for judges in a state where the laws are silent on the legality of same-sex marriage.
Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston of Providence were married after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2003.
They filed for divorce in Rhode Island on Oct. 23, citing irreconcilable differences, Chambers's attorney, Louis M. Pulner, said Wednesday. Ormiston declined to comment.
Rhode Island Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. has yet to decide whether his court has jurisdiction and said he thinks it is the first filing for a same-sex divorce in the state. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for Dec. 5.
Massachusetts became the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry after the state Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban it.
Until recently, it was up in the air whether out-of-state couples could marry in Massachusetts. In September, a Massachusetts judge decided that nothing in Rhode Island law specifically banned same-sex marriage and said Rhode Island couples could legally marry there.
"Now the ultimate question is whether the state will recognize or determine whether it has jurisdiction to handle an out-of-state divorce when we don't have any case law that accepts or rejects same-sex marriage," Pulner said.
Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said it is up to the courts and legislature to decide whether the state recognizes same-sex unions.
Courts nationwide could soon find themselves facing similar dilemmas, especially as more and more same-sex couples are married in Massachusetts, said Janet Halley, a professor at Harvard Law School. Marital status could become an issue in insurance, benefits and custody.
Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage. New Jersey's high court ruled in October that the state must offer same-sex couples the same rights as married opposite-sex couples, but it left it to lawmakers to decide by April whether to allow marriages.
Two other states have civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples: Vermont in accordance with a court order and Connecticut through a vote of its legislature.
|
PROVIDENCE, R.I., Nov. 22 -- Two lesbians married in Massachusetts have filed for divorce in Rhode Island, setting up a legal conundrum for judges in a state where the laws are silent on the legality of same-sex marriage.
| 10.022727 | 1 | 44 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112202039.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112202039.html
|
Pandas Getting New View of Mating Ritual
|
2006112419
|
CHIANG MAI, Thailand -- After years of painstaking research, scientists say they have unleashed a baby boom among one of the world's most endangered animals, China's giant panda.
A bit of panda porn has helped, they said.
"It works," said Zhang Zhihe, a leading Chinese expert, about showing uninitiated males DVDs of fellow pandas mating.
It is one of many techniques tried over decades to get captive pandas, notoriously poor breeders, to do it, and do it right. The efforts to understand and simulate conditions for mating and raising cubs have paid off in China, the panda's native habitat. Now comes the next test: getting the magic to work outside China.
The big day will come in January, when researcher Prasertsak Buntragulpoontawee hopes to bring off a successful mating between male Chuang Chuang and partner Lin Hui in this city in northern Thailand.
The audiovisual approach "is the same idea as chimpanzees seeing people smoke and then copying it," he said.
Zhang, director of the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, attributes this year's record number of births to an accumulation of research on panda biology, nutrition and genetics while "trying to imitate nature better."
Enclosures are now bigger and contain more animals. There's also a push to keep cubs with their mothers longer to give them more natural sex education.
Scientists have also learned more about sex and aggression. The result, by Zhang's count: In the first 10 months of this year, 31 cubs were born in captivity in China, of which 28 survived. That's up from 12 births in 2005 and just nine in 2000.
Experts said the goal of raising the captive breeding population to 300 is rapidly being reached. This would enable more captive animals to reenter the wild, where the population is estimated at 1,600 to 3,000.
On the use of movies, Zhang said: "It's the sounds of breeding that stimulate them. Pandas are just like human beings. They understand everything."
|
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.
| 8.608696 | 0.391304 | 0.391304 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201246.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201246.html
|
Democrats Look to Trim Medicare Costs
|
2006112419
|
WASHINGTON -- Soon to be in charge of Congress, Democrats are looking to chip away at billions of dollars in payments to the health insurance companies that run Medicare's managed care programs.
The cuts could range up to about $27.6 billion over five years, an amount the industry says would reduce the number of managed care plans serving seniors and the disabled.
Under traditional Medicare, health care providers bill the government for the services they perform. But with "Medicare Advantage" managed care, the insurers get a set amount per person. Then, the insurers reimburse the people who provide the care.
Many health care experts believe that managed care leads to a greater focus on prevention and better coordination of services. And this focus, with an emphasis on providing only the care that's necessary, saves money for taxpayers and patients.
But Democrats suggest the insurers are more interested in making a profit than in saving taxpayers money. The incentive to keep costs low also gives insurers an incentive to scrimp on care, the Democrats say.
For years, Democrats have said the Republican-led Congress intentionally overpaid insurers so they could offer lower costs and more benefits than are offered through traditional Medicare.
"We have strong evidence now that there are very, very large overpayments to insurance companies," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will probably serve as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Dr. Mark McClellan, who oversaw the Medicare program until just last month, said the payments to insurers make the program more affordable to beneficiaries. Their premiums would go up if the government subsidies went down, he said.
He also said that the plans offer patients the promise of more effective care than they get through traditional Medicare. For example, many diabetics in managed care undergo aggressive counseling and testing of their blood sugar levels to help them avoid costly complications down the road, such as kidney disease or stroke. They often don't get that kind of coordinated care in the fee-for-service setting, he said.
"It would be a real shame for beneficiaries in Medicare not to have access to that," McClellan said.
Currently, the government pays about 11 percent more for a patient in managed care than when a comparable patient is in traditional Medicare, says an independent advisory panel established by Congress.
The higher reimbursement rate for managed care shows that insurers are profiting at the taxpayers expense, Democrats say.
|
WASHINGTON -- Soon to be in charge of Congress, Democrats are looking to chip away at billions of dollars in payments to the health insurance companies that run Medicare's managed care programs.
| 13.6 | 1 | 35 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201924.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201924.html
|
'Apostles' Ordered to Abide by Zoning Laws
|
2006112419
|
As much of Washington started to shut down for the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday afternoon, Brian O'Neill Jr., a Georgetown University undergrad and founder of the Apostles of Peace and Unity, sat outside the office of the city zoning administrator, angry.
His sentences were short, his tone frustrated. His faith, the college junior said, was being challenged, and he didn't like it.
"I don't know what we're going to do right now," he said.
The day before, at 6:24 p.m., O'Neill had been served an official order "to cease and desist from the illegal use of premises" -- the premises being 1617 35th Street NW, a stately house in Georgetown in an elegant neighborhood where zoning rules allow only six unrelated people to live together.
O'Neill and eight friends moved into the house in August, filing to incorporate as a nonprofit religious organization exempt from the six-person limit.
Some of the Apostles' parents thought that the filing was "ingenious," but many neighbors and others in Georgetown were outraged at what they considered a combination of blasphemy and disregard for the intent of the city's law.
On Tuesday, D.C. Zoning Administrator Bill Crews weighed in: The group, he wrote, fits the definition of a fraternity house, which in Georgetown requires a zoning variance and additional designated parking spots.
If the Apostles don't reduce the number of residents to six within 10 days of when they were notified, Crews said, they could wind up in court or be fined until they comply. The group can also seek a variance and appeal, according to the letter that O'Neill held as he waited yesterday, hoping to see Crews.
"We don't agree with the order, and we don't agree that we are a fraternity. We are in no way [a fraternity], there is no documentation that says that," he said. "That's not what we are."
O'Neill didn't return messages last night, and it wasn't clear whether he got to see zoning officials. However, the question of whether the nine students legally constitute a religious organization seemed at least partially unanswered. Crews's order did not directly address the group's claim, and he said that he used several sources of information to determine the house's purpose.
"I looked at additional information. . . and it appeared to me that, by their own statements, they were a bunch of guys who wanted to live together," he said, which led him to the dictionary definition of fraternity: "a group associated for a common purpose, interest or pleasure," he said.
"I don't buy their claim," he said.
Crews's hesitancy to define "religion" is typical of local and federal officials, who have been reluctant to define the word, say some experts on church-state relations.
Last night, neighbors of the $2.4 million house that O'Neill's father bought were more relieved that the city had ruled against the Apostles than interested in theological nuances. They said that police were called to the house as recently as Nov. 11 for noise complaints, and the students were fined $300. O'Neill paid the fine a few days later.
"[O'Neill] seems like a very nice kid, congenial," said Andy Solberg, commander of the 2nd District. "He seems like he wants to do the right thing in the community, but he's not doing it."
Staff writer Allison Klein contributed to this report.
|
As much of Washington started to shut down for the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday afternoon, Brian O'Neill Jr., a Georgetown University undergrad and founder of the Apostles of Peace and Unity, sat outside the office of the city zoning administrator, angry.
| 15.311111 | 1 | 45 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101222.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101222.html
|
Interventionism's Realistic Future
|
2006112219
|
Hard-core foreign policy realists (the kind who say this country should rarely intervene again, anywhere) are hoping that in the wake of our comeuppance in Iraq things will be going their way. That is to say, U.S. foreign policy will be defined by an obdurate caution, coupled with a ruthless, almost mathematical application of balance-of-power principles. You'd think -- to hear some of them talk -- that we're about to emulate China, which seeks only energy sources and advantageous trade agreements and cares nothing at all for the moral improvement of regimes in such places as Zimbabwe, Burma and Uzbekistan.
This is nonsense. Our foreign policy is about to experience an adjustment, not a flip-flop. Neither political party will support anything else if it really wants to elect a president in 2008. Just look at the dismay in this country over our failure to intervene in Darfur, even given the burden we already carry in Iraq. To be sure, the recent evidence that our democratic system cannot be violently exported will temper our Wilsonian principles, but it will not bury them. Pure realism -- without a hint of optimism or idealism -- would immobilize our mass immigrant democracy, which has always seen itself as an agent of change.
Iraq will merely close a post-Cold War chapter in American foreign policy, one that began with the Persian Gulf War -- and with Bosnia. After the collapse of communism in 1989, idealism, the export of democracy and humanitarian interventionism were all the rage among journalists and intellectuals -- much as realism, restraint and benign dictatorship are now. Ten years ago Liberia, Sierra Leone and other countries less institutionally developed than Iraq were considered prime candidates for liberal change. Back then, people such as Brent Scowcroft and James Baker were attacked not just by neoconservatives but by liberal internationalists, too. In those first, heady post-Cold War years, to be called a "realist" was practically an insult.
The Balkan interventions, because they paid strategic dividends, appeared to justify the idealistic missionary approach to foreign policy. The 1995 intervention in Bosnia changed the debate from "Should NATO Exist?" to "Should NATO Expand?" Our 1999 war in Kosovo, as much as the events of Sept. 11, 2001, allowed for the eventual expansion of NATO to the Black Sea. It also led to the toppling of Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic, without chaos ensuing. Neoconservatives and others who had supported our actions in Bosnia and Kosovo then carried the spirit of this policy to its limits in Iraq.
And so what began in 1995 with a limited air and land campaign in the western, most-developed part of the former Ottoman Empire ended with a mass infantry invasion eight years later in its eastern, least-developed part. Not only was this last intervention far more ambitious than the first, it was also far less competently executed in its occupation phase. Thus it failed.
The lesson is not that we won't intervene again. We will, and often. But we will do so with the caution and hesitation shown in the 1990s and only as part of an authentic coalition. To wit, just as NATO's war in Kosovo had a British face and voice -- that of its spokesman, Jamie Shea -- any intervention in North Korea (should it ever come to that) will put the South Korean military front and center and will have the implicit cooperation of the Chinese army. Otherwise, we won't do it.
The expansion of our military deployments in Africa, as well as the emergence of NATO as a global constabulary force, points to an activist military presence overseas. From Senegal on the Atlantic to Djibouti on the Gulf of Aden -- across the entire Sahara -- Marines and Army Special Forces have been conducting training missions -- not only to field indigenous forces in the hunt for Islamic terrorists but also to professionalize the militaries of fledgling democracies and develop the backbone of an American-advised, pan-African intervention force to handle future Darfurs. The drawdown of our forces in Iraq, no matter how humiliating the circumstances, will eventually free up equipment and manpower for such smaller and less controversial deployments, which will always have a civil affairs element.
NATO is moving on a parallel track. What started after 1989 with train-and-equip missions to reform former Warsaw Pact military forces in Eastern Europe has expanded to the Caucasus and Central Asia under the Partnership for Peace program. NATO's current mission in Afghanistan and its restructuring under Marine Gen. James Jones to a more sea-based, expeditionary force signifies how it will be able to deploy faster and more often to deal with out-of-area emergencies.
Our military and civilian agencies will be expected to deal with many emergencies as we enter an era when more people than ever before will be killed or made homeless by natural disasters as populations rise in environmentally fragile zones. The tsunami rescue effort of 2004-05, led by U.S. Pacific Command, was a curtain raiser for deployments to come.
The debacle in Iraq has reinforced the realist dictum, disparaged by idealists in the 1990s, that the legacies of geography, history and culture really do set limits on what can be accomplished in any given place. But the experience in the Balkans reinforced an idealist dictum that is equally true: One should always work near the limits of what is possible rather than cynically give up on any place. In this decade idealists went too far; in the previous one, it was realists who did not go far enough.
Iraq has relegitimized realism, which is a good thing. But without an idealistic component to our foreign policy, there would be nothing to distinguish us from our competitors. And that, in and of itself, would lead to the decline of American power.
The writer is a national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly and a visiting professor at the U.S. Naval Academy.
|
In this decade idealists went too far; in the previous one, it was realists who did not go far enough.
| 49.521739 | 1 | 23 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101220.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101220.html
|
The Democrats' Economy Wars
|
2006112219
|
When voters went to the polls this month, they registered not only a revulsion with the Republican regime but also a profound -- almost un-American -- anxiety about the nation's future. They ousted incumbents who wanted to stay the economic course, choosing instead Democratic challengers who questioned free-trade orthodoxy. In the exit polling, a plurality said they believed that life for the next generation of Americans would be worse than it is today.
All wings of the Democratic Party seem to understand the extent of America's economic problem. The architects of Bill Clinton's economic and trade policies, as well as their more liberal critics, all agree now, in the words of Clinton Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, that "the vast global middle is not sharing the benefits of the current period of economic growth -- and that its share of the pie may even be shrinking." The era of globalized free trade that Summers and his iconic predecessor at Treasury, Robert Rubin, sped on its way, Summers admits, has benefited many Asians and, here at home, has been "a golden age for those who already own valuable assets. . . . Everyone else has not fared nearly as well."
Concerned that the American dream is fading for the middle class, and fearful that said middle class may turn against the global free-trade order he helped erect, Rubin has created the Hamilton Project, which, in the spirit of its namesake, our first Treasury secretary, proposes a series of enlightened Tory solutions to address these conundrums. The project has called for greater public investment in education, health care, research and development, and infrastructure; balancing the budget; and wage insurance for workers compelled to take lower-paying jobs in our Wal-Mart-ized economy.
But are these solutions remotely adequate to the problem, which is ultimately that of wage convergence in the globalized economy? Even its proponents seem not to think so. "Let us be frank," Summers wrote in a Financial Times column. "What the anxious global middle is told often feels like pretty thin gruel. . . . [More] education [can't] be a complete answer at a time when skilled computer programmers in India are paid less than $2,000 a month."
When Rubin was pressed by the Nation's William Greider in June as to whether he thought the project's proposals would arrest or offset the global convergence of wages, he said, "I don't know the answer to that. I would guess that the answer to that question is no."
For the Democrats who now run Congress, not to mention those planning to run for president, the fact that the party's economic gurus have devised a policy that they themselves believe isn't up to the challenge at hand can't be greatly heartening. Happily, this is not the only project whose work the Democrats will be able to access. This June, in response to the Hamilton Project's creation, a group of some 50 liberal economists loosely affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) began work of their own. Their project, yet to be named (its founders have resisted the temptation to call it the Aaron Burr Project), will be unveiled in January.
The fundamental difference between the two projects -- that is, between the two primary schools of Democratic economics -- is that Rubin's largely believes the rules of the market to be immutable and sound (though it's precisely the rules of the market that are depressing American incomes), while EPI's, in the words of economist Mark Levinson, "rejects the notion that what has happened to this economy is inevitable. Policy can turn this around." (Full disclosure: Levinson is an old friend.)
For starters, EPI's project will call for a pay-or-play health insurance system (employers can cover their own employees in private plans or pay taxes into an expanded version of Medicare that will cover everyone else) and for a retirement system in which employers can offer their employees pensions or, with their employees, pay into a system administered by Social Security. It will suggest a series of policies to decouple globalization from downward pressure on wages -- adding some enforceable labor standards, for instance, to the rules of the World Trade Organization.
Less cosmically, economist Jeff Faux pointedly asks, "Why should middle-class taxpayers fund Harvard to dream up new products that will be made overseas? We need to condition greater R&D funding to production here at home."
Over the next two years, both projects will barrage the Democrats with their ideas. At times their perspectives may converge. (Rubin seems to be edging closer to acknowledging a need to reestablish workers' rights to join unions, long a priority of the EPI crowd.) But the creation of EPI's project balances the scales in the Democratic universe. The Hamilton Project is the policy voice of the party's largest business donors. In the project to be unveiled in January, the party's voters get a policy voice, too.
|
The era of globalized free trade has been a golden age for those who already own valuable assets. Everyone else has not fared nearly as well.
| 34.892857 | 1 | 8.642857 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101690.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101690.html
|
'Deck the Halls': A Holiday Flick Only Scrooge Could Love
|
2006112219
|
Ahh, the holidays! Why, it warms my heart to think of all that money to be made from you fools. You'll give it up to anybody who puts on a Santa hat or throws some treacly Xmas Muzak on the Muzak blaster. All those red and green lights must put you in some sort of vapor lock, leading you to line up and offer your hard-earned cash to hucksters. It's a wonderful life!
Here's the one that's going to drain your pockets this holiday, suckers. It's called "Deck the Halls." Ho, ho and ho for the shekels it'll suck out of your wallets while it preaches hypocritical gibberish and sends you home depressed and wondering why they picked on you. The answer is: If He didn't want you sheared, He wouldn't have made you sheep!
From Hollywood, Calif., the most brutally competitive city on Earth, this movie preaches the message: Competition is bad. Can't we all just get along? And, just for good measure, it throws in a little class warfare. God, I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Anyway, it's about two suburbanites who, pathologically over-connected to Christmas, become locked in an almost to-the-death battle over who will celebrate joy with the most joyless, industrial-strength, mega-wattage methodology. One, a wimpy WASP, has long been the Xmas czar of his annoyingly picturesque town, and feels he is entitled to govern Christmas. The new neighbor across the street, a lower-class usurper without the moderating mechanism of High Anglican repression, seeks to take over the holiday and turn his house -- also located in one of those dreary mock-"Leave It to Beaver" enclaves where the solitary white candle in the window is the only approved and tasteful method of expression -- into an Armageddon of blazing lights, a Roy G. Biv kaleidoscope of hues visible to the cool Martian intelligence who study us from afar as they prepare their invasion. (When are those boys going to get here and end our misery? I hope by next Christmas!)
Cast? You're thinking it has to be Tim Allen. It should have been Tim Allen, yes, but Allen was busy crashing and burning in his own cheesy holiday spew, "The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause." Too bad Chevy Chase got old, Judge Reinhold got small and Chris Farley is no longer with us. Poor Matthew Broderick is dragooned into the wispy wishy-washy WASPy part, mincing and whining in the various pairs of plaid pants he is forced to wear. As for that seething unlanced boil of proletarian fury, where is Mickey Rourke when you need him? Well, the Rourkester got too weird for middle-class mush like this, so Danny DeVito, once a promising director and before that a delightful character actor, came aboard.
There are some innocents -- perhaps I should not name them in the spirit of protecting the vulnerable, but duty compels at least a quick scan through a cast that includes Kristin (Get a new agent, honey!) Chenoweth and Kristin Davis. Chenoweth seems particularly wasted; a big Broadway star with one of those atom-powered voices (she's tiny and beautiful and sounds like Ethel Merman on steroids), she has yet to get a film role that will sell her fabulous talents to the masses. This sure ain't it. As for Davis, she seems to be the new Elizabeth Perkins. Poor Davis (best known as Charlotte on "Sex and the City") spends most of the movie in pajamas, as cute and cuddly and de-sexualized as imaginable. Memo to actresses: If you want a big career, don't let them film you in pajamas.
So anyway, "Dreck the Halls" . . . " Deck the Halls" watches as the two men go all territorial on the Christmas zeitgeist, with the vicious little rodent Broderick calling in the cops, while the bloated if tiny psychopath DeVito keeps upping the wattage. Whenever the director, John Whitesell, doesn't know what to do, he throws in some absurdist action sequence, such as a runaway sleigh pulled by 145-year-old horses that yank Broderick through downtown where he wrecks all the Christmas finery without hurting anyone.
Now, if the movie had any guts at all, it would end up with Broderick and DeVito dead on the front lawn, one having pushed a bayonet into the guts of the other one just as the second brought the baseball bat down on the first one's skull. Okay? That's the internal logic of the picture. Do you think they go there? Or do you think they both see the Error in Their Ways and darn it all, become friends in the end to the tune of cash registers doing a ka-ching ode to joy?
I literally didn't count a single laugh in the whole aimless schlep, except for the hustlers who made it, on their way to the bank.
Deck the Halls (100 minutes, at area theaters) is rated PG for crude and suggestive humor, mild profanity and stylized destruction.
|
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.
| 40.04 | 0.44 | 0.44 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101725.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101725.html
|
Internet Extends Reach Of Bangladeshi Villagers
|
2006112219
|
CHARKHAI, Bangladesh -- The village doctor's diagnosis was dire: Marium needed immediate surgery to replace two heart valves.
The 28-year-old mother of three said she was confused and terrified. She could barely imagine open-heart surgery. She had no idea how her family of farm laborers could pay for an operation that would cost $4,000.
VIDEO | Internet access is opening doors in the world's poorest countries, long isolated by distance and deprivation.
The next day, Sept. 16, her father went to see Mahbubul Ambia, who had recently installed the only Internet connection for 20 miles in far northeastern Bangladesh. Ambia sat down at a computer, connected to the Internet by a cable plugged into his cellphone, and searched for cardiac specialists in Dhaka, the capital, 140 miles away. He found one and made an appointment for Marium, who like many people here goes by just one name. The specialist examined her and said she needed only a routine surgical procedure that cost $500.
"I felt a very deep sense of relief," Marium said.
Villages in one of the world's poorest countries, long isolated by distance and deprivation, are getting their first Internet access, all connected over cellphones. And in the process, millions of people who have no land-line telephones, and often lack electricity and running water, in recent months have gained access to services considered basic in richer countries: weather reports, e-mail, even a doctor's second opinion.
Cellphones have become a new bridge across the digital divide between the world's rich and poor, as innovators use the explosive growth of cellphone networks to connect people to the Internet.
Bangladesh now has about 16 million cellphone subscribers -- and 2 million new users each month -- compared with just 1 million land-line phones to serve a population of nearly 150 million people.
Since February, Internet centers have opened in well over 100 Bangladeshi villages, and a total of 500 are scheduled to be open by the end of the year. All of them are in places where there are no land lines and the connections will be made exclusively over cellphone networks.
Before February, analysts said, only 370,000 Bangladeshis had access to the Internet. But now millions of villagers have access to information and services that had been available only by walking or taking long and expensive bus rides, or were beyond their reach altogether.
People now download job applications and music, see school exam results, check news and crop prices, make inexpensive Internet phone calls or use Web cameras to see relatives. Students from villages with few books now have access to online dictionaries and encyclopedias.
"We could not imagine where this technology has taken us in such a short time," said Mufizur Rahman, 48, a grocery shop owner in Charkhai, a town of about 40,000 people whose streets are filled with colorful three-wheeled bicycle rickshaws, and where there are almost no cars.
"For the First World, this is minor," he said. "But this is a big thing for us."
|
CHARKHAI, Bangladesh -- The village doctor's diagnosis was dire: Marium needed immediate surgery to replace two heart valves.
| 27.227273 | 1 | 22 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101408.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101408.html
|
Splice of Life - washingtonpost.com
|
2006112219
|
Where others saw images, Robert Altman saw layers. Where others saw dramatic simplicity, Robert Altman saw human complexity. Where others saw theatrical artifice, Robert Altman saw the teeming, throbbing Petri dish called life.
He got that sensibility into most of his 33 movies, and at least five of them were great, at least 10 more really, really good, and only a few pretty awful. It was as interesting a career as any American postwar director had, with its triumphs and follies, its good years and bad decades, its feuds and resentments, its successes and failures. The director died Monday at the age of 81, leaving an enviable legacy and an iconic, immediately recognizable style.
Blindfolded, you could tell in the first few minutes that you were in a Robert Altman film, not because you couldn't hear anything but because you could hear everything. It was called, glibly, "overlapping dialogue," based on Altman's insight that only in the movies -- and not in real life -- do people wait politely while others speak, then respond in wittily shaped perfect sentences. He wasn't interested in "movies" in that sense; that artifice, along with many others, he shattered in his breakout astonishment of 1970, the great film "M*A*S*H," where the dialogue splashed like a tide against rocks, bubbling this way and that, sometimes reaching incomprehensibility, but nevertheless achieving a level of verisimilitude that audiences, sick of the banalities of the big studio film, responded to with incredible enthusiasm.
But the phrase "overlapping dialogue" encompassed a lot more than a simple recording trick: It stood for a larger sense that life was too messy to be contained in the conventions of the old stage and movie proscenium, was too febrile and multifaceted and all McFused to be gathered up, understood and swallowed in one gulp. It also stood for the freedom he gave his actors to free their subconscious to contribute to the picture as well. His was the equivalent, in a culture turning ever more insane for fast food and instant payback, of a gourmet's insistence on subtlety, density, subtext; you had to concentrate, you had to participate, you couldn't just sit there like a potato and let it pour over you.
When it worked, it worked to spectacular effect. When it didn't . . . well, then Altman went away, or drifted back into TV (HBO became his home away from home during a dry spell in the late '80s), and then reinvented himself, usually with a thunderous success and began the whole mad cycle ("Genius!" "Self-imitator!" "Stale!" "Hack!") all over again. He seemed to thrive on it, and interviewers were always stunned at how such a radical or maverick or system-bucking buckaroo could remain quiet, dignified, witty and about as controversial as pablum. When he announced angrily that if George W. Bush won in 2004 he was moving to Paris, I was stunned: I had met, instead, a serene Spanish don granting an interview to a friendly peasant.
Born in Kansas City to prosperous parents just in time to experience the tail end of World War II (he flew in the South Pacific with the Army Air Forces), he had literary ambitions that led him to New York, then in the early 1950s to Los Angeles, where he promptly failed. He returned to his home town to discover it was also home town to the Calvin Co., one of the biggest makers of industrial films in the world, and finagled a job writing that became a job directing. For five years he toiled on products whose titles included "How to Run a Filling Station" and "Modern Football." But . . . he learned the profession, and that knowledge, plus the luck that Alfred Hitchcock had seen an exploitation feature he'd done called "The Delinquents," made him a natural for a move not into live television drama (the "golden age" that produced directors Sidney Lumet and John Frankenheimer was just ending) but into filmed drama. For a decade he made his living grinding out TV series on a freelance basis, directing episodes of "Bonanza," "Route 66" and "Combat," among others.
As an aside, I should say that I first learned his name in 1964, when he directed a fabulous two-hour, two-part "Kraft Mystery Theater" called "Nightmare in Chicago," one of the first of the serial-killer dramas, with some Cold War paranoia thrown in. To this day it sustains a cult reputation and an as-yet-unfulfilled clamor for DVD release. In the '90s, when he was august and secure, I asked him about it. "Oh yeah," he said with a warm smile, so pleased that someone still remembered, "that one was pretty good, wasn't it?"
Altman's first real feature arrived in 1968, the astronaut thriller "Countdown," starring James Caan. Then came "M*A*S*H."
Maybe you had to be there to understand how this movie detonated in the young moviegoing public. It came out at the height of the war in Vietnam, when despair and anger were palpable, and hatred of the military and that rough beast called the Establishment were omnipresent. It offered a vision of war's madness, set actually in the Korean War, but also its absurdity, the sanctimony and rigidity of its military professionals, which it contrasted vividly with drafted amateurs who saw through the whole bloody charade. It was full of anachronisms, which made the point that it was really about now, not then. And Lord God, was it funny.
Altman, who'd obviously been paying attention during his own service years, unleashed the purest bile of scorn at the professional military and the mind-set of old men who knew exactly why young men had to die for them, just the most powerful, cleansing screech of aggression ever; and it was tonic for the millions.
He probably could have made "M*A*S*H" clones forever, but no, ever the independent thinker, he spooled off one of the great runs in American movies, the birdman fantasy "Brewster McCloud," also in 1970, the great revisionist western "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" in 1971, a somewhat misbegotten thriller called "Images" and then four brilliant films in a row, one-two-three-four, really unprecedented: "The Long Goodbye," "Thieves Like Us," "California Split" and finally "Nashville," in 1975.
Who wouldn't have collapsed after that, especially when influential New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael raved about "Nashville" months before it was released, putting on it the onus of high expectations that could never be lived up to.
A dreary period ensued as the films got more and more obscure, longer and talkier and evaded popular acclaim as successfully as they did critical admiration. Even an attempt at a sellout "Popeye," with Robin Williams, got terrible reviews, though it eventually turned a profit. The old guy probably bottomed out in 1987 with "O.C. and Stiggs," from the mean-spirited National Lampoon series.
The first of his two comebacks occurred in 1992. "The Player," his acidic take on Hollywood, seemed to come from nowhere and reestablish him overnight as, in his own most loathed term, a player. It was another film of anger, possibly his purest and most driving emotion: He looked at the avarice, the wangling, the treachery that to him was endemic in that town, with Tim Robbins as an amoral young production executive hellbent on success. The movie was a young man's disenchantment, but he was in fact 67 when "The Player" hit and followed it up with another great film, a nearly three-hour examination of life and death in Los Angeles adapted from the stories of Raymond Carver: "Short Cuts."
Again, a creative exhaustion followed and though he kept working, none of the films seemed to click with audiences or critics. "Kansas City," an account of petit-bourgeois life in his home town, should have been a great movie, but somehow it wasn't. Then, in 2001 -- he was 76! -- another late astonishment, the delightful and exuberant "Gosford Park," a social tapestry murder mystery set in the '20s at an elegant British estate. It seemed to combine the best of Agatha Christie and John Galsworthy and yet was accessible enough for the masses that it became a great hit.
His final film, "A Prairie Home Companion," came out this year; too bad it wasn't a great hit. When death finally stilled him in his ninth decade, the old pro was in pre-production yet again. He went out, then, the way he would have wanted to: a filmmaker, on the very last day of his life, still in the saddle.
|
Where others saw images, Robert Altman saw layers. Where others saw dramatic simplicity, Robert Altman saw human complexity. Where others saw theatrical artifice, Robert Altman saw the teeming, throbbing Petri dish called life.
| 43.875 | 1 | 40 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101838.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101838.html
|
Wizards Continue Down Wrong Road in Dallas
|
2006112219
|
DALLAS, Nov. 21 -- Before Tuesday night's game against the Dallas Mavericks, it was pointed out to Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas that although the Mavericks were riding a six-game winning streak, they had looked almost nothing like the dominant team that won 60 games last season before pushing the eventual champion Miami Heat to the brink in the NBA Finals.
"I know, but don't say that," Arenas said. "They might put it all together tonight."
After the Mavericks blew open a competitive game with a 29-8 second-half run and cruised to an easy 107-80 win in front of a sold-out crowd of 20,080, Arenas recalled that pregame observation.
"I told you so," he said.
The Wizards (4-6) dropped to 0-5 away from Verizon Center and continue a three-game road trip Wednesday in Houston against the Rockets. The Wizards aren't likely to win anywhere if they play the way they did for the final three quarters Tuesday night.
After a hot first quarter, during which Arenas scored 15 of his 29 points as Washington built a 30-21 lead, the shots stopped falling, the defense lagged and the Mavericks ran the Wizards off the court. The 80 points were a season low for Washington.
The game was tied at 58 with 7 minutes 57 seconds remaining in the third quarter when Dirk Nowitzki made an open three pointer from the corner. The Wizards missed their next nine field goal attempts -- most of them jump shots -- and the Mavericks buried their guests under an avalanche of offense.
Devin Harris drove down the lane for an easy layup, Nowitzki grabbed an offensive rebound and laid it back in, Greg Buckner made an open three-pointer and Harris hit another, giving Dallas a 70-60 lead with 2:53 remaining in the third.
Dallas (7-4) was playing its fourth game in five nights but surprised the Wizards by matching their energy when the game turned into an up-and-down track meet in the second half.
"My thinking was that for Dallas to play four games in five nights, that it was the pace we wanted to be in at that time, but it was the opposite result," Wizards Coach Eddie Jordan said. "At the end of the [third] quarter, they made their run. They made shots and we didn't make shots. We felt we could have the energy and outlast them for the entire 48 minutes."
As usual, Washington's production mirrored that of Arenas, who made only 2 of 10 three-point attempts overall and just 2 of 8 shots in the second half. Arenas, who has struggled on the road all season, said he was comfortable with the shots he was taking but simply wasn't getting them to go down.
"We couldn't buy a shot, and they eventually hit their stride," Arenas said. "We were getting good shots, but by that third quarter, we tried to run them out of the gym and it backfired a little bit."
Arenas's aggressiveness worked against the Wizards because once he started misfiring, the Mavericks pushed the ball hard the other way. His teammates were too often observers, especially during the third quarter, when Dallas held a 25-13 scoring advantage.
The Wizards wound up shooting 35.5 percent from the field, made 2 of 15 three-point attempts, and were outrebounded 57-43. The Wizards totaled a paltry 10 assists and committed 16 turnovers.
"We have to look in the mirror and realize that we're only successful when everyone's getting involved," said forward Caron Butler, who finished with 12 points and 11 rebounds on 4-of-9 shooting. "That's the only we can win."
The Mavericks experienced no such problems. Nowitzki scored 30 points on efficient 11-of-19 shooting, Harris and Jason Terry each added 18 points and the reserves outscored Washington's reserves 32-15. The Mavericks racked up 23 assists and made 14 of 34 three-point attempts.
The Wizards, Toronto Raptors (0-6), Memphis Grizzlies (0-6) and Los Angeles Clippers (0-3) are the only teams without a road win. The Wizards will attempt to separate themselves Wednesday night in Houston, a place they haven't won since 2001.
"I told them: 'Tonight was the first game of a three-game trip,' " Jordan said. "It's one loss and we have to suck it up because we have two more to win. It's as simple as that."
|
Dirk Nowitski, above, scores 30 points to go along with 14 rebounds and five assists Tuesday as the Mavericks break open a close game in the third quarter to hammer the Wizards, 107-80.
| 23.205128 | 0.820513 | 1.538462 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101295.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101295.html
|
Army Debuts New Slogan In Recruiting Commercials
|
2006112219
|
The Army, facing another tough recruiting season, launched a $200 million-a-year advertising campaign this month and unveiled a new slogan: "Army Strong."
The campaign's core message is that the Army builds not only physical but also mental and emotional strength in recruits, bonding them into a powerful, close-knit team.
"There's strong, and then there's Army strong," a deep male voice intones as martial music rises from a brass band in the background.
The television ads, launched nationwide for Veterans Day along with Internet placements and other outreach, omit all but the most fleeting images related to the all-volunteer Army's biggest endeavor ever: the war in Iraq.
The main 30- and 60-second ads show soldiers jogging in formation, scaling a rope obstacle course and leaping out of a helicopter -- all take place in what appear to be familiar, grassy, domestic settings. The only brief glimpse of what could possibly be Iraq is of a group of soldiers hastily raising a tent -- although, unlike others in the ad, these soldiers wear no helmets or body armor.
There are obvious reasons the Army might not want to underscore to potential recruits, and their parents, that signing up these days almost inevitably means deployment to combat zones in Afghanistan or Iraq, where the majority of the more than 2,850 killed and 21,000 wounded have been soldiers.
The Army missed its fiscal 2005 recruiting target by more than 6,000 soldiers but rebounded last year with the aid of thousands of added recruiters, a doubling of the maximum enlistment bonus to $40,000 and some eased standards. The Army begins fiscal 2007 with another hefty target of 80,000 recruits and only about 15 percent already in the pipeline -- compared with a goal of 25 to 30 percent.
Army officials acknowledge that parents and other influential adults are less likely to recommend military service today because of the ongoing conflicts, and surveys have shown that the wars have made some young people more wary of enlisting.
To address these concerns, two of the ads feature the parents of soldiers -- a farming couple and a mechanic and his wife -- whose worries about Army service evolve into pride. "I was pretty nervous, apprehensive," says the father, wearing a 1st Infantry Division cap and standing beside a cornfield.
"If your son or daughter wants to talk with you about joining the Army, listen. You made them strong, we'll make them Army strong," the announcer says in the English and Spanish ads launched on MTV, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel and other stations.
The television ads are coupled with Internet recruiting initiatives aimed at helping youths do their own research, including a presence on YouTube, Google, Yahoo and MySpace. Last Friday, the campaign expanded to offer potential recruits an "Ask a Soldier" discussion forum at GoArmy.com.
New York advertising firm McCann Erickson designed the campaign after winning the two-year Army contract, which can be renewed for three additional years.
|
The Army, facing another tough recruiting season, launched a $200 million-a-year advertising campaign this month and unveiled a new slogan: "Army Strong."
| 17.636364 | 1 | 33 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100482.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100482.html
|
West Bank Settlements Often Use Private Palestinian Land, Study Says
|
2006112219
|
JERUSALEM, Nov. 21 -- An Israeli advocacy group has found that 39 percent of the land used by Jewish settlements in the West Bank is private Palestinian property, which the organization contends is a violation of international and Israeli law guaranteeing property rights in the occupied territories.
In a report released here Tuesday, the Settlement Watch project of Peace Now also disclosed that much of the land that Israeli officials have said would remain part of the Jewish state under any final peace agreement is private Palestinian property.
That includes some of the large settlement blocs inside the barrier that Israel is building to separate Israelis from the Palestinian population in the West Bank. The report states that 86 percent of Maale Adumim on Jerusalem's eastern edge sits on private Palestinian land. A little more than 35 percent of the settlement of Ariel, which cuts deep into the northern West Bank, is also on private property.
Peace Now is an advocacy group that supports the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel and contends that Jewish settlements in the West Bank, where roughly 250,000 Israelis live, represent a major obstacle to achieving one.
Israel's government has long maintained that the settlements, developed in large part with public money, sit on untitled property known as "state land" or on property of unclear legal status. Israeli courts have ruled that unauthorized outposts erected on private Palestinian property must be razed, although those orders are rarely carried out.
The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government's contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state's own data to make the case. Israeli officials said Tuesday they are studying the findings.
The report's authors, Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran, note that "it is difficult to assess all of the political and legal implications" of their findings. But "it is clear," they write, "that the settlement enterprise has, since its inception, ignored Israeli law and undermined not only the collective property rights of the Palestinians as a people, but also the private property rights of individual Palestinian landowners." The report states that the settlements occupy a total of 15,271 acres of private Palestinian land.
The report draws on maps and data from the Civil Administration, the military authority Israel established to govern the West Bank following the 1967 Middle East war. Its findings were reported first in Tuesday's New York Times.
The database was also used by a state commission, headed by Talia Sasson, a lawyer, that issued a critical report last year on the expansion of unauthorized Jewish outposts in the West Bank. Peace Now officials said they were leaked the information after Israeli courts delayed a hearing on their petition for the data earlier this year.
The Israeli government did not annex the West Bank after the 1967 war -- keeping the Palestinian population there from voting in the Jewish state -- and soon began sponsoring settlement construction in the territories. International law has been widely interpreted to prohibit civilian settlement or construction on land occupied during war.
As the report notes, the West Bank has been under Ottoman, British, Jordanian and Israeli control over the past century, leaving a highly complicated land registry and murky title in many cases.
The report defines private property in the West Bank as land registered by Palestinians before 1968, when Israel stopped the process, and cultivated land that Israel recognizes as private under Ottoman law. It focuses on the West Bank and does not examine property in East Jerusalem, whose annexation by Israel is not recognized internationally.
Of the land occupied by the settlements, the report found, 54 percent is so-called state land while nearly 6 percent is designated "survey land," meaning its legal status is unclear. The report notes that 1.3 percent of the settlement areas is "Jewish land."
The report says Israel most commonly seizes private land citing "military purposes." That designation leaves the land in the name of its Palestinian owners but gives control to the Israeli army for a period that can be extended indefinitely. In other cases, Palestinians are offered compensation by the Israeli government, something they usually refuse in protest.
Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said Tuesday that the government would comment on the report's methods and findings once officials have had time to review it. Olmert won election in March on a pledge to withdraw Israel from much of the West Bank, while holding on to the settlement blocs inside the wall.
"We have to read the full report to understand it," Eisin said. She added that "even if it turns out only 5 percent is private land, that is something we must take note of."
In another development, Israeli troops pushed into the Gaza Strip early Tuesday and killed two Palestinians in fighting near the village of Zeitun. One of them was identified as Ayman Daif Allah, 25, a senior commander of the governing Hamas movement's military wing. Palestinian medical workers said Saadiya Herez, 70, was also killed by gunfire.
The operation is part of Israeli military efforts to stop Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel that has spiked in recent days. At least four rockets fell Tuesday in and around the Israeli town of Sderot, fatally wounding a factory worker. The U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, was visiting Sderot at the time of the attack.
|
JERUSALEM, Nov. 21 -- An Israeli advocacy group has found that 39 percent of the land used by Jewish settlements in the West Bank is private Palestinian property, which the organization contends is a violation of international and Israeli law guaranteeing property rights in the occupied territories.
| 20.68 | 1 | 50 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111700737.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111700737.html
|
Science: Truth Serum
|
2006112119
|
Washington Post science writer David Brown, who is also a medical doctor, was online to discuss his Monday science page story about the history and search for a truth serum, as well as speculation that scientists are still looking for one to enhance interrogation methods.
Read the story: Some Believe 'Truth Serums' Will Come Back (Post, Nov. 20)
David Brown: Greetings everyone. This is the chat about so-called "truth serums." I'm drug-free but will try to answer truthfully to the best of my ability.
San Francisco, Calif.: It's already here. It's not a drug.
They won't even have to ask questions. They'll just show you a Power Point presentation and judge your reactions while you are humanely strapped to the table.
It's been discuss some, but not widely. I think the main reason it hasn't been pushed is the interrogators fear they might become interrogates.
Imagine Hardball or Meet The Press when you could see if they actually believed what they said or not...Or a Tony Snow press conference where he couldn't lie without everyone knowing.
David Brown: You're right that functional MRI (fMRI) is another technology that is of interest to interrogators these days. My impression, however, is that it (like polygraph machines) is intended to determine when someone is deceiving the questioner. It obviously would not be useful in eliciting a fact that someone is willfully withholding---which of course is what "truth serums" are supposed to do. At least that is my understanding of this latest strategy for lie-detection.
Rockville, Md.: I have a question about privacy. While I realize a truth serum would be great to have to interrogate terrorists and criminals, what are the ethical implications of discovering one and how do privacy protections play into this?
David Brown: This is of course a very complicated topic. Certainly at a minimum, any research on the behavioral effects of a new compound or a pharmaceutical used for a new purpose would have to be done with the consent of the experimental subject. So "informed consent" (which is related to privacy in some ways) would have to be observed on the route to discovering a truth drug. As to its use, the commentator in the Stanford Law Review that I mentioned in the story suggested that "it might be advisable to attach to any interrogation taking place under the influence of truth serum the same sorts of protections and requirements associated with electronic surveillance procedures"--that is wiretaps. This would require going before a judge, arguing the need for it, etc. Of course there are many, many people who would think that even with lots of legal restrictions and due process that giving a drug to someone to help force them to reveal something is a form of assault and that it could never be defended or condoned.
Boise, Idaho: Have you read Jon Ronson's "The Men Who Stare at Goats"? Apparently one of the things Frank Olson was involved in was getting "expendables", i.e. captured Russian agents, hooked on heroin and then interrogating them as they went through withdrawal. Another version of truth serum?
David Brown: A number of readers have contacted me with their views of the death of Dr. Frank Olson, who fell to his death from a hotel window and was involved in the CIA MK-ULTRA program in some way. I understand that his son believes he was murdered and did not commit suicide, and that the body was exhumed 40 years later and at least one pathologist believes there was evidence of homicide (namely, a head wound.). But this is all totally second hand information to me; I have no knowledge about this case and don't really want to pursue it here. Also, I have not read Jon Ronson's book. As to heroin withdrawal as "truth serum"---no ideas on that, although I do know that some proponents of pharmaceutical interrogation aids believe that anything that gives a sense of well-being and relaxation might be useful. That is presumably some of the reason ethanol has been tried in the past.
Bulls Gap, Tenn.: In the 1950's and ism, the CIA, including GHW Bush contracted with entire Ivy League Psychology Departments to make people talk, which is pretty easy actually. The big problem is making certain people forget- like John Hinckley and the terrorists.
During the Korean War, the Army used electro and insulin shock treatments and lobotomies, among others, to make sure soldiers wouldn't remember atrocities and the like, but those techniques are much too extreme by today's standards.
What is the current state of "Forget serum" research?
David Brown: Don't know anything about this either. As to "forget serum"---there are certainly pharmaceuticals that provide amnesia for an event that occurs while the drug is active (such drugs are used in colonoscopies and other unpleasant procedures), but wiping out memories that are already consolidated in the brain is an entirely different question that I don't have any competence to discuss.
Lorton, Va.: I was horrified to see recently in Indian TC, the police recording statement from an accused after injecting some kind of truth serum. What is the your (ethical) view of injecting someone (accused not convicted) without his permission. I think it is equivalent to torture.
David Brown: It is true that police authorities in India occasionally use truth serum. My understanding is that after a train load of Hindu activists who had visited a disputed temple were killed by a fire set on the train by Muslims that sodium pentothal was administered to five suspects and the information was used to arrest others. But, again, this is all entirely second-hand information to me. I have not done any original reporting on it.
Reston, Va.: Do we really want the Federal government developing or using truth serum drugs? Won't this lead to even more loss of civil liberties in America? How about legislation to ban the development and use of any such drugs?
David Brown: I was surprised to learn (again, from that Stanford Law Review article) that there are apparently no laws against the use of truth serum, although there are many court holdings against testimony derived from its use. Presumably legal bans could be enacted.
Washington, D.C.: I absolutely agree that an effective truth serum would be a humane alternative to our current interrogation approach. Although this is surely moral relativism. Still, I'm highly skeptical about the efficacy of a drug designed to alter cognitive functioning. The whole idea reminds me of the age-old search for an aphrodisiac. And the market for that product is surely much larger!
David Brown: It seems to me that the use of a "truth serum" is predicated on the idea that the principal reason that someone doesn't answer a question truthfully is that there are inhibitions that are holding the truth back. Under this model, a truth serum would release the truth by removing those inhibitions, and the truth would pop to the surface from its own natural buoyancy, like a log freed from an underwater snag. This strikes me as a very simplistic view of what goes on when one answers a question truthfully and candidly. It seems to me--again, not a psychologist or expert in any way--that there is a lot more volition involved in truth-telling than the "truth serum" model would suggest. Plus there is the whole question of things that someone once knew but that have been genuinely forgotten and are therefore presumably beyond reach even if there is the will to answer truthfully.
Washington, D.C.: So the recent article acknowledged that there was no way of knowing whether money was being poured into research for this. Why the sudden interest?
David Brown: No sudden interest. An editor brought up the question a couple of months ago, during the debate about the limits of interrogation of the Guantanamo detainees (and others), about what had ever happened to "truth serum." I believe Bill Clinton also made passing reference to truth serum in an interview.
Philadelphia, Pa.: These efforts at truth detection: is it truthfulness or anxiety that is being detected, with the premise that one becomes anxious when lying? If that is the case, isn't it true that a person who can lie without anxiety can escape detection?
David Brown: Detecting lies is a different task from eliciting truth. As I understand it, polygraph ("lie detector") testing is based on the detection of anxiety during the act of lying. But as many, many people have pointed out (and shown) it is possible for people to be telling the truth and be very anxious about it---especially if you're all wired up and you know that if you're anxious you may be declared a liar! And then there are people who can control various autonomic responses and lie without anxiety.
Columbia, S.C.: To what extent are ethical behaviors grounded in physiology?
Is it logical to suggest that, if there is such a thing as a "truth" serum, then there is also a "false" serum in which a person can tell nothing but lies?
David Brown: Well,if you have a materialist/scientific point of view, all behavior (and cognition and emotion) is grounded in physiology. As to a "false serum"---something that makes you talk crazy? There's been a lot of candidates for that over the years too, including alcohol, the original truth serum. As you can see, I'm a bit skeptical about both.
Boston, Mass.: So how does sodium pentathol work? And why doesn't it work? Your article shattered a myth I'd clung to since childhood.... and I'm feeling oddly liberated without it!
David Brown: I don't have the pharmacology of Pentothal at hand, but the barbiturates clearly have sedative effects globally, and I believe may have some slight euphoria-producing effect as well. In high doses, they depress respiration, and in very high doses they are fatal, which is why they are used as part of the "lethal injection" cocktails for execution.
Arlington, Va.: The fMRI comment earlier was perhaps referring to the phenomenon whereby you can measure the "recognition" of an image. Applied to a person's face, this would "elicit" an answer to a question, "do you know Person X" even though the interrogatee would not speak. In disclosing personal networks, associations and so on this is important. There is some evidence the Chinese are involved in this (using EEG or electroencephalograms), presumably with an eye to unraveling networks of dissidents.
David Brown: I certainly understand how fMRI and other techniques (some of which involved the motion of the eyes) could be used to help determine whether someone has prior knowledge of something or someone presented to him. But I guess I don't understand how it could help very much if the question was: "On what airplane is the bomb?"
False confessions: I went to a lecture by a former homicide detective discussing the surprisingly high rate of false confessions during interrogations from people with no intention of confessing and without any sort of high pressure tactic. He showed videos of various police interrogations that seemed so reasonable, calmly asking factual questions and with breaks for food and rest, and the alleged perpetrators ended up falsely confessing based on the smallest clues. These people were educated, alert and not in the least suggestible (or so it seemed), originally denied everything vigorously, but somehow ended up constructing very believable stories of confession based on the smallest details they subconsciously noticed. In fact, the detective stressed how carefully they try to do interrogations in a manner to prevent false confessions, yet it still happened. It was honestly scary, and it is very hard to believe that drugs will elicit very useful information. If the fully alert brain is capable of playing such tricks, won't a drugged one be even more susceptible? After all, torture has been completely discredited as a means to gain reliable information.
David Brown: I totally agree that the phenomenon of people confessing to things that they didn't do is extremely strange, hard to understand, and frankly scary. It suggests that, as I suggested earlier, that truth-telling is not the sort of simple mechanism that "truth serums" presuppose. I suppose someone who believed in a truth serum might say that the elaborate confabulation that goes on when someone confesses to something they didn't do would not be possible under truth serum. But of course these are all just dueling theories. The only way to determine the "operating characteristics" of a truth serum would be do research on its use in very different circumstances and by a wide variety of recipients. Which brings us back to the beginning----do we want to do this to begin with, or is it at base an unethical undertaking? That's a question I didn't really address in the story, but is one that would have to be answered.
David Brown: Anyway, thanks for listening and to paraphrase Bud Collyer, host "To Tell the Truth" TV show--"don't you forget to tell the truth."
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.
|
Washington Post science writer David Brown will be online to discuss the history and search for truth serum.
| 138.157895 | 1 | 4.263158 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_goodhart/2006/11/end_of_the_united_kingdom.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_goodhart/2006/11/end_of_the_united_kingdom.html
|
The End of the United Kingdom?
|
2006112119
|
London, England - One of the world's most successful multinational states, and a key ally of the United States, could in a few months time start to unravel: I mean, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The process will be set in motion if the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) ends up the largest party in the Scottish parliament after elections next May. This is a distinct possibility. The break up of the UK will not be inevitable even if the SNP do dominate the parliament, but it will certainly make the political classes of Britain -- and perhaps of the U.S. and the main EU states too -- think hard about the point and value of the union to them. (Ironically, the elections will come just a matter of days after the 300th anniversary of the creation of modern Britain when the Scottish and English parliaments were merged in 1707.) Most people in England who think about these things assumed that the "Scottish question" had been dealt with when, as one of the first acts of the Blair government elected in 1997, it announced the creation of a devolved Scottish parliament with wide ranging powers over domestic matters. But disillusionment with the performance of that parliament (and the UK parliament in London), the long-standing belief that the English "stole" Scotland's oil and gas, and the postmodern temptations of identity politics, have put independence back on the agenda (a recent opinion poll found 51 percent of Scots favoring it). And a new front has now been opened up in the independence debate from the political right. Writing in the latest issue of London-based Prospect magazine, Michael Fry, a conservative Scottish historian, argues that the only way to revive the moderate right in Scotland and to better reflect the country's conservative Calvinistic soul is for former Tories like himself to back the SNP. If enough Tories heed Fry's advice it makes the likelihood of a SNP victory in May even more likely.
That would be bad news for Gordon Brown, the British chancellor, who should be taking over from Tony Blair as prime minister soon after those May elections. Brown, who is a Scot, is well aware that following devolution many people in England question whether it is possible for a Scot to become prime minister -- hence he has been making many speeches about the importance of Britishness. (Unfortunately for him Britishness continues to become less meaningful, especially to the Scots, as those things that helped to create and sustain it such as empire, world wars, Protestantism and the labor movement, fade from memory and importance.) If the chatter about full independence started to grow louder, as it surely would with an SNP-dominated parliament, that could cast further doubt on Brown's standing as an all-British prime minister. It might also tempt David Cameron's reviving Conservative party to finally cast themselves as an English party. Losing Scotland's 5 million people would not be a huge blow to England's size (more than 50m) and would not damage its main economic and cultural assets. But it would dent its standing in the wider world and might call into question things like the UK's permanent membership of the UN security council. More important it would be another depressing victory for tribalism. The Anglo-Scottish double act has been a rare example of successful multi-culturalism, with the moral earnestness of the Scots leavening the famous pragmatism of the English. On a more practical note, the Ireland model -- with its dynamic economy, and national self-confidence -- is increasingly popular in SNP circles. Yet Ireland looks far more like America than the social-democratic Scandinavian states that the left-wing Scots Nationalists admire. To emulate the Irish model, the Scots would probably need to cut public spending by one-third, not a good start to life as an independent nation.
--- If you'd like to receive PostGlobal email updates, please click here and press send
By David Goodhart | November 21, 2006; 12:00 PM ET
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/13405
The people of the United States decided long ago that they were better off without London taking decisions for them.
Was that decision an example of tribalism? Or just the common sense choice for your nation?
Mr Goodhart writes from a peculiarly British perspective, but his is a very out of date view. Scotland's 18th century union may serve London well but for decades it has been bad news for Scotland. As part of Britain we have had the lowest long-term economic growth in the EU, with family incomes being squeezed, interest rates higher and wages lower.
And at the same time as Scotland underperforms, similar neighbouring nations like Ireland, Norway and Iceland - all the same size, in the same part of the world and with similar talents and resources - are at the top of world wealth and quality of life league tables. Just last week the UN described Norway as the best place in the world to live, Iceland was second, Ireland fourth. Scotland as part of Britain had fallen 3 places to 18th. That is not good enough for my nation. We no longer want or need London remote control. Instead we want a new more modern relationship with the people of England as two equal nations, partners in much of what we do, but like Ireland, Norway or Iceland, free to prosper.
The readers of this blog in the USA know what it means to be free and able to make your own success. It is time Scotland had that opportunity.
Posted by: Stephen N | November 20, 2006 04:55 PM
This piece starts well but ends badly.
The author is correct in his analysis that currently the SNP are the more likely winners of the Scottish election next May, and that this is partly due to the continuing failures of devolution to work to significantly and substantially improve the lives of those in Scotland. That's why even die-hard opponents of Scottish Independence such as Michael Fry have now switched positions and are backing self-determination.
Given the current lack of willingness for a real contest for the leadership of the post-Blair British Labour Party within present members of the Cabinet, it may well be that Gordon Brown's inability to secure Labour votes at home may be what forces the hand of the Blairites to enter the contest.
But the article is simply let down by its ending. On current projections, Scotland has a relative surplus of 4.34 billion pounds compared to the UK and an absolute surplus of 1.01 billion pounds - not a bad start for any new country.
Add to this the potiential to grow the economy that full powers will give people in Scotland and it's understandable why the majority view in Scotland's business community is that have more powers will benefit Scots and the Scottish economy.
Posted by: Jay Gee | November 20, 2006 06:00 PM
"To emulate the Irish model, the Scots would probably need to cut public spending by one-third, not a good start to life as an independent nation."
Really? On what basis does the author make that assertion?
With North Sea oil revenues (75-90% in the Scottish area) keeping down the UK's borrowing requirement for the government's fiscal deficit how does it transpire that it is Scotland which would cut public spending?
Posted by: Slim Jim Baxter | November 20, 2006 06:49 PM
This is far more complicated than just one parliament declaring independence.
The issues of a common Monarch between England and Scotland are the result of 700 years of wars and intermarriage.
I doubt the current inhabitance of Windsor castle would be willing to give up the Scottish crown and remove the coat of arms of Scotland from their flag.
And if they don't, then they are still one "Kingdom" no matter how much autonomy London gives them, and with that comes some sort of higher authority than they would have under an indpendant state.
Unless they did something along the lines of what Canada and Australia have done.
Posted by: Doug | November 20, 2006 07:18 PM
I found the article interesting. I would think a federal system would take care of this problem, I'd guess the Scottish Parliament doesn't have any real authority then. A UK without Scotland is definitely weaker, whither then Northern Ireland? Would they attempt to hang onto Scotland? What then happens in Wales? At what point do you have negotiations on exactly where the borders would be? Would each section of Scotland have to approve it, or would there be a 'Southern Scotland' attached to England?
Posted by: John Lease | November 20, 2006 07:23 PM
What annoys me is the mis-informed suggestion that we want to keep our neighbours from hell!.A few comments you may find interesting: England needs to be recognised and treated as a unified country. Scotland and Wales have been recognised as countries and their people given the opportunity to vote in referenda for devolved government. Scotland now has a parliament, and Wales an assembly. In contrast, the people of England have been denied the opportunity to choose an English Parliament. Instead, England is being dismembered into nine regions. We find this discrimination unacceptable. England should be a political entity with its own parliament and executive. The immediate abandonment of the Barnett formula. The formula institutionalises discrimination against the people of England by ensuring that public spending in Scotland and Wales is far higher per head of population than in England. The Barnett formula diverts about £8 billion of extra public expenditure to Scotland each year. This means that the entire population of Scotland enjoys a subsidy averaging £30 per person per week. This has meant, for example, smaller class sizes in Scotland, higher pay for teachers, shorter hospital waiting lists, and the availability of prescription drugs and surgical procedures which are unavailable in England on grounds of cost. This unjustified discrimination must end. A new fairer system is needed which enables England's share of the £8 billion to be used to improve public services in England. Free the English....please vote for independance and take your politicians with you.
David Ford Lane English Democrat
Posted by: David Ford Lane | November 20, 2006 07:32 PM
Goodhart misses the point spectacularly when it comes to comparisons between Scotland and Ireland.
Scotland does not have the economic problems which Ireland had until the late 1980s. In running a large relative budget surplus to the UK thanks to strong oil and corporation tax revenues, an independent Scotland could emulate Irish corporate tax cuts without risking a budget deficit.
Of course, as part of the UK, Scotland has fewer powers over her economy than the state of Rhode Island. That's why Ireland is stealing a march on Scotland, and why she will continue to do so for so long as Scotland is shackled to the economic policies deemed most appropriate for the well-being of the City of London.
Is it pedantic to point out that 'England's size' is, well, England's size, regardless of whether Britain remains intact or not? And as for independence meaning 'tribalism', I'm sure people like Goodhart were making the same very arguments when the Baltic States won freedom from the Soviet Union, and when the Austro-Hungarian Empire disintegrated.
Truly, in David Goodhart, the Habsburgs are alive and well, and chattering round a dinner table in Hampstead.
Posted by: Richard Thomson | November 20, 2006 07:37 PM
Independence for Scotland wouldn't be "another depressing victory for tribalism." Empires that were assembled at gunpoint/swordpoint (UK, USSR, the Austro-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia) aren't legitimate and are likely to unravel. If after all this time the Scots don't feel like they got a fair deal from the Brits, we should support their right to self-determination.
Posted by: Irish American | November 20, 2006 07:37 PM
I am glad to see England face this SCOTTISH SYNDROME and to see how Englishman handle it. No "civilization clash" here, I do not know why Scottich wants to break away from England. To my best understand, I would like to make a educated guess here, Scotland will still unite with England for at least 50 years. Reason: if they break away, each will fall into the third -rated country. No one wants it.
Posted by: taichilo | November 20, 2006 07:42 PM
I am Scottish and am in literally two minds about this.
Interesting discussion; I spent Saturday afternoon in the new Parliament building and was staggered by it and its location.
It is very tempting to see if we can plough our own furrow.
As to Mr Ford Lane's comment about finance for Scotland under the Barnett formula, that's OK, remove it.
We will go our own way and keep our own oil and gas.
We would be as rich as Norway.
I LIKE the English and do not want a divorce.
Next May I will be voting against independence.
Posted by: jh1241 | November 20, 2006 08:07 PM
To Irish-American. Scots recieving a raw deal from Brits? I think your getting your labels mixed up. Currently Scots are Brits, just like the English are Brits. It's a common mis-conception that Brits = just the English. It referes to anyone who comes from the British isles. Most of the UK's powerful cabinet positions are controlled by Scottish MP's who weren't voted for and are unaccountable to English voters. Imagine if Canada and the US where unified but Canada called all of the shots from Washington and none of it's Senators where voted for by US citizens, and you get an simplified idea of the current state of play in the UK. Scotland is welcome to it's independence and the quicker they vote for it the better I believe it will be for the English.
Posted by: Anglo-American | November 20, 2006 08:07 PM
With a Scottish Stuart ancestor on my mother's side, I like nearly all of us have been inundated with Scottish nationalist hero stories from Robert the Bruce, to Bonnie Prince Charlie and William Wallace. The Romans built Hadrian's Wall to keep the barbarous and wild Scots out of Britannia. The Scots are never satisfied and I suspect that if they break away from Britain, they will soon devolve into fighting amongst themselves as they did before the Romans and the English tried to "civilize" them. As with the Quebecois in Canada, the British should divest themselves of these atavistic tribes and move on.
Posted by: Jon A. Christopherson | November 20, 2006 08:09 PM
Now the British get to taste their own medicine. Divide and conquer is the tactic. What is next? Hawaiians want to be independent? Time will tell.
Posted by: blowback? | November 20, 2006 08:19 PM
"A depressing victory for tribalism"? What rubbish. Scotland has been ill-served by the union with England. In 1707, when the union was formed, we had one third of England's population. Now we have less than one tenth. That says it all.
Posted by: Paul G | November 20, 2006 08:20 PM
The United Kingdom was split asunder when: 1. The Scots, Welsh and N. Irish people chose devolution. 2. Lord Barnett arbitrarily decided that, per capita, Scots, Welsh and N. Irish residents should have more money spent on them than on English residents. 3. Scottish MPs at Westminster voted yes to legislation that brought about tuition fees for English university students, Knowing that their counterparts in the Scottish parliament had voted to give Scottish university students a free education. 4. The English NHS deprived English patients of life saving drugs, knowing that these drugs were available to Scottish and Welsh patients. 5. The elderly residents of England were forced to sell their homes in order to pay for social care, for the elderly Scots it was free. 6. When MPs elected to Westminster by Scots voters could vote on purely English matters but had no say in the affairs of their home country and were unaccountable to the English electorate. There is plenty more where that came from but from this sample alone, who can dare say that there is unity of any kind between the erstwhile constituents of the United Kingdom. I say good luck to the Scots in their bid for independence, they will not be the only country set free.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 20, 2006 08:22 PM
It's a great piece. I particularly like Goodhart's description, "the moral earnestness of the Scots leavening the famous pragmatism of the English"- who knew such generalities could be substantive.
The 'British Question' has plenty of idiosyncrasies, but if you survey the forest accounting for the vagaries of its trees, it shares remarkable similarities with the tens of dozens of other 'tribal' antagonisms afflicting the old world. Each side has its blood boiling narratives and pride, each is inextricably tied to the other by myriad dual loyalties, mixed blood, shared religions and traditions. To the extent that blunt force political and institutional segregation is the answer to such problems, I wonder if it doesn't bode poorly for the future and the growing global propensity to reduce conflict to perceived ethnic, national and religious differences.
Posted by: Dan | November 20, 2006 08:34 PM
if scotland gained independenc it would be annexed faster than you could say United Kingdom.
Posted by: Numan | November 20, 2006 08:39 PM
"United Kingdom" indeed. It makes one sick just to pronounce the phrase. Down with all royalty, may they rot good and well.
Posted by: Andy | November 20, 2006 08:52 PM
Several posters (Stephen N in particular) seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Scotland is somehow oppressed by its neighbor to the south when, if anything, the opposite is true. Scottish MP's routinely vote on purely English affairs and, most eggregiously, the Home Secretary, the man charged with overseeing English law and order, is a Scot. If the Scotish people do decide that they're fed up with English taxpayers subsidizing their public services, I suspect the average Englishman won't loose much sleep over it.
Posted by: MSL | November 20, 2006 09:36 PM
the problem with scotland, is that it's full of scots
Posted by: jeff | November 20, 2006 09:36 PM
the problem with england, it's full of snots
(...and royal bloodsuckers and lackeys of Washington)
Posted by: andy | November 20, 2006 09:41 PM
Posted by: answer | November 20, 2006 09:44 PM
England needs to be freed from the theiving Scots.
The Scots are currently ruling over England, and the English have had enough
Posted by: English Democrat | November 20, 2006 10:01 PM
It seems to me that the silly notion of nations has passed. It is probably time to revive the idea of "tribes" or communities of related individuals. Given the capacities of communication and travel, having an additional layer of national governments just leads to power mad demogogs seizing despotic rule of people who have no stake in anything that is done by such folks.
There is no useful purpose in having Scotland, Ireland, or even Wales combined into a "nation" except for those who wish to play the Power game. Cooperation where it works can be easily negotiated between neighbors, forced activities by a National group just breeds resentment and does not contribute to the good of the peoples involved. This idea relates to all of the groupings of the European nations, and the disUnited States would be a much better citizen of the world if its component parts were independent.
The UN could morph into the World Federation with Continent size sub units. Course we would have to destroy all of the war toys, and let the people start anew with axes and spears!
Posted by: Leo Myers | November 20, 2006 10:10 PM
I am an American, and I've got to admit I don't really know what the situation is with you guys in the UK, but I hope that whatever decision is made that it goes through without any violence or nastiness. There's already far too much fighting in the world. People look to the UK as a model for civility and reason.
Posted by: Jonathan75 | November 20, 2006 10:15 PM
One interesting note: If Scotland became independent, the UK would no longer be a nuclear power, as all of Britain's nuclear weapons and submarines are north of the border.
My suggestion is to just bring back the England v Scotland football match to settle it.
Posted by: Celtic Ranger | November 20, 2006 10:32 PM
Goodhart's nauseatingly Scotocentric article is full of the usual simplistic and biased Scottish good / English bad rubbish which we in England have had to put up with over the years . He completely fails to appreciate that most of the English are heartily fed up with our northern neighbours' hectoring , spoilt , racist attitude to us and the absurdly overprivileged status they have in terms of government expenditure and massive political over representation . All this , by the way , at the hands of a Scottish dominated British government which carefully denies England a national parliament along the lines of the Scottish parliament and forces us to put up with a British parliament about which we were never consulted in 1706 - though Scotland was , at length . A better model might be the 1993 split of Czeckoslovakia when the long tolerant Czecks became terminaly fed up with the endlessly curmudeonly Slovaks and collectively decided to get shot of them .
Much the same mental process is now happening is England . Belatedly , most English are coming to the realisation that it might well be better to be free of Scotland , which would mean a free England . Lets hope the Scots have the guts to do it on 1/05/2007 and don't chicken out .
England will be the freer and better for it and richer too( Scotland will have to shoulder its share of British national debt ) .
Posted by: Jason | November 20, 2006 10:33 PM
Scotland can prosper independently because the European Union envelopes Britain. Law, not might, governs the affairs between peoples in Europe.
Under the tent of the European Union, there is more ethnic self-determination everywhere. The Irish government, for example, was only able to cooperate with London when the European Union guaranteed that law, not coercio, governs the relationships between states. That laid the foundation for ending the terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Likewise the European Union provided groundrules to defuse ethnic conflict and devolution in Spain. Even unitary France is granting regions and peoples more autonomy. Belgium has become a federation between a Walloon and a Flemish state.
There will be few draw backs to Scotland going its own ways. Like Dublin, Edingburgh and Glasgow will move from the British periphery to European centers once Scotland is independent.
As Iraq demonstrates the limits of Anglo military might there is no reason to remain the appendix of England. On the contrary, once Scotland becomes independent, there is a good chance that Dublin and Glasgow will once again become metropolitan hubs.
Posted by: Yockel | November 20, 2006 10:37 PM
Independence for Shetland and Orkney! If Faroe gets its own World Cup team, why not them? For far too long the lazybones in Glasgow and Edinburgh have been stealing the right to claim that "England" has been stealing "Scottish" oil revenue. These are Shetland and Orkney revenues and the sooner the Earldom is revived the better.
Posted by: Will Smih | November 20, 2006 10:38 PM
I recently returned to the US after spending a year in England as a racialized minority. I mostly had negative experiences there. England has tremendous internal social problems regarding race relations; basically, immigrants from the countries formerly colonized are arriving in England en masse, and neither the healthcare nor education systems are capable of handling the challenges. Immigrants are set apart from the mainstream population in cultural enclaves. Perhaps there are cultural reasons the Scots are looking for a divorce from England; from my experiences interacting with English institutions, it is clear to me that England as a society still suffers from the need to promote homogeneity...even more so than where I grew up in the deep South.
Posted by: Anita | November 20, 2006 10:43 PM
Danny boy, there would be no woods or trees to worry about had the European Union not decided that, for the purpose of easier governance, the UK should be divided into 12 regions (Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland were the first 3, stealthily disguised as a means to enhance democracy by de-centralisation). This has exacerbated the problem that you highlighted in your post. Instead of 4 countries getting along, quite nicely, thank you, for the last 300 years there will be 12 "regions" vying for the best deal, causing 3 times the amount of rivalry and jealousy, 12 "Regional" governments scrapping for the crumbs dispensed by central Government who in turn will be scrapping with 28 other EU countries for the crumbs dispensed by the (unelected and unaccountable) EU commission. Please don't even mention the tower of Babel that is the European Parliament, they can't even decide where the seat of European government is to be sited and given that there is only a choice of two, Brussels or Strasburg, it does not bode well for the future.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 20, 2006 10:45 PM
Patrick, the benefits of the European Union are not about governance but peace in Europe. Just look at what happened to Franco-German and British-Irish relations.
Posted by: Yockel | November 20, 2006 11:02 PM
"People look to the UK as a model for civility and reason."
Correction: People in most of the world look to the UK as a model for hundreds of years of brutal, vicious, violent, hateful, fanatical racism, eliminationism, colonialism, and imperialism. People also look to the UK as an example of brain-dead royalism.
Posted by: Al | November 20, 2006 11:07 PM
Useless royals: Off with their heads!
Posted by: Kenneth | November 20, 2006 11:09 PM
The article misses the true driver behind this and other nationalist movements in the UK, namely, the chasm between the political classes and ordinary people. Provide devolution, independence, or go the other way and strive for a Euro-state, it makes no difference, because people know deep down that these changes are not implemented for their benefit. Walk around the slums of Edinburgh and ask the people if that shiny new parliament building uptown has improved their lives. The voters are tuning out all politicians; independence is politicians' way trying to get them to tune back in.
Posted by: Steve Shackleton | November 20, 2006 11:18 PM
It is time for the Londoners and English to realize that wih the birth of EU, the days of United Kingdom-ism is over.
Scotland was reborn when Madam Eccose and Dr Macartney won their seats in the European Parliament. SNP new generation such as Alex and Nicola are the students of those teachers.
If the conservatives join the SNP in Scotland, it will bring a good balance to the SNP policies and strengthen the man power with administration skills to rule the new Scotland. With Alex and Nicola's good chemistry and the rising price of the oil, the dream of Independence is not very far away for Scots. Scotland and Kurdistan will be two new born countries in this decade.
Posted by: Goran Nowicki | November 20, 2006 11:32 PM
so many comments if anyone makes it this far down I can assure you that the UK is not on the verge of independence. The bonds are too complicated, there are too many people with roots and loyalties on both sides of the border and it's in the interest of too many people, on both sides of the borders, to stay the same for it to actually happen. A vote for the SNP is not in practical terms a vote for independence and if there was a referendum on independence it would fail. I wish British people wouldn't write half baked articles in foreign newspapers that paint a false, and overly dramatic, picture of things. my twopenny worth
Posted by: dan in london | November 20, 2006 11:55 PM
Having lived in England Scotland for several years, I am of the view that Scots will be only be better off if they start to take matters in their own hands by:
1. Cutting public expenditures drastically and devise a investment oriented fiscal policy away from the past.
2. Encourage savings less on consumption.
3. Invest more on R&D and Technical Education.
4. Have a balanced budget and float its currency for first 5 years.
5. Provide basic health care to its citizens. The above is a very tall order and would be a great challenge to Scots to shape up or take a cut in their standard of living Taking over some of the National Debt would involve a rancorous debate. In final analysis, the cost of separating would be enormous even with North Sea Oil revenues. My Scottish friends think before you take the jump!
Posted by: Al Khan | November 21, 2006 12:30 AM
I hope the Scots do become independent, and show other English-speaking countries the proper way to unwind. Specifically, the United States. I would welcome the disengagement of forward-looking American regions from the "beknighted" (as in Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) sections of Midwestern Jebusland and South Redneckonia. If my beloved city of San Francisco could only set itself up as an idependent city-state, or the cultural capital of the West Coast nation of Ecotopia, my wife and I could return from our political exile in Australia. And don't get me started on what the Aussies should do with those daft Queenslanders!
Posted by: Bukko in Australia | November 21, 2006 12:34 AM
In the age of the internet, and vast numbers of cable channels, marketers often talk about targeting micro markets. By analogy and perhaps an unanticipated consequence, micro nations are also emerging.
The elements of nationhood like shared identity, common laws, security, and economic policy are either easily facilitated by technology or easily borrowed from one's neighboring country.
In addition the global economy is providing such a degree of interdependence, it's relatively easy for a want to be nation to solidify on top of it. If nothing else establishing a nation is like establishing a micro brand symbolizing unique characteristics and creating economic opportunity for its owners.
The sun has set on nations as we know them.
Posted by: Fred Gibbons | November 21, 2006 12:56 AM
Perhaps it is time that the USA gets involved in this devolution fad. My question is how far back do we have to go when we start over as individual cultures? I mean I have Scottish (Dudley,Gordon) English (Gates) and Norwegian ancestry. Am I offed or do I get to choose? "The hammer of the gods Will drive our ships to new lands" Will we have to recombine Pict DNA? I'd bet we'd find enough of it in the Isles despite noone wanting to admit to it. Neanderthal DNA? Now there is a clear case of genocide we never owned up to. Well, maybe Douglas Adams did it for us. "To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!" I am all for it! "How soft your fields so green" Who needs inclusion anyway.
Posted by: Byron | November 21, 2006 01:10 AM
I have been very troubled by social conditions in the UK, where life is assuming an Orwellian/Bradburian shape. Do the Scots plan to roll back the pervasive presence of The State in their lives, should they break with England? I hope so.
Posted by: D R Lunsford | November 21, 2006 01:55 AM
I love the photo of Mr. Goodhart. He looks like he's puckering up to kiss the Queen's wrinkled old arse.
For the friends of the Olde Enemy, How many wars did Scottish blood and courage win for the English? You would never have had an empire without us. I for one will be setting alight a Butcher's Apron (aka, The Union Jack)in May.
Posted by: King James VII | November 21, 2006 03:14 AM
KJ5 opines "How many wars did Scottish blood and courage win for the English? You would never have had an empire without us".
The answer is "none", the overwhelming majority, 92%, of the Army is English, the lowest ratio it has ever been is 89% English. The Scots like most of England's psuedo-celtic neighbours are imbued with a passion for victinhood and a propensity for never letting the truth get in the way of misrepresenting history.
The dependency culture and victim paradigm of Scotland is only matched by their ability to self publicise. England would be well rid of Scotland and its over reliance on English taxpayers and access to our markets, cut from the coat-tails of English enterprise the heavily subsidised Scots would then find their true level amongst the worlds economies, (nowhere to be seen) as a Disneyesque theme park where American tourists can see a nation balance a giant chip on each shoulder. The Scots economy is reliant on public (ie English taxpayers) expenditure as now 1 in 4 Scots are employed by the state, hardly the profile of a dynamic nation, it has ever been the case. If parochialism, envy, ingratitude and bitterness were national commodities then truly the Scottish would be a wealthy nation.
Posted by: Anglo-Saxon Steve | November 21, 2006 06:57 AM
"The Scots economy is reliant on public (ie English taxpayers) expenditure as now 1 in 4 Scots are employed by the state, hardly the profile of a dynamic nation, it has ever been the case. If parochialism, envy, ingratitude and bitterness were national commodities then truly the Scottish would be a wealthy nation."
So what you're saying is that Scotland has a poor economy? I agree. That's why I support independence. And you sound pretty bitter yourself, as do many of your English compatriots in this thread. Indeed, I am tempted to go so far as to describe you all as "whingeing." Now where have I heard that word before?
To refute a few of the points you make :
"it has ever been the case." Nope. In fact, Scotland was the motor of the industrial revolution. Its economic woes are of recent vintage.
As for the excess public expenditure, it is more than made up for by oil and gas revenue you steal. I love you English. You take all the money from our oil and gas, throw a few coins back to us on public expenditure, then whinge about how we get a little more public expenditure than you do.
And the Barnett formula was originally proportionate to population. It only became slightly disproportionate in Scotland's favour because Scotland's population size, relative to the rest of the UK, continued to decline - this decline being a consequence of the poor economy which, in turn, is a consequence of our membership of the United Kingdom.
Posted by: Paul G | November 21, 2006 07:35 AM
It is not just the SNP who supports Scottish Independence. The organisation which I am Secretary of,- The Scottish Independence Convention, is an all party/non party umbrella group formed to advance the cause of Scottish independence, and to promote the case for independence within Scotland and beyond. Our Chairman is Murray Ritchie, a much respected former Political Editor of the Herald newspaper. We provide a forum in which people, parties and organisations in and beyond Scotland can cooperate in advancing this cause; We believe Scotland as a nation is entitled to self-determination and to become an independent state when the people of Scotland vote for it by a simple majority in a referendum. The problem we have is that our supine media for the most part will only promote the case for the union. Had they supported independence we would have been independent now. But things are changing and more and more are beginning to realise that independence is now a distinct reality. Check out our website www.scottishindependenceconvention.com
Posted by: David McCann | November 21, 2006 10:40 AM
Yockel, me ole son, Under the iron fist of communism, in the form of Tito, Jugoslavia was a united collective of diverse ethnicity and religion, no one can forget what happened on the death of both communism and Tito. In our part of Europe (ever increasing in size) relations between, the erstwhile warring factions of, Britain, France and Germany since the 2nd WW have been cool but cordial which has developed naturally. Now the powers that be, seek to force unity on a collective of diverse ethnicity and religion, left to our own devices I think that relations would have naturally developed to be more than cool and cordial, I hate to think what would happen should there be a collapse in world economy or worse still a global environmental castastrophe. the rush for the door would make WW2 and Jugoslavia seem a picnic.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 21, 2006 11:18 AM
If some of these more recent posts are anything to go by it will be a messy divorce! As for squabbling over what's left of the oil and gas, if Scotland were to actually become independent the original maritime borders would surely have to be re-instated. They were ofcourse moved for the benefit of the Scots nationalists some years ago. According to international convention much of the oil and gas reserves therefore rightfully belong to England.
I would love to see the Scots vote SNP but I can't help thinking that the 51% figure is no more than 'talk' and when it comes to the crunch they simply won't have the nerve. I hope I'm wrong.
The Union has served a purpose. We should be grown up enough to take the stabilisers off now.
Posted by: John G | November 21, 2006 11:26 AM
For the information of our American friends, Scotland is an ancient nation which was pressganged into the union of 1707. Its not an equal union as Scotland with 8.6% of the total UK population is very much the junior partner. For example: Scotlands economy suffers when Interest rates are increased to prevent overheating in the SE of England.
Also it should be noted that Scotland with 8.6% 0f the UK Population actually contributes 10.41% of all UK Government Taxes and revenues. In effect Scotland actually subsidises the rest of the UK. This is the main reason the British Government are resisting the growing demand for Independence.
Independence would actually free Scotlands entrepreneurs, businessmen, artists and creative people to build up a dynamic, vibrant and forward looking economy, which like Norway can offer the best of public service to her people. Something that cannot take place while the dead boot of Westminster rests upon Scotlands neck.
Airson Alba! Yours for Scotland. Niall.
Posted by: Niall Scotland | November 21, 2006 12:14 PM
" How many wars did Scottish blood and courage win for the English? You would never have had an empire without us. - - - - Scotland Forever!!!! "
This is the sort of over puffed , factually wrong , endlessly resentful drivellings from the pamapered parasites north of the border which we English have had to put up with all these years .
The answer to your question KG7 is NONE .British armies , navy's etc were always predominantly English -and more than proportionately so for countries of the UK . They still are . Scotland's always numerically minor contribution is likely to get more minor still - particularly given the rapid decline in Scotland's population ( assuming the UK continues that is )
By the way , contrary to Scotland's view of history , England was invaded much more often by the Scots than the other way around . And they nearly always got thrashed . eg Flodden 1513 .
Time for England to be rid of the professional victims .
Posted by: Blitz | November 21, 2006 02:13 PM
John Lease asks "At what point do you have negotiations on exactly where the borders would be?" Answer, the border between Scotland and England already exists. For hundreds of years, Scottish law has applied on one side of this border, and English law on the other. Since this is one of the clearest and least disputed boundaries anywhere in the world, there would be nothing much to "negotiate" about. "Would each section of Scotland have to approve it, or would there be a 'Southern Scotland' attached to England?" - Answer, the South of Scotland is intensely patriotic. Every part of Scotland will vote unambiguously for independence. You are making the mistake of thinking that the Irish precedent is relevant. It isn't. There are no "Six Counties" in Scotland, nor five, nor four, no, not even one, which would choose to remain with England when the rest of Scotland becomes independent. Will Smih says "Independence for Shetland and Orkney!" - but they don't want this, they just want a substantial degree of autonomy within Scotland. When a referendum is, at long last, held on independence for Scotland, the majority of Orcadians and the majority of Shetlanders will vote in favour, the same as the majority of Scots as a whole.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 03:21 PM
Isnt it funny that the English posters on here always go on about Scotland splitting up...well I say to you...all areas voted for devolution so all areas would vote for independence...If your country (England) is going to be split into regions..then that is up to you...we in Scotland don't particularly care what England decided to do to themselves..... as for the barnett formula where the English Democrat party want it scrapped...you dont want it scrapped more than us Scots..we want independence and anyone who says we should have a federal system...No it would be the same thing as now - no change and no chance. While I am on...Can any of our American cousins please right to your congress/senate and complain about the US consul in Scotland making political speaches condemning the independence movement in Scotland. Thx.
Posted by: Bill Connor | November 21, 2006 03:26 PM
As a nationalist I believe (and hope with all my heart) that we can indeed take back our nation in May. The fact is that this would be a benefit for both Scotland and England - both would be free of their 'ever-whinging neighbour'.
From a Scottish point of view (well I am Scottish) we would retain our oil and also be free to create positive social conditions focussed on Scotland rather than the south east of England. We would also be able to opt out of illegal, unnecessary wars. I also believe it would give England a new lease of life and they could finally find their national identity - at present that seems to be defined by wearing an English football strip.
Many of the English posters on this forum argue that they are run by Scottish MPs. I think you would have to stretch your imagination a long way to find a Scot who defends the Union and Britishness with as much vigour as Gordon Brown (apart from perhaps a few Rangers fans). And Tony Blair, Scottish, don't make me laugh.
The simple fact is that Scottish independence is going to happen, like it or not. No party stays in power forever, and when Labour have had their day at Holyrood the SNP are the natural successors - Scotland has traditionally been a left-wing country and the SNP are the only major left of centre party still in existence, despite what Labour councillors would have us believe. It could be next May, it may not be for another 10 years but it is going to happen. As mentioned, one poll noted that 51% supported independence. But this poll had other interesting points to make:
1. 10% were undecided, so 51% was the very minimum 2. Huge chunks of the other parties' voters (even the Tories) supported independence
Posted by: Craig | November 21, 2006 03:35 PM
As an active member of the SNP, I always despair when I read my fellow nationalists falling into the trap of believing that we have somehow been hard done by by the English - I would argue that the vast majority of the English establishment (bar the likes of Samuel Johnson) , from 1707 on, has done a very good job of accomodating us, and making the best use of our people. Anytime when we have had a raw deal out of the union, there have been Scots standing alongside these so-called English oppressors.
Scotland's problems compared to Englands are purely demographic - 5 million people up here are always, always going to be of less import to a British government than the 25-30 million living in the South East of England. We do badly because we are a remote satellite state, not because there is considerable English ill-will towards us. Those who try to say otherwise do the movement a great disservice.
Some Scots have, and will continue to get a good deal out of the union - the problem is that very few Scots in fact do today. While it may be a force for good for all the 'Scottish Raj' media commmentators, (Wark, Marr et al) the union, and its resultant demographic problems, do not benefit the vast amjority of Scots.
And finally - what to fear of an independent Scotland, freed from its remote orbit round the London axis, able to turn itself to face the world, knowing that it may not be able to tip the balance in Iraq, but that it could make its positive contributions similar to those of Norway, which consistently 'punches above its weight' internationally with its leading positions on the Israeli-Palestinian and Sri-Lankan conflicts? Freed from the burden of power politics, Scots could go on and fill positions in international organisations that will more than compensate for any loss of a seat on the out of date UNSC.
Posted by: AlenWatters | November 21, 2006 03:53 PM
Just a few notes about this supposed preponderance of English people in the UK's armed forces. You may be right, which makes the use of Scots as cannon fodder all the more disgraceful.
A few examples; Scotland has under 9% of the UK's population, but 18 of the first 100 (that's 18% in case you don't understand) UK personnel killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion were Scots. During the First World War no European country lost a higher proportion of its population than Scotland, except for Turkey. In Turkey's case it was disease which carried them off, for the Scots it was ordnance.
in 1759 General James Wolfe died while capturing Quebec. He famously remarked of his Highland troops "They were hearty, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country and no great mischief if they fall." From before that day to beyond this one that has been and will remain the attitude of the UK's leaders to their Scottish troops; no great mischief if they fall, i.e. expendable.
Posted by: Neil | November 21, 2006 03:59 PM
A lot of the article seemed aimed at the pesky Scots going all tribal and breaking up England oh sorry Brtain the best superstate the world has ever seen, yeh right. Read the amount of comments from the English up above, a lot of them do not want Scotland either, but I don't see them being branded small minded or tribal.
The day that Scotland achieves its independence is coming fast, maybe America should remember its struggle in gaining independence and the important part that Scots played in that. An independent Scotland will be open for trade and relations with America, might be an idea for America to stay out of this debate and let it happen itself. The land of the free sounds nice, but does not fit America well if it is influencing things to Englands benefit.
Posted by: Friseal | November 21, 2006 04:07 PM
Bill Conor - you are full of it. The only referendum on "regionalisation" was held in the North East of England arranged by that bufoon Prescott (Welsh), he thought that because it was the Labour heartland he would get the required "Yes" vote, when the resounding "no" was returned he and the pseudo Scots Parliament in Westminster completely ignored it and went full steam ahead anyway. All we in the English Democrats Party are asking for is a referendum throughout England, this is surely our democratic right, you had a choice about your future, as did Wales and Northern Ireland. England was afforded no such curtesy, we fight on.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 21, 2006 04:17 PM
If Scotland votes in the SNP next May 2007, then the people will have decided that the Union of Scotland and England should come to an end. It will be the countries invaluable right to do so. As its pointed out, it will be ironic that this would come on exactly 300 years since the act of Union that unified the parliaments of the Kingdom of Scotland to the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain (the crown was already unified about 100 years previously). It was evident from day one, that the union was slanted towards England, anyone who has read the 1707 treaty, can see this. At the time it was unpopular with the Scottish population, but with corruption rife in the political and noble classes, it was a done deal. 300 years later we have the pro Unionist politicians promoting the lie that is the UK, espousing that Scotland is better off, that Scotland gets more than it puts into the UK treasury, ignoring the fact that Scotland actually contribute more through taxes and the oil wealth, than it actually gets, a fact that's often denied but cannot be ignored. It's a shame that David Goodhart gave away his English right wing credentials at the end of his piece. He should have pointed out that in the event that the union is dissolved, politicians like Gordon Brown, Dr John Reid and the current speaker of the House of Commons would no longer be MPs in England. Also David Goodhart failed to state that if Scotland dissolved the union there would be no United Kingdom, but a Kingdom of Scotland and a Kingdom of England, just as it was before 1707. I, for one hope that Scotland will make the right decision (without interference from foreign governments, has been the case recently with the US Vice Consul to Edinburgh) and become an Independent Kingdom once again. Following the model of Norway, Iceland or Norway, who are similar in size and economies, will be good for the country.
Posted by: Edward | November 21, 2006 04:29 PM
There are no controversies about the LAND border between Scotland and England, but John G. says "if Scotland were to actually become independent the original maritime borders would surely have to be re-instated". That sounds like a very good idea! "They were of course moved for the benefit of the Scots nationalists some years ago". - What nonsense! OF COURSE the British government didn't change the maritime borders "for the sake of the Scots nationalists". Turkeys do not vote for Christmas! The truth is completely the opposite, the British government moved the maritime boundaries further NORTH so that, if Scotland should become independent, more of the oil and gas would be in the English sector. But if the English want the original maritime border re-instated, that's okay by me!
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 04:38 PM
Posted by: Katie | November 21, 2006 04:46 PM
To Anglo Amercian. "British" is a contrived identity designed to benefit the interest of a narrow elite rather than the common people of the captive countries. Gordon Brown et. al. portray themselves as British for personal gain. Most Scottish nationalist would not consider themselves British.
Posted by: johan | November 21, 2006 05:32 PM
Amen to that Johan. In the most recent census taken in the UK Scots could describe themselves as Scottish, Welsh could describe themselves as Welsh and Northern Irish could declare themselves as such. The English on the other hand had to go to a box marked "other" and insert "English". can you imagine the outcry if the Scots, Welsh and Irish were told they could describe their nationality as "British" only. Any "English" Americans out there that would like to support their mother country have a butchers at www.englishdemocrats.org.uk we could do with a bit of support.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 21, 2006 06:17 PM
As someone who traces his ancestry to the Plantagenets, I would hope that the current Monarch would move north in the event of a split and remove the English standard from her flag and crown. The British Monarchy has ceded too much to be called more than a tourist attraction. I offer for example the Queen's Speech. This should be an address by the PM. A Sovereign Queen would have never gone along with the Tory program when they committed such abominations as the reversal of the right of self-incrimination. The Monarch must be the conscience of the nation or it has no purpose. Perhaps the Glorious Revolution was not so Glorious after all. As a Plantagenet, I do not recognize its full implications and do not support anyone holding the crown who does. I also think that an independent Scotland has a better claim of union with Northern Ireland than England does, at least ethnicly and religiously.
Posted by: Michael Bindner | November 21, 2006 06:56 PM
For auld lang syne, my dear, For auld lang syne, We'll take a cup of kindness yet, For auld lang syne!
Posted by: | November 21, 2006 06:58 PM
If the author of this editorial is to be blamed for condescending to a nation of people as if they were seeking to become a "boys only club" then he can be excused perhaps by pop culture. It is almost as if he were watching Braveheart while he writes. Scotland can easily view being a part of Britain as a ball and chain. If a country with centuries of on and off self rule finds itself more inclined to be self-ruled once again, then it has the right to seek it. Furthermore why should Scotland share its monies with England when it could far more efficiently and effectively govern itself after the model of high-living-quality countries like Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, etc?
A low population and a high tourist trade, as well as a movement towards environmentally friendly industry and energy production make for an ideal country. Small and smart beats large and slow.
Scotland historically has been torn between loyalists and nationalists, but speaking as an American, perhaps we all may have learned in the last 250 years that England and its colonies are better off independant from each other and friendly.
Posted by: Adam | November 21, 2006 07:05 PM
By the way...who do you all suppose will come out of the woodwork with some bizarre and antiquated claim to the Scottish throne? Last I checked there was still nobility in Scotland. Does the king over the water have a g-g-g-g-grandson somewhere?
Posted by: Adam | November 21, 2006 07:09 PM
UK has become an increasingly inconsequential nation, so who cares... those racist bigots, snobs, colonialist murderers will eventually become totally irrelevant.
Posted by: yo | November 21, 2006 07:13 PM
Other than my Latin name I class myself as English, the country of my birth and proud of it, although saying English and proud of it is not the flavour of the month at present, in some quarters it can be classed as racist particularly so if you hoist the English flag!! If the Scots want independence in May 07, great! I'm sure we will survive, England I mean, in fact we will most probably prosper. So here's to an independent England 2007!
Posted by: antonius | November 21, 2006 07:26 PM
Being from Canada, the issues raised here sound eerily familiar. Our Supreme Court was asked to give an opinion on the circumstances under which Quebec could gain independence. The Court said that if a clear majority of Quebecers vote for independence, then the rest of Canada has a duty to negotiate the terms of that independence in good faith. Sounds simple, but the devil would be in the details. How is the national debt divided? If the population in certain geographical areas do not vote in favour of independance - are they forced to separate? How are land borders determined - do you give effect to original historical boundaries or to subsequent revisions in those boundaries? How do you divide up the armed forces? What about the national currency - can they still use it? How do you deal with and divide common business and legal issues such as terms of trade, securities regulations, and taxation? While independence sounds simple in theory, it will not be so easy to implement in practice.
Posted by: Crazy Canuck | November 21, 2006 07:51 PM
Bring back Mary, Queen of Scots.
Posted by: The Boomer | November 21, 2006 08:07 PM
"Crazy Canuck" says the issue of Scottish independence reminds him of Quebec. It shouldn't. The two are totally different. Scotland has a long history as an independent kingdom. Quebec is merely the remnants of the French colony of Canada. There is no "language problem" in Scotland. While Gaelic and Scots will both be encouraged, nobody who has any chance of getting into power in Scotland is going to try to force any language down our throats (unlike in Quebec). Scotland has a clear, well-defined land border. Quebec's boundaries would be certain to be disputed in any bid for independence. Scotland has a population which is remarkably homogenous by international standards. There is no "Six Counties", or even five, or four, or even one, there is no region of Scotland which will seek to 'opt out' if the nation as a whole chooses independence. In Scotland, while we have strong regional identities, there are no native national minorities with their own national territories. In Quebec, there are thirteen different native-Canadian nations with their own national territories. All thirteen of the native-Canadian groups of Quebec have made it clear that, while they can just about put up with French rule while Quebec is part of Canada, they will secede from an independent Quebec. The territorial claims of the thirteen native-Canadian groups that say they will secede from an independent Quebec amount to over fifty percent of the land area of Quebec. Quebec has already had numerous referendums in which independence lost. Even if there should be a referendum in which the independence option should win, this is certain to be hotly disputed. By contrast, we in Scotland have not had a single referendum, but, when we do finally get one, independence will win easily, and this will be accepted without dispute by the unionist minority, for the simple reason that they are, first and foremost, Scots.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 08:08 PM
I know only one fact and that is that the Scott's are the most intelligent people in the world (10 of the 100 most famous people are Scotts!) Scotland Zindabad.
Posted by: Sami | November 21, 2006 08:24 PM
Some of this seems as ridiculous to me, as an American, as it would were it that Texas, itself a briefly an independent nation, suddenly up and decided it wanted to be an independent nation again...
Posted by: James Buchanan | November 21, 2006 08:38 PM
Watching this from Chicago for the last decade or so, it seems to me that Scotland is now and will continue to be thoroughly beset by rot with or without the Union. Internationally, they will follow their George Galloway soul to become champion do-nothing whiners, lecturers, and dictatorship-coddlers who will give their all to build up unelected international bureaucracy as much as possible in the misguided belief that a seat at the table in such bureacracy multiplies otherwise non-existent Scottish power.
England will continue to be a leading state of the world, as it has been for hundreds of years.
Scotland was last a leading light in the days of Adam Smith. Too bad they've so thoroughly rejected their best product.
Posted by: rds | November 21, 2006 08:43 PM
It is pretty funny reading Scots lustily cling to their "oil and gas" as the security for their independence -- as if Scots are not leading global warming haranguers. A petrol state. What great polities grow up that way . . . .
Posted by: deus | November 21, 2006 08:46 PM
Should Scotland vote for and gain independence, then Great Britain would no longer exist (as Edward above noted) but technically there could remain a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.
Posted by: Dr Larrie D Ferreiro | November 21, 2006 08:57 PM
For many a decade the British Empire existed on the works and sacrifices of Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, the Sikhs, the Aussies, the Kiwis, et al.
If the USSR ceased to exist as such after 70 years the UK is lucky to have lasted longer. Besides this whole charade is due to the fact that Englishmen resent non-englishmen and especially ones like Mr, Brown who is definitely a Scotsman and is due to be PM of the [shudder, shudder] the UK.
With all the bull about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq the English still cling imperially to Gibraltar, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, the Falklands and several Pacific Islands and to a lesser extent Scotland and Wales.
The possibility that the UK will cease to exist in its present forma will provide outstanding opportunities for the Irish, the Scots, Welsh and others to be considered separate and apart from the Limeys.
The day when London provides a home to the billions in gold that the Sheik of Kuwait has stashed away in the nation's capital of the country that made him rich and the center of production of many a nations currencies should be open to good old competition among the non-Londoners.
The day the Union Jack stops fluttering some 8 to 10 thousand miles away from Piccadilly Circus will be celebrated by many.
As the adage goes, " all good things must come to an end".
Posted by: yknot. | November 21, 2006 08:59 PM
I would hate to see Scottland leave the U.K. but I can understand the reasons. Would hope they can came to some type of an agreement on cooperation of power shareing. Living in the U.S. I do thank the U.S. would be much better of if they were still under British rule. With the current state of affairs in U.S. politics with corruption and the reputation the U.S. has in world today. The U.K would a good role model for the U.S. government. For one if the U.S. still had a manarch as head of State and the U.S. had self rule with the U.K. was in charge of foriang policy. Over all I do not see Scottland leaving the U.K. anytime soon. Kind Regards! Meyer Marks
Posted by: Meyer Marks | November 21, 2006 09:00 PM
Its taken a long time to finally put England in its place. As an imperialist empire builder, England has seen many of their subjugated countries they invaded and called their own take their own rightful independence - America was one, everyone might remember! Scotland clearly has its own culture, language, flag, geographic boundary, and rightful pride of being a Scot! The SNP has always stood for the welfare of Scots. I applaud Alex Salmond as a real hero to our nation of Scotland!
Posted by: Douglas Boyd | November 21, 2006 09:03 PM
There is an assumption that "Scotland" will have ownership of the "Oil". What if "England" won't give it up? Will y'all fight? Just curious.
To the posters talking about Hawaill, and San Francisco, a very short history lesson. The Civil War settled one thing. No current nor future state may secede from the Union. To attempt to do son would constitute treason and rebellion. Hence, the current abivelance of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico On the one hand to be rid of the drated gringos and the English language would be great, but it is a cruel world out there. On the other, statehood would help to intergrate Puerto Rico economically and give better representation in the Government but statehoold would be IRREVOCABLE. Hence both statehood and independence refrenda have been voted down.
Posted by: A Hardwick | November 21, 2006 09:04 PM
Posted by: William Wallace | November 21, 2006 09:17 PM
The US finally seems to be catching on that British devolution is inevitable. Wales is only 20 to 30 years behind Scotland.
I had the privledge of interning at SNP HQ during the '99 election. They've got some brilliant minds in the organization; Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson to name just a few. If you're interested in learning more you should check out www.snp.org.
Posted by: Katherine | November 21, 2006 09:18 PM
One of the world's most successful multinational states? What a typically English euphemism.
As an American of both Scottish and Irish decent, I've always considered the United Kingdom more wishful thinking than anything. The English can't honestly be deluded enough to to think that the Scots, Irish and Welsh are happy under the UK umbrella. Honestly, I'm surprised that the "End of the United Kingdom" hasn't come already. England may have "conquered" them once upon a time, but they never won the battle for their hearts or nationalities.
My great-grandfather was from Glasgow. My great-grandmother was from County Tyrone. They considered themselves Scottish and Irish, not British. When they needed better lives, they emigrated to the USA, not England. England was the overlord, not a co-state in the the UK.
The English may have selective memory syndrome, but 500 years is recent memory to millions of Scots and Irish. Scratch the surface, and you'll find the seething undercurrents of a revolution. We here in the colonies threw off the UK mantle 230 years ago. It's high time the non-English nations of the UK considered doing the same. God knows they'd have plenty of allies here in the US.
Posted by: MEF | November 21, 2006 09:23 PM
I've never seen so many posts trying to analyze a simple cause. My ancestry goes back to the tiny town of Spierston on the Isle of Skye. The soul of William Wallace is revived again! Let's go to battle, my Scottish brothers, and separate from these arrogant English !
Posted by: Spiers | November 21, 2006 09:27 PM
James Buchanan says this "seems as ridiculous to me, as an American, as it would were it that Texas, itself a briefly an independent nation, suddenly up and decided it wanted to be an independent nation again" - but the Texans never wanted to be independent, they wanted to be part of the USA, the only reason they were briefly independent was because the existing states of the USA couldn't agree on them joining, because Texas had slavery and it upset the delicate balance between "slave" and "free" states. Scotland, on the other hand, was an independent kingdom for a thousand years, and kept it's own national identity all the time it was part of the United Kingdom.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 09:30 PM
A few commentators need to check their facts. North Sea Oil, for example, is being exhausted rapidly, and will not provide decades of unlimited wealth. Other natural resources are few. Irish success as EU member is not repeatable, now that the EU has 25 members. Unlike Italy, where the prosperous North has ambitions to shed the poorer South, Scotland (like Quebec) finds itself in the opposite position.
Posted by: bodo | November 21, 2006 09:33 PM
Katie, I hope you're kidding. While you are quite correct about the positive role Scots may have had in our battle for independence, many more Scottish highlanders fought with the British in the attempt to quash the rebellion, such as in the Battle of Bound Brook:
...which is besides the point. The US has its hands quite full already presently without engaging in even more issues with which it has no real business.
Posted by: oxalá | November 21, 2006 09:40 PM
In reply to "Answer", you identify that the union has left Scotland, a nation, in a less healthy economic position than Yorkshire, a region. If that is not a damning verdict of the union I don't know what is.
Let's remember, the economy of Scotland and it's social health is becuase of the union. That union is now outdated and a burden. I want Scotland to go out into the world and be grown up.
Posted by: Donald | November 21, 2006 09:47 PM
England continues to get what it deserves after hundreds of years of committing atrocities all over the world. I find it humorous that there are English on this blog whining about how the Scots do this, the Scots get everything, wah, wah, wah, after all they have done to the Scots and everyone else in the world.
Karma's a beotch, don't you think?
Posted by: Washington DC | November 21, 2006 09:51 PM
Dave Coull - you don't know your American history very well. Texas wanted to be part of the US? Have you ever heard of the Alamo?
Sam Houston was a traitor - why is that city still named after him?
Posted by: Sam Houston | November 21, 2006 09:56 PM
North Sea Oil is not the cornerstone of economic policy for an independent Scotland. The revenue stream from that is only likely to grow - it is after all averaging around $20bn this year, with higher forecasts for the immediate future. Most economic surveys suggest that there is at least 20 years of significant deposits still left.
The cornerstone of economic policy for an independent Scotland is shedding the parasitic union, that drains Scotland of its wealth, its people and its rightful prosperity. A one-sided economic relationship that keeps the SE of England in the pork barrel and the rest dependent on them for crumbs? Does that sound like a successful relationship to any decent minded person here?
With Scotland's identified potential as one of the global powerhouses of GREEN energy, it's rapidly expanding banking sector, its abundance of resources and its highly educated population - it is in a much better position to ride out the challenges of the 21st Century.
England's imperial power will continue to drain, as will its economic stature - which is what happens when you are just too damned greedy!
Posted by: Cordia | November 21, 2006 10:00 PM
With regards to the post about "Scots, English etc = British" I was refering to the fact that all of these peoples are considered British citizens, hold British passports etc. I wasn't trying to suggest that people would refer to themselves as "Brits". The only way for the situation to be resolved is a referendum in all of the countries of the UK. Also with regards to the link to the Scot who fought in the War of Independence. If you check your history books folks you will find plenty of Englishmen and their descendants who contributed to the War of Independence and the creation of the USA. Thomas Paine is a good example.
Posted by: Anglo-American | November 21, 2006 10:00 PM
To Washington DC, I was enjoying reading the name calling posts from people outside of the U.S. and then you ruined it. We don't have a dog in this fight. Just stand back and watch. Anyway, I love you UK guys no matter what. Kisses.
Posted by: Alexandria, VA | November 21, 2006 10:05 PM
In 20 Feb 1998, late Dr Macartney (Scottish MEP) and former SNP deputy leader in his last year of life, gave an anology of Scottish and English situation (in a Nationalism workshop near Sterling).
He said for years we and the English were living in a house and sharing the house together. "Now we want to have our own house and have our own kitchen." The English can have their own house, kitchen and toilet. A year later in May 1999 Scots voted for formation of their own house (parliament).
In 1998 event, Nicola, the current deputy SNP leader was also in the same meeting and assured me and the participants that SNP is getting ready for governing and is forming its shadow ministers. Now after 8 years in opposition, those shadow ministers have proved to the Scottish public that they are ready for independence and gained the confidence of more Scots. It has been a matter of time and hard work.
With Labour, losing its support because of its Iraq war policy, SNP is in a very good position to cash on people's dissatisfaction. Another factor is the unpopulaity of the Royal family in the UK after the Diana scandal and its aftermath and people are fed up with the monarchy system. I doubt that Scotland will be a monarchy after independence, but I don't think it is a good time to discuss it in the election. SNP should be careful in raising controversial issues such as penny tax again before the election.
I should also mention another factor that there is a very negative sentiments among many Scots towards English from South while very friendly to foreigners. With UK declining in the world Politics and being replaced by the US politically and overshadowed by the EURO and EU, the Scottish population finally have realised that they are better off in the long term having their own separate house, kitchen and toilet.
Posted by: Dr Goran Nowicki | November 21, 2006 10:06 PM
To Sam Houston, uh friend. The Alamo was a battle between the Americans living in Texas and the Mexicans. The American Texans wanted independence from Mexico, not the U.S.
Posted by: Texas Girl | November 21, 2006 10:10 PM
I'd like to point out one of my great grandfather was Irish and brought up in Glasgow to an Irishmother and a Scottish father another was born in Albany NY USA to Irish parents. They all emigrated to England over the years. I consider myself English as it's the country I was born in. Why I should "get what I deserve" as some of the above have suggested just because I was born in England is beyond me. That seems very spiteful. You may not realise it but a lot of us English have mixed hertitage ourselves and a lot of Irish and Scots did move to England for economic reasons and their descendants are now English. Thank god I don't have a memory that goes back 500 years to drag up some past war my ancestors where not probably invovled in, to score cheap points on a message board......
Posted by: Andy | November 21, 2006 10:13 PM
"Sam Houston" says "you don't know your American history very well" - and here was me thinking my American History professor at university knew what he was talking about. Mind you, he's from the state of Georgia. I do know that when Texas (slave state) joined the USA it was at the same time as California (free state) so they kept the delicate balance for a few years longer. I do know Texas was just independent for a few years, not for a thousand years, like Scotland.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 10:27 PM
This all suggests the interesting image of the United States breaking up into Red and Blue nation states. Perhaps the new global economy encourages break ups of the big nation states. Remember the Soviet Union?
Posted by: Nick | November 21, 2006 10:31 PM
Independence please! Scottish nationalism isn't about race or ethnicity, it's about national self determination, democracy and self respect. The unionists cant have it both ways. They tell us we're too poor to run our own affairs, while at the same time,bleeding us dry of our resources! The union is dead. Lets bury it.
Posted by: Scotland Free | November 21, 2006 10:37 PM
Whilst we are talking about 500 years of history why don't we go back a bit farther and maybe argue about the Scots invading Pictland from what is now the North of Ireland? Maybe Scotland should return the area south of Edinburgh to Northumberland since the Scots invaded? How about arguing over the Norman invasion and the slaughter of thousands of Anglo-Saxons in Northern England, or maybe the Roman defeat of the Celts etc etc etc. Let's debate the current issues that warrent the dissolving of the UK not history from 300, 500 or 1900 years ago. Some people seem too keen on using the past to justify nasty comments or in the case of other parts of the world killing each other. If the will of the people wish there to be a split then so be it, lets not base it on whose side your great grand pappy fought on. Especially for those of us in the US, we are such a mixed bunch your best friends ancestors could have been English, Scottish, Roman etc...
Posted by: AD CT | November 21, 2006 10:37 PM
James Buchanan, I would not miss Texas at all. In fact, I'd like to volunteer to go and help dig the moat. Or maybe we could re-route the Rio Grande....
Posted by: Maritza | November 21, 2006 10:38 PM
May I be one of the sole Britons (yes, Britons!) to praise the union: the appeal to me of the UK, as opposed to Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Island, is that it is less ethnically based. Anyone may theoretically gain British citizenship, whereas to be a Scot, or English, is very much a racial thing.
Also may I point out that while the union may only be 300 years old (still older than your country, americans!), the constituent parts were very much connected before.
Posted by: Edmund | November 21, 2006 10:42 PM
Correcting myself above, the union which is 300 years old is between England/Wales, and Scotland. England and Wales were joined already, and Ireland joined the 'gang' (ok, perhaps not willingly!) later.
Posted by: Edmund | November 21, 2006 10:47 PM
With the obvious exception of sporting rivalries,the "emnity" between Scotland and England is totally overplayed. Why? to discredit the independence movement. Most have relatives over the border, and it isnt an issue.
The SNP are the least corrupt party in Scotland by a mile. That reason alone is good enough for me.
I cant wait to see Scotland take its rightful place in the world again, as an independent country.
Posted by: Hamish | November 21, 2006 10:49 PM
The union was built through invasion bloodshed and tyrrany. Lets end it with democracy!
Posted by: Not British | November 21, 2006 10:53 PM
To the many posters arguing that Scotland will be an economic wunderkind or also-ran upon independence from Westminster, I'll be beggin your pardon. Mineral wealth has not paved any British streets with gold, nor would it in decline as parceled out differently. The public dole argument is another canard, (with its parallels in English embitterment over the phantom funding of the Falkland's treasury), and the two combined are only exceeded by the revival of centuries old grievances. This is not so much beating a decomposing horse as rattling its bones (next perhaps, an embargo on Italian goods in retaliation for the Boudica incident).
The egg is well and truly scrambled. If Scotland and England decide to part political company it will be because they chose to further narrow the circle of 'like-me' ness.
PS Patrick Harris Portsmouth- your ultra-nationalist credentials are intact, but perhaps you can enlighten the rest of the audience on the remote relevance of EU institutions to this issue.
Posted by: Dan, New York | November 21, 2006 10:58 PM
I have grandparents who hail from both Scotland and England and I've travelled extensively in both places. In my experience the Scots are a truly warm and welcoming people and they genuinely feel a sense of injustice from their place in the Union. If the majority of Scots decide to set their own destiny, I say all the power to them. The English should be tough but fair in negotiating the terms of separation and then give the Scots a fond farewell. I suspect the Scots will be no better off financially at the end of the day, but they will have their pride and for many outside of London, money isn't everything.
Posted by: NA Loyalist | November 21, 2006 11:00 PM
Posted by: Edmund | November 21, 2006 11:02 PM
Posted by: Eoghain Clavin | November 21, 2006 11:09 PM
Edmund says "Anyone may theoretically gain British citizenship, whereas to be a Scot, or English, is very much a racial thing" - that may be true of Englishness, it is not true of Scottishness. Support for Scottish identity and Scottish independence is if anything even higher amongst Scottish Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus whose grandparents came over from southern Asia than it is amongst "native" Scottish Christians, both Protestants and Catholics.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 11:11 PM
Undergraduate musings from a Little Englander. Can I get a gig at the Washington Post as well?
Posted by: Russell | November 21, 2006 11:15 PM
We in America should not fight the global trends.The blue US states should secede and join Canada, which has similar political and secular democratic values. The red states can then feel free to follow their preferred path of re-electing the Bush dynasty, banning abortion, gays and evolutionary theory and turning schools into state sponsored evangelical bible camps.
Posted by: CA girl | November 21, 2006 11:16 PM
Scotland should declare its independence and become a US state, along with Ireland, Ulster, Wales, and the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy (7 states). That would be, like, 12 new blue states! How much better for the world! Out with royalism, in with republicanism in the English speaking world. Its time to revive Cecil Rhodes' idea of a federated Anglosphere.
Posted by: Charles | November 21, 2006 11:18 PM
Dave - that may indeed me true. My issue is that white Scots are more likely to deny a asian-descended brit the title 'Scottish' than the title 'British', because they feel the former is racial.
Posted by: Edmund | November 21, 2006 11:19 PM
Those who compare present-day Scotland with Iceland, Norway, etc, and find Scotland's position poor are simply begging the question. You cannot analyse Scotland's present situation, independently of the UK, for it has so long been so indissolubly part of that Kingdom and - as we all know - is not independent of it. To argue it should be independent on the basis of analysis treating it already as independent, is to be breathtakingly fatheaded.
England and Scotland are stronger and greater together. There should be no talk of separation.
Posted by: JA | November 21, 2006 11:23 PM
AD CT says "why don't we go back a bit farther and maybe argue about the Scots invading Pictland from what is now the North of Ireland?" - as a matter of fact, they didn't. Nowadays, most historians who have actually studied the archaeological and other evidence agree that's just a myth. As it happens, I live in a part of Scotland where people are proud of their Pictish heritage, and many have "PICT" car stickers. Yet the majority of us Picts around here favour an independent Scotland. "If the will of the people wish there to be a split then so be it, lets not base it on whose side your great grand pappy fought on" - agreed. The issue should be settled democratically, through a non-party-political single-question referendum. I have not the slightest doubt that the result of that referendum, from every part of Scotland, will be overwhelming support for independence.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 11:24 PM
Edmund says "white Scots are more likely to deny a asian-descended brit the title 'Scottish' than the title 'British', because they feel the former is racial" - look of course there are racists in Scotland, there are racists everywhere. But racists in Scotland are more likely to support the BRITISH National Party than the SCOTTISH National Party. The SNP's policy is determinedly multi-cultural, multi-racial, and pro-immigration, and that everybody resident in Scotland on independence day will automatically be entitled to a Scottish passport. In addition to the SNP, the other, smaller, pro-independence organisations all agree with this.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 21, 2006 11:32 PM
The above thread is really revealing of that miserable , sour , arrogant , self absorbed celtic reflex racism which we English have had to endure for so long . All with that characteristically dodgy and highly selective version of history which they just love .
You'd never believe that the union was imposed on England by a Scottish monarch ( Queen Anne ) with no consultation with the English whatsoever . Scotland was consulted though - and their parliament voted for it by a large majority .
You'd never believe that most of Scotland was enthusiastically - more so than England - against the Jacobites in 1745 - so much so they produced 4 brand new regiments for the British king just weeks before Culloden .
Contrary to the claim that Scots supported the emerging US in the war of independence -well a few did , most supported the King though , often fanatically -against the English Americans ie the people of New England . Tom Paine was not from North Queensferry , he was from Norfolk in England .
It might be as well to bear in mind that the very word British is a celtic word . The Romans would have been unhesitating in designating the celts and particularly the people of what is now Scotland as British .Not the English though , they would have called us German .
Scottish inedependence means English independence as well . The British national debt is as much the obligation of Scotland as England . Indeed since they get hugely more of British governemnt exepnditure on a per head basis than England does then they should probably take on the whole lot . There is no logical reason why not .
Posted by: Jason | November 21, 2006 11:42 PM
Dave - I wasn't implying that it's any more a problem in Scotland than in any other part of the UK. I just think it's a reality that many think of scottishness, englishness, irishness, or welshness as a racial thing. Britishness, traditionally covering all the races of Britain, is less so.
Posted by: Edmund | November 21, 2006 11:56 PM
And citing the BNP being the BRITISH National Party is kind of irrelevant.
Posted by: Edmund | November 21, 2006 11:57 PM
Jason says "You'd never believe that most of Scotland was enthusiastically - more so than England - against the Jacobites in 1745" - that comment is totally irrelevant. The Jacobite Rebellion was NOT about independence for Scotland, it was about restoration of the Stuart monarchy to power in London. The majority of Scots were presbyterians who feared the restoration of a Catholic monarchy. And it is wrong to say that "Scotland was consulted" about the Union with England. Only a handfull of people could vote in 1707. The vast majority of people in Scotland had no say in the matter, but showed how they felt through both petitions and rioting. There has NEVER been a vote on whether we want Union or Independence. A single-question, non-party-political, referendum on this is long overdue.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 12:25 AM
The red states are turning blue. What goes around will go around again.
I'm imagining a market for sovereignty, where nations bid for each other's loyalty to form mutually beneficial confederations. Maybe Scotland will merge with Norway, England could join Saxony, Wales could form a union with Brittany and Silesia. The location of the market would, of course, be in the City of London.
Or maybe voters will realize that "nationalism" is just a tool for politicians to create another layer of bureaucracy to enhance their personal power and privileges. Most Quebecois have figured this out; however much they don't like Ottawa at times, they have even less use for the grasping demagogues of Quebec City.
England's economic advantages are simply a function of proximity to European markets and high-density communities in the south offering economies of scale that create wealth. Separating from the UK isn't going to move Scotland physically closer to the Chunnel and Edinburgh isn't going to suddenly become a new London. Democratic devolution is a great idea in many cases, but sovereignty is an illlogical distraction from dealing with society's problems.
Posted by: Lart from Above | November 22, 2006 12:32 AM
I like the idea of Scotland (and others) joining the US as States. That would solve the issue once and for all -- as someone earlier pointed out, you can't quit the Union. None of this interminable debate "should we stay or should we go."
Posted by: another in Washington DC | November 22, 2006 12:42 AM
I have to correct Dr Larrie D Ferreiro | November 21, 2006 08:57 PM Northern Ireland is not a Kingdom. Northern Ireland was the northern counties of what was the Kingdom of Ireland, therefore with the dissolution of the Act of Union 1707, you would have left the Kingdom of Scotland, the Kingdom of England and a Northern Ireland which could join England or Scotland. If it chose to be with England , then the tirle would be the Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland
Posted by: | November 22, 2006 12:42 AM
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government was established.
He famously replied, "A republic if you can keep it."
If the SNP wins a majority of the seats in Scottish Parliament in the May elections and pursues and achieves independence, which is not certain by any means, it can be said that the Scots will have a nation if they can keep it.
This American, whose grandfather emigrated from Ayrshire, understands the desire and longing of the Scots for independence.
Nevertheless, I frankly doubt the capability of the Scottish people to create a successful and prosperous nation free of Westminster. It does not appear that they have the industriousness for it.
Posted by: Dave Kerr | November 22, 2006 12:43 AM
In next 25 years the permanent membership of the UN security council of all european counties sould be questioned.
A simple question - why should the white Europe continue to dominate the world.. of the 6.5 Billion people how many are white - no more than 1 billion. So why should four of the five members be white nations.
Stick fork in the Europe- it is done. Tell me how do plan to tell the 4 billion people of Asia that they do not matter and that the pathic 600 million people of Europe have more power. How do you plan to stop these people from rising? Please tell me.
Posted by: Alan | November 22, 2006 12:43 AM
When I went to Scotland from India I had very little knowledge of Scotland. For most people in the rest of the world, UK/Britain meant England. For a country with such a great culture, history and people, I felt its kind of living under the shadow of England.
I've stayed in Scotland for about 3 years. I felt most Scots really want an Independent Scotland. I liked the way Scots are dealing the Independence/sovereignty.
Posted by: Prasad | November 22, 2006 12:49 AM
Sounds like a lot of people need to grow up.
Posted by: Reg | November 22, 2006 12:51 AM
In my pervious post, let me amend the word white with Western. It was not my intent to give my post a racial overtone.
None the less, the author's point that a country 60 million has a more right to a permanent member of UN then lets say country like Japan with 180 million people is quite offensive.
Again appologies for give racial overtone to my previous post
Posted by: Alan | November 22, 2006 01:04 AM
One more thing, an independent Scotland means UK will have to give up its UN security council seat, which could go to India. If UK gives up its UNSC seat, then may ( a BIG may be) France will give up its UNSC seat. I know its a bit far fetched, I hope it will happen in the future.
Posted by: Prasad | November 22, 2006 01:05 AM
to Dave Kerr I think it would be helpful if you actually visited Scotland and saw for yourself, before stating that Scotland does not have the 'industriousness' to run its own affairs. Currently Scotland has got its own parliament (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/home.htm) and its own legal system, so has the instruments to look after its own affairs. Since getting its own parliament in 1999, the people of Scotland have matured and gained faith in there own beliefs, despite the ongoing pro-unionist retoric that states that they cant look after themselves. The devolved government has been successful, but there is a desire to take it to the next step. Scotland is an industrious nation, which is more than capable of playing its part in the world
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2006 01:15 AM
As a golfer, I want to know one thing: If Scotland votes for independence, what would happen to the British Open? Would it still exist under the same name but be played at courses in Scotland and England?
I assume the Ryder Cup would still remain relatively unchanged.
Posted by: Golfer | November 22, 2006 01:36 AM
as i read and write the day away till tomorrow, a tear falls in my pint of stout: the queens men were unable to create a northern scotland as they have done in ireland. here's a toast; may it fall hard and fast.
Posted by: brian mccarthy | November 22, 2006 01:40 AM
There is great wisdom in the comment made by the man or woman many contributors back who said the inextricability of the two nations has roots well deeper and sufficiently coiled than either side would care to admit. I haltingly use the expression "either side." The notion of independence is silly, honestly. No group could possibly be that un-self-interested. Particularly not a group as culturally conservative as the Scots.
Posted by: Falls | November 22, 2006 01:41 AM
What would happen to the Northern Irish Unionists if Scotland and England split? When I was in Belfast in 2001, I saw Scottish flags and Scots Gaelic written all over the Orange areas alongside the Union Jacks. Would The Orangemen want to join the new Scottish nation or retain their "Britishness"?
Posted by: Brian | November 22, 2006 01:45 AM
Britain is a much more progressive place than it would be if Scotland were not a part of it. The Scots' influence the U.K. -- and the entire world - in a way they would not and could not if they split off and became an independent mini-state.
Posted by: Sean | November 22, 2006 02:05 AM
Who would get the permanent seat on the UN security council? would they rotate?
Posted by: mj | November 22, 2006 02:10 AM
Goodhart writes of the effect of Scottish independence on Britain that "it would dent its standing in the wider world and might call into question things like the UK's permanent membership of the UN security council." It might, but as Russia stayed on the Security Council in the USSR's seat after that country broke up in 1991, the precedent is in England's favour.
Posted by: Andrew | November 22, 2006 03:23 AM
Why is Scotland's population so much smaller than and productiveness connected to its being joined with Britain? Is England profiting from Scottish resources etc in a way that is unfair to Scotland? If Scotland has a vote in Parliment, what then is independence? Will this cost Scotland more money than now? I wish the author could have covered these issues. I think he explained the general situation well, but as I am not from the UK, It would be helpful to know
Posted by: CynInNO | November 22, 2006 04:11 AM
Very Strange notion to me- this splitting apart. Mainly because in the US our states are separate,but equal. Is that the state of things now with Scotland and UK? If so, what is the benefit of splitting? Or staying together for that matter?
Posted by: cailet | November 22, 2006 04:22 AM
CA Girl should tread lightly here: ---- "We in America should not fight the global trends.The blue US states should secede and join Canada, which has similar political and secular democratic values. The red states can then feel free to follow their preferred path of re-electing the Bush dynasty, banning abortion, gays and evolutionary theory and turning schools into state sponsored evangelical bible camps."
Posted by: CA girl | November 21, 2006 11:16 PM ----
If it was entirely up to Northern Californians, they'd probably have kept their plentiful water & hydro-power to themselves long ago, and used SoCal as a more-convenient-than-Vegas desert resort. I suspect that "California" is as illusory a concept as "United Kingdom", kept in place only by tradition & inertia. It seems to work out O.K. most of the time, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Posted by: Bob S. | November 22, 2006 04:30 AM
"but as Russia stayed on the Security Council in the USSR's seat after that country broke up in 1991, the precedent is in England's favour." Posted by: Andrew | November 22, 2006 03:23 AM
Hate to rain on your parade, but as the union of Scotland and England predates the UN or even the league of Nations, it would be up to the UN to decide on what happens to the UK seat on the Security Council. There are various scenarios on this.One would be to give it to another country alltogether or to have both Scotland and England on it. What ever happens , the UN will have an interesting debate on its hands
Posted by: | November 22, 2006 09:34 AM
Brian asked "What would happen to the Northern Irish Unionists if Scotland and England split?" - Ulster Unionists will just have to get used to the idea that there is no longer a United Kingdom for them to favour Union with. For a relatively short time they would presumably still have a political and legal connection with England. In the longer term probably the best thing would be if they could unite with the rest of Ireland, but on a FEDERAL basis, rather than with all power being concentrated in Dublin, and with strong gaurantees for the rights of protestants, and with official recognition of their distinctiveness being given by the Irish, Scottish, and English governments. But that would probably take quite a long time to work out, and would involve these three governments and all of the political parties in Northern Ireland in protracted negotiations. Scotland's claim for independence can not and will not wait for a settlement of the problems of Northern Ireland. "Would The Orangemen want to join the new Scottish nation" - some of them might want to join the newly independent Scotland, but, unless they actually emigrate to Scotland, they won't have that option. ALL of the pro-independence Scottish organisations have made it very clear that the Scotland they want independence for is the land where Scottish law applies at present, within it's present borders. There is no desire on the part of any political organisation in Scotland to acquire Northern Ireland or any other territory outside of Scotland's present borders.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 09:43 AM
I wish we here in Flanders would be as close to independence as the Scots. Away with the old and inherently undemocratic remnants of the old colonial empires. Too many European nations have been dominated by the Russian, Castilian, English etc. arrogance while colonializing not only their direct neighbours but whole parts of the world. Whole cultures have been nearly or completely whiped out by the cultural imperialists dominating Spain, the Russian empire, the United Kingdom or France. It is time that the small nations such as Scotland, Flanders, Catalonia, the Basque country and others get their rightfull place in Europe. They should follow the lead taken by the Baltic states, the Ukraine, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia and many others. The future lies in the small, democratic and prosperous nations, not in the old, neo-imperialistic, and inherently undemocratic remnants of lost empires.
Posted by: Paul | November 22, 2006 11:01 AM
Hello Dan New York, What part of "regionalisation of the UK is at the behest of the European commission, to make governance easier, devolution to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland was set in motion by the UK government on instructions from the EU as was the attempt to break England up into 9 "regions" (London is now under Ken Livingstone and has been tagged Greater london Assembly). When the people of the North East voted against an elected "Regional Assembly" both Labour's and the EU's plans faltered", don't you understand? The EU commission should keep their nose out of the internal affairs of England as they should have done with the UK, we were all getting along quite nicely thank you very much. Now there is rivalry, jealousy and down right animosity all brought about by the EU commission. A pox on them.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 22, 2006 11:10 AM
As a golfer, I want to know one thing: If Scotland votes for independence, what would happen to the British Open? Would it still exist under the same name but be played at courses in Scotland and England? I assume the Ryder Cup would still remain relatively unchanged. Posted by: Golfer | November 22, 2006 01:36 AM British Open will remain after independence and will continue to be played at the courses in both Scotland and England, as they have always done since the start of the competition (in 1860 at the course in Prestwick, Scotland). The name 'British' defines the area not a country, in the same way Scandinavia defines the area, which covers Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Likewise the Ryder Cup will remain unchanged, as it doesn't affect the fact that both Scotland and England are part of Europe. Scots in Scotland invented the game of Golf, in its present form, long before the act of Union. King James II of Scotland played golf, but the game was so popular that he had an Act of Scottish Parliament to ban it on Sundays so as to preserve the skills of archery. He declared that "fute-ball (soccer) and Golfe be utterly cryit doune, and nocht useit!" 'Fute-ball' had been banned by his father, King James I, in 1424. The English were a constant threat and the Scots were inferior to the English in matters of the bow and arrow. Residents of Aberdeen, St. Andrews and Leith on the east coast were the main culprits - they played and played. That was the first documented reference to today's game - the edicts of Parliament in 1457. In many parts of Scotland's east coast, parishioners were constantly being punished for playing golf "at the time of the preaching of the Sermon." Two more attempts were made to restrict the playing of 'gowf,' James III banning it again in 1470 and 1493 - although the people largely ignored it. And the Scots finally had to pay the consequences. At the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513, the Scots were assaulted by English bowmen and were no match for them. England routed the Scots, who had spent so much time playing golf! King James IV (King James I of England), the grandson of the king who originally tried to ban the sport, also tried to prevent the playing of golf. But he, too, found it hopeless and gave up, eventually beginning to play the game himself. The Treaty of Glasgow lifted the ban in 1502. So as you can see the game of Golf is firmly embedded in Scotland
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2006 11:12 AM
Patrick Harris Portsmouth I think your more anti-EU, than anything else, Devolution was not the result of an EU edict, you are obviously ignorant of the truth or just not aware of the facts. Devolution goes back, long before the EU was ever thought of! . In 1853 the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights was established. This body was close to the Tories and was motivated by a desire to secure more focus on Scottish problems in response to what they felt was undue attention being focused on Ireland by the then Liberal government. In 1871, William Gladstone stated at a meeting held in Aberdeen that if Ireland was to be granted home rule, then the same should apply to Scotland. A Scottish home rule bill was presented to the Westminster Parliament in 1913, the legislative process to pass it was interrupted by the First World War. In 1978 the Labour government passed the Scotland Act which legislated for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, provided the Scots voted for such in a plebiscite. However, the Labour Party was bitterly divided on the subject of devolution. Despite officially favouring it, vast numbers of members opposed the establishment of an assembly, and this division caused the failure to reach the required 40% of the electorate voting in favour of an assembly (that itself was a quota only added to the Scotland Act by an amendment proposed by a Labour In 1989 the Scottish Constitutional Convention was formed encompassing the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Green Party, local authorities, and sections of "civic Scotland" like Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Small Business Federation and Church of Scotland and the other major churches in Scotland. Its purpose was to devise a scheme for the formation of a devolution settlement for Scotland. The SNP decided to withdraw as they felt that independence would not be a constitutional option countenanced by the convention. The convention produced its final report in 1995. In May 1997, the Labour government of Tony Blair was elected with a promise of creating devolved institutions in Scotland. In late 1997, a referendum was held which resulted in a "yes" vote. The newly-created Scottish Parliament (as a result of the Scotland Act 1998) had powers to make primary legislation in certain areas of policy, in addition to some limited tax varying powers (which to date have not been exercised). Devolution for Scotland was justified on the basis that it would aid in bringing government closer to the people in the nation. It was argued that the population of Scotland felt detached from the Westminster government (largely because of the policies of the Conservative governments led by Margaret Thatcher and John Major
Posted by: Jack | November 22, 2006 11:29 AM
Come on all you American/Scots & Canadian/Scots, help us win independence for Scotland in May 2007 by visiting www.snp.org
Posted by: Willie Taylor | November 22, 2006 11:47 AM
Jack, we will have to agree to differ on the subject of the EU, as for Scotland, I really couldn't care less, you have got what you want (partially at least) and I sincerely hope you are successful in your quest for independence. Back to England, all we want is an English Parliament where all of the elected representatives are elected by English voters (I include any resident of England), In that way, without the added weight of Scots, Welsh and Irish MPs (elected by their own country folk), perhaps English university students could have a free education, life saving drugs could be available to English patients and English OAPs could get cradle to grave social care without charge a'la Scotland. Surely you can't see anything wrong with that. Well done Celtic Rangers!.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 22, 2006 11:48 AM
Very Strange notion to me- this splitting apart. Mainly because in the US our states are separate,but equal. Is that the state of things now with Scotland and UK? If so, what is the benefit of splitting? Or staying together for that matter? Posted by: cailet | November 22, 2006 04:22 AM In the United States, you are fortunate in that each state has its own form of government with tax raising powers and can decide independently on matters that are either ignored or overlooked by central government. The only areas that the indivudual states don't control is Defence and Foreign policy. This is actually very similar to what we have with the devolved government of Scotland. However the difference is that Scotland is a country in its own right, it was an Independent Kingdom before the act of Union and there are many (51% at the last opinion poll) who would like to see Scotland and independent Kingdom again. Many pro-unionists, north and south of the border with England have argued that Scotland could not afford to break away from England (implying it's a subsidy junkie), citing that Scotland gets a larger share of funding from the treasury in London , than the English do, especially in comparison to what Scotland puts in. The fact of the matter (which has been covered up by pro-unionist politicians) is that Scotland actually puts in more than it gets, especially when the revenues from the Scottish continental shelf are included. The pro-unionists answer to that is that Oil & Gas revenues from Scotlands Continental Shelf fields are small on a re head of population basis for the UK. It doesn't take a genius to see that considering the population as a whole for the UK is in the region of 60 million, that may be true, but with an Independent Scotland, which has a population of 5 million, the revenues, generated, although small in comparison to say those in the middle east, would be more than enough to support Scotland's population (which is estimated at around GBP 2500 per head of population in Scotland)
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2006 11:48 AM
to Patrick Harris Portsmouth Im all for a Parliament for England, in an Independant Kingdom of England, voted for by the population of England. It goes without saying that with the dissolution of the act of union, all those MP's from Scotland, would no longer sit in the Parliament in England as there positions would no longer exist (it should be noted that it would not just be Labour who would loose MP's, but also the Conservatives and LibDems). Personally speaking I would actually like to see an English Parliament built outside London at a location that would be more accessable to all the population of England. In the long run, an Independant Scotland and an Independant England would be better for all and could forsse that it would be an good relationship
Posted by: Jack | November 22, 2006 12:00 PM
"Also may I point out that while the union may only be 300 years old (still older than your country, americans!), the constituent parts were very much connected before.
Posted by: Edmund | November 21, 2006 10:42 PM " The United kingdom is only 69 years older than the USA. The consituent parts, by which you must mean Scotland and England may be connected just now, but there is a desire in Scotland to put an end to this
Posted by: Robert | November 22, 2006 12:13 PM
Gosh, so much looking to the past in these posts. What about political evolution? Ireland is better off but 'not there yet'. Wales has begun to finally assert its long-suppressed language, culture and writing, yet they aren't 'throwing off' any 'colonial oppressors'. Canada continues to evolve peacefully towards the future, whatever it may hold. Virtually every one of these posts feels that the tragedies and injustices of the past (from all sides) will be super-imposed on the future. Don't bet on it...successful cultures evolve, while xenophobic cultures stagnate and fail. The threat of Quebec separation in Canada is far more serious a threat than Scotland and Ireland's situation, yet it hasn't come about despite two referendum attempts. Why? Because the man and woman on the street inherently understand that there's nothing to be gained from embracing uncertainty, especially economic uncertainty. And as for those americans still obsessing over King George, get over it already...what a tired old horse that's become! Better yet, re-visit the causes of the famous 'Boston Tea Party' and you might find that it wasn't about 'taxation without representation', so much as the crown attempting to intercept and tax smuggled contraband goods that represented the special economic interests of several soon-to-be 'founders'...and the cowards had the nerve to disguise themselves as native americans, a people who could teach all of us quite a bit about 'colonial oppression' if we'd take the time to listen.
Posted by: Stormcrow | November 22, 2006 12:21 PM
" Very Strange notion to me- this splitting apart. Mainly because in the US our states are separate,but equal - " (Edward)
- thats just what we don't have in the UK - we have a UK parliament " the British parliament " sitting at Westminster , and there is a parliament for Scotland and an assembly/emerging parliament for Wales . Nothing at all for the ancient parliamenatry country of England other than direct rule from the British parliament - which includes celtic MP's of course - and much more than proportionately . There are virtually no English institutions only British ones - maninly dominated by celts .
No prizes for guesing who gets a much larger share of British government money -
why Scotland does , of course .
Posted by: Jason | November 22, 2006 02:11 PM
Willie Taylor says "Come on all you American/Scots & Canadian/Scots, help us win independence for Scotland in May 2007 by visiting www.snp.org". Mind you, there are quite a lot of Scots who support independence and yet are not too keen on some of the policies of the SNP. So anybody who wants to support independence for Scotland without necessarily supporting a particular political party should take a look at the website of Independence First, the single-issue, non-party-political, campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland. This campaign is strictly under the control of those of us in Scotland, but supporters in other countries (the USA, Canada, England, etc etc) can join as associate members if they want to. See www.independence1st.com
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 02:51 PM
"No prizes for guesing who gets a much larger share of British government money - why Scotland does , of course . Posted by: Jason | November 22, 2006 02:11 PM "
Sorry Jason, but since the act of Union , the bulk of investment went to England and has done in recent years, despite the amount of money thats actually contributed by Scotland. Your vision seems to be a bit blinkered in that you dont recognise the fact that all bills/acts passed in the UK parliament are for England and Wales only. But you wll no doubt be happier, once England is again an Independant Kingdom, you wont have to blame the woes of the country on 'celtic' MP's as there will be none (well Scottish ones anyway) when the Union is abolished. Scotland will thrive on its own revenue and that includes the revenue from the offshore Oil and Gas that London has been using for the past 30 odd years, ok perhaps not enough for the UK as a whole, but more than enough for the population of Scotland. By the way what natural resources does England have?
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2006 03:18 PM
51% of scots want to secede? That was the exact same percentage of Qubecois and Puerto Ricans that expressed a desire for independence in the weeks before referenda. When the actual votes were tallied though, the independence measures were shot down. Language, culture, etc. are fun to trot out for parades and holidays, but in the end they have never stood up to the almighty federal subsidy.
Posted by: chiron82 | November 22, 2006 03:29 PM
For god sake, it's a simple power grab. We have the oil, cut our links with the UK and live it up.
Ignore the fact that for years we Scots were supported and defended by England.
Ignore the history and common links. For once we are pulling our own weight and that goes against our natural frugality.
Yes Scotland could be independent, but than we can't ask the British Navy to protect the Scottish fishing grounds.
What happens to students who want to go to Oxford but find they now have to pay the international rate for their tuition?
The idea that a Scot would give to others more than he got in return goes against our Calvinist Religious Scot's principals.
Lets be blunt. We are white christens and we don't want any of our money going to help a darkie in Luton.
This movement is based on race, greed, and good old Scottish cheepnes.
What happens when the oil and gas is no more?
It's by a common bond and common destiny, for hundreds of years, through good and bad, that has lead to both Scotland and England prospering.
Posted by: | November 22, 2006 03:37 PM
to chiron82 You seem to be geeting things mixed up, Scotland is a country, was an Independent Kingom before 1707. Quebec on the other hand has nothing in common with Scotland, it wasnt an independent state. Your comment on Scottish culture and language was very demeaning to say the least. Thankfully Scotland IS self sufficient, contrary to Unionist claptrap is not a subsidy junkie
Posted by: Jack | November 22, 2006 03:42 PM
I find it interesting that it's refered to as "Scottish" oil when it belongs to all of the people of the UK "currently" if I'm not correct? Just like the trade routes did that where opened up to Scotland after the Act of Union that helped Scotland to prosper during the industrial revolution, right? If the oil had never been found would there be such a shout for independence ? As for Englands resources, there is still a whole lot of coal sitting under the ground I believe (although I think both nations should be moving farther away from fossil fule technology anyway). I am all for these two nations breaking apart if they wish too but some of the reasoning seems to be skewed. To the poster above who spoke of Thomas Paine, indeed he was born in Thetford in Norfolk England and resided in the town of Lewes in England where he begun to write "Common sense".
Posted by: New England | November 22, 2006 03:52 PM
To the Anonymous Unionist Idiot
"Ignore the fact that for years we Scots were supported and defended by England." Since when? That, has to be the biggest load of claptrap I've ever come across, Scotland has always provided men to defend the UK, before 1707, it was England that kept antagonising Scotland
"Yes Scotland could be independent, but than we can't ask the British Navy to protect the Scottish fishing grounds" In the settlement Scotland will have a share of the Navy, by the way there will not be a 'British Navy', there will be a Scottish Navy and an English Navy, or haven't you grasped that? "What happens to students who want to go to Oxford but find they now have to pay the international rate for their tuition?" What happens with students that want to study in mainland Europe? believe it or not Scotland has quite a few Universities of its own "The idea that a Scot would give to others more than he got in return goes against our Calvinist Religious Scot's principals". What planet are you on??, you sound like one of those idiot numpties that like to perpetuate the idea that Scots are mean
"Lets be blunt. We are white christens and we don't want any of our money going to help a darkie in Luton." That by the way is blatantly racist!, which would also suggest that your most probably English. Scotland is probably the most integrated society in western Europe, something that sticks in the throat of some English people
"This movement is based on race, greed, and good old Scottish cheepnes" Apart from an inability to accept the truth and not being able to spell, again your being racist, with the innuendo that Scots are a mean people (again this would suggest that your not Scottish) "What happens when the oil and gas is no more? " Current Oil and Gas reserves have a 30 to 40 year life, this excludes new fields that being explored or coming online "It's by a common bond and common destiny, for hundreds of years, through good and bad, that has lead to both Scotland and England prospering." Only a Unionist or Englishman would come out with that remark, there is no common bond, the union came abut through corruption and has always favoured England, right from the act itself
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2006 04:04 PM
to New England "find it interesting that it's referred to as "Scottish" oil when it belongs to all of the people of the UK "currently" if I'm not correct? Just like the trade routes did that where opened up to Scotland after the Act of Union that helped Scotland to prosper during the industrial revolution, right? If the oil had never been found would there be such a shout for independence? As for England's resources, there is still a whole lot of coal sitting under the ground I believe (although I think both nations should be moving farther away from fossil fule technology anyway). I am all for these two nations breaking apart if they wish too but some of the reasoning seems to be skewed.."
Your correct that as per the Act of Union, all resources that Scotland has is shared, so in modern terms that includes the Oil, but Scotland has never benefited from that, unfortunately there was from the start the 'What's yours is Ours- What's mine is mine' edict stemming from the union. Once Scotland becomes an independent nation the revenues will remain in Scotland. Its actually a joke to say that the trade routes opened after the act of union, a point that's glazed over is the fact that the English Navy at the behest of the English parliament went out of its way to hinder and in some incidences attack Scottish vessels before the union, as a result of the union, Scotland's trade routes that were flourishing, were curtailed as Scotland's merchants had to comply and accept those that were acceptable to the English. You should read up on what actually happened before, during and after the act of union. A good example would be the Darien project in which Scotland endeavoured to establish a colony in central America, with recommendations by English financiers on what's best. It's a fact that they were ill prepared and the area that was advised for them to go to was not suitable, when it failed and when the Scottish ships and colony were attacked, a request was sent to the English Navy to assist (remember this is at a time when both countries were under a single crown), they English Navy refused, after ordered by London not to help in any way!. If there had not been the oil and gas finds in Scotland's Continental Shelf, I would Have not been surprised, if Scotland had been granted independence a lot earlier, as there was nothing for England to get out of the union, by remaining with Scotland other than the Oil and gas. I agree both nations should be moving away from fossil fuels, it is fortunate that Scotland also has a Hydro Electric scheme, which is currently being increased, together with developing more in the way of wind and wave power
Posted by: | November 22, 2006 04:26 PM
"That by the way is blatantly racist!, which would also suggest that your most probably English."
That comment in itself is racist, to imply that because somebody makes a racist comment they are automatically English seems hypocritical.
"Scotland is probably the most integrated society in western Europe, something that sticks in the throat of some English people"
Only I would have thought the throats of Englishmen who share the same racist sentiment as any person of a racist disposition in Europe, be the Scottish, French, German etc. I've watched European politics closely and it appears countries like France, Austria and the Netherlands have a bigger problem with the likes of their right wing parties then the English, Scottish or Welsh have with the BNP, white nationalists etc.
"Only a Unionist or Englishman"
Surely you mean only a Unionist as the above posts show there are plenty of non-Unionist Englishmen.
You seem to have to have a little grudge yourself against the English, do you not think you would be better working with the English nationalists in achieving your goal rather then implying that the English are racist and Unionist by default?
Posted by: Denis MA | November 22, 2006 04:34 PM
I stand corrected Denis MA, it was wrong to imply that the racists comments came from either someone who is English or a Unionist, I hadnt intended to suggest that. Some of my best freinds are English. I find it annoying the comments that were made, bore no relation to the true picture of Scotland
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2006 04:48 PM
Edward> It seems to me that the English and Scottish nationalists on this forum spend more time sparring with each other then they do actually pointing out that the biggest problems lie with your governments over the years, not the guy on the street. Dragging up history only makes people bitter, surely since you all have the same goal, working together would be a better approach ?
Posted by: Denis MA | November 22, 2006 05:09 PM
Naive tribalism, indeed. What is a nation, anyway? Scotland will find itself marginalized , and will lose MUCH more than will England, itself. Hang together, or hang separately.
Posted by: jimbobuddy | November 22, 2006 05:31 PM
Denis MA : Well I agree, in modern terms, ideally 2 nations can work together as equal partners. The problem though with the United Kingdom was that it was founded at the start of the 18th Century, with a treaty (the act of union 1707) that cobbled together 2 political institutes, which was derived through corruption and subterfuge, religion also played its part. Allthough we should be forward thinking, it does help to understand the backdrop as to why things happened. Independence and home rule has been in discussion since the 19th century, so its not something thats just happened overnight. If it had been a partnership of equal parts, then there would not have been wrong doings such as the Glencoe masacre and th highland clearances which happened after the union. If it had been equal, there would have been equal investment, so we would not have a situation where people migrate south to London 'as thats where the jobs are'. Its only been within the last 5 to 10 years with the devolved parliament in Scotland that there has been a slow redress of the situation, nut like with anything too little too late. Scots now have the desire to continue with devolution, but to take it to the next step, which involves more fiscal powers, to have a bigger say in the world in having its own defence and foreign policy, that can only come about by tearing up the act of union. Scotland can still work with England, but with separate political institutions
Posted by: Edward | November 22, 2006 05:33 PM
to jimbobuddy I doubt it, Not really sure where you get this idea that Scotland would be marginalised (this is a regular arguement put out by unionists)Scotland will have the same standing as England will Ive seen this arguement so many times, but bo one has actually explained why
Posted by: Jack | November 22, 2006 05:37 PM
Edward> With regards to London I think that's the same in most countries. People migrate towards New York, Boston, LA etc. as thats where the money is. Head out into the mid-west and it's a lot poorer then say California or the East coast. I'm sure that's the same with most countries, not that it's necessarly right, but very much the case. I'm also sure there are remoter parts of England that suffer the same problem as Scotland ? There must have also been wrongs against the Englsh from the period you speak off? You only have to look at the industrial revolution to see how the ruling classes trated the poor, what with the work houses and all. All I'm saying is that the people that makes the decisions in history tend to be a small select group and blaming a whole country of people, whether you be English or Scottish for the other ills seems to let the real perputraitors of the hook. I hope England and Scotland do work together what ever routes they take, or we will simply see you both taking a step backwards which can't be good for the people living there?
Posted by: Denis MA | November 22, 2006 05:46 PM
Denis MA asks "do you not think you would be better working with the English nationalists in achieving your goal" - No, I don't. In my experience, English Nationalists really do tend to be racists. It is well know in every country where football ("soccer") is played that flag-waving supporters of the England football team have an unfortunate reputation internationally. Even if English Nationalists are not racist in other respects, their attitude towards us Scots is completely unacceptable. It's like asking supporters of Black Pride in the USA to co-operate with the Ku Klux Klan. "rather then implying that the English are racist and Unionist by default" - There are many millions of English people who are certainly NOT racists. Unfortunately, they are usually NOT the ones who describe themselves as "English Nationalists". The people in England who are the natural allies of Scots who want independence are the ones who say "okay, we recognise that you Scots have genuine grievances with the UK. We kinda wish you didn't want to leave the UK, but we recognise that you do have a right to do so".
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 07:37 PM
chiron82 wrote "51% of scots want to secede?" - No. That opinion poll suggested 51 percent OF EVERYBODY ENTITLED TO VOTE would support independence. The same opinion poll suggested that 39 percent would vote against. Now, if you add 51 and 39, you get 90. Not 100. Not a percentage. The other 10 percent are "don't knows". Exeprience shows that the don't knows will either (a) not vote, or (b) divide in the same 51/39 proportions. Therefore the percentage likely to vote for independence is 55, not 51. This is in line with other opinion polls. But I think it a safe bet that the real outcome of a referendum will in fact be a FAR higher percentage for independence. The experiences of Quebec and Puerto Rico are totally irrelevant. This is not some province we are talking about. This is a kingdom which was independent for a thousand years. As for "the almighty federal subsidy", the UK is not a federation, and Scotland isn't subsidized.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 07:56 PM
Somebody or other said about us Scots who want independence "Lets be blunt. We are white christens" - as a matter of fact, a significant percentage of the Scots who want independence are neither white nor Christian. "This movement is based on race, greed, and good old Scottish cheepnes" - You really don't know the first thing about Scotland, do you? "What happens when the oil and gas is no more?" - Scotland is well able to support itself without either oil or gas. We have plenty of several other valuable commodities. Renewable energy sources, for instance.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 08:03 PM
Dave> From what I could gather from following the world cup England seems to have removed the element that caused trouble except for a few small incerdents ? I also thought that the thug element where British nationalists not English nationalists? I've followed one of the links above to the English Democrats and they do not seem to fall into the white nationalist category, in fact their website says nothing negative about race at all?
Posted by: Denis MA | November 22, 2006 08:47 PM
Dennis MA wrote that he "thought that the thug element were British nationalists not English nationalists?" ; but there is no such thing as a "British" football team, and there never has been. The flag that the thug element of English supporters wave is definitely an English one. Yes of course there are many millions of good people in England who are certainly not racists, including some friends and relations of mine, and yes of course they will be our good neighbours when we are independent. But I'm a member of Independence First, the single-issue, non-party-political, campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland ( www.independence1st.com ) and I see absolutely no possibility of our campaign working together with the sort of English Nationalist who complains that "the Jocks get things too much their own way as it is".
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 09:26 PM
How fitting to end with football silliness. When the big war comes, trivial identity games will likely be forgotten.
Posted by: BioDoom | November 22, 2006 09:31 PM
I followed the link here from another website discussing devolution and the English parliment. I'm certainly disapointed by some of the above posts from both English and Scottish posters. The football hooligan element you speak of in the 80's where more likely to be seen flying the Union Jack then the CoSG and the NF which is a British fascist group where known to be invovled in starting some of the violence. Scottish foot ball isn't without it's yobs either. Rangers, Celtic anyone... I do agree with the idea of an independent England and Scotland, I think the time has come to part company. If the link below is anything to do by it's only too soon...
Posted by: ED Sussex | November 22, 2006 09:46 PM
..and the march of new states keeps coming: Ukraine, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, Moldova, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Montenegro. Is it then farfetched that we could have Wales, Scotland, Lombardia, Sicily, Corsica, Euskadi, Bavaria, Flanders, and more?
Europe of 2055 will be a sea of new nations.
Posted by: Dembe | November 22, 2006 09:50 PM
Please don't confuse "British" with English, British is a collective of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The British National Party (BNP)are the nationalist party that shroud themselves in the Union Flag (not jack - it is only referred to as the Union Jack when hoist to the jack of a ship in harbour). They advocate repatriation of all non white "British" residents. The English Democrats Party are the nationalist party that displays the Cross of St. George flag the national flag of England, Our aim is to set up an English Parliament which will serve all those who deem themselves to be English regardless of colour or religion. That's as short as I can make it, if you want to know more click onto www.englishdemocrats.org.uk
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 22, 2006 10:02 PM
This part stood out for me:
" Losing Scotland's 5 million people would not be a huge blow to England's size (more than 50m) "
I find it strange to not consider a 10% loss a huge blow to England's size.
Posted by: Pete | November 22, 2006 10:46 PM
Ed from Sussex posted the Saor Alba website. I had not seen this before, and I agree it is extremely unpleasant. However I would point out three things : (1) It is nothing to do with the mainstream independence movements here in Scotland, most of which, including the one of which I am a member, have English members who play a valued part in our campaign, (2) Most of the posts on that website are under false names, in fact, it is entirely possible that most of them could be from the same person using different addresses, and (3) as one of the posters on the Saor Alba website says about another 'group' (actually, just one man) to which Saor Alba have a link "Everyone knows MI5 are behind them anyway". The purpose of such "groups" is to seek to discredit the independence movement.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 22, 2006 11:55 PM
If independence was good enough for America, why isn't it good enough for Scotland?
As Ewan McGregor said in Trainspotting, "We were colonized by effete wankers."
I agree. Scots, it's about time you got back your country and took control over your natural resources.
And, by the way, England doesn't get to keep the permanent Security Council seat. She doesn't deserve it, and never has.
Posted by: Sean Connery | November 23, 2006 02:08 AM
Sean Connery> If Scotlands good enough for Independence why don't you move back there ;) oh that's right because a man who spent a chunk of his life acting as a British agent in James Bond is a hypocrite and a dis-credit to Scotlands republican movement. England never had a seat on the security council, Britain did.... You may have noticed Britain's defence minister is a Scot, or maybe you've just watched too many Mel Gibson movies....
Posted by: Andy | November 23, 2006 04:08 AM
"Ironically, the elections will come just a matter of days after the 300th anniversary of the creation of modern Britain when the Scottish and English parliaments were merged in 1707."
Is that really a good example of irony? Or, perhaps just a coincidence.
Posted by: Peter | November 23, 2006 05:08 AM
Anyone who wishes to understand in greater detail just how relevent the idea of 'Calvanist Conservative Scotland' is, should read A History of Britain Vol 2 by Simon Schama. That Scotland retains this element and they desire to assert their identity once more is good for them, but potentially bad for Souther Ireland, who have been the traditional enemies of Calvanist support of Northern Irish protestants. This 'break up' of the UK could in fact eventually lead to the rekindling of 'British' wars and cause a resurgence of English (read about Cromwell) 'pragmatism'.
Posted by: Joe | November 23, 2006 08:45 AM
D Coull's remarks about England are typical of the narrown minded , arrogant enmity which we English have had showered upon us from Scotland for many years . It just gets worse . He appears to know nothing about us . It is laughable that someone from Scotland where the two most prominent clubs are Rangers and Celtic plus others with a well deserved rputation for extreme football violence should accuse England of same . Yes , there is a bit of football aggro in England - we are novices by comparison with Scotland . Incredibly , those two poisonous clubs have aired moves to join the English FA . Never . We don't want them and we don't want their malignant mentality which is part and parcel of Scotland .
Says it all really .
Here's to English independence .
Posted by: Jason | November 23, 2006 12:27 PM
Jason says "D Coull's remarks about England are typical of the narrown minded, arrogant enmity which we English have had showered upon us from Scotland for many years". Really? So which part of my remark that "of course there are many millions of good people in England who are certainly not racists, including some friends and relations of mine, and yes of course they will be our good neighbours when we are independent" did Jason consider marrow minded and arrogant? As for "He appears to know nothing about us" - I lived and worked in England for twenty years. A few months in Birmingham, nearly twelve years in London, and almost 8 years in Devon. And before anybody makes any stupid remarks about the Scots in England, remember that one person in every twelve of the population of Scotland was born in England, and support for independence for Scotland is just as high amongst them as it is amongst Scots as a whole.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 23, 2006 03:48 PM
Jason wrote "D Coull's remarks about England are typical of the narrow minded , arrogant enmity which we English have had showered upon us" - really? So what part of my remark that "there are many millions of good people in England who are certainly not racists, including some friends and relations of mine, and yes of course they will be our good neighbours when we are independent" was "narrow minded"? As for "He appears to know nothing about us" - I lived in England for twenty years. A few months in Birmingham, almost 8 years in Devon, and nearly 12 years in London. And before anybody makes any foolish remarks about the Scots in England, remember that more than 10 percent of the present-day population of Scotland were born in England, and support for independence for Scotland is just as high amongst them as it is amongst the Scots as a whole.
Posted by: Dave Coull | November 23, 2006 04:00 PM
More and more English want independence and an end to this union which we never voted for or were consulted about - from a late start the figures in opinion polls for England are rapidly catching up with those for Scotland . Whichever country initiates the divorce is irrelevant - it will be a divorce and after it is done there will be no more UK : both will be independent of each other
Posted by: Jason | November 23, 2006 04:07 PM
I dont see what England or the English have got to do with this debate, but we are still subjected to their educated "opinions", even here! Scotland will regain its independence whether you like it or not. We will hoist our flag at the UN, and rejoin the international community. at long last.
And guess what....there's not one damn thing you can do about it.
Posted by: Steve | November 23, 2006 08:26 PM
Steve - You ain't got the guts, come May 2007 and in the secrecy of your Scottish ballot box you will mull over what is best for Scotland and think "English money". You will try to drag your writing arm down to SNP but it juuuuuuust won't do it.
Posted by: Patrick Harris Portsmouth | November 23, 2006 09:59 PM
It's long been clear that since the advent of the EU the UK's days are numbered, and as an Englishman I have no problem with that. In fact I feel the dissolution of the UK could be good for England: it might force us to at long last concede that the British Empire is dead and face the fact that our future is with Europe.
I would set one condition to Scotland's independence though: Northern Ireland. We don't want it and never have done. The NI protestant community is descended from Scots settlers and is culturally far more akin to Scotland than to England, so if the NI unionists don't want to rejoin Ireland in the event of the UK breaking up, it will be Scotland's moral responsibility to take NI with it, not England's.
Posted by: Roy | November 24, 2006 04:02 AM
Perhaps England will leave first?
Posted by: Browser | November 24, 2006 09:11 AM
My mom is Scottish, and we now live in America. It never occurred to me until reading these comments here: LOL! my mom has NEVER referred to herself as "British". She is "Scottish". I never even thought about it.
Interestingly, she does (unconsciously) refer to Scottish residents from India, Pakistan, Africa, and so on as "Scottish". She has commented on the novelty of a "Scottish Black" - but if the person speaks with a distinctive Scottish accent, they are, indeed, Scottish!
Posted by: James | November 24, 2006 11:21 AM
Looking at it from a cost-benefit analysis, independence is the better strategy for Scotland. They should have seceded years ago.
Would Scotland really keep the monarch or even get a new one? Personally, I find royalty revolting. I cant imagine people fawning over a fellow human who has blatant disdain for them. Yuck!
Anyway, England, you're not losing a region, you're gaining an ally!
Posted by: James | November 24, 2006 11:34 AM
Pete (november 22) posted :This part stood out for me: " Losing Scotland's 5 million people would not be a huge blow to England's size (more than 50m) ".I find it strange to not consider a 10% loss a huge blow to England's size.
Do you not condider a 90% loss a huge blow to Scotland's size?
Posted by: Eve | November 24, 2006 11:37 AM
Steve said " I dont see what England or the English have got to do with this debate, but we are still subjected to their educated "opinions", even here! "
A beautiful exposition of Scottish arrogance . This debate is about The End of the United kingdom . Which includes England . Thats right Steve : the country which pays for your country . Scots have been in ultra whinge mode since forever . The English don't tend to whinge but we can take action and that action might just be to declare English independence and get shot of you and your politicians .
( since I doubt Scotland have the guts to do it come May 2007 )
Posted by: | November 24, 2006 01:06 PM
You're caricaturing yourself as an "exiled" (Oh, the Drama!) San Franciscan aren't you? If not, then we truly are better off without you, and Australia more the worse. If you truly think these nether regions of Jesusland, Redneckonia, and Queensland live up to their pop culture images, and are devoid of creative, productive elements in their citizenry, then you truly haven't examined your world. Oh, and by the way, I found Frisco to be a beautiful, amazing place with many intelligent people, although they did accuse me of talking funny!
And to all the folks in GA and the QLD, if you ever have to deal with this type, just remember--the angrier you can make 'em, the more fun it is for you, and it's all their loss.
Posted by: Ignorant Redneckonian | November 24, 2006 05:27 PM
All the emotional arguments make for a compelling story, regardless of the accuracy of their basis in history. Sadly, this is no argument in itself for independence, and is easily misconstrued (and yes in some cases intended) as xenophobia. However, it is a backdrop that has defined Scotland as a distinct region, for better or worse.
As both sides -- including the English demagogues -- point out, each would be better off economically with the split. They're both right -- why try and bind two diverse nations to a single economic policy? As both are enveloped by the EU, most of the civic benefits of Union can be retained after dissolution -- freedom of trade and migration primarily. It's not like there hasn't already been separation in law and education since forever.
Btw, I think Adam Smith would be proud of his dynamic little country. It's cet
Posted by: Chris | November 24, 2006 06:41 PM
...It's not our lot to cherry pick the portions of his work that fits our ideology, ignoring the rest.
Posted by: Chris | November 24, 2006 06:43 PM
Disillusionment, as the author describes it, comes from the left-wing Scots marriage to 19th century socialist ideals. As with Ireland, they will only progress when they stop living in the past.
Posted by: Paul, New York, USA | November 25, 2006 03:28 PM
The United Kingdom was built by English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh. It was forced and created by Englishmen, Mostly greedy lords with money on minds and blood on hands. This native indegenous blood of the gaelic scot, welsh or irish became that of the indian or african. As the celts became more english and aceptable they moved up the british food chain, "Hunted becomes the hunter" The imperial experiment grew, the UK/british idea grew morphing into imperialism. UK Higher classes preached how civil they where and believed it. It eventually has to practice what it preached. International pressure and technological advancement ie TV/press & Freedom of speach has lead to a sleeping giant of an oppressed native group of peoples re-surfacing. An example would be welsh language rights growth. I am irish, free of forieng monarchs and governments yet desperate to see a modern scotland, Wales, england and ireland emerge from these historical chains which linger on even today. Look and Northern Ireland, pure tribalism. It is referd to by my elders as remnants of empire. Its solution is directly linked to the UKs break up. It would simply make its argument redundant. So much to say so little time. The world needs a free scotland. It would mature the EU, Westminster & Wasington. The current international power houses are mainly western this is because of technology but there international policy is not driven by humanity but money. The scottish question has economic elements (ironically oil) but is primarily idealistic. Imperial logic needs to be sent into the history books. International decisions need social logic not economic. This can happen only if a big consequence results from economic policy making. Scotland leaving (ending) the UK will send an international political message. Scots are currently not equal within the UK. They will leave eventually. Thankfully aided by englishmen with no para groups. I could go on.
Posted by: John Republic of Ireland | November 25, 2006 08:38 PM
I'm a holder of a British passport living in the US, and my father's line is Scottish (Cameron of Erracht) though I have never lived in Scotland. Perhaps Dave Coull could tell me whether I'd be eligible for a Scottish passport in the event of devolution...
Posted by: C Cameron | November 26, 2006 04:10 AM
Mori Ipsos poll released today -
68% of the English want an English parliament with the same rights as the Scotish parliament .
48% want outright English independence .
ie only 4% behind the corresponding figure ( 52% ) for Scotland .
Think on it , all you professional celtic "victims" .
Posted by: Jason | November 26, 2006 05:34 PM
To the anti-monarchists: You are entitled to be pro-republic, but there is no need to be disrespectful. You negate your argument and, while I disagree with you, I won't even listen to you if you maintain such vicious standpoints.
To the seperatists: England doesn't have a Parliament. Why do you have to have one? England isn't even recognised as a country. Why does Scotland have to push a step further? If independence is voted for in Scotland, surely the English should get a say in whether or not they agree with the separation?
And: on the issue of 'English', 'Scottish' etc, that's fine - but shouldn't we note what is on our passport: British. We should recognise that the UK retains a lot of strength on the world stage due to our Union; if the Union falls neither Scotland nor England will have the same recognition & respect that the UK is afforded.
Finally: we've seen tampering go wrong (devolution! & the House of Lords), we've seen admissions that some changes were wrong (the attempted abolition of The Lord Chancellor) and we've seen that together we're stronger. Why change?!
Posted by: Ranil M. Jayawardena, Esq. | Conservative Future | November 27, 2006 12:42 AM
Not a MORI IPSOS poll Jason, an ICM poll
68% of English people want an English Parliament 59% of English people want Scotland to leave the UK (only 52% of Scots) 48% of English people want England's independence (43% do not, the rest don't know) Scotland is not the story. England is the story.
Posted by: Stephen Gash | November 27, 2006 01:22 PM
I am intrigued by all the speculation and what-if's. Scottish calling the English and English calling the Scottish. For way to long now Britain has been fooling the world into thinking that Britain is 1 country. Lets take sport as an example. "Football 4 different teams" "Olympics One Team" "Rugby League One Team" "Rugby Union 3 Teams" the fourth deciding it better to latch onto the Republic of Ireland and thank god for that as we now have a wonderful team so thank you to all in the North.
Britain or should I say England as used the Act of Union for way too long to gain influence in organisations not just within sport but also in NATO EU and United nations.
I dont want to English bash, but to a small country and at long last a properous one, I believe England should go it alone as they now have serious problems with a range of different issues that they need to sort out domestically. By Scotland becomming independant England could pull back from the brink in Iraq Afganistan and other conflict areas around the globe using the Scots as a way out.
Good luck to Scotland in May but good luck to England and Wales also. I look forward to Scotland coming back to it's true alliance "IRELAND" same currency(if they go Euro) same languages. It will also give the Northern unionists every opportunity to join in the alliance once and for all. Wales if you are reading come and join the party. No royal here.
Posted by: Irish-John | November 28, 2006 10:55 AM
I cannot judge the situation in the UK, but as a Fleming I can say Belgium is going to break up in the near future. It's not a question of 'IF' but 'WHEN'. Flanders is the Northern and Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. We have already our own flag, anthem, government and parliamant. We have low unemployment and 80% of "belgian" exports is Flemish. Each year we pay 11 billion euro's to Wallonia (the Southern French-speaking state) and we don't get anything in return but insults. I don't feel Belgian, Belgium is not a nation. Flanders is! Flanders exists for over 600 years. I'm Flemish and proud of it and I respect and support all other nations.
Posted by: Dennis V. | November 28, 2006 11:35 AM
'We should recognise that the UK retains a lot of strength on the world stage due to our Union; if the Union falls neither Scotland nor England will have the same recognition & respect that the UK is afforded.' Ranil M. Jayawardena
The act of union in 1707, which brought about the UK, was made possible through the corruption and conivances of English politicians as well as a corrupt King, Scots noblemen and politicians were bribed and paid off, The union was very unpopular with rioting on both sides of the border. To say that the UK is respected isnt quite true, there is also the believe amongst pro-unionist politicians today that the UK is a 'Global power', it isnt!, has been one since 1945, so please get real, there is a desire to have an Indpendant Scotland and by result will have a Independant England, no more UK
Posted by: | November 29, 2006 02:05 AM
'Disillusionment, as the author describes it, comes from the left-wing Scots marriage to 19th century socialist ideals. As with Ireland, they will only progress when they stop living in the past.
Posted by: Paul, New York, USA | November 25, 2006 03:28 PM ' Just shows how much you know about the modern Scotland then and thats naff all!
Posted by: Edward,Berkshire | November 29, 2006 02:09 AM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 15,542.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000965.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000965.html
|
The Lingo Of Vietnam
|
2006112119
|
The way President Bush whisked through Vietnam -- oh, if only we had done the same 40 years ago -- it seemed as if he was feeling an obvious parallel with the war in Iraq. His aides, who somehow lose IQ points by mere proximity to the commander in chief -- national security adviser Stephen Hadley argued that Bush had "gotten a real sense of the warmth of the Vietnamese people" as he sped by in his motorcade -- insisted that no parallel existed. But these aides are dead wrong. There is this: I would have fought neither war.
Before you protest "of course, Cohen," let me explain that the "I" in the foregoing sentence is really four people. There is the "I" who originally thought the Vietnam War was morally correct, that the communists were awful people and that the loss of South Vietnam (the North was already gone) would result in a debacle for its people. That's, in fact, what happened. It was only later, when I myself was in the Army, that I deemed the war not worth killing or dying for. By then I -- the second "I" -- no longer felt it was winnable, and I did not want to lose my life so that somehow defeat could be managed more elegantly.
Things are precisely the same with Iraq, and here, too, I -- No. 3 -- originally had no moral qualms about the war. Saddam Hussein was a beast who had twice invaded his neighbors, had killed his own people with abandon and posed a threat -- and not just a theoretical one -- to Israel. If anything, I was encouraged in my belief by the offensive opposition to the war -- silly arguments about oil or empire or, at bottom, the ineradicable and perpetual rottenness of America.
On the contrary, I thought. We are a good country, attempting to do a good thing. In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic. The United States had the power to change things for the better, and those who would do the changing -- the fighting -- were, after all, volunteers. This mattered to me.
But these volunteers are now fighting a war few envisaged and no one wanted -- not I (No. 4), for sure. If at one time my latter-day minutemen marched off thinking they were bringing democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East, they now must know better. If they thought they were going to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction and sever the link between al-Qaeda and Hussein, they now are entitled to feel duped by Bush, Vice President Cheney and others. The exaggerations are particularly repellent. To fool someone into sacrificing his life to battle a chimera is a hideous abuse of the public trust.
Daily I read the casualty list from Iraq -- and I invent reasons to make the deaths less tragic. This is a hopeless, maybe tasteless, task, but it matters to me if someone is a career soldier who knew what he was getting into as opposed to some naive kid digitally juiced on a computerized version of war -- or, even sadder, some guardsman who enlisted for God, country or spare cash, but not by any means for Baghdad. He's a volunteer, all right, but not for a war that didn't exist when he raised his right hand and took the oath.
My dauntingly knowledgeable Post colleague Thomas E. Ricks reports from the Pentagon that the military is now considering three options for Iraq: more troops, fewer troops (but for a longer time) and no troops at all -- the ol' cut and run. The missing option here is victory. Don't worry, it will be invented. "You have to define win," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who is about to return to Iraq, told the New York Times. Ah, just in the nick of time.
Where have we heard this sort of language before? It is the lingo of Vietnam. As with Vietnam, we are fighting now merely not to lose -- to avoid a full-fledged civil war (it's coming anyway) or to keep the country together, something like that. But not for victory. Not for democracy. All this talk of the Iraqis doing more on their own behalf is Vietnamization in the desert rather than the jungle. What remains the same is asking soldiers to die for a reason that the politicians in Washington can no longer explain. This, above all, is how Iraq is like Vietnam: older men asking younger men to die while they try to figure something out.
That's why Bush kept moving. He knows Vietnam is not just about the past. It's also about the future.
|
This, above all, is how Iraq is like Vietnam: older men asking younger men to die while they try to figure something out.
| 34.518519 | 1 | 27 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100242.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100242.html
|
'Seinfeld' Comic Richards Apologizes for Racial Rant
|
2006112119
|
Michael Richards, who played the quirky Cosmo Kramer on "Seinfeld," apologized yesterday for using racist language in an angry exchange with an African American man at a comedy club on Friday.
Richards, 57, appeared on "Late Show With David Letterman" last night to say he was sorry about his tirade at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood during a stand-up performance. "I lost my temper onstage," he said, adding, "I said some pretty nasty things to some Afro Americans. . . . You know, I'm really busted up over this and I'm very, very sorry."
Footage of the outburst made its way onto the Internet yesterday, prompting the comic actor's response. The clip shows Richards interrupting his monologue onstage and yelling "Shut up!" at a patron, who apparently had been heckling during Richards's routine.
Richards then exploded, "Fifty years ago they'd have you hanging upside down with a [expletive] fork up your [expletive]. Throw his [expletive] out!"
He then repeatedly used a crude racial slur to label the man.
While some in the audience laughed, one unidentified woman can be heard on a tape of the incident gasping, "Oh, my God!" at the remarks.
The man continued to yell back at Richards, saying several times, "That was uncalled for!" He called Richards a series of names, including "cracker" and "[expletive] white boy" and disparaged his post-"Seinfeld" career.
"Yeah, I'm washed up," Richards replied mockingly.
It's possible that he is. Other prominent people, such as Mel Gibson and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), have inflicted career-threatening wounds by making racially insensitive remarks in recent months. Gibson apologized repeatedly for a drunken rant against a Jewish policeman who arrested him in July. Allen also apologized after calling a young worker for his opponent "macaca" at a rally in August. The incident became an issue in Allen's unsuccessful bid for reelection.
Richards made an unscheduled appearance on the Letterman show, appearing via satellite from Los Angeles at the request of his former co-star Jerry Seinfeld, who was a guest on the show, according to a CBS source.
His sometimes rambling apology took on a Krameresque spin when he said, "There's a great deal of disturbance in this country, and how blacks feel about what happened in Katrina and, you know, many of the comics, many of the performers are in Las Vegas and New Orleans trying to raise money for what happened there, and for this to happen, for me to be in a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, you know, I'm deeply, deeply sorry. And I'll get to the force field of this hostility, why it's there, why the rage is in any of us, why the trash takes place, whether or not it's between me and a couple of hecklers in the audience or between this country and another nation, the rage . . . "
Seinfeld, who had previously been booked to promote the DVD release of "Seinfeld's" seventh season, had earlier issued a statement saying he was "sick" over Richards's remarks.
"I'm sure Michael is also sick over this horrible, horrible mistake," Seinfeld said in his statement. "It is so extremely offensive. I feel terrible for all the people who have been hurt."
Richards's rant was condemned by protesters who showed up at the comedy club Monday and by some of his fellow comedians. "Once the word comes out of your mouth and you don't happen to be African American, then you have a whole lot of explaining," comedian Paul Rodriguez said in an interview with CNN. "Freedom of speech has its limitations, and I think Michael Richards found those limitations."
The incident ended Friday when Richards, who was billed in advance of the show only as a special guest, left the stage without finishing his routine. The club's host, Frazer Smith, then took the stage and told the crowd, "I want to tell you guys, sorry about that." By then, many were getting up to leave. Richards returned to the club and performed Saturday night.
|
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.
| 16.627451 | 0.392157 | 0.470588 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/11/21/BL2006112100470.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/11/21/BL2006112100470.html
|
Howard Kurtz - Outfoxed - washingtonpost.com
|
2006112119
|
The power of public revulsion can be pretty awesome.
Rupert Murdoch's gamble--that the inevitable controversy surrounding his appalling plan for an O.J. book-and-TV extravaganza would fuel ratings and Amazon sales--backfired big time. Everyone hated the idea, and hated it with an intensity that forced the media mogul, who has rarely been guilty of underestimating the taste of the American public, to pull the plug.
Even Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News commentators were denouncing the project as odious. More Fox affiliates were bailing on this prime-time garbage. Advertisers did not seem to be lining up to sponsor the thing. So Murdoch belatedly realized that he was facing not just a public relations black eye but a financial bath as well.
Well, I give him credit for admitting he had made a world-class blunder, even though in the end he may have had little choice. I look forward to Judith Regan's apology as well.
From the first second that this was announced, I couldn't figure out what they were thinking. Pay millions of dollars to a guy who'd been convicted in a civil trial to prattle on about how he would have killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, if he had done it, which he said he hadn't, even though he was perfectly willing to mock their memory with what amounted to a bogus confession?
Sit for an "interview," not with a journalist but with Regan, the woman who was publishing this slime, and justified it because she had once been a battered wife?
I had a debate at CNN's "Reliable Sources" over whether to lead with O.J. (we ultimately did) and how much time to devote to it. I was concerned that we were falling into Murdoch's trap, that attacking the project, even in the most vociferous terms, was tantamount to fueling the publicity machine. One of my guests almost dropped out for the same reason. But it turns out that denouncing this ill-fated outrage was a worthwhile endeavor, that it was another way of registering the public anger. Gail Shister of the Philadelphia Inquirer predicted that it might never come off, and she was prescient.
Now Murdoch says he agrees "with the American public" that this was an "ill-considered project." Maybe he should have weighed the public's likely reaction before greenlighting this stunt.
This kind of climbdown almost never happens. CBS did pull the "Reagans" movie and kick it over to Showtime, but that was a work of fiction (though Simpson's screed arguably falls in the same category). But for a major media corporation to tout the hell out of this (in part through another Murdoch outlet, the New York Post) and then back down in the face of furious protests shows that there are some lines, at least, that are difficult to cross.
The Murdoch reversal came after Broadcasting & Cable declared: "Fox should cancel this evil sweeps stunt."
Some of this morning's coverage, starting with the LAT:
"A brewing rebellion from Fox affiliate television stations, coupled with revulsion from the advertising world, caused Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation on Monday to abandon its plans to publish a book and air a two-part television interview with O.J. Simpson . . . The decision to cancel the Simpson venture followed nearly a week of outrage from everyone from the victims' families to a growing list of booksellers and Fox affiliates who refused to carry the projects."
|
The power of public revulsion can be pretty awesome.
| 68.1 | 1 | 10 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001122.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001122.html
|
Studies: Hospitals Could Do More to Avoid Infections
|
2006112119
|
Infections acquired in hospitals, which take a heavy toll on patients, arise mainly from poor hygiene in hospital procedures, not from how sick patients were when they were admitted, according to three new studies.
The studies, published yesterday in the American Journal of Medical Quality, provide new evidence for experts who argue that hospitals could prevent many of the growing number of infections that afflict patients nationwide, cost billions of dollars to treat and are responsible for thousands of deaths each year.
"It's the process, not the patients," said David B. Nash, the journal's editor and chairman of the Department of Health Policy at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. "These three groups independently found that despite hospitals' claim that in the sickest patients it's inevitable that someone is going to get a hospital-acquired infection, that's just not the case."
Rather than accepting some infections as unavoidable, Nash said, health professionals should do more to promote hand-washing among medical staff, take greater care in donning gowns and other infection-preventing clothing during medical procedures, reduce traffic in and out of operating rooms, isolate patients when necessary and use antibiotics more selectively.
The government can do more to educate the public and encourage hospitals to report infections, Nash said. And patients should speak up more, even asking doctors and nurses, "Did you wash your hands?" before being treated.
Hospital officials agree, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety at the American Hospital Association, which represents more than 4,800 hospitals and health-care systems nationwide.
"The new wave of research is showing that our previous expectations around what was preventable underestimated what we could actually achieve," Foster said. "We can prevent more infections than we thought before. Lots of hospitals are striving to get to zero" infections.
Preventing infections is a "delicate balancing act," she said, because simple measures such as greater antibiotic use would simply speed up the evolution of drug-resistant germs. "It's really the germs that are the bad guys here," she said.
Previous studies have shown that patients with hospital-acquired infections spend many more days in the hospital, undergo more extensive procedures and are more likely to die than patients who do not contract them. The problem has been the subject of congressional hearings and reports by the federal Institute of Medicine.
Solid national estimates are not available. But in Pennsylvania, the first state to collect such data, 19,154 patients contracted an infection in hospitals last year, up from 11,668 in 2004, according to a survey released last week by the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. The council, a state agency, said some of the increase was because of better reporting by hospitals.
The average hospital stay in Pennsylvania was nearly 21 days for those with hospital-acquired infections, and five days for patients without them. The average hospital charge was $185,260 for those with infections, nearly six times the $31,389 incurred by others. Twelve percent of patients who acquired infections died, compared with 2.3 percent of other patients.
The Pennsylvania survey, involving 168 hospitals and 1.6 million patients, examined four types of hospital-acquired infection: urinary tract infections associated with catheter use, infections from a central line inserted in large veins, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and infections at the site of incisions.
In one study released yesterday, researchers at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh found that age and severity of illness did not appear to be risk factors among 54 patients with ailments such as heart attacks and respiratory failure who contracted central line-associated bloodstream infections during the three-year period that was reviewed. On average, the hospital lost $26,839 caring for each patient, illustrating that there are financial advantages to reducing infections, the study found.
A second study, by researchers affiliated with provider Cardinal Health Inc. in Massachusetts, found that patients with hospital-acquired infections stayed in the hospital longer, were more likely to die and faced higher costs than patients with similar underlying illnesses who did not contract such infections. The severity of the effects of the infection could not be attributed to how sick the patient was on admission, the study found.
The third study, led by Christopher S. Hollenbeak, a professor of surgery at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pa., examined Pennsylvania's data for more than 180,000 surgical patients. It found that, while factors such as age and obesity, and conditions such as diabetes helped determine whether a patient was likely to develop a surgical wound infection, hospital practices such as hand-washing, the duration of surgeries and traffic through the operating room played a greater role.
"Hospital-acquired infections . . . should not be viewed as inevitable," said Marc P. Volavka, executive director of the Pennsylvania agency. "They are not just about the very elderly or the very sick. The simple fact is that every patient that enters a hospital in Pennsylvania and in this country is at risk for a hospital-acquired infection."
|
Infections acquired in hospitals, which take a heavy toll on patients, arise mainly from poor hygiene in hospital procedures, not from how sick patients were when they were admitted, according to three new studies.
| 25.153846 | 1 | 39 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/21/DI2006112100530.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/21/DI2006112100530.html
|
Students in Limbo
|
2006112119
|
Washington Post staff writer Ian Shapira was online Tuesday, Nov. 21 at 3 p.m. to discuss his story about area students who do well in school but struggle with state exams.
Ian Shapira: Good afternoon metropolitan Washington, the nation, the world! Welcome to the chat. Let's talk about everyone's favorite education topic: standardized exams.
Grade Inflation?: These kids are getting trapped by grade inflation. I went to Catholic school, which was immune to these tests. Nevertheless, I was an A and B student in high school but nearly flunked out in my frosh year of college. My high school grades were inflated by extra credit, a generous curve or partial credit. In college, particularly in math, the answer was either all right or all wrong. I literally went from 90s to 20s because of the strict approach. Also, grammar mattered in college papers. I would get As and Bs for content and lose enough points on grammar to lose a letter grade. It took me an entire year to adjust to this. I had concepts, but I did not have detail and structure. As enriching as my HS teachers were, I believe my school did not prepare me adequately. As a professional that uses math, it is a matter of it being right or wrong, not partial.
Ian Shapira: Dear Grade Inflation: I have been hearing about problems like yours from lots of readers and experts out there and this could perhaps make a nice sequel to today's story: Should colleges -- higher education -- have a say in how local K-12 education is shaped? You went to a private school, so you got what you paid for, so to speak. But the issue is still the same and it matters to college professors how well students are being prepared, even if they did got to a school with a strong reputation or got good grades there.
Former Honors Student: I am a firm believer that education in the U.S. needs to more standardized across the board. If the state has these tests, there should be preliminary test to gauge students, not a remedial class to prepare them. What do they do to measure kids before the exam?
Ian Shapira: Dear Former Honors Student: Lots of people are in your camp, but you run up against issues like federalism and states rights. States have always enjoyed being the ones calling the shots about how their kids should be taught. With a national standardized exam, there is a risk you could be taking that away from them.
Washington, D.C.: My roommate in my freshman year at U. of Maryland was a straight-A student at his Baltimore Catholic high school and third in his class. He ridiculed my 2.8 GPA since he had a 3.8. But he didn't seem to KNOW anything, nothing about history or politics, no great books, nothing about health or biology or chemistry, mistaken science ideas, just Bible knowledge and a great GPA. He flunked out after one semester complaining that the professors wouldn't LISTEN to his explanations. I always wondered what they graded him on in high school. Aren't standardized tests supposed to show that some schools don't grade correctly?
Ian Shapira: Dear Washington, D.C.:
The only thing that's clear about standardized tests should do is this: that if you pass them, you're good at taking standardized tests. Lots of people argue that it's hard assessing one's true knowledge of material with an exam. It's an age-old argument, but some people are smart and know their stuff, but aren't good with exams.
That being said, a lot of educators believe the exams are thorough mechanisms for measuring the skills of students. And, educators argue, that if a student can't take a test well, then a teacher should teach the kid how.
In your case with your friend, it sounds like you got stuck with a bad roommate (Still feeling the bad blood after all these years?) whose poor schooling revealed itself pretty quickly once he got to college.
Thank you for addressing this important and interesting topic.
I taught history in Virginia for two years and was proud of the fact that my students' grades were closely aligned to their standardized test scores.
How did I accomplish this? I never graded any assignments that did not require students to display understanding. Too many teachers give grades for assignments that simply require students to look up the correct information in a text book. Any student with a bit of self discipline can fill out a worksheet by looking up the correct answers. Thus, many students are being graded on their willingness to do mundane tasks as opposed to their understanding and mastery of the content.
I would guess that there are an equal number of student with lower grades who do very well on standardized tests. These students do not have good organizational skills and/or the desire to complete meaningless assignments. However, these students do know the academic content.
Schools and teachers need to decide what we are assessing -- study skills or academic content knowledge.
Ian Shapira: Dear Washington, D.C.:
It sounds like you are a smart teacher and didn't let students game the system. That's what happens in a lot of these cases: too many teachers give out extra credit or are too lenient and assign easy homework that inflates grades.
Harrisburg, Pa.: A few years ago, ETS did a study that showed that teachers assign grades to students based on many factors, some of which have little or nothing to do with mastery of the subject. Examples include neatness, punctuality, completion of homework, class participation, etc. This often results in standardized test scores, reflecting actual mastery of the subject, that do not match teachers' grades.
Ian Shapira: Harrisburg! I'd love to know more about this study. You mean, kids were getting A's for arriving to class on time? What about having a good hair day? (To all my friends back at Louisville Collegiate School -- you know that if that were the case, I would have gotten an A in all my classes)
Woodbridge, Va.: I've found as a high school chemistry teacher(one of the more difficult SOL's in Virginia for students) that I have had relatively few students in the situation of passing the class and not the test. More often I've had students pass the SOL but not the class. Why this disparity?? My classroom grades are not only based on testing but also on classroom performance. Students who don't do their work aren't going to do well, even if they "ace" every test -- not necessarily fail, but end up with a lower grade. The students who do pass the class, but not the SOL are the ones that tend to be my really hard-workers. They struggle with testing, but they work really hard on the classwork which makes up that part of their grade.
Just the view from this side of the desk...
Ian Shapira: Dear Woodbridge: I actually concentrate a lot of my coverage in Prince William County Schools. If you get a chance, shoot me an e-mail: shapirai@washpost.com.
But you make a great point. I've heard this is the case for Advanced Placement tests. Kids who flunk the course, but get a 5 on the AP exam.
D.C.: Have you found that state exam results vs. class grades are better in NoVa (Fairfax) or Western Montgomery County (Bethesda/Potomac)?
Ian Shapira: Dear D.C.: Are you an overly competitive Fairfax County School Board member? Reveal yourself! Seriously, though: I have not been able to make that comparison. School districts don't keep this data in any uniform or thorough or readily available way.
Frederick, Md.: Thank you for this article. This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in with our 11-year-old son. In fifth grade he performed poorly on his standardized reading test (after receiving B's in language arts all year). Entering sixth grade this year, his middle school would not permit him to take an elective and instead has required him to take a remedial reading class. He's also receiving outside tutoring on reading comprehension.
What more are parents expected to do? We are frustrated because we received no indication last year that there was a problem until he took the test.
Ian Shapira: Dear Frederick: You are the classic example of this story. I wished I had interviewed you. Can you talk to the teachers at your son's school and ask: What gives? And have you asked your child: What gives? If you really press both of them with questions you'll get some good answers. Maybe the test was too long and he got bored or lazy. Maybe the teacher was teaching the wrong material. Be an investigative reporter, essentially.
Shameless Plug Alert (SPA): And if your kid is having trouble reading, make him start reading newspapers...every day. That's right!
Santa Barbara, Calif.: I think this story has relevance across the nation. I'm not sure what the situation is like in other states, but here in California there is horrendous grade inflation.
I am a graduate student/teaching assistant at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In order to even be considered to getting into this institution you have to have at least a 3.8 or so. I've taught lab sections in a variety of subject areas ranging from statistics to environmental studies and I can attest to the fact that there is no way that some of these students should have received nearly straight "A's" in high school. That's not to say that there aren't really bright students here, it's just that about 50-70 percent of them have remedial writing skills and math skills at junior high levels.
Starting a few years ago the UC system has had to begin remedial math and writing classes in order to pick up the slack. High schools are churning out straight "A" students who can hardly read, write, or do very basic math. While it is probable that there may be some issues with the tests themselves, I would put my money on the problem being traced back to grade inflation and poor public education.
Ian Shapira: Dear Santa Barbara: Could you e-mail me at shapirai@washpost.com. This may be a follow-up story for me. I want to profile kids who were the bomb at their high school, but then arrived at college and were put in remediation courses, etc.
Springfield, Va.: Understand when you talk about state rights, however college admission tests are at the national level. I have been very disappointed in the quality of education here in Virginia. I have had experience with both Minnesota and Illinois K-12 schools. They are far above the quality I see in this area. Look at the National test scores by state and you can see a big difference. I think schools are to P.C., they want everyone to pass, and therefore spend most of the teacher's time with the students that should not be in school.
Ian Shapira: Springfield: Shoot me an e-mail when you get a chance: shapirai@washpost.com.
But here's the thing: what's tested on the SAT and ACT is not part of state curriculums. College admissions exams are different from, say, the state Standards of Learning exams, because it's an "achievement" test, not a test that asks you questions about curriculum content. So when a National Test gets discussed, it's in the context of having a curriculum-based test. And who decides curriculums? States do.
Fairfax County, Va.: I don't see any signs of grade inflation at my kids' Fairfax County high school. My son got a D+ in eighth-grade honors algebra but did quite well on his SOL. A friend's son failed a high school class but got a perfect or near-perfect score on the corresponding SOL. What's wrong with this picture?
Ian Shapira: Dear Fairfax: That's really interesting. I am hearing from several folks about this very same dilemma. Could you shoot me an e-mail? It's shapirai@washpost.com.
I'd love to chat with you offline of course.
What's wrong with this picture you ask? Well, could be that the classes are too hard, or that the exams are too easy, OR, that your kid is an underachiever and has the know-how but doesn't apply himself thoroughly enough. But shoot me an e-mail...
Bmore: Are you watching "The Wire" on HBO? They are tackling the issues of NCLB, testing, classroom education, and "corner" education. So far, the best indictment of our system since "Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools."
Ian Shapira: Yeah, I've seen "The Wire" and that's a great book too. It's not clear whether this phenomena of pass/fail students exists more predominantly in low-income schools or not.
Anonymous: In the article there is a comment about one of the students that he could not ask for guidance during the test as he could during his classroom teacher's tests. Hello, this is a clue as to why he scored lower than his grades would lead one to expect.
Ian Shapira: Dear Anonymous: And hello to you as well. I included that in the story to show why he had his problem.
Louisville, Ky.: The kids you profiled--did they pass the tests after remediation courses? If they did, that might indicate that they simply weren't given the material they needed in class the first time around. If they didn't, then that might show they truly were bad test takers.
Is this mom, dad, Abraham Levitan? I know it's one of you. I mention Abraham Levitan because he was perhaps the best standardized test taker in human history. I think he takes LSATS and GMATS for fun, when he's not playing in his marvelous band, Baby Teeth. (Note to parents: if your kid is good in music, he's got a strong chance at being good in math.)
Anyway, to answer your question: Kids are typically put in remediation after they fail. But if you fail multiple times, you could be in remediation while you're still trying to pass the exam. One of the kids in the story, the Pakistani from Fairfax, failed the reading SOL four -- FOUR -- times before he finally passed. He said he was immensely grateful for his teachers at Herndon High School.
And I should add how grateful I am to the folks at Herndon High School for letting me come into their school twice and interview their teachers and talk to their students.
D.C.: Did you come across many students who actually performed much worse in class than on tests? Kids tend to slack off in class but may be able to focus when they know their ability to graduate depends on it.
Ian Shapira: Dear D.C.: A good question and if you look at the transcript of this chat, I believe there's one or two accounts of this little problem. Some kids are great test takers but do kinda shrug off class work. Maybe they're geniuses and they don't know it. Something akin to the main character of "Good Will Hunting" -- the classic underachiever who would never do well in a classroom setting but when given a test question could answer it easily.
Washington, D.C.: Who determines what is an acceptable grade on a standardized test? Are our children graded on a curve? Is there ever a regrading of tests when an unusual number of students fail or pass? Can a parent ever see a copy of the test that their child failed to see what mistakes have been made and how to improve?
Ian Shapira: Dear Washington: This is a great question. I am thinking about doing a follow-up to my story about the following: Who decides what the cut scores will be -- whether 35 out of 50 is passing or 30 out of 50 is passing? I am told that in Virginia, a committee of educators in K-12 determine that periodically. But it's clearly not an easy answer. If a test is real hard, maybe 30 out of 50 is reasonable, but if the test is easy -- and who determines what's easy? -- then then maybe the cut score should be higher.
Who are the real victims in this whole mess? College teachers. So should college teachers or administrators have a say in these K-12 tests?
Burke, Va.: The problem with the Virginia SOL exams are that they are testing minimal competence. So a student with a passing score on the SOL should be expected to have a "D" on his report card. Correspondingly, an "A" student should score nearly perfect.
Ian Shapira: This is an interesting thought -- whether SOLs should be graded. That way there's no confusion over what passing means. Of course, lots of educators now want to see kids getting what is called "advanced-pass" or "pass-advanced" on their SOLs.
Washington, D.C.: Have testing agencies ever thought of providing students feedback on their test scores? It seems that to those who have difficulty with the exams would benefit more greatly from understanding why they failed, not just a number that tells them that they failed. I understand that testing agencies hold their questions close to their chests, but if they want to be completely fair, a student should be able to appeal any grading that is subjective, especially reading and writing.
Ian Shapira: Students do get some feedback on their tests but not a lot. At Kennedy, the math teachers only had their kids scores but no breakdown on how they did.
Washington, D.C.: Admittedly, I don't have any kids of my own, but from observing the treatment of my nieces and nephews, I'm led to believe that a lot of the problem is grade inflation, and "A for effort" attitude -- which your article barely gives mention to. One of my nephews was sheepish about his honor roll status last Christmas. And it turns out the reason he didn't think it was a huge deal was because every kid except one in his class also made the list. And this isn't exactly a Fairfax County level of school or anything. So I doubt these kids are all the savants the honor roll made them out to be. Didn't D.C. uncover that huge problem a few years ago that kids who hadn't been to class all semester were nonetheless getting C's and in some cases, even B's??
Ian Shapira: Yea, Honor Roll can be misleading. There is a tendency to be a bit boosterish in schools, which explains those bumper stickers.
Anonymous: The ETS study is apparently no longer online. However, here is a brief summary.
Office of Research and Development RN-04, May 1998
Much of the variation among grades and across subjects, classrooms, and teachers concerns the components used to grade student work. Research has found that the most able students are often graded solely on achievement and less able students are graded on both achievement and effort (Stiggins, Frisbie, and Griswold, 1989). In grades 10-12, approximately one-third of school districts report including student effort in grade de-terminations, attendance, and student growth: to a lesser extent behavior and attitude are also factors considered by a substantial proportion of secondary teachers (Brookhart, 1994; Feldman, Kropf, and Alibrandi, 1996; Robinson and Craver, 1989).
Ian Shapira: I thought I'd post this for everyone to see:
Burke, Va.: I'm not yet a parent of a school-age child, but will be soon one day. When standardized tests are given to advance a grade or to graduate, are kids given a second or third chance to pass the test before the end of the school year? If so, what is all the fuss about? If a child cannot pass a test that classes are geared around to get kids to pass on multiple attempts, perhaps that child should be left back a year. Parents have too much of a rooting interest in the success of their children and take their child's failure too personally to accept that their kid needs some more work. Teachers today are too afraid of penalizing kids for poor work fearing the wrath of an angry parent. If these kids cannot pass the tests, they're in for a rude awakening when they get to college.
Ian Shapira: And while I'm at it, I'll post this as well.
Ian Shapira: Alright everyone! I have to run. I am getting summoned by my editor. Thank you for chatting with me and please e-mail me with story ideas that you think are important for The Washington Post to cover.
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.
|
Washington Post staff writer Ian Shapira will discuss why some area students do well in school but struggle with state exams.
| 180.347826 | 0.913043 | 3.869565 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100532.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100532.html
|
`Saw III' Banned for Minors in France
|
2006112119
|
PARIS -- The French culture minister sat through a screening of the horror movie "Saw III" _ and decided it wasn't for minors.
Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres announced Tuesday that he would prohibit minors under 18 from seeing the film, which opens in France this week.
Donnedieu de Vabres said in a statement the movie exhibited "violence and intolerable, incessant sadism." The scenes explicitly showing "physical and moral torture" justified the decision, he said.
The French commission in charge of rating films had brought the issue before Donnedieu de Vabres. The restriction also means "Saw III" will require encryption and a parental warning if it is shown on television.
Such decisions are rare in France. The under-18 ban was brought back in 2000 for Virginie Despentes' sexually explicit "Rape Me," and it has been applied to only a handful of releases.
Lionsgate is owned by Lionsgate Entertainment Corp.
|
PARIS -- The French culture minister sat through a screening of the horror movie "Saw III" _ and decided it wasn't for minors.
| 6.555556 | 1 | 27 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001358.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001358.html
|
Gibbs Bemoans Team's Lost Way
|
2006112119
|
When the NFL debut of Washington Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell was ruined by a 20-17 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on Sunday, Coach Joe Gibbs appeared as upset after a loss as he had been all season.
He mentioned the word "principles" four times in a 54-second span, a reference to the Redskins' abandonment of the running game and the inability of the defense to stop the Buccaneers' ground attack. Redskins running backs Ladell Betts and T.J. Duckett combined for 44 yards on 12 rushes in a game in which neither team led by more than 10 points.
For a team that said it wanted to run the football on offense and stop the run on defense, Campbell rushed as many times as Duckett, while the Redskins' defense gave up 181 yards on the ground to a 2-7 team that for the season was averaging half that. Over his three previous games, Tampa Bay running back Carnell "Cadillac" Williams had rushed 35 times for 103 yards. Against the Redskins, he had his best rushing game of the season, with 122 yards on 27 carries.
"I think we have certain principles that we know, that we win by and when we abide by those we're going to win football games. Right now, we're not getting that done," Gibbs said after the game.
"We have certain principles. We have to run and we have to stop the run when we get back to those, we can start winning football games. And when we violate these certain principles we're not going to be able to win any games."
Instead of elaborating on his remarks, Gibbs yesterday was at his most vague about what kind of blueprint he has in mind to guide the team for the remaining six games of the season.
"I think what I'm kind of focused on right now is that this game is kind of where we are. It's not what we want to be, and so I told the players there was still a lot of time in the next day and half before I see them again," Gibbs said, adding that he met yesterday with some individual players for their opinion.
Gibbs continued by saying that his goal was to attempt to appeal to the players to play their best six games of the year.
"I think what's important for us is that if this is where we are, we kind of know what we can be and what we'd like to be," he said.
"And going back to the games and a bunch of those films where we played extremely well and did some good things. Then I think what's important for us on Wednesday is to say if that's the case, this is where we are, this is where we want to be and what's important for us to say is, 'How do we get there?' "
Gibbs said he would not isolate the various problems that have led to Washington's 3-7 record. He would not address the play-calling of associate head coach Al Saunders, even though the offensive players have groused about the lack of a power running approach. Gibbs himself yesterday said he was unhappy with the pass-to-run balance in a game in which Campbell threw 34 times.
"I don't think any of us in this organization are happy with defense, special teams or offense. And I know that's the way I feel, and I think the players feel the same. I think we're all together," Gibbs said. "I don't think we feel like it's special teams. I don't think we feel like it's defense. I don't think we feel like it's offense. I don't think we feel like it's the structure of what's being called or anything. I just think it's all of us together. Like I've said all along, the biggest role that's played in all of this is me."
Despite having built a reputation on his offensive philosophy, Gibbs said he had no intention of taking over the play-calling.
"We already have someone calling the plays," he said.
The Redskins are one of the worst teams defensively, a top 10 defense the previous two years that is now ranked 28th in points allowed, last in sacks, interceptions and turnovers and 30th in total defense and against the pass. The Redskins have the highest payroll in the NFL, and only Detroit, Arizona and Oakland have worse records. With the possibility of a playoff berth growing slimmer after losses in five of the last six games, fans are left to watch the progress of Campbell.
Asked what else fans have to look forward to over the next six games -- four of which are at home -- Gibbs said:
"I think our fans are what I feel good about. Our fans always make the right decisions. I don't think there's anything that makes us better. I never try to coach up our fan base. They're normally ahead of me. I don't make predictions and try to tell someone here's a rosy picture or anything else. You try to work as hard as you can. You don't know where this is going to go. It's week to week. It's year to year. That's what the NFL is. You have to make it happen, and if you don't make it happen you're in for hard times."
|
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.
| 30.514286 | 0.657143 | 1 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001280.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001280.html
|
Houston Janitor Strike Ends With Agreement
|
2006112119
|
After a month-long strike featuring local, national and international demonstrations, Houston janitors reached an agreement yesterday with five major cleaning contractors that will double their income and provide them with health insurance by 2009.
The 5,300 mostly female, mostly Latino janitors represented by the Service Employees International Union will see their wages rise from $5.30 per hour on average to $7.75 by Jan. 1, 2009. Their shifts will also lengthen to six hours, as opposed to four hours or less, over the next three years, according to the agreement. They will be offered health coverage in 2009 for $20 a month for individuals, $175 for families.
The janitors ratified the agreement Monday night at the city's convention center. They are expected to return to work today. The union said janitors who walked off the job on Oct. 23 will be allowed to return to their jobs.
Yesterday's announcement marked the first victory in the right-to-work South for SEIU's long-running Justice for Janitors campaign that has organized low-wage workers at cleaning companies in 29 cities, including Washington. Union and management advocates said it signals a new phase of labor organization in the South.
"They'll wave this victory in the faces of the next people and just keep going," said Jack Haskell, a labor relations consultant who works for businesses that have faced the SEIU before. "It's going to be like when Sherman marched through Atlanta." Haskell and his firm, Adams, Nash, Haskell & Sheridan, are not involved in the current janitors' dispute.
"If Houston janitors can win by standing together, then workers anywhere can win by standing together," said SEIU spokesperson Lynda Tran.
University of Texas law professor Julius G. Getman said that unions historically have had little luck organizing in the South. "But it's a very different South now with the influx of low-wage immigrant workers," he said.
Speaking on behalf of the five cleaning contractors -- ABM Janitorial Services, Sanitors, OneSource Facility Services, GCA Services Group and Pritchard Industries -- attorney D. Michael Linihan said, "We have worked very diligently to both protect the interests of our valuable customers and to insure that our employees are treated in a fair manner."
Ercilia Sandoval, 42, one of the striking janitors and a member of the bargaining committee, said she believed that the workers would win but vowed to press the case "for our brothers who are in other cities earning the same low salaries we were earning until now."
Sandoval, who has been diagnosed with breast and lung cancer, was unhappy with the lag in the health insurance piece of the agreement. She called it a "very urgent issue that I wanted in this first year. I don't want anyone else to go through what I have gone through. . . . We'll fight for free insurance for the entire family in the next contract. I won't rest until I see that."
Throughout the strike, the SEIU applied more pressure to the owners of the buildings cleaned by the Houston janitors than to the cleaning contractors that employ them. Building owners ultimately have to absorb the cost of higher wages and benefits for janitors, and the union accused this oil-enriched business community of hoarding energy profits while keeping janitors in poverty.
"The SEIU people are masters at messaging and creating corporate outlaws," said Michael Lotito, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in San Francisco who has represented companies facing SEIU campaigns. "At some point the company says: 'We have to find a way out of this. We're taking too many negative hits.' "
At a news conference yesterday, Houston Mayor Bill White praised the agreement, which ended a campaign of civil disobedience at home and attacks on Houston's reputation nationally and abroad.
"I don't think people understood how low the wages were and that some people were only working four hours a day," White said. He called the settlement "a milestone in the history of the city of Houston and more importantly something uplifting the lives of Houston residents who are just trying to get by every single day."
Staff writer Sylvia Moreno in Houston contributed to this report.
|
After a month-long strike featuring local, national and international demonstrations, Houston janitors reached an agreement yesterday with five major cleaning contractors that will double their income and provide them with health insurance by 2009.
| 21.128205 | 1 | 39 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000097.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000097.html
|
GOP Fundraiser Gets 18 Years in Prison
|
2006112119
|
TOLEDO, Ohio -- A GOP fundraiser who embezzled from a state investment in rare coins was sentenced Monday to 18 years in prison in a scandal that helped bring down Ohio's ruling Republican Party on Election Day.
Tom Noe, 52, was also fined $139,000.
Noe spent money as if he had "a bottomless cup of wealth and luxury" at his disposal, "when in fact it was at the state's expense," Common Pleas Judge Thomas Osowik said.
The sentence handed out to the politically connected coin dealer will be on top of the more than two years he was ordered to serve after pleading guilty earlier this year to illegally funneling $45,000 to President Bush's re-election campaign.
Noe was the central figure in a scandal that dogged the Ohio Republican Party for more than a year. On Election Day, the Democrats won the governor's office, a Senate seat and other major offices after 12 years of GOP rule.
Up until Monday, prosecutors did not say whether Noe used any of the money to make campaign contributions. But after the sentencing, Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said, "You can make those inferences."
Also for the first time, prosecutors calculated that Noe stole $13.7 million in all.
Noe was hired by the state workers' compensation agency and given $50 million to invest in an unorthodox and risky attempt by a state government to make money buying and selling rare coins. A furor erupted when the rare-coin investment became public and when it was learned that millions of dollars were missing.
Democrats charged that Noe got the job because of his GOP ties. He was a top fundraiser who gave more than $105,000 to Republicans, including Bush and Gov. Robert Taft in 2004.
The resulting investigations led to ethics charges against Taft, who pleaded no contest to failing to report golf outings and other gifts. Four former Taft aides pleaded no contest to similar charges.
Noe was convicted last week of theft, corrupt activity and other offenses, and faced a minimum of 10 years in prison on the corrupt-activity charge alone.
Prosecutors said he used the money to pay off business loans, renovate his Florida Keys home and otherwise live in high style.
Noe declined to make a statement before sentencing and stared blankly, his upper lip twitching, as his punishment was handed down.
Defense attorney John Mitchell had asked for the minimum 10-year sentence, saying that other high-profile criminals had received less time for taking more money. The lawyer also assured the judge that Noe's offense "was a one-time crime."
|
TOLEDO, Ohio -- A GOP fundraiser who embezzled from a state investment in rare coins was sentenced Monday to 18 years in prison in a scandal that helped bring down Ohio's ruling Republican Party on Election Day.
| 12.65 | 1 | 40 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000516.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000516.html
|
Obama Urges Gradual Withdrawal From Iraq
|
2006112119
|
Speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama envisioned a flexible timetable for withdrawal linked to conditions on the ground in Iraq and based on the advice of U.S. commanders. He also called for intensified efforts to train Iraqi security forces, U.S. aid packages tied to Iraqi progress in reducing sectarian violence and new diplomacy with Syria and Iran.
"I believe that it remains possible to salvage an acceptable outcome to this long and misguided war," he said. "But I have to be honest today, it will not be easy. For the fact is that there are no good options left in this war."
Obama was not in the Senate when President Bush sought and received support from Congress in 2002 to use military force against Saddam Hussein. But he has publicly opposed the war since then.
The results of this month's elections, the Illinois senator said, represented a repudiation of President Bush's policies. But he said the war has also ignited a new sense of isolationism among Americans that is risky in a post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.
"We can't afford to be a country of isolationists in the 21st century," he said, arguing that it is "absolutely vital that we maintain a strong and active foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world."
Obama was careful not to set a specific timetable for withdrawal of troops or suggest troop levels.
"We cannot compromise on the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground," he said.
He proposed redeploying troops to Northern Iraq and to other countries in the region. He recommended boosting troop strength in Afghanistan, "where our lack of focus and commitment of resources has led to an increasing deterioration of the security situation there."
"For only through this phase redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the United States is not going to hold together this country indefinitely _ that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq," he said.
Obama rejected proposals to add more troops to Iraq, an idea advanced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., saying that without Iraqi cooperation "we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the crossfire of a civil war."
Following the speech, Obama rejected the notion of reinstating the military draft, an idea put forth by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. Obama said a volunteer military is adequate when the country has a national security strategy that makes sense.
"What I don't want ... is a situation in which we have bad strategies and we institute a draft simply to throw more bodies at a bad strategy. That is not going to work," he said.
Obama is one of several Democrats considering a run for the White House in 2008, which promises to be one of the most wide-open campaigns in decades. In recent polling, his numbers rival front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., but questions abound regarding his experience _ he has served less than two years in the Senate. He said Monday he would decide in the next few months.
The first-term senator said the Iraq war has underscored one lesson: "We should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through military force."
|
CHICAGO -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who is contemplating a run for the presidency, on Monday called for a "gradual and substantial" reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq that would begin in four to six months.
| 16.317073 | 0.707317 | 1.146341 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/16/DI2006111600515.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/16/DI2006111600515.html
|
Being a Black Man
|
2006112019
|
The unemployed black male has been studied and commented upon more than any other category of the American worker, and always to conflicting conclusions. In " The Meaning of Work", the latest installment of the "Being a Black Man" series, Post staffer David Finkel recounts the experience of one black man's quest to find a job and the barriers he has to overcome to achieve that goal.
On Monday, Nov. 20 at 11 a.m. ET, Finkel was online to respond to your questions and comments about his story.
David Finkel: Good morning. Thanks for reading the story about Chris Dansby and for sending in questions and comments.
Do you feel that the young man in your piece is representative of black males looking for a job? If so, it appears that his attitude, not his aptitude, is what's holding him back, and I am positive that perspective employers see that also.
David Finkel: A good question to start with. I spent a good bit of time looking for someone to write about before going forward with Chris Dansby. I don't know how representative he is of all black men looking for jobs, but he seemed a good represenation of a segment that includes men in their early to mid-20s with high school degrees from less-than-generous backgrounds. As importantly, Chris wasn't someone who wanted to define his problems in broad terms of black-and-white, but in terms of individual responsibility and, at times, self-blame. He came across to me as a good man genuinely searching for some answers, and that search seemed a story worth telling.
Washington, D.C.: Individual responsibility is a key factor to Mr. Dansby's current station in life. However, environmental issues can have an affect on a young man's mental capacity. I believe he has the caliber of man who recognizes his downfalls and wants more out of life. It is said at 25 is when a man "comes of age." It's the age when you reflect on your past and determine an alternate course for the future. I don't find racial discrimination in this case. Although, and I quote Joe Madison when I say that Black America is "undervalued and marginalized" and conditioned to believe that White America is superior.
David Finkel: Interesting. I think I'll respond to this in a way that doesn't exactly fit the comment. There's an interesting ongoing debate about the reasons that unemployment for black men is so disproportionately high, and to read them is to agree with all of them, even when they contradict each other. if you're interested in explanations, it's worth reading Orlando Patterson, my old Post colleague Juan Williams, Harry Holzer, William Julius Wilson ... well, the list goes on and on. To me, the most compelling thing I read had to do with numbers: 16.3 percent unemployment is Chris' neighborhood, 1.5 in a neighborhood a few miles away. And employment rates of 70 percent for white men, 71 percent for Asian men, 75 percent for Hispanic men, and 60 percent for black men. Arethe reasons cultural? Individual> As you suggest, environmental? The dicussion will go on. But the numbers speak pretty loudly.
Washington, D.C.: This is like the chicken and the egg story. Which came first? It is so easy to point the finger.
Unfortunately in our Black community there is a breakdown in the family structure. As long as this continues we will have this problem. Who do you blame? You can't point to racism or social services. Where are some of the fathers? The father is very important in a child's life.
As a community we need to stop having children we can't take care of!!! Is it really the government's responsibility to take care of our young, unwed mothers and their children? On one hand this young man is the victim like so many of his environment. On the other hand he needs to understand the importance of education. But while growing up if he did not have food to eat while in class or no role models to encourage him-what else could he do??
Also, as a community we need to bring back values such as love, respect for one another, marriage and education. We spend too much of our time glorifying things that are of no value to our community, BET, thug rap, disrespect, idolizing athletes nd booty shaking.
When did it become acceptable to disregard education and respect for one another. People need to understand education opens doors!!
David Finkel: Thanks for the comment. Chris and I spent much time talking about the effects of not having a father as a day-to-day presence. As with everything, he wanted to assign blame to no one other than himself. He would point to friends without fathers who seemed to be doing better than he is as proof that a father's presence doesn't matter; if it did, why would they be doing well? At other times, he knew that having a father as a vague presence did have an impact because he had no close-up role models to learn from and emulate.
Bowie, MD: After reading your article, I think the biggest impediment to Chris Dansby is himself. His jobs as a Red Hat and at Jiffy Lube gave him a chance to better himself, but oftentimes, he just walks away from the opportunity because he has the self perception that he deserves better.
Why does he deserve better? He has no marketable skills and he is lucky that he had opportunities with Jiffy Lube and working as a Red Hat with his high school diploma that he didn't achieve honestly. If Chris was more motivated, he'd try to save up money and go back to school, but instead, he's just waiting around for someone to throw money at him. His case is not a societal problem, but an individual problem.
I really liked the part in your article where there was an exchange about Hispanic men. Even without the ability to speak English, they are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead. That is why Hispanic homeownership is increasing because they don't have this ego that they are owed anything. I see many many able-bodied young black men loitering on the corner in D.C. everyday, but I see all the able-bodied Hispanic men at 7-Eleven waiting and trying to get a job.
David Finkel: You ask: Why does he deserve better? I don;t want to speak for Chris, but after getting to know him he would rephrase it to: why can't he do better? He does wonder why he has walked away from certain opportunities. It's worth noting that he kept the red-hat job for, I think, just about two years before leaving. In that case, he said, his mistake wasn't leaving a job that offered no more possibilities than the ones he'd had, but leaving it before he had another job lined up.
Washington, D.C.: The question should not be, why can't he find a job. He obviously has been able to find a job. He just keeps quitting. What does society owe to people who keep quitting? I don't know why this guy thinks he deserves a job that pays better than $8/hour. He certainly hasn't shown it. Oh, he's a high school graduate? Big whoop-de-do. So I'm wondering, has he quit his latest job as an office furniture mover yet?
David Finkel: No, he hasn't quit. He is up everyday at 4:30 so he can catch the bus to the subway to the next bus and be on time for his shift. He is glad to have the job, in part for the pay and in part because it comes with opportunities to advance beyond the job he was hired to do.
Washington, D.C.: I found your article to be vry interesting and I'll say that I do believe Mr. Dansby does fit a profile of certain black men. He consistently states that he has a high school diploma and feels he is entitled to earning a certain amount of wages. But high school diplomas only get you so far. He also seems to know what he needs to do, but either frequently chooses not do to it...or takes the easy way out by living with mom or his girlfriend. Could you please comment?
David Finkel: Well, why does he make the choices he makes? That's what he wonders, I think, and it's what I wanted the article to address. It's a long read, but I do think it offers some answers.
Minot, N.D.: It is not structural racism that keeps Blacks back, it is a cultural behavior that refuses to assimilate into the larger American society that holds Blacks back. If it was racism then why is there such a low unemployment rate among Hispanics, who also face the language barrier?
David Finkel: Thanks for your comment, North Dakota.
Alexandria, Va.: I'm sorry but I was all sympathetic to Mr. Dansby until what I heard was, "I shouldn't have to work for $7/$8/$9 an hour" and about the CVS job where he left by mid-morning. Of course he doesn't have a job, I wouldn't hire him either if I couldn't be sure he was going to do the work. I get that the hourly rates he is working for don't cut it for a living, especially in this area, but I also get that people do it. Sometimes you have to work two jobs, but that is what you do then and/or you get more education, whether it is community college or a technical school that will teach you a skill. My brother is 34 and has only had part-time jobs in his working life and most of the reason why is because he is morbidly obese and no one wants to keep him on if they don't have to but he worked those crappy jobs and was reliable. He got fired from his last position because he needed to go to the bathroom, couldn't find anyone to take his post so closed up to go and got fired for closing up. He would have loved to have that crappy CVS job. And yes, what you get with a high school education and no other skills are hourly menial jobs. There are places, like Walgreen's, where if you work that menial job and do it well, you can work your way up. You can't work your way up or out if you constantly quit. I worked as a nanny making $10K/year in the early 90s, realized that this wasn't going to work for my life if I wanted to actually have a savings, and worked a second part-time job while attending community college part-time. I then transferred to William and Mary and am now a professional in the DC area. And even still I was lucky, I had good schooling, I had teachers at my community college who believed in me, my friends from high school all went to college, etc. etc. It could have gone the other way though, it did for my brother. Why is it that the men, not just black men though there are structural and societal reasons why it is more pronounced among black men, but why is it that the men feel like they shouldn't have to get paid those wages while we women, hunker down and work? My aunt in Georgia is a good example of that, she has been working at the same drug store as a pharmacist's technician for 25 - 30 years with a high school education. She is almost 60, on her feet all day in spite of having diabetes and problems with her joints, is it perfect, no far from it, but she does it because that is how she survives and how she raised her family. Do we need to have a discussion about getting a living wage for everyone in this country? Absolutely! But how can we have that discussion when we can't be sure people are actually going to show up to work?
David Finkel: Thanks for your comment.Again, one of the reasons I wanted to write about Chris is that he was so genuinely wrestling with the actions he takes. At Rite-Aid, he went from eager to have a job to someone who was talking himself into staying even one more minute. Subsequent to leaving the job, he talked of the examples he did see while growing up -- a mother getting by while doing the most menial of society's work, complaining about it at home, and then getting up the next day and -- on time -- doing it all over again. He did not, and does not, want that for himself. Is that right? Wrong? Some of both?
Washington, D.C.: Why among the 5,048 words in the article featuring Chris was the word "education" only found twice? Two times! One time being in reference to the P.R. Harris Educational Center.
My point is the this article as well as the black community devalues education. The article focus on the societal and behavioral qualms of the black man but does not adequately recognize that education is key.
By education I do not necessarily mean in the formal sense.
I read the article wondering how many times Chris made an effort to educate himself outside the structure of traditional schooling? How many articles, workshops, or books he read on job-readiness or how to tie a tie for that matter . . .
David Finkel: Thanks for your comments. While the word "education" may have only appeared twice, there was a pretty long section about Chris' middle- and high-school experiences. I can't tell you how many articles, workshops, etc. he has taken advantage of. I can tell you that he did take advantage of some, in which all the things you point out were stressed. If you got to the end of the article, his new boss made the point that unlike most applicants, Chris showed up for his interview early, well-dressed and seemingly well-motivated.
Washington, D.C.: Although it may not feel like it now, I think Chris will find a steady job that will give him an economic step up the ladder. He appears diligent in his search and committed to success. To his credit, he is taking some of the responsibility for the situation he finds himself in today. That being said, I do think that their exists a bias against young black men whether people are willing to admit it or not. Bias runs deeper than one's consciousness will acknowledge and a number of psychology studies have proven that point. Good luck Chris and hang in there!!
David Finkel: Thanks for writing in.
Washington, D.C.: I worked to help homeless men find jobs for over 20 years at SOME and now do comparable work for another organization. To me, the proper question is not why Chris can't find a job, it's why can't he keep one. From your description, he's neat, clean, well spoken, good handshake, makes eye contact -- all the things we advise our clients. Since he once held a decent-paying job for 18 months, we know he can do it, or could at the time.
So, why can't he keep a job? Is he depressed? Have drink or drug issues?
I don't know if he could latch on to SOME, but it seems he needs more intense mentoring and perhaps additional job training so he can land a higher paying job.
But mostly I found this article so depressing, because if he can't find/hold a job, no wonder those with more issues can't. I wish him well and hope you will check back with him in a few months and hopefully have something more encouraging to report.
David Finkel: Is he depressed? Not for me to say. He was certainly sad at time. No drinking issues. No drug issues. From what he said, he appreciated the chance to talk at length about his life to someone, which didn't happen much while he was growing up.
Silver Spring, Md.: This is a comment, not for you, Mr. Finkel, but for some of
the other posters. If this was the story of a young white
man, struggling to find his place in the world, wondering
if he even belongs here, would you be judging him so
harshly? Or would you be sympathetic, recognizing the
very human crisis he's in and hopeful for the future that
the article's tentatively happy ending promises? Just
something you all might want to think about.
David Finkel: Thanks for the comment.
New York: I want to point out to many of the people writing in that Chris's sense of entitlement is not specific to black people or poor people. I have a Ph.D-educated relative who often walks away from work possibilities -- and winds up relying on the support of everyone else -- because he doesn't want to take work that he sees as any less than an opportunity to express himself exactly the way he'd like. I thought of him often when reading about Chris.
David Finkel: I wonder about the phrase "sense of entitlement." I know I'm repeating myself, but one reason this new job seems to be working out for Chris is that while even though it's not exactly the job of his dreams, it's a job that comes with opportunities to advance. That said, the job at Jiffy Lube did, too ...
New Carrollton, Md.: As a black male, I have to ask these questions. If you were a business ownwer, would you hire a young black male of today that looks, walks, talks, and dress like he is from the streets to represent your company to the public? Come on now, you have to protect your investment because you stand to lose alot of money if you don't.
It is like I use to tell my students when I was a teacher: "This is a classroom, a place of learning, you will not bring the streets into my classroom; pull up your pants and take a seat." Most of our children think it is cute/cool to take the streets with them whereever they go, and it is not. By doing so, they cheat themselves out of a lot of opportunities. It is up to the parents and community to teach our children better. The last time I checked, it was still a white man's world.
Our definition of being a man or masculine is warped and very street. We're too busy living up to stereotypical images. It is time to grow-up & wise-up, or continue to be left behind.
David Finkel: Thank you for writing in. Chris, I think, would agree with much of what you said.
Alexandria, Va.: Has Chris Dansby ever spoken to a military recruiter? I know it's a difficult decision to make, but it could improve his life dramatically (I write from personal experience). Even if he's previously spoken to a recruiter and been told he's not eligible, he may be eligible now as the Army is accepting people previously considered ineligle. Not the answer for everyone but a good decision for many.
David Finkel: He did talk to a recruiter, and, from what he described, was moving along in the process and was awaiting answers to a few questions he had. He said he phoned a few times and after not having his calls returned moved onto the next thing.
Columbus, Miss.: Apart from wanting to advance in his current job, did Chris have any thoughts of enrolling in college of pursuing higher education? And were the job placement centers encouraging the unemployed to seek other avenues of education and not just getting a job?
David Finkel: The job centers -- from what I saw -- do stress education. On a case by case basis, they push some people toward employment and others toward continued schooling, often in technical schools. How effective is this? I can't say. The Post published a very good piece earlier this year about the long lag times in getting applicants into schools.
Columbia, Md.: Great Article. I see this type of situation with the males in my family more often than not. Growing up they never had to work hard and in many cases I blame the parents. When it is time for them to get out in the real world they can't adapt because they never had to take responsibility for themselves. Many never get out of those situations because there is always someone around being an enabler. If it's not their mother, it's their girlfriend or some other woman taking care of them. We cannot allow these boys to think they are men just because they turned 18.
David Finkel: Chris' perspective: As he said about his mother, "My mother did her best. But she didn't even prepare herself for life, so how could she prepare me?" And as he said to his mother: "I mean it's not my mother's fault. It's my fault. It's my responsibility."
Upper Marlboro, Md.: Much kudos to Mike Rogers. He quite expertly explained why young black people born into the the lower socio-economic strata often lack the motivation and coping skills necessary to move forward in this world even when they know (as Chris said he did) that it's their responsibility to make their lives better.
I was struck by the incongruity between the article's portrayal of Chris Dansby's "poverty" and the photographs showing him with a cellular phone, $100+ sneakers and designer jeans.
I wish Mr. Dansby well in all of his future endeavors.
David Finkel: Yeah, I was expecting this question. I remember I did a story once in Tunica, Mississippi, long before gambling proceeds showed up there, and the article included a photograph of people living in the worst conditions -- and in the photograph was a TV set. So with that one detail, the people were deemed dismissable by some readers. In the the case of the photo of Chris -- the cell phone, a fairly cheap throwaway, wasn't working; I know this because of how often I called it without success. The $100+ sneakers were anything but, and the jeans were some jeans. I guess what I'm saying is that there are plenty of authenticating details in the article to pay attention to. As for your wishing Chris Dansby well, I will pass along those sentiments to him along with your others.
Washington, D.C.: In response to the Silver Spring poster, sympathy and hope is great, but doesn't pay the bills. Motivation pays the bills. The employers at Rite Aid, Red Hat, Jiffy Lube, etc. gave him sympathy and hope with a job, but he walked away from all that.
David Finkel: here's one reaction to Silver Spring, and ...
Response to Silver Spring, Md.: The issue is not whether responses would be tempered if Chris was white. The problem is the crime that is committed by young Black youth across America. Why is it that Black youth are under-educated, unemployed, and in the penal system? Is it cultural or structural? Blacks are more likely to be the victim of crime by another Black than they are by any other race. This is a problem that finds its roots in under-education and unemployment and not racism.
Washington, D.C.: Good morning, Mr. Finkel!
I found the article interesting, although somewhat depressing. What astounded me was the defeastist attitude of Chris' mother. How could someone who is surrounded by negativity--whether conveyed by thought, words or deeds--overcome that? In all honesty, her attitude (which obviously rubbed off on Chris) drove me absolutely batty. I mean how could you not know for a year that your child wasn't attending school?
David Finkel: Thanks for your comment. I can't explain the actions of Chris' mother; for one thing I know only bits and pieces of her background. Your questions make me want to re-read the great series about Rosa Lee that was in the Post 10 or so years ago that was a generational study of poverty and its consequences.
Washington, D.C. : I'am an African American who is looking for work and experienced the casual racism predomininately white firms push on blacks. I wonder if you encountered this in your interviews.
David Finkel: There have been some studies on this. One of the most interesting was one done two years ago out of Princeton in which "testers" were sent to various job locations in and around New York City. All were of similar age and background and carried similar resumes and had been coached as to what to say in interviews. Some were white, some were black, some were Hispanic. The findings: even though all appeared the same on paper and in person, whites got the most favorable response, then Hispanics, then blacks. As interesting I thought was that whites whose resumes reflcted a criminal background were hired or called back for a second interview as often as blacks whose resumes indicated a clean background.
Silver Spring, Md.: I know a lot of people will say that the young man featured in the article yesterday needs to show more initiative and pull himself up by his boot straps, etc. That's true. Yes, he could do more to help himself. But there are white males who are just as lazy and unfocused as he is, but society will pull them up by their boot straps and give them more chances than this kid can ever imagine. It's not just a class issue, but a race issue. Two lazy, unfocused men go to a job interview: one white and one black. The white male, even if he is lazier and even more unfocused, will get the job because he is white and enjoys a presumption of competence. At least the lazy and unfocused white male in most cases won't get the job over a competent and focused black male any more. I guess that's progress.
David Finkel: Worth posting, especially following the previous response.
David Finkel: There are lots of questions I'm not getting to, but I'm afraid time for this chat is up. A last thought: To those interested in the topic who have a sense of the issue and of Chris only through the questions in this chat, I hope you'll find time to read his story. It's available on www.washingtonpost.com/blackmen along with all of the other stories that are part of the Post's series on "Being a Black Man." Thanks for all of your good questions and comments, and I'm sorry I didn't get to all of them.
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.
| 130 | 0.609756 | 0.756098 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111701320.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111701320.html
|
The TomKat Wedding
|
2006112019
|
The wedding of the year took place on Saturday when actors Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes exchanged vows in Italy. How did the ceremony unfold? Who was there? What did they wear? And, most importantly, what do you think?
Photo Gallery and Video ( AP, Nov. 20).
Washingtonpost.com Celebritology blogger Liz Kelly was online Monday, Nov. 20, at Noon ET to take your questions and comments on the TomKat wedding.
Liz Kelly: It's Thanksgiving week and I for one want to give thanks to everyone for joining me today to talk about a matter of great import: how in the hell "Happy Feet" beat "Casino Royale" at the box office. I kid. Seriously, the next hour will be devoted exclusively to Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes and the spectacle that was their Saturday wedding in Rome -- fireworks, celebrities, a cake that reportedly spewed rose petals (eww). And for more on the publicity-friendly wedding make sure to go back and read David Segal's excellent article from yesterday's Style section. Still, if anyone can explain to me how a penguin beat down Daniel Craig in a Speedo, I gotta know.
Arlington, Va.: Katie's dress did not look very pretty to me. Of course, the only pictures I have seen are her smooshed up against Tom. But the front looks itchy with that piece of lace sticking up at her neck. But, maybe the real question is WHY DO I CARE?!
Any "frontal" pictures of the dress?
Liz Kelly: We haven't seen any fronal pix of the dress yet. Word is the couple have sold first rights to the photos and will donate the money to a charity of their choice. So far, we'll have to make do with the one officially-released photo (at the top of this page). As a friend put it this morning, "You get Giorgio Armani to make your wedding dress and that is what he comes up with?" I have to agree. At least from this angle, the dress doesn't look much different from something Katie could've found on the rack at Macy's. Okay, maybe Neiman's. But on sale at Neiman's.
Washington, D.C.: Who were the best man and maid of honor?
Liz Kelly: Good question. The matron of honor was Katie's sister, Nancy Blaylock, and the best man was Cruise's good friend David Miscavige, who happens to be the head of the Church of Scientology. According to one gossip site I was checking out this morning, a Scientology advisor was seated at each table at reception -- apparently to explain the ceremony to non-Scientologists. Big fun.
Washington, D.C.: Is Katie taller than Tom?
Liz Kelly: Yes, she is and no, I am not. I am somewhat of a smidget.
Re: The people of Lake Bracciano: ... who are getting all huffy that the Cruises weren't more public -- sure, it was rude. But this whole "wah wah, we waived the castle fee and bought new garbage cans and paved and we didn't even get a wave or a thank you" -- PLEASE. Who told them to be so star-struck (a far more vulgar term comes to mind) that they'd waive the fee and do all that other stuff? It's not like being accommodating is any guarantee of anything. Besides, I bet the town made plenty off of this.
Liz Kelly: The town definitely made out here. Residents reportedly charged paparazzi for prime hilltop sites with a good view of the castle and as another site pointed out this morning, the town will probably see a big uptick from copycat couples wanting to marry in the same place. Still, a little wave would've been nice.
Brooke Shields?: Did I miss something? Granted, I don't pay all that much attention, but last I heard, Brooke Shields and Tom Cruise were in the middle of a nasty public fight over his comments and beliefs about psychiatry and medications and her use of medications to treat post-partum depression. Now I see that Brooke was a guest at his wedding. Did they have some reconciliation that I'm not aware of?
Liz Kelly: Tom made a big apology to Brooke over the summer and after that she and Katie apparently became close friends. So, in a master stroke of positive publicity for both Cruise and Shields, she was at the wedding.
Rockville, Md.: "Still, if anyone can explain to me how a penguin beat down Daniel Craig in a Speedo, I gotta know."
You know he does look good. However when I go to a film these days, I mostly want to laugh. Our national mood does not favor people who solve problems by shooting them. And it is a film that has been done before. I expect he will be a good Bond and better than two of the others.
Liz Kelly: True -- "Casino Royale" has been done before. But not like this. The movie really strays from the Bond formula, to marvelous results.
Rockville, Md.: I hear from my wife that Oprah was not invited because she turned on Tom after the romp on the sofa. What are the chances for a resolution?
Liz Kelly: Did everyone see TMZ.com's scan of the latest cover of "O" magazine, that included the blurb "What to do if someone hears you didn't invite them?" Also, watching the View this morning Barbara Walters let it be known that she was miffed about being left off the guest list despite a previous promise from Cruise himself that she would be there.
Bethesda, Md. : Hi Liz,
I'm posting early because of a meeting around 12:00 today. Loved your blog -- it takes a lot to make me laugh pre-coffee. Although I've had it up to here with TomKat, this whole thing was such a freak show, I couldn't help but be curious about the wedding. One big question: Is that true about Scientology wedding ceremonies require a pan, a comb and a cat? That is TOO WEIRD! What is the loony "significance" of that in a wedding?
Liz Kelly: There are a few different versions of the Scientology wedding vows -- one of which does include a reference to giving the bride a comb, a pan and a cat. All were written church founder L. Ron Hubbard himself. I'm not sure if there's a deeper significance, but taken in the context of the rest of the vows, the "comb, pan and cat" seem to refer to domesticated things needed by the "girl" (that's right, the bride is referred to as "girl"). Meanwhile, the bride pledges to kiss and caress only her groom. Glad you enjoy the blog, by the way. So do I!
Dupont, Washington, D.C.: I've been a fan of Katie's ever since she was Joey Potter, but to be as petty as possible: What's up with her hair? The back looks cute, with curls or something, but the front, with little wispy hairs that make it look like a weird quasi-pixie cut? Not so hot!
Liz Kelly: Personally, I thought her hair looked fine, but I'm seeing a lot of comments from folks who agree with you.
Falls Church, Va.: Did they have a sign-up sheet on sight so that guests could request more information about Scientology?
Liz Kelly: An advisor at every table does make it seem like a recruitment event, doesn't it?
Laurel, Md.: Liz, What's your guess on how long this marriage will last? Considering Tom's track record, I'm guessing it won't be "til death do us part" or whatever they say for Scientology vows.
Liz Kelly: We can't really handicap celebrity weddings. Who could've predicted that Warren Beatty and Annette Bening would still be together after all these years while seemingly solid couples like Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe are breaking up. And, even closer to TomKat's heart, one need only look to Nicole Kidman -- who is solo right now in the first months of marriage to Keith Urban while he's rehabbing -- to see how unpredictable life can be. One thing we do know is that despite rumors of a rift between Katie's family and Cruise, Katie and Tom do present a united front. So united, in fact, that we barely hear a peep out of Katie. Also, Tom Cruise is a man whose every move is calculated. He would not knowingly choose a bride who would adversely affect his image.
Washington, D.C.: When I saw the "Under the Sea Prom 1998" photo, I was all ready to mock the celebrities with the best of 'em.
But then I perused the album. There were two pictures of Katie looking out windows that almost made me cry. Seriously, I teared up for this spoiled little celebrity incubator, seeing that panicked look on her face in the photo with the "unidentified woman". She looks like she's having a total meltdown, the kind where you wave your hands in front of your face and babble nonsense.
And of course, the one where she's holding the baby like her life depends on it ... which it probably does ...
Liz Kelly: No comment except to say that we should be wary of judging Katie's mindframe based on a few snapshots. She may have just been caught at an awkward moment.
Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago: Do you think they got married in Italy because Tom is more popular there than in the USA? I used to live in Italy, and at that time, Sylvester Stallone was still a big hit, long after he was a joke in the US.
Is it one of those Jerry Lewis/France things?
Liz Kelly: I doubt it. I think they got married in Italy, the home of the paparazzo, for a few reasons -- Katie wanted a fairy tale wedding. Remember that although this is Tom's third, it is her first, so she'd want it to be memorable. Maybe that's why the cake reportedly erupted with rose petals when they cut it. That's memorable. As are $100,000 worth of fireworks. And if they were marrying there for the love of the fans, you'd think they would've at least greeted the crowds of onlookers, as mentioned above. And what's this about Sly Stallone being washed up here? You know he's got a new movie coming out in a few weeks.
Rockville, Md.: Most don't know Tom has a BMI (body mass index) of over 30. Not because he is fat, but because he is short. More trivia. But it makes the BMI look very suspect.
Liz Kelly: Thanks for this factoid.
Washington, D.C.: Can you clarify the "oh, by the way" statements that I've read about their wedding being official in Los Angeles. Did they get married at City Hall to make it legal and this was just a big movie production?
BTW, is Gene producing your chat?
Liz Kelly: You'd think that Gene could produce the chat given the years I've slaved away producing his. Instead, he's out there somewhere bothering today's producer, Rocci Fisch, with unprintable questions. An official statement from TomKat's rep said the two "officially legalized" their wedding in California before departing for Italy. Italy doesn't recognize Scientology weddings. Also, I don't think the Catholic church (Katie grew up Catholic) would look too kindly on Tom's two previous marriages.
Falls Church, Va.: You know, if you are TomKat, and you have 1000 invitees -- that's really only 500 invitations -- because you KNOW everyone will bring a guest! So that's 250 for Tom and 250 for Katie. Not really that much when you think about their lives -- friends, family, coworkers etc. ... as far as Oprah playing is cool -- I am diggin' that. So he jumped on her couch. Does that make her his best friend? Don't think so.
Liz Kelly: Not his best friend, no, but Oprah gives her couch sparingly because it has the power to mend reputations and careers. It was worth at least an invite.
Arlington, Va.: Liz, I'm so excited you're hosting a chat that I'm going to ask a really bad question. If anyone can answer it, though, it's you. Why do I feel like I'm about to vomit when I look at TomKat's wedding pictures? Why, the morning news started flashing pictures of them kissing during the ceremony, did I have to leap off my treadmill and trip over the cord in my frenzy to change the channel? This revulsion ... it feels so visceral ... and usually I like to like celebrities. Where does it come from?
Liz Kelly: I think we all know.
TomKat Rhy, ME: You thought you could escape them on a
Monday, but there's no stopping the double
dactyls -- this one a TomKat tribute:
By the way, why no poop-related questions thus
Liz Kelly: Thanks. Gene will be so jealous. I was messaging with Gene on Friday about the wedding and he was pretending he didn't know who Tom and Katie are. I think he was drunk.
Fairfax, Va.: How will the public know if Tom and Katie are legally married?
Liz Kelly: I'm sure we'll be fed a leaked marriage license when the time is deemed correct. Keep your eyes on TMZ.com and TheSmokingGun.com.
Alexandria, Va.: What impact does the wedding have on the Redskins?
Liz Kelly: Seriously, can we get some supernatural Scientology love for the Skins? No pix yet of Daniel Snyder at Saturday's wedding, by the way.
Bowie, Md.: Any news on what was the price tag of this wedding?
Liz Kelly: One British site is reporting 5.3 million pounds. Anyone out there able to do a quick conversion?
Weingarten ...: They are not unprintable. They are merely eccentric and provocative.
Washington, D.C.: Was Nicole Kidman or Mimi Rogers invited? I thought Nicole and Tom remained close despite the divorce.
Liz Kelly: I don't know if they were invited, but I know Nicole did send her best wishes to the bride and groom. Remember, Nicole's kind of going through her own thing right now.
Alexandria, Va.: I'd love to see "Casino Royale." Daniel Craig has been growing on me since he was first announced as being the new 007. However, I have a 6-yr-old and 3-yr-old, and it's much easier for me to take them to see "Happy Feet" than find a sitter so my husband and I can see 007.
Liz Kelly: I hear ya.
Waterford, Conn.: Two flamboyant celebs get married flamboyantly.
Why does that energize a significant portion of the population to condemn them? What's wrong with live-and-let-live? What is [it]about this wedding that gets people mad?
Liz Kelly: I wouldn't necessarily say that the general reaction is "mad" so much as skeptical. And the skepticism has nothing to do with the fact that this is Tom's third trip down the aisle, but everything to do with the unusual, and very public, courtship these two have engaged in over the past two years. They were engaged in June 2005 after only two months of dating and we learned Katie was pregnant only two months after that. I think even Carolyn Hax would tell you that is pretty quick. Then we have to factor in the whole couch-jumping incident, the mystery surrounding Suri's birth, the Scientology thing and the fact that Tom Cruise has turned off a lot of people over the last two years. So I think the attitude is more wait-and-see-what-they'll-do-next than mad.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: Hello Liz!
Your blog is my daily fix. Are you going to enlighten us on how Tom magically became taller than Katie in their official wedding photo?
Also, some of my friends who have been pregnant have told me your hair sometimes falls out then grows back in little tufts. Could be the cause of those inexplicable bang/non-bang things on Katie's head.
BTW, I thought her hair looked awful in that publicity shot -- straggly in back. She has the potential to look so much better.
Any word on how come Holmes's parents are suddenly with the program?
Liz Kelly: Thanks. Again, I think Katie's kneeling a little bit under that big pouffy dress, making Tom appear taller. Which is just ridiculous since we all know he's visibly shorter than her. As for Holmes's parents -- Cruise maintains that he's always had a good relationship with her family, despite rumors of their grave concern over Katie's choice. Still, in the end, I'm sure they wanted to be there for their daughter. They are, by all accounts, a very close family.
" I teared up for this spoiled little celebrity incubator, seeing that panicked look on her face in the photo with the "unidentified woman". She looks like she's having a total meltdown": Yeah, cuz Katie's the only woman who ever felt stressed on her wedding day, much less while a bazillion paparatzi stalk you.
Silver Spring, Md.: About the panicky-looking picture of Katie in the castle window -- I actually read that as, "ack, I'm trying to have my fairy tale wedding and there's all these people with cameras and stepladders out there!" For which she has no one to blame but herself and her crazy husband, but still, that seems like an entirely reasonable explanation for the expression.
Or maybe they just caught her mid-sneeze.
Omaha, Neb.: As hungry as I am for post wedding details (roses out of the cake? Are you serious? I cannot even begin to imagine a scenario where anything exploding out of a cake was classy?) I am really really excited that it's all freakin' over. Hopefully we won't have to hear a peep out of this fiasco until the tabloids start reporting rumors of "trouble in Tom-land." Okay, got that off my chest. Were any of the Dawnsons crowd present? It just seems mighty strange that Katie's "nearest and dearest" are all people she's met in the last 12 months or so. (I mean really, since when does Will Smith pal around with either of them?)
Liz Kelly: Good question. As far as I can determine, there weren't any Dawson alums at the ceremony, though with a guest list in the hundreds, we're missing someone, no doubt. We do know that the Beckhams (David and Victoria), John Travolta and Kelly Preston, Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy, J.Lo and Marc Anthony and Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith were on hand.
That would feed a lot of starving orphans: 5,300,000 GBP = 10,053,210.30 USD
Liz Kelly: Oh man, there's no way they spent that much. Is there?
Washington, D.C.: Just before I left for the movie theater to see "Casino Royale," I read a negative review of it in Time magazine. So I already had misgivings. Then, when I got there, "CR" was sold out. Thirty minutes early! Sold out! So I saw "Happy Feet." And the theater that the 9 p.m. showing of "H"F was in was he-yooge, and full.
Liz Kelly: So you're saying it's a conspiracy?
Weingarten: My god that double dactyl was terrible.
Higgledy Piggledy TomKat the Horrible Hitched in a manner that's Awfully weird.
Raising a question most Heterodoxical: Is this a picture called: "Man With a Beard?"
I mean, that's awful. You should be ashamed, Gene.
Does this mean Katie will be making movies again or is Tom planning to appear in spaghetti westerns? Seriously, is Katie "retired" from acting ??
Liz Kelly: Tom is already busy trying to nail down his next project and, of course, he's now got a studio to run. As for Katie, I haven't heard any murmers about her returning to work and her IMDB page hasn't been updated since "Thank You for Smoking" in 2005.
Washington, D.C.: Maybe Katie's bad hair (and yes, for someone who can afford any number of smoke and mirrors to look perfect, it's bad hair) is because she ditched her regular stylist (Oscar Blandi) for Jessica Simpson's buddy Ken Paves. We've all seen the monstrosities Jessica's had ... not sure why Katie chose him for this occasion.
Liz Kelly: Yep, good point.
Columbia, Md.: Were there any anti-Scientology protests in the vicinity of the wedding?
Liz Kelly: The only protest I've heard about was done solely by Bracciano's Catholic priest, who rung his church bells "louder and longer" to protest what he considered a Godless wedding.
Legally: I don't know about Italy, but in France, you can only get married if one of the couple is an official resident of the administrative district in whose city hall the ceremony is performed. There are always special dispensations, but they're rare, and for this reason, the French aren't so big on destination weddings. Legally, you have to get married at home.
So even if Tom hadn't been divorced twice, and even if they weren't trying to have a Scientology wedding, I'd be surprised if an Italian officiant could legally marry them.
By the way, is a Scientology ceremony valid in the U.S.? I guess it must be ... the guy who married us was an Internet minister.
Liz Kelly: Scientology is a recognized religion in the U.S., I believe, accorded all the rights and recognitions of any other religion.
Danny S.: So how did Danny Snyder keep track of his team? Does Italy have ESPN?
Liz Kelly: Actually, Snyder rushed back from the wedding to attend the game.
Castle -- rook takes pawn: Did anybody dangle a baby over a parapet?
Liz Kelly: No, dammit. Which means no Internet game. We have to make do with maybe a maze-like game of Jim Carrey getting lost in Bracciano on his way to the ceremony. Maybe a Pac-man like feel to it?
Arlington, Va.: Are TomKat really friends with all their guests, or did they use this as a chance to meet other famous celebs (the Beckhams, etc.)?
Liz Kelly: I think they are indeed friendly with all the celebs in attendance. Katie and Victoria recently spent time together in Paris attending fashion week and shopping.
Los Angeles, Calif.: It's clear that Tom Cruise is no longer an actor. He's a publicity spectacle like Michael Jackson (no longer a singer) and Anna Nicole Smith (no longer either a stripper or a fashion model)
How long to you give this thing? Already it's lasted past Britney Spears's first marriage (some were betting it might not make it that far.) Do you think Katie will bail after six months? A year?
Liz Kelly: Ugh. I hate this question. It is so hard to predict the shelf life of a celebrity marriage. Still, I have a feeling this one may last -- at least for a while.
Washington, D.C.: There are surely some catty and jealous women out there, complaining about Katie's dress and hair. In all fairness though, there was a downpour during her wedding, which means the air was very humid and bad for her hair.
Liz Kelly: Wow, this defense has reached a new level of detail. True enough about the rain, though I think it was more of a problem for the hordes of fans waiting outside for a glimpse of the couple, only to be disappointed. Damp and disappointed.
Okay, besides the fact that they got married, handmade Armani clothes, etc., I thought baby Suri actually looked adorable in all of those pictures ...
ps. So my friends and I decided to only pay for one movie Saturday night (we're in college, okay?) and we paid for "Happy Feet"(funny, but not the best). After that movie was over, we snuck into "007" which was out of this world. Having grown up with Pierce Brosnan as my Bond, I have to say I am utterly enamored of Daniel Craig! Hot!Hot!Hot!
Liz Kelly: Yes, I still think Suri is one of the most adorable babies ever and I'm not one of those chicks that coos and oohs over babies. The kid isn't even a year old and she has a hair style, a little mod hairstyle. Is it wrong to covet the hairstyle of an infant? Not since a young Sean Connery have we seen a Bond with muscle tone. Also, Eva Green was very cool as the thinking man's Bond babe.
Reston, Va.: So what kind of satellite reception do you think Posh got with her hat? Also, why no John Travolta and Kristie Alley but Jenna Elfman?
Liz Kelly: Ya know, I think Travolta was there. Ahead of the wedding there were reports that he was going to ferry the Hollywood set there in his private jet. Maybe we just haven't seen any pics of him yet.
Fairfax, Va.: Having had a baby myself right around the time Suri was born, I can attest that new mothers can lose quite a bit of hair, usually starting when the baby is around four months old. Mine is just now growing back, and looks a lot like Katie's little "tufts" in that one particular photo. There's nothing you can do about it!
Liz Kelly: Thanks for sharing.
Adams Morgan, Washington, D.C. - Is it true?: I tend not to follow peoples' religious beliefs, until I thought I read a blurb that Cruise's Scientology religion was "created" from scratch by a science fiction author and involves aliens flying to Earth in Boeing-esque space cruisers.
I was also well into a holiday party at the time, so please tell me I misread that.
Liz Kelly: Oh my, you need to do a Google search on the words "Scientology Richard Leiby Washington Post" and do some catching up.
Van Ness D.C. cubicle: Did Tomkat adopt an Italian orphan?
Liz Kelly: Hahaha, no -- but they're now honeymooning in the Maldives. Perhaps they'll find a kid there.
TomKat's religion: Actually, Liz, Cruise was also raised Catholic, but he's been a Hubbardite for awhile now. What is the pool on Katie converting to (obviously) the One True Faith? I say less than six months.
Liz Kelly: Katie has already been taking Scientology classes and apparently has her own private church handler. If she hasn't already converted, I'm sure it won't be long. Though, the church of Scientology likes to point out that they do not bar their members from still participating in other religions. So, theoretically, one could be a Catholic and a Scientologist.
The wedding is over and we accepted the fact that they wanted a "fairy tale" wedding in Italy. But can you please explain to me why these two chose that strange location for a honeymoon? Geez, these two are afraid of their own shadows let alone humans.
Liz Kelly: I don't know that the Maldives is such a strange location. It's a tourist destination though it was devasted in the 2004 tsunami. I think it's kind of cool, actually, that they're raising awareness of that area -- that it still exists and is open for business.
I 100 percent agree with you that Katie's kneeling down a bit. You can see the bend of her front leg. Ridiculous that she's doing so though.
Suri looked gorgeous in the one video I saw of her. Where are the photos of Isabella and Connor?
Liz Kelly: I saw some photos of Isabella and Connor this morning. If we don't have them in our gallery, we'll add em. In the meantime, check out the outfit Posh wore the night before the wedding. I think it may be worse than the actual wedding ensemble.
Maryland: Why do we care? I haven't come up with a good answer for this, yet I checked the photo gallery this morning wondering what her dress looked like. I can't help but think we are all a touch pathetic for caring.
Liz Kelly: We're not pathetic, just curious. Nothing wrong with that. It's fluff and sometimes we need fluff to buffer things like war or a stressful election season. At least that's what I keep telling myself.
Suri: Can we pause for a minute and just say how totally cute Suri looked the other day. Awwww ... bella bambina ...
Liz Kelly: Si, molto bella. Grazie tante!
Maldives: What about Ocean City, Md.? They could use some PR in the offseason.
Liz Kelly: I just laughed out loud picturing Tom and Katie heading out of the Holiday Inn for crab cakes at Hooters.
Maldives for honeymoon: Sounds like some people have never even heard of Maldives. People can be so ignorant. It's a beautiful, beautiful island in the Indian ocean. We were there couple of years back. It's paradise.
It makes sense that Cruise wanted to go somewhere not so over- used like Fiji or Tahiti or some such place.
Liz Kelly: I, on the otherhand, would be fine with overused places like Tahiti or Fiji.
Liz Kelly: Whoops, time's up. I really had fun doing this. Thanks to all for the questions. Check out more about TomKat on Celebritology
|
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.
| 145.268293 | 0.609756 | 0.756098 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111700851.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111700851.html
|
Post Magazine: Another Way
|
2006112019
|
A band of idealists in the mountains of North Carolia is trying to build a low-energy life style with Earthhaven, their "ecovillage."
But, asks Joel Achenbach, whose story about Earthhaven appeared in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine, must we all live like hippies in the woods to make a difference? Achenbach will be online fielding questions and comments today.
Joel Achenbach is a Magazine staff writer.
Joel Achenbach: Greetings! I hope you had a chance to read the magazine story on Earthaven and the future of human civilization as we know it. And the fate of the universe. I will do my very best to answer your questions and be responsive, though it's tricky operating this computer with foot-power. I'm pedaling as fast as I can, trust me.
Washington, DC: Thank you for an excellent analysis. In your article you pointed out that new technologies have to compete with old ones. In today's post an article pointed out that the photovoltaic industry, while still small, is adding capacity and jobs to compete with utilities. Why do utilities in the Washington area obstruct the use of photovoltaics? Specifically, why does PEPCO not allow feedback to the power grid? I have been informed by solar engineers that my Mount Pleasant row house, because of its southern orientation, would generate as much or more electricity than I presently use. There are thousands of similiarly aspected row houses in DC.
Joel Achenbach: I'm going to answer with my favorite phrase: I don't know. But I do know that nationally there's a huge movement to pump solar-generated electricity back onto the grid, there are companies that specialize in this, and if you were to visit Amory Lovins's house in Colorado (or maybe it's the HQ of Rocky Mountain Institute -- I forget) you'd see someone who generates more electricity than he uses. My own house has a great Southern orientation and heats up like a poker every summer afternoon; I'd like to find a way to turn it into an energy generator rather than an energy sink.
Los Angeles Calif: Thank you for your informative article. I tried to read the article as if I was hearing about an ecovillage for the first time. I appreciated your research on energy statistics, carbon issues, American consumerism and waste. I especially appreciated that you pointed out the difference between energy efficiency and conservation, a rare distinction of late. And I enjoyed the fact that you helped your readers get a sense of what it's like to live with solar without a back-up into the utility grid.
Had I been a newcomer to the concept of an ecovillage, I would surely have had the idea that Earthaven was an isolated example. But, of course, it's part of a worldwide movement of more than 20,000 ecovillages in urban, suburban and rural areas, in both industrial and developing societies. And each is unique in the way it is working toward lowering its environmental impact while significantly raising the quality of community life. Lots of information is available (www.ecovillage.org). You gave your readers no clue about where to begin looking.
You made no mention of the quite phenomenal cohousing movement within Earthaven as well as throughout the country and the world
(www.cohousing.org). You talked about the problems of consensus, but not the beauty of it or the strength of decisions made using this form of decision making. You talked about about some of the problems of
living in community and a few happy moments, but shortchanged your readers on the joys of community living (www.ic.org) overall.
You forgot to mention Earthaven's extensive program of workshops and training opportunities which is common in many ecovillages throughout the world. Overall, it didn't seem on your radar screen that teaching and demonstrating how it is possible to radically lower one's environmental impact while radically raising one's quality of life is really what ecovillages are about. Earthaven, along with several dozens of other ecovillages around the world, are modern prototypes-in-process, a set of on-going dynamic interactive processes, never a done deal! But most of us have learned enough in the past few decades that we are beginning to know how to help others accomplish similar things in a much shorter timeframe.
Most importantly, you left your readers high and dry on how to access more information on the ecovillage, cohousing and intentional communities movements or that these are movements. Permaculture too was downplayed in your article, and is rapidly entering the mainstream (www.permacultureactivist.net). See the cover story "It's kind of easy being green: The renewable-resource lifestyle known as 'permaculture' is taking root in L.A. -HOME EDITION] Los Angeles Times, Jul 22, 2004.
Lastly, in spite of the fact that so much of the hippie culture of the 1960s and 70s is mainstream today (e.g., natural foods, appropriate technologies, participatory decision making, midwifery, alternative healing, organic farming, etc.), there is still an automatic turn-off by so many at the labeling of anything hippieish. Although you redeemed yourself through much of your reporting, no doubt many many didn't get far enough to learn what you had to teach.
Nonetheless, thanks anyway. It was a fascinating piece.
Western U.S. Council Member, Ecovillage Network of the Americas
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for this interesting post. If you or others have more contact info you want me to put on this chat I'd be happy to do that.
I am sure I could have written about many more aspects of Earthaven and the ecovillage movement, but "comprehensiveness" is not the paramount aim of a newspaper article, which is, as they say, the first rough draft of history (as opposed to being a textbook).
Laurel, Md: OK, so this was primarily a human interest story, not a study for a scientific journal. But one point of potential importance is the trade-off between being able to use energy and using land.
Pre-industrial societies could only support a fraction of the population we do today, and our ability to use energy is a big part of it. I can earn many times what my grandfather did working in a 10x8 foot cubical, because it's connected to a computer terminal and telephone. I live in another box far from my work because I can commute between them, and be happy there because there are many appliances to fulfill my eating, sanitation and entertainment needs.
We could never support 300 million Americans in anything like our current lifestyle on 1/3 the energy.
Joel Achenbach: I think the point is that we don't have to use as much energy as we do to live a decent lifestyle. Many ways of saving energy actually improve our lives. I am guessing that the folks stuck in traffic for 90 minutes each way as they commute to work are not in favor of traffic jams.
One of my favorite moments in doing this story was when I was in the newsroom early on a Saturday morning, tinkering with the article, and it was dark in here except over in my section of the newsroom. Someone came in on the far, far side of the newsroom, threw a switch, and the whole place lit up, like maybe 200 lights at once.
I'm sure they were energy-efficient lights.
Arlington, Va: Interesting people there in Earthaven. Is their major goal to reduce energy, or just retreat from the world? It would seem to me that you can work to reduce energy use without living in the woods.
Joel Achenbach: Earthaven has a good web site that explains its purpose. I think they want to live an existence that fits with their ethics on many fronts. It's not just being ecologically oriented.
Ashburn, Va: In your experience, does Earthhaven attract the average American to the idea of sustainable living, or does it repel them?
Joel Achenbach: Just judging by my email traffic, I think the example of Earthaven has at least caused people to stop and think about their ecological footprint. I don't think many people are going to go live in the woods.
Silver Spring, Md: Your article was very educational and has really gotten me interested in this notion of "intentional community". How exactly did Earthhaven begin? Was it just a few individual investors or a larger group who pooled money together to buy the land?
Joel Achenbach: Again I'd refer you to the Earthaven website, as I don't want to be imprecise during a chat. I believe about 11 people pooled their resources circa 1994 and purchased the 300-plus acre site. Many had had experiences with intentional communities.
Alexandria, Va: Were the people you interviewed aware how dependent they were on the modern, energy dependent economy for their "experiment"? All those technologies they are utilizing didn't come from the Amish, after all.
I found it particularly amusing that a denizen of an eco-village would have an electric coffee grinder. I use a turkish coffee grinder and a stovetop expresso maker - about $100 altogether online.
Also, pedal-powered washing machines have been developed by students at MIT and elsewhere.
Maybe I should move to the woods..
Joel Achenbach: Yes they are completely aware of that. They know that solar panels aren't fashioned together with saplings and roots. They buy propane. They are not completely divorced from mainstream culture. But as one of them said, "The perfect can be the enemy of the good." Here's an interesting statistic: In the summer they have at least 80 people on site all the time, and in a week (someone told me) they only fill up six garbage cans -- because they are very focused on recycling and not using products that come with lots of packaging.
Arlington, Va: Mr Achenbach, about 2/3 of the way through your story, I started frowning. It may have been the part where the mothers are hopping into the car to go to town to do their laundry and errands? "Isn't he going to mention cities?" I thought to myself. And then you did! Marvelous. Lemme ask you a question, though. Would it be at all possible to change the discourse in this country from what we as individuals should change (the lightbulbs, our driving habits) in order to minimize our impact on the environment to what legislators have a responsibility to mandate? You talked about the whole people-won't-change, this-is-just-the-way-things-are school of thought. But when it comes to pressing issues like the environment, is it really more effective to try to entice individuals into acting responsibly or to make it very difficult or impossible for them not to? Is it truly better for an individual to go live in the woods, or for her to remain a part of society and fight for change at a higher level? Did any of the folks you talked to struggle with the fact that their own withdrawal from the world may not be the most effective kind of action? (I'm not criticizing. I admire them. But when it comes to the environment, I also think personal choice is sadly ineffective. Kind of like allowing Virginians to vote on gay marriage...government exists for a reason! Although I'm happy you're turning off lights!)
Hope this question wasn't too convoluted. I got interrupted a bunch of times. I did enjoy the article and am looking forward to your chat (submitting early).
Joel Achenbach: Your question is no more convoluted than my answer is going to be. I think you hit on a key point: Shouldn't government take the lead on this, rather than sitting back and letting individuals bear the brunt of making the world more environmentally friendly? A carbon tax or BTU tax or somesuch thing is one idea, obviously, but I don't know if it has political legs (I haven't reported on that but others here at The Post probably have). Kyoto-type agreements could also play a role. At some point individuals have to pick political leaders who care about these issues.
Joel Achenbach: Go for it.
Alexandria, Va: Just a big thank you for the great article. I recently decided to pick one small, easy green thing at a time to commit to and it's amazing how conscious you become of how wasteful we are just by changing one little thing. I bring in cotton or hemp grocery sacks for food shopping now and they're so much easier to carry that I can't imagine how the disposable grocery bag trend ever got started. Have you changed any habits of your own (and stuck to them) since you visited the Ecovillage?
Joel Achenbach: I turn out more lights. And I don't gripe as much when my wife turns the thermostat down to, like, 87 below. I wrote a column about that a while back -- in my house in winter we practically have to wear parkas and ski masks.
Washington, DC: In your very interesting article, near the beginning you note that about 20 gallons of gasoline can be made from a barrel (which is about 42 gallons) of crude oil. That's true- but it's not like the rest of the oil is thrown away. It is made into jet fuel, kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, petroleum coke, asphalt, and many more refined products. Just about the whole barrel of crude oil is made into some kind of refined product. So when you fill your car with 20 gallons of gasoline, you're not using a whole barrel of crude oil. Just a little clarification.
Joel Achenbach: Greg, if you're there, post a comment.
International Falls, Minn: Is it possible to have this community in any climate?
Joel Achenbach: It's more of an attitude than a fixed thing. I'm guessing that in deep forest you can't have solar panels and in northern Minnesota you might want plenty of propane or whatnot. I don't think it would work in some parts of Greenland.
Reston, Va: If my only option is "living by consensus with lots of other people" then bring on the Roving Cannibal Hordes, and the sooner the better. Right now I'd at least have the satisfaction of raising their bad cholesterol. Just wanted to share.
Alexandria, Va: The article mentions the carbon output of different energy sources which is very interesting, but did you run across any source that mentions how much CO2 it would take to raise the Earth's temperature 1 degree? (all other things being equal)
Joel Achenbach: The IPCC is constantly wrestling with what happens if you double CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels. The best guess is a range of something like 2 to 8 degrees C. on average at the surface, though you hear higher numbers too (and I'm pulling that from memory).
San Antonio, Tex.: You mentioned Jimmy Carter's cardigan. Good.
But the only impact the trip and reporting experience made on you, as you yourself say, is that you now use fewer lights in your own household.
Were you kidding, or did the time in Earth Haven really have a deeper impact on either your thinking or your actions? Are you happy with the size of your own carbon footprint?
Do you ever foresee a time in the future when domestic energy consumption may be regulated or will that be left pretty much to market forces? Do you believe in the feast (we'll develop alternative technologies) or famine (conserve now for the future) scenario?
Joel Achenbach: My general operating principle is this: I'm optimistic that future generations will live in a better world, but I think it will require some pessimism to make that world come about. In other words, worrying is probably an adaptive trait that is good for the long-term health of a species.
Earthaven, NC: I enjoyed the article. Thanks for research and for raising the issues for folks to consider.
Pasadena, Calif: One of the things you mentioned multiple times was the psychological impact, and the resulting energy-conscious behavior, of constant ad visible energy metering. It seems like if we all had our energy meters on the fridge (and labeled in dollars), instead of out back or in the basement, we could create significant gains. We'd notice when all the lights (or computers) were on.
Joel Achenbach: Exactly. I still haven't tracked down my gas meter. I think it's on a wall outside hidden behind a very dense camelia.
Warrenton, Va: Does the village have part-timers, i.e. people who only live there in the summer?
Joel Achenbach: Yes they have interns etc., and folks who are there just a few months a year.
Silver Spring, Md: Joel, is the population pretty stable -- as in roughly the same number of children and adults? Do the members of Earthhaven talk about it? In my neighborhood, there are 4 houses, 4 couples. One house has 3 children, one has one, the other two have none. It's just worked out that way -- a good way.
Joel Achenbach: They have 60 members and want to grow to at least 100. And maybe further. They realize they don't have quite the critical mass they need to a sustainable village. An interesting question that we talked about was, What's the right size for a village? What's the right size for any human community? Chris Farmer, one of the Earthaveners, noted that once you get beyond about 600 people you no longer can know everyone personally.
Wondering what you think of less intensive but just as serious efforts at relocalization and powering down? I volunteer with Sustainable Ballard, a 600-member community building group, www.sustainableballard.org, that actively partners with other organizations to deal effectively with decreasing energy supplies. There are about 7 other groups in the Puget Sound area, most affiliated with the Post Carbon Institute.
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for the info.
Hood River, Ore: Thanks for an interesting article; it reminded me of the "back to the land" movement of the 60's and 70's (in fact I wondered how many of the participants had a past experience with that). You describe the "ecovillage" also as an "intentional community", but by the end of the article I wanted to ask what exactly the intention is? To see how energy-efficient one can live off the grid? Or maybe just to ramp down on energy usage (a worthy intention)? Or just to become more aware of where our energy comes from? It doesn't seem from your article like they are very interested in being self-sufficient in other ways. As a person who makes a living farming, I gulped at the description of their farming attempt...there are much better ways to learn about these things.
Joel Achenbach: Many of them have roots in the Back to the Land movement of the 1970s. In fact one reason I liked doing this piece is that my parents -- my mom and stepfather -- were part of that movement, and we had a huge garden and composted all our scraps and heated with wood and had a solar powered hot water heater (um, sort of worked, sometimes) and in general lived a kind of Earthaven-in-Gainesville lifestyle. Precisely why that movement went into a lull is something I never managed to figure out. There are still a few communities in existence from those days, but not a lot, I'm told.
Ithaca, NY: No, we don't need to live like hippies in the woods to make a difference!
Check out our Ecovillage of 60 families only 2 miles from a great town: http://www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us/
There are Ecovillages in suburban and urban (and rural) settings all over the US and the World!
Dunn Loring, Va: Joel, I just read your article this morning. I wanted to let you know about friends of mine outside Ashville who run The Long Branch Environmental Education Center (www.longbrancheec.org). They started in 1970....self composting toilets, orchards, gardens, solar energy homes, trout pond, etc. It is run by Paul Gallimore (PHD in environmentalism). It is known statewide as an education center on how to live with less energy. Thought you and your readers might be interested. Thank you! Lani Browning
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for the info.
Los Angeles, Calif: In your article about Earthaven, you mention technological solutions like photovoltaic cells and batteries. But what about low-tech ways to lower energy consumption like the bicycle? Or stationary bicycles hooked up to electric generators (like those used by UC Davis students in the green dorm)?
What about clotheslines? Solar ovens? Eating low on the food chain?
I posted some thoughts generated by your article at http://badmomgoodmom.blogspot.com/
Joel Achenbach: Good points, though I'm not sure that most Americans are going to go back to using clotheslines. In Florida I spent half my childhood running out in the rain to take down the clothes as they were getting soaked.
But I could be wrong, and as a reader service i will post an excerpt from your blog:
Most of the homes in Earthhaven have energy meters in a prominent place so that residents can easily monitor their current energy usage. Why do conventional homes have their electric meter on the outside and not also on the inside of the homes?
A Swedish study showed that drivers adjusted their driving style and improved their fuel economy by an average of 10% when current MPG (or liters/100km) was displayed. An internal display of real-time electricity and gas usage could similiarly influence behavior.
Secondly, sustainable living will be attractive to more people if they feel like they are gaining something rather than giving up something (or wearing a hairshirt like Jimmy Carter's sweater). I live in a dense neighborhood because it frees up time that I would have otherwise spent on commuting and running errands. Everyplace I absolutely need to go is in a very tight radius. It is both time and energy efficient and a sanity saver. Plus, if I walk or ride my bicycle, I get exercise without taking any additional time out of my day.
We use a clothesline because it saves time. We start up a load of laundry after everyone in our family has bathed and before going to sleep. In the morning, I toss the shirts and small items into the dryer and hang up the heavy items up on the clothesline. After breakfast, I pull the shirts out of the dryer and hang them up to dry the rest of the way. When I get home from work, I take the clothes off the line and fluff them up in the dryer for a few minutes. We chat while Mark cleans up after dinner and I fold the laundry. It seems to take no time at all compared to the whole days that other households spend waiting for their clothes to dry in the dryer.
Washington, D.C.: I work for the electricity industry, and I thought your description of our society's disconnection to the source of electricity was as good as anything I have ever read. You meanwhile offered a vivid description of the other extreme -- living entirely off the grid at Earthaven. The answer, of course, lies somewhere in the middle, and it lies, of course, with all of us -- individuals, society, government and industry alike. Here's hoping that you keep writing incisive articles like this one and that the shift we're all starting to make continues.
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for the comment. "Somewhere in the middle" seems to be an idea with a lot of political currency these days. Revenge of the Centrists.
Silver Spring, Md: I never quite understood how these people afforded to live without having, at least what it appeared from the article, steady jobs. How do they afford to kit out their houses with solar panels, which despite coming down in price over the last decade, are still pretty expensive? How do they afford to buy food? The whole thing would make so much more sense if they all were truly "off-grid" in every sense and not dependent on the outside world. I don't see why they need to live in the woods to accomplish what they want since they aren't really using the land to farm, etc.
You're article was very interesting, don't get me wrong, but I would be much more interested in reading about people in every day society that are making sacrifices that I could possible apply to my own life.
Joel Achenbach: Some do have steady jobs outside Earthaven, some have jobs or duties inside. But most get by in part by not requiring a lot of income. I didn't mention them in the piece, for space reasons, but a couple of folks who were original members of EArthaven and who live down the road now have the most fabulous little farm and home with solar panels etc., lots of goats and ducks and whatnot, bees, fruit trees, it's a real spread, and they talked about the great bounty of their lives even though they are, as they put it, below the poverty line. Technically they're impoverished. But it looked like a great life.
You make a key point that I was aware of throughout this piece: the folks at Earthaven aren't role models for most people, they're an extreme. But I think what they do is thought provoking and I decided that I could use them in a broader article about alternative energy. The point isn't that we all have to live in the woods. the point is that it might be a good idea to be more energy conscious, more aware of what sustains us.
Bangalore, India: The native residents of Natural Eco-habitats have a 'cosmic world-view' and because of that they can 'accord themselves' with harmony amongst themselves - other humans and other animal and material creations around inclusive of the astronomicals. Given this fact - the metro humans moving over to live in the eco-habitats by itself may not benefit them much. It is sure to cause them mental-confusions which they have necessarily to tackle 'intellectually' as an objective social scientist or else it will cause an emotional displacement uneasiness - I suppose. Regards, Vedapushpa -Social Anthropologist, Bangalore - India
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for sharing that.
Fairfax, Va: I'm not ready for an ecovillage; never will be. But there are so many ways we can begin to walk the walk. We just had our kitchen redone. Contractors put in six 90 w. and three 65 w. recessed lights -- 735 w if all on full power. We were horrified, checked around and found that there are now compact fluorescent flood bulbs for recessed fixtures. We spent the time and money to find and buy them, and now instead of 735 watts, we burn about 150 watts if all are on (6 x 18 w and 3 x 14 w). We turn off the power strip to our computer and printer every time we're done using them. No "vampires" there, and safer in a lightning storm. Similarly, we keep vcr and other seldom-used appliances unplugged.
These are all absolutely painless, nmo-brainers that help use less power.
Don't get me started on population!!!
Joel Achenbach: No, please start on population.
Rockville, Md: Did you mean for these people to be laughable? I mean, really, roving rogue cannibals are about to emerge in this country? I wonder if any of them ever read a little book that came out in the 70's, The Limits to Growth, that foresaw enormous shortages of food and other basic commodities, starting sometime in the 80's. Do these morbidly depressed people realize that it would have made more sense to hook up to the electric grid than to purchase solar panels (the manufacture of which has an impact on our environment) and which have an approximate 40 year pay back, but only about 25 years of usable life? It would have made a lot more sense if they had hooked up to the electric grid and used compact flourescents. All I can say is that having these people in their ecovillage is saving the rest of us from having to deal with them on a day to day basis. A lot of naive good intentions, but no economic sense whatsoever.
Joel Achenbach: There is no grid where they live, just fyi. Solar makes more economic sense in places that are remote. And it will likely make even more sense as the technology improves (see the Mufson story in today's paper).
Madison, Wis: Did I miss it, or did you not include how many folks live in the ecovillage? I'm curious how many people are there now, what the trend has been--and if there is a reason you omitted that.
Joel Achenbach: The number dropped from the story inadvertantly as I was monkeying with it on deadline. There are 60 people there. I think we had the number in a caption.
bc in dc: On a quick note, being more conscious as to how much energy you use can be made into a game.
For example, I keep track of my car's fuel mileage and try to get more and more range out of a tank of gasoline. I've learned a lot about how driving style has a siginificant impact on fuel usage, and I'm continually trying to better my previous "record". Makes the daily commute a little more interesting as well.
I was doing this long before I ever heard the term "supermiling".
On Wednesday I will try an experiment to only watch one minute of every 10 of "Lost", and spend the other 9 minutes sitting in the dark making up my own story about what's happening until the next minute I can pop the TV back on and do a quick reoncile. I don't think I will wreck the integrity of the story that way.
Joel Achenbach: What bc doesn't tell you is that he normally drives at 130 miles an hour.
Atlanta, Ga: Some think the cost of electricity is 9 cents and gasoline is $2.30. However, the cost of our oil and gas consumption is much, much higher. Consider who pays for the billions$ of "protecting our interests", the trillions$ of US deficit. And, there is the human aspect of death, atrocities, ill will, and fostered terrorism. The total cost of our consumerism is very high.
Joel Achenbach: Yeah, the "real cost" of energy is something everyone probably ought to ponder.
Earthaven, NC: I'm the woman in the article who hops into her car on Monday mornings to pick up my son from his dad's house and do all my errands for the week. That allows me to spend the rest of my time in my village, and I earn my living from there.
I know the person who built my house personally and all the houses around me. I know who built the roads, bridges, who laid the waterlines and which neighbor to call if I am having power issues in my solar system.
People here know me better than sometimes I know myself. They know the best I have to offer and my most annoying habits. They are not afraid to confront me if they have an issue with me, with a level of honesty that is startling at times. And they accept all the good and hard parts of me. They come visit me with food when I'm sick. When my son and I did a ritual where we told each other what we were grateful for, he was grateful for his "thousands of friends." He wants to live at Earthaven for the rest of his life.
Turning off a few lights didn't satisfy me when I lived in a single family home in a mainstream lifestyle. I was searching for a way to be true to myself, to the sadness I felt about being part of the problem, part of the devastation of our natural resources. This lifestyle isn't totally sustainable, but it is so much less wasteful than I could pull off in the mainstream on my own. I live with people who share my values, who passionately and radically want to conserve resources, and I feel part of the solution...not the whole solution, but I live much, much less wastefully and much, much more fulfilled by my relationships. By the way, we host visitors every Saturday and by appointment through the week--we have hardly retreated!
Thanks, Joel, for sparking this thoughtful discussion!
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for that great post. I should probably reiterate what she has said here: Earthaven seeks to be a demonstration project, it has tours, it has a website, it has internships, etc.
EcoSwitzerland: I would like to participate in this chat, but I'm starting to feel guilty about all the electricity my PC is using. I'm shutting down...
Joel Achenbach: Don't feel guilty!
I find that shame is a much better emotion.
I'm currently researching sustainable communities at Worldwatch Institute--a sustainable development think tank in DC and am very glad to see your great article on ecovillages. I'm also glad to see Lois Arkin's comment that the ecovillage model can work equally well in urban settings--using solar hotwater and PV panels, composting toilets (which are much more than outhouses), and green roofs (to improve insulation and reduce water runoff), along with being situated near public transporation or walking distance to commercial areas.
As well, I'd like to accentuate the point that ecovillages--whether urban or rural--are more than just communities that have lower ecological footprints. They provide a social support network that encourages ecological behavior even when it can be difficult. Trying to be 'green' in a typical American suburb can often be a painful experience--if possible at all. No one would be even allowed to build a 100 square foot house in many suburbs, like the resident at Earthaven did. But living in a likeminded community, where people celebrate a low-impact lifestyle helps people to make the tough choices, and stick to them. Moreover, as you note, there are also many positive side effects from this type of living too.
For example, some cohousing communities have storage rooms for all types of tools, or have a shared car, or shared laundry facilities so that instead of everyone owning a washing machine or a drill or even a car, the community only needs a few. Yes, that means occasionally you'll have to come back later to wash your clothes, but it also means that you'll save a lot of money as an individual consumer as you won't have to own many of the 'necessities' that you would if you lived alone.
Thanks again for the great article.
Joel Achenbach: Erik, thanks, good luck with your research.
Joel Achenbach: I'm going to wrap this up. Thanks for joining in. I'll first post a couple more comments that I didn't have time to get to.
Alexandria, Va: Okay, sixty people on 300 acres, and they're hoping to get to a hundred people.
That's three acres per person.
The earth has about six billion people, and about 5.4 billion acres of arable land, roughly one acre per person. Seems to me the Earthaven model falls down when you try to get everyone to do it. What's the point of this experiment?
Joel Achenbach: The story says that pretty explicitly. Did you read it?
A Middle Way: I live in a cohousing neighborhood (www.cohousing.org), which is a variety of intentional community that is closer to a suburb than to Earthaven-- but is still much more environmental than a traditional suburb. We have privately-owned homes and a commonly-owned large clubhouse/commonhouse. Everything is pedestrian-oriented (cars at the periphery) and is based on having real relationships with your neighbors (though still with private homes to retreat to). Although having a supportive community around is the main point, we are also much more environmental. The fact that we have a nice commonhouse with guest bedrooms, a kids' playroom, a large great room for parties, etc. means that our own house can be much smaller. We moved from a 2400 square foot house to an 1800 square foot house and feel that our smaller home works much better for us.
Unlike Earthaven, we feel that living in cohousing makes life much easier as well as more environmental. Our kids go to preschool 5 days a week, but because of carpooling with 2 other families we only have to drive 3 out of the 10 trips. We swap childcare, meals, and often pick up items for each other at the store so that they don't have to get in the car just to get eggs. We have a CSA that delivers farm-fresh veggies to our neighborhood every week. We are large enough to create a market and so the farmers come to us. Best of all, we live next door to some of our best friends, and have impromptu parties all the time.
This kind of neighborhood is unusual in America, but very common in other parts of the world. In Denmark, 20-30% of the population lives in a cohousing neighborhood.
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for the cohousing info.
Arlington, Va: Very interesting article.
The residents of the ecovillage speak enthusiastically about a massive global economic depression (perhaps even economic collapse), the assumed benefits of which would be a radical change in consumption of natural resources.
Did you see any evidence of realization on their part that such an economic collapse would surely cause milliions, if not billions, of deaths? Given that Earth's 6.5 billion person population depends upon a world economy that provides food, drinking water, and medicine for common diseases (i.e., those life saving benefits that are only made possible with a robust world economy), their hopes of a global economic collapse neccessitates a massive amount of global death. Are the residents ignorant of such consequences, or do they believe that the supposed "benefits" of a global economic collapse outweigh the potential deaths of billions?
Joel Achenbach: Our conversations were actually much more positive in tone than that. Which I tried to convey in that passage of the story.
Washington, DC: I'm writing from the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., that has promoted energy efficiency for nearly 30 years. As our board member Dr. Marilyn Brown of Georgia Tech indicates in your cover story, energy efficiency is not about deprivation and discomfort.
Energy efficiency IS about using the technological advances of the past 30 years to increase indoor comfort while reducing energy bills and carbon footprints. Indeed, despite the proliferation of energy-using products, energy efficiency has reduced our nation's energy use by some 40 percent in the past 30 years and is our most abundant energy resource.
The beauty of energy efficiency is its availability to folks at all income levels and lifestyles. In that vein the Alliance invites your readers to "Take the 6 of Energy Efficiency Challenge" at www.sixdegreechallenge.org to learn more about how energy use affects all aspects of our lives, from the individual to the planet, and about cutting energy use, costs and pollution.
The Alliance also endorses "conservation" measures, like turning off electronics that are not in use, and "smart energy practices," like regularly cleaning or replacing furnace filters. For those able to make a bigger investment, ENERGY STAR windows increase indoor comfort and reduce heating and cooling bills and, in 2006 and 2007, generate a federal income tax credit up to $200 - one of a number of tax credits for specific energy-efficiency home improvements. (See www.ase.org/taxcredits for details.)
Joel Achenbach: Thanks for that.
Chester, SC: If you awoke tomorrow and were somehow transfigured into a scientist, what would you be studying, and why?
Joel Achenbach: Hair Science. You know: The physics of having freakishly straight hair. And the sociological implications thereof.
Langley, Va: Joel, have the Earthaven people taken a look at various low-technology religious communites such as the Amish? I would think this might help them answer questions such as the minimum size of a sustainable community and so on.
Joel Achenbach: Not sure. But good question.
THANKS everyone. Check out the blog sometime:
You can post more comments there.
And everyone please have a HAPPY THANKSGIVING. Cheers, Joel
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.
| 196.097561 | 0.707317 | 0.902439 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901048.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901048.html
|
In the Looking Glass
|
2006112019
|
Alice Walker spent the summer on her farm in Mendocino, Calif., with her "kids" -- a dog named Marley and a cat called Surprise. She went swimming every day. She gardened; she enjoyed fresh peaches and home-grown potatoes.
A few weeks ago, back in her home town of Berkeley, she joined the choir at East Bay Church of Religious Science (where, it should be noted, she promptly started agitating to change the word "Lord" to "spirit" in hymns). She is learning to play drums -- she has two, one West African, one Native American. For Thanksgiving, she has rented a hall, and she's going to throw a dance.
"I'm basically shifting in my life," she says. "Shifting to much less travel, much more contemplation."
At the moment, though, this somewhat reluctant literary lioness has emerged for a multi-city book tour, temporarily suspending that notion of "less travel" to promote a new collection of meditations, "We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: Inner Light in a Time of Darkness."
There is still activism in her, still fight, but it comes in a more self-reflective and overtly spiritual package. At 62, Walker grounds her life in meditation and yoga, and she writes about things like "the root of the peace cradling me" and "the ecstatic nature of impersonal love" that bonds her with the Iraqi women and children who so concern her.
But she can still energize a crowd. Speaking at Politics and Prose on Wednesday night, she went on a political tear, denouncing both parties, denouncing the Bush administration, denouncing the war. From all corners of the room came echoes of "uh-huh" and "that's right," punctuated with clapping and laughter.
"America is not free," she told her audience, " . . . and everyone knows it and can see it!"
That conclusion got a standing ovation from a crowd that spilled down the aisles, the turnout so much larger than expected that the store sold all 161 copies of the book in stock and had to start taking back orders. Disappointed would-be purchasers started buying up the notable works of Walker's past -- such as the Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Color Purple" (1982) or the best-selling "Possessing the Secret of Joy" (1992), which was once widely banned because of its subject matter (genital mutilation among some African cultures).
These days, Walker's topics are not nearly as controversial as those that marked her rise to prominence as an envelope-pushing, polarizing voice: incest, the abuse of women and children, rape. What informs and influences her work -- what drove her to publish this current book -- is her lifelong opposition to war and her belief that the "current political situation is so gruesome," she says in an interview before her signing. Her rallying cries -- in both the interview and her public talk -- are for universal health care, high-quality education for all children, and better pay for teachers.
"Alice Walker has always been candid and outspoken in her writing, and sometimes ahead of her time," says Valerie Boyd, a journalism professor at the University of Georgia who has written a biography of author Zora Neale Hurston (one of Walker's inspirations) and has closely followed Walker's work.
"The kinds of work she's been doing more recently have been more introspective. They're more reflective of her own spiritual search and spiritual development. Even in this book, she's talking about antiwar things that many of us can agree on, but she's talking about them in a spiritual way that might still be 'out there' for a lot of readers," Boyd says.
Walker hasn't had a bestseller since 1999 (and that book, "By the Light of My Father's Smile: A Novel," made the limelight for only a few weeks and had uneven reviews). Her last big critical and commercial success was "Possessing the Secret of Joy."
"It wouldn't occur to me to worry about that," she says in her hotel suite at the Willard Intercontinental. "The way I see my work . . . if you look at a mango tree, you expect mangoes from it. And I feel that way about myself. I expect from myself, as a writer, to write exactly what is natural to me. It is sometimes a problem for other people. . . . I wish that each gift could be received with the joy and the delight that I create it. But I don't wait around, hoping and wanting and wishing. I'm usually on to making something else."
"We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For" consists of essays, several taken from speeches Walker has given over the years. She writes about attending the funeral of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. She writes about the impact of war on one of her brothers, who fought in Korea. She writes about how she acquired her dog, Marley. In her final chapter, she describes being arrested and jailed for participating in an antiwar protest in Washington in 2003.
She also writes about the public reaction to her earlier works, particularly "The Color Purple" and "Possessing the Secret of Joy." Walker famously has said that she didn't know such a thing as a Pulitzer Prize for fiction existed before she won it, but she also acknowledges that the rewards -- namely, financial security and the money to buy her beloved farm -- were welcome. The controversy, the censorship, the personal attacks: Those, she admits, were difficult.
"And why has controversy about my work been so consistent," she writes, "that whenever I publish a novel I am tempted to attach a note to the reader warning that the book might be too much (or too something) for them?"
These days, though, the world appears to be catching up with Walker. When "The Color Purple" debuted on Broadway last December, the kiss between the two female lead characters that was so disturbing to some readers almost 25 years ago was met with audience applause, according to Boyd, who attended. When Nagueyalti Warren -- a professor at Emory University who teaches a class based on Walker's work -- assigns "Possessing the Secret of Joy," she finds her students are not shocked by the subject matter, because it's something they are already aware of.
"I think many people were fairly late -- maybe because of all the controversy -- understanding my work as spiritual work," Walker says. "They were, for many, many years, talking about -- and these were right things to talk about -- the abuse of women and children and rape and incest and violence." Dellena Cunningham, who attended Wednesday night's signing, admits she got "stuck" trying to read Walker's difficult 1990 novel, "The Temple of My Familiar," and, like many Walker fans, has "stopped slavishly going to get everything she wrote."
Still, Cunningham made the trip to Politics and Prose -- partly because she heard this latest book was good and, largely, because Walker still is, and always will be, a rock star whose works have influenced generations.
"I thought it might be my only opportunity to see her in person," Cunningham says.
Will there ever be another "Color Purple" in Walker's future? Her next project is a children's book titled "Why War Is Never a Good Idea." After that, maybe her only writing for a while will be in her personal journals, maybe not. "I'm a writer," she says, "who will wait on what needs to be expressed, and I trust that it will come.
"If I decided to write a novel, who knows where it would come from? It could be very challenging, and it might need a little label," she says a few minutes later, referring to the "reader warning" she writes of in h er current book.
Then her eyebrows rise, and she starts to chuckle.
"I don't know why it would need a little label. At the moment, I can't think of any bases that I've left uncovered. But you never know."
|
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.
| 32.411765 | 0.411765 | 0.411765 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900682.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900682.html
|
Fred Hiatt - Japan Shrinks - washingtonpost.com
|
2006112019
|
TOKYO -- Japan has embarked on a path no developed nation has ever followed -- of sustained and inexorable population decline.
Japan won't be alone, of course. Italy, Russia, South Korea and many others also will get smaller. The United States is the exception among advanced nations, and not only thanks to immigration; its overall birth rate is higher, too.
But Japan, which shrank by about 21,000 last year, is in the forefront, and so everyone else will be watching. Does population decline inevitably sap vitality and doom a country to genteel poverty? Or is there some way out?
"Japan is the leader, so it's important for Japan to show success," says Hitoshi Suzuki, a cheerful senior researcher at Daiwa Institute of Research, who pronounces himself "not so worried" -- so not worried, in fact, that last year he wrote "Population Decline is Not Something We Need to Fear."
But why not? For a population to hold steady, every woman must give birth on average to 2.1 children. When the birthrate drops below 1.5 and stays there for any time, it's almost impossible to recover, given the momentum of demographics. Below 1.3 is considered "lowest-low." China is at 1.7 and dropping. Japan last year clocked in at 1.25.
As a result, Japan's population, now about 128 million, is expected to fall to about 100 million by mid-century. Big deal, you might say. Wasn't Japan happy enough 50 years ago, when it blew through the 100 million mark on the way up?
Yes, but it was a very different 100 million then. In 1965 there were 25 million children in Japan, 67 million people of working age and 6 million senior citizens. In 2050 there will be 11 million children, 54 million potential workers and 36 million people 65 and over. No one knows whether such a society can maintain a spirit of innovation, or how its capitalists will adapt to a shrinking market. There will potentially be a lot more dependents for every productive worker.
Faced with this prospect, a country could choose to fight (raise the birthrate) or cope (prepare to manage the consequences). Japan gives lip service to the former. Since 1990 the government has sought to encourage more births, but the policy has had no impact. Today the portfolio of the minister in charge of spurring fertility seems to indicate a certain lack of governmental focus: She is minister of state for Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs, science and technology, innovation, gender equality and social affairs, and food safety.
In truth, Japan doesn't seem to want to change as it would have to in order to increase the birthrate. Japanese women say in surveys that they want two children, but they delay or abstain from marriage and motherhood in astonishing numbers because fathers don't help around the house, because mothers feel isolated in tiny apartments and because it's so hard for a woman to combine career and motherhood.
In theory, the government is dedicated to reforming this. In practice, its philosophy seems aptly represented by Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Hakubun Shimomura, who said this month, when pressed about long waiting lists for public nursery schools, that the problem would be solved if mothers would only "stay at home and raise their children."
When I asked Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last week about this comment, he diplomatically avoided contradicting Shimomura but said his aim is to provide choices so mothers can work or stay home as they see fit. But he also made clear that he is focused on the coping rather than the preventing: "Even considering the decline in the population, I am convinced Japan will be able to continue on a path of growth," he said.
The trick will be "innovation," Abe said, and economic reform. In fact, robots and other ways to improve productivity are one of four possible routes to economic growth despite an aging population. The others would be making better use of women; immigration, which has increased slightly but remains unpopular in this ethnically cohesive country; and keeping the elderly working longer. According to Naohiro Ogawa, a population expert at Nihon University, if every healthy elderly person worked, Japan's total economy in 2025 would be worth 791 trillion yen instead of the currently projected 619 trillion yen, an increase of 28 percent. Just raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 would produce a 12 percent increase.
Not every old person is going to work. But, Ogawa said, "there will be some adjustment. Japan's not going to fall apart."
It could certainly decline, though. Toru Suzuki, a demographer at the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, believes Japan will eventually accept more immigrants after it has tried everything else. But he's also less convinced than Hitoshi Suzuki that Japan will find a path to growth.
"It brings you to a very tough question," Toru Suzuki says. "What is happiness? Can we be happy without economic growth?"
At least Japan will find out from a starting position of wealth. China, which imposed a one-child policy before it had developed economically, may get old before it gets rich. That will be a first, too.
|
TOKYO -- Japan has embarked on a path no developed nation has ever followed -- of sustained and inexorable population decline.
| 46.909091 | 1 | 22 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900776.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900776.html
|
Friedman's Large Legacy
|
2006112019
|
The ideas of economists and political philosophers . . . are more powerful than is commonly understood. . . . Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
-- English economist John Maynard Keynes,
What Keynes said was true of economist Milton Friedman, who died last week at 94, except that Friedman's immense influence emerged well before his death. He belongs on any list of the 100 most important people since World War II. In some ways, the conversion of China to a market economy, the conquest of double-digit inflation in the United States and elsewhere, the decisions of countless governments to sell (aka "privatize'') nationalized industries -- these developments and many more could be traced to him. There was no more ardent or articulate advocate of free markets and personal liberty than Friedman.
It may seem strange to cite these familiar notions to affirm his historical significance, but that's the point. These ideas were wildly out of fashion when Friedman first championed them in the 1950s. Remembering the Great Depression, when unemployment was 18 percent, Americans were suspicious of free markets. In 1962, the appearance of his "Capitalism and Freedom," which remains in print with nearly 1 million copies sold, was a seminal event. It began to change the conversation. Its big theme was that economic freedom was not just good economics; it was "a necessary condition for political freedom." Of course, it wasn't enough, Friedman added, citing prewar fascist Germany.
Free markets favored individual choice and creativity. "The great advances of civilization," he wrote, "have never come from centralized government." But Friedman was not indifferent to societies' hopes to improve themselves through government, and his ideas often aimed to reconcile these goals with maximum individual choice. We have adopted -- or are still debating -- many of his plans: school vouchers (he believed public schools perform poorly because they are monopolies); the negative income tax (Friedman proposed substituting direct payments to the poor for the "rag bag" of existing government services -- an idea that partially inspired today's "earned-income tax credit," providing subsidies for low-income workers); the all-volunteer military, created in 1973; and personal accounts for Social Security.
Friedman, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in economics, made three huge scholarly contributions. First, he helped explain the Great Depression. Until the publication in 1963 of "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960," co-written with Anna Schwartz, the Depression was cast as an extreme example of capitalism's instability. Not so, Friedman and Schwartz said. The Federal Reserve caused the Depression through mistakenly tight money policies that led 40 percent of U.S. banks to fail. Though this story has been amended and extended, it remains the central explanation for the Depression.
The second contribution, made in 1967, was to show that there was no convenient "trade-off" between inflation and unemployment: Governments could not, as many economists then believed, choose a slightly higher inflation rate (say, 5 percent) for a slightly lower jobless rate (say, 3 percent). Trying to hold unemployment at unrealistically low levels would produce ever-higher inflation, he argued. That's what happened. Inflation went from 1 percent in 1960 to 13 percent in 1979. Finally, Friedman debunked the theory that as nations got wealthier, people would spend less and less of their incomes; that was once thought to doom affluent societies to stagnation.
All these findings qualified or contradicted Keynes, and Friedman was effectively the anti-Keynes. Whereas Keynes and his disciples relied on "fiscal policy" (government spending and taxes) to stabilize the economy, Friedman emphasized the importance of "monetary policy" (interest rates and the money supply as set by the Fed). Friedman was an anti-inflation hawk before it was fashionable. His tutorial of Ronald Reagan that inflation resulted from excessive money creation -- too much money chasing too few goods -- helped explain Reagan's patience in allowing Paul Volcker's Fed to crush double-digit inflation with the brutal 1981-82 recession (peak monthly unemployment: 10.8 percent). Following Friedman and not Keynes, most governments now rely on monetary policy as their main tool for economic stabilization.
Above all, Friedman believed in the power of ideas. Some of his were wrong. He thought cutting taxes would restrain government spending ("starve the beast''); it didn't. His faith in "privatization" for the old Soviet Union was overdone. He wanted the Fed to limit growth of the money supply; unfortunately, the money supply proved hard to define. But these are footnotes. For decades, Friedman cheerfully and relentlessly pushed his main ideas, although they were outside the political and intellectual mainstream. From 1966 to 1984, he wrote a column for Newsweek. With his wife, Rose, he became a best-selling author ("Free to Choose," in 1980, a pro-market manifesto). Time was on their side. Competing ideas proved unworkable, inferior or wrong. Friedman never joined the mainstream, but the mainstream joined him.
|
The ideas of economists and political philosophers . . . are more powerful than is commonly understood. . . . Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
| 22.644444 | 1 | 45 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html
|
Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit
|
2006112019
|
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.
The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace's effort will feed into the White House review, but military officials have made it clear they are operating independently.
The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate. But in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
The sources insisted on anonymity because no one at the Pentagon has been permitted to discuss the review with outsiders. The review group is led by three high-profile colonels -- H.R. McMaster and Peter Mansoor of the Army, and Thomas C. Greenwood of the Marine Corps. None of them would comment for this article.
Spokesmen for the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs did not respond to calls or e-mails seeking comment.
"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.
Even so, there is concern that such a radical shift in the U.S. posture in Iraq could further damage the standing of its government, which U.S. officials worry is already shaky. Under the hybrid plan, the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000 troops.
That combination plan, which one defense official called "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long," could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. "If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want," the official said.
|
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
| 18.238095 | 1 | 42 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901254.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901254.html
|
In Afghanistan's South, Mixed Signals for Help
|
2006112019
|
KABUL -- Clutching scarves nervously around their faces, the women whispered details of Taliban atrocities taking place in their native Helmand province: A translator's body found in a sack, carved into pieces. A police officer taken hostage, blinded and garroted with wire. A woman shot and hanged by her thumbs.
"All of our lives are in danger now. Our schools are shut, and anyone who works for the government is branded as an infidel," said Ma Gul, 52, a teacher who traveled to the capital this week with 20 other women from Greshk, a town in Helmand 300 miles south, to demand better protection and the removal of weak regional officials.
Gul's woes echo across this country's four southern provinces, where the Taliban insurgency is on a fierce rebound five years after U.S. and Afghan forces toppled the Islamic militia from power in Kabul. Months of aggressive ground combat and NATO airstrikes have failed to halt continuous violence in the south, as well as some sporadic attacks in other parts of the country.
According to a new report by a commission of Afghan and foreign officials, insurgent and terrorist attacks nationwide have increased fourfold in the past year, reaching 600 incidents per month by September and causing 3,700 deaths since January.
The report was issued by a group called the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, set up in February under U.N. auspices to promote and measure Afghan government performance. It said the violence threatens to reverse recent economic and political gains across the nation, and has led to a partial or total withdrawal of foreign aid in some provinces.
In Helmand, a vast and arid region where much of the worst fighting has taken place and thousands of people have fled their homes, residents and elders have been sending urgent but contradictory signals about how to restore peace.
While the delegation of women recounted Taliban abuses, a group of visiting elders from another Helmand district described local Taliban fighters as "brothers" and said their worst problem was the devastation from months of bombing by foreign military forces. If the authorities would allow tribal leaders to administer their district, they said, they would guarantee no further Taliban attacks.
"This bombing has destroyed hundreds of shops and many vineyards, but it has not driven the Taliban away," said Mohammed Rahim, a bearded farmer from Helmand's Nau Zad district. "We know the local Taliban; they are fighting against corruption and abuses. Once we have our own administration and the bombing stops, we trust they will obey us and the central government."
As a result of the mixed messages from victims of the conflict, and the growing public resentment over civilian casualties from bombing, NATO and Afghan officials now confront a strategic question: whether to keep pressing to forcibly defeat the Taliban, or begin accepting its presence in areas where tribal elders promise to rein in the militia.
Much of the south is still at war, with attacks and armed clashes occurring daily in Kandahar, Zabol and Uruzgan provinces. But in Helmand's Musa Qala district, NATO has cautiously agreed to test the tribal approach. Under a deal brokered in September by the provincial governor, NATO agreed to pull back British forces from Musa Qala, and local elders pledged that Taliban attacks would cease.
So far, reports from the isolated region, which is also a major center of opium smuggling, are confusing and contradictory. Some residents and visitors say the district is effectively under Taliban control, and a recent BBC video report showed squads of armed insurgents patrolling Musa Qala in fast pickup trucks, much as they did during the era of repressive Taliban rule that ended in 2001.
But both NATO and senior Afghan officials say they are largely satisfied with the arrangement, which they said has brought fighting to a halt and allowed foreign troops to focus on creating a central zone for security and development around Helmand's capital city, rather than manning scattered outposts and chasing after bands of insurgents.
|
KABUL -- Clutching scarves nervously around their faces, the women whispered details of Taliban atrocities taking place in their native Helmand province: A translator's body found in a sack, carved into pieces. A police officer taken hostage, blinded and garroted with wire. A woman shot and hanged...
| 13.781818 | 0.981818 | 53.018182 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901250.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901250.html
|
Intelligence Of Dolphins Cited in Fight Against Hunt
|
2006112019
|
A coalition of marine scientists has launched a campaign to halt Japan's annual "dolphin drive," in which thousands of bottlenose dolphins are herded into shallow coves to be slaughtered with knives and clubs.
The government-sanctioned event, which extends through the fall and winter, has been under fire for years from environmental and animal rights activists.
But in a potentially influential escalation of that battle, mainstream scientists and administrators of zoos and aquariums -- some of whom have been criticized for buying surviving dolphins for use in their shows -- have united to condemn the practice.
The campaign pits the emerging science of animal intelligence against a centuries-old cultural tradition.
In an online statement being released today, the organizers -- including many of the world's leading dolphin scientists and the man who trained the television star Flipper -- say the hunt is nothing less than a ritual massacre of creatures that, according to a growing body of research, are not just intelligent but sophisticatedly self-aware.
The statement calls for the Japanese government to stop issuing permits allowing the hunt and for a halt to the purchase of dolphins caught in the drive. It also aims to get 1 million people to sign an online petition to the government.
Diana Reiss, director of the marine mammal research program at the New York Aquarium's Osborn Laboratories of Marine Science, said in a statement that the hunt is "a brutal and inhumane practice that violates all standards for animal welfare."
With co-worker Lori Marino of Emory University, Reiss showed five years ago that dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror, an aspect of cognitive complexity that previously had been documented only in humans and chimpanzees.
Takumi Fukuda, the fisheries attache at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, defended the event as a centuries-old national tradition.
"It is kind of our cultural activity," he said. "We think it is important."
Fukuda said the government has already limited the practice to economic development zones, where fishermen are struggling to get by. And he said the government issues permits for only the number of animals that can safely be culled without threatening the species' survival.
This year 21,000 dolphins can be killed, Fukuda said, of which 15,000 or 16,000 have already been killed.
|
A coalition of marine scientists has launched a campaign to halt Japan's annual "dolphin drive," in which thousands of bottlenose dolphins are herded into shallow coves to be slaughtered with knives and clubs.
| 11.578947 | 1 | 38 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000322.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000322.html
|
British Police Investigate Poisoning of Putin Critic
|
2006112019
|
LONDON, Nov. 19 -- British police are investigating the poisoning of a former Russian spy and outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin and have placed him under protective guard at a London hospital, a Scotland Yard spokesman said Sunday.
Alexander Litvinenko, 43, began vomiting shortly after he had lunch on Nov. 1 with a man who gave him documents related to the recent killing of Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist, according to Alex Goldfarb, a friend of Litvinenko's.
Police said they began a criminal investigation Friday after medical tests confirmed the presence of poison in Litvinenko's system.
John Henry, a British toxicologist who has examined Litvinenko, said in an interview that the former spy had been poisoned by thallium, a highly toxic substance used as rat poison in some parts of the world.
"It is absolutely clear" that he was poisoned, said Henry, who was involved in the investigation of the 2004 poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko, a Ukrainian presidential candidate who survived and won the race but was left disfigured.
Henry said Litvinenko had liver and neurological damage and a low white blood cell count. "He is very sick. . . . He may live, but he is at high risk of death."
Thallium is odorless, colorless and tasteless, Henry said. When ingested, he said, "as little as one-fifteenth of a level teaspoon is enough to kill."
Goldfarb, reached by telephone at Litvinenko's bedside, said Litvinenko's condition was "deteriorating dramatically."
"What happened here is an assassination attempt perpetuated by Russian agents," Goldfarb said. "I thought he would be safe here on British soil."
Goldfarb said that precious time was wasted because even though Litvinenko thought he had been poisoned immediately after the lunch meeting, doctors did not become alarmed until nearly two weeks later, when his hair started falling out as his condition worsened.
Litvinenko was a colonel in the Federal Security Service, or FSB, the successor to the KGB, but fell out with his superiors and spent months in jail awaiting trial on charges of abusing his position. He was acquitted and fled in 2000 to London, where he was granted asylum. Goldfarb said Litvinenko was granted British citizenship last month.
Litvinenko is well known in Russia for accusing FSB agents of involvement in apartment building bombings in 1999 that killed more than 300 people. Russian officials blamed the attacks on separatists from Chechnya and launched a new military offensive in the republic.
Litvinenko also accused his FSB superiors of ordering him to kill Boris Berezovsky, a Russian tycoon who now lives in London.
Berezovsky said in a telephone interview that he visited Litvinenko in the hospital Friday and that he looked as if he had aged 10 years. "For 17 days he hasn't been able to eat. It's very painful to eat," he said.
Berezovsky said Litvinenko told him he had "no doubt" that he had been poisoned on the "order from President Putin to kill him." He called the poisoning "a classic way" that Russian agents work.
[Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told The Associated Press Monday that any suggestion of Russian government involvement in Litvinenko's poisoning was "nothing but sheer nonsense."]
Goldfarb said Litvinenko had eaten lunch at a sushi restaurant with an Italian contact who he said gave him "a few pages of material" related to the killing of Politkovskaya, the journalist and critic of Putin and Russia's policy in Chechnya. Politkovskaya was shot last month in Moscow.
The case, which remains unsolved, caused an international outcry.
Politkovskaya was hospitalized in 2004 and believed she had been poisoned.
Goldfarb said that Scotland Yard officers have taken the papers given to Litvinenko on Nov. 1.
According to British media reports, police have visited the sushi restaurant in central London to look for clues and to see whether any closed-circuit camera surveillance of the incident exists.
This incident is reminiscent of the 1978 poisoning of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov, who was jabbed in the leg by a man with an umbrella while walking across Waterloo Bridge in London. The umbrella fired a pellet of ricin poison into Markov, who died an agonizing death days later.
Correspondent Peter Finn in Moscow contributed to this report.
|
LONDON, Nov. 19 -- British police are investigating the poisoning of a former Russian spy and outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin and have placed him under protective guard at a London hospital, a Scotland Yard spokesman said Sunday.
| 19.666667 | 1 | 42 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901168.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901168.html
|
New Tactic In Fighting Marriage Initiatives
|
2006112019
|
TUCSON -- A pair of retirees keeping house in a concrete bungalow, with snapshots of their 30 grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the living room and an American flag out front, may not look like the face of gay America.
But this month Al Breznay, 79, and Maxine Piatt, 75, were pivotal in defeating an Arizona initiative that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- the only one of 28 such state measures ever to fail.
Breznay, a retired mechanic who still does odd jobs to bring in extra cash, and Piatt, a former bank teller, are at the forefront of a strategy to defeat a tide of same-sex marriage bans by talking about straight people.
Of those 28 state marriage initiatives, 17 have included language outlawing domestic partnerships. Gay rights advocates see this as an opening to highlight for heterosexual voters the impact such initiatives may have on them, and in Arizona, activists kept the spotlight on couples such as Breznay and Piatt, registered domestic partners whose faces appeared on fliers and television ads.
"The majority of people in Arizona don't support gay marriage. That's clear, they do not," said Marty Rouse, national field director of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. "Once you say gay and lesbian, people hone in on that. We have to focus on the majority of people that will be affected by this. And the majority of people are straight couples."
The campaign against the Arizona measure, Proposition 107, avoided almost any mention of gay marriage, except in small liberal pockets of the state. Instead, the message was about the section of the measure that would have banned government agencies from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.
That apparently struck home in the state's sizable senior-citizen enclaves, where many older couples do not marry because their retirement income would be affected. The initiative was defeated, 52 percent to 48 percent.
"It's not a liberal-versus-conservative issue," said Steve May, a former Republican state representative who is gay and who served as treasurer of the campaign against Proposition 107. "It's about, 'I don't need to take away health care from Al and Maxine, this nice old couple in Tucson.' "
In fact, the couple's health coverage would not have been affected by the measure's passage, although their ability to pay for the coverage or to visit each other in intensive care would change, as they discovered when Piatt got sick two years ago.
Such generalizing upsets supporters of the initiative, who accuse opponents of fear-mongering.
"They misled voters. They scared seniors into believing they would lose Social Security benefits," said Cathi Herrod, spokeswoman for the pro-107 campaign. "Our problem was we did not have funds to respond to the attacks."
Her campaign spent about $1 million, she said, compared with the $2.1 million spent by the measure's opponents.
|
TUCSON -- A pair of retirees keeping house in a concrete bungalow, with snapshots of their 30 grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the living room and an American flag out front, may not look like the face of gay America.
| 13.272727 | 1 | 44 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901237.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901237.html
|
Now Starting, A Glimmer of Hope
|
2006112019
|
TAMPA Jason Campbell is just fine. Unfortunately, the rest of 'em still stink.
In the midst of another galling loss, this one a 20-17 defeat to the lowly Bucs on Sunday, the Redskins finally saw the first clear flicker of starlight leading them toward their future. That glow is still a ways off. But at least you can see it without a telescope.
The Redskins now have a kid quarterback with some poise, wheels and a rifle. He can avoid a rush, roll out of the pocket and throw across his body through traffic or he can drop back and wing it 60 yards directly between the hands of Brandon Lloyd. Not that Lloyd will catch it. Campbell can buy time in the red zone with his feet until he can find his third receiver, then zing the ball to the only available spot for a touchdown, as he did to Chris Cooley and Todd Yoder.
Despite making his debut on the road, Campbell can even complete 19 of 34 passes for 196 yards without an interception, take hits in the pocket without a fumble and run the offense without a single timeout caused by chaos or a delay-of-game penalty. The short version: Campbell ran the offense as well without Clinton Portis and Santana Moss as Mark Brunell did with them.
Now, the Redskins have a spry 24-year-old first-round pick who makes you smile when you see Brunell, 36, and Todd Collins, 35 -- because you realize they are sitting harmlessly, examining photos of defensive formulations to help Campbell decide where to put the ball.
"Jason had a real good first outing," Coach Joe Gibbs said. "He handled things well, including the two-minute drill at the end. The game plan was cautious, but he had a lot [of plays] in there. He was real calm. We have a lot to build on there."
So that's the good news. There's plenty of bad, especially more putrid defense. But at least Gibbs doesn't have to wake up screaming. That is, if he can sleep at all after a game in which a 3-7 team manhandled both his offensive and defensive lines. However, when you have a gentlemanly, coachable 6-foot-4, 230-pound cannon at quarterback, there's always another Sunday.
"The future is bright, but it'll take a little time," Campbell said. "I didn't feel any pressure. I felt comfortable all day. Right now it doesn't seem like it but I guarantee you we are headed in the right direction."
That right direction may not arrive tomorrow or even this season because all young quarterbacks -- even the best -- come unglued many times during a multiseason learning process. At crucial moments over the final six Redskins games, Campbell will think he's playing a malevolent video game that's suddenly been turned to warp speed. Into that indecipherable blur he will have to rifle a third-down pass and hope it doesn't produce disaster.
But someday, if all goes well, he'll recognize more and more of what he sees. Then he'll make men like Ronde Barber pay for their insolence. "The theme of the day really was just put pressure on the kid. . . . We tried to blitz, give him as many looks as we could," Barber said after the Bucs held the Redskins to 63 yards in the first half. "I'll give him some credit. He played well, especially in the second half. He seemed like he got it together a little bit, had a little more control of the offense and moved around a little bit."
Unfortunately for the 3-7 Redskins, the most expensive team in the NFL has far bigger problems than a novice quarterback. It's the other burgundy-and-gold recidivists who are the issue. How can a healthy Washington defense allow Carnell "Cadillac" Williams, in a slump all season, to run like a Bentley? Facing a rookie quarterback (Bruce Gradkowski) who won't throw much, how do you allow 181 yards rushing? Facing a defense without its two best linemen, Simeon Rice and Ellis Wyms, how do you gain only 64 yards rushing, even if you don't have Clinton Portis? What went wrong?
"Rewind the tape. It's been the same story all season," fullback Mike Sellers said. "We were supposed to have [Campbell's] back and we didn't."
|
Jason Campbell's debut is the only bright spot to come out of another loss as the Redskins continue to be woeful on both sides of the ball and face a long road back to respsectability.
| 23.675676 | 0.810811 | 1.081081 |
medium
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901058.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901058.html
|
Education's March of Time
|
2006112019
|
Striking. There is something about the procession of a marching band that makes a passerby stop. And look. Amazed at the skills it takes to march, high-stepping down a city street or a football field, changing formations like a kaleidoscope.
Amazed at the coordination of the drummers, the depth and breath of the trumpeters, the strength of the tuba players, the flexibility and dexterity of the drum major, limber, back bent, steady head under a heavy plume. On beat -- marching backward. Swinging with a little more flair than the others, a little more hip, a little more style.
At the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum, an exhibit, "Banding Together: School Bands as Instruments of Opportunity," pays tribute to the music and examines the role of cadet and marching bands in the D.C. public schools. The show, on view through May, travels from the early 1900s to the present, with documents, uniforms, video and testimonials from band teachers.
The exhibit reclaims hope that lost music may be found, driven by the necessity of saving somebody-- because it has been documented that the very discipline of music saves lives.
In the exhibit, you hear one band teacher after another talking:
"Kids busy with bands don't have time to get into trouble if they are sincere and dedicated to the program," says Gwendolyn Hankerson, who taught at H.D. Woodson High School, one of the programs that still exist in the city. "Our kids met five days a week at 8 o'clock; and four days a week, we had 3:15 practice. They had 15 minutes to finish school and get to practice. We had summer practices and performances on weekends. For some kids, we were their life. They wouldn't even want to go home after practice. They would always be in the school."
Wesley Hoover, the instructor at Shaw Junior High School, says in a recording: "The marching and the performance are the result of a successful class. We work hard on teaching music pedagogy, music theory. You have to know whole notes, half notes, how to count rhythms, how to read notes. What a note is when you see it or when you hear it. A lot of parents don't equate that. A child is learning more about life as well as school being in a band class."
James Wilson, the band instructor at Dunbar Senior High School, describes how band class has a leveling effect on students who come from different neighborhoods. "I had a principal say, 'How do you get these kids to cooperate with each other?'
"I said, 'We have an understanding in here.'
"She said, 'Do you know you have gang members in your band, in your class?'
"I said, 'No, ma'am, I don't.' She started running the names down.
"She said, 'I come by your door. You never have a problem with those kids.'
|
Search Washington, DC area museums and art exhibitions from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for museums, galleries, studios and monuments. Visit http://eg.washingtonpost.com/section/museums today.
| 16.914286 | 0.371429 | 0.428571 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700448.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700448.html
|
Arlo, at the Scene of the Crime
|
2006112019
|
Imagine if you had heard Frank Sinatra sing "New York, New York" in a smoky Manhattan club, or caught John Denver performing "Country Roads, Take Me Home" atop a West Virginia mountain. Gives you chills.
When Arlo Guthrie performed "Alice's Restaurant Massacree" at the Guthrie Center in Stockbridge, Mass., last month, the legendary folk singer summoned the ghosts of the 1960s, calling forth Alice and Ray, the garbage dump and the draft -- all characters and scenes intimately familiar to anyone who grew up singing along to the protest song-cum-Thanksgiving staple. Nearly everyone in the high-ceilinged church, aglitter with candles set on the 100 (sold-out) tables, knew the lyrics by heart. And during the singalong refrain, the effect was more religious revival than concert.
"I grew up with Arlo," said Dennis Dilmaghani, a middle-aged New Yorker who was taping the show from the second-floor balcony. "This is the most genuine place to see Arlo and the most fitting place to hear" the fabled 18-minute story-song.
Thanks to "Alice's Restaurant" and its perennial radio play, Stockbridge and Guthrie will forever be linked. "It's become a little part of the history of the town," Guthrie said during a pre-show chat on the back porch of the Guthrie Center. "That's what makes an area feel like home -- you have a history with it."
But times do change. Forty years later, there's no Alice's Restaurant, but you pretty much can get anything you want in Stockbridge.
Arlo Guthrie would never dump on Stockbridge.
In 1965, however, it was a different story. Back then, the young hippie and a friend tossed a VW van-load of trash off a cliff in the western Massachusetts town, creating a stir -- and a song.
"Garbage has been very good to me," said Guthrie, 59, now a father of four whose hair has grayed and waist size has doubled since his youth, but whose vigor has hardly waned. "The great thing was, when the record came out, most people thought it was a nice piece of fiction."
Those who live around the Berkshires town, or were raised on 1960s antiwar music, know the truth behind the lyrics. (Guthrie completed the song Thanksgiving of 1966, making this year an anniversary of sorts.) Yes, Guthrie's friends Alice and Ray Brock are real, and in 1965 they did host Thanksgiving dinner for a motley group of pals in their home, a converted church that is, yes, just a half a mile from the railroad tracks in Housatonic, a hamlet bordering Stockbridge. The illegal garbage run truly happened, as did the subsequent arrest, jailing and fining of Guthrie. The main discrepancy is that the Alice's Restaurant of the title does not refer to the eatery Alice briefly ran in Stockbridge. Listen closely to the lyrics, children:
This song is called Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the restaurant,
But Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant,
That's just the name of the song,
|
Thanks to "Alice's Restaurant" and its perennial radio play, Stockbridge, Mass. and Arlo Guthrie will forever be linked. Forty years later, there's no Alice's Restaurant, but you pretty much can get anything you want.
| 13.041667 | 0.9375 | 13.104167 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/16/DI2006111600320.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/16/DI2006111600320.html
|
The Chat House - washingtonpost.com
|
2006112019
|
Redskins Future?: So, what is your take on Jason Campbell?
Michael Wilbon: Good afternoon everybody...I'm in Jacksonville for tonight's Monday Night game between the Jags and Giants...And, of course, even with the Michigan-Ohio State game, Soriano's defection to the Chicago Cubs (Yeahhh!) and a ton of NFL-related news, we have to start with Jason Campbell's performance yesterday down in Tampa...I thought the kid looked pretty good. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. He looked poised, certainly got the ball downfield, stayed away from big mistakes, moved around without getting overly anxious...All in all, he played pretty well. Obviously, the quarterback position isn't all that has ailed the Redskins, as we found in another defeat...But Campbell's performance, as Tom Boswell wrote in this morning's Post, offers a glimmer of hope of what's to come from the most important position in sports.
Urbana, Ill.: Growing up amongst the corn meant that we weren't good enough to hate Michigan except for a few years in the '80s. Still, I had a "This car brakes for all animals except wolverines" bumper sticker on my car.
Bo may have been a villain throughout Illinois, but he will be missed.
Michael Wilbon: Yeah, that's somewhat my sentiment. Because I cover sports and had one long session with Coach Schembechler and several other shorter ones, I came naturally to like him...He was electric to be around. But I still hated Michigan...Still, I could not bring myself to root against the Wolverines Saturday. Their play was downright admirable on Saturday...And while I do not necessarily want a rematch, I've got nothing but praise for Michigan, going into the Horseshoe and putting up that kind of effort with heavy hearts...
NYC: Hi Mr. Wilbon, thanks for taking my question last week about Ray Lewis and race. As an athlete and someone whew grew up in the '60s and '70s in the D.C. area, I agree with many of your points. I do believe however that no one says "I would like to think .....but" if they don't really mean, "unfortunately, this is exactly what I think."
I am not sure if you had a chance to read Jason Whitlock's take on it, but he brings two very good points. Favre, Manning, and even Ray himself, are in a league at least a step above McNair and would have been given the benefit of the doubt based on that, not race.
He also says that in the wake of Ray (murder charge and conviction on lesser offense), and Jamaal Lewis's (drug conviction), and the way the NFL and their team stood by them, maybe Ray, above all, should keep quiet. I don't really agree that because you screw up once you have to take a powder forever, but I understand his point. You?
Michael Wilbon: I haven't seen Jason's piece, but I should read it before the day is out...But I would disagree with that particular point, that Ray should keep a lid on it. He said nothing inflammatory. In fact, I agreed with what Ray Lewis said about McNair's shabby treatment by Titans management and the way Ray Lewis said it...I don't believe Peyton Manning or, say, Tom Brady would ever in a million years be treated that way by their teams.
In this time of Thanksgiving I wanted to pass along my thanks for you showing up here each and every Monday to give us your thoughts and insights on the sports landscape. Keep up the great work.
Michael Wilbon: It's my pleasure. In fact, let me say a word of thanks for you all even caring about what I have to say and joining in to make what I feel is a really enjoyable weekly session...Thank you, thank you, thank you all.
Washington, D.C.: I love my Redskins, but can we talk about the Wizards for a second?
A lot of pundits highlight that the Wiz score a ton of points, but don't play any defense. That's only kind of true. One of the never-mentioned sins of this team is that the jack up WAY too many jumpers in games and don't move the ball very well. Gilbert is a great player, but he's still too undisciplined, particularly if he wants to be "THE MAN" and carry this team on his shoulders. Why doesn't Eddie -- a disciple of the Princeton offense -- crackdown on this more and insist that his players display better shot selection? I understand that you don't want to take Gilbert out of his game, but Jamison could definitely play more in the post, and the team could take a bigger cue from Caron, who is the guts of this team.
Michael Wilbon: I hear your point and don't entirely disagree with it. I don't know that Jamison in the post is the real answer...but I think even with certain offensive deficiencies the Wizards are fine offensively. Defense and rebound and fighting through tight games at the end mentally is the problem...They did all those things well Saturday night, by the way, and throttled LeBron James and Cleveland, which was about as close to a "must win" as you'll see in the NBA in November...The Wizards absolutely had to have that game, and got it. Now, let's see if there's any carry over or if they go back to lousy defense, weak rebounding, and giving in. I don't think they will. I think for the most part they'll start to play better...We'll see if I'm right...
Bethesda, Md.: Since when did Ohio State/Michigan become the greatest football game in the U.S.? Leaving aside Harvard/Yale ("THE GAME," as it's known in the media), nothing can compare to the sportsmanship, spectacle and emotion of Army/Navy. Nothing. Period. Full stop. That game is what college football (pre-NFL) was and should be.
Michael Wilbon: That depends on where you live. Where I grew up, in the Midwest, Michigan vs. Ohio State has always been "The Game." Army-Navy has been fabulous, obviously, but you don't have the caliber of players anymore in the service academies that you once had...That doesn't make it less intense; but it does mean the game isn't on quite the same level...same for Harvard-Yale.
Marietta, Ohio: Mike, while I'm sure the Colts were trying to win yesterday, don't you think they might at some level be happy to have the monkey of an undefeated season off their backs? They are still extremely well positioned going into the playoffs, and I think they might actually breathe easier following this defeat.
Michael Wilbon: Yeah, I actually think the Colts, given their personalities and that of Coach Tony Dungy, are better off not having to go through more weeks of "Can you guys actually go 16-0?" They weren't going to, and they can now go about the business of trying to be the best football team they can be. They are well positioned. Jacksonville isn't going to catch them. The Colts want to be at home for the playoffs, and not having to go to New England or San Diego, so Indy has to keep winning...There are some teams in the NFL better equipped, in terms of personality, to deal with the media blitz and the circus-like atmosphere surrounding an undefeated run. I think the Colts are better off.
Washington, D.C.: Mike, I love your work and I completely agreed with your rant against Andrew Walter last week. Having said that, it was pretty hypocritical given the fact you practically gave Kellen Winslow Jr a free pass when he made exactly the same type of comments a few weeks back. The only difference between Winslow and Walter is that you know Winslow's daddy so I guess that makes it okay to treat almost identical cases completely differently.
Michael Wilbon: You don't know what my reasons were for finding any difference in Kellen Winslow's comments. One, I thought Winslow's comments were more constructive, saying, "I can do more if you get me the ball." I find those somewhat annoying but not nearly as annoying as, "I don't like the offense." And while Winslow hadn't helped the team by not playing because of his motorcycle accident, Walter had been starting every game and stunk the joint out. The first improvement in Oakland needed to start with the guy who ran his mouth.
Washington, D.C.: First of all, never miss a show or a column Mike. Keep up the great work.
What's your take on O.J. Mayo already committing to a non basketball school like USC, even when they didn't even really recruit him? And do you think there's actually any chance he stays longer than one year?
Michael Wilbon: I doubt I would even want O.J. Mayo. He's going to insert himself into my situation and I'm just going to sit there? You think Coach K or Big John Thompson or Dean Smith would have allowed that? Mayo probably now thinks the coach owes him a debt of gratitude for coming there for one season. And given how insanely indulged the kid has been for his entire life, I wonder how good he's going to be...I'm not saying he won't be any good, I just wonder. And is it worth the trouble? Kids who think this much of themselves and have so many sycophant entourage members hanging around them usually don't amount to all they think they will.
Baltimore: Mike -- sorry to throw a non-sports questions in the mix, but did you see the new James Bond movie? It was amazing, probably the best Bond that's come out in awhile. And the ladies weren't that bad either.
Michael Wilbon: Sorry, I was sorta disappointed in it. I'm a HUGE Bond fanatic and see almost every flick on the first night. So Friday I saw this one...I understand what the producers are trying to do with Bond...make him edgier and less "wink-wink" in light of all these "Bourne Supremacy" type things that are out there. But there were no gadgets, no "Q", and not nearly enough eye-candy. Sorry to anyone I have offended, but that's part of the Bond legend: eye candy. And this flick wasn't within a million miles of the best ones. Also, if you're going to start at the beginning and tell us how Bond became 007, then make it a period piece. Set the thing in the late 1950s or early 1960s...Don't ask us to forget everything we've come to know about Bond, which is what "Casino Royale" asks by setting it in current times and starting with Bond fighting terrorism.
If "Casino Royale" was simply a movie, it would have been really good. But Bond? Nope. Transition would have been fine, but I didn't like the total departure as much as some folks did.
State College, Pa.: Did the interest in the upcoming rematch between Philadelphia and Dallas just become far more interesting with McNabb's injury?
While there was certainly animosity between "The Player that Will Not be Named" and Donovan F. McNabb, the verbal barbs between them seem pretty weak in comparison to what was said about a certain backup (and now starting) quarterback in Philly -- Jeff Garcia.
What is your take on this?
Michael Wilbon: No McNabb means Philly isn't going to amount to much, in my book. Now, Garcia is a very, very worthy backup and it's smart of the Eagles management to have gone out and gotten him. But is he going to, at 37 or 38, lead the Eagles to the playoffs? I doubt it. It would be a great story because Garcia was a really, really fine quarterback a half-dozen years ago. And T.O. treated him so shabbily...So, maybe there will be some spark there...I just feel badly for Donovan McNabb, having to go out like this...
If I had one thing to say to Joe Gibbs and Dan Snyder, I would emphasize what Tom Boswell did in his article this morning: patience. Keep the status quo for a year and only fill in obvious holes and necessary resignings. Don't hire any new flashy coaches or high-priced free agents. It's time for some consistency. What do you think you would say to them?
Michael Wilbon: I agree with Boswell, for the most part. I would like to go into a room with Joe Gibbs, no tape recorder or notebook, and find out why in the world he isn't playing Duckett. It makes no sense whatsoever. And Eli's piece today, his column on the back page of sports, is right on the money. His criticism is biting, in your face, and well-deserved.
Did you see Mike Nolan rocking the suit on the sidelines Sunday? The man has his team on the winning track, and kicking it back to the old school. Bravo!
Michael Wilbon: Very good job Mike Nolan. Very good job Norv Turner. I felt before the season that Alex Smith had a real good shot working with Norv Turner...Just because Norv isn't a good head coach doesn't mean he can't coach up a young man at the QB position. The kid is lucky to have Norv...And Nolan looks great on the sideline, doesn't he? All coaches should be required to wear a jacket with lapels...What an improvement!!!
Cape Coral, Fla.: What is your take on the Chicago Cubs and the signing of Soriano? The Cubs are putting themselves in a position to be paying out big bucks to players in their late 30s as the contract plays out. Would the money be better spent elsewhere?
Michael Wilbon: Do you know who owns the Cubs? The Chicago Tribune...Even in these trying times for media, and certainly for newspapers, the Tribune Co. prints money. It's rich beyond your wildest imagination. So, if the Tribune wants to put a decent product out there after being cheap for so long, then pay for one. Put the product out there. They have a network to televise the teams games (WGN). The have a ballpark that's been paid for for 100 years (Wrigley Field). They're a cash cow. So spend the money. As a Cub fan, I don't care about Soriano in seven years. I'd like to see the Cubs in a World Series in the next two or three...And with a 3-4-5 batting order of Derrick Lee, Soriano and Aramis Ramirez, the Cubs are going in the right direction. Those three guys are 120 home runs and 275 RBI...Does Steinbrenner regret spending the money? Do the Red Sox? It's not like they can't afford it.
It's 1:50 PM and no questions about the BCS standings? Any thoughts on how it's all going to shake out?
Michael Wilbon: I think if Florida, USC and Michigan all end up with one loss, then USC should play Ohio State. And if Florida loses to FSU or Arkansas and Southern Cal loses to Notre Dame, then it's between Arkansas and Michigan...Notre Dame, to me, should get very little consideration because Michigan trashed the Irish IN Notre Dame Stadium...So, if they've both got one loss, it's a no-brainer...Actually, since Rutgers went out and stunk it up Saturday, I'm now kinda rooting for USC to beat Notre Dame and UCLA...UNLESS, as Florida Coach Urban Meyer suggests, if there's a Michigan-Ohio State 1-2 finish in the BCS it'll anger so many schools that there will be a push for playoff...That's the only thing, ultimately, that's going to make me happy...a playoff.
The only area team to make it to the Final Four played their first home game Saturday (a loss). Very little coverage and none by the better known reporters and columnists. I'm thinking that had that team been UMD or G-town, y'all would have been fighting for column space. Why no love for GMU?
Michael Wilbon: Try again. November college basketball games are overwhelmingly meaningless. And in this day and age, with so many events going on, we all have to pick and choose. There's no way I'd go to George Mason over LeBron James vs. The Wizards. By the way, since when did John Feinstein not qualify as one of the "better known reporters and columnists." He's one of the best-known in America. So, you seem terribly far off base. John wrote a column on GMU, if I'm not mistaken. And John's only the best, or among the top two or three, in the country in the last 20 years at covering college basketball. Beyond that, there's the Wizards, Redskins, Maryland football going on. So, it's not time for college basketball to take center stage just yet...that's what February and March are for...They'll get there, just not right now. The only reason Georgetown got such big play today in the sports section is that the defeat was historic...hadn't happened in 24 years.
Washington, D.C.: Should Shaq retire? Should he have retired at the end of last season?
Michael Wilbon: No...Shaq should and clearly will try to get himself into playoff shape by March to help his team defend its title. Why would people who are doing what they love to do, making tens of millions or dollars doing it, and winning at the highest level, supposed to retire? Please.
Nova.: I'm a huge Georgetown basketball fan. What did you think about them losing to ODU? I was shocked.
Michael Wilbon: I was, too, surprised. But it's November. They weren't going undefeated. Nobody is doing that. It's one loss. There will be more to come. And as we found out in March with George Mason, the CAA teams can play, can't they?
I really hope that LaDainian Tomlinson starts to get the national exposure that Manning, McNabb, and Farve, and T.O. get. Is it because he plays for San Diego that he seems to not to be a household name (for non-football followers)?
Michael Wilbon: I think that's it...And remember, the NFL is exponentially bigger than the NBA in America. But NFL players are hardly ever known off the field. People can't see their faces. Beyond most of the quarterbacks and a handful of guys with national commercials whose faces are exposed, how many NFL players could you possibly identify if they were walking down Connecticut Ave.? Trust me, not as many as you think. But you're 100 percent right about L.T. He might very well be the MVP of the league right now. The Great Jim Brown called him, "A breath of fresh air," referring to his humility and demeanor...I love watching him play.
Carson City, Nev.: Did you see that former Philly Eagles' player Andre Waters died today? What were your impressions of him, in his day?
Michael Wilbon: Oh my goodness, I did not see or hear that. He was always skirting the rules of play and was nicknamed "Dirty Waters" because of late hits and cheap shots...I'm sure there was much more to him than that, and I never knew what he was like on the field. So often players are completely different away from the game...
Washington, D.C.: Why do you think there is so much ill will directed at Daniel Snyder? All he is trying to do is get a winner back in Washington. Abe Pollin has been trying since '78. I know Abe has done a heck of a lot in the community and built the phone booth in DC with his own cash, but folks don't hold his feet to the fire like Snyder. Couldn't a lot of this be attributed to jealousy of a young, rich, successful businessman?
Michael Wilbon: Yes...And to the fact that people hate going to FedEx Field. It's the worst game-day experience in the NFL...And trust me, I've been to all of the stadiums in the league multiple times. AND...That's not Snyder's fault. He didn't build the stadium in Landover...Although putting 92,000 seats into a facility that was meant to seat 71,000 makes it worse. There are the parking issues, the building is too crowded...And people do blame a young billionaire for stuff he shouldn't be blamed for...But believe me, Abe has his critics, too (me included) and hasn't always had a easy relationship with people in town...Also, the Redskins are more beloved than the Wizards, plain and simple. They've both had arrows thrown at them...some deserved, some not.
Patience?: Wow, I'm not a die-hard 'Skins fan, but how can you preach patience when their roster is loaded with a bunch of guys who aren't contributing for one reason or another (Brunell, Collins, Duckett, Lloyd, Randle El, Carter, Wynn, McIntosh, Archuleta, Fauria)? That's a lot of salary space right there and you could argue that the Skins could lose almost all of them and be better off. I'm afraid to say they have to blow this thing up again, but hopefully try something a little smarter.
Michael Wilbon: What's smarter is not doing anything grand or large or flashy...Learn how to use the people you have in a smarter way. That's all. Sometimes simply working harder and playing better is what's needed. In fact, that's what happened in sports for about 100 years until mega-wealthy owners took this new tact of starting over every time they didn't like something. Note: look at the Pittsburgh Steelers, who are almost always in contention and never do ANYTHING grand or flashy.
D.C.: What's your take on George Michael leaving Channel 4? This is a big loss for local sports coverage in my opinion. Will the "Redskins Report" and "Full Court Press" continue? Can you give us any inside info on why George walked away?
Michael Wilbon: George did what he did because he didn't want to have to cut his loyal and accomplished staffers (like Joe Schriber just to name one) without cutting himself first. I can't say enough about George as a leader for what he did, which was essentially say to NBC/GE, "If you have to cut people, start with me!" "Redskins Report" and "Fullcourt Press" will stay with George as host. NBC wanted those two shows to stay. Reportedly they are big money-makers, and both will apparently stay. That's what I've been told. I asked George to cut me; I've got enough jobs. He told me to shut up and be on-time for the taping because "Redskins Report" was going to be aired as always...So, I shut up and drove to the studio. I've worked for George for 10 years on those two shows, so I'm very biased in his favor. I've had two of the greatest bosses any man could have, George Solomon for 23 years as sports editor of The Post, and George Michael for 10 years at WRC...Lucky, lucky, lucky me. I'm glad George is staying to do those two shows and I cannot imagine Channel 4 without him, sitting there and bantering with Vance, Doreen and Bob Ryan...
McLean, Va.: This from ESPN's Web site: "The Cubs do not yet know where Soriano will play. It could be any of the three outfield positions, and they know -- working with the Nationals -- he became an exceptional outfielder whose throwing arm makes him a rarity." Huh? I know Gammons is supposed to be an expert, but did he watch Soriano play this year? He's a great athlete who overcomes his failings in the outfield with pure physical talent, but he is not an exceptional outfielder. And I bet he'll struggle mightily in center field in Wrigley. Your thoughts?
Michael Wilbon: We're glad to have him...and from the looks of the Nationals roster, you should be sad to see him go. Just point to the guys who are going to replace 46 home runs and 41 stolen bases. How many will you need, five or six? Does that mean Soriano is going to lead the Cubs to the World Series? Please. Of course not. It's been nearly 100 years. But I'd rather try with him than without. And with a guy as smart as Stan Kasten involved in the baseball operation, I'm sure he has a viable plan. But Soriano is one helluva player. Don't do the sour grapes thing.
Washington, D.C.: Mike, Could you give Tony a slap in the face when he starts talking about a Michigan-Ohio State rematch on "PTI" today. Michigan probably is the second-best team in the country, but they got their shot on Saturday and they lost. It's unfair to make Ohio State play them again. It was a great game, but a USC/Florida/Arkansas versus Ohio Stage title game would be great as well.
Michael Wilbon: We'll let this be the final BCS point of the day...I have to dash over the old Gator Bowl---it's called something else now...and start prep for "PTI"...I wonder if the Giants are healthy enough to beat Jacksonville tonight. The Jags are a disappointment when they play teams they should beat. But they're tough at home, and they they'll have no chance to play down to the opposition tonight.
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.
| 126.829268 | 0.634146 | 0.780488 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/06/DI2006110600608.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/06/DI2006110600608.html
|
Career Track Live
|
2006112019
|
The Washington area is a magnet for smart, ambitious young workers. Post columnist Mary Ellen Slayter writes a regular column for these professionals who are establishing their careers locally, and offers advice online as well.
Mary Ellen Slayter is author of Career Track, a biweekly column in The Washington Post's Jobs section. She focuses her chat on issues affecting young workers. Her latest column, on home-based businesses, ties into our Inside Job special feature.
Read Mary Ellen's latest Career Track column.
washingtonpost.com: This discussion will begin momentarily.
Mary Ellen Slayter: Good afternoon! My most recent column was about common job hunting and career myths. What are some that you've run into? Also, this is going to be my last chat for a few months. You'll have to save up your questions for when I return, or just send them all to Amy J. :-)
Chicago, Ill.: I haven't revised my resume in seven years. Back then, when I was looking for a job, I put on my resume that five years prior I had been relatively successful on a famous game show. I found that fact directly led to a lot of interviews, and indirectly, job offers. Now that I'm considering applying for another job, is it pathetic to list an achievement from 12 years ago on my resume or is it interesting and potentially helpful trivia?
Mary Ellen Slayter: Oh, I would definitely include that. It's just too funny to pass up! But now you need to tell us what game show ...
Madison, Wisc.: I am a college junior contemplating law school after graduation. I am currently looking for an summer job/internship at a Washington, D.C. law firm. I have an internet "Face Book" listing and wonder if law firms/law schools can or will access this listing and if what they see will influence their decision in my hiring/acceptance?
Mary Ellen Slayter: Assume that they will see it, and adjust the image you present of yourself on the site accordingly. There's nothing wrong with having a profile up. Just use common sense in what you chose to share about yourself.
Fairfax, Va.: Thank you for all your great advice for young workers. My questions is this: I have wanted to become a newspaper journalist since I was very young. But they are losing so much money and shrinking the size of their newsrooms, so is there any hope left? I feel like getting a job at a newspaper after college is simply impossible.
Mary Ellen Slayter: Don't give up hope. Newspapers are still hiring. You'll have to start small and work hard, but if it's really your dream and you're good at it, it'll come together. The most important thing is not to wait until after graduation to start looking for jobs. Internships are very important.
Journalists today have to be prepared to work in a variety of media, though. Make sure your college internships include experience working online, on the radio and on TV.
Virginia: Why is this your last chat for a few months?
Mary Ellen Slayter: I'm going on maternity leave. Baby is due on Thanksgiving. Eeek!
Germantown, Md.: A sort of off the wall question. My wife applied for a job where we know she was one of two finalists. The organization "agonized" over the final choice (she was told this) but the other candidate was chosen. The job was a program manager type position, really second in command of the small organization. At the time of the interviews the Executive Director filled by a board memebr temporarily as acting E.D. My wife really is qualified for that position -- and guess what -- they have advertised it now! Would it be odd for her to apply for it? Should she first call the board member with whom she spoke often when seeking the other job to see if she might be a viable candidate? Or should she just forget it?
Mary Ellen Slayter: There's nothing off the wall about your question! She should definitely call. The response she gets will let her know if it's worth the trouble of formally applying.
McLean, Va.: This is a law school application question, but I thought you might know:
I'm torn on the "diversity essay," where several of my schools offer me the chance to write an optional essay about how I contribute to the diversity of the law school. I'm honestly not a terribly diverse person in the demographic sense. I'm a white, married chick who grew up above the below, and below the upper in a suburb of Washington, D.C. I'm white, anglo-saxon AND was raised protestant.
I think I'll contribute to the diversity of anyplace I'm in, in an intellectual sense, but to submit a diversity essay about that seems like reaching and I don't want my application to come off as desperate.
Mary Ellen Slayter: In what way will you contribute to intellectual diversity at the school? If you've got a *really interesting* answer to that question, tell them so. Otherwise, don't worry about it. The rest of your application will make your case.
Washington, D.C.: Career myths. First work in the mailroom of the company or agency you want to work for as an analyst later. My father's "worst" career advice.
Mary Ellen Slayter: In your father's defense, this used to be true. It really did happen. Now, the path to those white-collar jobs is more likely to be an unpaid internship than a mailroom gig.
Oakton, Va.: I realize your audience is generally the "out of college" set, but your knowledge on work place/job issues impresses me so I thought I'd ask. Now to my question ... I quit work about five years ago to start a family. My husband and I agreed I'd stay home with the kids while they were very young. My children will be in school/daycare next fall so I'd like to go back to work. On my resume, what should I put as work experience for the past five years? I have done some voluteering and I sell on eBay quite a bit and have 100 percent positive feedback. Is that considered a recommendation? Any suggestions for how to begin revising my resume would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Mary Ellen Slayter: What kind of work would you like to do? How does it relate to the volunteering and other activities you've been working on? The eBay thing would be relevant perhaps if you were pursuing a sales job.
One thing that might help is taking a class or two to brush up your skills and your professional network. Are there any professional associations in the field you're interested in pursuing or returning to? How would you feel about temping for a while, to get some fresh experience on your resume?
Falls Church, Va.: I'm a college senior and I recently got an offer for a position in New York City. Although the starting salary is excellent, the advice I've gotten is that while good, that amount of money would not go as far in NYC as here, obviously. Do you have a rule of thumb about how much more it costs to live in NYC than in the D.C. area, and also, do you have advice about negotiating for a higher salary for people (soon-to-be) fresh out of college? Is it best to call or can I write a letter with my request? Thanks.
Mary Ellen Slayter: There are calculators that can help you figure out the corresponding costs of living. http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_start.asp
According to this one, on Salary.com, if you've been making $50,000 in D.C., you'd need $77,498 to maintain your standard of living in NYC.
If you want to ask for more money, call the person who sent you the offer and make your case as to why you deserve more. It should be based on research of the appropriate pay for your field.
Chicago, Ill.: Hi, Mary Ellen. First, congratulations on your upcoming baby!
Second, I'm about to have my first review (after my probationary period). I'm supposed to rank myself (one to five) on a variety of measures. My question is this: I don't really know how to do this. My instinct is that I'm pretty good but not awesome at my job, but I don't really know what metric to use to evaluate whether I should get a three or a four or a five? I don't want to lowball myself, but don't want to be overshoot, either. But what if my OK is my Boss' awesome? Do you have any advice?
Mary Ellen Slayter: Thank you! Oh, I hate these sort of self-evaluations, too. They just drive me nuts. Do you have to fill out your form before meeting with your boss? Or can you do it after a discussion with him or her?
One strategy is to give yourself a five in the thing you know you do the best at, and a mix of threes and fours for the others. It's certainly better to have your boss rate you higher than you rate yourself than vice versa.
Diversity essay: They really make law school applicants write something like this? That's a scary thought. It wasn't too long ago that they admitted students on the basis of a certain skin color and background and now they're doing it again. I want to go to law school soon. Can I write that I'm a white, Catholic, conservative Republican on my diversity essay or will they automatically reject me?
Mary Ellen Slayter: They don't "make" them. It's optional. And I think it's a great way to pry people's life stories out of them and build an interesting class, if the essays are well written. Even a white, Catholic, conservative, Republican can contribute to the diversity of a school. It depends on the school. I mean, don't you think you'd contribute to the diversity of say, UC-Berkeley?
RE: You: OMG!!!! You're not going to go into labor during this chat, are you?!?! Clearly, none of us are doctors! Congrats and best wishes, in all seriousness.
Mary Ellen Slayter: I think we're safe. But you know, if I did, I think I could answer a few questions between contractions. How cool would that be?
My midwife would be horrified, though.
Facebook: First of all, congrats on your pregnancy!
Regarding the question of employers viewing one's facebook profile -- all you have to do is set your profile to private. After you do so, only Web site users you've accepted as "friends" can view your profile. Setting your profile to private allows you to control who views your personal information, which is a good idea regardless of your worry.
Mary Ellen Slayter: See, I don't even feel safe with that. People can copy information, pass it around, etc. I think it's better not to assume that ANYTHING you put online is private. Ever.
RE: Facebook law school student: My office (a member of Congress) looks at the Facebook and MySpace page of everyone we seriously consider for a job. If they're harmless (as my MySpace page is), no biggie, but don't have that your interests are "partying, drinking, beer and partying" if you're applying for a serious job (as one candidate did). Needless to say, he wasn't hired.
Mary Ellen Slayter: Yep. And I wonder how often this happens, and the people don't even know that's why they didn't get the job.
Atlanta, Ga.: I was out of the workforce for over three years with my kids. No company I spoke with had a problem. They are used to all of this. If you think something is relevant (i.e., eBay selling) put it on there, but if it's not relevant, then put it somewhere else on your resume (i.e., other experience).
My husband and I own a couple of rental properties, so yes, that was there, under other experience.
Good luck. Again, all companies these days are familiar with this situation. So don't worry so much. I found a job in a matter of weeks ... I thought it was going to take six or more months!
Mary Ellen Slayter: From the voice of experience! How long it can take to get back in the swing of things seems to depend on a lot of factors. Keeping your professional network going even while you're out of the workforce seems to be one of the most effective actions.
Washington, D.C.: Career myth: Temporary work is not good, but it is. Look for temp-to-permanent jobs. I got one.
Mary Ellen Slayter: Agree. When I was temping right out of college, I got offers left and right.
Chicago, Ill.: Tell us about the baby!!! Boy/Girl? First? All our very best.
Mary Ellen Slayter: Girl! Of course, the other day, when I was washing a bunch of her clothes in preparation for her arrival, I had this flash of horror that "she" might surprise us by really being a "he." Then what would I do with all these pink onesies? Not to mention the LSU cheerleaders outfit ...
Chantilly, Va.: OK, I realize that companies are hiring, even around the holidays. However, I realize that some companies consider the first 90 days a probation period with limited ability for new employees to take paid leave. How do you deal with a pre-planned vacation over the holidays. If I stay with my current employer, I can use my vacation leave but if I start a new job, I may be stuck taking leave without pay. Thanks.
Mary Ellen Slayter: Actually, you can usually negotiate this sort of vacation in upfront. Employers do this all the time. All you have to do is ask. In some cases, it may be an advance on future vacation time; in others, it will be unpaid leave. Even if it's the latter, it shouldn't be too big of a deal, not if you got to cash out the leave from the job you left.
Vienna, Va.: I recently started a new job search, and a friend recommended that I develop a full curriculum vitale (CV). My understanding is that CVs are used for academic/research positions, whereas a traditional and functional resume is still commonplace for any other positions. What are your thoughts?
Mary Ellen Slayter: It depends on your field. You're correct about when CVs are generally used. The traditional resume should be your default, unless you know otherwise about the jobs you're pursuing.
Old Town Alexandria, Va.: Is it really a myth that you shouldn't job hop too much? I'm in my third job in six years and 29 years old. Each position has allowed me to have different responsibities at different job levels. I've been at non-profits for all this time and would like to move to for-profit by no later than 2008. Is this a bad move and would employers automatically cancel me out because I job hop? The nature of my job is sales.
Mary Ellen Slayter: You're not really a job hopper. It looks to me like you've been at each of these jobs for at least a year or two, yes? Very normal for someone your age.
Anonymous: Mary Ellen, Thanks for the chats! During my most recent review my boss told me that I do a great job and he will work to give me more responsibility (as I requested),but I have to "be patient" when it comes to promotion (in terms of title and compensation.)
I have been with my company nearly three years and in that time I have been promoted (in title) once and my salary has been increased 40 percent. I know I don't have a lot to complain about.
That said, I want to do more and am capable of doing more. I really enjoy working at my current company, but I don't want my loyalty to hold me back either. What are your thoughts about how long I should "be patient" vs. look for other opportunities?
Mary Ellen Slayter: You can do both. Looking for other jobs isn't the same as taking them. See what's out there, and if it appeals to you. Meanwhile, continue to do your best at your current job.
For Chicago: If YOU were the boss, and hired someone like yourself, how would you rate that employee against your expectations of their work? Try to take some of the personal subjectivity out of it.
Mary Ellen Slayter: But you have to admit that's REALLY hard.
RE: NYC offer: You need to assume that you will never make as much in NYC as the salary calculators indicate you should compared to a comparable salary in another area. They are located in NYC, so they are well aware of the local economy and how much it costs to live there.
You got the offer you got -- and you could probably negotiate a little more, but if you're right out of school, you might not be able to negotiate another penny. That's life.
I know people who have moved here (Atlanta, Ga.) from NYC and they kept the same salary -- what a huge pay raise. And others who move to that area who aren't making near enough to afford the lifestyle they had here.
Part of the job offer is that they are well aware of many people's want to move to their city and they don't much care whether you can live or live well on the salary they are paying. Most people in that area I know lived at home for quite a while after college and could barely afford that -- with the cost of a commute (train ticket) and lunches/clothing/etc.
That's the way it works. It's tough, but also, living there is like no where else you can live.
You could also save on an apartment by living in Brooklyn or Queens rather than Manhattan. Or getting a studio ...
Mary Ellen Slayter: For our would-be New Yorker ...
RE: Going back to work: As both a recruiter and a mom on maternity leave, I live this one. I highly recommend temping/contracting in your field for two reasons: 1. The jobs are a lot easier to get, and 2. You can build some contacts for a full-time gig. Good luck!
Mary Ellen Slayter:2. Is the biggie, I think.
Washington, D.C.: Dear Mary Ellen,
Do you have any interviewing tips for introverts? I had an interview on Friday with an organization that I have always loved and I literally slept maybe 20 minutes the night before because I was so terrified. During the interview I think that my answers were ok, but definitely not dazzling and I have been kicking myself since then. I know that I can do this job but the terror that I usually get during interviews is definitely holding me back and I don't know how to get past that. Thanks for your help and congrats on the baby!
Mary Ellen Slayter: Practice, practice, practice. Make some of that introvertedness work for you. One of the great things about introverts is they tend to be very deliberate and thoughtful. So take advantage of that. Most interviewers ask the same questions, so don't let them surprise you. An introvert who doesn't let themselves get rattled can absolutely outshine an extrovert who just sorta wanders all over the place.
Silver Spring, Md.: Is there a rule of thumb as to when one should move on from their first job? I've heard three to five years. But, most non-entry level postings start at five years experience required, so it seems anything less would just land ya back in an entry level job three years into your career!
Mary Ellen Slayter: Not necessarily. There are gradations even within "entry level." I think recent grads should try to stick it out at a job for at least a year, but beyond that, you have to look at your best options for growth.
Older Workers: I really respect your work and that of Amy Joyce, but I have to admit that I think two beginner-career columns is too much. Neither really is relevant to my mid-40s career life. Any chance the Post will add another columnist that deals with these issues? My first job was twenty-odd years ago and what I worry about now is how to not find myself "aged out" of the workforce in the next ten years.
Mary Ellen Slayter: Amy's column is not geared toward younger workers, though. Nor is she even writing about careers exactly. It's more about workplace culture.
We try to cover the issues you mention in the other stories that appear in the Jobs section, as well as the regular Sunday business section. I do agree that those issues are important, though, and I will make sure my editor sees your note!
RE: Facebook: I am a lawyer, and we have ruled out paralegal candidates based on their MySpace/FaceBook profiles. Be smart about this!
Mary Ellen Slayter: How much time do you typically spend on this? Just a quick Google? Do you do a search of MySpace, Friendster and FaceBook for every candidate? All applicants, or just the youngins?
Washington, D.C.: I am really interested in getting a job on a presidential campaign. From the 2004 election, I know that there actually isn't much available in the D.C. area. Any idea where I should start?
Mary Ellen Slayter: Thanks for all your comments and questions. I will miss y'all for the next few months. See you sometime next year!
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.
| 108.02439 | 0.560976 | 0.707317 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111701107.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/17/DI2006111701107.html
|
Outlook: Investigating Congress
|
2006112019
|
Send in the Subpoenas, ( Post, Nov. 19)
Washington, D.C.: Although there are always threats of investigations, what is the one investigation that would "shell shock" Washington?
Ron Suskind: I think the most pertinent, and explosive, investigation is about how vulnerable we actually are at this point to terrorist attack, and how the Iraq war has undermined the broader "war on terror."
that's number one. It's a discussion we want to have before the next terrorist attack, and there will be a "next" attack at some point.
Church Hill, Md.: Surely Democrats realize that they have been elected because we voters are and were totally disgusted with Congress as it was and is. We grassroots people worked harder this past election than we have ever worked before. I expect that Dems will investigate every component of this administration and will keep investigating right up to the 2008 election. Even if charges are not brought, investigations should continue. Americans need to know the extent of the dishonesty we have suffered from our elected representatives.
Ron Suskind: Clearly, Democrats are feeling a push from voters to act forcefully in their oversight function. The key is to pick shrewdly, because the public doesn't have unlimited attentiveness to documented sins when there is so very much to do to properly guide the nation out of the trouble we are in.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Is there a member(s) of the Foreign Policy Team that you think might be vulnerable in an investigation?
Ron Suskind: Cheney. He's the man driving U.S. foreign policy and a much more important player than Rumsfeld. But, make no mistake. The White House will block almost any efforts to force transparency at that level, let it go to the Supreme Court and, essentially, run out the clock.
Boston, Mass.: That government corruption is ruining this country and no one wants to end it is remarkable. Why is it so difficult for Congress to do what they are supposed to do and end corrupt, self-serving practices and hypocrisy?
Ron Suskind: The corruption in Washington is so pervasive, so structural, with the overwhelming imperative for every elected official to raise money and the enormous interest of PACs and major corporations to affect public policy, that no dramatic change is likely any time soon. But that doesn't discount how unique the past six years have been: the hand in glove fit between corporate interests and this administration is startling. I remember in the first few months of the administration, lobbyists for the major industries walking around in a state of disbelief. They were, essentially, called into the administration and given the marker to the grease board: tell us what you want, one through ten.
9/11 didn't vanquish that. It hid it.
The investigators now have great deal of work to do.
Chicago, Ill.: Who decides the investigations? By that I mean, does the leadership tell the committee chairs the topics? Do the committee chairs decide on there own? Thank you
Ron Suskind: Usually it's the committee chairs, in consultation with their majority members and, at day's end, the leadership.
Philadelphia, Pa.: There seem to be fewer journalists who are willing to do the kind of probing journalism that you do. Is that because of the personal risks involved or the heavy lifting?
Ron Suskind: The Bush administration has truly been an innovator in the creation and management of "message" from on high. In some ways, Bush -- with his lack of "reality-based" curiosity and ardor -- is ideal for the sort of model they've constructed: one in which message can flow without the traditional encumbrances of policy analysis.
It has taken the media a while to figure out how to react. In the early years, I remember reporters calling me saying, "they lied to me and, later, I was told that it was a sort of policy to do that where possible." That old saw -- never lie to a reporter -- was washed away. But, if unauthorized, off the record conversations are cut off -- and they largely were in the early days and especially after 9/11 -- there's no way to fire test the official speak.
Now, six years into the administration, you have not just the press, but much of the American public, seeing that statements from the administration seem to be divorced from discernible reality. That gap -- that "credibility gap" -- undercut the moral authority of the President and, more broadly, of the nation that the President represents abroad. Restoring that moral authority -- the key really to American power -- will take a major change in both White House practices and an evolution by the President himself.
Washington, D.C.: We shouldn't act like this is a new phenomenon of the Bush years. I mean Clinton had, according to Jim Webb, the most corrupt administration in history. His back-door dealings with the Chinese are a major reason why they were let into the WTO, and our manufacturing industry is destroyed. Not to mention Mark Rich and others. However, nobody investigated this. I am sick and tired of the Democrats acting like they are any better...just because the media likes to blame Republicans let Democrats get a pass.
Ron Suskind: Every administration spins, lies, obfuscates -- no doubt about it. Here are two things that differentiate this administration from both Clinton and Bush I. Both of those administration's had a strong "policy process," where choices and consequences would be distilled for the President's moment of decision. That came before the "message" was created. Secondly, the growth of campaign practices in the governing process -- the so-called perpetual campaign -- has been a growing trend for decades. But, mostly, it has been the domain of domestic, or clearly political, affairs. What surprised many people in the administration (all Republicans) was that a debased "policy process" and primacy of message above all else would come to define foreign policy, especially at a time when the lives of young American men and women hung in the balance. That's what's different.
Washington, D.C.: Give me a break.........Our Moral Authority has never been in question at all. Some journalists who want to sell something try to say we have lost it, but give me a break. We haven't and will never, no matter what we do.
You are representing the worst kind of politics there is........promoting anti-American lies for your own gains. The media overseas might say we have lost it, but reality is a different thing.
Ron Suskind: Here's reality. There were candlelight vigils in Tehran in the days after 9/11. Countries from across the world, even those disinclined to assist us, were asking what can I do to help. Muslim leaders, of all varieties, were saying this is not my Islam. We were, in fact, winning this "war on terror" in the first year after 9/11. Then came Iraq. Now, five years after the attacks, anti-Americanism is a path to success across the globe. Even many countries that favor us can't do anything to assist us that might be detected. Why will this be so important. The war against terrorists with global reach is about cooperation -- enthusiastic cooperation. Right now were facing the opposite. Countries that will look the other way. Our human intelligence assets have been markedly reduced in the past three years. Self-activated terror cells, catching the spore of bin Laden's destructive ideology, have multiplied like mushrooms. That's fact. America needs to be leading. As Rich Armitage, Powell's number two, said last week, you don't do that by exporting fear and anger. We need to lead the world. We're not doing that now.
Re: Minneapolis, Minn.: Cheney said that he would ignore any subpoenas that come his way. What do you make of that?
Ron Suskind: Cheney's view of the unitary executive is that Congress, or the courts, should stay out of the way. Subpoenas that are offered in the first months of next year should get through the pipeline to the Supremes before the term ends. The key is for Democrats to carefully choose what that test case of Presidential power will be.
Baltimore, Md.: Will publicly-funded elections ever catch hold? It seems that the public doesn't pay attention to that part of the corrupting influence on Congress.
Ron Suskind: Publicly-funded elections might sound good on paper. But the logistics are mighty problematic. And, as long at the Supreme Court defines contributions as a form of speech, it will be difficult to outlaw them.
Ron Suskind: Regrettably, I have to jump off now. But, if folks have opinions or suggestions, they can go to my Web site, RonSuskind.com. There's an email link.
And thanks for today's discussion. It will be an interesting two years -- noisy, messy, unpredictable. But all of that flows into a sacred principle: informed consent (with an emphasis on "informed"). That's a principle both Democrats and Republicans can embrace.
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.
| 45.04878 | 0.634146 | 0.780488 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900832.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900832.html
|
Retirement Home Site Tempts Developers
|
2006112019
|
It's a 272-acre property on high ground in the middle of the District. The owners want to develop part of it, and developers, real estate brokers, architects and contractors are just about salivating to get their hands on it.
It's the Armed Forces Retirement Home, a U.S. government facility once known as the Old Soldiers Home, and the government is looking for a developer to turn 77 acres of its grassy campus along Irving and North Capitol streets NW into a mixed-use development. Last week, about 100 real estate professionals came to hear an official from the home describe what they were looking for.
"We want a place that has a locally owned coffee shop, a drugstore or a boutique grocery store like a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe's," Timothy C. Cox, chief operating officer of the home, told the crowd. "Maybe a ladies' boutique or a shoe shop on the ground floor with residential and office space on the second floor. We don't want a big box like a Kmart or Target."
This summer the government narrowed its list from 12 development teams that applied to redevelop the 77 acres to three: Crescent Resources LLC of Charlotte, JBG Cos. of Chevy Chase and Clark Realty Capital LLC of Bethesda. Their competing plans have not been made public.
Retirement home officials expect to choose one by early next year. The winner will have to go through planning and zoning approvals, and construction would probably start in 2008.
The property is home to 1,300 veterans. Officials at the home said there's an opportunity for them to increase its revenue if they lease part of the grounds to a developer.
"You're three miles from the U.S. Capitol, with easy road access and spectacular views," Cox said. "We've been closed off with a fence around us, but we don't want that. Our land is our greatest asset so we want to create an independent revenue stream by leasing it so we benefit from continued ownership."
The home, funded by fees and a trust fund, wants to use the rental income to pay for such improvements as a new roof, renovations and an expanded area for veterans with Alzheimer's disease.
It currently leases buildings on the property to a charter school, offices of the Smithsonian Institution and the Army Corps of Engineers. Cox said the Special Olympics and Ronald McDonald House have expressed interest in leasing space in the new development.
David W. Jacobs of JBG said the property presents an opportunity to develop what some call a hole in the middle of the city.
"Where else do you see 77 acres so close in?" Jacobs said. "It's an amazing, special place and developing part of it is a unique opportunity. It's got views, great location and a serene pastoral feel."
Donna Fitzgerald Shuler, co-president of Answer Title of the District, said she wants to see small- and disadvantaged-business owners involved in the project's development.
"We want to be a part of this," she said. "The city is changing and finding new land is unique. D.C. doesn't have a lot of undeveloped spots. It's very important to utilize it correctly."
The District's decision to build above-ground parking garages near the new baseball stadium in Southeast, as Washington Nationals owner Theodore N. Lerner wanted, is drawing criticism from local developers. Some who own land in the neighborhood and planned projects there say the garages will deaden the kind of activity that was expected at the stadium entrance.
"It's an unfortunate solution," said F. Russell Hines, an executive vice president of Monument Realty LLC, which plans to build up to 2 million square feet on two properties it owns across from the proposed parking garages at Half and N streets SE. "Our development would be better if there was complimentary retail and a mix of uses on the other side of N Street.
"It's not a disaster . . . but this is a significant setback," he said. "We spent months and months of great plans of what this area was going to look like with the Anacostia Waterfront Corp., and in the end it feels like it's every man for himself. We're going to do what we can to create an area where people come off the Metro and they walk along the streets, where there's restaurants and stores and a real experience."
Daniel Ellis, assistant director of development for Faison & Associates LLC, said: "In terms of urban streetscape and design you'd prefer to have parking garages not taking up two full blocks. Ideally, you'd want to see something else besides parking on the ground floor. You want it wrapped with retail so activity continues down toward the stadium."
Faison is involved in two projects at nearby First and L streets SE: a development of 200 condominiums and a 263,000-square-foot office building.
Some developers in that area expressed dismay at how the Lerner parking deal got the city to override planning and zoning regulations that required retail on the first floor of projects in the area.
"We have a vision for Half Street SE between M and N streets Southeast that has the potential to be one of the most exciting neighborhoods in the mid-Atlantic, but that vision won't happen if the process looks like the one that produced two parking garages," said Jeffrey T. Neal, a principal of Monument Realty. "There's a better solution . . . than two parking garages. Let the private sector do it. There are zoning laws already in place."
But not everybody thinks that the parking structures are such a terrible idea.
"It's not going to be good, bad or indifferent," said Ronald Cohen, a Rockville-based developer who plans to build 840,000 square feet of condominiums and apartments near the stadium. "It would have been nice to have buildings lining the parking but there's so much activity and energy in that corridor that it doesn't make a heck of a difference one way or the other."
Dana Hedgpeth writes about commercial real estate and economic development. Her e-mail address ishedgpethd@washpost.com.
|
It's a 272-acre property on high ground in the middle of the District. The owners want to develop part of it, and developers, real estate brokers, architects and contractors are just about salivating to get their hands on it.
| 26.822222 | 1 | 45 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900842.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900842.html
|
Hoyas Fall to Old Dominion
|
2006112019
|
The players for the eighth-ranked Georgetown men's basketball team slowly trudged off the McDonough Arena court as if they were stunned by what had just taken place in the gym where they are usually so dominant. Old Dominion had beaten them soundly, 75-62, in front of a raucous sellout crowd of 2,500.
"We're obviously disappointed from the loss," junior guard Jonathan Wallace said. "But at the same time, it opens our eyes. We didn't play as hard as we could have, we got out-worked in certain situations. The effort lacked at times. The intensity wasn't there."
This was Old Dominion's first victory over a nationally ranked team since the 1994-95 season, when it beat No. 9 Villanova, 89-81, in triple overtime in the NCAA tournament. As the final minute ran off the clock, the pocket of Monarchs fans in the building began chanting, "C-A-A! C-A-A!" -- a familiar cheer during last season's NCAA tournament, when fellow Colonial Athletic Association team George Mason made its run to the Final Four.
Georgetown (2-1) hadn't lost in its tiny on-campus gym since Jan. 20, 1982, when Connecticut upset the 13th-ranked Hoyas, 63-52. Over the next 24 years, the Hoyas won 23 straight games in McDonough by an average margin of 27.8 points. Granted, the Monarchs -- who were picked to finish fourth in the CAA -- were a much stronger team than most of those previous 23 opponents.
While the Patriots were making national headlines with their postseason run last season, Old Dominion (4-1) was becoming the first CAA team to advance to the semifinals of the National Invitation Tournament. All five starters for the Monarchs yesterday, as well as their top two reserves, were part of that squad. After the game, Old Dominion Coach Blaine Taylor essentially thanked Georgetown Coach John Thompson III for being willing to not only play his team, but to agree to a return game in Norfolk next season.
"We went into this game knowing it was going to be an extremely difficult game," Thompson said. "We wanted some challenges in the preseason, we have some on the schedule, and we sure . . . got one tonight. That's a very good team right there, a veteran team, an experienced team, and we knew they'd give us different looks."
The Monarchs shot 56.3 percent from three-point range, making 6 of 9 long-range attempts in the second half. They out-rebounded the Hoyas, 35-28, including 15 offensive rebounds.
Junior forward Jeff Green had one of the most ineffective performances of his career; he sat the final 11 minutes of the first half with two fouls, and finished with just two points, three rebounds and two assists in 25 minutes. Green attempted only two shots.
"I thought they did a good job on Jeff," Thompson said. "Everyone knows it's no secret, he's such an integral part of what we do, and when he's off, more than likely we're off."
Green was the only starter who didn't score in double figures. Junior Roy Hibbert led the Hoyas with 17 points and eight rebounds, and guard Jessie Sapp added a career-high 16 points.
Hibbert dominated the Monarchs for stretches, and when he quickly spun past Sam Harris, and then emphatically dunked over the 7-foot-3 junior, early in the second half, it appeared as if Georgetown was in control of the game. Hibbert was fouled, and he stalked around the court as the crowd -- nearly two-thirds of which appeared to be Georgetown students -- chanted his name. Hibbert missed the free throw, but Georgetown was up, 44-37, with 14 minutes 3 seconds to play.
But Old Dominion outscored the Hoyas 21-3 over the next eight minutes. The Monarchs dominated in that stretch, forcing turnovers on defense, hitting long-range shots and chasing down nearly every rebound. The run started simply enough, with sophomore forward Jonathan Adams making a three-pointer; Old Dominion made four of its next five shots from beyond the arc.
The Monarchs took their first lead of the second half with 12:50 remaining, when 6-1 guard Brandon Johnson drove right at the 7-2 Hibbert and flipped a shot over the big center. Old Dominion never trailed again.
At the same time, the Hoyas were passive. Sophomores Marc Egerson and Jessie Sapp seemed hesitant to shoot against the Monarchs' zone.
One Old Dominion possession midway through the second half was emblematic of the game. Brian Henderson missed a shot, but grabbed the rebound. Then Drew Williamson misfired on a long three-pointer, but Valdas Vasylius ran down the ball. Jonathan Adams's jumper from the baseline was off-target, but neither Patrick Ewing Jr. nor Green could grab the rebound, and the ball went out of bounds. Finally, Vasylius sank a three-pointer from the left side to end the nearly 90-second possession and give Old Dominion a 56-47 advantage with 8:24 remaining.
"I think out-rebounding them was very significant and we got some extra possessions in the second half," Taylor said. "Those extra possessions deflated them a bit; it's almost like, what do you have to do to get a stop?"
Hoyas Note: Tyler Crawford is in the hospital and the Hoyas are waiting to see what is wrong with the junior swingman, according to Thompson. Crawford, a co-captain, did not play at Vanderbilt on Wednesday with what was termed the flu, but he worsened after the game and was taken to a hospital. The team returned home on a charter flight following the 86-70 win, but Crawford flew home the following day with the team trainer. Thompson said on Thursday that Crawford had strep throat.
|
Old Dominion drains six three-pointers in the second half on Sunday to beat No. 8 Georgetown, 75-62, at the Hoyas' little-used on-campus gymnasium.
| 32.416667 | 0.777778 | 2.166667 |
medium
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900748.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900748.html
|
Deal Propels SunRocket to Mainstream
|
2006112019
|
SunRocket Inc., an Internet phone upstart from Vienna, has struck a joint marketing deal with electronics giant Thomson Inc. to roll out GE-branded cordless phones capable of making calls over the Internet.
The deal announced Friday is an important one for the two-year-old SunRocket, which will provide the Internet service for the new phones.
Providers of Internet phone service, such as Vonage, SunRocket and 8x8, have been steadily attracting customers with unlimited calling plans and lower rates than traditional telephone service. But to break out, they must tap the mainstream market. All three have been trying to do that by partnering with telephone manufacturers to boost their brands' name recognition and credibility.
"It's exciting to work with a company that has such a major presence in landline phones," said Lisa Hook, SunRocket's chief executive. "The GE brand is iconic. It's like the really nerdy girl being picked to dance by the quarterback."
Other providers are taking the same approach. Vonage, the largest Internet-calling service provider, has partnered with VTech Holdings Ltd. to produce Internet-compatible telephones. Similarly, 8x8 has entered an agreement with Uniden America Corp.
The fact that major telephone manufacturers have invested in enabling handsets with Internet-calling devices is a sign of their confidence in the technology, said William Stofega, an Internet-calling analyst for market research firm IDC.
"Early adopters and technology geeks are already using it," he said. "The challenge is to get it out in the mainstream. Customers want it to work, and they want it to be easy to use."
Until recently, customers making calls over the Internet had to plug standard phones into special adaptors that connected to high-speed Internet lines. By embedding the technology directly into the telephone, providers and manufacturers are hoping to simplify the transition from traditional phones to the new technology.
"Over the next few years, this will certainly be the fastest-growing type of voice communications for residents," predicted Tom Bratton, vice president for marketing and sales for Thomson. "It will be driven by cheap voice but also by adding other features you can't get on regular landlines."
Some of those new features, such as internal address books and text messaging, will start to appear in the next year, although a formal timeline is not yet in place, Hook said.
Since its founding in 2004, SunRocket has grown rapidly, becoming one of the major players in the residential Internet phone market. In the past year, the company has more than tripled its subscriber base, which is now at about 170,000, and it has received a total of $80 million in venture capital funding. SunRocket's service costs about $200 a year for unlimited local and long-distance calling and up to 100 free international minutes every month.
Over 8.2 million U.S. households subscribed to Internet phone services at the end of September, up from 3.5 million at the same time last year, according to TeleGeography Research. About 38 percent of the subscribers get their service from stand-alone providers like SunRocket and Vonage.
The number of residential subscribers is expected to reach about 19.3 million by 2008, according to IDC's projections.
Internet calling "is still very young," Hook said. "It's great validation for the technology and its potential growth when such big companies want to play in a branded way."
|
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.
| 15.181818 | 0.409091 | 0.409091 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900891.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900891.html
|
Some Believe 'Truth Serums' Will Come Back
|
2006112019
|
If there is a "truth serum" that works, it is a secret that nobody is giving up.
The debate earlier this year on interrogation techniques in the war on terrorism raised anew a question that goes back at least 2,000 years. Is there something you can give a person that will make him tell the truth?
The ancient Romans had an answer: Yes.
" In vino veritas"-- "in wine there is truth" -- is sometimes attributed to the natural philosopher Pliny the Elder. The observation made in the 1st century has been borne out over the millennia by many a remorseful inebriate. And, in truth, alcohol given as intravenous ethanol was an early form of truth serum.
In the 21st century, however, the answer appears to be: No. There is no pharmaceutical compound today whose proven effect is the consistent or predictable enhancement of truth-telling.
The modern fascination with truth-eliciting drugs began in 1916 when an obstetrician named Robert House, practicing in a town outside Dallas named Ferris, saw a strange event during a home delivery.
The woman in labor was in a state of "twilight sleep" induced by scopolamine, a compound derived from the henbane plant that blocks the action of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. House had asked her husband for a scale to weigh the newborn. The man looked for it and returned to the bedroom saying he could not find it, whereupon his wife, still under the anesthetic, told him exactly where it was.
House became convinced that scopolamine could make anyone answer a question truthfully, and he went on to promote its forensic use.
Police departments used it -- and in a few cases judges permitted it -- throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Other drugs were also tried, most famously the barbiturates Pentothal and Amytal. But by the 1950s, most scientists had declared the very notion of truth serums invalid, and most courts had ruled testimony gained through their use inadmissible.
The emerging consensus did not stop the most notorious search for truth serum, the CIA's Project MK-ULTRA. Starting in 1953, the agency tested the behavioral effects of several drugs, including their effects on interrogation. Many people were given substances without their knowledge or consent. Frank Olson jumped from a hotel window to his death after taking the hallucinogen LSD.
The program ended in the late 1960s. Its abuses -- many revealed in congressional hearings in 1977 -- produced bad publicity for the spy agency.
Whether a search for truth serums has occurred in recent decades, and especially since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is a matter of differing opinion.
|
Get Washington DC,Virginia,Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news,featuring national security,science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 12.047619 | 0.428571 | 0.52381 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900892.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900892.html
|
New Justices Take the Podium, Putting Personalities on Display
|
2006112019
|
The two newest Supreme Court justices took off the robes and took to the stump last week, providing glimpses of the fresh personalities that will reshape a court that had remained constant for more than a decade.
The settings could not have been more different. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was interviewed before a crowd of 3,000 last Monday night at the University of Miami, and his telegenic message of moderation was then broadcast to the nation on ABC's "Nightline."
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. spoke to his fellow members of the Federalist Society, a coalition of conservative lawyers and legal scholars who have gone from rebel outsiders to Washington insiders -- the group drew 1,500 people to its annual banquet and warranted appearances by administration leaders from Vice President Cheney on down.
Roberts's turn on the stage was the most complete, and it showed that his sure-footed performance in his confirmation hearings, where he left even senators opposed to his conservative philosophy aglow, was no fluke.
He has a politician's gift for appearing open while answering only the questions he wants to answer, along with an almost over-the-top humility about being, at 51, the youngest chief justice since John Marshall, and he offers a reassuring middle ground between those worried about threats to judicial independence and those alarmed by activist judges.
He provided a little something for everyone. For the feature pages, he had a cute explanation of how his jiggling son Jack almost stole the show with his hammy performance before the cameras when President Bush introduced Roberts and his family to the nation last year: "People think Jack was dancing. He was not dancing. He was being Spiderman. He was shooting the webs off."
He gave the scholars caught up in the debate about his affection for legal minimalism a bit more to chew on: "If you're going up a list of what virtues are important when you're deciding a Supreme Court opinion, issuing an opinion, deciding a case, I have to say that I think boldness is going to be closer to the bottom and not the top."
And he showed deference to those he called the "people across the street" in Congress, who have been chosen by "hundreds of thousands of people, millions of people."
"Not a single person has voted for me, and if we don't like what the people in Congress do, we can get rid of them, and if you don't like what I do, it's kind of too bad," Roberts told ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg, who conducted the interview at the Miami forum. "And that is, to me, an important constraint. It means that I'm not there to make a judgment based on my personal policy preferences or my political preferences."
But as important as what Robert said was how he said it. He went a bit overboard in the humility department: Yes, the rest of the justices call one another by their first names, but they call him "chief." But, he quickly added, "I think it's more a tribute to the office."
And Roberts said he still finds it a little hard to believe that the office is his, for as long as he wants it. When he passes the formal entrance to his office, he said, there's "a little brass plaque on the door that says 'The Chief Justice,' and I still kind of feel that I have to be a little quiet so I don't disturb him."
Dahlia Lithwick, the sharp-eyed legal affairs columnist for the online magazine Slate, called it Roberts's "whole sweet/funny/smart/humble thing" and wrote that the chief justice "sees that the press can be gamed to disseminate a view of judging and the judiciary, and the clarity and effectiveness of his message is indisputable."
|
The two newest Supreme Court justices took off the robes and took to the stump last week, providing glimpses of the fresh personalities that will reshape a court that had remained constant for more than a decade.
| 19.358974 | 1 | 39 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801196.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801196.html
|
In Competitive Marketplace, Asian Egg Donors in Demand
|
2006112019
|
For more than 18 fruitless months, Regina and Dennis Joyner searched for an Asian woman willing to donate her eggs. They were on the waiting list at two Washington area fertility clinics. They placed an online classified ad, but the most promising response came from Africa. Finally, they gave up.
"I knew it would be hard, but I did not think it would be that hard," said Regina Joyner, 40, who is Chinese American. "I wish I would have just adopted. . . . I would have had a baby by now."
Egg donation, often the last resort for women who cannot conceive, offers a sort of miracle: the ability to choose a donor who has not just a good résumé but also physical traits similar to the prospective mother's. For many minority or immigrant recipients, it is a treasured chance to pass on an ethnic bloodline and physical characteristics, perhaps helping the child fit in seamlessly. A Korean couple, for example, can request a Korean donor, and doctors say they usually do.
But as egg donation has surged over the past two decades, clinics and donor recruiting agencies say the supply of ethnic minority donors, especially Asians, has not kept pace with demand. For reasons probably involving complex cultural attitudes about fertility and basic marketing principles, Asian eggs are hard to find.
"Oftentimes, it's not good enough for the Asian groups to even have somebody of half-Asian, half-Caucasian descent," said Frank Chang, a reproductive endocrinologist at Shady Grove Fertility center. "Generally, we're lucky if we can find even one potential donor for that person."
For recipients, that can mean lengthy waits, intensive searches or additional expense; donor agencies usually charge finders' fees of several thousand dollars. The demand has spawned a small niche industry of agencies that scour the nation -- and sometimes the globe -- for ethnic donors.
Critics of egg donation cite recruiting and donor payments as evidence of a fertility industry that has become brazenly commercial. But doctors and donors insist that donors are justly compensated for their time and the discomfort of the donation process, which is far more invasive than sperm donation.
Donors are usually in their fertile 20s. After passing medical and psychological tests, they inject themselves with hormone stimulants for about one month. They are then anesthetized while a physician removes the eggs with a needle. Most clinics in the Washington region pay donors about $6,000.
The Web site of the Washington Fertility Center asks for "urgently needed" Chinese, Ethiopian, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Middle Eastern, Filipino and Vietnamese donors. Recently, its online donor database featured 152 donor profiles. Among the donors were two of Middle Eastern descent and 10 Asians, of whom one was part Indian -- one of the rarest donor ethnicities, doctors say.
Recipients at Shady Grove Fertility, about 15 percent of whom are Asian, can page through a book filled with donor profiles but will find that fewer than 5 percent are Asian, Chang said. Recipients seeking hard-to-find ethnicities might wait two years, he said.
Some clinics say they can usually meet recipients' needs, if they are willing to be flexible.
"All they want is a baby to love, and if it looks like [them], great," said Diana Broomfield, a fertility specialist at Washington Fertility Center.
|
For more than 18 fruitless months, Regina and Dennis Joyner searched for an Asian woman willing to donate her eggs. They were on the waiting list at two Washington area fertility clinics. They placed an online classified ad, but the most promising response came from Africa. Finally, they gave up.
| 11.684211 | 1 | 57 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900992.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006112019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900992.html
|
Black Enrollment in AP Surges in Montgomery
|
2006112019
|
Montgomery County public schools this year passed a milestone in college preparation: Half of the 9,737 black high school students are enrolled in honors or Advanced Placement courses.
Five years ago, barely one-third of African Americans participated in such classes, despite the county's reputation as a national leader in college prep. Now, a black student in Montgomery is more likely to take an AP test than a white student elsewhere in the nation.
Josephine Kalema, 17, is one of those students. She is Wheaton High School's senior class president, captain of the pom squad and a newly minted assistant manager at Dunkin' Donuts. With some of her Wheaton High classmates, Josephine has helped the school system move toward parity for its black students.
Kalema took all the honors courses available to her in the ninth grade, then progressed into AP. As a senior, she is taking AP geography, calculus and English literature. She partly credits her counselor, Scott Woo, with her advancement.
"It's always been Mr. Woo saying, 'I think you can take this class,' " she said.
The county's achievement is striking because the national surge in Advanced Placement testing has largely left black students behind.
AP testing doubled nationwide in five years -- from 1.1 million exams taken in 2001 to 2.3 million this past spring. But black students remain underrepresented in AP classes.
Last spring, only 4 percent of black students in Virginia high schools and 5 percent in Maryland sat for Advanced Placement exams, about one-third the rate for all students. In the majority-black D.C. system, about 5 percent of black high school students took AP tests.
AP tests, and the courses that precede them, are designed to replicate the college experience. Students who earn scores of three or higher on the five-point scale of AP typically can qualify for college credit. Participation in either AP or its counterpart, International Baccalaureate, is now more or less expected by admissions officers at some competitive colleges, who want applicants who take the most rigorous courses high schools offer.
The College Board, which administers the AP program, reported last winter that although AP participation had increased everywhere, just two states with small black populations, Hawaii and South Dakota, had eliminated the participation gap between blacks and whites.
Hispanic students, by contrast, had closed the gap with non-Hispanic whites in 11 states, including Maryland, and in the District.
The AP gap persists between blacks and whites in Montgomery schools, despite a countywide effort to identify and recruit students of all races with potential for college-level study. But a new report on AP and honors study suggests blacks are starting to close the gap. And that is trickier than it sounds, because students across the board are moving up.
|
Montgomery County public schools this year passed a milestone in college preparation: Half of the 9,737 black high school students are enrolled in honors or Advanced Placement courses.
| 18.2 | 1 | 30 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701592.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701592.html
|
A Better Way to Vote
|
2006111919
|
SALEM, Ore. -- This month, as controversies emerged in other parts of the country over polling place problems and malfunctioning touch-screen machines, we here in Oregon prepared to swear in a new crop of elected officials with nary a question about the legitimacy of the count or the functioning of our electoral process. We accomplished this with a turnout on Nov. 7 that was, once again, among the highest in the nation. How? With Vote by Mail.
One episode that highlights its success occurred in Tillamook County, where 13 inches of rain on Election Day sent many citizens scrambling to the safety of shelters under a declared state of emergency. Despite the fact that many roads were impassable and parts of the county were inaccessible -- conditions that would have crippled turnout in a state that relied on conventional polling places -- 70 percent of the voters cast ballots. Only voting by mail could have led to this outcome.
Voting by mail was launched statewide through a people's initiative in 1998, which passed by a 70 to 30 percent margin. Every registered voter receives a paper ballot in the weeks before Election Day. The ballot can be either mailed back or dropped off at one of a number of secure sites statewide.
The system has proven to be fraud-free. Oregon is one of only two states in the nation to verify every single voter signature against the signature on that voter's registration card. Our process is transparent and open to observation. Finally, the returned paper ballots, which are the official record of the election, can be recounted by hand.
With voting by mail, Oregon's turnout is consistently among the highest of any state without same-day voter registration. We don't suffer with long lines at polling places, with voter harassment or intimidation, with fears about malfunctioning or easily hacked voting machines, or from lack of a paper trail. Even floodwaters don't keep voters from participating. Under Oregon law, mailed ballots are not forwarded if a voter has moved, and those returned ballots have allowed us to maintain one of the cleanest and most up-to-date registration lists in the country.
Voting by mail is also a cost-effective way to run elections, costing taxpayers about 30 percent less than polling-place elections.
A University of Oregon study conducted five years after the adoption of voting by mail statewide showed that 80 percent of voters across the political spectrum prefer it to voting at polling places. It's a system that answers the needs of Americans who lead increasingly busy, complex lives, balancing many work and family responsibilities.
Election days were originally scheduled on Tuesdays because that was when farmers brought their crops into town to sell. Today on an average Tuesday people balance multiple jobs, soccer practice and child care. Voting by mail gives them ample opportunity to stay engaged in our most crucial democratic process.
The foundation of our democracy rests upon the administration of free, fair and highly participatory elections. It's critical that Americans have faith in the security of their vote. Here in Oregon, with voting by mail, we have achieved those things and been able to assure voters that their votes count.
And if our elections aren't quite as exciting, or if the results aren't as likely to be disputed as some others around the country, well, we'll just have to live with that.
The writer is Oregon's secretary of state.
|
SALEM, Ore. -- This month, as controversies emerged in other parts of the country over polling place problems and malfunctioning touch-screen machines, we here in Oregon prepared to swear in a new crop of elected officials with nary a question about the legitimacy of the count or the functioning of...
| 11.785714 | 0.982143 | 54.017857 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/tariq_ramadan/2006/11/muslims_must_respond_to_legiti_1.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/tariq_ramadan/2006/11/muslims_must_respond_to_legiti_1.html
|
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2006111919
|
On Faithâ panelist Tariq Ramadan, one of Europeâs best-known Muslim scholars, was recently told by U.S. authorities that they will not issue him a visa because of a contribution he made to an Islamic charitable organization - a group later blacklisted by the U.S. government for providing money to Hamas. Ramadan said he made the donation a year before the organization was blacklisted. He will speak via live video to the American Academy of Religionâs annual conference in Washington, D.C. Nov. 19.
Speaking from London, Ramadan recently joined washingtonpost.com producers Caryle Murphy and Liz Heron for a Q&A.
Caryle Murphy: How do you feel about the United States refusing to give you a visa?
Tariq Ramadan: My feeling is really it has to do with a specific administration not willing to engage in debates and critical discussions. Because for years I have been visiting the States, talking to people. I made my statements clear. I even went to speak at the State Department and all the people knew exactlyâ¦what I was saying, that I was critical towards the American policy in the Middle East: The unilateral support of Israel or the war in Iraq, which in my view was wrong and illegalâ¦. And it was clear that I have nothing to do with terrorism or radicalizationâ¦And at the end of the two years to get the answer that I gave money for an organization one year before this organization was to be blacklisted in the States, itâs justâ¦
Caryle Murphy: Is it accurate that the American authorities found out about this donation because you told them?
Tariq Ramadan: Yes, of course. They asked about donations and I gave them 11 organizations to which I was donatingâ¦So I told them myself. Caryle Murphy: You said that Americans whoâve contacted you say that they believe that something is going wrong in the United States. Could you elaborate on what the Americans talking to you think is going wrong?
Tariq Ramadan: â¦Mainly what the people are saying is that the policies promoted by this [U.S.] administration is built on mainly fears, security and against freedom of speech and against the basic rights of American citizens. And really what I got as reaction is people saying âIâm ashamed. Iâm very sorry that my country is doing this to you. But you have to know that this is not against you only. Itâs the whole politics, the whole policies that we have now and we all feel that we are losing our basic rights.â Caryle Murphy: Our new online religion feature âOn Faithâ is dedicated to the proposition that in this age of religious extremism, there is still room for civil, respectful dialogue. Do you feel that religious tolerance is taking a beating in recent years?
Tariq Ramadan: Yes, I think for two reasons. At the global level I think that we are now dealing with this war on terror and security policies. So with these new policies it becomes quite difficult to have an in-depth discussion around religious issuesâ¦
The second [factor]is really because of this globalized world and very quick media coverageâ¦.when you say something there is immediate reaction so there is no way here to have and itâs very difficult to have critical and necessary debates that we need todayâ¦. And this is what I am saying to the Muslims: âLook, when you are in the West or when you are dealing with Westerners or when you are living as a Western Muslim, you have to take an intellectual critical distance from what the people are saying. Because they are dealing daily now with security threats, and fears, and at the same time discourses and speeches on Islam that are nurturing these fears.
So when you haveâ¦legitimate fears, to these legitimate fears you have to respond. And you have to come with an articulate discourse promoting better understanding, better knowledge of your religion and it means also to be self-critical, self-critical meaning by that, âYes your religion is great but not all the Muslims are great.â So you have to say something about violence, say something about discrimination towards women. But not as suspected people, but as people understanding the legitimate fears of your fellow citizens. Because they are asking questions and they are not all alienated or playing a political gameâ¦â
Sometimes the problem we have with Muslims is that they are reacting emotionally to politicians forgetting that they are alienating their fellow citizensâ¦.
When you donât have social policiesâ¦dealing with social justice or global justice, the best [way] to attract voters is to nurture fears. And build onâ¦âus versus them,â which was quite the American policy during the last five years: You are with us or against usâ¦
This kind of polarization of the discourse which was in fact what we heard fromâ¦the current US administration⦠In this climate itâs difficult to have a debateâ¦Itâs emotions much more than rational discussions. And as I said itâs really important for the Muslimsâ¦to understand this picture and to say look we have to stop overreacting and we have to answer the questions which are put to usâ¦not as suspected people but as responsible citizensâ¦. Liz Heron: To change tacks a little bit, what do you make of the new generation of Muslims in America that are younger, and more conservative than their parents, who may have been immigrants?
Tariq Ramadan: I think that itâs a normal trend. You know, you had the first generation coming, settling, and maybe just trying to find the way to work. And then you have a second generation and â¦because they know this society, they arenât perceiving this society as threatening their religious identity or their values. So they are nurturing and promoting something which is much more protective and conservativeâ¦
I think that we need two or three generations to get the right balanced approach. But I think with time, you will get the right answer: for someone to be able to say, âLook, Iâm a practicing Muslim, and I can be a practicing Muslim and at the same time fully American by culture.â And I think that this will be the future.
Liz Heron: So do you see them as moving away from assimilation, in contrast to their parents?
Tariq Ramadan: It depends. I donât think their parents were just accepting assimilation. And I think that if assimilation means to be less Muslim in order to be more American, I donât think itâs going to work.
But if to be an American Muslim ⦠means that you can be both at the same time, and that you can preserve your values and at the same time be part of the American culture, the social fabric, I think that this is going to happenâ¦
I really think that for now and for the future, itâs important for the Americans, for what we call the indigenous Americans â but in fact, you are all immigrants ⦠to acknowledge the fact that their American society is changing with American citizens being Muslims⦠They can build a new identity, multiple identities⦠This is the future of your country â as it is the future of the European countries, the Western countries as a whole.
Liz Heron: Well how exactly would you suggest one live by the Koran in todayâs world?
Tariq Ramadan: â¦You can be a religious man or woman, you can be a practicing Christian, Jew or Muslim, and you can be an atheist, for example. At the end of the day, what you are asking yourself--and what you are asking from yourself--is consistencyâ¦You have values, you have principles. Try in your daily life to be consistent.
And itâs not something which is specific to Muslims. If only we were to come to this understanding that at the end of the day, itâs not easy to be consistent, whatever are your convictionsâ¦The more you are consistent with your values, the more you are close to him, to the creator. So this is to be a good Muslim.
And this is why I donât only promote, for example, citizenship. This is good, citizenship is central. But an ethics of citizenship is much more important. Itâs just to put your citizenship in motion while you are aware that there are values that you want to respect â not only rights that you want to get, but also responsibilities that you are trying to meet out of your behavior.
Caryle Murphy: Tariq, thank you so much for spending this time with us.
|
Tariq Ramadan on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/tariq_ramadan/
| 205.625 | 0.375 | 0.625 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2006/11/the_problem_is_not_faith_but_f.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2006/11/the_problem_is_not_faith_but_f.html
|
The Problem Is Not Faith, but Faithful
|
2006111919
|
I am a Christian ("mainstream" Protestant) who attends church nearly every Sunday, teaches Sunday School class, and has participated in church service activities in Romania and in Mississippi (Katrina victims). I'm also politically progressive, especially on social issues, so I am not one of those "right wing conservative Christians" that many secularists tune out. To me, my religious faith is a way to make sense of the world, to serve as a guide when the real world makes things confusing, to help me do the right thing by other people, and to find comfort and peace when life is stressful and difficult. But my religious faith is intensely personal - it is right for me, but that doesn't mean it is right for everyone else. I fully respect the rights of my Jewish, pagan, Catholic, Muslim, atheist, etc. friends to follow whatever belief system works best for them and I hope they do the same thing for me. I wholeheartedly agree with those who say it is some of the so-called "faithful" of various religions who cause religious conflict and not the religions themselves. Because faith is intensely personal, we each interpret it through our own lenses, and even when we read the same passage in the Bible, Torah, or Koran, we don't necessarily interpret it in the same way.
It greatly disturbs me when people of any belief system - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, pagan, atheist, etc - makes sweeping generalizations about another belief system without first learning something about that which they are judging, which it appears that many, regardless of their belief system, are using this discussion forum to do. Perhaps if we all, regardless of our religion or lack thereof, took time to learn about those different from us before we judge, we could at least nicely "agree to disagree" without resorting to violence. Who knows? We might actually find some similarities that are otherwise lost in all of the shouting, vitriol, insults, and name-calling.
It is really easy to blame a particular religion or religion itself for the ills of the world (the posters who noted the economic, greed, fear, and other secular reasons for war & conflict were right - those are the root causes but religion is an easy way to create a "unifying them" as a scapegoat), but religion can do a lot of good too, just like secular organizations. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have religious underpinings and they provide aid to those in need, regardless of religion, and most people, regardless of their religious beliefs, think nothing of it. Other groups, like Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief, Lutheran Disaster Relief, etc. remain in troubled and damaged areas long after governments and other groups have moved on to other, more "hot" topics.
Religion itself isn't the problem; rather, because it is not something that is cut and dry, it is easy for people with agendas to manipulate for their own ends. Did Hitler really see the Jews as a problem or maybe they were just an easily identifiable "them" that he could use as a rallying cry for all that was wrong in German society because they looked different and believed something many had not taken the time to understand?
Problems with religion usually stem from fear, which often comes from a lack of understanding. Perhaps if we work harder to understand one another, we might fear each other less and be able to work together more, even if we don't always agree, especially since peace is a major tenet of the world's major religions.
Posted November 17, 2006 4:19 PM
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 50.857143 | 0.428571 | 0.428571 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/timothy_matovina/2006/11/an_aztecspanish_lesson_in_inte.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/timothy_matovina/2006/11/an_aztecspanish_lesson_in_inte.html
|
An Aztec-Spanish Lesson in Interfaith Dialogue
|
2006111919
|
A 16th-century clash of religions holds lessons for interfaith dialogue today. It teaches that when we humbly confess that the mystery of God is beyond all human comprehension â a confession common to many of the worldâs religions â we take a critical first step toward conversations that can deepen our faith in unexpected ways.
The painful instance of conflict between religious groups was the famous 1524 exchange between the first twelve Christian missionaries to Mexico and the tlamatinime or Nahuatl (Aztec) wise men who had survived the Spanish conquest of their people. Defeated in battle, subjugated, and told that their ancestral religious beliefs were false and even diabolical, the tlamatinime vigorously defended their traditions. So firm was their conviction that when their adversaries insisted they accept the Christian faith, they respectfully retorted: âAllow us then to die, let us perish now, since our gods are already dead.â
The collective death wish of the tlamatinime contrasts sharply with the vitality of a religious tradition born in Mexico shortly thereafter: The reported apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the indigenous neophyte Juan Diego in 1531. According to the traditional Nahuatl account of the apparitions, Guadalupe sent Juan Diego to request that Juan de Zumárraga, the first bishop of Mexico, build a temple on the hill of Tepeyac in her honor. At first the bishop doubted the celestial origins of this request, but came to believe when Juan Diego presented him exquisite flowers that were out of season and the image of Guadalupe miraculously appeared on the humble indioâs tilma (cloak). Subsequently devotion to Guadalupe expanded among Spaniards, Nahuas, their mixed-blood offspring, and all social groups throughout Mexico. Today the Guadalupe basilica in Mexico City is the most visited pilgrimage site in the Western hemisphere.
What made this religious tradition an occasion of common ground for both the vanquished Aztecs and the conquering Iberian Catholics? Some have claimed it was simply a case of intermingling Christian and indigenous religions, since Tepeyac was associated with the Aztec goddess Tonantzin. But on a more fundamental level Guadalupe evoked a sense of awe that transcended the doctrinal impasse between Christians and Nahuas. The Guadalupe tradition shows that interreligious conversation becomes possible when opposing parties first confess that awe, wonder, and the unfathomable mystery of God are at the heart of their faith.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham, Sally Quinn and Timothy Matovina. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/timothy_matovina/
| 25.294118 | 0.411765 | 0.411765 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/william_tully/2006/11/we_are_already_in_the_conversa.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/william_tully/2006/11/we_are_already_in_the_conversa.html
|
We Are Already In The Conversation
|
2006111919
|
Snowbeast highlights what sounds like an absolute: "No man cometh to the father but by me." As I recall that quote is preceded by "I am the way and the truth and the life." But even apparent absolutes are complex. "Insofar as ye do it to the least of these my children you do it unto me..." and "In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." What did Jesus mean? Is he the only one to partake of this holiness, this oneness? Does he speak of himself individually or himself as the universal holiness and goodness each of us must find in ourselves to reach salvation, to be born again into? Who is this "me" of whom the man Jesus speaks? What was he trying to teach us, what to have us understand?
John warns us that he can only write a little of what is true of Jesus: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (John 21 verse 25.)
If all we can see is a small, small piece of the whole -- if only this tiny window can be passed down to us -- how arrogant is it to think that we understand the whole truth?
As also with Islam. Mohammed's last sermon says there are two guides to a holy life: "I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah and if you follow these you will never go astray."
The Sunnah, Mohammed's example, is his life: he is saying live as I have lived, to be holy. For this reason biographies of the life of Mohammed are studied with extraordinary rigor - yet all of them are at the very best stories told second hand by observers, and even the best and most faithful of observers and biographers is necessarily an editor, a discarder of infinite nuance and observation in favor of the few, precious few things that can be chosen, an interpreter with his/her own biases, judgments, and thoughts -- we cannot help but be this.
Absolute truth is unknowable, even in the places we seek it.
Mohammed knew this. He rejected the concept of an absolute truth that could in principle be known; he called for reason and the development of understanding over generations: "Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you " he said - and "may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly." (All quotes from Mohammed's last sermon.) This is a call to reason. Mohammed expected each generation to apply reason, and to assume the responsibility to understand better than their predecessors.
There may be absolute truth. It is arrogant to the point of folly-- and arrogant beyond the claims of the founders of our faiths for us -- to think we can know it.
That does not absolve us of the responsibility to seek the core truths the founders of our faiths wanted us to hold. But it should teach us considerable humility about any claims that we have found it, and considerable skepticism when we hear that claim from others.
Posted November 17, 2006 6:57 PM
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham, Sally Quinn and William Tully. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/william_tully/
| 38.882353 | 0.294118 | 0.294118 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601360.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601360.html
|
Eugene Robinson - Blood Money - washingtonpost.com
|
2006111919
|
O.J. Simpson's forthcoming book, "If I Did It," could launch a profitable new series for publisher Judith Regan and her parent company, Rupert Murdoch's media empire. Let me suggest that she follow up with another snuff book, maybe "If I Shot My Wife in the Head," by Robert Blake, and then diversify into non-capital crimes with "If I Molested All Those Kids," by Michael Jackson.
Anyone who thinks I'm kidding probably clings to the illusion that Regan and the Fox television network have a morsel, a crumb, a mote, an iota of residual shame in what's left of their souls. Sorry, but the evidence shows otherwise.
Of course, many people thought the evidence showed that Simpson was guilty as hell. But Johnnie Cochran isn't around anymore, so maybe Regan and Fox will be showered with the opprobrium they deserve for letting the Juice do this booty-shaking end zone dance on the graves of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Suppose you were put on trial for butchering your ex-wife and her lover in a blood-soaked frenzy -- not that you'd ever do such a thing, of course, but going hypothetical is all the rage -- and a brilliant lawyer managed to get you acquitted, despite copious evidence of your guilt. Wouldn't you withdraw permanently into quiet obscurity? Whether your life was a burning hell of remorse or a sunny stroll up manicured fairways, wouldn't you want to live it out of the public eye? Maybe, say, raise horses in deepest Paraguay?
Instead, Simpson has interrupted his lonely, relentless search for "the real killer" to write and promote "If I Did It," which reportedly gives a detailed, gory, ostensibly fictional account of the murders he says he didn't commit.
I'm sure he needs the money. It's not as if he's going to be invited into the "Monday Night Football" booth anytime soon or offered a cameo in the next Ben Stiller movie. But this abomination goes beyond exploitation of a brutal crime for financial gain. This is pathological.
Only a narcissist of the first order would be compelled to revisit the scene of the crime and walk us through the butchery, knowing that no one would take his use of "if" or "would have" as anything but a mocking formality -- knowing that everyone would read the book as a true confession of his sins. Only a textbook narcissist would have such a warped need to bask once again in the limelight.
Memo to the Juice: Please go away. And take Regan with you. A former "reporter" for the National Enquirer, Regan became a sensation in the publishing world by satisfying humanity's bottomless appetite for slickly packaged trash. Her imprint, ReganBooks, is a division of HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. "If I Did It" will be featured on Fox, also owned by Murdoch, for two nights later this month (after NBC, to its credit, turned Regan down). Fox plans to air a two-night "interview" in which Regan converses with Simpson about his contribution to literature and his theoretical prowess as a psycho killer. It is no coincidence that the "interview" comes amid the November sweeps period, when ratings translate into cold cash.
For those keeping score, that's money for Simpson from the book, money for Regan from the book and lots of money for Murdoch, from both the book and the expected big TV ratings.
It has been reported that Regan paid Simpson $3.5 million for "If I Did It," though she declines to reveal how much she shelled out. Whatever the amount, how does Simpson hope to keep and spend that money without having to surrender it to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, who won a $33.5 million judgment against him in civil court but have yet to collect? I have to assume that Murdoch's lawyers are too smart to engineer some dodge, such as paying the money to a third party or wiring it to an offshore account. I also have to assume that somehow, whatever machinations are necessary, the Juice intends to get paid.
The saddest aspect of this travesty is that Regan knows the book will sell and Fox knows the Simpson "interview" will score huge ratings. They have studied our weaknesses and calculated that sensation always trumps honor.
Please join me in not buying the book or watching the Fox infomercial. We'll feel cleaner for it.
|
O.J. Simpson's forthcoming book, "If I Did It," could launch a profitable new series for publisher Judith Regan and her parent company, Rupert Murdoch's media empire. Let me suggest that she follow up with another snuff book, maybe "If I Shot My Wife in the Head," by Robert Blake, and then diversify into non-capital crimes with "If I Molested All Those Kids," by Michael Jackson....
| 10.52381 | 0.988095 | 82.011905 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701641.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701641.html
|
Republicans Lost Ground With Latinos In Midterms
|
2006111919
|
Two years ago, Latino voters gravitated in larger-than-ever numbers toward President Bush, the former governor of Texas, a Mexican border state, and his brother Jeb, the loquacious Florida governor who speaks fluent Spanish.
Pollsters generally agree that the same voters abandoned the president's party in droves during last week's elections, with Latinos giving the GOP only 30 percent of their vote as strident House immigration legislation inspired by Republicans and tough-talking campaign ads by conservative candidates roiled the community. It was a 10-point drop from the lowest estimated Latino vote percentage two years ago, and a 14-point drop from the highest.
Depending on who did the counting, pollsters said in 2004 that Latinos handed GOP candidates between 40 percent and 44 percent of their vote -- a historic Republican windfall -- as the Bush brothers appealed to their socially conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage.
"I think you have to look at the Republican effort on immigration as a catastrophic mistake in a year when they made many mistakes," said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network. "They now know that the Republican Party is hostile to Hispanics, which is something they didn't know two years ago. That's a big burden for them to overcome."
Latinos by and large supported the millions of marchers who protested House immigration proposals in the spring, and there are recent signs that Republicans are working to bring them back to the party.
Republicans worked hard this week to get the word out that they had appointed Cuban American Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) to lead the Republican National Committee. On Wednesday, the RNC dispatched an e-mail message in which about 20 conservatives praised the appointment.
"Martinez would give the party tremendous legitimacy among the growing Hispanic voter base," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "He's an absolute rock star in the Hispanic community."
But one comment, from the Rev. Luis Cortés Jr., founder of Esperanza USA, a network of Latino Christian groups, reads like a velvet slap, mixing praise with criticism.
"A lot of the Republican candidates chose immigration as the wedge issue, and polls seem to bear out that it was an error for them to do that," Cortés said. "And I think Mel Martinez, because of his life story, is a perfect person to help them find their way back from that era."
Latinos are the nation's largest ethnic minority at more than 14 million. Their voting pool is smaller than the African American community's, but it is growing and is eagerly courted by both major parties for its potential to turn future elections.
In 2004, it was the Democrats who were frustrated. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) performed so poorly among Latinos, relative to historical voting, that a frustrated Rosenberg praised the Republican strategy of appealing to the group, particularly in Texas, New Mexico and Florida, and lambasted Kerry for failing to reach an important segment of the Democratic base.
|
Two years ago, Latino voters gravitated in larger-than-ever numbers toward President Bush, the former governor of Texas, a Mexican border state, and his brother Jeb, the loquacious Florida governor who speaks fluent Spanish.
| 13.930233 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701770.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701770.html
|
Party Shift May Make Warming a Hill Priority
|
2006111919
|
Dramatic changes in congressional oversight of environmental issues may pump new life into efforts to fight global warming, activist groups and lawmakers said yesterday.
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) announced his intention to become the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, now headed by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has said that global warming is a hoax. Warner has called for action against climate change, and his ascension to a leadership post would accelerate significant changes already underway.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- a liberal who has called global warming a dire threat -- is in line to chair the committee in the next Congress as a result of last week's elections, which will give Democrats the Senate majority. Environmentalists have been hailing her impending replacement of Inhofe as chairman. Warner's takeover of the ranking minority member's slot, they said yesterday, would raise even greater hopes for advancing their agenda.
"That could drastically change the way that committee operates," said Karen Steuer, government affairs chief at the National Environmental Trust. "We might see, on a number of issues, bipartisan legislation coming out of that committee, and that would be a huge step forward. . . . In one fell swoop, it's gone from the Dark Ages to the Space Age."
First, however, GOP senators must decide whether Warner's seniority on the committee grants him the right to be the ranking Republican. Inhofe issued a statement saying that he thinks Warner "has misunderstood the rules" and that "I intend to retain my leadership position in the 110th Congress, returning as the Ranking Member" of the environment committee.
Warner responded in a statement: "I carefully reviewed the rules in consultation with the Secretary of the Majority, who assures me that my seniority on the Committee forms a clear basis, under longstanding precedent" for claiming the top Republican spot. Warner will surrender the Armed Services Committee chairmanship and assert his party leadership claim on the environmental panel.
Senate aides said seniority traditionally determines who obtains ranking status. They noted that in 1987, the Foreign Relations Committee's Republicans wanted Richard G. Lugar (Ind.) to be the panel's ranking Republican, but the full party caucus overruled them and gave the slot to the more senior Jesse Helms (N.C.). The 110th Congress's GOP senators will vote on committee positions by Jan. 3.
Whoever is the top Republican on the environment committee, Boxer said in an interview yesterday that she plans aggressive hearings on environmental concerns, especially climate change. "There is a pent-up desire on the part of many people in the country to get back to making progress on the environment," she said, adding that she plans "to roll out a pretty in-depth set of hearings on global warming."
If the government does not do more to limit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, Boxer said, "we will be facing economic decline and environmental ruin." Having Warner replace Inhofe as the committee's top Republican, she said, would send "a very different signal."
Warner said recently, "I am committed to market-based measures and investments in new commercial technologies to slow the rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions as we continue to gather further sound scientific evidence to guide national and international decision-making."
Many scientists and environmental groups have accused the Bush administration of doing far too little to address climate change. The United States is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but it ranks 53rd -- ahead of only China, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia -- in combating the problem, according to a report released this week by environmental groups.
The House also will see significant changes in the committees that handle environmental legislation and oversight. On the Energy and Commerce Committee, ranking minority member John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) will become chairman, replacing Joe Barton (R-Tex.). The Government Reform Committee, which conducts oversight of entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency, will be headed by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), known for aggressive investigations.
Dingell, because of his ties to the Michigan-based automobile industry, has shown caution in pressing for new standards on emissions and fuel efficiency. Boxer acknowledged that even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, President Bush has veto power, and legislative achievements will be limited.
"Maybe I want to take the ball 50 yards, but I can take it only 30," she said. That still will mean progress, she said, adding: "It isn't going to help any business, it isn't going to help anybody if we do nothing about global warming."
|
Dramatic changes in congressional oversight of environmental issues may pump new life into efforts to fight global warming, activist groups and lawmakers said yesterday.
| 35.538462 | 1 | 26 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701640.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701640.html
|
Court Battle Likely on Affirmative Action
|
2006111919
|
DETROIT -- In the wake of a decisive Nov. 7 vote to prohibit race- and gender-based preferences in employment, education and contracting, leaders in government and academia who fought to preserve affirmative action are now hurrying to assess the impact. Officials said the response is likely to start with a court challenge.
Business and civic leaders who opposed the anti-affirmative-action measure are gathered here on Friday to develop a strategy. The University of Michigan Board of Regents is also meeting, with announcements expected soon. At City Hall, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) is drafting an ordinance that would favor companies based in the city, which is more than 80 percent African American.
"The voters went to the polls and Proposition 2 passed, and we have to live with it now," said Matt Allen, the mayor's spokesman. "As of December 22, there can be no more gender or race preferences."
The first attempt to block the new law in court was filed soon after the election, although courts have upheld a similar California law.
"There will be both offense lawsuits and defensive lawsuits filed to understand what this actually means for Michigan," said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the Michigan office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I do think it's necessary for the courts to slow this thing down and . . . interpret some of the language."
Supporters of Proposal 2 are ecstatic at the showing at the polls, where 58 percent of voters backed the new law. Jennifer Gratz, who earned headlines for suing the University of Michigan over admissions policy in a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2003, returned home to lead the fight, backed by Ward Connerly, who bankrolled similar battles in California and Washington.
"Rather than challenging the law," Gratz said in a telephone interview from Lansing, "they should be looking at real solutions."
Michiganders who voted to end affirmative action in the public sphere -- private entities, both companies and universities, are not bound by the new law -- said it is unfair to give extra credit to people based on sex or race. Analysts believe Proposal 2 benefited from the impression that whites are losing out and from economic insecurity in a state where unemployment is 6.9 percent, or 50 percent higher than the national average.
"The proponents of this initiative packaged it and sold a bill of goods to Michigan voters, and played into the fears we have," said Linda Parker, director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, who said backers "deliberately racialized the issue." She is studying contracting rules and talking with California counterparts.
Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm (D) and her Republican opponent, businessman Dick DeVos, opposed Proposal 2, as did much of the state's government, business and civic elite.
One person they failed to persuade is Anne Taylor, a marketing manager in Troy, near Detroit.
"It's not that I'm prejudiced. I feel equality should be universal. No one should get preferential treatment," said Taylor, 43. "Some minorities have an entitled feeling, 'You owe me something based on what my ancestors did to your ancestors.' How long does it go on?"
During the campaign, Gratz asked whether it was right for the son of a black doctor to be admitted to school or hired in place of an impoverished student whose parents did not attend college.
That argument resonated with countless Michigan voters who suspect they are losing out. A human resources worker in Troy who voted for Proposal 2 said she knows a young white woman with a stellar academic record denied admission to Michigan State University. She blames affirmative action, as do some whose children failed to get into the University of Michigan.
"It is a common human misperception, but it is factually and mathematically wrong. Many great students can't get in here because it is just so competitive," said University of Michigan spokeswoman Julie A. Peterson. This year, there are 330 African Americans in a freshman class of 5,300.
UM President Mary Sue Coleman vowed to fight on. At a rally the day after the votes were counted, she said she will consider "every legal option."
"I am standing here today to tell you that I will not allow this university to go down the path of mediocrity," Coleman said. "That is not Michigan. Diversity makes us strong, and it is too critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence and too critical to our future to simply abandon."
Gratz, a successful white high school student, sued after being placed on UM's waiting list, contending that the consideration of race was unfair. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in June 2003 that race could be considered and that diversity is a worthy educational goal.
To back the contention that Gratz did not suffer because of race, the university points out that 1,400 white and Asian students with lower grades or test scores than hers were admitted that year, while 2,000 whites and Asians with higher test scores were denied admission.
Gratz, now 29, went to school elsewhere, earned a mathematics degree and worked as a product manager before quitting her job in 2003 to work full time on Proposal 2. Her battle has lasted nearly 10 years, and she said she would not hesitate to do it again.
She argues that universities and employers should look to socioeconomic factors, such as an impoverished upbringing, while discounting race. Economic elements "should be taken into account, regardless of your skin color."
As for diversity, she pronounces it a "great thing."
"I think it happens naturally," Gratz said, "and I don't think government should engineer it."
Fresh from her triumph, she is mulling over "where we should consider going next -- what other states -- and how we move this country back to the promise of colorblind government."
|
DETROIT -- In the wake of a decisive Nov. 7 vote to prohibit race- and gender-based preferences in employment, education and contracting, leaders in government and academia who fought to preserve affirmative action are now hurrying to assess the impact. Officials said the response is likely to start...
| 21.462963 | 0.981481 | 52.018519 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700873.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700873.html
|
Bo Schembechler, 77; Stormy Michigan Coach
|
2006111919
|
Bo Schembechler, 77, the fiery, hard-nosed coach who made the University of Michigan a perennial college football power, collapsed Nov. 17 while taping his weekly football analysis program at a television studio in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, Mich. The attending cardiologist at Providence Hospital in Southfield said, "His heart just stopped."
Mr. Schembechler had a long history of heart trouble and also was stricken during a taping of his show Oct. 20. In recent interviews, he described a device implanted to regulate his heartbeat.
"I'm alive because of medical science," he said. "As my doctors say, I'm a miracle."
He died one day before the annual showdown between his former team and arch-rival Ohio State University. Ohio State is ranked No. 1 in the country, and Michigan is No. 2; both teams have 11-0 records.
During his 21 years as head coach from 1969 through 1989, Mr. Schembechler led his Michigan team to 194 wins, 48 losses and 5 ties, giving him the most victories in school history. His teams won or shared 13 Big Ten championships and played in 17 bowl games, including 10 Rose Bowls.
Mr. Schembechler never won a national championship, but his tough, defensive-minded teams were ranked in the Top 10 in 16 of his 21 seasons at Michigan and finished No. 2 in 1985. During the 1970s, Michigan had the nation's best regular-season record, at 96-10-3. He coached 37 All-Americans, including Dan Dierdorf, Anthony Carter, Butch Woolfolk and Jim Harbaugh.
When Mr. Schembechler retired after 27 years as a head coach -- including six at Miami University of Ohio -- his career record of 234-65-8 gave him the fifth-most wins in college football coaching history. He never had a losing season.
Stalking the sidelines in his blue baseball cap and tinted glasses, Mr. Schembechler often berated referees and his own players and coaches -- all to calculated effect.
"Let's be honest," he once said. "There's something about a temper that affects people. Particularly in football. You can charge up a team, make the referees think, inspire your assistants -- or just plain scare the hell out of somebody. Everything is for a purpose."
In some ways, he resembled his longtime nemesis and early mentor, Woody Hayes of Ohio State. They had known each other since 1949, when Hayes was coach at Miami of Ohio, where Mr. Schembechler was an undersized lineman. Mr. Schembechler later spent six years as an assistant coach under Hayes at Ohio State.
From 1969 to 1978, when Hayes retired, the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry acquired a personal dimension as Mr. Schembechler faced his one-time teacher across the field. Their battles became known as the "Ten Year War," in which Mr. Schembechler prevailed with a record of 5-4-1.
"I must admit I enjoyed my 10 years with Woody more than the other games I played against Ohio State," Mr. Schembechler said in a 2003 interview with the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. "You've got to understand, I was set to beat one and only one team. I only wanted Ohio State. My greatest challenge in coaching was to beat Woody."
|
One day before Michigan and Ohio State play the biggest game of the season, former Wolverines Coach Bo Schembechler dies after collapsing during the taping of a television show.
| 20.25 | 0.75 | 1.3125 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111702000.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111702000.html
|
Bo Knew Toughness
|
2006111919
|
The phone rang at about 11:15 yesterday morning. My friend and producer Matt Kelliher was calling with the news that Bo Schembechler had collapsed while taping a television show and was in critical condition in a suburban Detroit hospital. My reaction was completely nonchalant.
Schembechler was 77 years old. He had a 37-year history of heart disease and was diabetic. But it hardly crossed my mind that Schembechler would die now -- not on the eve of the biggest Michigan-Ohio State game ever, not the morning after addressing the Wolverines in Ann Arbor, Mich., before they would set out for Columbus, Ohio. Schembechler was one of those men you couldn't really see giving in to death. His life was one stubborn comeback after another. Bo himself called it cheating death.
Schembechler did that on the eve of his first Rose Bowl in 1970. He did it after his quadruple bypass in 1976.
He slipped right past death after his second heart attack, in 1987, and once again after his second quadruple bypass in December of that same year. Just last month, after collapsing in that same television studio, Bo spent a few days in the hospital and emerged, his photo appearing under the newspaper headline, "I'm a Miracle!" It's hard to imagine anybody was tougher than Glenn Schembechler. During that hospital stay, a nurse reportedly asked Schembechler how much he weighed and he answered, "205 pounds of twisted blue steel."
The next phone call, just after noon, brought the news that Schembechler had died, unbelievably about 27 hours before "The Game" was to kick off. Almost immediately, we began seeing the clips of Bo stalking the sideline, or Bo and Woody Hayes, or Bo throwing a clipboard to the ground with such force he fell on his can . . . probably at the Rose Bowl, a game that he failed to win in his first five trips.
Even Schembechler had to die sometime, and there's something poetic about him dying now, at a time we can fully immerse ourselves in "The Game," in his role in making it the single greatest college football rivalry in America, in his charismatic 21-year run as head coach at the University of Michigan.
Truth is, I was one of those sons of the Midwest who grew up hating Michigan. There was no real reason to hate the Wolverines; probably it was because my brother Don loved them, loved Bo. But even as a teenager, I came to realize you only hate worthy teams, winners, consistent powerhouses who didn't appear to need any help or assistance in beating anybody, teams such as the Yankees and Celtics, Notre Dame and Michigan.
I always rooted for Ohio State to beat Michigan, so it was stunning to see undefeated and top-ranked Ohio State, one win from a shot at a second straight national championship in 1969, lose to Michigan and its first-year coach, Bo Schembechler, 24-12. The whole thing must have overwhelmed Bo, too, because he had a heart attack six weeks later.
Of course, after that, it was on. Michigan had three straight seasons ruined by Hayes and the Buckeyes. Hayes wouldn't refer to Michigan by name, only as "the school up north." The saddest thing about Hayes hitting that Clemson player in some bowl game at the end of the 1978 season was that Bo vs. Woody was done forever. The rivalry endures, but it's not as much fun. The games aren't as Neanderthal. During the Ten-Year War, as it's called in the Midwest, Woody's Ohio State teams threw a total of three touchdown passes, and Bo's Michigan teams threw a grand total of four. Nobody scored more than 24 points.
It took Schembechler six tries to win a Rose Bowl, and I reveled in every defeat. I wondered why Bo seemed to take all of his football philosophy from Hayes, under whom he played for one season at Miami (Ohio), and none from the father of the passing game, Sid Gillman, who coached Schembechler his first three years in college. Every trip to Pasadena against those modern-passing Pacific-10 schools would bring Bo so much misery.
"Five times, my team and myself have been lower than a snake's belly," Schembechler said in reflection.
He coached the Wolverines long enough for me to become a sportswriter, covering college football for The Washington Post in the mid-1980s. I remember being completely nervous before an interview that had been set up in Schembechler's office in Ann Arbor. I was told I had 10 minutes. Bo wasn't as big as I expected, but he looked younger. His voice sounded exactly the way I imagined Gen. George Patton's voice sounding.
He sort of barked at me, "You're pretty young to be working for The Washington Post. . . . Where did you go to school, young man?" I told him I'd gone to Northwestern and he said, "Did you know I worked as an assistant at Northwestern?" I had run across that in his résumé the night before. I didn't know he had coached with a fellow named George Steinbrenner on Ara Parseghian's staff in the late 1950s.
Schembechler told me stories about his two years at Northwestern. We talked about how difficult it was to win there.
My 10 minutes turned into 20, then 30. He was a lot of things Woody Hayes wasn't, such as interested in the world outside football. He had the cadence of a great orator and wasted no words. God, the man could talk.
Lou Holtz, the former great coach who is now an ESPN analyst, likes to say that "Bo could convince you a banana was really an orange. You'd wind up saying, 'Yep, it's an orange.' "
So, just like most Ohioans who met Bo Schembechler, I had to make a concession, that I couldn't possibly dislike him, even though he never won a national championship. He was too charismatic, too smart, ran too clean a program at a time when, say, the Southwest Conference was a shambles and about to disintegrate. He also was a fine enough coach to win 10 games 11 times in his years at Michigan. He told me not to screw up my career, to make my school proud, and sent me on my way.
Bo only coached three or four more seasons after that; fittingly, he beat Ohio State in his final try to get to the Rose Bowl one last time.
But that didn't mean his influence at Michigan was waning. (Even President Bush, from Hanoi, issued a statement of condolence upon hearing of Schembechler's death.)
Bo, in fact, does have one NCAA championship to his credit . . . well, probably.
In 1989, when the Michigan basketball team was preparing to start the NCAA tournament, Bill Frieder had accepted the head coaching position at Arizona State but planned to coach Michigan in the tournament. Schembechler, then Michigan's athletic director, testily said: "I don't want someone from Arizona State coaching the Michigan team. A Michigan man is going to coach Michigan." And with that, Frieder was shown the door, and Schembechler replaced him with Steve Fisher . . . who led the Wolverines to the Final Four, then the NCAA championship. Most athletic directors would have let lame duck Frieder stay, but not Bo.
So "The Game" goes on Saturday, as it should. Some folks, even those in Ohio who grieve for Schembechler at the same time as they hope the Buckeyes whip the Wolverines, still don't believe Bo is really dead. A friend of a friend joked yesterday afternoon that Bo Schembechler, considering what's at stake today, probably ducked out of that TV studio in suburban Detroit and checked into a hotel in Southfield or someplace, giving his Wolverines the ultimate motivational device. And given the pleasure he got out of beating Ohio State and cheating death, how great a weekend would that make? Only if it could be true.
|
Even Glenn "Bo" Schembechler had to die sometime, but there's something poetic about him dying now, on the eve of No. 2 Michigan playing No. 1 Ohio State.
| 44.055556 | 0.916667 | 3.972222 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111702069.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111702069.html
|
No Secrets Here: Federalist Society Plots In the Open
|
2006111919
|
The pinstriped tribe of conservative legal minds called the Federalist Society -- more than 1,000 of whom gathered at the Mayflower Hotel this week -- is playing a much longer strategic game. Yesterday they had Sen. Arlen Specter at breakfast, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff before lunch and Vice President Cheney at cocktail hour. The message: full speed ahead with the movement.
"Some people now have taken up the idea that, really, the Federalist Society is kind of like a modern-day da Vinci conspiracy, a secret society that controls all the legal jobs and all the legal decision-making in the administration," Chertoff quipped. "And of course that is nonsense."
Except, um . . . what about all those Cabinet secretaries, White House lawyers, Justice Department memo writers and appeals court nominees who are so tight with the society? Not to mention Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a longtime Federalist and Thursday's dinner speaker.
As Cheney said, to big, big applause from the audience of more than 600: "And I assure you, nothing that's happened in the last two weeks" -- what election? -- "will change [President Bush's] commitment to nominating first-rate talent like John Roberts and Sam Alito."
A society executive vice president took time off last year to help the administration with court confirmations. These are people who consider Alito's age, 56, do the actuarial math, and smile: This Federalist is likely to be interpreting the Constitution for another quarter-century or so. That's the long game.
The annual three-day convention was the time to take stock of how far the Federalists have come since they set out to change the debate in America 24 years ago -- another longish game, which they are playing superbly.
The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies started with a group of conservative and libertarian law professors and students in the Midwest and elsewhere who saw what they believed was a great liberal-activist orthodoxy ensconced everywhere from the classroom to the courtroom. The Federalists believed in limited government, separation of powers and, as stated in their intellectual battle slogan, that "the province and duty of the judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it should be."
Now the group claims about 40,000 members and associates, student chapters on all 180 or so law school campuses, and 70 more chapters for lawyers and judges. The budget from foundations, individuals and corporations is about $7 million.
The intellectual jousting has taken place in the open, with student chapters inviting conservatives to debate tweedy liberal professors.
"If there's a real secret, it's a secret to me, too," said society President Eugene Meyer.
|
Election? What election? The pinstriped tribe of conservative legal minds called the Federalist Society -- more than 1,000 of whom gathered at the Mayflower Hotel this week -- is playing a much longer strategic game. Yesterday they had Sen. Arlen Specter at breakfast, Homeland Security Secretary...
| 10.470588 | 0.980392 | 39.960784 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701215.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701215.html
|
Pepco Petitions To Boost Md. Rates
|
2006111919
|
Pepco yesterday asked Maryland regulators for a sharp increase in its electricity distribution fees, which would lead to a 3.9 percent increase in residential consumers' overall electric bills.
If approved, the higher fees would go into effect in mid-June 2007, and the typical bill for a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month would increase $5.33 from $135.94 to $141.27.
The proposed increase, which would be the first in distribution fees in a decade for Pepco's more than half-million Maryland customers, was a result of higher labor costs and prices for transformers and copper wire, the company said.
On June 1, a 39 percent boost in the total bill for typical Pepco customers went into effect to cover higher fuel costs, the biggest component of electricity bills.
If granted by the Maryland Public Service Commission, the new increase would equal $55.7 million, 17.5 percent more than the $317.8 million now being collected by Pepco for distribution, according to Thomas H. Graham, president of Pepco Region, a unit of Pepco Holdings Inc. He said that while steep, that figure was less than the 24 percent hike in consumer prices since the last distribution rate increase.
"Though cost is an important factor," Graham said in an interview, "a reliable system is even more important."
After this year's political storm over sharp rate increases requested by Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s Baltimore Gas and Electric unit, Pepco is sensitive about the potential political fallout from the rate request. Pepco's bond ratings were cut twice this year because of concerns about the state's political and regulatory environment, Graham said. He said the company briefed aides to Maryland's governor-elect, Martin O'Malley, on Thursday.
"They need to go through the process and justify what they're asking for," said O'Malley aide Steve Kearney, who said that he and a lawyer for O'Malley were briefed for about five minutes on Thursday about Pepco's plans.
O'Malley has vowed to replace the members of the Public Service Commission shortly after taking office on Jan. 17. Because the members' terms will not have ended, O'Malley will have to provide cause for their termination, which could lead to a court fight, or he and state lawmakers will have to pass new legislation reconstituting the commission. Kearney said he expects new regulators to be on board before Pepco's request is implemented.
Pepco serves most of the close-in Washington suburbs in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The utility also serves Washington and is expected to file next month for distribution-rate increases in the city, where those rates have been fixed since 2000.
Because distribution makes up only 21 percent of the typical household electric bill, the impact on overall rates is much smaller than the proposed increase in distribution fees alone. Graham said that in the last three years the cost of transformers had doubled and the cost of electric cable had jumped 85 percent.
"Distribution rates haven't been raised in a really long time," acknowledged Johanna Neumann, policy advocate for Maryland Public Interest Research Group. "To some extent this doesn't come as a surprise."
Staff writer John Wagner contributed to this report.
|
Pepco yesterday asked Maryland regulators for a sharp increase in its electricity distribution fees, which would lead to a 3.9 percent increase in residential consumers' overall electric bills.
| 20 | 1 | 31 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701677.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701677.html
|
To Teach, Col. Asked to Be Put in War Zone
|
2006111919
|
Army Col. Thomas H. Felts Sr. believed he'd be instructing other officers someday, so he wanted to experience life in a war zone. He volunteered for Iraq duty to prepare himself to become a military teacher.
Felts, 45, a father of four from Sandston, Va., was killed Tuesday in Baghdad when an explosive device detonated near his vehicle, according to the Defense Department. He had been scheduled to visit his family for Thanksgiving.
Felts, a University of Richmond graduate, led a team that was helping train the Iraqi army. His tour interrupted his studies at the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., home to his wife, Kim, and three daughters and son.
Peter Schifferle, an instructor at the school, said his friend could have chosen to remain in school but instead made the difficult decision to leave for Iraq. Schifferle said Felts thought the tour would help prepare him to teach others.
"Tom volunteered for that job even though he didn't have to," Schifferle said. "Although he was a colonel, he had never personally been in combat. He volunteered to leave his wife and children."
Yesterday at Fort Leavenworth, Felts's family and friends gathered for a memorial service.
Felts sang in his church choir and played the guitar, said his brother-in-law, John Waldrop. He talked to his family from Iraq nearly every day via webcam.
"He was the kind of person you wanted to be around and wanted to be like," Waldrop said.
Felts had been in the Army for 23 years and had served at bases across the country, including in Colorado and Texas, according to officials at Fort Leavenworth. He started his military career as a cavalry trooper with the Virginia Army National Guard and was in the Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of Richmond.
University of Richmond biology professor W. John Hayden recalled Felts as an inquisitive student who worked in his laboratory and helped him research the spotted-spurge plant. Hayden and Felts, who had a double major in biology and chemistry, would chat about science.
"He had a positive, can-do type of attitude," Hayden said. "It was, 'If that's what has to be done, we'll roll up our sleeves and do it.' "
Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
|
Army Col. Thomas H. Felts Sr. believed he'd be instructing other officers someday, so he wanted to experience life in a war zone. He volunteered for Iraq duty to prepare himself to become a military teacher.
| 11.119048 | 1 | 42 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701838.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701838.html
|
New Brain Trust Plans Microsoft's Future
|
2006111919
|
REDMOND, Wash. Gary Flake recalled scanning the faces of the three other senior Microsoft Corp. executives at a meeting last month and noticing that, like himself, they were new to the company.
They had all been key players in Internet services, a field that threatens the empire of desktop software that made Microsoft one of the world's most influential corporations. Before the meeting was over, he said, the executives agreed to complete this Internet coup -- from the inside.
"We had this realization," Flake, a senior engineer, said after the meeting adjourned. "We came to Microsoft to change the world. But the only way we're going to change the world is we're going to change Microsoft."
Never before in its 30-year history has Microsoft faced a more pressing need to turn its innovative prowess inward and remake itself. The company that became synonymous with computing for hundreds of millions of users worldwide is confronting an onslaught by rivals bent on stripping away Microsoft's customers by providing cheaper -- or free -- software over the Web.
Microsoft faces a dilemma common to many major corporations, including telephone companies, newspapers and automakers, as they wrestle with how to break loose from their traditional businesses before it's too late. Many have been unable to cannibalize their core operations, remaining intoxicated by the high profits they still provide. But the burden of maintaining the old businesses that made them titans can starve companies of the investment and initiative they need to innovate.
In the next several weeks, Microsoft plans to release new versions of the software responsible for its profitability and industry clout: a more sophisticated version of its Windows operating system called Vista and an updated business-productivity suite called Office 2007. Those two marquee products embody the essence of desktop computing and are on track for release to businesses on Nov. 30 and to consumers in January, Chairman Bill Gates said this week at the company's annual shareholders meeting.
Microsoft is at the same time reinvigorating its effort to scale the heights of the Internet with the release of Office Live, an Internet service for small businesses unrelated to the desktop programs Word and Excel that offers Web sites, domain names, company e-mail accounts and shared online workspaces. The service is part of Microsoft's bid to thread the Internet through its many of products and platforms, including game consoles, media players and corporate servers. Chief executive Steven A. Ballmer told shareholders that online services, along with entertainment, would drive growth in the future.
But for now, Windows and Office account for most of the company's revenue, an estimated $6.7 billion in the past quarter, about 62 percent of the total. And they present a fundamental challenge: each new release carries the baggage of the past because it must be compatible with all the software and hardware that ran on earlier versions.
Tens of thousands of engineering hours were spent on Vista, analysts said. It contains about 50 million lines of computer code, 40 percent more than the previous version of the operating system, Windows XP.
All that is hamstringing Microsoft's efforts at competing online.
"When I came to the company, I could see some people really got it with respect to the shift in the industry," Ray Ozzie, a celebrated engineer who joined Microsoft last year, said last week at an Internet conference in San Francisco. But, he added, "some people were heads down working on Vista, working on Office."
This is not the first time Microsoft and its 70,000 employees have revised its Internet strategy. But in the five years since Windows XP was released, the success of Microsoft's online ventures has taken on new urgency as high-speed Internet access proliferated, software migrated online and Web advertising spawned new media models.
|
This is your source for news on personal technology. Find info and reviews on the newest technology that affects your life. Read our latest features on new tech gadgets.
| 21.441176 | 0.382353 | 0.5 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700613.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700613.html
|
3 Detainees At Guantanamo Are Released To Albania
|
2006111919
|
Three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorism suspects have been released to Albania, months after authorities determined they were no longer "enemy combatants," officials said yesterday.
The State Department announced that the Albanian government agreed to accept an Algerian national, an Egyptian national and an ethnic Uzbek who was born in the former Soviet Union. Their names were not released.
The three were the last of 38 detainees to be released after a U.S. combatant-status review determined that they were no longer enemy combatants. It took months for the State Department to find countries that would accept the former terrorism suspects, and in the meantime they were held separately at one of six camps at the Guantanamo Bay compound. That camp will be closed, Pentagon officials said.
"The United States has done the utmost to ensure that these three detainees will be treated humanely upon release," the Pentagon said in a news release. "Our key objective has been to resettle these detainees in an environment that will permit them to rebuild their lives. Albania will provide this opportunity."
There are still about 430 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon said. Some have been held since the detention center opened in January 2002.
According to the Pentagon's count, since 2002, approximately 345 detainees have left Guantanamo for other countries.
|
Three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorism suspects have been released to Albania, months after authorities determined they were no longer "enemy combatants," officials said yesterday.
| 7.727273 | 1 | 33 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701642.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701642.html
|
Some of China's Stories Untold At Exhibit on Human Rights
|
2006111919
|
BEIJING, Nov. 17 -- There were two Chinas on display at the Beijing Folk Culture Plaza on Friday, as an exhibition on human rights began a 10-day run.
The exhibit, the first of its kind in China, extolled the virtues of China's constitution and "grass-roots democracy." It featured color propaganda photos, heavy-handed security and a nervous exhibit director who snatched papers away from an elderly man talking to a Western reporter. There was no mention at the exhibit of China's human rights abuses.
That was one China. But the other could be seen in the exhibit's very existence, and in the ways that potential troublemakers were treated.
The elderly man, who said he had come to Beijing to file a complaint against a corrupt village government, was encouraged to leave but was not booted from the exhibit. And when another man, a retired magazine editor, interrupted a presentation, he was allowed to continue.
"Petitioners who come to Beijing are kidnapped. In Hebei province, police shot people to death in Dingzhou," shouted the man, Tian Guan, 73. "Why not include those pictures? What's up with that? Does that reflect respect for human rights?"
As security guards moved in, the presenter, Dong Yunhu, vice president and secretary general of the China Society for Human Rights Studies, said: "Let him speak, let him speak. It doesn't matter."
"We just want to provide an apple and let the public know the taste of an apple," Dong said later.
On display were photos of migrant workers with labor contracts and peasants collecting welfare. Job opportunities are increasing, and the Communist Party is promoting democracy and encouraging people to take part in politics, signs said.
In this version of China, officials have nearly stamped out illiteracy, and police and prosecutors are present at outdoor tables in residential neighborhoods to listen to complaints.
Absent were stories routinely censored from the mainland media about rural unrest: the theft of property and wages by corrupt local officials; the intimidation of independent candidates for local political office; and the beatings by local police of petitioners who dared to come to Beijing to pursue their grievances.
On display was a sanitized history of China from 1840, when imperialist foreign powers arrived, until 1949, when the Communist Party took control. China can be forgiven for not having a perfect system of human rights, exhibit organizers said, because the human rights of Chinese were violated by foreigners for so many years.
Also absent from the exhibits was any mention of Tibet, where rights activists have chronicled the persecution of those loyal to the Dalai Lama, the exiled religious leader. The only photo of Tiananmen Square, site of the famed 1989 protests, showed thousands of people practicing tai chi.
|
BEIJING, Nov. 17 -- There were two Chinas on display at the Beijing Folk Culture Plaza on Friday, as an exhibition on human rights began a 10-day run.
| 17.645161 | 1 | 31 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701769.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701769.html
|
U.N. Condemns Israeli Offensive
|
2006111919
|
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 17 -- The U.N. General Assembly voted 156 to 7 on Friday to condemn Israel for "indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force" in its military offensive in Gaza, during an emergency session that provided scores of U.N. members with a familiar platform to excoriate the Jewish state's policies in the region. Six countries abstained.
The vote came less than a week after the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing Israel for launching a Nov. 8 missile strike that killed 18 civilians in the town of Beit Hanoun. Palestinian representative Riyad Mansour opened the session by calling for "an end to this rampant Israeli campaign, which intends to destroy an entire people."
Friday's meeting comes in a year in which the United Nations' human rights bodies have intensified their focus on Israel's rights record. U.S. and Israeli officials said the Jewish state is being unfairly singled out by an organization that fails to adequately address Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli towns and has grown increasingly soft on some of the world's worst despots.
The United Nations' new Human Rights Council has passed three resolutions criticizing Israel for abuses during military operations in South Lebanon and Gaza. On Thursday, the 47-member body ordered a fact-finding mission to probe Israeli abuses in Gaza.
The Geneva-based rights council has not passed a single resolution condemning any other country, shielding some of the world's most oppressive regimes from international censure. Belarus and Uzbekistan, meanwhile, succeeded Thursday in gaining passage of a resolution in the General Assembly's Third Committee, which also deals with human rights, that seeks to shield countries from scrutiny of their human rights records.
U.S. officials said Friday's action in the General Assembly was undermining the institution's credibility. John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, accused anti-Israeli extremists of trying to "transform the organization into a forum that is little more than a self-serving and polemical attack against Israel or the United States."
"Since its inception earlier this year, the Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and delegitimized itself by focusing attention almost exclusively on Israel," Bolton said. "Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuse in Burma, Darfur, [North Korea] and other countries."
The council was created this year to improve the United Nations' capacity to confront the world's worst rights abusers. It replaced the Human Rights Commission, whose credibility suffered because of the membership of noted rights abusers, including Zimbabwe and Sudan.
The Bush administration decided not to join the new rights body, citing concerns that it would be manipulated by states with poor human rights records. But it agreed to approve financing for the rights body and participate as an observer.
European diplomats and rights advocates conceded that the new rights council has gotten off to a bad start. But they say it is too early to write it off as a failure.
One European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he had not been authorized by his government to speak to the press, said that they will begin to confront rights abusers. He noted that the council is already considering resolutions criticizing Sudan and Sri Lanka. "It's not even up and running," the diplomat said. "It has to find its feet."
But some human rights activists say the United States, the European Union and other traditional rights advocates have been outmaneuvered.
Peggy Hicks, a U.N. expert at the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said Islamic states have targeted Israel by making use of a provision of the council's bylaws that allows the convening of special sessions to address a specific country's abuses.
"There is a real movement by some states with incredibly poor human rights records to seize this moment to push back and make sure that U.N. isn't able to act on human rights," Hicks said.
U.N. diplomats, meanwhile, said the European Union, the United States and other Western governments are taking rights abusers to task. They noted that the General Assembly rights committee passed a resolution condemning North Korea's human rights record. Similar resolutions will be introduced on Belarus, Burma, Iran and Uzbekistan and will be put for a vote next week.
|
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.
| 17.891304 | 0.478261 | 0.521739 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/10/DI2006111001242.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/10/DI2006111001242.html
|
Post Politics Hour
|
2006111719
|
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
Washington Post national political reporter Shailagh Murray was online Friday, Nov. 17, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest political news and The Post's coverage of politics.
Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show.
Shailagh Murray: Hi everyone. I'm subbing today for...I'm not sure who. Maybe Jim. Anyway, the House Republicans are wrapping up their leadership elections right now, and shockingly have elected John Boehner and Roy Blunt to the top two posts. After the upheaval of the election, it's a good week for the status quo.
Let's get to the questions.
Chicago, Ill.: Geez, what is the big deal about Hoyer beating out Murtha? The entire media is saying how this is a crushing blow to Pelosi, blah blah blah.
The only thing that matters is if the Democrats deliver with legislation and oversight.
Everything else is just esoteric parlor games that no one outside of Washington/MSM really cares about.
Shailagh Murray: Well, you care! Or care enough to say you don't.
Anyway, it does matter that Hoyer beat Murtha. Nancy Pelosi did put her credibility on the line by trying to oust a very popular and successful colleague, in favor of someone with zero track record. She failed spectacularly. That's a judgment issue, and judgment is pretty crucial to leadership, whatever the task at hand.
To me it seems that out of the six major Dem priorities, raising the minimum wage is the biggest no-brainer and will be the most difficult bill for the President to veto. Do you think that this will pass through Congress quickly? Also what, if any, potential earmarks do you see attached to a minimum wage bill?
Shailagh Murray: You're right, the minimum wage should be a no brainer, especially as most states have already raised it. Plus, it doesn't cost the government anything. I heard some talk this week that Republicans may even attach it to one of the spending bills. Who knows if that will pan out or not. But it's the closest thing to a sure thing in Congress.
Zero track record?: Murtha had a track record going back to 1974. That was the problem!
Shailagh Murray: Zero track record in leadership. And putting the ethical issues aside, this was a serious concern for many Democrats, because running the House is a little more complicated than showing up at a TV studio.
Alpharetta, Ga.: For a long time, conservatism has been about dismantling the welfare state. One significant, maybe long-term realignment of '06, is regional. The South barely gave Democrats new seats, but I noticed that polling during Bush's Social Security proposal showed that Southerners tended to be opposed to his ideas on social security. (AP-Ipos, Peter Hart's private polling, etc.) How might that work in the long-term?
Shailagh Murray: Voters are forever telling pollsters that they care about this, that or the other thing. But it's not that simple. One problem for Democrats in the South is that it's intangibles that people hold against them -- the perceived cultural bias, the simplistic view of Southern history, the party's secular bent, etc. Although Harold Ford didn't win, what made him captivating as a candidate is that he addressed some of these invisible forces. Unfortunately for him, other invisible forces may have worked against him. But other Democrats have cracked this code, including Reps. Mike Ross of Arkansas and Lincoln Davis of Tennessee.
Rolla, Mo.: Is the defeat of Pelosi's choice really that important? Didn't Tom DeLay beat Newt Gingrich's handpicked choice for majority leader in 1994? Did it tarnish his star 9 days after the election?
Shailagh Murray: Maybe I didn't make this clear in my previous response. It doesn't really matter what you or I think of Pelosi and her support for Murtha. What matters is whether the Democratic members trust her to make good decisions, and I can assure you, she raised some eyebrows this week. Whether that matters a year from now, no one knows. I stick with where we are today.
Ethics: Another no-brainer, at least in the House, should be ethics reform. If the Dems don't step up to the plate and get something serious passed they will quickly lose a lot of public confidence.
Shailagh Murray: Democrats say they will move aggressively on this front, and we will hold them to that.
San Francisco, Calif.: The Democrats just won big in the election last week on a platform that calls for phased withdrawal from Iraq, and the Bush administration wants to increase troop levels. Aren't they ignoring the will of the people?
Shailagh Murray: Let us all hope that, as a general matter of principle, military decisions aren't made according to public opinion polls. Nor was this a national election. The Rumsfeld resignation was a clear signal that the White House noticed the results. But don't expect President Bush to bring Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid into the loop on war strategy.
Re: election of John Boehner and Roy Blunt : Since both of these people have had ties to all that caused the Republicans to lose, do you think their election represents a "defiance" vote by the Republicans or are the Republicans just tone deaf to what the midterms were all about.
Shailagh Murray: Actually, this was a pretty interesting election result. For one, Republicans resoundingly rejected two supposedly up-and-coming conservatives, including Mike Pence of Indiana, whose landslide loss to Boehner made Murtha's defeat look respectable. Boehner and Blunt are not movement folks. The blogs will be hysterical, but perhaps this is a better environment for House Republicans to regroup.
Laurel, Md.: Post yesterday ran a piece about the differences between Northern and the rest of Virginia. A lot of other Southern states have their tech areas. I remember visiting the North Carolina research triangle once and mentioning Jesse Helms' name and everyone reacted with a mix of hilarity and horror that I thought they voted for him.
Are there many other southern states with tech area disjointed from the usual voting patters?
Shailagh Murray: There's almost no state in the country that is one big homogeneous blur. And don't assume that just because someone went to college, they wouldn't vote for Jesse Helms.
Rolla, Mo.: Let me make my previous post clear, I agree it does not matter what you or I think of her support of Murtha. My point is this was THE story yesterday, front page everywhere, and it wasn't in 1994. The national media decided this was important for us.
Shailagh Murray: Why is it that people are always looking to the past for political clues? When are two periods of time exactly the same? It's like parents who can't understand why their kids' lives are so different. Well, duh.
Vienna, Va.:"Boehner and Blunt are not movement folks. The blogs will be hysterical, but perhaps this is a better environment for House Republicans to regroup." I'm sorry, but this answer makes no sense to me. Can you explain, please?
Shailagh Murray: By protecting the leadership status quo, as opposed to electing two newcomers with little nuts and bolts experience but fairly radical ideological views, House Republicans are creating an environment where new power centers can develop, and a new generation of leaders can emerge. There is now no one in particular waiting in the wings.
Minneapolis, Minn.: A follow up on your comment last week about who's going to chair the House Intel Committee. First, any update on the possibility that Reyes would be the one? Second, are you sure that Alcee Hastings can't do it without giving up his coveted seat on the Rules Committee? How is he on both committees to begin with, given that Rules is exclusive, right? And what would change that would preclude him from being chair? Note that he's been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
Shailagh Murray: We continue to hear that Reyes will be the one, even though conservative Democrats haven't given up on Jane Harman. I think the Dems' rule is that you can chair a top tier committee, and serve on another one. In the minority it must not matter.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: As the wife of an Army officer who has just been recalled to active duty, I watch military news very carefully. There have been reports recently that the generals who walked away from their successful careers rather than serve Rumsfeld will not rest until they have the opportunity to testify before the Congress on what they see as mistakes and negligence in the conduct of the Iraq war. Will House and Senate get going on these types of hearings soon? Will there be a parallel track between the House and Senate? Thank you for taking questions, Shailagh.
Shailagh Murray: You may want to block off time in early December for the Gates confirmation hearings. The Republicans will still be in charge, but I imagine the mood will be pretty tense, and the line of questioning a lot more forceful than we've seen in the past.
Toronto, Canada: It seems possible to me that some of this relentless (and somewhat gleeful) over-coverage of the Pelosi/Murtha/Hoyer issue has a sexist subtext - you know, is Pelosi really up to the job?
Shailagh Murray: We are so busted. Clearly, the "MSM" would be ignoring this story if Nancy Pelosi weren't a woman. I would like to point out that a number of questions today are addressed to "Mr. Murray." Those readers must assume I couldn't possibly be a woman.
People....please. There's no hidden meaning!
Oxford, Miss.: Thanks for your comments about states not being a homogenous blur. I live in Mississippi. I've lived in Santa Fe, Annapolis, Philly, DC, a small town in Illinois and a small town in Connecticut, and a tiny town in Montana. Not one of those places, Mississippi included, consisted of all cultured smartypants or all bumbling hillbillies, but all had elements of each.
This is a university town and the university is a respected research institution. Science, literature, art, and politics are all very important to the people in this town and we resent being written off as fools or hicks because of what, frankly, most often is simply ignorance and prejudice on the part of those making fun of us. So, thanks for your comment.
Shailagh Murray: Thank you for your insights. Hopefully someday, perceptions will catch up to the reality out there.
Vienna, Va.: Bush's approval ratings have been below 50% for essentially his whole second term and below 40% for most of 2006. Do you think that he will ever be a popular president ever again? His last two years will probably be dominated by Iraq, and I doubt that this war will ever have a happy ending. If he remains so unpopular, what effect will this have on Republicans in 2008?
Shailagh Murray: Brrr, it's a cold audience out there today, or at least a lot of organized hostility to our coverage of the Democratic leadership election. Hey Democrats, relax. You're in charge now. At least we're not ignoring you.
But I will close with this comment from Vienna, because it raises the most important question in politics. Will Bush try to revive his presidency by reaching out to Democrats, or will the air grow more and more toxic? That's what will shape the next election cycle. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Cheers, Shailagh
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.
|
Washington Post national political reporter Shailagh Murray discusses the latest political news and The Post's coverage of politics.
| 120.8 | 0.95 | 9.65 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111201065.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111201065.html
|
In Vietnam, Old Foes Take Aim at War's Toxic Legacy
|
2006111719
|
DA NANG, Vietnam -- For a stark reminder of the Vietnam War, people living near the airport in this central industrial city can still stroll along the old stone walls that once surrounded a U.S. military base. But Luu Thi Nguyen, a 31-year-old homemaker, needs only to look into the face of her young daughter.
Van, 5, spends her days at home, playing by herself on the concrete floor because local school officials say her appearance frightens other children. She has an oversize head and a severely deformed mouth, and her upper body is covered in a rash so severe her skin appears to have been boiled. According to Vietnamese medical authorities, she is part of a new generation of Agent Orange victims, forever scarred by the U.S.-made herbicide containing dioxin, one of the world's most toxic pollutants.
For decades, the United States and Vietnam have wrangled over the question of responsibility for the U.S. military's deployment of Agent Orange. But officials say they are now moving to jointly address at least one important aspect of the spraying's aftermath -- environmental damage at Vietnamese "hot spots" such as Nguyen's city, Da Nang -- that are still contaminated with dioxin 31 years after the fall of Saigon.
Though neither Nguyen nor her husband was exposed to the Agent Orange sprayed by U.S. forces from 1962 to 1971, officials here say they believe the couple genetically passed on dioxin's side effects after eating fish from contaminated canals. "I am not interested in blaming anyone at this point," the soft-spoken Nguyen said on a recent day, stroking her daughter's face. "But the contamination should not keep doing this to our children. It must be cleaned up."
Vietnamese and U.S. officials last year conducted their first joint scientific research project related to Agent Orange. Testing of the soil near Da Nang's airport, where farmers say they have been unable to grow rice or fruit trees for decades, showed dioxin levels there as much as 100 times above acceptable international standards.
Now the United States is planning to co-fund a project to remove massive amounts of the chemical from the soil. A senior U.S. official involved in Vietnam policy said the plan is evidence that the two countries, having embarked on a new era of economic cooperation, are finally collaborating to address the problem.
"The need to deal with environmental cleanup is increasingly clear, and we're moving forward from talking to taking concrete actions to respond to the issue," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the project has not yet been publicly announced.
The more politically sensitive issues of responsibility and direct compensation for victims remain unresolved. Although medical authorities here estimate that there are more than 4 million suspected dioxin victims in Vietnam, the United States maintains that there are no conclusive scientific links between Agent Orange and the severe health problems and birth defects that the Vietnamese attribute to dioxin.
Still, with a much-changed Vietnam now among Asia's most dynamic economies -- the French luxury house Louis Vuitton has opened a branch in Hanoi, and the hottest nightspot in the capital is a glitzy disco called Apocalypse Now -- both sides appear more willing to seek common ground. Ahead of President Bush's first official visit to Vietnam this week, some also express hope that they are taking the first steps toward a reconciliation on their most divisive wartime issue.
During the war, American forces sprayed about 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over the jungle canopies and jade-green highlands of Vietnam. The most toxic of the herbicides used for military purposes, it defoliated countless trees in areas where the communist North Vietnamese troops hid supply lines and conducted guerrilla warfare.
Because Vietnam lacked the resources to conduct its own environmental cleanup, dioxin-related birth defects have been diagnosed in thousands of children whose parents were not exposed during the war. In many cases, families such as the Nguyens were not warned of the hazard until it was too late.
After doctors told them their daughter, Van, was a dioxin victim, the Nguyens cemented over the small garden in their front yard and stopped eating fish from nearby canals. Even now, however, many of their neighbors remain unaware of the danger.
|
DA NANG, Vietnam -- For a stark reminder of the Vietnam War, people living near the airport in this central industrial city can still stroll along the old stone walls that once surrounded a U.S. military base. But Luu Thi Nguyen, a 31-year-old homemaker, needs only to look into the face of her yo...
| 13.129032 | 0.967742 | 58.064516 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501334.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501334.html
|
Time of Testing for Harry Reid
|
2006111719
|
When Virginia Sen. George Allen conceded to Jim Webb last week, giving the Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, the responsibility for the work of the legislative branch shifted definitively -- and a potential weak point for the new majority was exposed.
Hours earlier it became clear that the Democrats had won a majority in the House of almost the same size that Republicans had enjoyed for the past two years -- a working margin large enough to support a fairly ambitious agenda. Nancy Pelosi, who will be speaker of the House, has the personal strength and political skills to hold that majority together at least as well as Dennis Hastert did in his time at the helm. House rules favor majority control, so Pelosi can be generous toward the minority without jeopardizing her chances of success.
The 51-49 Senate is a very different proposition. As Republicans learned to their chagrin in the past few years, it takes 60 votes to accomplish almost anything controversial or substantive in the Senate -- the number needed to bring debate to a close and force an up-or-down vote. That means persuading or pressuring at least nine Republicans to go along. Otherwise, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the crafty Kentuckian elected to be the Republican minority leader, will have veto power over legislation -- before it goes to the White House, where President Bush will wield a veto pen of his own.
That reality puts an enormous strain on Harry Reid, the Nevadan who has struggled these past two years to master the less arduous duties of Senate minority leader. The risk for Democrats is that Reid may not be up to the challenge.
We saw how weakness in the majority leader could hurt a party in the recent example of Sen. Bill Frist. More than once Frist was unable to hold his own troops together on big issues or to thwart Reid and the Democrats when they built roadblocks to administration bills. Now the situation is reversed, and it is Reid who will be tested.
The modern Senate is a haven for freelancers, for senators who play to national constituencies outside the Capitol and whose energies are focused on their personal ambitions. That is especially true during the presidential campaign season, which unfortunately is already upon us.
The Senate is chockablock with presidential wannabes. On the Democratic side, they include the leading contender, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as well as Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joe Biden of Delaware, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Barack Obama of Illinois and -- in his own mind, at least -- John Kerry of Massachusetts. On the Republican side, the potential leading candidate, John McCain of Arizona, has many friends, among them such influential and ambitious senators as Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Sununu of New Hampshire. Another possible candidate is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who represents the religious right.
In addition to those egos and ambitions, Reid will have to contend with a few real mavericks and independent spirits in his caucus. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, elected last week as an independent Democrat after losing his party's primary to Ned Lamont, has reiterated his intention to follow his own path rather than accept party discipline. He has staked out a position on Iraq -- opposing any timetable for withdrawal -- that is at odds with the prevailing inclination of the new majority.
And Webb, the man who gave the Democrats that majority, will now give their leadership anxious moments. A newcomer to elective politics and resentful of the conventions and demands of the political game, Webb is also a newcomer to the Democratic Party. His previous government experience was as Navy secretary in the Reagan administration. His campaign showed him to be a populist on economic issues and a sharp critic of U.S. involvement in Iraq -- but often unpredictable or uncertain about other questions. Most of all, he resisted being managed or directed, so Reid will have to handle him with kid gloves.
As minority leader, Reid was remarkably effective in keeping the Democratic caucus united but far less successful as a public spokesman for his party. His partisan comments were often too sharp, his television appearances less than commanding. In his new role, he will be far more exposed, and his flaws more conspicuous.
With a House majority and nominal control of the Senate, the Democrats will be expected to deliver on their promise to bring the Iraq war to some kind of conclusion and redirect domestic policy to the benefit of the middle and working classes.
That is a large order for the Senate Democrats and their tiny majority -- and their leader, Harry Reid.
|
When Virginia Sen. George Allen conceded to Jim Webb last week, giving the Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, the responsibility for the work of the legislative branch shifted definitively -- and a potential weak point for the new majority was exposed.
| 19.23913 | 1 | 46 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600514.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600514.html
|
Democrats Pick Hoyer Over Murtha
|
2006111719
|
House Democrats elected Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) the new majority leader yesterday over strong opposition from Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), exposing a deep political divide even before the party takes control.
The 149 to 86 vote for Hoyer over Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) was viewed by many in the party as a repudiation of Pelosi's strong-arm tactics and a recognition of Hoyer's tireless work to elect a Democratic majority for the first time in 12 years. If the Hoyer camp's head count was correct going into yesterday's secret balloting, Pelosi and her allies may not have swayed a single vote for Murtha, a close associate.
VIDEO | The new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and House majority leader, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), speak to the press after being elected by their Democratic collegues. The defeated majority leader candidate, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), also speaks about Iraq.
Pelosi, 66, was formally chosen by the Democratic caucus as the first female House speaker in history. In a show of unity after the closed-door meeting in a House office building, she and Hoyer smiled and embraced. But the two longtime rivals must now try to pick up the pieces after a bitter intraparty fight and prepare for a new Congress in January, when the Democrats must be ready to pass a new domestic agenda and challenge President Bush on the Iraq war and foreign policy.
A buoyant Hoyer vowed to work closely with Pelosi and Murtha to force Bush to change his Iraq policy and begin withdrawing troops. Pelosi had strongly backed Murtha, 74, for majority leader largely because of his early call for a troop withdrawal, which she said helped galvanize the party and win the Nov. 7 midterm elections.
The Murtha camp accused Hoyer, 67, a moderate, of a "stay the course" mentality on Iraq. Hoyer said that charge did not accurately reflect his call for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Yesterday, Hoyer pledged to work for the adoption of a new agenda that "is going to reach across to the president of the United States and say, 'Mr. President, we need to make a transition in Iraq; it is not working; we need to change the policy, not stay the course.' "
Both Hoyer and Murtha claimed to have a majority of votes going into yesterday's showdown, but even Pelosi had to concede that Hoyer's final margin was "a stunning victory."
Pelosi had made it clear for months that she favored Murtha over Hoyer. But on Sunday, she shocked even her staff by directly intervening in the contest by issuing a letter throwing her support to Murtha, a former Marine and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense.
Pelosi's aggressive, last-minute campaign for Murtha in the face of overwhelming support for Hoyer left many Democrats worried that she has become too reliant on a tight inner circle, too reluctant to listen to the broader Democratic caucus and mistakenly convinced that she can dictate the direction the caucus must take.
"Basically, she got spanked," said a House Democrat close to both Pelosi and Hoyer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions. "She got taken to the woodshed. If she doesn't get it, this is going to be a big problem over the long run."
"Maybe it will help Nancy understand the use of power, the time and place for it," said a senior Democrat with close ties to Capitol Hill.
But others think the dust-up may have been useful in clearing the air between Pelosi and Hoyer. "Here's the deal -- she's apparently been irritated by a perception that Steny has been undermining her, and it's an incorrect perception," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "Look, someone told me she hasn't liked him since 1963, and it has had zero effect on how well they have worked together. We don't have to guess at this. We have seen it. They can and will work well together as we move forward."
After the party elections yesterday, Pelosi and Hoyer emerged from the caucus room beaming and grabbed each other's hands. Behind them was a grim-looking Murtha, with his hands in his pockets and his eyes cast down.
|
House Democrats elected Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) the new majority leader yesterday over strong opposition from Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), exposing a deep political divide even before the party takes control.
| 21.5 | 1 | 40 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600659.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600659.html
|
New Democratic Leaders Deliver Remarks
|
2006111719
|
SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, 110TH CONGRESS
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STENY HOYER (D-MD), HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER, 110TH CONGRESS
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC), HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP, 110TH CONGRESS
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RAHM EMANUEL (D-IL), CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, 110TH CONGRESS
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MURTHA (D-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LARSON (D-CT), VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, 110TH CONGRESS
EMANUEL: This is one of those few times that I will actually be short, brief and to the point: Madam Speaker-elect, Speaker Pelosi.
PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What an honor it is to be nominated by my colleagues to be the speaker of the House. Everyone is very excited about the thought that I am the first woman speaker. I'm just absolutely delighted that we have a Democratic speaker and a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.
It's a pretty exciting day that I wish my parents could see. I'm sure they do from up above.
We're had our differences in our party. We have come together. I wish all of the American people could have heard the discussion of our caucus this morning. They would have heard speeches of mutual respect, regardless of who anyone was supporting for party office. They would have heard speeches of unity for a new direction for our country.
As you know, our colleagues chose our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer, to be the Democratic leader of the House.
PELOSI: I extend great congratulations to him -- and we will hear from him in a moment -- but look forward to working with him in a very unified way to bring our country to a new direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few.
Before handing over to him the microphone, though, I want to acknowledge the magnificent contribution of Mr. Murtha to this debate on the war in Iraq.
I thank him for his courage in stepping forward one year ago to speak truth to power. He changed the debate in this country in a way that I think gave us this majority in this November.
Mr. Murtha has won J.F. Kennedy's Profile in Courage Award for his courage. He's a great member of Congress. I was proud to support him for majority leader, because I thought that would be the best way to bring an end to the war in Iraq. I know that he will continue to take the lead on that issue for our caucus, for this Congress, for our country.
So I want to salute Mr. Murtha for his leadership.
As I said, Steny came out a big winner today. It was a stunning victory for him.
We've had our debates; we've had our disagreements in that room. And now, that is over.
As I said to my colleagues, as we say in church, let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with us. Let the healing begin.
And with that, I would like to take with great pride, really, that I present a fellow Marylander -- well, that's where I was born -- a person who's served in the Congress for many years with great distinction, a person who will make a magnificent contribution to our country as the Democratic leader, the majority leader in the House of Representatives, the distinguished new leader, Leader-elect Steny Hoyer.
HOYER: Thank you very much, Madame Speaker. I have three daughters. I have two granddaughters. And I have one 14-day-old great-granddaughter.
And those young women are going to be extraordinarily proud of the fact that Nancy Pelosi has been selected to lead the Congress, the House of Representatives -- not just the Democratic Party but the House of Representatives -- as the first woman speaker.
But she is not the first speaker because she's a woman (sic). She is the first woman speaker because she is a person of deep values, keen intellect and extraordinary political ability.
HOYER: I am proud to have been selected by my colleagues as the majority leader.
My pledge to my caucus and my pledge to the country is that I will work as hard as I can, exercise as much talent as I have to ensure that the agenda that has been put before the American people by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party, an agenda of change, an agenda to take this country in a new direction, an agenda to make the lives of our people better, an agenda which is going to reach across to the president of the United States and say, "Mr. President, we need to make a transition in Iraq; it is not working; we need to change the policy, not stay the course."
HOYER: I agree with Nancy Pelosi. Jack Murtha has been a courageous and outspoken leader for that cause.
We have had differences, Jack Murtha and I.
But Jack Murtha will continue to be one of the most significant leaders in the Congress of the United States as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee.
And we're all pleased that we're all going to be chairmen now...
So I begin my term as majority leader with that renewed pledge.
Nancy and I have worked together for four years, closely and effectively.
And we have created the most unified caucus in the last half century.
HOYER: Nancy and I, I think, have been a good team.
In my opinion, it was not that somebody was rejected today, it was that a team that had been successful was asked to continue to do that job on behalf of the American people.
Nancy, I look forward to doing that with you with great pleasure.
MURTHA: Thank you very much.
I know you'd like to know why I didn't win. I didn't have enough votes.
And so I'll go back to my small subcommittee that I have on Appropriations.
But I appreciate -- and I said inside that I worked passionately all over the country trying to change the direction of the country, and I think I've played a big role in that. I'll continue to do that.
Nancy asked me to set a policy for the Democratic Party. Most of the Democrats signed onto it. And I think the Bush administration has beginning to get the word.
I visit these young people every week in the hospitals, when I'm in Washington.
MURTHA: And I talk to the military leaders all the time. The military leaders know there's a limitation to military power. They know that it's time for us to redeploy.
And Nancy's led that fight and I appreciate that. I congratulate Nancy. She's such a magnificent political leader; one of the best political minds I've ever seen.
And I congratulate Steny on his campaign. He ran a hell of a campaign and I can't fault anything that he did.
But my congratulations to the other leaders, and look forward to working with them to redeploy and to get these troops out of Iraq and get back on track and quit spending $8 billion a month.
PELOSI: I know the focus has been on the fight. But the fact is, today, we nominated a Democratic speaker of the House and we elected a great and distinguished new Democratic whip, Jim Clyburn from South Carolina.
CLYBURN: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Nancy.
Like Steny Hoyer, I have three daughters. And just after the vote today I heard from one of them. And she said to me, "I understand congratulations are in order." But she also said to me how proud she was that Nancy Pelosi is going to make her future even brighter and her hopes even greater.
For those three daughters of mine and all others similarly situated, I want to say to you, Nancy, it is going to be the proudest vote I've ever cast when I vote for you to be speaker of the House.
CLYBURN: I want to say about my election as majority whip -- I told a story to the caucus today of my mother who had died at the age of 54. She died just after my first office -- first run for political office, which I lost.
She always told me about her dreams for her sons. She never lived to see any of them come true.
What this caucus did today in electing me majority whip is one more chapter in my life of trying to make sure that my mother's prayers and her dreams do not go unheralded.
I did a piece on the elections, a post-mortem, and I quoted from the Book of Ecclesiastes, the third chapter, where the preacher tells us that there's a time to throw stones and there's a time to gather stones.
CLYBURN: The elections -- a lot of stones were thrown. But that is behind us. Today, it's time to gather stones and together we are going to make this country a better place for all those who will definitely come after us.
I thank this conference for their vote of confidence. I thank them for making me the majority whip. I will do everything I possibly can to make this agenda of ours an agenda for the future of America.
PELOSI: One of the joys of this morning's meeting was the election of Rahm Emanuel as the chair of the Democratic Caucus.
PELOSI: He will bring to that -- everybody thinks of Rahm as this very astute politician, cold-blooded, capable, calculating in terms of winning an election, and that's a modest view. He's that and many things more.
But Rahm Emanuel is motivated by policy, by meeting the needs of the American people. And I know that about him. I see it in his work every day.
And that's why I'm so pleased that he's going to join this committee, which will -- caucus -- which will have additional responsibility in establishing our policy, our priorities, and our new direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few, and to do it in a way that is relevant to the lives of the American people.
Rahm Emanuel, thank you for a great victory on Election Day. Congratulations on your victory.
EMANUEL: My grandfather came to this country in 1917 at 13 years old from the Russian-Romanian border. My father came to this country in 1959 from Israel.
And Jim talked about his mother and his father; Nancy talked about her parents and her family; and Steny and John and Jack.
I am so happy that my parents are still alive to see the kid that they used to -- stayed up late at night wondering what would ever come of him.
And to all those parents out there who have sleepless nights about their children -- and my parents are around -- that their middle son was here, has an ability to do something that my mother and father always taught me: that when you care about something and you believe in something, you never give up, you never give in until you accomplish it.
EMANUEL: And to all the mothers and fathers out there who are thinking of their children, dreaming dreams for their children, we are here as a party that will look forward to bringing the unity when those votes go up for the strongest ethical package in the history of the Congress; for a new minimum wage to make sure that there is respect and a living wage (inaudible) people who work for minimum wage; that we have that, if you want to send your kids to college, you have a cut in interest rates so you can afford that college education; that we redirect our energy policy and, once again, you have an energy policy that begins with the word "independence"; and once again, five years after 9/11, enact the package of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and get an up or down vote; and we restore fiscal discipline so the American budget, by having pay-as-you-go rules apply to the budget.
EMANUEL: All of us bring, from different ethnic backgrounds and from different experiences, the values our parents taught to make sure that the policies we have as a country reflect those values.
And not one of us will be merely a vote. But we will be a voice for the values our parents taught us. And I'm honored to have this responsibility that comes with chair of the caucus.
PELOSI: We're applauding each other, in any event. We're very proud.
But I want to, again, congratulate Steny, Mr. Clyburn, and our new chair of the caucus, Rahm Emanuel, and bringing on a person who has been a part of the leadership, an important voice in our Democratic Party for addressing the needs of the American people, the new and ongoing vice chair of the caucus, John Larson of Connecticut.
LARSON: I know you've been waiting with baited breath for what I have to say. And let me say, first and foremost, what an honor it is to be selected by your colleagues and your peers.
And no greater honor for me to stand here today with a man and an individual who I have grown to respect and admire more than anyone in the United States Congress, and that's Jack Murtha.
I've been fortunate to serve with Jim Clyburn and see the steady hand of his leadership and logic.
And as the leader pointed out, we now have the dynamic Rahm Emanuel that will be leading the caucus as well.
LARSON: We've gone from, well, grits to gefilte fish.
But, nonetheless, it's that unity that we seek. Steny Hoyer was terrific today in this caucus in what he had to say and in joining our leader.
Our caucus -- our caucus -- represents the hopes and aspirations of America, and they are embodied in our next speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
We need what Roosevelt said for the American people: the warm courage of national unity. And this is the team that's going to bring it about. I commend each and every one of them.
PELOSI: Thank you very much, John.
When we heard from our distinguished chair, he talked about Six for '06, not labeling it that way, which will be our agenda for the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress.
Before we get to legislation, though, we will have a rules package that will hold this Congress to the highest ethical standard.
PELOSI: We will break the link between lobbyists and legislators. We will have openness and civility.
We have promised the American people that we will have civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the House, and we will do just that. And we will implement our Six for '06 and other initiatives with fiscal discipline: no new deficits; pay as you go; no more heaping mountains of debt on to our children.
But in order to do all of that, we have to have our own unity in the Democratic Party, and I'm absolutely certain that we do and we will continue to do so.
We have a brilliant freshman class. I've told them they're independent representatives of their districts. We welcome the dynamism of their ideas.
PELOSI: We look forward to that freshman class, which made us a majority, to help develop the policies that will, again, address the needs of the American people.
And I also told them that, as speaker of the House, when I receive that gavel from whomever on the Republican side, I will receive the gavel on behalf of all of America's children.
QUESTION: Nearly 60 percent of House Democrats defied your call to vote for John Murtha. In retrospect, what does that say about the wisdom of that endorsement and your clout within the Democratic Party?
PELOSI: I stand very, very proudly behind my endorsement of Mr. Murtha. As I said in my letter to members on Sunday -- that's the only time I weighed in publicly, and I have tried to help Mr. Murtha since then -- as I said in that letter, I believe the biggest ethical challenge facing our country is the war in Iraq.
For all the reasons that you know, that you don't need me to go into, it must be stopped.
PELOSI: And I thought that Mr. Murtha's elevation to a leadership position would serve that purpose.
The caucus has enormous respect for Mr. Murtha. They thought otherwise about the position from which he would lead the way on Iraq. And I am completely jubilant today to be elected by acclamation, unanimously, by my colleagues.
So I don't see it in any way...
PELOSI: No. I'm not a person that has regrets.
But I do -- again, as Steny knows -- we've worked together for many years. I have to be who I am. And I am a person who is committed to ending this war. It is a grotesque mistake that is costing lives, limbs, over a trillion dollars cost in dollars, reputation in the world, cost to our military. And I promised that I would do everything possible to end it.
The caucus thought differently. We are a unified caucus as we go forward under the leadership of Steny Hoyer as our House Democratic leader. I respect that decision.
HOYER: Let me make a comment on this. There's been much made in the press about Nancy and I running against one another for whip.
I made the point in the caucus today that Nancy and I did not run against one another. Nancy ran for whip and I ran for whip.
Nancy prevailed in that race.
For the last four years, Nancy Pelosi and I have worked hand-in- glove, closely together, to effect unity -- not unity for unity's sake, but unity for the purposes of standing up for the principles and values we think are important for our country.
I believe Nancy and I share those values. We may have, as everybody standing here, may have differences from time to time.
But the Republicans need to know, the president needs to know and the country needs to know our caucus is unified today.
HOYER: Now, I intend to do everything in my power, as I said in the caucus, to make Nancy Pelosi the most successful speaker in the history of the House of Representatives -- not for that purpose alone, but for the purposes of adopting policies that will make America a better country for all its people and make us safer and more secure abroad, as well.
HOYER: We have signed on to three letters together -- Jack Murtha was a signatory of those letters, as well Harry Reid and Dick Durbin and the Senate leadership -- in which we said to president of the United States, "Your policy's not working, Mr. President. Stay the course is not an option; that we need to transition. We need to strategically and quickly redeploy. We need to get the Iraqis to do many things to bring resolve to the conflict. But if you can't do that, staying the course is not an answer."
Yes, we agree on that.
PELOSI: Well, I don't know what the Republicans are planning here. But I am a co-sponsor of the legislation that you are suggesting.
So I certainly will be supporting it.
HOYER: I want to make one comment on that. We who live in the Washington Metropolitan area believe that the country ought to take it as a moral cause to ensure the fact that every citizen of the District of Columbia has a vote in the Congress of the United States.
It is the only capital in the free world that I know of who's citizens are disenfranchised.
I'm going to be working very closely with Speaker Pelosi on behalf of ensuring that enfranchise (sic).
Nov 16, 2006 13:13 ET .EOF
© 2006, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved
|
Speaker-designate, other newly elected Democratic leaders, deliver remarks on the new designations.
| 232.647059 | 0.705882 | 1.058824 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501371.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501371.html
|
'Redemption' for the Pariah From Pascagoula
|
2006111719
|
For the first time in recorded history, Sen. Trent Lott stared at a bank of cameras yesterday and had nothing to say.
The Mississippi Republican had just completed a political comeback worthy of Richard Nixon in '68 or Bill Clinton after Gennifer Flowers. Four years after forcing Lott to resign as majority leader because of his infelicitous plug for Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign, Senate Republicans lifted him from disgrace and voted him in as their No. 2 leader -- and the garrulous and grateful Lott was determined to demonstrate that he could control his mouth.
"I'm going to shock you," the incoming minority whip said when reporters pleaded for a comment. "I defer, on this occasion, to our leader" -- the newly elected minority leader, Mitch McConnell (Ky.). "The spotlight belongs on him."
Reporters begged to differ. Dozens of them chased Lott down the corridor. "Take it easy, folks!" a Capitol Police officer called after them as a metal barrier crashed to the marble floor. Lott still had little to say about his new job ("I'm excited about it"), his past ("I'm strictly looking forward") and how he pulled off his comeback ("That's for y'all to try to figure").
In truth, Lott's satisfied smile said all that was necessary. Moments earlier, he had broken down in tears as he thanked his colleagues for welcoming him back from the wilderness -- and senators emerging from the vote sounded as if they had just left a religious revival.
"I think everybody believes in redemption and second chances," said John Thune (S.D.), who backed Lott.
"I frankly had not anticipated the personal redemption he felt," confided Mel Martinez (Fla.), who opposed Lott.
Then came John McCain (Ariz.), whose laying on of hands sealed Lott's salvation. "We all believe in redemption," said the rogue senator. "Thank God."
In the end, though, Republicans didn't forgive Lott out of a concern for his personal growth. They forgave him because, thrust into the minority, they need his nose-counting and dealmaking skills. In the process, they risked another round of bad press ("roll the Strom Thurmond tape," a TV reporter called out after the vote) and delivered a rebuke to the White House, which orchestrated Lott's ouster.
They also made it likely that the irrepressible Lott will, in public perception at least, eclipse the low-profile McConnell as Republican leader; McConnell, unsurprisingly, backed Lott's opponent, Lamar Alexander (Tenn).
Even Alexander, though, admitted to a bit of awe as he left the Old Senate Chamber after the vote. "I think Trent proved that he's the better vote counter," said Alexander, who calculated at 11 Tuesday night that he would win by two votes; the next morning, he lost by one.
It was almost exactly four years earlier that Lott stopped by a 100th-birthday party for Thurmond and observed that "we wouldn't have had all these problems" if the Dixiecrat's segregationist campaign had succeeded in 1948, when Thurmond vowed that "all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." Lott went through a frantic two weeks of apologies capped by an appearance on BET.
But the White House abandoned him and helped recruit Bill Frist (Tenn.) to replace Lott as majority leader. The seething Lott called Frist's act "a personal betrayal" and spent the next few years disparaging the White House. He suggested that President Bush should dump his top strategist, Karl Rove, branded White House aides "all young and inexperienced," and accused the president of "cronyism." When Harriet Miers withdrew her doomed nomination to the Supreme Court, he stood outside the Senate chamber and sang "Happy Days Are Here Again."
In his acceptance speech yesterday, the teary-eyed Lott told his colleagues that he was "humbled," and he vowed not to outshine McConnell. "Mitch," Lott told the wary minority leader at the senators-only meeting, "you were with me at times when I perhaps didn't deserve to have anyone with me. I'll be with you to the end. You're my leader."
Lott sought to demonstrate his newfound humility as he approached the microphones with the other Republican leaders. He beckoned for Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.), the No. 4 party leader, to stand next to McConnell, and he refused to take the spot even when she pulled on his sleeve. After lunch with senators, Lott slipped out a back door to avoid the waiting reporters. "He doesn't want to set himself up as an individual right now," explained his spokeswoman, Susan Irby.
But few expected Lott's restraint to last. He is, after all, a former Ole Miss cheerleader, a founding member of the Singing Senators, and a promoter of the annual Seersucker Thursday, in which senators come to work in the Southern, pajama-like fabric. He even persuaded Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) to don seersucker this year -- and yesterday, the Yankee senator cast her vote for the man from Pascagoula.
"Now," warned Snowe, "he's saying if I go blond, he'll go punk."
|
For the first time in recorded history, Sen. Trent Lott stared at a bank of cameras yesterday and had nothing to say.
| 44.416667 | 1 | 24 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600498.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006111719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600498.html
|
Four Soldiers Killed in Iraq; 45 U.S. Deaths This Month
|
2006111719
|
The U.S. military announced today that four soldiers have been killed in Iraq, bringing the total number of American deaths in the country to at least 45 this month.
Three soldiers assigned to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, were killed yesterday in Diyala province, a military statement said.
One was killed by small arms fire while conducting combat operations, and two were killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near the vehicle in which they were traveling. Two other soldiers were injured in that incident.
The U.S. military said another soldier was killed by small arms fire Tuesday while conducting combat operations in Baghdad.
The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin.
At least 2,857 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
Officials have reported that 105 U.S. troops were killed in the country in October, one of the deadliest months for American forces since the war began.
|
Get Washington DC,Virginia,Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news,featuring national security,science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 4.47619 | 0.357143 | 0.357143 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.